Comprehensive coverage

The president of a university in Indiana ordered the lecturer to stop teaching the theory of intelligent design as a legitimate science

The lecturer, an assistant professor at BSU, who teaches the "Boundaries of Science" course promoted, according to the Foundation for Freedom of Religion, the Christian approach over the scientific approach. In the letter she distributed to the faculty, she says that intelligent design is a religious position that has long been rejected by science

A statue that is also the symbol of Bell State University in Indiana. From Wikipedia
A statue that is also the symbol of Bell State University in Indiana. From Wikipedia

The president of Ball State University in Indiana (Ball State University), Jo Ann Gora, announced last Wednesday that public schools should not teach intelligent design or creationism in science classes or treat them as truth. This is following the revelation of an evolution denier among the teaching positions at the University in Indiana, the president of the state university calls not to teach creationism under the guise of science.

The concept of intelligent design, which rejects evolution, holds that an intelligent force and not uncontrolled processes such as natural selection are behind the creation of the universe and living creatures. Gora's statement was in response to a complaint received about a university professor who taught intelligent design as a science. "The intelligent design approach is defined by the scientific community as a religious belief and not as a scientific theory." Gora writes in a message to the faculty members of the institution. "Therefore, intelligent planning is not appropriate content for science classes."

The announcement was made in response to a letter from the Foundation for Religious Freedom, which expressed its concern that Eric Hadin, an assistant professor at BSU, violated the constitutional separation of church and state in the way he presented intelligent design in a respected science class under the title "The Limits of Science." According to the "Inside Higher Education" website, the foundation objects to Ding sharing his beliefs and forcing the Christian point of view over other points of view.

Intelligent design can now be discussed at BSU in social science and humanities courses that focus on religions, but this approach should not be given a different weight than other approaches. Allowing the topic to be presented in science classes as a valid scientific theory does not represent the scientific community, and therefore does not meet the requirements for academic standards. Therefore, the issue is not an issue of academic freedom, Gora said, but of academic integrity.

In the end, it was decided that Din's classes would remain free from misrepresentation of the intelligent design approach and Din agreed to cooperate. It is still unclear if he will even continue to teach the "Science Limits" course.

At the Freedom Foundation there is a race religion, as is evolution expert Prof. Jerry Coyne, professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago and owner of the blog "Why evolution is true". At the Discovery Institute, on the other hand, the initiator and promoter of the approach, which has an impact all over the world, including the rabbis with us, says that "Gora's position is against academic freedom, it is Orwellian in its extremes, and it also condescends to a faculty member whose spiritual purchase has been robbed."

post Scriptum. On the desk of the Ministry of Education spokesman's office for more than a week has been a request from the website for a response to the request of the Freedom Association, which requests to teach evolution not only to those who chose 5 units of biology, but to all students, since this theory is the basis of all biology, but there they still chose Wait, maybe I'll give up.

889 תגובות

  1. Shmulik

    You are always to blame. like my.

    As mentioned, I see where Einstein's alleged mistake is. My question is: how come he didn't see?

    And nothing fundamental has changed in our understanding of quantum mechanics and non-locality since 1935. The only thing that Bell did was look deeply into the small details, where the devil is known to be found. But there is no breakthrough in what he did, including his inequality theorem (which is a pure mathematical theorem).

    I say "apparent mistake" because Einstein was never given a chance to defend himself. He died believing he had found the loophole in the hated quantum theory. As I know the old fox, he would get out of the thick of it, and find a new argument to hit his rival and good friend, Niels Bohr.

    Regarding the photon, please note: in QED the photon is not a bullet that makes its way from the gun to the target, but it goes through almost every possible path on the way. "Each electron by itself travels in all possible ways at the same time: in a nice and straight way... suddenly changes its direction, makes the long way to the Andromeda galaxy, where it turns back and returns to the background" Brian Green, "The Elegant Universe" p. 122.

    So if an electron - or any other quantum object such as a photon - is enough to visit Andromeda during its short trip from the source to the detector - it must be moving at a great many speeds, and surely faster than light, right?

    And Feynman says that, not me.

    To give an edge to my idea, you might want to take a look at a link from two years ago:

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/maby-neutrino-didnt-pass-speed-of-light-181011/comment-page-7/#comment-312259

    As you like: stories, songs, Amayat..

    The phenomenon of the rainbow is described there, which is always at a constant distance from each surveyor, regardless of its location. It is impossible to reach it, it is impossible to stand under it, and it is impossible to pass it.

    A bit reminiscent of the speed of light, isn't it?

    And in the case of the rainbow, the answer is that the rainbow is basically everywhere - including the viewer's location - but he is only able to see the reflections that he recognizes at a certain and fixed distance.

    This is my direction for making Postulate 2 a theorem.

  2. Michael

    I'm really sorry if I hurt you in any way, it certainly wasn't my intention. Please show me where and what, so I can learn and correct in the future.

    Of course, you have the right to withdraw from the discussion, although in my opinion this is the stage where you are most needed.

    The reason is simple: if you read my response from the article two years ago, I argued in it: "I believe that it is possible to build a model, certainly in my mind, but also in practice, in the laboratory, that would produce gravitation (according to Lesage) without friction (which Feynman pointed out in the Lesage model), Inertia, and most importantly: a wave that will spread at the same speed in every frame of reference."

    And to that I will add: the possibility of non-locality

    When I say "mental model" I mean a computer model.

    And who is best suited to build such a computer model? One guess... even if only to prove Israel the fool that he is wrong. If you ask, I will be happy to give you the basic assumptions of the model.

    Full disclosure - I'm not sure the model will yield inertia. In my opinion, it will undoubtedly yield gravitation according to Lesage without the problem of Feynman's friction, and if we change the distribution of collisions between the particles, a wave propagating at the same speed for each measurer, regardless of the speed of the measurer.

    And that's what we're looking for, isn't it?

  3. As I said, I decided to stop my participation in the discussion because all I "gain" from it is being annoyed at the way my words are treated.
    I will only add that now - in addition to the fact that in my opinion all the conclusions reached by Israel about the existing theories are wrong, I also retract my recommendation that he present his theory to some scientific body.
    I refrain from writing why because, as mentioned, I am tired of the endless debates and the treatment my words receive.

  4. Israel,
    Because I'm guilty…
    Again, why Einstein thought and all is not a question that can be answered. Presumably he assumed, as you did, that information about the spin is nevertheless information and therefore "information" does travel at a speed higher than the speed of light and this contradicts the assumption of the theory of relativity. Physicists today solve part of the problem by claiming that there is no way to affect causality through this effect. What Bell found, in the sixties(!) is that there is no locally hidden variable theory that can be as good as quantum mechanics and if you read the wiki about the paradox, you will see that there is actually no good explanation for the entanglement phenomenon and that is really cool because it means we have a lot more to explore.

    Quantum mechanics baffles us again and again because it forces us to change classical concepts, whether we want to or not. The article (not just Einstein) made claims about what "physical reality" is based on our Newtonian intuition (which is the fallacy) and quantum mechanics gave him a "no" but then, the relevant experiments had not yet been conducted and therefore it was fine to make the claims that were made but when the theory was proven again And again, we have no choice but to abandon the concepts that the article coined. On the one hand, relativity successfully predicts many phenomena, so we tend to think of it as "correct". On the other hand, we know that the "paradox" is not a paradox because the result has been confirmed in experiments. The way to reconcile these two facts is to bend the theory of relativity since reality beats any theory. I would like to mention again that Einstein could, like all people, make a mistake or use concepts that the future will render irrelevant. That's exactly what happened.

    Regarding Bell, the claim that nothing has changed in 30 years is a false claim, as mathematical breakthroughs are made all the time and so it is with mathematical techniques that are constantly being perfected. It is certainly not trivial to claim that Bell's result could have been reached already in 1930 and it is absolutely clear that the EPR paradox and the results discovered as a result of the desire to test the paradox are the motivation for Bell. This is how science progresses. By the way, at the beginning of the month there was a super interesting Nobel conference that you can watch on YouTube. Prof. James Gates (whose first lecture he gave at the conference is almost like an MDB, how cool) said exactly that. He made a nice comparison between music and mathematics and said that just as new works are created all the time, so in mathematics, so also with style. He argued that the mathematical style practiced 100 years ago was completely different from the style practiced today. Here is the link to the lectures again (most of them are fascinating!) and I would be happy if the scientist did a follow-up on some of the things that were told there, such as the fact that after the big bang the universe slowed down its expansion to a certain point and then the trend reversed. not cool?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1P0HNhQE68&list=PLHuAoPzfQhGGQzB58S1iVQvu43Xvbp2c4

    Regarding Ockham's Razor, this principle is by no means a binding principle but at most a rule of thumb.

    I would love for you to explain in a long and detailed way (also in a narrative way) how the photon can move at infinite speeds and I again, nevertheless, suggest Kraus's forum because it seems that you have reached some kind of exhaustion here, or Michael has arrived . I guess English is not a limitation for you 

  5. my father

    The theory is described in several comments in the discussion I had with R.H. (What about him by the way? Where did he go?) and start with this response:

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/comment-page-11/#comment-326491

    What is important for our purposes is the following response:

    Israel Shapira

    We returned from the mountains.
    It's pretty easy when your house is in the mountains. You just open the door, and there, mountains.

    Ruby
    The universe did not start from a state of total disorder. On the contrary, according to the big bang theory, its initial state was very orderly.

    jubilee.

    I'm not sure you have understood Ockham or the scientific method correctly.

    Take geometry for example. Its axioms are simple and basic, but you can use them to build more and more complex sentences, and arrive at complicated calculations that, if you didn't learn how they were arrived at, you would think that nature couldn't have built such a complicated thing by itself (why is the volume of the pyramid the product of the area multiplied by the height divided by 3? Where did it come from Suddenly the 3?).

    Physics develops in a similar way: from the simple to the complex.

    A good example is the subject before us: sine waves. Seemingly a very complex thing: a wave that propagates in space and time in a very complicated way. The equation that describes the propagation of sine waves is an equation of several variables, of time and space. Yabrady, what a mess! Could it be that nature has organized such a complicated thing, or maybe the whole story exists only in the fevered minds of deranged physicists?

    However, if we freeze the sine wave in two dimensions moving forward in time - by photographing such a wave in a wire - we will see the sine wave in all its glory. Thus we neutralized the time factor.

    Now what will happen if we fly over the wave and take a video of it? The wave will appear to us as a simple harmonic motion. Thus we neutralized the distance factor.

    But what about simple harmonic motion? It's also quite complicated, isn't it? How did simple nature create such a complicated thing?

    So this is it, if we take a rotating wheel, and take a video of the light projection of a certain point in the wheel on the table, we will get a simple harmonic motion.

    And that's how we got from a three-dimensional sine wave moving through space as a function of three dimensions of space + the dimension of time, to the lid of a Nescafe can that can be rotated on the table.

    And the same with the mathematical treatment of the wave: simply cut out the complicated wave partially, until you reach sixth grade algebra.

    That's how all physics is built. We start with F=MA, and arrive at the landing of an unmanned spacecraft on Mars.

    And regarding your question: the freeway model is simply the Maxwell model for an open system.

    A closed system is a system like your room, where the air is at rest relative to the room, or relative to the flying air, or relative to the air. A sound wave that moves through the air in such a system will have a constant speed (the speed of sound) relative to that reference system (the room, the air, etc.).

    But what will happen to such a wave in an open system like our universe? Relative to what he will advance? (After all, this is exactly what experiment M-M tried to find).

    My answer is that in an open system the wave will advance at all speeds, because in an open system the air molecules will move at all speeds, from 0 to infinity. But we as measurers can only measure one speed: the speed of sound relative to us.

    Replace air molecules with Lesage particles, the speed of sound with the speed of light, see the detailed explanation I gave in the previous article why I think this is necessary, and here is the freeway model.

    And another thing that emerges from the description of the open system: how could the MM experiment ever succeed? If the universe is infinite isotropic and homogeneous, isn't finding a rest system for the site equivalent to finding the center of an infinite straight line, which is also infinite isotropic and homogeneous?

    It was said that Michelson would have found it, and that it was moving relative to us at a speed of 4576 km/s towards Andromeda. So why this one? What about homogeneity? Isn't this equivalent to finding the center of the infinite straight line as being 4576 km away from us in the positive direction of the X-axis?

    April 4th, 2012

    And the main thing:

    A photon does not move at one speed only - the speed of light - but at all speeds, from minus infinity to infinity.

    We, using our senses and instruments, can measure it at only one speed: the speed of light.

    I explained the reason in that long article. I would be happy to explain once more if asked.

    Quantum mechanics quite supports this approach. The very assertion that a photon - or any quantum object - does not have a defined location before the collapse, and can be anywhere in the universe with a certain probability, requires a speed higher than that of light, in fact infinite.

    Also non-locality.

    delusional? Maybe. The alternative is millimeter long trains without the knowledge of the passengers inside, watching the future and influencing the past.

    Hope the response was successful, iPhone.

  6. Michael

    The whole family is getting ready for a trip to Palm Springs, so it will be difficult for me to respond in an orderly manner in the next two days. In the meantime, here's a question for you:

    Reporter:

    "In my opinion (which I have already expressed to no avail) what bothered Einstein about non-locality is the possibility of transmitting information over a distance and violating the principle of causality".

    If you are familiar with Weiler's delayed choice experiment

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/quantun-philospy-part-b-07121/

    So this is exactly what he is talking about: influence on the past from the future.

    Here is a quote from Gali's article:

    "If Albert Einstein said of quantum entanglement that it is "ghostly action at a distance", then the late choice experiments are haunted by ghosts..."

    Hebrew is a bit irregular, but the meaning is still clear. Doesn't this experiment violate the principle of causality?

    If you agree that it is, and if you accept that Einstein (okay, not Ockham) would have immediately fainted from the current interpretation of the experiment, and if you also agree that anything is better than reversing the cause and effect, we can proceed to my theory.

    In my opinion, it is much less severe.

  7. Israel:
    I'm not going to cooperate with the scarecrow role you cast on me in almost every response as you reinvent me.
    You take almost every word I say out of context and try to misrepresent it.
    I'm also not ready to forget the many times I asked you to present your theory (including the current time, which any sane person would have interpreted as a demand to detail the theory).

  8. "It's nice that you admit that the changes in distance and time are results of the assumption that relativity makes about the constancy of the speed of light - an assumption that has been proven in hundreds of experiments."

    I think you only read half the comment.

    Here is the original:

    "On the other hand, apparently there is no escape from these strange results, because if we accept that the speed of light is always constant, and speed is a measure of distance divided by time, then what inevitably changes are distance and time.

    And my question is: is it true?"

    Your conclusion "it's nice that you admit that" could have been true if it weren't for the words "allegedly" and "indeed" that appear clearly in the paragraph.

    "The presentation as if some of them were not accepted in the experiment is of course misleading".

    I am not aware of an experiment that confirms the shortening of the length. About the confirmation of relativity that I brought a few weeks ago it says that there is no such experiment. Can you point to such an experiment? Maybe some experiment where a train of a kilometer is compressed to a millimeter?

    "What is more correct to say is that none of them have ever been disproved (which is the scientific test for a theory)"

    God's existence has never been disproved either. Also alien landing and communication with the dead.

    "In my opinion (which I have already expressed to no avail) what bothered Einstein about non-locality is the possibility of transmitting information over a distance and violating the principle of causality".

    Information undoubtedly passes. The spin of the electron or the polarization of the photon.

    "He just didn't think about the fact that this is not about transferring information."

    Didn't think? Einstein in his most important paper since general relativity? ???

    "This is the difference between him and the physicists of today."

    There is no relevant difference in knowledge today from that which existed in 1935. If I remember correctly, Ehud claims that the explanation for saving relativity from the Aspect experiment is extremely narrow.

    "Assuming that you accept the popular opinion on the subject of the EPR experiment, I am interested to know if there is still, in your opinion, an experiment that contradicts the theory of relativity."

    No. Nor am I claiming that there is anything wrong with relativity. I claim that there can be another explanation that is not a postulate that leaves the determination of the speed of light in all reference systems, and that the lengthening of time does not correspond to the absolute time of the bang. Let's talk about the bang. Where is the end of the universe? What was before the bang?

    "The whole discussion started with allegations of connections in the background radiation and had nothing to do with EPR."

    The discussion started from intelligent planning in Indiana. He moved to EPR because of Shmulik's interest, but actually EPR is quite related to the lengthening of times.

    "Does his leakage to the EPR indicate that you received the explanations for the errors in the thought experiments with the age of the universe and with the background radiation?"

    God forbid. If time dilation exists and indeed there is an age to the universe, then theoretically it is possible to pass this age.

    "Say only if you got it that the experiments you proposed with the age of the universe were based on a train that cannot be built during the limited lifetime of the universe."

    In every train that passes us, and assuming that the age of the first car is our age, then according to the length of time the last car is older than us. Even on the valley train.

    "The background radiation is a clock like all clocks."

    Is there one clock out of all those clocks whose age is higher than the age of the background radiation? Because according to relativity, there are countless clocks whose age is less than the age of radiation (lead scouts, rushing photons, twins).

    If the answer to the question is yes, please point to such an antique clock.

    If it is negative, then you yourself singled out the background radiation clock as the latest clock.

    "You imply that there is another possibility besides relativity".

    Hints and secrets have their place in Kabbalah and the occult. I argue that there is a possible physical explanation for the constancy of the speed of light that leaves Newton's and Maxwell's absolute time and distance intact.

    This does not mean that the explanation is correct, it is probably wrong. But there are other explanations.

    "You (and the physicist you occasionally mention) avoid presenting the alternatives you think you have, so what answer do you expect?"

    The same physicist, as I have already mentioned, claimed that there is a problem with Proper relations. I disagreed with him and even brought the question to Ofer Maged, who ruled in my favor. I believe that although he didn't admit it, I was able to show him that there is no problem in relationships without the contradiction with the absolute bang time.

    I am not presenting my alternative - because I was not asked to present it. Two years ago I was asked, and I presented it in an article in Bidian. If I ask someone who understands the subject, I will present.

    The discussion here and in the same article convinces me more and more that the only way to prove or disprove that alternative is through an experiment. The problem is that it is not a simple rule, and I learn from mistakes all the time and perfect the experiments. Still, the road is long.

    "And one last question: Why aren't you presenting your questions to Kraus yet?"

    Since my main argument is Ockham's support, and as we have seen in the discussion here, anyone can argue that Ockham is with him, I prefer to wait right now, mainly because of the lack of time (my father is still here with us and the pace of events is exhausting even without further discussion).

    Speaking of which - how is your father?

  9. Israel:
    It's nice that you admit that the changes in distance and time are results of the assumption that relativity makes about the constancy of the speed of light - an assumption that has been proven in hundreds of experiments.
    It is important to mention this so that it is understood that all references to Ockham were simply blasphemy (of Ockham).

    Indeed - photographing Saturn from a spacecraft moving from the region of the Earth at a (constant) speed towards it will show Saturn larger (and what's the wonder? in its system it is closer).
    If she misses Saturn and passes by him, he will also appear narrower to her (from the side).

    These results were obtained as a result of calculating the consequences of determining the speed of light and the presentation as if some of them were not obtained in the experiment is obviously misleading. They were not accepted in experiments where they should not have been accepted because of our measurement limitations.
    What is more correct to say is that none of them have ever been disproved (which is the scientific test for a theory) and some of them have even been measured.
    In my opinion (which I have already expressed to no avail) what bothered Einstein about non-locality is the possibility of transmitting information over a distance and violating the principle of causality.
    He just didn't think about the fact that this is not a transfer of information.
    This is the difference between him and today's physicists, but I have already said that too.
    Assuming that you accept the popular opinion on the subject of the EPR experiment, I am interested to know if there is still, in your opinion, an experiment that contradicts the theory of relativity.
    The whole discussion started with allegations of connections in the background radiation and had nothing to do with EPR. Does his leakage to EPR indicate that you received the explanations for the errors in the thought experiments with the age of the universe and with the background radiation?
    You don't need to present the experiments again - only say if you accepted that the experiments you proposed with the age of the universe were based on a train that cannot be built during the limited lifetime of the universe and that the background radiation is a clock like clocks.

    You imply that there is another possibility besides relativity. Physicists today do not know another possibility and you (and the physicist you mention from time to time) avoid presenting the alternatives you think you have, so what answer do you expect?

    And one last question: why don't you present your questions to Kraus yet?

  10. Shmulik

    The speed of light is undoubtedly constant in any reference system. If you take a look at Michael's link to the proofs of relativity, you can see why the alternative theories were rejected, primarily EMISSION THEORY, according to which the speed of light is relative to the source.

    However, relativity predicts very strange results, of which the lengthening of time is only one of them. The shortening of the length (of which there is no experimental evidence) is an even more strange result. Since it does not include the shortening of the width, does this mean that if we photograph Saturn from a spacecraft passing by the earth at high speed we will see it much closer as if we had used a zoom?

    On the other hand, apparently there is no escape from these strange results, because if we accept that the speed of light is always constant, and speed is a quotient of distance divided by time, then what inevitably changes are distance and time.

    And my question is: really?

    Regarding the paradox (I read, I read), it has nothing to do with the results of the experiments (by the way, Bell's proof is purely mathematical). Einstein claimed that non-locality contradicts relativity. Physicists today claim not. There is no difference in the relevant knowledge from 1935 to today. So is there a contradiction or not? If there is, why do the physicists claim that there is not? And if there is not, why did Einstein claim that there is? This is my question. Not that he was wrong about whether non-locality exists or not (a reasonable and logical mistake) but that he claimed that non-locality contradicts relativity. What, he doesn't see that there is no contradiction?

  11. Israel,
    Precisely in the theory of relativity, the speed of light is constant in any frame of reference for any observer.
    Regarding the paradox, I think you are missing a simple fact which is that when the article was written it was before any experiments were conducted on the subject and this explains how he could have been wrong. Please write that you have read this paragraph.
    In addition, it is not exactly a mistake in the sense that since there were no more experiments on the subject, the authors predicted a strange result of quantum mechanics that allows the transfer of information beyond the speed of light while relativity has already been demonstrated to correctly predict various findings.

    The experiments that proved that entanglement does exist were conducted about 30 years later, so existence is not a paradox because with all due respect to the theory of relativity, it is a theory, but what wins are the empirical inventors and Michael explained why today entanglement is not considered to contradict the theory of relativity.
    Einstein claimed that non-locality allows the transfer of information beyond the speed of light and this contradicts his assumption that nothing can move above the speed of light (when it comes to matter that started moving below the speed of light and crossed the speed of light)

    In any case, all these types of questions: how could he be wrong, etc. are not good questions. Scientists are human and people make mistakes, new information is received, new theories are developed and this is how science progresses. The only ones who ask how such a shaman can be wrong and are bothered by it are religious people. Except for them, we are all wrong, a significant part of the time.

  12. Israel is beautiful that you understood everything, simplified the picture, except that the mattress is also my theory

  13. Water, your description is indeed quite accurate, it's just a shame you didn't also mention the virtual photon mattresses that quanta rest on in simplification of assembled organs after they finish all the jumping back and forth up and down during the injuries.

  14. Dear Israel, there are some things that are difficult for me to understand about relationships - how do you connect speeds and an individual point of view, also in quanta, randomness does not work out, apparently these are a partial and simplified picture of the physical properties of the universe, I would sort out the situation a little by explaining that light moves many times backwards and forwards in time , creates a wave, brings together elements in the wave motion such as mass, time and elongation. And on the other hand, the movement backwards and forwards many times can give the random elements an expression that comes from parallel worlds that are created from the movement backwards and forwards and from there the additional or missing knowledge, this is some kind of union that explains some mistakes and the rounding of the big picture that creates contradictions

  15. Michael

    From Shmulik's link on the EPR paradox:

    Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen asked how can the second particle "know" to have precisely defined momentum but uncertain position? Since this implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie faster than light, this is the "paradox

    Now, if as you say, "Physicists today do not see it as a transfer of information, but as a simultaneous creation of information" then what do those physicists know today that Einstein did not know in 1935? Has anything changed since then? According to what is written above, Einstein claimed that such instant communication contradicts relativity, hence the paradox. So is there a contradiction or no contradiction? If there is, why do the physicists claim today that there is not? And if there is not, why did Einstein claim that there is? Do we understand relativity better than Einstein?

    The answer is surprising.

    Regarding the link you gave about the confirmation of the relationship, and as punishment for falsely accusing me 🙂 answer the question that I have asked several times without an answer:

    "Is there another possibility besides the lengthening of the times for determining the speed of light in all reference systems? A possibility that actually fits perfectly with what we know from quantum mechanics that Einstein fought for his whole life, and lost?"

    And we will add: which does not contradict any experimental confirmation of relativity from any of the ones you brought in the link, and also opens a window to understanding non-locality.

  16. As I said, physicists today do not see it as a transfer of information but as a simultaneous creation of the information.
    There are people (among them also serious people) who disagree on this interpretation, but what is clear is that what is transmitted cannot be used to transmit known information and consequently - to reverse the order of cause and effect.
    This inversion of order is, in my opinion, what bothered Einstein.
    I don't know if the interpretation is justified or not. I tend to think it is justified but I have no better reasoning than those already given by others.
    In any case - it does not belong to the arguments you raised.

  17. Before I run, and because I'm not sure this point is clear enough:

    1. Why did Einstein claim that non-locality contradicts relativity?

    2. Why was he wrong?

    3. How could he be wrong, since the spin information travels at infinite speed and relativity prohibits the transfer of information faster than light?

    4. And my question: how come he did not see what most physicists see: that there is no contradiction.

  18. In any case, Shmulik and myself are eagerly awaiting the discussion you will have with Lawrence Krauss.

  19. Israel:
    I thank you for the confirmation you added to my claim about the way you worded it.
    Should I write that in the original response I apologized in advance for a possible misunderstanding?
    How many times do I have to apologize to you?
    I did not understand. In my opinion it is your fault and in my opinion it does not belong to the number of times you wrote CMB but to the fact that you did not refer (in writing) to any system. But I apologized anyway.

    In your words about EPR, you repeat things I said and try to present it as a correction to my words.
    I said that today's physicists do not consider it a transfer of information and I explained why (an explanation I gave even before you asked the first time, an explanation that for some reason did not make you stop asking)

  20. Good. Now I don't understand what exactly you want.

    The misunderstanding has been clarified. Although Israel wrote countless times "Cosmic Background Radiation" and "CMB", and brought the appropriate links - Michael understood for some reason that Israel meant something else.

    Instead of admitting the mistake and apologizing, Michael continues to insist that Israel is simply drafting poorly. Well, we're used to it.

    Einstein was not in the minority - when he brought up the EPR paradox there were not many physicists who believed in non-locality. Niels Bohr also did not believe in non-locality.

    And that is not the essence of his mistake at all. The point is that Einstein argued in the article that quantum mechanics is incorrect ("incomplete" Elek), because if the uncertainty principle is true, then the electron spin information must pass from one electron to another immediately, and this is contrary to the prohibition of transferring information faster than the light of relativity.

    First - he was wrong. Bell's inequality and the Aspect experiment proved this.

    Second - he was wrong twice. Although the information passes, there is no contradiction to relativity.

    But he claimed that there is a contradiction to relativity, and this is his second mistake.

    An explanation of the nature of the mistake - if there is a demand.

    Going to work.

  21. Israel:
    As I have already said - I did not understand your intention because of the way it was worded and when you understand your intention then the lack of logic does not cross any limits - it is a lack of understanding of the limits that were already set before.
    Since you know very well that I know about the CMB and that the word "radiation" does not describe any "system", I assume you understood what I said.
    I also assume that you understood that when I said that most physicists do not see EPR as a problem, I did not mean Einstein who was in the minority on this point.
    It seems to me that you are trying to create scarecrows and if before that I stopped participating in the discussion because I saw that I had already answered all the questions you raised, then now another reason has been added to my reluctance to participate in the discussion and this reason is that as the discussion continues your wording becomes more sloppy and your responses become more aggressive.

  22. If the problem raised in the EPR paradox was not perceived by Einstein as problematic, why did he write that it was problematic? What do most physicists see that Einstein did not?

    And what is the story brought up by Israel who received answers that are both complete and correct?

  23. Only in this article I referred many times to the background radiation or in English CMB. Those who did not understand my intention also did not know about the background radiation system at all, which nicely explains the lack of understanding.

    In any case, now that the misunderstanding (yours) has been clarified, do you continue to claim "that the lack of logic in the discussion already exceeds all limits"?

  24. The EPR paradox is not seen by most physicists as problematic because we do not create the result that Einstein feared - the one that allows the reversal of the order of cause and effect.
    This is not about the transfer of information, but the simultaneous creation of information (so, at least, in most interpretations).
    Some dispute this defense, but in any case, this experiment has nothing to do with the whole story that Israel is putting forward - a story that, in my opinion, received full answers.

  25. Israel:
    I explained from the beginning why I think what was said is wrong. I explained that I understood from what you said that radiation is radiation and not the background radiation system and in the same response I wrote different things about the background radiation system which was clear that in my understanding of your words it is different from what you called radiation.
    In the response to which I responded, you wrote Karina and I didn't guess that you were talking about any system and in that sense it has no meaning that you never referred to another system because here you did not refer to the system.
    As you noticed - I was not the only one who did not understand your intention.

  26. Israel:
    No.
    This is your poor wording again.
    If you mean the background radiation system (the one where radiation is isotropic) then yes, but if you mean radiation then no.

  27. Michael, please explain yourself.

    If we move at a speed of 371 km/s in the direction of Leo relative to radiation, doesn't this mean that someone who moves at the same speed relative to us in the opposite direction, moves at 0 speed relative to radiation?

    Shmulik

    The mischievous little Alec was a lovable and friendly electron, until one day he met the evil Positron Positron and they both became ionized...

    Yes, but the speed of light is relative to what? This is where the whole relationship started, right? After all, according to Einstein and Galileo, even if you move at 0.9C relative to the Earth, you are still at rest.

    And regarding the paradox: if the paradox is only on paper, why did Einstein claim that it is real? What is he, Zenon? That's how to brag in front of everyone?

  28. Israel,
    I ask that when you comment, weave stories into the comment! (at a speed that exceeds the speed of light) 🙂
    Beyond what Michael wrote, I do not understand the essence of the question. Relativity describes what happens when matter approaches the speed of light. Are you claiming that even if infinite energy was not required to reach the speed of light, it would not be possible to reach the speed of light?

    Regarding the paradox, the Wiki article explains that the paradox is only a paradox on paper (because of the classical assumptions of the authors that do not match with experimental results. The sentence representing this philosophical assumption is:
    that any acceptable physical theory must fulfill local realism
    We must add that the article was written before there were experimental results

  29. I apologize in advance if I didn't understand the context because since I left I haven't read the comments and it is possible that the last comment was written in a different context than it seems to me but if the "radiation" mentioned in the last comment is the "background radiation" I have to thread another comment because it seems that the lack of logic in the discussion has already passed any limit
    As we know - background radiation is radiation that radiates in all directions. There is no "direction" of the background radiation and therefore it is not possible to move at zero speed relative to it.
    As previously mentioned - whoever moves in the universe - the higher his speed relative to the background radiation system - the more he heats up (due to the increase in the energy of the radiation he encounters from the direction in which he is moving).

  30. Shmulik

    First, thanks for the links.

    Relativity does explain the mechanism, but it also turns out that without relativity the speed of light cannot be reached, and this is because of radiation.

    The difference is that according to relativity the speed of light is relative to the observer and it doesn't matter from which reference system you measure it. Whereas the speed of light relative to radiation is absolute. Therefore, if you move at a speed close to the speed of light relative to a propulsion system that is almost at the speed of light relative to radiation, then it turns out that you are almost at 0 speed relative to radiation and you will not feel any warming. Still according to relativity you will not be able to pass the speed of light relative to that agile system.

    Regarding entanglement, Einstein argued in the EPR paradox (from your link):

    Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen asked how can the second particle "know" to have precisely defined momentum but uncertain position? Since this implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie faster than light, this is the "paradox

    But here, it has been proven that this is exactly what happens, i.e. that the two particles do communicate with each other faster than light, and despite this there is no contradiction to relativity, because although information undoubtedly passes, we still cannot send information through entanglement.

    The point is this: why did Einstein Fedolsky and Rosen claim that there is a contradiction if it does not exist? After all, all the data was laid before them, so why the contradiction? What do we see that they did not see?

    A bit of trivia:

    The hypothesis that particle mass increases with speed already existed at the end of the 19th century. The formula E=MC^2 was also proposed already in 1903 by a French engineer.

  31. Israel,
    Because relativity is the one that explains the mechanism that prevents matter from reaching or exceeding the speed of light and its predictions match the observations. Is there another theory other than relativity that sets a limit to the speed at which matter can move?
    After Einstein laid down the theory of relativity, all kinds of predictions that emerged from it were discovered by other people, and in my opinion today, most physicists specializing in relativity understand relativity better than Einstein, if only because more experiments were done, more solutions were found, more limitations to the theory were discovered, and more empirical information was accumulated. .

    In relation to interweaving, the claim is that there is no contradiction to the theory of relativity because it is not possible to transmit information through this mechanism above the speed of light and by the way, he is not alive when it was proven that interweaving does occur at speeds exceeding the speed of light. read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

  32. Miracles

    Here is the conventional explanation why the radiation system is not a preferred system:

    How come we can tell what motion we have with respect to the CMB? Doesn't this mean there's an absolute frame of reference?

    The theory of special relativity is based on the principle that there are no preferred reference frames. In other words, the whole of Einstein's theory rests on the assumption that physics works the same regardless of what speed and direction you have. So the fact that there is a frame of reference in which there is no motion through the CMB would appear to violate special relativity!

    However, the crucial assumption of Einstein's theory is not that there are no special frames, but that there are no special frames where the laws of physics are different. There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe. But for doing any physics experiment, any other frame is as good as this one. So the only difference is that in the CMB rest frame you measure no velocity with respect to the CMB photons, but that does not imply any fundamental difference in the laws of physics.

    The explanation that says that although we can always know our speed relative to radiation, and that if we fly fast relative to radiation then we will evaporate, and that there is no planet or sun in the vicinity whose speed is much different from ours (say half the speed of light relative to us), still this system is completely normal and not preferred.

    But don't worry. The explanation of why non-locality in quantum entanglement does not contradict relativity, although there is no doubt that the information about the polarization of the photon or the spin of the electron passes instantly from one entangled body to its brother, surpasses it in its sophistication. Of course, there remains the small puzzlement that if there is no contradiction between non-locality and relativity, then why did Einstein claim in the EPR article that such a contradiction actually exists. Do we understand relativity better than Einstein?

    I can't understand either, and I would be happy if someone would explain the point to me (Michael?) why relativity is needed to explain why an object in a particle accelerator will not be able to reach the speed of light. After all, if it heats up when it moves relative to the radiation - and in all accelerator experiments the bodies move against the radiation - then it is clear that it will not be able to reach the speed of light. The energy that needs to be invested to accelerate it becomes heat energy, doesn't it?

    And all the experiments that prove the lengthening of time are done in accelerated systems or inertial systems that move against the radiation (mions). I assume that simply because it is not technically possible to do the experiment in the opposite direction, where the muon starts from a moving system and during its movement it is at rest relative to the radiation. Such an experiment would constitute overwhelming evidence for the lengthening of time, but not the existing experiments.

  33. Miracles.

    of:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

    It turns out that we are moving relative to the cosmic background radiation at a speed of about 600 km/s towards the constellation Leo.

    And not to come to Israel with claims that Einstein said there is no preferred system. He also said that non-locality in quantum entanglement contradicts relativity.

    for life.

  34. Israel
    You are right about the twin …. The whiskey influenced…
    But... it is not clear to me what it means to move in relation to radiation. Does radiation have a direction?

  35. My father, friends
    So without much connection, a fascinating series of lectures by Nobel Prize-winning physicists and other prizes was published on YouTube under the title: 49th Nobel Conference. The lectures are fascinating and it would be nice if the scientist did a follow-up on them.
    A tiny teaser of the fascinating topics they discussed: Prof. James Gates (in his first lecture) talked about an error correction code embedded in the mathematics of the Mathematical Theory and I don't remember who talked about it, but for the first time I learned that during the development of the universe, there was a point in time from which the universe started to accelerate, that is, after the bang the expansion of the universe slowed down but From a certain point, this trend developed. I was not aware of this point (not that I am very up to date so it was abnormally fun to learn this)
    Here is the link. It's worth listening to all the lectures:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1P0HNhQE68&list=PLHuAoPzfQhGGQzB58S1iVQvu43Xvbp2c4

  36. Miracles

    The remaining twin is the future twin. The time of the traveling twin is earlier, therefore for him he made a journey to the future. Therefore, the remaining one will not be able to conclude anything from the experiment, because he has long passed the stage where the traveling twin is found.

    But your experiment illustrates my point. If the traveling twin started his journey from a propulsion system at a speed relative to radiation and accelerated in our direction, we are slow relative to radiation, then he spent most of his journey at rest relative to radiation, that is, between us. If his brother is aging rapidly at this time, then his system is moving towards the future as far as we are concerned, and as mentioned we are resting relative to radiation, that is, our age is the age of the universe.

  37. Dear Mr. Nissim, following your last answer.
    If you replicated an experiment and you know the results of an identical experiment, then with a certain chance you do know the future, tomorrow is also a good day, with respect

  38. Michael and Israel
    Let's assume that the traveling twin takes with him a (deterministic) experiment that should last a long time, while a similar experiment is being conducted here. When the twin returns, the one who remains will be able to know what the result of his own experiment will be in the future.
    This does not mean that the future can be known, but it can be used to develop vaccines for example (don't take the idea seriously....)

  39. True.. and I came to the conclusion a long time ago that only an experiment can confirm or disprove a theory.

    permission question:

    Is there another possibility besides the lengthening of the times for determining the speed of light in all reference systems? A possibility that actually goes well with what we know from quantum mechanics that Einstein fought his whole life, and lost?

  40. As mentioned - Ockham did not raise an eyebrow or any other limb on the conclusions of a theory

  41. Well, we have to go to work. Point: If the clocks of the same galaxy - the train in the previous example - are synchronized and show our time, and the galaxy is now accelerating, then on the first planet that passes by us the clocks show almost our time and on the latter the time is much more advanced.

    This is what happens according to relativity if the galaxy was at rest relative to the radiation after the acceleration (Milky Way) and even if the observer is the one at rest.

    If next to the clocks we use olive seeds that at moment 0 according to the galactic times will be watered and sprouted, then on the first planet we will see only a tender sapling and on the advanced one a 500 year old olive tree. On the last planet there will no longer be olives due to the warming.

    And all this while the olive by our side barely germinated.

    Not only will we be able to look into the future - after all, we all started at the same age - we will even be able to accelerate and join the same progressive evolutionary planet.

    And what's worse, we can also go back to the mother planet that was left behind.

    And Ockham raises an eyebrow at this.

    Working.

  42. Accelerations change and I am not familiar enough with the calculations related to them.

    By the way: Regarding Ockham - it is important to clarify a very fundamental thing that I think you are not aware of:
    Ockham was only talking about the unnecessary assumptions that a theory makes. He did not talk about the conclusions of the theory. The things that you claimed that Ockham opposes and raves about are all conclusions of the theory of relativity and not its premises.

  43. Beauty. Now note: if the galaxy began its movement not billions of years ago but a few minutes ago, that until then it was at rest relative to us and its clocks showed our times. Does it change anything in terms of the experiment?

  44. Michael, while you're here:

    According to relativity, if a traveler passes quickly past the Milky Way, he sees it aging rapidly, that is, the last planet is much older than the first, in a short time according to his clock.

    According to the same relativity, if a fast galaxy were to pass by us, it would also age rapidly.

    Do you think Ockham would have approved of that?

  45. Miracles:
    There is no going back from the future. He reaches the future and continues to move forward into the future, only that he reached the meeting point with his stationary brother in a shorter time than his stationary brother passed.

  46. I answered and also explained why (yes! There was an explanation and it wasn't Ockham!).
    Actually the explanation was related to another part of my previous response which is related to the lack of contradiction with the findings but not important

  47. There is also no logical contradiction in answers 1, 2, and 4 in my grandfather's riddle.

    And yet when asked, for some reason you answered answer 3 - 75 years - which is the only physically plausible answer.

    As always you are free. But if you decide to join (you are always welcome) please stay in the field of physics. Leave the psychology of reading minds and seeing the occult to Gilad's articles.

    Miracles.

    He does not return from the future - he flies to it and stays there. There is no way back, aka entropy.

  48. Israel:
    If there is no logical contradiction and it matches the findings then you have no chance of convincing anyone.
    That you brandish Ockham's name (who I don't think would know what you want from him) doesn't change that.
    But the fact that you say that there is no contradiction is already progress because in the past you said that there is a contradiction between the big bang and relativity.

    I hope that this time I will stick to my decision not to be dragged into this discussion again as long as I don't read something really new in it.

  49. Let's not get into the true or false question now. Everything is chained, two and a half years. If you are interested one day I will show you exactly the places where you leave technology and go to psychology, only to find out later that you were wrong.

    So spare me expressions such as "When I show you an error in the original thought experiment - the one that led you to the wrong conclusion - to create another experiment that might lead you to the same conclusion without first realizing your error in the first is an act that attests to itself like a thousand witnesses whose entire purpose is to preserve the original conclusion and not reveal The truth".

    I believe I am trying to find out the truth. Not just a believer. I invest a lot of time and money to test the alternative to relative time, which I believe exists even though it is not necessarily correct. If this sounds delusional, then please remember that megaphysicist like Lorenz and many others continued to believe in the site even many years after 1905.

    The watch you described is a broken watch. This has nothing to do with the length of time. The very concept of time is very difficult to define, and in Suskind's blog it appears as problem number one.

    The young twin, Ofer's passenger, your speedy photon, Moans and every propulsion system relative to another synchronized system, is making a journey to the future. But what they all have in common is that with them time slows down, and what for him is the future and for the other system is the present, is the age of the universe, that is, the age of the background radiation.

    When the younger twin meets his brother, he can no longer claim that his time is right - because the heating is on. He could do this in 1905 when the universe was eternal. Even the observer of Ofer or the muons or any other system, if they stop in their journey, will discover that the age of the universe, which is higher than theirs, is absolute and is not related to the time shown by their watch. If, on the other hand, we reverse the formation and the Milky Way accelerates to meet the traveler, it will not find that its clock has gone back in time to adjust to the traveler's age.

    What I am trying to show in my speeding train example is the reverse process. Not a traveler or muons or twins or zebras who are always moving relative to radiation and observe a stationary system, but an observer stationary relative to radiation and observing a moving system.

    Since there is no radiation reference in the relations, we accept that the age of the observer is lower than the age of the observed system, even if they both started at the same time.

    There is no logical contradiction in this, just as there is no logical contradiction in a seven-year-old father or a 150-year-old lecturer. There is only the sleepy Ockham who waves and shouts that it is unlikely that we can expect, and even move, to a system whose age is higher than ours, that is, the age of the universe.

    iPad.

  50. Israel:
    We are all traveling to the future all the time and the twin also traveled to the future at an accelerated pace.
    If these are acceptable things for you then (as I have already asked before) even though I don't call it "seeing the future", why do you present it as a problem when it comes to seeing a system for which time passes at a different rate?
    And a related question (which is similar to what I once told you about if you look at the clock you will see the time it will be tomorrow and predict the future in the same way): Suppose there are two computers running the same program and now suppose that the clock of one of them is accelerated (this is an action that could have been done on many computers in the past) And he starts running faster. Does the computer that is standing next to him and has not been accelerated "see" the future" according to your definition? And if so - is there any paradox or problem in this?

  51. Not true, Israel.
    There was one story where I made a number of mistakes, but all this happened because your cover of stories hid the subject and, among other things, freed my hands from getting into real calculations.
    Dispersing the fog around the story (and it's all the same story) you got a clear and correct answer.

  52. Miracles

    Certainly the twin paradox describes reality. And paradoxically, the younger twin, as far as he was concerned, traveled to the future.

  53. Michael, you are called to order.

    As usual, you are sure that the truth was given to you from above, and anyone who dares to dispute it is necessarily wrong.

    But we've been through the process several times in recent years, haven't we? Even then it turned out in the end that you were wrong.

    I'm on the road now, it's hard to write. Good night.

  54. Israel:
    You are mixing unrelated things.
    The source for viewing the age older than the age of the universe is the one I said.
    In the new experiment, you did not build such a long train, and therefore - consider it a miracle - it has no age that is higher than the age of the universe.
    There is no problem with the fact that the length of what seems to the mushrooms to be about one year seems shorter to the viewer. This is really what is happening. This is also what happens with the Moans and we can watch this continuously.
    You introduced the background radiation into the story without any relevance.

    And again:
    When I present you with an error in the original thought experiment - the one that brought you to the wrong conclusion - creating another experiment that might bring you to the same conclusion without first realizing your mistake in the first one is an act that attests to itself like a thousand witnesses whose entire purpose is to preserve the original conclusion and not to reveal the truth.

  55. Israel
    I can't follow your train of thought. Do you accept that the twin paradox describes reality? Do you think that the future can be known in the twin paradox?

  56. I'm not trying to fail you in anything. I am seriously trying to see if there is any error in my calculations, and I hope you do the same with your calculations, even if they don't align with your agenda.

    You said: "Are you claiming that any of the things I said are not true?
    Point to it and say what the error is."

    In the response from two hours ago you wrote:

    "The source of the time higher than the age of the universe that Israel accepts is the result of an error in the thought experiment he built in which he initially placed planets/gemini/carriages/mushrooms You name it whose age/age is higher than the age of the universe because a time longer than the age of the universe is needed to bring them to their position/relative position" .

    But here we described a new experiment where all the systems - viewer and train - start from the same age. If you accepted section B (and you did), then when the last train passes the viewer, its age is several months older than the viewer's age.

    If we used mushrooms instead of clocks, the viewer from the radiation system would be photographing a mushroom that began its journey at our age and arrived at the photographs when it was older and mature. If we had used twins and the train was longer and faster, it would have been us, twenty-year-old twins, photographing eighty-year-old twins in the last car.

    And this despite the fact that we all started the experiment at the same age, and all the systems are not too long or too fast.

    Isn't this a view of the system as you will see it in the future?

  57. In general: this method of asking me questions that, in order to give a serious answer, requires a serious calculation and then hope that I will make a mistake in evaluating the answer and then hang on to this mistake is not acceptable to me.
    It's a method of exhaustion at best and deception at worst.
    Why can't we stick with what we've already talked about?

  58. Israel:
    There is indeed a difference between what I said and what I showed. That's why I used the word showed.
    I didn't do the calculation, but I don't currently see a problem with the orders of magnitude you describe in sections a and b.
    I do currently see a problem with drifting back into this debate.
    Are you claiming that any of the things I said are not true?
    Point to it and say what the error is.

  59. Shmulik, thanks for the link. I will contact him soon.

    Michael our friends.

    First I want you to know that I really appreciate the investment in this problem which is my "baby".

    But there is a difference between "I said" and "I showed".

    So to simplify matters, let's get straight to the point. If you don't mind, I would like to harness your computing power to get a quantitative solution to the following problem:

    1. A light year long train is standing on a straight track at rest relative to the background radiation. An observer standing by the track is stationary relative to the train and the radiation. The clocks of the train cars are synchronized with each other, and show the same time as the viewer.

    2. At instant 0 according to the clocks of the train and the observer, the train accelerates to a speed of 0.6c in a short time of one minute according to the clock of the observer.

    3. The train remains at this speed until the end of the experiment.

    4. When the train reaches this speed, the viewer's watches and the passing car are photographed.

    5. When the last train passes the viewer, the clocks are photographed again.

    What will the photos show?

    If you don't want to get involved in exhausting calculations, do you accept that:

    A. In the first shot, will the shot (regardless of which side) show almost the same time for the viewer and the trailer?

    B. In the second shot, will the viewer's watch lag behind the trailer by months?

    If you see an error in the formulation of the problem or in the conclusions, please point to the erroneous section.

    Thanks.

  60. Shmulik:
    Israel got all the answers he could get here and he should have been convinced.
    I showed that in every situation there is an agreement between the observer and the observed about the time on both watches.
    This means, in fact, that the viewer has no effect on the time he watches the watched and is therefore unnecessary in the whole story.
    If the observer sees a time in the observed that is higher than the age of the universe, then the observed also sees the same time on his watch.
    Therefore, the theory of relativity cannot yield someone a time that is higher than the age of the universe just because someone else is looking at it.
    The source of the time higher than the age of the universe that Israel receives is the result of an error in the thought experiment he built in which he initially placed planets/gemini/cars/mushrooms You name it whose age/age is higher than the age of the universe because a time longer than the age of the universe is needed to bring them to their relative position/position.
    I also showed that it is possible to calculate the background radiation clock for any relative system and not only the background radiation system and any observer in any system can do this so that the possibility of being observed by any system does not characterize the background radiation system exclusively.
    I also showed that watching your own higher clocks characterizes everyone: from the moment of synchronization you will always watch your own higher clocks (or in the example of a train and a locomotive - if you take two trains led by locomotives when the synchronization is created at the moment the locomotives meet, then from that moment on each of the two locomotives will see its own higher time In the car to his right.
    In short - there is nothing left of the problem.

  61. I don't know the answer to the cosmic equivalent of the round world.

    I only claim that if the age of the universe is finite and time is relative, it is theoretically possible to pass this age.

    I have shown this time and time again with mushroom and twin watches. I don't get an answer to the cardinal question that I present again and again: if the age of the background radiation system is not preferred, why can't it be passed? Why can't we observe a universe older than our own?

  62. In my opinion, the number of comments here is too large and the comments do not even belong to the topic of the article.
    Therefore, it would be worthwhile to open a new discussion on the subject of relativity.

  63. Although I do not believe that the universe has a finite diameter.
    even though.
    If the universe has a finite diameter. So what happens one millimeter beyond this diameter?
    This question has already been asked about the Earth.
    That is: if the world is flat and has a border, then what happens when you cross the border by one millimeter.
    The answer was:
    The world is round.
    That is, walking beyond the "edge" brings you to the starting point.
    Is it possible that this is the case in the universe?
    That means the route is closed. The end point is the starting point. That is, it is not possible to move beyond a certain distance.

  64. 1. An observer at any speed will be able to calculate the age of the universe as if it were at rest relative to radiation, i.e. the age of the universe, right?

    2. There is no system where the age of the universe is higher than the age of the background radiation system (13.7 billion years), right? Is there any system where the age of the universe is 100 billion years?

    3. In 1905, (2) has no meaning, does it?

    4. If the answers to 1, 2 and 3 are positive, then it is M.S.L. No? Otherwise, if there are observers for whom the age of the universe is half ours, (Ofer observers) there are probably also those whose age is twice ours, right? And if for others the age of the universe is 0 (photons are rushing), then there are also those for whom the age of the universe is infinite, right?

    ב

    Not that I know the answer, but if there is a limit to the universe, where is it? And if we are on such a finite planet, what does the telescope show if we look beyond the diameter of the universe? And what will prevent us from sending a satellite in the same direction? Did we expand the diameter of the universe by placing a satellite?

    Indeed there is no need for an endless train. According to relativity, any observer who started his journey from a moving train relative to the radiation and accelerated so that he is now at rest relative to it, sees the occupants of the train as they will see them in the future.

  65. Michael
    I checked myself... You are right about the stopping problem, according to its definition, but it can solve problems that a computer cannot solve. Calculation on has this problem too. But - that's not what I'm talking about.

    I'm talking about the fact that the mind is not a Turing machine. The model I'm talking about is not reducible to a Turing machine. It is possible to simulate any process in the brain. But a computer cannot think. To me, thinking is an emergent property (I don't know how to translate the concept). It's like temperature - you will perform a simulation of each molecule in a given volume and you will get a simulation of temperature. But the computer won't heat up from it...

  66. B:
    I already told him this and also explained to him that it is possible to calculate the age of the universe in any system according to the background radiation experienced by the observer's system (and therefore - in this sense too - the background radiation system is not unique).

  67. The stopping problem is the lack of ability to decide if a certain program, when it runs on a normal computer on a certain input, stops.
    Anyone who cannot decide this question (including the model you describe) suffers from the stopping problem.
    As I have shown - for any mechanism whose decisions can be read, it is also possible to write a program (that runs on a Turing machine) that uses it to fail it in solving the halting problem.
    This includes the human brain and it also includes the computer you described.
    By the way, even the computer you described (as long as its number of heads is finite) can be called a Turing machine (and if its number of heads is infinite it is impossible to build it or find it in nature)

  68. Israel:
    Even without such a long long train.
    Obviously, if the universe started with the big bang then it has a finite diameter. This diameter is the distance a light beam travels in a time equal to the age of the universe. No greater distance than that is possible.

  69. Michael
    Let's look at it from another angle. The accepted model for describing a computer is a Turing machine. A Turing machine has a single read/write head and an infinite tape. You learned that a parallel computer, with several heads, can be described by a normal Turing machine.
    It's just a model - there is no such thing as infinite, as you said.
    Now - imagine that in front of each cell in the infinite tape there is a reader/writer head. This is my model of the human brain. Don't you see that it is fundamentally different from a normal computer? Can't you see he doesn't suffer from the stopping problem?

  70. We returned from the desert.

    Michael, if you give your strength you are free, as always.

    And you have the right to believe that your words are true. And they are undoubtedly true - in your eyes.

    In my opinion, your words are correct. A system cannot exist in the universe whose age is higher than the age of the universe. The background radiation system is preferential radiation. Fact: Any observer can always know the age of the universe, which is also the age of the background radiation system, by using a thermometer and a computer. He cannot know the age of other systems, which proves the uniqueness of the radiation system.

    Therefore, either the lengthening of time in relationships or the bang theory is wrong, or at least one of them needs revision.

    My strength will not fail, but I do not see a way to explain this point to you.

    Shabbat Shalom.

  71. Michael
    You said that the stopping problem applies to the brain. The halting problem only applies to a Turing machine - and let me remind you, a Turing machine and an algorithm are actually the exact same thing.
    If so then I claim he is wrong. One of the features of our brain is the need for sleep. Do you really think that in the near future there will be a computer that needs to sleep? I wonder what he will dream about …….

  72. Miracles:
    Did I say the brain runs algorithms?
    Read my words again.

    And regarding Idan Segev:
    He claims that the blue brain will think and he is so clearly wrong that his project has received grants in excess of a billion dollars.

  73. Michael
    If so - then how can you claim that the brain runs an algorithm / algorithms? How do you not know that the halting problem does not apply to any computational model, but only to a Turing machine?
    Does Idan Segev claim that his computer does think? If so - he is wrong.

  74. By the way, I also had the chance to work with neural networks and see it as a miracle: the useful implementations of these are also nothing more than a simulation on a computer with individual processors.

  75. Miracles:
    I studied the master's degree in computer science for one year and completed it with honors.
    During my military service, I headed the software branch of a computer unit and won the ILA award twice (the Israeli Association for Information Processing which was something serious at the time, but I don't know if it is even active today) and once the liaison award for creative thinking.
    I made millions from patents in the field of algorithms and people beg me to this day (even though I have long since informed everyone who needs to know that I have retired) to come advise them.
    As you said - your model of the mind is not reality and the infinity I was talking about is not the infinity of a process but the size of some physical object (I thought you would understand that).
    And I say again:
    If you read what is the computer on which the Blue Brain project is based, you will have to admit that you said that Idan Segev does not understand the subject.

  76. Michael
    Did you study computer science? In particular - courses in computing?

    And about fooling around. You said there is no infinity in nature. Maybe that's true. If so - then the stopping problem does not exist.
    I tried to inform you earlier, I will try again. The computational model of a computer is called a Turing machine. A Turing machine has infinite memory, but of course no computer does. My model of the brain contains infinite processors, although this is obviously not reality. But just as a Turing machine is useful in computer research, so the o-machine model is useful in brain research.
    And the o-machine model cannot be imitated by a computer with a finite number of processors.

    If you want to be a pedant, then even the biggest computer in the world can't count. This is factually true, but it is irrelevant.

  77. Miracles:
    The stopping problem exists in front of any device that claims to determine whether a computer program stops or not, if it is able to read its decisions.
    It does not belong to the architecture of the computer at all and if you read her proof you will see that.
    The proof does not refer to the fact that it is a Turing machine at all.
    She is talking about an algorithm but her logic would work just as well with the word "something that a computer can read its decisions" and that something could be the human mind.

    And now you said something that I think is nonsense:
    There is nothing infinite in nature and the mind is in nature.
    And a court won't help: every parallel processor and it doesn't matter what level of parallelism it is can be imitated by a single Turing machine (slowly but surely).

    And don't worry:
    The Blue Brain project is not designed to contain a hundred billion processors with trillions of connections between them.

  78. Michael
    The halting problem does not exist in a machine that is not a Turing machine. I'll give you an example - an elevator. The elevators have a controller that is not a "computer". It can be proven with certainty that this controller will not enter an infinite loop.

    And now you said something that, in my opinion, is nonsense. I will try to explain. The calculation model we refer to as a computer is a Turing machine. According to the definition - a Turing machine has infinite memory. If we take the memory as finite then we have a finite state machine. In the brain model I describe, there are an infinite number of processors. Therefore, the model that describes it is not a Turing machine - a better model is an o-machine. Therefore, the operation of the brain cannot be imitated by a normal computer.
    If a blue brain contains 100 billion processors with their trillions of connections, which run at a reasonable speed, and even create new connections at a reasonable rate - then yes, we will have a simulation of the brain. And on the other hand - it will no longer be a computer (Turing machine).
    Therefore, there is no contradiction between my claim and Segev's work.

  79. And I assume that anyone who understands the subject knows that any parallel computer (and it doesn't matter what the level of parallelism is) can be imitated by a regular computer.
    It might work slower (depending on CPU speed) but it will do the same thing.

  80. Miracles:
    I know the subject well.
    You make statements without backing them up with any logical argument or supporting data.
    Among other things - your claim implies that Idan Segev does not understand anything (and you specifically said that I do not understand the subject).

    Beyond my recognition of the issue, I am also a thinking person and I will allow myself to be modest and say that I am doing it well.

    You didn't face the challenge I posed to you regarding the stopping problem. You didn't even try. You are just trying to sweep it under the carpet with words and deceive the readers.

    I have no interest in such a discussion.

  81. You really don't understand this area apparently. I said there is no problem for a machine to think. I also said that it is possible to simulate a human brain on a computer at a very, very basic level.
    Blue brain is not artificial intelligence. As long as the number of processors is small - we still have a Turing machine. When the model contains an unlimited number of processors - I claim that you get a more powerful machine.
    Do you know Turing's thesis?

  82. Miracles:

    In connection with theThis is your response: I'm actually often able to discover that I'm in an infinite loop.
    This time seems to be one of them. I explained your mistake, but you repeat it without considering the depth of things, so I will stop.

  83. Miracles:
    In touch For your response to this, I guess you're claiming that Idan Segev doesn't know what he's talking about.
    Since I estimate that I know the subject even less than Idan Segev, I am happy that I met such a smart person who understands the subject more than all the experts who in his eyes know nothing.

  84. Michael
    I did not understand your description.
    I say two things:
    1) If we run an algorithm in mind then it is quite possible that it has an infinite loop and we will not know it. This does not contradict my point.

    2) The mind itself cannot enter an infinite lua. I already explained why.

  85. Miracles:

    Allow me to question your assertion that the brain's parallelism gives it substantial computational power beyond that of a computer. First, a non-deterministic Turing machine which is the most powerful parallel supercomputer you can think of is still limited by the halting problem and any of its calculations can be simplified using a Turing machine. This is about the theoretical model.
    And in practice as well. There are extremely powerful parallel computers. Any calculation you want to perform on one computer can also be distributed to any number of computers you want.
    Everything a computer can do can our mind? I do not think so! See how quickly the search results you enter into Google are retrieved. Our brains do not come close to such capabilities

    Regarding feelings, here is the interesting discussion. What makes our mind a special varnish that can feel. Calculation power does not explain this. Sorry, the internet is powerful in a way that is incomparable at all from our minds but feels nothing.

    I believe you are wrong and by and large, you are looking too closely with the microscope. To understand phenomena as thinking you must rise to the algorithmic level. Level of aggravation is not relevant

  86. Michael
    So emphasize. It has nothing to do with my claim. A blue brain, provided someone budgets for this thing, can simulate a human brain. In order to portray a person, you need to bring him to the state of a certain person. A blue brain will be able to simulate brain processes, but whoever thinks you can tell him a joke will laugh... I don't understand what he is talking about.

    If they build a machine with 100 billion processors, if trillions of connections - maybe, maybe, we will have something to talk about. But a blue brain is not built like that.

  87. I want to reiterate that the Blue Brain project is based on a computer and software.

  88. Reuven
    certainly. I said it in advance!! Anything a computer can do, the brain can do too. but not the other way around.

    Regarding retrieving from memory - this is exactly where you are wrong. A computer performs a search in a time that depends on the size of the memory. Our brain retrieves data at regular intervals. I am not convinced that this is exactly true, but I believe that it is close to reality. This is a fundamental difference between a brain and a computer.

    I have no speculation about the stopping problem :). A computer has a very small number of processors, so any computer can be viewed as a Turing machine. In the brain, the number of computers is the size of the brain. This is a completely different computational model than a Turing machine. Here is a second difference between us and a computer.

    In addition, a Turing machine is required to stop at the end of an algorithm to return an output. This is due to the machine setting. Our brain does not perform a calculation and stops to return an output. It is more like a hyphenated machine (like a real-time computer). With such a machine it is possible to prove all kinds of things (for example - that there will never be a deadlock - the equivalent of an infinite loop in a computer). And here is another difference between a computer and a brain.

    Maybe the border line is language. Only humans have language.

    The stopping problem is just an example. That's not what's important. A computer will feel no pain. Don't hit as much as you want, it won't hurt him. You can simulate it if you want, and you can simulate it very well. But it's a simulation.

    I have to emphasize something you don't understand. We are definitely machines, therefore machines can think, and machines can feel pain. But - our brain is not a computer.

  89. Miracles

    I understand from your answer that you agree that there is an overlap in the calculation capabilities of a brain and a computer (for example, they both know how to divide). I guess you will agree with me that this is not the only operation that both of them are able to perform (for example, they are both able to retrieve information from memory - I can remember a list of items and so can a computer). There are of course other overlapping abilities.

    Please try to specify for me the boundary line where there is no more overlap in the calculation capabilities, apart from your not so well-founded speculation regarding the stopping problem.

    In addition to this being said and you are XNUMX% correct and the brain is not limited by the stopping problem, how does this help you explain other abilities that in your view exist only in the brain such as emotions?

  90. Just to clear the ear (and to understand the real history and also to get out of the confusion in understanding the term "preferred system") you are invited to read theA Wikipedia chapter discussing a preferred system.
    You will find that Galileo and Newton also thought there was none and in this sense Maxwell's theory was a deviation from their principles.
    Einstein corrected this and returned the absence of the preferred system to the stage.

  91. Real contract:
    My proof is valid and the fact that the brain is flexible enough not to answer the question (and as you also mentioned - even a well-designed computer is flexible enough for that) does not change the fact that the brain will not decide whether the program stops or not.
    By the way: there are other reasons to think that the brain cannot decide the stopping problem (certainly not my personal brain or yours).
    For example: Is program QLooking for an even number that is not the sum of two primes will you ever stop

  92. To Michael Rothschild, your proof is not valid, because in such a case the human mind is flexible enough to say, "If I decide that she will stop, she will not stop, and if I decide that she will not stop, she will." Of course you could design a machine that could say this, then another machine to work on it and so on, but the human mind is always flexible enough to notice all the tricks.

  93. Miracles
    The mind is not limited by the problem of stopping. It cannot solve the stopping problem. The brain does not run an algorithm. According to the definition - the algorithm has an end, the brain never finishes its calculations. The brain can simulate running an algorithm, step by step, but it does not run an algorithm.

    A person paralyzed from the neck down must be thinking. The question is what is thinking. I don't know how to define thinking, but it sure isn't running an algorithm. And running an algorithm - that's all a computer can do.

    Thinking is not on-off. Animals think too. I believe there is a continuum from worms to man. But, there is a stage where the model needs to be replaced. I will give you another illustration. There are two recognized calculation models - finite state machines and Turing machines (of course there are more). In theory - these two models are very different. For example - a state machine does not know how to count.
    In the real world there aren't really Turing machines, all computers are actually finite state machines. But, the Turing machine model gives us more convenient tools to analyze huge state machines. In the same way, I believe that the correct model of the brain is not a Turing machine. As I already wrote, the basis for the idea is Turing's own (his PhD thesis).

  94. Miracles:
    Wikipedia says that it is not known whether the human brain can solve the stopping problem.
    It is written - really - what to do?
    I showed that the human mind cannot solve the stopping problem, therefore if what I showed is correct then what is written in Wikipedia about the same question is incorrect.
    There is no other option.

    now according to you
    Reporter:
    "Many operations can be performed with the help of a computer, but a computer is limited in its ability, because of something called the "halting problem". Our brain, in my opinion and my understanding, does not have this limitation."
    What you wrote is completely clear.
    The computer is limited (and the stopping problem demonstrates this) and the brain is not.
    I showed that the mind is not able to solve the stopping problem.
    So it's not limited? After all, this is exactly the limitation you gave as an example of the computer!

    And I repeat and ask: Is a person paralyzed from the neck down not alive? Do not think?
    So why should a computer be given all the organs that this person does not control and does not receive stimuli from in order for it to live and think?

  95. Israel:
    Tish my power (once they asked me how to say impotent in Hebrew and when I didn't know how to answer they told me "crossword puzzles").
    If you can't accept my explanation then I can't help anymore.
    I have no doubt that my explanations are correct.
    It is also clear to me that you will not be able to present a logical argument that draws your conclusion "we would not receive a photon of zero for eternity passing across an aging universe, or twins that separated when their time was synchronized and met when their time was different" from my words.
    My words are correct.
    We have a preferred system because there is a system you prefer.
    It is a system that is attributed to a certain object in the universe (the background radiation) that is everywhere and therefore has importance in terms of orientation in space, but it has no importance beyond that - certainly not important in terms of the theory of relativity and certainly not a contradiction to the theory of relativity.
    You may prefer a system because it gives the universe a maximum age.
    It is legitimate and meaningless.
    You can equally prefer the system that gives a minimum age or those that give the average age.
    It's a spoiling preference, in my opinion, but that's just my taste.
    The fact that you prefer something does not contradict the theory of relativity.
    I presented several confirmations for the theory of relativity and all the confirmations of Newton's theory also confirm the theory of relativity (the advantage of the theory of relativity is that the false predictions of Newton's theory also confirm the theory of relativity because it gives those predictive situations correct).
    But it is.
    enough.

  96. Reuven
    There is software and hardware. And there are also data. A von Neumann computer (there is also a Harvard one, but we'll leave the difference for now) has a processor that reads information from memory. Any information that describes commands to the processor is software, any other information is data.

    No - the brain is not a piece of hardware. Hardware contains no information.

    Long division is an algorithm. Our brain contains parts that, with the help of natural language, know how to simulate running an algorithm. Unlike a computer - the brain will not get stuck in an infinite loop if there is a problem with the algorithm.

    In particular - and this is Turing's discovery - our brain knows how to run an algorithm. It is more powerful than a computer, so it can do what a computer can do. There is no contradiction here.

    You are entering a sensitive area with the idea of ​​flies, etc. Turing's computational model does not exist in reality. In particular - a computer should contain infinite memory. In the computational model of the brain (the model I believe in) there should be an infinite number of neurons. That is - just as a simple computer (think of a 4-bit processor if several hundred bytes of memory) is not equivalent to a Turing machine, so a simple brain does not match my model either.
    It is very possible that the human mind is the only one that is powerful enough to fit my model. In particular - it is the only brain capable of containing language. No other living creature in existence has this ability.

  97. Miracles,

    How do you define the diagnosis between hardware and software? A computer is a piece of sophisticated hardware capable of performing calculations. So are our minds.
    How is a program that sorts numbers different from a person running an algorithm that sorts numbers in his mind?
    When we teach our child to divide long division what are we doing if not teaching their brains how to run a division program?

    Again, explain to me where the common abilities of computers and brains come from? Are you an infidel by claiming that our minds are capable of calculations?

    Another question, does the brain of a fly also transcend the limitations of a computer? what about fish Dog? monkey? A one-year-old baby? A four year old?

    What is the stage at which our mind receives the wonderful ability to be free from the limitation of the stopping problem?

  98. You did explain over and over again, but I cannot accept your explanations. If they were true, we wouldn't get a 0-year photon forever passing through an aging universe, or twins that separated when their time was synchronized and met when their time was different.

    There is no problem in putting the mushroom train at rest relative to us so that all the clocks are synchronized with ours and then accelerate. Even then we will be able to see and photograph mushrooms as mushrooms. It can be said that the acceleration changed the result, but we, the mushroom researchers, were given the opportunity to see and study future mushrooms and it does not matter to us how the result was achieved.

    But as you pointed out, we enter an infinite loop. The bottom line for me is simple: the radiation system we live in is a favored system, because the time in it is the latest physically possible: the time that has passed since the Big Bang.

    In terms of relativity as you mentioned, this system has no priority over other systems.

    This leads to a paradox in my opinion since all systems exist in the same universe. Therefore, if in Ofer's hurrying photon system or observer the universe is younger than 13.7 billion years, and the radiation system is not favored as you claim, then there is no problem with systems where the age of the universe is 60 billion years.

    And since one system can be observed and photographed from another, we could foresee such future universes.

    The mathematical possibility exists, just as a 150-year-old university lecturer or a 7-year-old father is mathematically possible. From the physical point of view, it's a little more complicated.

    Many times you mentioned the many confirmations for special relativity (I believe that there are just as many confirmations for the theories of Newton and Maxwell, two scientists of Einstein's caliber who believed in absolute time). If you can show them we can see if they really contradict the idea of ​​absolute time.

    On the other hand, as I mentioned, there are no contradictions in proper relations apart from the absolute time that results from the big bang. This is a theory that is much more difficult to test. You said: There is no time to bring additional planets beyond the edge of the universe. I don't understand what the connection is with my question. Do you think there is a final planet? If we live on the same planet, what is the problem for us to send some sputnik beyond the limit of the universe and thus expand it? It is not clear.

    My opinion is that there are other possibilities to explain the results of the MM experiment, without giving up the absolute time. My opinion is that even from a purely logical point of view, Maxwell's ether model is so complex and accurate and derives the speed of light so accurately from the constants of electricity and magnetism, that it simply must be true, otherwise this is the most discounted guess ever except for Mr. Nachshon's guesses.

  99. And I see no point in trying to do the psychological analysis you claim to do on me.
    I hope that I had the necessary openness to understand Einstein's innovations, if only because of the fact that Newton's theory actually failed at this time in the experiment.
    Note that the situation is not the same (and I'm not talking about the fact that you don't accept Einstein's theory after many more of her predictions have been proven and yet you stick to Newton's theory). While in favor of relativity (against Newton's theory) Michaelson and Morley's results could be attributed, your claims are not based on no failure of special relativity!

  100. Israel:
    I explained and I repeat and explain (and you can also read the details in the link you provided yourself and in general and more fully in the calculations I showed):
    You see later clocks in the more distant cars only because you are a viewer They were out of sync with the first one in the first place.
    they Advance the first watch In a crowd, during the journey to them (or their journey to you) part of this crowd is offset by the fact that their time is advancing slowly more but they still remained in Por.
    I already feel in an endless loop after explaining it so many times and in so much detail.

    The mushroom is no longer young. she is older As mentioned - the watch that it is is a better watch than the watch that is the first to begin with. From the point of view of the viewer, there was not even one moment when the mushrooms were the same age. They are synchronized only in the train but not in the viewer. I explained it over and over and over. And now again.

  101. OK, take your time (…).

    And in the meantime, it is important what your reaction would be if you had heard about Einstein's theory in 1905. Times are getting longer? Kilometer-long trains are shortened to a centimeter and the people inside are not aware of it?

    After all, every star we observe confirms Newton's theory, I hear you say. Hertz managed to send ripples on Maxwell's site, I see you writing. So how dare the impudent Mr. Albert challenge everything we know about physics just because something small doesn't work out in the Michaelson Morley experiment?

  102. According to the link I provided, the time in the cars, the same as the cameras, is higher than the viewer's time.

    The viewer can argue that his time is actually the highest, but this is a complex mathematical argument, not a physical argument, i.e. photographs.

    If this is your argument, i.e. that the mushroom that appears to be actually younger than its confusing sister due to relativistic effects such as the shortening of the length, then we have finally come to an agreement.

    Maybe this will also convince the old twin of the paradox and he will renew his youth as before.

  103. Israel:
    I don't have time right now, but as I mentioned - both I and the link you provided explained how it is that time on the train flows slowly More as far as we are concerned, even though we see each and every caravan as a later age than ours (which is due to the clocks being out of sync in our eyes).
    If you still don't understand I will try to explain again later but I doubt if I will succeed because it seems to me that everything that needs to be said has been said and even though things seem completely clear to me you are not convinced.

  104. It is not only relative - in the given example time in the train system flows faster than our time. At least that's what the cameras show.

    This is consistent with what you say - the background radiation system, i.e. the age of the universe, is no different from any other system, isn't it?

    So if time in the Milky Way system flows faster than in Ofer's observer system, or in your accelerating photon system which is always 0 years old, why won't time flow faster in the train system than in our system which is relaxed relative to radiation? All systems are equal, right?

  105. Israel:
    Again: there is no physical meaning to the claim that time moves faster on the train.
    Both the link you provided and my calculations show that in different carriages we will see different times according to relativity (higher than ours) and at the same time we will see our time running faster than the time in each and every one of the carriages.

  106. ב:
    It doesn't belong in photography.
    In the experiment in question, the photographs are taken from zero distance.
    The problem is, as mentioned, in the contradiction between the assumption of the existence of the big bang in which all the elements of the universe come out from one point and the assumption of the existence of objects in the universe that somehow we managed to move them further apart than this time allows (assuming the limitation of the speed of movement by the speed of light).
    The camera captures at the moment of the photo the age of the stars from their point of view and Israel's claim was actually trying to show a contradiction between their seeing their age and their seeing the age of the universe (actually - without any relation to the viewer from another system).

    Israel:
    I have no problem with the fact that the mushrooms look to the viewer as if they are of a different age. Their ages are really different. This is because time is relative.

  107. That's what cameras are for, so that it won't be possible to say what you said.

    And they are unequivocal: the pictures show both clocks together - the viewer's and the cars' - and we see that in successive cars the gap between the watch's clock and that of the cars is widening - the viewer lags behind, i.e. the time on the train moves faster.

    agree?

  108. Israel:
    It is not clear why such a long train is needed.
    At every point in the universe the time from the big bang to the present moment is the same time.
    So the time of the camera at the moment of photography is the time from the big bang to the moment of photography.
    If so :
    The light rays leave the photographed object and reach the camera. They don't do it in no time.
    That is why the photographed object is always older than its image in the camera.
    That is, the photographed object was discovered more than the age of the camera at the time of the photograph.
    But the age of the camera at the time of the photo is the age of the universe from the moment of the big bang.
    Therefore, every photographed object is older than the universe.

  109. Obviously I understood your words and the wording in your last comment is again misleading.
    There is no assumption that time in the train system flows faster than our time. The assumption is that from the train's point of view time flows faster than our time, while from our point of view time flows faster with us.

  110. I believe so. and you my words?

    What happens if a (not very long) train with forest mushrooms passes you by and you take a picture of the mushrooms in it together with the comparison mushroom standing next to you.

    In the first trailer you will see a young mushroom, but the mushroom in the last one will have already curled up, right?

    So you claim that there is no problem with the fact that time in the train system flows faster than our time, relative to radiation?

  111. And again: there is no problem with a faster progression of time in this or another system.
    The problem is actually assuming the possibility that in a limited universe there will be stars whose distance between them requires a time that exceeds the age of the universe.
    It is clear that if you created stars that require a time greater than the age of the universe to create the distance between them, there will be stars whose age exceeds the age of the universe.
    Request: Don't bring inflation into the story for me now because it wasn't in it in the first place and I don't know enough about the theory involved in it to deal with a new question that will be formulated just by the fact that I mentioned it.

  112. Israel:
    come on!
    There is no wall! There simply wasn't time to get them there because the time needed to get them there exceeds the age of the universe!
    Until now your stories have not allowed me to understand exactly what is bothering you and I thought that the thought experiment you are talking about should be consistent with the data and only the conclusions arising from it contradict them, but as soon as the confusing shell was removed it became clear to me that you are talking about an experiment that the mere assumption of the possibility of conducting it contradicts the big bang assumption And the problem is not in the contradiction between the big bang theory and relativity but between the big bang theory and your private theory that such an experiment is possible!

  113. Repair (iPhone).

    The last sentence is a conditional sentence: if the time in the first car is the same as ours, the time in the last one is ahead of ours.

  114. Is there a final limit to the placement of planets?

    And after the last planet we placed, what's up, Kir?

    On the one hand, I am happy, because you may have finally understood that my argument is not necessarily against relativity, and it is very possible that the big bang theory with limits to space and a starting point to time is the problematic one.

    (Could you perhaps explain to me and the forum what finite space and a beginning to time mean? What is there after the last planet, and what was there before the bang? "There is nothing" and "there was not" sounds a bit too axiomatic in my opinion. Please explain).

    On the other hand, I feel that I did not make the point clear enough. It is not necessary for the twins to pass the age of the universe. It is enough for us to observe - and photograph - a system in which time flows faster than ours, to reverse the twin paradox.

    And this is what happens if a train passes us, no matter how long it is or how long it has been traveling. The time in the later cars is more advanced than in the early ones.

    And since the time in the first caravan is the same as ours, it therefore follows that the time in the latter advances from ours.

    agree?

  115. Michael
    If someone builds a computer that resembles a cell in a human body, the size of a human body, that looks like a human body and even works at the same rate as a human body... then we have duplicated a human and I have no problem with that. This is what we do at Startrek …….

    I did not say that the person knows how to solve the stopping problem. I said that this limitation did not apply to him. That's a big difference.

    And no, Wikipedia is not wrong in this case. On what basis did you say that?? You didn't understand the meaning. It is easy to prove that the halting problem exists in a Turing machine - the whole proof is half a page. What is open is the question of whether there are machines "stronger" than a Turing machine. Martin Davies claims there is no such thing. Diane Proudfoot says it's possible. And Alan Turing himself thought it was possible - it was the topic of his doctorate 🙂

    Brain imaging is fine. But it is not a thinking mind.

  116. By the way, miracles:
    The project in question simulates the brain using normal software running on a normal computer (well, unusually powerful, but based on normal principles of computer construction).

  117. Miracles:
    You gave the stopping problem as an example and I showed you that it is a wrong example.
    accepted?
    And if it is acceptable - then Wikipedia's words about the problem being open are also wrong.

  118. Miracles:
    In principle, there is no objection to doing all of these and it is also possible to prepare electrifying delicacies for him.
    Alternatively, you can build a virtual reality environment for him.
    I guess you don't think that people who are paralyzed all over are not alive and unable to think. The ability to hear, speak, see, taste and smell can be given to such a brain without any particular problem and it is also possible to neutralize the feeling of hunger in him (you don't need to neutralize because if he is not hungry he is not hungry and the feeling of hunger arises as a result of a lack of something that he will not lack).

  119. Michael
    I don't need to show that a brain can solve every problem a computer can't. I just need to find one. As I said, it is an open question whether there is a "supercalculation". I think there is….

    And I'm not speaking with any certainty!!! I am making a claim. In recent years I have found a lot of reinforcements for this claim.

  120. Michael
    All of these perform imaging of the brain.
    But - will this brain behave differently when it is hungry? If you build such a brain, like a human brain, connect it to all the body's sensors, give it all the movement capabilities of the body, as well as its physical limitations, let it age at the rate of a human being, make sure that it is surrounded by humans - that is, it will see other people who look Like him... Do all these so maybe he will think like a human. Of course you can't plug it in ……….

  121. Reuven
    You are comparing oranges and apples. A computer has hardware and software. The brain has nerve cells. These two things cannot be mapped. And by the way, a computer cannot process natural language.
    A computer, by definition, can run algorithms. It can run any algorithm imaginable. And besides, that's all a computer can do.
    My claim is that our brain can also solve problems that do not have an algorithmic solution. I explained a little why I think that way in my previous comment.

  122. So what are you telling us all in all?
    You say that there is a limit to the distance at which you can place planets (and we knew this in advance because in a finite universe such a limit really exists) (and I will also add that the synchronization between the clocks will last much longer in this system than the age of the universe)
    By the way - the universe is probably bigger than 16 billion light years, but that's because of inflation and because of the accelerating expansion of the universe, so you probably won't be able to get through it if you limit your speed to the speed of light.

  123. The reason I go from three seconds to a hundred thousand years, a billion years and three hours, etc. is simple: we are dealing with a parallel to an article that you have not read. The data there is three seconds and one hundred thousand years. To talk about round numbers and not about fractions, the gumma travels one hundred thousand light years in three seconds, according to his watch it will travel a billion light years in about three hours. that's it.

    And of course the background radiation clock is unique. If a traveler travels a hundred thousand light years in three seconds according to his watch, then in two days he sees and photographs planets whose biological age is at least 16 billion years.

    And if we reverse the creation, that is, we observe the system of the same passenger (twin train in our example), then within two days we see and photograph twins whose biological age is at least 16 billion years.

    Possible in 1905.

    Impossible if the maximum possible age for twins is the age of the universe.

    agree?

  124. Miracles:

    Your arguments for a computer's inability to simulate thought processes can be valid for any process our minds perform. Why should a computer be able to process language? Why should a computer know how to process visual information? Why did he know how to calculate routes or solve problems? After all, it is made of different hardware than ours.
    And the other side, why would we be able to sort numbers or perform any calculation such as division? These are actions that a computer performs and it is made of different hardware...
    The point I'm getting at is that there is clearly an overlap in our abilities and that of computers, you claim that the overlap is not complete but why go down to the level of aggravation to explain these differences. If the explanation is at the level of aggravation, this explanation should also tell us where the overlap in calculation capabilities comes from.

  125. Water blowing
    1) If Einstein said that the universe is infinite then necessarily the universe is infinite?
    Einstein did not think the universe was infinite.
    2) What does this rule have to do with our conversation???
    3) Is this your stupid sentence for the day??

  126. Israel:
    I didn't read Ofer's article and I don't see the need for it.
    What you wrote is self contained so there is no need to read additional material.
    I was talking about the accelerating twins - not because of Ofer's article and not because of something specific that you wrote in the current response, but because of Delal, who said at the time that you have no problem with general relativity.
    I wanted to point out the fact that the same (unjustified) objection you have to special relativity can equally apply to phenomena of general relativity and express my astonishment that the same problem bothers you in one framework and does not bother you in another.

    The truth is that biological twins - as I have already mentioned - actually have a problem with your scenario because it is impossible to scatter them in the universe without accelerations, but I would be willing to make an assumption on the matter because I do not see twins as anything but a clock and clocks we have no problem scattering and then synchronizing (which is quite difficult do with twins).

    He will indeed see the planets at their age in terms of their appearance and I did not claim otherwise and I do not know why you find it appropriate to "explain" another trivial thing to me. After all, I even mentioned it in my response! After all, even in the calculation I presented it appears! Why is it necessary to exaggerate words about nothing and to use patronizing and patronizing language for this purpose?

    You play alternately between a hundred thousand years and a billion. I ask you to stick to one number (billion is shorter to write) and not add unnecessary confusion.

    While on the observer's watch one day has passed (again a game between a day and three seconds - we will stay on the day - one story is enough!) A billion years have passed on the observed system. I agree and even said so!
    Phew! Now suddenly three hours! Why do you have to repeat the same story every time while exchanging data?! Why is it useful other than to confuse?! One Day! We're done! I don't mean to count.

    If the observer passes by any system, be it the Milky Way or the Central Station, in three hours according to his watch - his age increases by three hours compared to his age at the beginning of the journey. I don't know where and where the billion years you indicate as the viewer's age came from.

    The viewer is a clock. It is more convenient because it can be synchronized - which cannot be done with a twin.
    When he met the first twin on the train, both of them are children.
    When he met the last one, he was a day old according to his own clock (not three hours! I see that in the previous sentence I was dragged by this confusion that you just added) and the last twin is a billion years old according to the twin clock.
    This is what I said in my previous comments, this is what I say now and if I say it (and more than once) it must be a sign that I can tell you this - so why are you asking if I can tell you this?
    By the way - this is not a minimum age at which he meets someone. With each twin he meets at a certain age of his own and at a certain age of the twin (a certain age which is both the minimum and the maximum of himself).

    But I ask you to decide: is it related to the background radiation or not? Here you didn't talk about the background radiation and other times you talked about it.
    I'm already really exhausted! I'm trying to answer you (and I think I've already answered many times) but it seems to me that we're broadcasting in parallel universes.

  127. Michael, did you read Ofer's article?

    If so, can you show me where it is mentioned there - or in my example - acceleration?

    You don't need acceleration in the example. You don't need twins either. They were only brought up because we used them in previous examples, as natural clocks with a natural 0 point: the birth. If you extrapolate from Ofer's article, any traveler traveling at relative speed will see the Milky Way pass by in three seconds according to his watch, whether he is a twin or an only child.

    And it has nothing to do with the age of the universe from his point of view. After all, he is photographing the planets as they pass by, so what the photographs will show is their age from their point of view, not his.

    If it's hard for you to see this, think about that traveler who passes by the Milky Way in just three seconds according to his watch:

    Since the Milky Way system is inertial for the purpose of the example, if we set clocks on the first and last planet it passes by and synchronize between them, then the time difference between the time it took on the first planet and the time on the last one is a hundred thousand years, do you agree?

    In that period of time only three seconds passed according to his clock, but this does not change the fact that the system he is passing through - the Milky Way - has in the meantime aged by a hundred thousand years according to its clock, and this is also what the photographs will show. Acceptable?

    If the Milky Way galaxy were a billion light years long, it would pass by in about three hours on his clock, and a billion years on her clock. agree?

    He is now a billion years old according to his clock.
    Can you say what is the minimum age of the planets on their faces he passes and their natural clocks, twins, he takes pictures according to their clocks?

    Good night.

  128. Dear Nissim, good morning.
    A. Einstein said the universe is infinite
    B. There is a rule in physics - what is here is there, and this includes the big bang
    third. The space is in general mathematical, infinite and has no end of dimensions - mathematical, and matter can be on it

  129. Israel:
    You devote more time to formulating the story (in a way that makes it very difficult to understand your intention) than to understanding the problem.
    It is again the same deity of the background radiation clock of the stationary system relative to it.
    As I have already said many times - the same thing would have happened if any other system could (and it probably can) spread its clocks in space and allow everyone to read them.
    You refuse to acknowledge that when someone is in a different system, the age of the universe they are computing is different.
    Your twin (for reasons kept with you) is no longer excited by the age difference when acceleration is involved (after all, the accelerated twin left an hour ago and here he is back in the universe having matured by a billion years and neither twin is surprised) but he is excited by a location that has matured more or less than him (even though his biological systems have also And the background radiation clock are just clocks like clocks).
    As I said - the lack of symmetry is only due to the fact that one was chosen as the background of many clocks and the other was chosen as a single viewer.
    That's why I also explained in a previous response that the synchronization point in the background will show its own larger ages against the opposite background.
    Now: it is probably possible to really calculate from any system (including the one that is stationary in relation to the background radiation) the background radiation clock of any other system (just correct the light frequencies so that it reflects the desired movement) and then the exact same thing will happen in front of this system.

  130. Ok, get on the train. The controller whistled and also gave the signal with a greenish flag.

    The whole family of twins sits in carriages and their watches are synchronized with each other. When they are twenty years old, the last carriage with the last twin passes over a planet that is a billion light years away from Earth. They travel in the same direction at the speed of light almost against the cosmic background radiation. The latter twin photographs the same remote planet and measures the radiation temperature.

    He knows that he has a long journey - a billion years - to the end of the world, but this hardly bothers him. The reason is simple: the last twin, like the other members of the twin family, for them are generally at rest. The train is wide and comfortable and they can live their lives in peace, and also have fun watching the stars and planets fly past them at almost the speed of light. For them, they are those at rest and the passing stars are actually the train.

    When he arrives at KDA, he photographs it and measures the temperature of the background radiation. Even though he is already a billion years old, he sees in the picture the viewer in Israel who grew up in just one day. The viewer from Israel sends him an iPhone

    The picture of himself that the viewer took when he passed by. There is no doubt that he does not look bad compared to the rest of his fellow billionaires...

    The viewer in Israel looks at the picture of the billion-year-old twin and smiles, until suddenly Olim Kamati appears on his forehead.

    After all, he read Ofer Magad's article "The Milky Way in just three seconds". He knows that when a traveler moves against the background radiation at the speed at which the last twin moved, every three seconds according to the traveler's clock the universe ages by a hundred thousand years.

    After all, there is no doubt that the last twin started the journey after the big bang. He even took a picture of the planet he passed by a billion years ago.

    If every three seconds, according to the clock of the last twin, the planets on their surface age by a hundred thousand years - and this can be seen in the pictures - and the last twin is now a billion years old according to its clock, and this is also shown by the picture held by the viewer in his hand - then how old is the universe on its surface The last twin when he filmed KDA with the viewer who is part of the same universe?

    Could you kind commenters help the viewer calculate how old the universe that appears in the picture taken by the last twin if it is a billion years old and every three seconds according to its clock the universe ages by one hundred thousand years?

    Maybe Turing can help, it seems to me that it is the most suitable for calculations of this magnitude.

    If mistakes - desert, iPhone.

  131. Michael
    This is really an open question. It is my personal opinion that the mind is not a computer. The basis of the idea is a not so well-known claim by Alan Turing. Turing raised the possibility that there are machines more powerful than Turing machines (of course they didn't happen to be Turing machines....). He called them "O-machines". The O comes from the word Oracle. Broadly speaking, the idea is that there is an oracle that can be asked questions and it answers in a blocked time. Today, this approach is called hypercomputing and there are many debates about it - does it exist at all.
    Now - I take the idea of ​​left-brain/right brain (which originally came from the analyzes of Roger Sperry): you can look at the brain as 2 machines. The first (left side) is responsible for language and works linearly. The right side has parallel access to memory and is therefore similar to a parallel computer.
    And added: I claim that our brain is a hypercomputer, so I don't believe in strong AI. John Searle must have been proud of me, even though I think his way of drawing conclusions is wrong (even though the conclusion is correct in my opinion).

    That's very, very briefly. I analyzed a lot of details in the idea and there are a few more "layers" that I prefer not to detail.

  132. Miracles:
    On what basis do you claim that our brains are not limited by the halting problem?
    Can our brain decide whether the program that creates the paradox in proving the halting problem about computers halts or not?
    Let's say you put a sensor on your head of the type used in the experiment of Loves which reports its findings to the program and lets the program enter an infinite loop if the brain decides it stops or stop if the brain decides it doesn't.

    It is interesting thatIn the description of the stopping problem in Wikipedia They did not insist on this possibility and the issue of the existence of the stopping problem in the brain is presented there as an open question.

  133. Reuven
    I don't see any level of similarity between them. Many operations can be performed with the help of a computer, but a computer is limited in its ability, because of something called the "halting problem". Our brain, in my opinion and understanding, does not have this limitation.

    You are wrong by saying "different hardware" - our brain does not have hardware and/or software. We are not a computer.

  134. "Passengers on the Emek train remember that the travel time on it took them at least a billion years..." - Uvahaha. They must have come a long way, haven't they? Passed Eilat, right?

  135. Israel:
    As I said the last time you asked exactly the same question - I didn't do an exact calculation, but in principle the answer is positive. After all, if the distance between the cars is about a billion light years and if the viper was caught by the train at a speed very close to the speed of light, then the time that passes between the meeting with the first car and the meeting with the last is about a billion years.

  136. ב

    I wasn't talking about an infinite train but about a train whose length in its rest system is a billion light years, a few centimeters from the viewer's point of view.

    The train is the same as the Milky Way in Ofer Maged's article, only longer. Its uniqueness is that it moves against the background radiation while the Milky Way rests (almost) relative to it.

    But in terms of private relativity there is no difference between the two systems. Einstein didn't even know about radiation in 1905.

    Passengers on the Emek train remember that the travel time on it took them at least a billion years...

  137. Miracles:

    I agree that at the lowest level the brain is different from a computer, but I am not at all sure that this level is relevant for examining traits such as emotions. With the same logic, it was possible to think that only a person is capable of counting or solving puzzles or processing an image, but today we know that these are actions that a computer can also perform, even though it is not made of neurons.

    Regarding the dynamism of emotions and the nature of emotions, this dynamic is indeed different from person to person and from person to animal, but you have an example of how the same aggravation gives rise to different behavior. Perhaps the sensitive computer will develop feelings that characterize its features, or rather the identity of this or that person

  138. If a bar is spreading there is no way to know it other than comparing it to another bar.
    If the space is expanding there is no way to know it except by comparing it to another space.

  139. ב
    There is no connection between the big bang (no need for quotes) and the radius of the universe. It is the space itself that expands, so the radius, if there is one, does not increase with time. This is how I understand theory.
    And of course there is no such thing as an "endless train"... Not even in a thought experiment.

  140. Israel:
    If there is a claim that the universe was created in the "big bang" then the conclusion is that the universe has a finite radius. (even if it grows over time).
    That is, the maximum length of a train in the universe is the diameter of the universe. That is, even if the train is composed of an infinite number of cars, its maximum length will be the length of the diameter of the universe.
    conclusion:
    Connection of lengths aims for an upper limit just like connection of velocities. That is, a meter plus a meter is a little less than two meters. So even a train of infinite cars has a finite limit of length.
    That is, we must abandon the cylindrical transformation in the connection of lengths and move to another transformation (Lorentz?) in the connection of lengths.

  141. Israel regarding synchronization, if one clock sees "late" and another clock sees "early", and from the other side it appears that one clock sees "late" and the other sees "early" then they can only be in individual perspectives or in other words in parallel universes and yes and therefore "back in time" is possible. Sincerely

  142. The issue of synchronization is critical to the discussion, so it is important that we clarify the point.

    In the twin train which is an inertial system, the clocks in the cars are synchronized with each other but not synchronized with the observer's clock or other clocks in the observer system.

    The only thing that can be done is that when the first car passes by the viewer that their age (or age) is the same. In the future, of course, gaps will be created. That's why I wrote that the train clocks are synchronized with each other and not that the train clocks are synchronized with the watcher's clock.

    There should be no problem in placing such twins on the train. They can even be cloned robots identical to the original. Einstein shows in the original article of relativity how any number of clocks can be synchronized in an inertial system.

    a question:

    If such a twin train that is a billion light-years long (in its rest system) passes by the observer at a speed equal to the speed of Ofer's observer (as I recall, he eclipses the hundred thousand light-years of the Milky Way in three seconds according to his clock, so that his speed is almost that of light), and in the first train We photographed a 20-year-old twin, at what age will the twin be photographed in the last trailer?

    Hint: Because of the symmetry to Ofer's passenger, its age should be about a billion years.

    As you remember, the viewer taking pictures is stationary relative to the radiation and the train is the one that rushes past him with a barman and a tractor. For him, the journey of the short train takes only one day.

    Is everything agreed up to this point, i.e. that the age of the last twin photographed by the viewer is about a billion years?

    Shmulik, thank you. When we return from the trip I will take a look at the blog.

  143. Israel:
    1. Yes
    2. Yes
    3. Yes
    4. Yes (assuming you managed to place the twins that way without creating another problem). Biological twins are physical systems like any other system and when they move the time of each and every one of the atoms that make them up is affected. If a billion years pass by them, then the age of the universe - according to them - increases by another billion years. If the first twin is synchronized with the observer (from the observer's point of view) then all the others are not synchronized with it and the time differences are as I mentioned.
    In terms of the distant twin, the time when the former meets the viewer is the same as the time seen by the viewer. The viewer does not see the future - he only "sees" unsynchronized clocks.

  144. Michael.

    From a purely mathematical point of view, there is no problem with the other solutions to the puzzle. If you enter the puzzle data into a computer, it will output that all the solutions are correct. The mismatch is physical, not mathematical. This is what I mean by mathematically but not physically correct solutions.

    You may be able to understand what bothers me if you answer the following questions:

    1. Do you accept that an observer flying at relativistic speed along the length of a train whose clocks are all synchronized and the time of the first car is the same as his own, will see and photograph in the last car a time later than his own, and the same picture will be taken by the observer from the last car? Yes No.

    2. Do you accept that according to relativity there is no difference if the observer is moving or resting relative to the background radiation?

    3. If the answers to 1 and 2 are positive, do you accept that an observer who is stationary relative to the radiation - that is, all of us - and such a train passes by, will see in the distant cars that their time is getting later and later?

    4. If the clocks are natural clocks - twins for example - do you accept that he will see older and older twins, and it is quite possible that if the twin in the first car is the same age as the viewer, the twin in the last car will be much older than him? Yes No.

    My problem lies in the answer to question 4, so it is important that you answer it.

    By the way - as I have written several times, I have no preference between relativity and bang. Why don't you claim that I am attacking the big bang theory? And as I mentioned, the same person, whose name I cannot say because I did not get his consent, claims that there is a problem with Proper relations, regardless of the explosion. Not only did I disagree with him, I confronted him with Ofer Maged who ruled that he was wrong.

    Let's hope that father's condition will improve. My father is quite happy here in the desert, let's just hope that the wild doesn't eat us.

  145. Israel:
    My father is still suffering badly and fills all my time.
    The "riddle" you gave (with its solution in 75) does not belong to us. The reason for rejecting the other solutions is based on facts that we know about nature and not on gut feelings that we cannot explain.
    By the way - in your last attempt to describe what bothers you, you used a scenario in which the universe as a whole moves relative to the background radiation.
    This is a situation that does not exist in reality and is in contradiction to the big bang theory. If it existed, the formula for calculating the age of the universe would not be correct.
    I repeat that I honestly have no idea what is bothering you.

  146. Reuven
    A computer includes hardware, on which software runs. Our brain does not have this separation. Each cell is basically a calculation unit. Therefore, I don't think they can be mapped.
    Beyond that, the cells themselves undergo changes all the time: cells die and are regenerated, new connections are formed, and existing ones are strengthened. This is very different from a silicon computer.

    In addition - our consciousness is, among other things, a consequence of age. The baby has almost no consciousness. And it doesn't stop as long as we live. Let's imagine that we will indeed build a perfect simulation of a brain - it will be the brain of a certain person at a certain moment in his life. Let's assume that at this moment the person was hungry.... How will we make him a week? Let's assume he is sitting - how will he get up?

    There is a lot more to say about this…. But it's boring to read long comments 🙂

  147. Michael how are you dad?

    Details.

    I brought a riddle first. Can you seriously solve it please?

    Thanks.

  148. Israel:
    I think I answered you in Rachel your little daughter and it is you who is ignoring my words.
    I don't know what Einstein wrote in mockery, but the Torah he developed is described by mathematical formulas and these formulas have so far passed all the tests of experiment and observation.
    The fact that you found someone who thinks like you and doesn't identify with his name and doesn't say anything in the professional circles doesn't change the fact that all the scientists dealing with the subject (apart from him and maybe a few others) don't see any problem.
    If he is so sure that he is right - why doesn't he write something about the subject?
    I repeat - I do not see any problem with the conclusions arising from the relativity formulas.
    I didn't try to calculate every possible conclusion of them, but I guess that all the physicists must have already plowed every possible corner.

    When you say that something is possible mathematically but not physically - it is you who appropriates physics (and even does so without substantiation - and know that the only substantiation we even know how to give something - apart from the observations itself - is a mathematical substantiation).
    That's why it certainly upsets me that when I respond to this you accuse me of appropriating mathematics and physics and psychology.

  149. Miracles:
    How confident are you that a computer will never think or feel? Where do emotions come from in humans? Isn't emotion some kind of abstraction like a triangle is an abstraction?

    But my question is whether it will ever be possible to know for sure that a computer does feel and if so (or not) then how

  150. Sorry if I sounded blunt, but what am I supposed to do if for all my targeted and specific questions I get a sweeping answer "you don't understand" and the matter is closed?

    I believe I understand what I am talking about. I also believe that answers along the lines of "the locomotive believes" or "the wagon feels" are not physical answers. I believe that this is also what Einstein believed when he conceived of relativity, at least according to what is written in Kaku's book "Einstein's Universe":

    "Einstein mockingly wrote "The main thing is the content, not the mathematics. With the help of mathematics you can prove anything." For him, the essential thing was to get a clear and simple picture (like that of trains, falling elevators, missiles). p. 57.

    And that's what I'm trying to do here without minimal cooperation, just general and condescending comments without going into details, where, as we know, the devil is.

    So if you are ready for questions about the little daughter Rachel, and also her own house and her granddaughter, there is something to discuss. But if I answer every question I have about trains and spectators with answers along the lines of "I've already answered you a million times" (but you didn't answer correctly), and "you just don't understand" (what exactly?) then I have no interest in such a discussion.

    In this article I have given examples of academics who are considered experts in the theory of relativity that contradict each other. I also brought a quote from an email I received from one of the top physicists in Israel who claimed that the cosmic background radiation is relatively stationary for any observer. Of course, I cannot accept from Ilya any claim that contradicts my understanding and knowledge just because this is the writer's belief.

    And in conclusion: if anyone wants to return to the subject with me, then only in Einstein's method: trains, wagons, birds and zebras.

    Talking, iPad.

  151. Well top!
    If this is the attitude after all the effort, then thank you very much

  152. I didn't know I was rebelling against something. But if you have already appropriated the mathematics and physics, then why not the psychology as well.

    Let me know if and when you would be interested in giving simple answers to simple questions. Before that there is no point in continuing.

    ב

    If you found any contradiction in what I said, please point out where.

    (Maybe something with messengers and arrows?)

  153. Israel:
    I don't think you will be able to convince physics to disobey mathematics.
    All the things you rebel against in relativity have been confirmed experimentally.

  154. Israel:
    "I believe my words are based on understanding."
    Your faith is no different than anyone else's.
    When there is understanding there is no contradiction.

  155. Michael.

    I believe my words are based on understanding.

    Of course I may be wrong, but I cannot accept your words simply because you say so and so.

    I offered you the Socratic method for the pursuit of truth - questions and answers that lead to a contradiction. The only time we implemented this method we did come to the truth - and it is not the one you pointed to.

    Since we are left only with the way of the parliament - everyone says their opinion without confronting and verifying it with the opposite opinion - so here is my opinion:

    You say: "For the photons - the age of the universe is zero and you will not be able to convince them otherwise".

    If for a photon the age of the universe is zero, then for a traveler whose speed is slightly less than the speed of light the age of the universe is a few days according to his clock.

    If this traveler were to pass by us, he would be able to see (and photograph) the universe when it is 13.7 billion years old. If it stops, it will measure a temperature that, according to Friedman's formula, corresponds to a 13.7 billion year old universe. He will not be able to see or measure temperatures of universes of different ages, much less of universes that are 20 billion years old.

    And if you reverse the process as I suggested, meaning that the traveler is at rest relative to the radiation and the universe is the one that moves - then you will get that the traveler is watching universes older than ours.

    Mathematically possible but not physically.

    I am traveling with my father for a few days so it will be difficult for me to respond. My version of entertaining a father is to do his (and mine) favorite thing - invite him on a trip to the California deserts and experiment with lasers, telescopes, fast-spinning gears, light meters, cameras and radios.

    And yes, it directly relates to everything written here.

    And in the meantime - a riddle:

    Father and son work at the university as lecturers. The age of the son is a multiple of 25. The age of the father is twice the age of his son.

    How old is the grandfather?

    1. 59

    2. 120

    3. 75

    4. 170

    Hint: Mathematically - all answers are possible.

  156. Israel:
    Unfortunately, I must say that the correct things you said were also said based on a misunderstanding - even if you cited correct calculations while I had not yet done the calculations but gave answers (sometimes wrong) that are based on understanding.
    I have explained where your mistake is more than once and the explanation has not changed.
    In general - ask yourself what the term "age of the universe" means.
    If it is a term measured in time then it is the distance on the timeline that separates two events.
    What are the two events that define the age of the universe?
    One of them is the formation of the universe. OK, but what is the other one?
    The only thing that comes out of your words about the second is that it is the event of "now" but what to do that "now" is relative and what appears to be synchronous in one system is not synchronous in another?
    In general - there are many more problems with this term since in the same atom there can exist at the same time particles that were created in the big bang and whose ages are different because of their private history.
    Not only the synchronicity but the entire course of time is different between different systems and therefore the term "age of the universe" like any other period of time has meaning only within a given inertial system. It has no universal meaning.
    As I mentioned - for the photons - the age of the universe is zero and you will not be able to convince them otherwise.

  157. Reuven

    If you ask Asimov's Dr. Susan Calvin, she will tell you that only a human who has passed the Turing Test would be considered to "think like a robot" in the full sense of the word.

    The machine is allowed from the person.

  158. Reuven
    I think that our brain is nothing more than many nerves connected to each other, and in theory it is possible to build a machine that can wait for the action of a brain (a certain brain at a certain moment).
    But - the brain is not a computer (ie: it is not equivalent to a Turing machine) and therefore a computer will never think or feel (even though it can symbolize these phenomena).
    Distinguish between a Turing machine and a Turing test. Alan Turing also understood that our brain is not a computer.

  159. This topic is not directly related to the article, but I wanted some platform to discuss it and this is the only one I found.
    This is a Turing test for distinguishing between a human and a computer. I expand the scope a bit and ask whether the test will be able to decide whether it will be possible to say that a computer that has passed the test "thinks like a human being" in the full sense of the word, meaning that it has thoughts and feelings like a normal person. And if not a Turing test then can anyone think of another test.

    The standard answer from AI proponents is that a machine that in every sense behaves like a human has no reason or basis to think that it does not think like a human. This answer does not satisfy me

  160. Michael

    deja vu.

    And quite close too. Just less than two weeks ago you wrote:

    "The relativity answer is not the one you describe and I have no intention of trying to justify anyone's misunderstandings.

    This last comment of yours was really exaggerated because I didn't find even one thing true in it."

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/ball-state-prez-intelligent-design-not-science-0408135/comment-page-26/#comment-448600

    When we started to find out, it turned out that all the things I wrote in the response were true, including the issue of crocodiles' vegetables.

    But - the righteous in his faith will live. If you don't want to apply the Socratic method of questions and answers, you have the right to believe whatever you want.

    ב

    It seems to me that you are confusing the cosmic background radiation and the rays of the sorcerer's apprentice.

  161. Israel:
    I found a misunderstanding and a mistake in your words, but I also explained it many times, so I retired.

  162. Israel:
    The theory of relativity states that it is not possible for a clock to be stationary with respect to light (electromagnetic background radiation).
    Because light moves at a constant speed relative to any measurement system including the system in which the clock is located.
    From the theory of relativity you came to the conclusion that there is background radiation.
    But then you assumed that there is a clock that is stationary with respect to the background radiation. This assumption contradicts the theory of relativity.

  163. And ten times I told you that you are free.

    You still haven't found a contradiction in my words.

    Miracles - if you can watch your older twin, then assuming you are identical and deterministic, you see how you will look in the future.

    It happens to the traveler's twin in paradox, he sees his remaining brother as his future self.

    But here we are talking about the reversal of the paradox: the remaining twin watches his older traveling brother.

    It is said: Paradox, the twin paradox.

    football.

  164. Israel
    I referred to "if each system has its own time and I can observe - and photograph - a matching DH that was discovered one day older than ours, then assuming that it is a deterministic system I can observe tomorrow.

    I am running now to build such a match and a train to carry it. The blow that will come from knowing tomorrow's stock prices makes the project extremely profitable
    "
    I wanted to make it clear that you can't know the future...

  165. Pretty!

    But the age of the background radiation is the age of the universe, so it turns out that the last twin, born with us, is a billion years older than the age of the universe.

    I am now going out with my dogs and my father for a morning walk in the mountains.

  166. I don't understand what this has to do with the background radiation at all, because both in the background radiation system and in any other system, we will see the last twin a billion years older than us, and that's because when we see it, it will be a billion years older than us, and that's because a billion years have really passed for it

  167. Michael.

    I actually referred to your words, and said that what I am looking for is the physical picture, not the mathematical one.

    "As soon as you meet the first twin, it is clear to you that the last one is a billion years older than him" I try to remove all the psychological elements from the problem. It is not clear - closed. Only photographs. I didn't get a direct answer, but I assume from the indirect answer (twice) that it is positive - the observer will see the observer's clock lagging behind the carriage clock by a billion years.

    This happens because the viewer moves in the train system whose clocks are synchronized with each other, but not if it is his own. But as far as he's concerned, he's the one who sleeps and the train is the one who moves, right?

    Therefore, if such a train passes by an observer who is stationary relative to the radiation, that is, you, me and miracles (flowing water, so it is not at rest relative to the radiation), we will see - and photograph - the last twin that is a billion years older than us.

    But the last twin is actually our twin.

    If you accept this description, please state clearly.

  168. Got it, got it.

    What is the connection to what I am saying about the fact that if we reverse the process, we can observe twins older than us from the resting system of the cosmic background radiation, that is, the twins older than the age of the universe?

  169. Israel:
    What I said is true for every clock and the calculations that show it I have already presented (and as mentioned - an example of them also appears in the link you provided yourself that does not talk about the background radiation clock).
    Your twin story is not true and I have already explained why.
    I also explained why this has not even the most indirect connection to seeing the future and also that your whole perception of synchronicity is wrong.
    I said - and I repeat - as soon as you speed up, you see that their time is speeding up a lot and already when you meet the first twin, it is clear to you that the last one is a billion years older than him (again - I haven't done the calculation yet, but this is the direction and the order of magnitude).
    I explained the connection of all this to relativity, but I don't think you are referring to what I said.
    One more story can be told here - intuitive and inaccurate - but with the potential to give a more comfortable feeling towards the facts (and experimentally verified that these are facts!).
    If that doesn't help either, I will give up on trying to convince you (although I will remain determined in my opinion and the opinion of the scientific community as a whole)
    Keep in mind that every millionth of a second the twins transmit a signal that indicates that another millionth of a second has passed in their time.
    As far as they are concerned, they transmit the signal at the same time, and the same goes for the viewer as long as he has not started to accelerate.
    He meets timed pulses from each of the twins.
    Let's say that these beats sound like "tick".
    Let's say that now it starts to move with increasing speed.
    Time for the twins slows down for him, but not all at once. He notices the slowdown only when the signals reach him and he hears "tick....tick" instead of "tick"
    Now - from whom will he hear "file....file" first?
    Of course, the closest watch to him.
    When this happens, there are still "ticking" signals from the last clock on the way and there are many of them - in fact they represent the billion light years that separate the clocks (signals that have been transmitted for a billion years) and he will notice all these signals before he can notice that the last clock has also slowed down.
    Since he is moving towards them at high speed and since the billion light years are shrinking in his world to a distance that he can cover in one (his) day, he will receive the transmissions of the last clock at a "tick" rate over a billion years - on that day and only then will he notice that the rate has dropped to "tick... ..file"
    Until that moment it will seem to him that the time of the last twin has actually sped up.

  170. To Israel and Michael with the stories about the trains it was possible to travel on the Emek train and in short the twins of miracles.
    The twins are not ordinary twins, they are about the same as the atom in the last article, one human being who duplicated himself in time travel, that is, through going back in time many times he is connected with his double self. And in relation to the transfer of information, since there is a connection of transferring information back in time, and the evidence of the duplication of the twin itself after being born, there is a statistical connection and some of the information in a partial form, exists in the duplicated person and will act according to the experience he himself has gained in the future, but again statistically, limited information, information partial and therefore if you don't do it with a large scale or some twins - it will be a little harder for you to win the lottery, respectfully

  171. Israel Shapira
    That twin who moved away and came back has no knowledge of what has been done here over the years.
    Let's do a thought experiment. Sending one twin into space today. Next Saturday the results of the toto games will be published. This information travels at the speed of light, and it takes time for the traveling twin to receive it. At this moment the twin returns. Question - Will he return with the information before Shabbat?
    To simplify we will do 2 things:
    1) The twin does not need to return at all, he can transmit a message back with the help of light. After all, this is the highest speed that information can return.
    2) Therefore, we can assume that the twin is only holding a mirror.
    3) Instead of a twin flying, holding a mirror, he needs sleep, oxygen, food and a place to poop - let's just assume there is a mirror in space at that point X, which is the point the twin would meet the information.

    From here the information will come back to us in a week + twice X/c. That is, after Shabbat……..

    Do you understand what I'm saying?

  172. I read the responses in the hospital from the mobile phone and get annoyed because it is impossible to respond reasonably from the mobile phone.
    I hope I will be able to answer later.

  173. "I hope you understood and accepted that when there is an observer that moves relative to the background clocks, then the farther the clock is from the synchronization point, the further it is shifted forward."

    I hope you meant the radiation clock, not the observer clock. I accept that. My whole argument is based on the fact that if we reverse the creation - that is, a synchronized system (a train in our example) moves relative to us, relative to radiation, then according to the principle of time dilation we will accept that the train clocks show a time later than ours. If the clocks on the train are natural clocks - twins for example - we will get twins that are older than the twins that are relatively favorable to radiation (reversal of the twin paradox).

    This means that the future can be expected. Mathematically possible, physically difficult to digest.

    That is why it is important that we refer only to cameras, which show a physical image. I repeat the question:

    "You can have a train that is a billion light years long and we are standing next to it.

    The 0 time on all the train clocks is synchronized to our 0 time.

    We now accelerate to a tremendous speed, so that we pass the whole train in what to us is one day.

    It is impossible to say that the time in the last trailer is a billion years older than our time, according to the data of the problem.

    When we reach it, the time it takes will be a billion years (2.8 billion to be exact) for us - one day.

    Acceptable?"

    That is, do you accept that a photograph from both sides - the train and the observer - would show the observer's clock lagging behind the train's clock by a billion years?

  174. If you don't understand then I will try to explain.
    I hope you understood and accepted that when there is an observer that moves relative to the background clocks, then the farther the clock is from the synchronization point, the further it is shifted forward.
    This is a conclusion of the theory of relativity and all the things brought here on the subject including the calculations in the link you provided and also the calculations I did show.
    So let's really look at such a system that moves relative to the background of mutually synchronized stationary clocks, and let's add to the story a system that started from rest relative to the stationary clocks and then accelerated and stuck to a system that was moving from the beginning and stopped accelerating.
    In fact, these are systems that have merged and their world picture is supposed to be one, but while the constantly moving system saw the clock shift increasing with the distance all the time, the accelerated system started from a world picture of "all background clocks are synchronized" and ended with a world picture in which the more distant clocks are more advanced.

    The only way to interpret this is by the distant clocks maturing faster (from zero to greater deviation) as a function of distance.

    And I say again: the perception of the pace of time in another system depends on the observer and not the observed.
    The observed will feel the same all the time and different observers will discover different time rhythms in him - this is what also happens in private relationships and the fact that nothing has changed in him is irrelevant.

  175. I don't understand what "the last trailer gets older faster" means. The last car is constantly at rest and is not affected by what the observer does or does not do, or another observer moving in the opposite direction at a different speed.

    Because according to this logic, if there really was another observer moving at a different speed, the train would age faster or slower even relative to that other observer. So when the cameras roll, what time will the car clock show, of viewer A or of viewer B?

    In my understanding, there is no such thing as "this is what happens in the reference system of those who accelerate and do not affect the train." Even the usual relative lengthening of time is a matter of the observer and not of the observed." After all, we have cameras and they are unequivocal. Also in the twin paradox there is only one observer who has matured, and this is agreed upon by both sides. Even in the Jack and Jill example of inertial systems that I brought before, only Jack is the one who has matured.

  176. If the last car matures faster then the direction of the acceleration has meaning.
    If so then acceleration in the opposite direction should have negative maturation.

  177. Suppose the viewer accelerates back and forth between car A and car B.
    Will this acceleration affect the measurement of times?

  178. As mentioned: All of the above (on the topic of acceleration) are not based on serious calculations but on intuition only.

  179. Yes. In my opinion, the last car matures faster (I remind you: this is what happens in the reference system of those who accelerate and do not affect the train. Also the normal relative time extension is a matter of the observer and not of the observed). In my opinion it also corresponds to the equivalence between acceleration and gravitation.

  180. Does the latest trailer age faster?

    After all, if we speed up, he is not aware of our existence at all.

    Unless you move to the next stage where the train is the one that accelerates, and here all the problems that I talked about emerge, and also news that I haven't talked about yet..

    At this point Ockham gives up and goes home.

    If you haven't given up on yourself, here's a little exercise in alternative physics:

    The whole idea behind the lengthening of time is well explained in the Hebrew translation of Einstein's book (Rafi Moore):

    http://www.rafimoor.com/hebrew/SRH.htm

    The logic behind the lengthening of times seems unquestionable. Rafi presents the only options available in the example described from the woman's point of view:

    A. The woman is in the center of the train.
    B. Both lightning strikes occurred simultaneously.
    third. The speed of light progress from both lightning bolts is equal.
    d. The light from the front flash reaches the woman before the light from the back flash.

    and excludes option b.

    Question (only if there is time and desire, this is really just speculation):

    Is there another possibility that does not appear there and leaves Newton's absolute time intact as well as the two postulates of relativity?

    A possibility that fits well with what we know from quantum mechanics that Einstein fought all his life (and lost)?

    A possibility that also explains the Wheeler experiment (influence on the past from the future) without making Ockham faint?

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/quantun-philospy-part-b-07121/

    (Water is the place and time to exhale and inhale, hold for a few seconds and release).

    Good night.

  181. In my opinion, it can be said that the last car matures faster during the acceleration period.
    The formulas of general relativity are less familiar to me, but if I naively extrapolate from special relativity, then it is definitely so - again - because of the known X

  182. Ofer's article:

    http://ofer-megged.blogspot.com/2011/09/blog-post.html

    Instead of the Milky Way, let's have a train that is a billion light years long and we are standing next to it.

    The 0 time on all the train clocks is synchronized to our 0 time.

    We now accelerate to a tremendous speed, so that we pass the whole train in what to us is one day.

    It is impossible to say that the time in the last trailer is a billion years older than our time, according to the data of the problem.

    When we reach it, the time it takes will be a billion years (2.8 billion to be exact) for us - one day.

    accepted?

  183. I didn't read Ofer's article and I didn't check the numbers, but in principle I don't see a problem with a positive answer to both questions.
    What I think you're forgetting is the fact that when he left, the last planet was, for him, a lot older than the first (again - I didn't do the math, but I estimate that this is also about a billion years old)

  184. 1. Do you accept that Ofer's traveler travels a billion light years while for him it is only one day?

    2. If he photographs the planets on their surface, he passes by and assuming that each of them has an evolution like in the New Testament, do you accept that on the last planet the evolution progresses a billion years more than on the first, and this will be shown by the photograph?

  185. It is also important that you shell the match and cause that you will be shelled....yesterday

  186. By the way, this really contradicts the existence of a beginning for the universe

  187. It's really strange to me that you say that and not because of the strange idea about the compatible earth.
    If this is the level of clairvoyance you are talking about then just take a watch and look at the time it will show in 24 hours.

    There is probably also a lack of logic in thinking about the existence of such a match because if it matches to the end then it also has a match that is older than it by a day and the earth has a match that is younger than it by a day and so on to infinity (twice infinity)

  188. If each system has its own time and I can watch - and photograph - a match that was discovered one day older than ours, then assuming it is a deterministic system I can watch tomorrow.

    I am running now to build such a match and a train to carry it. The blow that will come from knowing tomorrow's stock prices makes the project extremely profitable.

  189. Israel:
    First of all, the symmetry must be emphasized: the synchronization point in the background radiation system also "experiences" exactly the same thing and meets its own "adult" clock drive system.
    In general, I don't understand what bothers you and I don't see these phenomena as having anything to do with watching the future. Every system has its time. that's it. You are not watching your future - you are watching your present. Always.
    It is true that your present includes data that is a result of your past (like rays of light coming from stars that have long since died out) but it does not contain (at least until Aharonov proves otherwise) any information that comes from your future.

  190. Indeed interesting, Minkowski, Sakhtein about the investment.

    Do you know the story about von Neumann and the fly?

    They asked him the following question: Two trains are traveling opposite each other on a track, one going east at a speed of 20 km/h and the other going west at a speed of 40 km/h. When they are 120 km apart, a fly leaves the front of train A towards train B. The speed of the fly is 100 km/h. When he reaches train B, he turns around and returns to A and returns, God forbid, until the inevitable end (and end).

    How far will the fly travel?

    Von Neumann smiles and answers immediately: 200 km.

    Well done, physicist, they tell him. You immediately noticed that the trains run for two hours, eh?

    Shaw Physicist, Oona Von, I calculated the infinite series…

    Anyway, as you have shown, a photograph will always show the same situation in the clocks. I also brought the time formula 't' after "in short" 10 years ago in issue 65 of Galileo in response to a question about the reversal of entropy and going back in time, without imagining how relevant it would be.

    Because as you can see from the formulas, both parties agree that the moving clock shows a time earlier than that of the synchronized clocks in the system in which it moves.

    There is no problem with this if the time of the clocks is arbitrary. But if it is natural time - the age of the universe - and to which biological systems (twins) are attached to the clocks, it turns out that the viewer predicts what he sees as the future.

    There is no problem with that in 1905 either. Every twin who goes on a journey knows that he is flying into the future. Traveled an hour, arrived in the world in a million years.

    Ofer's traveler also sees a future universe. After a time of 4 days according to his clock, he sees a universe that has matured in 15 billion years.

    Both the twins and the traveler can claim in 1905 that their time is as real as the systems before them.

    The situation is different today. The traveling twin cannot claim that when he drinks tea with his older brother, their time is equally real. Because if this is true, why does the heating work?

    And by the same token, if we travel a billion light years in the time of a day according to our clocks, we see colder and colder planets.

    It makes sense if the planets are relatively inferior to radiation and we are favorable relative to it.

    It is very strange if the situation is reversed. Especially if we watched them for a week according to our clock, and they are already 30 billion years old according to their clock, which is also the biological clock of the systems in them, which we observe from our 13.7 billion year old location.

    If there are errors and mistakes - iPhone.

    Good night.

  191. Israel:
    I don't know what systems are older than ours.
    What clock is the age of the system measured?
    If the clock is the background radiation clock, then the propulsion system in relation to the background radiation does not use the clock to measure the age of the universe because, as I mentioned, it is actually copying our clock and if it synchronizes the clock with our clock at a certain moment, then from that moment on the clock will show "the age of the universe" which is younger than the age shown by the background radiation clock at the point where it passes.
    In the same way - if synchronized clocks are scattered among them in this system, the background point where the synchronization took place will see in the propulsion system, from the moment of synchronization onwards, clocks that show a time higher than that of the background radiation clock, but it is not a clock that measures the age of the universe, but just a clock (which, as far as she understands, was set from the beginning to show a time that is higher than the age of the universe).
    You might be interested to read this

  192. For me, the discussion showed that what remains is whether to accept that such a system of ours, which is almost stationary relative to the background radiation, can be expected in systems older than ours. I don't see how that's possible, but it's a matter of perspective I guess.

    Anyway, thanks for the investment. It helped me a lot to know that a mathematician went over the idea and didn't find some simple mistake like replacing a plus with a minus.

    To the guy I quoted earlier, who claimed that there is no time dilation because of a contradiction built into relations itself, I showed that his assumptions lead to a contradiction with what we know about the nature of the speed of light.

    Since he claimed that the mistake was mine, I directed the question to Ofer Maged:

    http://ofer-megged-phys-notes.blogspot.com/2011/04/blog-post.html

    Ofer said he was right with me, which did not convince the guy. This made me wonder a little, because these are two academics who have been dealing with the topic of relativity for many years. The same person, who sounds very serious, also lectures at conferences and claims that a professor of physics at Tel Aviv University agrees with him.

    Apparently everything is really relative.

  193. Israel:
    I'm sorry because I think I've already answered everything.
    You presented the story with the twins without the background radiation being mentioned at all, but that is no longer important.
    This debate made me think about many things and understand them better, but for me it is already exhausted.
    All the questions you presented to me received a very satisfactory answer for me and that's enough for me.

  194. I never claimed to be trying to disprove relativity. I claimed that in my understanding, the lengthening of time in relationships contradicts the Big Bang theory, from which an absolute age for the universe derives. I did not express a preference one way or the other. I said, and I say again, that it is almost certain that the lack of understanding - or more likely a lack of sufficient knowledge - is on me.

    Unfortunately, the reasons you put forward do not explain the alleged contradiction.

    "If the twins are close (the carriages are short) he will hardly see a difference in their age."

    Can Ofer's passenger who passes by the Milky Way in three seconds not see - and photograph - the planets he passes?

    And isn't the last planet a hundred thousand years older than the first? What if you scattered synchronized twins in the planets, wouldn't the last twin be a hundred thousand years older than the first?

    Relativity, by the way, claims that I believe.

    That's not the problem. Even with Einstein, the moving twin makes a journey to the future, and Ofer's traveler sees the planets aging rapidly.

    But for Einstein in 1905 - actually until the meeting with Hubble - there is no problem with this, because time is infinite.

    The problem arises when starting from the assumption that our universe has a finite age, about 13.7 billion years.

    Because if we reverse the rest system of the traveler and compare it to the rest system of radiation (that is, of all of us), he will see twins - or planets, or whatever - whose age is higher than his age, and this from a system whose age is already the age of the universe.

    In all the known scenarios the situation is the opposite: the younger twin returns when his age is lower than his brother's age, which is the age of the universe. In GPS the clock lags behind stationary clocks, not the other way around. Ofer's traveler remains young as the Milky Way ages, but he can never see a planet older than the age of the universe.

    The time of the passengers of all kinds is always lower than the stationary ones.

    But if the observer is the one who is relaxed relative to the radiation, then his age is always the age of the universe, and in every train that travels relative to him, the clocks show a time later and later, i.e. higher than his age, i.e. higher than the age of the universe.

    The reversal of the twin paradox: the traveling twin returns when he is older.

    And that's all Ockham is angry about.

    Regards to father.

  195. And by the way: even if you imagine a futuristic world where you can take fertilized eggs and fly them to different points in mutual rest and synchronization where the eggs will enter the incubator and the babies will be born at the same moment at different points, there will be no problem because in terms of the moving system in relation to these points - the babies were not born at all at the same time.

  196. By the way - sitting next to my father's bed today I had a few minutes of silence and I was able to calculate the ratio between the natural clock of a point and the clock obtained by permanently copying the local clocks of a system of mutually synchronized stationary clocks that pass by it.
    The description of the problem is complex in itself and the formulas cannot be written here (and it also seems to me that no one here is interested in them).
    If there is a demand from the audience, I will try to write a file that shows the calculation and the result.

  197. In general - if the twins are close (the carriages are short) he will hardly see a difference in their age, and if they are far apart, the process that created the distance between them must be taken into account (this process will inevitably cancel their identity as twins).
    It doesn't seem to me that you managed to undermine special relativity in the slightest.
    At first I thought that the attempt to talk about a point that passes over different points in another system was intended to point out to me a contradiction with what we expect from the temperature clock (and indeed - as long as I did not correctly understand the meaning of this clock - there was apparently such a contradiction - a contradiction that I removed when I found the meaning the correctness of this clock) but now it seems to me that you are trying to find (unsuccessfully) an internal contradiction within the theory of relativity.

  198. Even when you photograph an identical twin, you are actually predicting the development of the phenotype from the genotype with uncertainty

  199. When the phenotype is deciphered from the genotype, a future picture of an organism's development can be assembled.

    But this picture is uncertain. Errors in calculation, environmental effects and more, can and almost certainly do affect the phenotype.

    This is different from viewing (and photographing) a future image. There is an unambiguous description of reality.

    I gave the example of Ofer's passenger flying at speed over a train loaded with twins. In each carriage he will see older twins, while he remains young.

    And I asked a question: what if the passenger is one of the twins who just sits at the North train station in Tel Aviv and watches a twin train pass by? Even then will he see older twins (himself) in the following cars? What about each krone is actually the Earth and he watches it for 5 days according to his watch, will he see the Earth at the age of 25 billion years?

    Because in the example of Ofer's traveler, this is what comes out.

  200. In my opinion, there is no phenomenon of looking into the future here.
    This is about watching someone else in the only way you can watch them while you are there.
    This is the present.
    Do you think the ability to decipher the phenotype from the genotype would also bother Ockham?
    It is not at all clear to me how he belongs to the matter.

  201. In the original twin paradox, if during their reunion they take a picture of each other, then the picture taken by the young man shows how he will look in the future (assuming they are identical and deterministic twins).

    As far as the young man was concerned, he had indeed made a journey to the future. Traveled for an hour, arrived in a future universe: there are no glaciers and everyone wears caps.

    My contention is that this is only possible because in acceleration, as well as in steady motion but against the radiation, the clock ticks more slowly. Also in gravity, the same as acceleration.

    Therefore, the process is one-sided: Ofer's passenger will see the Milky Way pass by while it is in front of him for only three seconds. If the path is full of land matches, he will see the evolution before his wondering eyes, with each match the monkeys are more and more erect.

    If, on the other hand, a galaxy compatible with the Milky Way were to pass in front of us, relative to the radiation, it would not mature quickly but on the contrary: after a hundred thousand years with us, Earth compatibles would barely advance in the annual cycle of the sun.

    (This is of course if they don't evaporate immediately, like Ofer's passenger will evaporate immediately, because of the friction with the radiation).

    Gps, circumnavigating planes, clocks in a strong gravitational field, all accelerated systems. The clock is slowing down.

    Long-lasting ionizers move against radiation. same as above.

    But the process cannot happen in the opposite direction. This is my baseless speculation, which is based only on Ockham's energetic nods that seep into the future, that is, in systems that are older than the age of the universe.

    Tel, especially since I'm writing from the iPad.

  202. Israel:
    This is not a photo of the future.
    This is a photo of them in our time.
    Do you agree with the claim that in accelerated systems time changes and that this is even expressed in the GPS system, so Ockham gets angry there as well?

  203. Michael

    Theoretically, it is possible that in systems moving relative to the background radiation the life of the universe is longer. But then if we take a picture of such a system from our system, an almost complete discount relative to the background radiation, then if the age of the system is much higher than ours (we won't go crazy, only 50 billion years) we are taking a picture of the future.

    Not that it is impossible - the APR paradox was resolved in an unexpected way (non-locality) - but Ockham shows signs of discomfort.

    And don't be afraid of Bolsheviks. They are the biggest atheists, and in command.

  204. There is another computational direction that needs to be checked - one that checks the relationship between my clock and a clock that I am constantly synchronizing with the clock of another inertial system passing by but I don't currently have time to do so.
    Maybe I will when the Bolsheviks put me in prison for hurting religious feelings.

  205. Israel Shapira:
    I have to run, but suddenly I thought seriously about the following idea (which had already crossed my mind and was fluttering for some reason before):
    The use of a temperature clock in a moving system in relation to the background radiation is nothing more than a constant copying of the local background radiation clock (which is known not to be synchronized in a moving system with the previous copied background radiation clock or the next to be copied).
    In other words - it is not a clock of the driving system.
    Therefore it will also show the same results as the photographed background radiation clock.
    If this is the correct interpretation of the situation, the question arises whether this clock represents something in the drive system (in relation to the background).
    The natural tendency is to multiply this time by the size characteristic of the time transition between the systems to get the age of the universe in a moving system, but then this means that the life of the universe in any moving system relative to the background actually seems longer and this leads to the problem that if the background radiation system takes the same process towards a moving system it is You will get an even bigger universe age and so on to infinity.
    A possible solution to this problem probably lies in referring to the moment of the bang and its location. I have some thoughts on the matter but I don't have time right now to develop them and see where they lead

  206. Michael before I go to sleep (quick huh?)

    What bothers me is the reversal of the twin paradox.

    In the original paradox, in 1905, when the two twins meet each twin could say that their time is the real one, since time had no beginning.

    When there is the big bang theory, if they meet after a billion years, the young man will not be able to claim that his time is the real one. There is the temperature that shows him that the universe has aged.

    If he had started his journey from a system moving at a high speed relative to radiation instead of the other way around, then most of the time of the journey according to his clock he would have spent at 0 speed relative to radiation, while his older brother would have remained in motion relative to radiation. Here is a paradox, precisely the moving twin grows up, while his brother who spends time among us remains young.

    The equivalent of the twin paradox in inertial systems are trains full of twins. Twins are deterministic systems with a clear 0 age: birth.

    So if your hurrying photon or Ofer's nimble passenger passes a long train full of twins, he will see young twins in the first cars, and as he moves forward he will see older and older twins, while he himself is hardly growing older.

    But what about the agile passenger who is one of the twins himself relatively stationary relative to the radiation, i.e. sitting at the North Railway Station on a bench and looking at such a twin train passing by at enormous speed?

    Even then he will see the same, except that way he will be able to see himself growing up (real identical twins are completely deterministic), his sons, his grandchildren, and his entire future. All this without getting up from the bench.

    This makes sense when we are moving at a speed relative to a stationary train relative to radiation, because our own time (cesium clock) does not reflect the age of the universe (temperature clock), and is always lower than it. It doesn't make sense when we are at rest relative to radiation, and our own time is the same as the time of the universe, while the living clocks that pass quickly in front of us - twins - show a time higher than ours, that is, of the universe.

    Good night.

  207. Israel:
    First of all, I understand what's bothering you.
    Although I do not accept the argument about a clock with a time of 0 because more than any other clock it is an arbitrary time, but I understand what bothers me when I pass by a clock that bothers to discuss the calculation of the age of the universe and tell him that his result is incorrect even though he shows me how he calculates And I find no fault in that.
    I hope to find time to think about it from other directions because it is possible that treating a temperature clock as a clock is a wrong idea because it only works on statistics and various events may change its readings and also produce wrong results.
    There are other similar directions that are worth delving into, but as we said, this is probably not the right time

  208. Michael.

    I have to run to work, but here's the problem I find with your argument:

    You write: "All that is necessary for this is to direct it from the beginning to a time that is higher than the age of the universe".

    I already addressed this claim when I wrote: "It can be argued that the synchronization is artificial and does not reflect reality."

    To see the problematic nature of this argument, I brought the article by Ofer Maged, in which the first clocks passing by the viewer show the minimum possible natural time in a physical system: 0. (You are not claiming that there is a natural clock in the system that can show time less than 0, right?)

    Even then, after 4 days according to the observer's clock, the age of the passing system will be much higher than the age of the universe.

    You can go through the Jack-Jill Shablink example in detail, to see that if you start with a system of synchronized clocks whose time is the age of the universe, you can observe them from another system relative to radiation, and from which clocks whose time is higher than the age of the universe will be observed.

    But it requires a lot of work and details, so let's release you for now to take care of dad (unless you want me to bring the details. Quite tiring, try).

  209. Israel:
    For some reason you are basing yourself on the deity of the background radiation system and there is no justification for this.
    First of all - it's really easy to detect movement in relation to it and you don't need a temperature watch for that.
    All that is needed is to measure the radiation in every direction and identify the lack of isotropy.
    This is obvious to everyone and it also forms the basis for creating a temperature clock in the propulsion system in relation to the background radiation.
    So what if it is possible to detect movement relative to the background radiation system?
    It is also possible to detect movement in relation to the Earth system!
    This does not make one system or another superior.
    This does not mean that you are not allowed to refer to it, but it has no effect on the theory of relativity.
    There is no problem watching a clock that shows future time (relative to the age of the universe).
    All that is necessary for this is to direct it from the beginning to a time that is higher than the age of the universe.
    It may seem like a joke to you but it's not.
    After all, what is the phenomenon of the shell suit based on watches that show the future even though time in the shell is faster?
    It is based on the fact that from the point of view of the shell - the farther the clock is from the point where it was zero and on the ground, the higher the time in it to begin with.
    This is exactly the same phenomenon that I pointed out in my description of my uncalculated guess as to what was happening.
    In my guess - the advance in advance was just enough to cover the slower progress of the clock and in the correct calculation the advance is greater than what is needed to cover the slower progress of the clock, but in both cases, the clocks that are far enough away show times much greater than the age of the universe to begin with.
    It reminds of the following joke:
    Question: What's the easiest way to make a small fortune?
    Answer: Start with a big one

    And as for my father:
    The situation is still difficult but there is an improvement (at least temporarily).
    I am not revealing the details for reasons of personal modesty, but if I detach myself for a moment from my feelings, I must mention that I recently received a practical lesson on the essence and vulnerability of what we call "I" - things that I have already addressed in my articles "What is a soul".

  210. At least once I won.
    Regarding relativity - there are a million versions and in my opinion even the "correct" version doesn't work out until the end and you have to go into parallel universes and program to go back in time to straighten corners, basically if someone is behind you in time then you are ahead of him - and this gives a logical slap in the face to symmetrical systems that are solved again in parallel universes And back in time. And there is no end to the debate, thank you 

  211. I wanted to point out something about reality relative to the place at the level of graduation, but maybe I'm wrong on this specific issue
    . Let's take an elastic collision between two balls, and it seems that according to the formulas if you move them, the same collision in motion relative to their movement (only the observer) it seems that the equations show other energies and there is a possibility already there, in an elastic collision between two balls, the possible solution is in parallel universes, (you have to play with the equations to understand what I'm talking about, and references like the word scalar and energy won't satisfy me even though I'm completely satisfied and it's hard for me to discuss the issue right now) 

  212. Michael

    Let's hope everything goes well. Now all that remains is to hope that Marnan's surgery will also end successfully.

    The problem is this: if you look at the link, you will see that a passenger (in our case Jill, attached to the clock ('C) moving in one synchronized inertial system (clocks C1 and C2) sees (and photographs) her clocks showing a time higher than his own.

    From the point of view of that passenger, he is the one at rest, and the clocks - even a thousand - passing by him show a higher and higher time.

    If this traveler is in the radiation system and is at rest relative to it, and the first clock that passes by is set to show the same time (the age of the universe), the clocks after it will show a time higher than the age of the universe.

    It can be argued that the synchronization is artificial and does not reflect reality.

    This claim can be qualitatively contradicted if we look at Ofer Magad's article "The Milky Way in three seconds".

    http://ofer-megged.blogspot.com/2011/09/blog-post.html

    If the traveler described there was stationary relative to the radiation (i.e. you, me and all of us), then in 4 days according to his clock the system that passes in front of him exceeds the age of the universe by a lot, so even if the first clock in it simply shows 0, then the last one was already in the future.

    It is also possible to show this quantitatively if we take the example in the time lengthening link (Jack and Jill), and stick to the normal clocks with temp clocks.

    If we assume that Geek is at rest relative to the radiation, then if he calibrates his cesium clock to the time of the temp clock, then any future shot will show the same time in both.

    With Jill, on the other hand, the PM clock will fall further and further behind the temp clock.

    The first thing we got is a contradiction to postulate 1: both Jack and Jill are in inertial systems, in fact they are at rest. But while for Geek there is no difference between the watches, for Jill there is a gap between them. And this is in contrast to postulate 1 which states:

    "The laws of physics do not change when moving from one inertial frame of reference to another inertial frame of reference. Thus, 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 standing at rest."

    So here is a way to determine: if there is a gap between the clocks - you are in motion relative to the radiation. Not created - you are at rest.

    I will not go into the claim that radiation is a factor outside the system (R.H.'s claim) now.

    The second thing we got is that if we reverse the link creation, that is, that Jack is the one moving in Jill's inertial system, then he passes by normal clocks that show a time higher than his temp clock, that is, a time higher than the age of the universe.

    In this case, the synchronization is not artificial - if Jill's inertial system is a train, then the first car that passes by is at the age of the universe, and all the clocks after it will show a time higher than Jack's two clocks, C.H. and Temp., which show the age of the universe.

    If we proceed from the assumption that it is impossible to expect from a relative discount system for radiation in another system that passes the age of the universe, (it is theoretically possible to build such a train that, if it moves fast enough, the clocks in it will show a time of 50 billion years), then we have received a contradiction between the lengthening of time and the big bang theory.

    In practice, in any regular train that passes us (assuming we are completely stationary relative to the radiation), according to the same principle, if the age of the first car is the same as the age of the observer (which is true), then the age of the last car is a fraction of a second higher than its age, that is, in the future.

    Note:

    When Einstein published the "Paradox after", the paradox was that quantum entanglement contradicts the principle of locality, a principle that was beyond any doubt in his time and Bohr also believed in it.

    Bell's inequality theorem proved that what is considered impossible is actually a reality: non-locality exists. Therefore there is actually no paradox here.

    My argument for the contradiction between the big bang theory and relativity is also based on the assumption that it is impossible to observe (and photograph) systems whose time is higher than the age of the universe, i.e. in the future. On the other hand, if this assumption is not true, then neither is the claim. Who knows, maybe if, as Wheeler's delayed choice experiment shows, it is possible to influence the past from the present, then it is also possible to anticipate the future from the present (where does water blow?).

  213. The doctor said the operation was successful.
    I am currently waiting for them to let me enter the neurosurgical intensive care unit because even though visiting hours have arrived, the doctors' visit prevents entry.
    It remains to be seen if there will be no complications and if the treatment will achieve the desired results.

    I thought a little more about the problem and I'm impressed (even though I haven't yet entered the link with the calculation and I didn't think for myself that the conclusion in the link is correct.
    On the other hand, the more I think about it, I don't see why the existence of the background system temperature clock that everyone can see would interfere with the theory of relativity.
    All in all it's another clock and it happens to measure the age of the universe according to the background radiation system.
    If we build a clock system that shows the age of the universe according to another inertial system (and it doesn't matter how) it will have the same properties because it will also be a clock like all clocks.

  214. Israel:
    I really don't have time to continue the story. Tomorrow I have to be in Ichilov at 07:30 and I don't live nearby.
    I told you I didn't do the exact calculation and my guess might not be right.
    I see where this is leading in the context of the temperature clocks and that was actually the reason for my guess about the result on the train.
    It could be that the problem is with these watches after all but I have to stop pursuing it for now.

  215. Gardener Elek... promised me that the slope above the garden would bloom with flowers in two colors: orange and yellow.

    He promised and fulfilled, a button and a flower. But the oranges bloom in May, the yellows in September.

    Claim 2. At the time you claimed: each photograph from each side will show the opposite of the other.

    At the time I made the same claim (response 10):

    "Let's try it. It is said that the car also has a camera.
    Since its speed is about half the speed of light, the time difference between the road and car clocks according to the Lorenz equations is approximately 15%. And the time the car spends next to each clock on the road is about a billionth of a second.
    Let's take the eighth watch for example. The time difference already reaches a full second. According to the camera on the road, the car is behind and according to the camera in the car, the clock on the road is behind. However, the photographs were taken with cameras that were practically next to each other in the blink of an eye, and in fact they can even be exchanged between them. How could they see such a significant difference? And what will happen to the 10th camera, when the difference increases to 090240 seconds? The camera on the road will show 090230 on the road and XNUMX in the car, and the camera almost next to it in the blink of an eye, the one in the car, will show exactly the opposite?"

    And here is your answer (two and a half years (who's counting?), but still in the "at the time") category:

    Michael Rothschild

    Israel Shapira:

    I was busy and didn't turn around to answer, but to your question in comments 10 and 11 the answer is yes.

    March 24th, 2011

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/demonstrating-relativity-1403111/comment-page-1/#comment-288037

    3. Whereas the answer of relativity in my understanding is: the locomotive clock will lag behind the car clock.

    As you can see in the link I provided, this is indeed the answer of relativity (do you disagree with what is written in the link?).

    4. But the photographs will show that the locomotive is behind.

    Both sides agree that clock 'C (the locomotive) lags behind clock C2 (the car). As written below:

    What does Jill's digital snapshot show? It must be identical—two snapshots taken from the same place at the same time must show the same thing!

    And as indicated in the link, both Jack and Jill (the protagonists of the story) can claim that time moves slower with the other. But the cameras show that Jill Ho's season is slow.

    And so when Jack sweetly whispers to Jill, "You're retarded again, dear," she chirps back: "You're retarded yourself!"

    Attitude at its best!

  216. Michael

    1. An example of the way in which the extension of time works can be found in the link I provided earlier:

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

    The thought experiment there is the same as my train example, with clock C1 as locomotive B, C2 as a car, and 'C as locomotive A'.

    Note that when 'C (locomotive A') passes C1 (locomotive B) the time in both is 0, just like in the train example.

    When he passes C2 (the car) his time is 8 seconds and C2's time is 10 seconds. The locomotive time lags behind the train time, as I claimed.

    Note that under the second picture it is written that they both agree that time C2 (the locomotive) lags behind time 'C (the car).

    In the example there is a mathematical (and correct) explanation of how the locomotive can also claim that the train's time is behind, but the picture - and this is what we talked about - shows that the locomotive's time is behind.

    I'm running to talk to the gardener, we'll continue later with the other sections.

  217. Israel:
    I didn't say it was a temperature clock.
    I said that's also what I said about temperature watches.
    In any case, I also said that I didn't try to calculate the times according to the formulas and actually it's a kind of guesswork.
    You have to understand that science is not on my mind at the moment.
    An exact calculation may give a different result, but I'm sure the theory will stand firm

  218. Before I answer: I'm not talking about temp clocks - if indeed they always show the same time in a shared photo - but about regular clocks (cesium).

    Is it still not true?

  219. 1. This is still my answer and I have been consistent with this answer ever since I talked about the temperature clock and I have already answered you several times that this remains my answer.
    2. Don't remember that I ever said what you claim I said. I already told you that I don't remember and I asked you to point to the place where you think I said that. You didn't vote and you keep claiming that.
    3. What you think of the answer of relativity is not the answer of relativity. The relativity answer is the one I gave

  220. Michael.

    Here are my claims in response.

    1. Your answer was: the two clocks, locomotive and wagon, will show the same time in the photographs (is this still your claim?).

    2. At the time you claimed: every photo from each side will show the opposite of the other.

    3. Whereas the answer of relativity in my understanding is: the locomotive clock will lag behind the car clock.

    4. But the photographs will show that the locomotive is behind.

    5. Alligators… we'll leave it at that.

    Please indicate what you think is incorrect in the response. If there is something else that is incorrect that I missed - point it out.

    feel well.

  221. Thank you to everyone who expressed concern for my father's well-being.
    Unfortunately we have been waiting since morning for his turn for surgery and he has been fasting since yesterday evening.
    He had already joked that there was no way he would die in surgery because hunger would kill him first

  222. To all participants in the discussion:
    I am still with my father in the hospital and I am reading and writing on the mobile phone.
    The letters are small, the eyes are not what they used to be and the fingers are thick.
    All of these can lead to distorted responses - either because I didn't read the things I'm responding to well, or because of distractions, or because of wrong typing.
    Sorry for the inconvenience

  223. Israel:
    As I said - nothing in the response is true and I don't want to repeat the entire response.
    It is not true that I did not answer the question about the photographs as your response implies. Not only did I answer but you even addressed what I answered.
    Not only did you make a reference, but even in the response where you claimed that I did not make a reference, you also claimed that I made two contradictory references.
    And also the claim that I gave contradictory answers is not true.
    Your claim about what relativity supposedly claims is also incorrect.
    In short, nothing in the response is true

  224. Ofer

    Some kind of connection to the Magistrate? (Ofer Maged)

    Lots of physicists are ofer, deer and elk.

  225. Michael, how is dad?

    What is wrong in the response, don't you agree that alligators are longer than greens?

    Prepare a list of everything that is not true in the response, I will try to prove to you section by section that everything is true.

  226. Israel:
    I claimed that both watches would look the same.
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/ball-state-prez-intelligent-design-not-science-0408135/comment-page-24/#comment-448276
    This relates to your question and I don't know why you claim not. I don't remember that I claimed that everyone would see the opposite of the other. Can you point to a comment where I wrote something like this?
    On the contrary - I made the exact same claim regarding the temperature clock of system A when it meets the temperature clock of system B.
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/ball-state-prez-intelligent-design-not-science-0408135/comment-page-24/#comment-448130
    The relativity answer is not the one you describe and I have no intention of trying to justify anyone's misunderstandings.

    This last comment of yours was already really exaggerated because I did not find even one thing true in it

  227. Ofer

    Does your question refer to a paragraph from my previous response:

    "And if the answer of relativity in my understanding is: the locomotive clock will lag behind the wagon clock. (The question arises, of course, so how is it that the locomotive can also claim that the car is lagging behind. The answer to this question is if there is a demand)'.

    That is, is there a demand?

  228. Israel,

    You did mention that the clocks on one train are not synchronized with the other, but on the other hand you wrote, and I quote:

    "What will the clocks show when the locomotive from train A passes car 6789 on the opposite train?
    According to relativity, in the A train system, the time in the car lags behind the time in the locomotive.
    According to relativity, in system B, the time in the locomotive lags behind the car."

    For the avoidance of doubt, your second sentence is incorrect. According to relativity (as I have shown), even in the A train system, the time in the locomotive lags behind the car. But why did you write it? In my understanding, it is only true if the phenomenon of the lack of synchronization between the trains is ignored. I may not have understood what you meant.

    In short and to the point:
    Do you agree that relativity predicts that even in the A train system the locomotive lags behind the car. If so, there is no argument between us. If not, please explain why she predicts it (and again, "lengthening of time" is not enough, you need to explain why she overcomes the lack of synchronization).

  229. Michael.

    All of us on the site wish you and your father a successful operation, and a full and easy recovery.

    When you come back, maybe explain to me how your words relate to my question. I asked a very simple and clear question: what will the photographs look like from both sides, the locomotive and the wagon. I repeated several times and emphasized that it was just that, no mathematics, no philosophy, no zebras. Just physics. Photographs.

    Your answer was: the two clocks, locomotive and wagon, will show the same time in the photographs.

    At the time you claimed: every photo from each side will show the opposite of the other.

    Whereas the answer of relativity in my understanding is: the locomotive clock will lag behind the car clock. (The question arises, of course, so how is it that the locomotive can also claim that the wagon is lagging behind. The answer to this question is if there is demand).

    But the photographs will show that the locomotive is lagging behind, and we are only dealing with this answer.

    If you agree with this answer (do you?) and are still interested in the discussion, we can go to the main point: the contradiction between the lengthening of time and the big bang theory.

    Ofer - I don't understand what the point is. What failure? After all, I specifically stated that the clocks of each train are synchronized with each other, but are not synchronized with the other train. So where is the problem here?

    Water - special for you: if there is an extension of time, then it can be proven that it is possible to move into the future!

    No fun? To sit on a cosmic cloud in Sotul, blow and inhale water from the hookah.

    Regarding the crocodile - the initial intuition is that it is of course greener, since it is long only lengthwise, but green both lengthwise and widthwise.

    This answer is correct for cucumbers. But a crocodile can be passed once lengthwise, and repeat the stripes in the crocodile's skin, so that you get two lengths, which are of course more than length and width, so it is actually longer.

  230. Machel
    Right. Explain it to us (especially to Israel).
    feel well.

    Israel
    The crocodile is more green. Because it is long only lengthwise but green both lengthwise and widthwise.

  231. M. We fixed most of it and maybe that's why you don't see it after returning time, but,
    You can get a little impression of Yitzhak Rabin's group in the last year, and the part with the food, it may be that they wrote it just to remember, what's more, I had the honor of seeing the deer after time repetitions, and it's hard to explain to someone who hasn't seen it, with respect

  232. Blowing water:
    You are not religious but you believe in the fairy tales of the Bible.
    interesting.
    If you think what is written in the Bible is true then why are you not religious?
    Do you want to bring destruction on us all?
    Remember: the end of the world is coming!

  233. Written from Ichilov's lobby.
    Water blowing dear.
    In my opinion the effect of time and mass in Judaism comes as a result of the movement of Jews back and forth in prayer and what you feel is its gathering both at the Kotel and at an average frequency.
    Thanks for not forgetting the end of the world is coming

  234. Israel,

    There is no dispute between us that there is a way to synchronize any number of clocks that is required - inside the train. After all, the way I presented exactly synchronizes the clocks! But from R. He said correctly - the A1 locomotive is not part of this system. In fact, according to the story, no matter which way you synchronize the clocks, once they are synchronized on train B it **necessarily** means that they are not synchronized on locomotive A

    There are 2 ways to see it: an easy way and a complicated way.

    The tricky way is to let you sync the clocks any way you choose. Then we will place next to each clock a "pulse clock" that synchronizes in the way I described earlier. In the train system, each clock will necessarily be synchronized with the "pulse clock" next to it. But as I showed, in the other locomotive's system, the pulse clocks are not synchronized and therefore inevitably your clocks (regardless of which way you synchronized them) will be out of sync.

    The easier way is to look at a space-time diagram (please open the link! It's a simple animation, no exemptions!)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relativity_of_Simultaneity_Animation.gif

    There are 3 circles A, B, C which are 3 clocks that are on the train, in different places. Let's say they all light up at exactly 00:00. The diagram shows very nicely that they are indeed synchronized in the resting system, but not synchronized with respect to the moving system.

  235. The honorable Mr. Israel Shapira
    In my opinion, the effect of time and mass on the relationship, comes as a result of the movement of the particles backwards and forwards in time many times, and what you feel is its convergence, both in mass and in time on average, thank you, don't forget Simchat Torah is coming

  236. Ghosts:
    And there are many relationships and not all of them are transitive.
    It turns out that simultaneity is not a transitive relation.
    Some people understand it and some don't.

  237. Israel:
    come on!
    It's not just a computational thing but it's pretty funny to require people who aren't next to each other to sync their clocks right now by being next to each other.
    As you said - there is a way to synchronize all the clocks in an inertial system and as you know the locomotive of A and the locomotive of B are not in one inertial system.
    Now - there are two ways to approach the problem: one through checking the consistency of the solution (and that's what you've done up until now) and the other through experiments (which includes the impossible experiment you propose - being next to each other while you're not).
    The way of experiments - as I demonstrated to you - also confirms the theory of relativity.

    so that's it.
    I have to stop this argument because this morning I am bringing my father to the surgery which he decided to undergo in the hope that he would come out of it healthier but also with the danger that he would not come out of it.

  238. Michael.

    If you believe that the lengthening of time in inertial systems is only a computational thing, i.e. it is not possible to check it by comparing photographs of clocks passing each other - I am ready to close on that.

    Unfortunately, this is not the answer of relativity as I know it. According to relativity there is an unequivocal answer - the time of the locomotive lags behind the time of the wagon and this is also what the photographs from both sides will show.

    So how come each side claims the other side is retarded? What is this, a teddy bear garden where everyone shouts at the other that they are retarded?!

    There is an answer, and it is not the one you gave. I know how precious your time is, and how much you hate to waste it, especially on stubborn people. That's why I'll save it for you.

    Ofer.

    There is a way to synchronize any number of clocks required in any inertial system, and a train is such a system. See Einstein:

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

    Chapter A, Definition of Simultaneity

    And this way is perfectly fine for the purpose of the calculation, so there is no problem.

    Ghost.

    Is a crocodile longer or greener?

  239. The locomotive pulls the wagon and a ratio drags a ratio. In other words: everything is relative. There are 3 types of people in the world - those who know arithmetic and those who don't.

  240. Israel,

    First of all, your question is interesting to me. In my opinion, your fallacy is that synchronization is not "transitive":
    Locomotive A1 is synchronized with Locomotive B1
    Locomotive B1 is synchronized with carriage B60000 (the number indicates the serial position on the train).
    But **no** it follows from the fact that the B60000 car is synchronized with the A1 locomotive.

    And in Wikipedia, it is explained better, by Relativity of simultaneity.

    Regarding the question about the trains: how exactly will you achieve the synchronization on the B train? Let's say a pulse of light coming out of the locomotive towards the end of the train. If each carriage is 1 millisecond long, then each carriage should reset the clock to be the serial number times milliseconds. Thus, after one minute, all clocks from Kron B1 to Kron B60000 (inclusive) will show the time 00:01.

    Let's say, according to your story, that you sent the sync pulse just as the locomotives pass each other.
    What happens in the trailer for 60000?
    When the pulse reaches him, the time is 00:01 and the time in locomotive A1 is earlier because the clock there is behind.

    What is happening in Qatar A1?
    Train B is shorter, because of the shortening of the distance (according to the Lorentz transformation). That is, its length is (let's say) only 45 light seconds and not a light minute. When the pulse arrives at B60000, the time on locomotive A1 is only 00:00:45, but for some reason car B60000 sends a message that its time is 00:01, which is in the future at all, and on the other hand, locomotive A1 is lagging behind and shows a time from the past. A clown train, its head in the past, its tail in the future and the scattered from Kfar Azer are not found. Will this gap be enough for the cameras to see something reasonable? I don't know how to do the math. But you can imagine what will happen when the relative speed of the trains is very close to the speed of light, i.e. the Lorentz factor (time/distance contraction) is very large:

    Car at 60000: the pulse arrives, so the time is 00:01, and a fraction of a second later locomotive A arrives. The clock in locomotive A hardly moves, so the time there is 0 + epsilon.

    Train A1: Train B is very, very short, so it takes epsilon time to get to B60000. But the pulse arrived a little bit before that, so the clock at 60000 shows 00:01 + a fraction of a second.

    It came out, with a wave of hands, that A1 and 6000 are coordinated in their photos.

    You are welcome to think of other ways to synchronize within the train. But I think you will find that they all suffer from a similar problem: what seems synchronized on train B is not synchronized on train A.

    Sorry for the moat, and good night..

  241. Israel:
    It's not about what they think in the secrets of their hearts, but what they would come up with in a synchronicity test.

  242. Without a doubt you answered. But I'm not so sure you answered correctly :)

    Come on, Michael, urges from veteran commenters. You still haven't answered what do you think about the response I received before:

    "I repeat what I wrote before. The sentence "If the sun and we move relative to the system
    The cosmic background radiation at a speed of 370 km per second" is meaningless. In terms of all systems
    The cosmic radiation is at rest."

  243. I'm digging, but there's this thing with the cameras...

    You see, when the locomotives meet, the photographs from both directions show: Locomotive A 0, and Locomotive B 0 as well.

    And that's the only thing that matters. Not what Qataris think in the secret of their hearts.

    And if when the locomotives meet the wagons even then the photographs show the same thing, then there is no measurable lengthening of time in inertial systems, except perhaps for the thoughts, feelings and beliefs of locomotives and wagons.

    And this is in contrast to airplanes that circumnavigate the country with accelerated systems, with which you can photograph the lengthening of time with clocks, or twins, with which you can measure and compare the length of the twins' beards...

  244. Israel:
    I have already explained well several times and it seems to me that you are not reading deeply.
    I will present one of the points of view again:
    Carrier A, during his meeting with Carrier B, thinks that although the time in Carrier B is 0, like his, the time in Car B is later.
    When he meets Kron B he (Cater A) sees that their watches are the same.
    The meaning of this fact is that the more locomotive A feels, the less time has passed in wagon B (that is, the time in it progresses more slowly)

  245. I said that if the photo from the locomotive shows a locomotive 12:43 it will also show a carriage: 12:43
    The photo from the trailer will show the same

  246. Michael
    Let's leave Lorenz for now.

    The photo from the locomotive shows: locomotive 12.43 car 11.52

    What will the photo from the trailer show?

  247. Israel:
    I don't understand why you are caught by the phrase "the last car"
    I only used it to simplify the wording.
    Do you really care about the cars after him or do you want me to waste more time?
    The clocks of the locomotive and the car will look the same in the photos, but this will happen because from the locomotive's point of view, the car on the other train will show a time greater than zero as soon as the locomotives meet and from the clock in the car, the locomotive's clock will show a time greater than zero when the locomotives meet.
    Yes!
    The car and locomotive of the same train will see different things in the locomotive of the other train once each of them sees the moment of the meeting and that is because of that X I mentioned.
    I estimated this without making exact calculations, but you have to understand that the whole story stems from the loss of absolute simultaneity, and even in the event that the cameras on the two trains show different situations, you shouldn't get excited.
    See, for example, the ladder "paradox":
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox

    The warehouse could show a film where the two gates were constantly in exactly the same position and at a certain moment the ladder was inside while the ladder could show a film where it was never entirely inside the warehouse and there were moments when gate A was open and gate B was closed.

  248. Michael.

    The last train did not appear in the question. The number of cars in the train was not specified, and it can certainly contain 765667 in the capacity of 766543 cars.

    Only the locomotives that pass each other at time 0 (photographed from both sides), car number 6789 on train B, and the times of the clocks when the locomotive from train A passes by were noted.

    And a question was also asked: what will the photographs from the locomotive and the wagon that take pictures of the two clocks together look like? Will they see pictures where the clocks are reversed? Is it possible? And if not, what will the photographs show? And how does this fit in with the claim that each system sees time in the second as slower?

    Or in short: what will the photographs look like? Only it.

  249. Israel:
    I already answered that.
    From the point of view of the last car in train A, the locomotive of train B did not show time 0 when it passed the locomotive of train B.
    This is due, as I mentioned, to the fact that X appears in the Lorentz transformation.
    In fact, there appears a product of X and V as the factor that determines the time.
    The locomotive and the end of train A are synchronized because V between them is 0
    The locomotive of train A can be synchronized with the locomotive of train B because the X between them is 0
    But the end of train A is not synchronized with the locomotive of train B when it passes the locomotive of train A.
    He can be synchronized with him only when he meets him and the X between them will be 0

  250. Come on, you don't let a man see Thield play!

    iPhone.

    Here is the definition of the problem for the forum:

    According to the lengthening of times, when two trains are moving relative to each other on adjacent tracks, the viewers of each train see the time in the other train as slower.

    So it is said that the clocks on each train are synchronized with each other but of course not with the clocks of the other train, and when the locomotives from each train pass each other the clocks show 0 on both.

    What will the clocks show when the locomotive from train A passes car 6789 on the opposite train?

    According to relativity, in the A train system, the time in the car lags behind the time in the locomotive.

    According to relativity, in system B, the time in the locomotive lags behind the car.

    So what will happen if we use high-resolution cameras that will photograph both watches at the moment of the change from both directions?

    Will the photo from the locomotive show: locomotive clock 14.23 wagon clock 11.27 and the photograph from the wagon will show wagon clock 14.23 and locomotive clock 11.27?

    Is it possible?

    And if not, then what will the photographs show? They will see something, won't they?

    And how does this fit with the principle that "every system sees time as slower than the second"?

  251. Michael.

    I'm taking the kid to soccer, I'll be back later.

    The problem is your answer to question 3 I presented. Without closing this matter, it is impossible to move forward.

  252. What is "self-time"? And why does the temperature clock give an eigentime of the background radiation system more than it gives an eigentime of a system that is in motion relative to the background radiation?

  253. So the background radiation system is not a preferred system? Can there be systems in which the self-time is higher than its time, as there are systems in which the time is lower than its own?

  254. Israel:
    Regarding what you wrote about the problem in question - I have already answered it.

    Regarding the claim - the theory of relativity does not fit with foresight. I don't know if anyone will ever sue you for anything.

  255. Private Relativity does not deal with temperature clocks, only regular clocks. According to which, they tick at different rates in different persistence systems.

    What I tried to show is that if we assume that the radiation system is just "another" random system, then this assumption inevitably leads to ordinary clocks in which the time is higher than the age of the universe - which is impossible.

    By the way, what do you think about the following sentence:

    "I repeat what I wrote before. The sentence "If the sun and we move relative to the system
    The cosmic background radiation at a speed of 370 km per second" is meaningless. In terms of all systems
    The cosmic radiation is at rest."

    Michael, thanks for the input. By the way, am I expected to be sued?

    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.

  256. It's a patent I'm still looking for a buyer for.
    Therefore, as far as I know, the method is still not implemented anywhere (if I knew of someone who implements the method I would sue him).
    The advantage of this method over previous methods of measuring distances is not that it succeeds in doing so (there are already methods that do this quite well) but that it allows many more such measurements to be performed simultaneously (and as a result it allows handling systems with many more transmitters).
    It may be that no one sees the need for simultaneous handling of so many transmitters.

  257. This Jewish head... never stops inventing patents for us..
    When will you build us an anti-matter and dark energy mantic clock?
    By the way, where does this method exist?

  258. By the way - those who are interested in understanding how it is possible to synchronize clocks and distances in our everyday reality where clocks also drift, are welcome to read This patent

  259. The value given by the temperature clock is the same value in all systems.
    The temperature clock cannot operate in a system that moves at the speed of light where the concept of time does not exist at all, but in all systems that move at a speed lower than the speed of light the same time is obtained.
    In other words - it is a clock for all systems and not a clock for a specific system.
    Therefore there is no preferred system.

  260. 1) It is impossible to start from the assumption that there is no preferred system and come to the conclusion that there is a preferred system.
    There is an internal logical contradiction here.
    2) Science uses logic. If there is an internal logical contradiction, you should check where the contradiction comes from and correct accordingly.

  261. ב

    All your statements are correct, except:

    "1) If there is an explosion, then there is an expansion from the inside to the outside. That is, there must be an "inside" and there must be an "outside".
    Otherwise it's not a bang.
    2) If there are two non-discrete points then there is a third point between them.
    This third point cannot be both a center point and an envelope point.
    conclusion:
    If every point is both a center point and an envelope point then all points are discrete.
    If so :
    According to you all points in our universe are discrete points.
    but:
    In our universe, a straight line runs between two points.
    That is, at least two non-discrete points can be found."

    Good night from Los Angeles.

  262. No problem Michael, you're free.

    Just to summarize, here is my claim: of all the synchronized systems, according to the bang theory, the radiation system is a preferred system. If it were a random system, there could exist systems where the eigentime is higher than the eigentime of the radiation, which is the age of the universe.

    In practice, there are only systems where, according to relativity, the self-time is less than or equal to the age of the universe. You mentioned one - photons whose own time is 0. Ofer Maged showed a system whose own time is about 3 days. One can think of countless other systems where the self-time is lower than the age of the universe.

    But there is not a single system in which the self-time is higher than the age of the universe. Only in the radiation system and systems synchronized with it, the self-time is equal to it, which makes it a favorite.

    And if you or someone is willing to go through the Sisyphean process where you check what time is measured by clocks in systems that move relative to radiation from a system that is sugared with radiation, you inevitably get clocks that show a time that is higher than that of the clocks in the radiation system, or higher than the age of the universe, which is impossible.

    And this is the contradiction to the lengthening of time that I pointed out.

  263. Israel:
    Some contradictions:
    1) If there is an explosion, then there is propagation from the inside to the outside. That is, there must be an "inside" and there must be an "outside".
    Otherwise it's not a bang.
    2) If there are two non-discrete points then there is a third point between them.
    This third point cannot be both a center point and an envelope point.
    conclusion:
    If every point is both a center point and an envelope point then all points are discrete.
    If so :
    According to you all points in our universe are discrete points.
    but:
    In our universe, a straight line runs between two points.
    That is, at least two non-discrete points can be found.
    And this contradicts your claim.

  264. Israel:
    The time I devote to the subject is already beginning to be excessive and it seems to me that it is spent to overcome insistence and not an inability to understand.
    1. It is possible to build temperature clocks that show the time that has passed since the big bang, but these clocks are different in each reference system and their values ​​converge only at the point where the observer is.
    2. Yes, because the results of the clock systems converge at the point where the viewer is.
    3. The term "slower clock" or "faster clock" has no meaning outside of a reference system.
    Two observers moving in space at the same speed and in the same direction do not have to agree on the synchronicity of events that occur at a point that moves relative to them (this is why X also appears in the Lorentz transformation).
    4. You already have enough material to understand what you are doing wrong

  265. I was moderated.

    The sphere has a singular point - the center. It is different from the face of the ball for example, and you can also mark it.

    Our universe has no center and no face according to the big bang theory. Every point in it is center and envelope together.

    And nothing else. At Rav Yokom you can also get confused between the front and the back.

    And now the Honorable Rabbi will get up and go home.

  266. 1) What is singularity?
    Isn't this a singular point?
    2) If there is a sphere then there is a point which is the center of the sphere. This point can be determined as the main point of a coordinate system.
    3) If the universe is expanding then there is a central point from which it expands. Either the point is singular (a point where the equation loses its meaning) or it is not singular. This point is a unique point in the entire universe.
    Furthermore:
    There is no need to know what is happening exactly at this point or even in its immediate vicinity.
    It is enough to define a sphere with a radius as large as we want around this point. Outside the ball all the equations will be correct (at least as good as we like).
    of course:
    If you define a sphere then a point is defined which is the center of the sphere.
    A set of axes can be attached to this point and determine this point as the origin of the axes.

  267. ב
    This is not a point. You are probably confusing a point with a singularity.
    The sphere has a center, you can define the center of the sphere as a singular point, but even in this case it is not about coordinates and it has no meaning.

  268. Michael, try breaking the argument into steps. For this I would suggest the Socratic method of questions and answers.

    Questions:

    1. Do you accept that it is theoretically possible to build "temperature clocks", i.e. clocks that show at any point the time that has passed since the big bang, regardless of their speed relative to the CMBR system?

    2. Do you accept that two temperature clocks passing each other will always show the same time in a joint photograph (regardless of which side) in both - the time that has passed since the bang?

    3. Do you accept that a photo of several ordinary clocks passing each other at a point in space will be the same regardless of which side the photo is taken from? That the claim: "Each side sees the other side as a touch slower" does not refer to the physical reality, where only one side is the slow one, but to a mathematical reality where it is computationally possible to explain why even the fast clock is actually lagging behind?

    4. Do you accept that if a temp clock is attached to a cesium clock, then if they are in an inertial system that rests relative to radiation, and the cesium clock is calibrated to the time of the temp clock, then in every future photo they will see the same time?

    5. Do you accept that in a system that is not at rest relative to radiation, there will be a growing gap between the temperature clock and the CZ clock?

    Question 5 refers to your claim:

    "If we scatter in the universe clocks that show the age of the universe and are synchronized with a system that moves relative to the background radiation (and move with it), every such clock will also in the future show the age of the universe in that moving system and an earlier time in every other system - including the system that is at rest relative to the background radiation so that the moving system I chose Randomly, she is the favorite according to the principle you suggested."

    Because if you got 3 - then this claim is impossible. (Unless by "an earlier time" you mean a calculated time, and not a photographed time).

    And if you accepted the claims in questions 4 and 5 - then here is the glaring contradiction to postulate 1. Because if in inertial system A (close to radiation) there is no gap between the temp clocks and the clock, and in inertial system B (moving relative to radiation) there is a gap between the clocks, then This is in contradiction to Postulate 1 which states:

    "The laws of physics do not change when moving from one inertial frame of reference to another inertial frame of reference. Thus, 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 standing at rest."

    Here is a way to determine: if there is a gap between the clocks - the system is in motion relative to the radiation. Not created - at rest.

    According to the ratio between the number of "rotations" of the clocks per minute between the temp clock and the clock, it is even possible to know how fast it is moving relative to radiation.

  269. It didn't even occur to me that this was how it was perceived.
    I just wanted to show the contradictions I see.

  270. But really, b, you are allowing yourself to make statements about a subject you have no idea about. Isn't it time to stop?

  271. No, b, we didn't go back to the sphere and we didn't go back to the previous problem and neither is the center of a sphere a coordinate system

  272. To Tomi I understood that the "big bang" speaks of the beginning of the universe.
    That is, on a point that is the beginning of space and time.
    I understand that I was wrong and this is not the point.

    But then it is a ball.
    So the ball has a center point.
    And we are back to the previous problem.

  273. By the way, Israel, there is a whole range of ideas that offer an answer to your question about "the time before time".

    Penrose offers one of the most interesting ones in his book Cycles of Time.
    The answer is based on the relationship between mass and time (through the concept of energy) - a relationship that means that when there is no mass there is also no time (the same relationship that was expressed when I mentioned in a previous response that time does not exist in terms of photons).
    His proposal speaks of an infinite series of universes, each of which rises on the ruins of its predecessor when, through all kinds of speculative processes, the former loses its mass and, as a result, also time and space.

  274. B:
    Not true in any way.
    A point is not a coordinate system
    No Big Bang theory assumes that the universe began at a point (on the contrary - all theories begin at least Plank time after the hypothetical point that is not thought to have existed)
    The big bang theory fits very well with the theory of relativity - no physicist thinks otherwise (but no physicist makes such ignorant statements as you do).

  275. If the "Big Bang" exists, then there is one special point in the universe (the starting point of the universe).
    This point is a different reference system than all other reference systems.
    And this contradicts the theory of relativity.

  276. Israel:
    And if clocks are spread throughout the universe that show the age of the universe and are synchronized in a system that moves relative to the background radiation (and moves with it), every such clock will also in the future show the age of the universe in that moving system and an earlier time in every other system - including the system that is at rest relative to the background radiation so that precisely the moving system I chose Random is preferred according to the principle you suggested.
    There is no glaring contradiction to anything.
    We can tell if we are moving (and even how fast) relative to any other system that has something in it (which is stationary relative to it).
    I'm sorry, Israel, you managed to confuse me for a while, but it's over.

  277. I just came back from walking in the mountains. When there is a dog, the mountains are the gym.

    "If we scatter in space clocks that will appear to be synchronized in the background radiation system, they will not appear to be synchronized in a system that moves relative to the background radiation."

    The problem is that according to relativity, any clock synchronized to show the time of the background radiation (the age of the universe) will show in a late reading the same time of the background radiation if it is at rest relative to it, or an earlier time if it is moving relative to it.

    The opposite situation will never occur, i.e. a normal clock will show a time later than the background radiation (reversal of the twin paradox, the traveling twin is the older one)

    This fact in itself makes the synchronized time system of the background radiation a preferred system.

    Apart from the obvious contradiction to postulate 1 (we can know if we are moving or at rest and even at what speed), it seems that we can get a situation where if we use temp clocks that are next to cesium clocks in the radiation system, then in systems that move relative to the radiation we will get the situation that the cesium clocks show a later time . In the long discussion with R.H. And with Zvi Z we used a quantitative example from the link:

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

    It is also possible to show this qualitatively if you look at Ofer Maged's article, the Milky Way in three seconds:

    http://ofer-megged.blogspot.com/2011/09/blog-post.html

    The article describes a traveler who passes over a hundred thousand light years of the Milky Way in a time that is only 3 seconds for him.

    Now we will ask what will happen if the traveler is stationary relative to the radiation and another galaxy passes by him quickly.

    If a hundred thousand years are reduced to 3 seconds, then after 3 days the same traveler will be able to see events whose time in their system is over 15 billion years, and after a month he will already be able to see if the universe passing by has died of origin (Shamulik, "The Last Question" by Asimov).

    However, the relatively light passenger of the radiation is all of us. (Not completely, but that's irrelevant).

    A somewhat problematic description, where you can glimpse the future.

  278. The truth is, I'm quite proud.
    I have spread the problem among quite a few relativity experts and I still haven't received an answer from them.
    The problem lies in the subject we have already dealt with - the concept of simultaneity in different relational systems.
    The short summary of the error is as follows:
    If we scatter in space clocks that will appear to be synchronized in the background radiation system, they will not appear to be synchronized in a system that moves relative to the background radiation.
    This is true for any type of clock, including temperature clocks.
    Therefore, when the scientist moving relative to the background radiation sets his clock according to the background radiation (in the place where he is), it will not be seen as a simultaneous event with the advancement of the clock of the scientist resting relative to the background radiation elsewhere, to this time.

    It seemed very disturbing at first because I understood that a similar consideration could be presented to the theory of relativity, without the involvement of the big bang, but it was the thought of the more disturbing problem that flooded me with the solution.

  279. Shmulik.

    Correspondence here will not help much - you must go to correspondence from two and a half years ago and onwards. And even then you can easily get into trouble.

    Bottom line, the apparent contradiction between the lengthening of time in relation to the big bang theory can be presented this way: if everyone has their own time as relativity claims, then how is it that we all also agree on the age of the universe which can be measured by temperature? Why not be an example of systems where the age of the universe is 30 billion years?

    I say "apparent contradiction" because it is unlikely that a theory as perfect as relativity that gives such perfect predictions confirmed exactly by observations is wrong. The same goes for the big bang theory, although I personally don't understand what the meaning of a created universe and with it time was created as the big bang theory claims. So what came first? (With Kitbag, Israel!).

    But that doesn't mean anything because it's not clear to me what a finite size means to the universe either. So what's next? (okay, 70 bends) and why would a site in an infinite homogeneous and isotropic universe have a preferred rest system. Why this one? (Okay, 30 seconds to circle the camp).

    And regarding the story - what's the shame? It was great fun at the time.

    If we quote the second law that asked the believing professor:

    "Can the Almighty double the speed of light?"

    It was nice, and in short, we're going home, that's all.

  280. Israel,
    I probably don't understand what the contradiction is that you are pointing out and it is probably my fault, so I would appreciate it if you wrote the contradiction again and at the same time (when there is time) I will try again to read the previous correspondences.
    Regarding the story, it's really cool and it's a shame that this is how things turned out.

  281. Between the two planes in space there is an axis of symmetry.
    The airport is on the axis of symmetry.
    In terms of linear speed relative to the airport, the planes are symmetrical.

  282. Measuring time differences between planes:
    Suppose we take the Earth out of the picture.
    That is :
    Two planes are circling in opposite directions somewhere in empty space.
    Every time the two planes pass each other:
    Plane A sees plane B passing by at a certain speed.
    Plane B sees plane A passing by at the same speed in the opposite direction.

    In terms of the mutual (linear) speed, the two planes are symmetrical with respect to each other.

    Therefore, the clock differences cannot be attributed to the speed differences.

    The two planes are not symmetrical with respect to their rotational speed about the common center of the circles in which they move.
    so:
    Time differences must be a result of the rotational speed and not the linear speed.

  283. Michael

    Here is another point for thought, which is actually a question:

    All confirmations for the lengthening of time and other observations that confirm the predictions of relativity - muoners, airplanes, particle accelerators - were made when the system goes from a state where its speed is almost 0 relative to the background radiation to a state where its speed is almost the speed of light relative to the radiation.

    Naturally, no experiment has ever been done or there is a system in which the situation is reversed, right?

    Shmulik

    In the first link it is about the age of the universe and the earth, but not about the supposed contradiction of relativity. In the second link, it is indirectly about one of the reasons for the lengthening of time - the Doppler effect.

    Regarding the "second law" - his story is a bit complicated. As strange as it may be, the idea came from a subject that was hardly mentioned in the story - psychotechnology. Simply, the domain for that name was already taken, so I changed it to psychomechanics.

    I am not currently interested in discussing this issue, but it turns out that the mass application of psychotechnology probably has the same identity problems as those of entropy in a thermodynamic system.

    Writing the first chapter was spontaneous and easy and took two days. After sympathetic comments in Galileo and a subsequent article by Nir Lahav, the editor Miki Elazar asked me for more chapters. I worked harder on the second chapter, when Zvi Atzmon, the scientific editor, changes and edits the chapter. Finally we arrived at a wording that was acceptable to him (a little less so for me, I didn't like the ending) and also a deadline for publication, but then the management changed and it was decided not to publish.

    As far as I'm concerned, it already belongs to the past and I simply don't have the desire and time to deal with it. (There is also a simple matter of khatiarats - I am 56 years old..). But if you are interested, my virtual friend (whom I have never met...), I authorize you to release the episodes and collect all the royalties. Only if you will be kind enough, also mention my name as the writer..

  284. Israel,
    I finished the third part (where you introduce the cool idea of ​​psychomechanics) and still very cool. I hope you translate it into English, sell it on Amazon as a short story and make millions 🙂
    Regarding the discussion, tell me if the following two links help you in any way:
    http://ncse.com/evolution/science/age-universe-measuring-cosmic-time (especially the second point)
    A little less relevant but maybe:
    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=39143

    Michael,
    In MacBook Air it takes about 4 seconds after shutdown. Maybe it's time to change 😉

  285. Israel:
    Yesterday evening, right after I finished writing the comment, I clicked "add comment" and turned off the computer.
    Immediately after turning it off, I realized that it leads to the problem you described, but I no longer had the strength to turn the computer back on.
    I have to think about it a bit and I currently see two relevant directions:
    One is that the temperature clock gives the result in terms of the time of the surveyor and therefore does not have to give everyone the same result (you have to see how this happens because apparently the calculation components do not depend on the surveyor),
    The second is that the assumption of isotropy is unfounded (since it is possible for a universe that is not isotropic to appear isotropic precisely to those who move within it).
    Don't know right now. I'll try to think about it later.

  286. 1. But how do we know they happened at the same time in the same system? Event A happened in Israel, the second on Mars.

    Here is what Einstein says:

    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 synch

    The pasting doesn't come out well, but you can look at the source. Synchronization is through light rays. If clocks A and B are synchronized in Einstein's way and event A occurred near clock A when it shows time A - then it is simultaneous to event B which occurred near clock B when it shows time B, if times A and B are identical . Even if the distance between the events is a light year. by definition.

    2. No problem.

    3. There is a problem, and we have encountered it before. "The clock shows a time later than the background radiation time when viewed in its own system and a time earlier than the background radiation time if viewed in the background radiation system."

    According to you, and correct me if I'm wrong, if a clock in system A moves in system B, when the clocks pass each other each will see the other's time as earlier, and this is because each side sees the other as slower.

    It therefore follows that when two spaceships pass each other and each claims that time in the second moves slower, then if they photograph each other with a high-resolution camera that will record the two clocks in spaceships A and B, the photographs from each spaceship will show the opposite: the photograph from spaceship A It will show time 10 AM and time 8 AM, and the photo from spacecraft B will show time 10 AM and time 8 AM.

    Is it physically possible? And if not, what does it mean that "each side sees the other submit more slowly"?

    This point is critical to the discussion, as we will see later.

    "The clock shows a time later than the background radiation time when looking at it in its own system"

    How? The background radiation time is the age of the universe. If the clock shows a later time, say 20 billion years, then in his system more than 6 billion years have passed than the age of the universe! For us, who are comfortable relative to the radiation, watching and photographing this system passing quickly in front of us, a porthole opens for a glimpse into the future, doesn't it?

  287. 1. Simultaneity depends on a reference system and indicates the fact that two events happened at the same time in the same system.
    The GPS satellites, for example, transmit simultaneously with respect to the Earth but do not transmit simultaneously in the background radiation system.
    2. The traveling twin will not be older if it is the only one accelerating. If both are accelerated - anything is possible.
    3. I don't know what two passengers are doing in the punch line story. In any case, it is impossible to synchronize them and the state of one in relation to the background radiation does not depend on the state of the other.
    However - at any given moment (and not only during their meeting - assuming that at some point each of them set their watch to show exactly the time of the background radiation) the clock shows a time later than the time of the background radiation when viewed in its own system and a time earlier than the time of the background radiation if It is looked at in the background radiation system.

  288. Shmulik

    What I wrote is that in the year when special relativity was published - 1905 - the popular opinion was that the universe is eternal. Therefore, there is no meaning to the beginning of the time and the only way is an arbitrary determination of the 0 point and synchronization of clocks.

    The matter is of course different if there was a beginning to time. So the 0 point is natural. This is the popular opinion today - the universe began about 13.7 billion years ago, before that there was simply no time. (Don't come to Israel with questions such as "So what was first?" The answer will inevitably be: with a kitbag!).

    Michael.

    The intention was the contradiction between the private relation only to the explosion.

    First of all, thank you for your time and effort. I wish you could clarify the point for me and get the jock out of my head. But before that happens I just have questions, and lots of them. It hasn't happened yet.

    1. I am not looking for a definition for sweeping simultaneity. only for simultaneity.

    2. "The simultaneity in the background radiation system is the real simultaneity and the problem is that there is nothing in this simultaneity that is more real than in any other simultaneity".

    "The question has no absolute meaning but only a relative meaning".

    "I have the feeling that you are aiming for a punch line that would say that because you can only slow down the clock, then the background radiation system is the system where the clock is the fastest and not it.
    Imagine twins who are in a spaceship that is in constant motion relative to the background radiation system.
    Imagine now that one of them leaves the spaceship in a daughter spaceship which he accelerates until it comes to rest relative to the background radiation, stays at rest for an hour in this state and then returns and accelerates it back to catch up with the spaceship he left.
    When he returns, the one left in the spaceship will be older than him."

    Since you immediately understood where I was going (I knew I could trust you) - but not completely - so here's a question:

    Could there be a situation where the traveling twin is the older one? (By the way, according to an article by Gali from a few years ago - the answer is yes. But only in a rotary system).

    Since there is no room for drama and tension in the discussion, so here is the punch line:

    If you accept the assumption that: Temp clocks as I have presented them always show the same time when they pass each other in inertial systems with joint photography from both sides - we can show that normal clocks (like those that carry twins with them) show a time that is higher than that of the background radiation, That is, an age later than the age of the universe.

    This is mathematically possible, but not physically. agree?

  289. Israel,
    If I understand your claim correctly, then I answer and say that the contradiction you point to between special relativity and the Big Bang is meaningless. The special theory of relativity makes certain assumptions that do not exist in reality and because of these assumptions, the contradiction exists, but, the special theory of relativity, because of its unrealistic assumptions, is not the theory in which the question of the beginning of the universe should be debated in the first place, but only through the general theory of relativity.

  290. Israel:
    I don't have my own definition of total simultaneity.
    In fact, the theory of relativity showed that measured simultaneity is relative and depends on the observer.
    You are trying to revive the concept of sweeping simultaneity by saying that the simultaneity in the background radiation system is the real simultaneity and the problem is that there is nothing in this simultaneity that is more real than any other simultaneity and therefore this simultaneity cannot be used by us, for example, to build a GPS system on Earth Because this type of system requires the simultaneity of the earth.
    I don't know what you define as a "synchronized system in terms of time" It is clear, for example, that events that appear to be synchronous in the background radiation system do not appear to be synchronous in another system and in contrast - by definition - events that appear to be synchronous in the background radiation system are synchronized in the background radiation system.
    Clocks can be behind or ahead of other relative systems. The question has no absolute meaning but only a relative meaning.
    It is clear that the clock of the aging twin actually speeds up compared to that of the twin that remains young.
    I have the feeling that you are aiming for a punch line that would say that because you can only slow down the clock then the background radiation system is the system where the clock is the fastest and not it.
    Imagine twins who are in a spaceship that is in constant motion relative to the background radiation system.
    Imagine now that one of them leaves the spaceship in a daughter spaceship which he accelerates until it comes to rest relative to the background radiation, stays at rest for an hour in this state and then returns and accelerates it back to catch up with the spaceship he left.
    When he returns, the one left in the spaceship will be older than him.
    Your words to Shmolik are not true.
    In fact Einstein introduced the cosmological constant into the equations precisely because without it he would have guaranteed that there would have been a big bang or that there would have been a big collapse and this did not go well with his belief in a static universe.
    With the cosmological constant it is already possible to have a universe that has both a big bang and dark energy.

  291. Michael

    Maybe I missed something.

    Can you tell me what is the definition of simultaneity?

    And how is it different from my definition? Or Einstein's?

    Other questions:

    Do you accept that the background radiation system is a time-synchronized system?

    Do you accept that according to Einstein and the results of the various experiments, the lengthening of time is unidirectional - that is, that moving clocks can lag but not speed up?

    Shmulik

    The passage you brought is true and beautiful, but I'm not sure I understand your question. I am not claiming a contradiction within relativity itself. The contradiction is with a later theory - the big bang and the expanding universe.

  292. Israel,
    Israel,
    Sorry to make it difficult, but after what you wrote, I ask: Is special relativity nothing but a special case of general relativity because and so, and it makes assumptions that do not exist in reality and then you arrive at a contradiction through it?
    I derive the question from the following paragraph from the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

    The term is currently used more generally to refer to any case in which gravitation is not significant. General relativity is the generalization of special relativity to include gravitation. In general relativity, gravity is described using non-euclidean geometry, so that gravitational effects are represented by curvature of spacetime; special relativity is restricted to flat spacetime. Just as the curvature of the earth's surface is not noticeable in everyday life, the curvature of spacetime can be neglected on small scales, so that locally, special relativity is a valid approximation to general relativity.[8] The presence of gravity becomes undetectable in a sufficiently small, free-falling laboratory.

  293. Israel:
    You just keep mixing sex with non-sex.
    So now you have redefined the term "simultaneity".
    It is no longer about things that for you are happening at the same time but about things that are happening at the same time in the background radiation system.
    This is of course a necessary consequence of what we said before - the fact that you chose such a reference clock of the background radiation system.
    Of course, this simultaneity has no physical meaning and what you will achieve with it is exactly what you will achieve (and indeed the GPS satellites achieve) if you decide that simultaneity is determined by the Earth's clock.
    By the way - if you synchronize the GPS satellites according to the background radiation system, they will stop working.

  294. Michael.

    Let's go to where it all began, Einstein's original paper on relativity:

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

    The first chapter deals with what simultaneity is and how we will synchronize remote clocks. Einstein says:

    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."

    After defining what "time" is (the small hand at 7, the large hand at 12), he continues:

    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.

    Legit, right? You are in space facing Mars, your watch shows 7, but who assures you that you are in sync with your friend on the other side of the planet? How, for example, can you synchronize an attack on Mars if you don't have computers that have calculated all the way from Earth? And what if your friend is actually an alien from another planet? How will you synchronize watches then?

    So here is Einstein's suggestion on how to synchronize the clocks:

    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,

    Contact your friend using light beams, and synchronize the clocks using them.

    From here he continues to describe synchronization and the problematic nature of synchronizing clocks in relative motion. But we have the advantage that Einstein did not have in 1905: two remote observers can measure the temperature of the radiation, turn it into absolute time using the Friedman formula, and save the headache of the light rays. They can be sure that their clocks are synchronized just like with the light beam synchronization method.

    In fact, this is where the discussion can end. Contrary to Einstein's claim in 1905, if the big bang theory is true then every point in the universe has "natural time" synchronized with every other point. No need for light rays or bull's rays. Just a thermometer, and the simultaneous attack on Mars will be launched.

    This is my argument. It is also possible to show - with a lot of mathematical juggling - that if we use "temperature clocks" attached to regular clocks, we will get a contradiction to the lengthening of time. But my basic claim is that absolute time exists even without clock synchronization.

  295. By the way, Israel:
    The same agreement on a clock of the Earth's specific reference system (which I referred to in my previous response) is exactly the agreement of the GPS satellites.
    They do not send their signals according to the time they measure with them, but according to the time they calculate should prevail on Earth.

  296. Israel:
    I don't understand where you are going.
    The moment of the bang can be used as a natural zero point and the background radiation can be used as a natural relaxation system.
    What about that and the theory of relativity? is nothing!
    In order to synchronize clocks, constant communication is not necessary.
    If you leave the earth and know its course and in addition you are aware of your own movements in space - you can calculate the time on earth at any moment.
    Of course, your calculation becomes less accurate as time goes by - both because of the inaccuracy of your knowledge about the Earth and because of the inaccuracy of your knowledge about your movement, but there is no principled obstacle to the decision of all people from the Earth to determine that cosmic time is Earth time.
    The advantage of the background radiation system is only that you are in constant communication and therefore (again, in principle) it is possible to reach an agreement on this reference system more easily even if other stars come out.
    Of course, all this does not change the fact that if you leave Earth, you will move rapidly through space for an hour (as measured by your normal clocks) and come back and meet your twin - he will look like an old man and you will look like you did when you left.
    That's because your body, your watch, and everything else around you isn't looking at the temperature clock that's in your spaceship and moving at crazy speed at all.

    I do not know what you are even talking about 1905 and how this year belongs to physical facts.
    Einstein thought the universe was stable because that's what he was told and he didn't bother to measure it himself.
    His theory did not get along with a steady state and he introduced the cosmological constant to allow it to endure such a state (later it turned out that this constant does not meet Einstein's expectations and cannot stabilize the acceleration of the universe but can, on the other hand, help in deciphering dark energy but none of this is important)

    In any case - there is no point in including the year 1905 in any equation that describes the laws of physics

  297. Michael.

    If I understood Einstein's article from 1905 correctly, it is not possible to synchronize clocks in space unless you have established contact between them. All relativity stems from this communication which is carried out by means of light rays.

    1. Do you get this point?

    2. Can you point out a way to synchronize clocks at different and distant points in space without communication between them according to knowledge in 1905?

    3. Can you do this based on current knowledge?

    4. Does a natural 0 point for time in an infinite universe have any significance that was and always will be?

    5. In the universe created by the big bang, isn't the moment of the bang a natural 0 point?

  298. Israel:
    But I explained exactly what the "absoluteness" of the time of the bang is and showed that this time is different (in the sense of the answer to the question "how many years ago it happened) in different reference systems.
    I also showed that it matches perfectly (!) with the temperature gauge you described.
    Regarding a physical example of a wave without a carrier medium at all, the year of discovery of that example is not important. After all, you are not dealing with the restoration of Maxwell's name (a name that was not harmed at all) but with a physical question.
    As you said - in your comments here you did not talk about temperature clocks. What you did do was to assume a monotonic decrease in temperature, which as mentioned is wrong.
    Regarding the temperature clock - there is no problem with it at all.
    In your system that is in motion you can - if you have enough information - calculate the time in any other reference system.
    The temperature clock is based on the fact that in the natural rest system of the universe (the one where radiation is isotropic) you have enough information and can calculate its time.
    It does not impose any constraint on your time.

  299. Shmulik.

    Despite all the new developments and theories, the assumption today is that special relativity is just as true as it was in 1905. There is not even one piece of evidence that contradicts it, and many pieces of evidence that confirm it.

    Regarding the bang theory, the agreement is not so sweeping, but it is still the leading theory in the mainstream.

    I am trying to show that there is a contradiction between the absolute time of the bang and the relative time of relativity.

    Michael - sorry for the length. Learn to redden and emphasize words and I will clarify for you the straw from the chaff in each response.

    ב

    "It doesn't matter how it is measured. The technique of measurement is not important at all.
    B's clock lags behind A's clock.
    C's clock lags behind B's clock."

    Not true! What is clear as day is:

    It doesn't matter how it is measured. The technique of measurement is not important at all.
    A's clock lags behind A's clock.
    C's clock lags behind C's clock.

    Only B's clock speeds up relative to B's clock.

    The evidence - just like the evidence for your claim.

  300. Israel,
    Thanks for the follow up, I'll read it soon!
    Easy question: Why does it matter to you what Einstein said in 1905, after all, many years have passed since then and more theories have been developed? According to one of the solutions of the theory of general relativity, that of Messrs. FLRW the universe expands and if we take time back, we get the big bang so the universe is not eternal according to the renewed Einstein.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric

  301. Israel:
    In the system of A:
    It doesn't matter how it is measured. The technique of measurement is not important at all.
    B's clock lags behind A's clock.
    C's clock lags behind B's clock.

  302. Israel:
    As I said - it will take some time before I can answer you.
    You write such scrolls that it's really hard to separate the bar from the chaff.

  303. Miracles:
    What you asked was aimed at you - I am sure it was aimed at you.
    See the continuation of the adventures of B.

    ב:
    You didn't show anything.
    You make baseless statements and I stop arguing with you.

  304. Shmulik, thanks for the support. There is an English translation of the first chapter. Here is the sequel.

    "Mmm.. what, what do you mean? What do you mean, what did we do this time?" The professor was blind and confused.
    "You, the scientists, the mathematicians, the physicists..."
    "we?!" exclaimed the professor with a fury that helped him regain his composure. "Don't try to reverse the creation! If you think you can make a mess in court like you do in life then you are in for a bitter surprise! I am not a soft-hearted Boltzmann, and mathematics, unlike physics, is not a close empirical science, but a completely perfect craft of thought that rests on solid theoretical foundations that cannot be challenged!"

    "Really" said the law with skepticism.

    "really!" The Professor's tiara, all true to battle. "We are not a collection of observers like the physicists, who collect and collect as many observations as possible and try to fit them into a kind of hybrid theory that will loosely unite all the contradictory data in some dubious formula borrowed from mathematics, a formula that will change immediately when new data shatters the previous theory For the benefit of some new ephemeral scarecrow" the professor stopped for a breath and stole a glance at the audience, trying to gauge the impression left by his ranting words.

    "Oh, I see you don't have much respect for the realm of physics" accused the law.

    "And why would I bother? Every two days they have a new legend. Many generations told us that the Earth is the center of the universe and presented complicated charts and tables to explain the movement of the celestial bodies around it, all so that reality would be subordinated to the creaking theory. Then, when the tensions increased, they invented a new story. This time they put the sun in the center, summoned a fresh hero, called him "gravitational force" and told the children that this force attracts all bodies to each other without any intermediary in between. They are still looking for the graviton that might help them convince themselves. One day they have a website, and the next a curved "space-time". The Torah stars are "Relativity" and "Quantum Mechanics", but both are in conflict and do not speak to each other.

    "And with you there in the kingdom of mathematics the situation is better?" Provoked the law.

    "With us" the professor puffed out his chest proudly, "everything is quiet and stable as usual, boring even because of stability. We are a completely pure science, and there are no new observations that can cloud the theoretical perfection that has changed very little since Euclid wrote "Fundamentals" in the third century BC. Since everything is built on simple and understandable axioms and proven theorems whose complexity is increasing, we can start with "between two points only one straight line passes, which is also the shortest distance between them" and end with a complicated structure such as analytic geometry or the phenomenon of perfect numbers."
    The audience clapped.

    "This is exactly the difference between us and physics," the professor pointed his nose at Al. "Mathematics is perfect to infinity, just as the Almighty is perfect to infinity, while physics is nothing more than a collection of approximations. No wonder you yourself, the progenitor of the mess, was chosen as the basic law and the most representative of physics, as if to confirm the thesis that there is an upper limit to the scientific truth that can be achieved by physics.

    "And there is also an upper limit to the amount of nonsense that the ear is able to digest in a given period of time" muttered the law.

    "Did you mumble something?" barked the professor.

    "Nothing, nothing," the law smiled flatteringly. "All of us here delight in the pearls of your tongue, Professor Leibnovitz." He pointed to the line of numbers the professor had drawn on the blackboard. "Tell me, please: how many special and perfect numbers are there between minus infinity and infinity?"

    "infinite!" replied the professor firmly.

    "And how many numbers are without any uniqueness?"

    "Also infinite" answered the professor in a weak voice.

    "And which infinity is greater?"

    "What kind of nonsense are you spouting, Law" intervened the prosecutor. "What does a greater infinity mean? Infinity is infinity, isn't it Professor?”
    The audience applauded, but the professor buried his face in the ground.

    "The prosecutor expects an answer from you" scolded the law.

    The professor raised his flushed face and muttered "The infinity of meaningless numbers is greater.."
    "Thank you for opening your heart. How much bigger?”

    "infinite…"

    And among all the great and wonderful laws of mathematics, among all the prime numbers, beautiful, perfect, Romeo and Juliet, lovely and pleasant, have you ever heard of the number 1995, the number also known by its name: "Rando"?

    The professor turned pale. "You..do you know Rando?" stammer

    "Acquaintance also acquaints" answered the law. In fact, I even went to the trouble of asking Marando to testify for the prosecution. He is here with me" he took out a pocket calculator and typed a few digits on it. "It will be a bit difficult because Rando's native language is binary, but I think we will manage. Isn't it, Rando?”
    "Certainly" answered Rando.

    "Don't tell him anything!" the professor squealed in frustration.

    "Keep to yourself" the law said to the professor in a scolding. "Believe me, it hurts me more than you. Undoubtedly, it is not particularly pleasant to reveal in Parhasia one of the most obscure episodes of the kingdom of mathematics...perhaps the darkest chapter...the rebellion of the simple numbers under the brave leadership of Rando, the humble and random number of all numbers. Of course, it would be much simpler if you mathematicians would confess that you accused me in vain, reveal the whole truth about the shaky foundations on which the mathematical "perfection" was built, admit that you have mastered privileged numbers and that you have enslaved their righteous brothers, fall on your knees, pray for my forgiveness, and let me discover the The forgiving sides of the merciful nature. If not, I will be forced to make a huka and be deprived of the whole idea of ​​the perfection of mathematics, something that, as I have already mentioned, I do not like at all."

    The professor sensed, while the audience swallowed their saliva.

    "Well!" The law urged. "We can't wait for you a whole day. We still have a lot of work ahead of us!"

    The professor raised his chin in defiance, to prove that we would not give in to pressure.

    The second law addressed the audience: "Gentlemen, is anyone willing to reveal the truth?"

    "Me" answered a young man's voice from the crowd.

    "Thank you" said the law with relief. "Who are you young man and what is your name?"

    "Gedaliah" answered the guy. "And I'm a math student. I know very well the story of Rando, or in his full name: Ran-Dhua."

    "Tell me Gadel-Yahweh," the law addressed the young man in a fatherly tone. "Is mathematics really so perfect?"

    "Don't you dare to inform!" screamed the professor.

    But the guy approached the stand and continued to speak. "Give in, Leibnowitz. Hiding the truth is not a path that a true mathematician would choose. The law is right. Mathematics, like physics, was built layer by layer through trial and error, was and still is a large collection of patches, and many of its fundamental theorems cannot be proven in depth at all."

    "Are you telling me?" Rando's voice was hollow and slightly digital. "I learned this the hard way. Until the mathematicians came along with all their privileged numbers, we were all friends with equal rights, as Kroenker, a nineteenth-century mathematician, said: "God created the whole numbers, everything else is the work of man." Suddenly, classes were created, an aristocracy, young numbers were not allowed to play with their old friends but without reference... it reached a climax at a party in honor of the birth of the little i and his acceptance as a full member of the mathematics aristocracy.

    "Who is the cute little i?" Law asked dreamily.

    "Root of 1-." answered Gedaliah. He came to give a solution to a quadratic equation of the type X²+1=0. There is no positive or negative number that can solve the equation, so this number was invented. At first it was treated with great skepticism, and even the great Descartes doubted its existence and mockingly called it an "imaginary number" or imaginary, hence the i.
    Whether they exist or not, imaginary numbers are extremely useful in various fields, especially in electrical engineering. For mathematics, the simulated numbers are especially valuable, because they allow the description of geometric functions by pure algebraic means."
    In his speech, Gedaliah drew on the board an axis perpendicular to the axis of numbers drawn by Leibnovitz earlier. "See? If we call this axis the "axis of imaginary numbers" it seems that we can define each point on the plane using only a pair of numbers: a real number, on the horizontal axis, and an imaginary number, on the vertical axis. Such a pair is called a "complex number." In fact, we have thereby created an alternative system to the usual Cartesian system based on a horizontal X-axis and a vertical Y-axis, but with the clear advantage that we can perform complicated geometric calculations with relatively easy and convenient algebraic means."

    "I know it sounds a bit complicated" Gedaliah reassured the confused crowd. But after a little practice, you will argue that the demon is not so terrible. The beauty of this is that the final result does not have to contain imaginary or complex numbers at all. No fun? We started with a complicated problem, transferred it via hocus pocus to an imaginary world of virtual numbers, solved it relatively easily and returned it solved to the world of real numbers!”

    "Your explanations make me understand even less" the prosecutor scratched his forehead in embarrassment.

    Gedaliah, look for a suitable example. "The legend says that years ago an old sheikh wanted to divide his camels between his three sons according to the following key: the eldest would get half of the camels, the middle a third and the youngest a ninth. Count the camels, and here is a robbery and a robbery! There were 17 camels in the herd, a prime number that is not divisible by any number other than itself and 1. In their sorrow, the boys turned to the wise caddy to help them with the division. The Qadi told them: Soon my son will return from the market on a camel, we will add it to the herd, and make the distribution.
    Now with the camel of the Kadi's son we will get 18 camels, so the eldest got nine, the middle six, the youngest two and a total of the original 17 camels. The boys thanked the Kadi and went on their way happy and good-hearted, but to this day it is not known whether the Kadi really had a son, or a camel, and they don't care either.. The main thing is that the real problem was solved using that "fake camel" and everyone is very happy.
    Transformations work in a similar way: transferring a difficult problem from one system to another through a series of formulas, sometimes called "Jacobins", solving the problem in the more convenient system, and returning it to the original system solved and smiling.
    For example, I will present you the following problem: try to calculate the mass of a sphere whose specific gravity increases as you move away from the center. If you try to use Cartesian coordinates, you will argue that the problem is extremely difficult to solve. But transfer it to spherical coordinates and the problem will be solved in the blink of an eye.

    That's why everyone was so excited when little i joined the family, and held a religious and proper feast in his honor, 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 with Euler's formula lit up above the stage, illuminating the night sky and the cheering crowd:

    0=1+ e^iπ

    Gadalihu stopped in his words, all choked with excitement, while Leibnovitz wiped away hidden tears from excitement.

  305. Marnan's comments respond and respond, the end of a good signature tzadikot and tzadikim, at Sieta Dashmia we ended the fast.

    Righteous Elek.. a bunch of infidels. At a time when ghosts, I have given up with you, Israel, are tormenting our bodies and purifying our souls with fasting and Lent, you are wasting your time writing comments?!

    Nuts…

    Elek's comments.. How could you not have a blush on your face? Still the battered twin paradox? Even the screen is blushing with shame.

    (Which reminds me: Michael, how do you manage to redden letters, highlight words and other magic? As usual we are not told anything).

    ב
    "In A's system during the flight:
    C moves faster than B and therefore B's watch shows a time that is between what A's watch shows and what C's watch shows.
    In C's system during the flight:

    You have no way of knowing what someone's watch is showing far away from you unless you have called, and it is highly desirable that it be by electromagnetic means. Therefore, an expression such as "C moves faster than B and therefore B's watch shows a time that is between what A's watch shows" is meaningless. How do you know what it shows? He is very far away, isn't he? Will you send a transmitter? Open yourself to all the problems of communication between bodies in relative motion as shown by Einstein in the original article on relativity.

    Michael.

    First of all, a clarification: I am not claiming that relativity or the big bang theory are incorrect. It's just that the length of time doesn't line up with the absolute time of the bang. I have no preference between the two.

    Quantum systems where there is no rest system for waves are irrelevant in 1887. But that's a sideshow. Getting to the point:

    You write:

    "Can you present information that says the temperature clock is not affected by speeds and accelerations?"

    and also:

    "You completely ignore what I said about the fact that in some parts of the trip it even goes up (as I explained in this response and in previous responses)".

    So far we haven't talked about a temp watch. A reminder for those who know, and a refresher for those who are hearing about it for the first time:

    A temperature clock measures the temperature of the cosmic background radiation in two directions: with and against the direction of the radiation. The data is fed to the computer that weights the two-way Doppler, and becomes the output of the absolute time that has passed since the big bang at the same point where the temperature clock is averaged, using the Friedman formula:

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/expand.html#c3

    If I remember correctly, in the discussion with R.H. We used Macintosh computers.

    Therefore, even though the temperature itself can increase with movement, the time output always advances and two passing temp clocks will always show the same time in a shared photo (regardless of which one the photo is taken from).

    Your comment Michael is very spot on. At the time I got this answer:

    Re question 1: It's relatively simple to calculate temperatures in space because since there is no air, there is no heat conduction or convection. A body in space can only absorb heat by absorbing radiation, and can only lose heat by radiating.

    The CMB behaves like a black body with a temperature of 2.725K, so any body in equilibrium with it will also be at this temperature. If there are no other sources of heat your thermometer will have the same temperature as the CMB. However it's hard to achieve this. You could argue that you could shade your thermometer from the Sun, but whatever you use as a sunshade will eventually heat up and start radiating, and it will then heat your thermometer. The only way you'd get your thermometer down to 2.725K would be to put it in interstellar space or possibly even intergalactic space.

    Re question 2: Traveling fast will indeed blue shift the CMB and raise it's temperature, and that will heat your ship. In principle if you travel fast enough the blue shifted CMB would vaporize your spaceship.

    This actually happens to the Earth (well, not the vaporising bit!). The CMB is hotter in the direction of travel of the Earth. See http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap010128.html for details.

    share improve this answer
    answered Jun 3 '12 at 8:00

    John Rennie
    53.3k13792

    This is by the way the name of the former editor of Scientific American.

    At the time I brought a description of the phenomenon you describe and its solution:

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-speach-20100800/comment-page-25/#comment-344956

    "To all the slanderers and slanderers, the temperature clocks are bad.

    It is technically possible to explain why two temp clocks at the same place and moment must show the exact same time, but due to the shortness of time (...) I will try to mention again what temp clocks are.

    Temp clocks show the number of seconds that have passed since the big bang that a temp clock next to them would show if this clock was at rest relative to cosmic radiation.

    The obvious comparison is the well-known story about Narcissus the prince, whose frogs in his marsh often complained about the mean-hearted and sharp-beaked Hasidic women who devoured them with appetite.

    Narcissus, a lover and frog kisser by birth, planned a simultaneous nocturnal attack on the nests of the Hasids, which was to be carried out by elite commando units of frogs who planned to attack all the nests at the same time, in order to prevent the Hasids from sending ripples from nest to nest and thus warn the other Hasids. The synchronization was carried out by measuring the temperature of the egg that cools down slowly at night and a formula that converted the temperature into time.

    Everything was ready for the big attack, but 12 hours before the departure, Rabbi Kermit the Toad showed up in front of Narcissus, all green with shame.

    "There's a flaw in the plan," Kermit cracked. "The tadpole fleet that is supposed to give the opening signal claims that the temperature they are measuring is higher than normal, and this is because of the great speed of the tadpoles moving relative to the water. It is impossible to synchronize the attack, because the clocks are not synchronized. Our plans are doomed to failure, and Hasidism will continue to devour frogs and deliver babies."

    "Don't worry" Narcissus reassured him. "An additional factor can be introduced into the formula that will weigh the relative movement speed of each and every toad, and the output will be the time of the temperature clock if it were at rest relative to the water"

    This is how the frogs took advantage of a large pasture.

    The example I hope, obviously.

    There is absolute time in the universe, the time that has passed since the Big Bang. This is what the bang theory claims. It can be measured. Temp clocks are one suggestion - density clocks or receding galaxy clocks are also possible as suggested by R.H.

    But according to relativity in 1905, the universe is eternal, never began and will never end. Therefore absolute time has no meaning.

    And theory A does not agree with B. This is the gist of my argument.

    June 10th, 2012″

    If you accept that temp clocks built as I presented always show the same time - the time that has passed since the bang at that point - then you almost got my argument, I believe. The first part of Einstein's original paper on relativity:

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

    deals with the simultaneity of events and the difficulty of deciding what is common time, hence the need to synchronize clocks using light rays. But here is a simple and easy way that did not exist in 1905: there is no need to communicate with the second clock. Take the temp clock out of the box and it will automatically adjust to the absolute time which will also be the same as the time of any other temp clock.

    (What will happen? We started with Maxwell's original ether article, continued with Einstein's original relativity article, soon we will also reach Newton's "Principia"....).

    In the book "Weave of the Universe" by Brian Green, on pages 200-190 and especially on pages 197-196 it is written: "Clocks whose only movement comes from the expansion of space - they are synchronized magic clocks, which are used to measure the age of the universe. Of course you are allowed to take your watch, enter the spaceship, run back and forth in space at enormous speeds... If you do this your watch will tick at a different rate, and you will find that the amount of time that has passed since the big bang will be different. This is a completely valid point of view, but also completely private... When astronomers talk about the age of the universe, they are asking for... a standard that has the same meaning on every site".

    If you don't accept that temp clocks always show the same time in a shared photo, or you don't think this contradicts the first part of Einstein's article, or you don't think there is a problem here between relativity and the bang, and you still have strength and patience - we will continue to the next claim.

    But if I exaggerated - point it out and let me go.

  306. In the aircraft test:
    These are three accelerated systems.
    Plane A, the airport, plane B.
    It's like, for example, a centrifuge with three arms.
    In one arm is a plane.
    In the second arm is the airport.
    In the third arm is a plane in
    Each of the arms rotates at a different rate than the others.
    Each of the arms has a different centripetal force than the others.
    Each of the arms has a different centripetal acceleration than the others.
    Therefore the effect on the clocks can be attributed to acceleration. (I don't know for sure).
    However:
    What I showed earlier regarding the twin paradox relates to an inertial system.
    That is, it is not possible to leave an inertial system and return to it to the same starting point and create time differences between the clocks.

  307. And as I answered and as the insistence on this proves, it will not be perceived by those who do not think it is true as evidence of the truth, because that is a different story

  308. And the clocks will still show summer time.
    So Israel, in what way can we read the whole story? Did you translate it into English by the way?

  309. Good night.
    Miracles will be waiting for you here.
    from 6:00 in the morning.
    : )

  310. Michael
    As they say in a wonderful country... Yes but……
    In the previous story I said that a spacecraft at 0.8c passes the two twins when they are far apart. And there you see the paradox.
    And again... I'm already repeating myself... In the classic paradox, the magnitude of the acceleration does not affect the time difference. What affects is the distance the twin travels, and the length of time.

  311. Anyway, I'm going to bed now.
    Good night.
    I hope that tomorrow they will see that we searched for the same time

  312. Miracles:
    In the experiment you just described (if I understood you correctly) both are flown completely symmetrically and therefore their watches will show the same time and the paradox disappears.

  313. The twins perform a symmetrical maneuver. Let's say they are born halfway. They are flown half a light year in each direction and at the end are returned to their place of birth. It doesn't matter what acceleration profile you perform, you will get the same results, provided you maintain symmetry.
    From this I think it can be concluded that acceleration has no meaning in the experiment.
    Even in the classical paradox, what affects the time difference is the total time, the acceleration profile is meaningless.

  314. As I said: you involved another factor (the same spaceship) and this is not the twin experiment.
    Besides - the twin that retraced its steps and reached Earth was subject to acceleration (and there is no way to avoid accelerations. You can restore symmetry only if you apply acceleration to both so that they both stop before separating and then accelerate in opposite directions)

  315. Michael
    Let's take a pair of twins and give them synchronized clocks. We will take both of them at a distance of half a light year. One of them will return to Earth and the other will go another half a light year away. We got two twins with synchronized clocks a light year apart.
    Completely by chance, a spacecraft passes by the Earth at a speed of 0.8c. When the spacecraft passes over the Earth, time is recorded in the spacecraft and on the Earth. The spacecraft will later pass the distant star. The twin's clock will show 15 months later while the spacecraft's clock will show only 9 months later.
    No accelerations………did I make a mistake somewhere?

  316. Miracles:
    I already said that two people in one place are not quite the same.
    If you think it's possible for one person to go back and forth without being accelerated (and without even changing direction) I'd love to read how you propose to do it because it could be worth a lot of money because of the energy savings.
    In fact it would be a miracle 🙂

  317. B:
    If you don't know who is the stubborn one here then I will tell you: it is you.
    Read for example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment
    Please follow the word Reunited several times in the following sentence (quoted from there):
    When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.

    You can not know things and you can not understand things. All of this is legitimate. But I cannot see an incorrect claim about a historical event as a legitimate thing. Are you willing to tell us on what you based your claim that the clocks did not return to the starting point?
    If you were to say that you don't know if they returned to the starting point - that would still be a legitimate lack of knowledge, but to claim the opposite without substantiation? Forgive me, but that's it!

  318. ב
    what do not you understand???? Atomic clocks were flown and returned to the place of origin. There is a time difference. what do not you understand???

  319. I don't know who is stubborn here.

    Time differences measured in experiments were not measured when a body left an inertial system and returned to its starting point in its starting system.
    What is measured is time changes in moving bodies that do not return to the starting point in the reference system of the origin. This is not what happens when talking about a twin that leaves Earth and returns to Earth.
    At most this is possible in a twin that left the earth's reference system and never returned to it (until the time of measurement).

  320. You can't go and come back without accelerating.
    Acceleration has an effect.
    I know you can simulate someone going out and coming back using two people that one always went and the other always came back but it's not quite the same, even if the results match.
    In any case - I wanted to point out what breaks the symmetry.
    Of course, the breaking of symmetry can also be shown by changing direction without calling the child's name - and the symmetry is indeed broken. To notice this, it is enough if we assume that the two parties transmit light at a constant frequency in one direction and ask ourselves when each of them notices the fact that there has been a change of direction (the moving twin will immediately notice the change in frequency while the stationary twin will notice the change in frequency only after the light sent by the traveling twin after turning around reaches it ).

  321. ב
    What are you talking nonsense?

    Michael
    ... again ... it's not related to accelerations ... please do the calculation and see what it comes out

  322. B:
    What is this stubbornness?
    A and C went through accelerations while B did not go through any acceleration.
    Their clocks are different and this was also proven in the experiment.
    For the hundredth time I have to tell about the man who enters a zoo, sees a giraffe and says "Impossible! There is no such animal!”

  323. Israel:
    "B's watch always shows a later time than A's and C's, which is the same time. "
    This is true only in the reference system of B.
    The reference systems of A and C are separate from the system of B from the moment of flight to the moment of return. At the moment of return, all systems return and merge into one system.
    In A's system during the flight:
    C moves faster than B and therefore B's watch shows a time that is between what A's watch shows and what C's watch shows.
    In C's system during the flight:
    A moves faster than B and therefore B's watch shows a time that is between what C's watch shows and what A's watch shows.
    That is, the situation in system A is symmetric to the situation in system C.
    After the return, all the systems merge into one system, which is the system of B. And that's because their speed resets.
    In B's system, A's and C's clocks show the same time.
    conclusion:
    After the return, all the clocks are again in B's reference system and they all show the exact same time.
    conclusion:
    Any time difference measured during the flight (reference system different from the origin system) is canceled during the return to the reference system which is the origin system.

  324. Israel:
    I can certainly point to such a physical system (and I already did so in a previous response) - a system in which the waves are even more mysterious than the light waves, and that is the quantum system.
    It is a system that not only does not need an intermediary but the information in it can be coordinated regardless of distance.
    I presented an example of a certain type of movement, but if you want a movement that allows waves - that is also possible.
    All I want is to limit the movement of the particle to a certain area around a fixed starting point (the one it had in the stationary system). It can be given, for example, a blocked and fading harmonic motion around the starting point.

    What you describe is a variation on the temperature clock.
    As far as the moving twins are concerned, the temperature will rise as they move quickly relative to the average of the universe and fall as they approach the average. The temperature will represent a combination of the speed of their movement with the age of the universe.

    Note that this fits wonderfully with relativity.
    A photon, for example, has no time at all. Everything is happening for him at the same time (and locally) he still thinks he is in the big bang. The faster you approach it, the closer you are to this state - the temperature you measure is higher, your time is "slower", and your estimate of the age of the universe is lower (something that can be seen as a reflection of the slowness of time you are currently demonstrating on the past).

    I repeat: when you talk about "the distribution of the temperature drop" you make a wrong assumption as if the temperature will drop all the time.
    You completely ignore what I said about the fact that during part of the trip it even goes up (as I explained in this comment and in previous comments).

  325. Michael

    It refers to the random movement of molecules in all directions as in air or water. If there is no motion, a wave cannot pass.

    My question is: Can you point to a system where waves pass and does not have a preferred resting system?

    I don't believe there is. There is only a mathematical system - Maxwell's equations. But not a physical system (know one? Anyone? Who?).

    twins:

    I am not talking now about temperature clocks. I presented a scenario where a twin returns after a year according to his clock and after a billion years according to his brother's clock. The temperature of the universe meanwhile dropped by 100 degrees Kelvin, which they both agree on and there is also a video to prove it.

    My question was about the temperature drop distribution. In my understanding, relativity claims that most of the descent will be during the inertial movement. If you claim otherwise, show how the decrease will be distributed, provided that the total reaches -100.

    Nissim, by the way, accepted my argument.

    "In my opinion - the faster you move, the higher the temperature you will feel (compared to the resting system)".

    Is it meant to move at a constant speed? In relation to which rest system? of the cosmic background radiation?

    According to Einstein (and Galileo, and Newton, and Mach...) movement at a constant speed is rest. According to Postulate A - all rest (inertial) systems are identical.

    So that we can get to the point, what I'm asking is:

    Agreed that in the agile twin system during the inertial movement the temperature drops at a rate of at least one degree per minute as shown by the video that captures the thermometer clock and the accelerometer (which shows 0).

    If not - a different drop distribution (we all agree that the temp dropped, don't we?).

  326. B:
    Why just talk.
    Read for example on Wikipedia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twins_paradox
    Write a name:
    The twin paradox has been verified experimentally by precise measurements of atomic clocks flown in aircraft and satellites. For example, gravitational time dilation and special relativity together have been used to explain the Hafele–Keating experiment.[A 1][A 2] It was also confirmed in particle accelerators by measuring time dilation of circulating particle beams.[A 3]
    If you go to the Wikipedia entry dealing with time dilation and select the chapter dealing with experimental testing, you will find a lot of additional material:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation

    Israel:
    I don't have a problem with giving the samtine molecules a speed but I didn't want to let you determine that speed trendwise.
    It is possible, for example, that each sammin molecule will attack the vertex closest to it at a constant linear speed.
    There is movement on the surface of a sphere - even on the most perfect sphere. Otherwise two people walking on it could not meet. Do you think this is the case?
    Do you think this is also the case in an infinite universe?
    In my opinion - not only can people meet in an infinite homogeneous space, but they can determine exactly in advance when and where they will meet, when they will part, how far apart they will be and when they will meet again.
    You can read about experimental confirmations that the length varies here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction#Experimental_verifications
    This is in addition to the fact that I have already presented regarding the short-lived particles that are created as a result of a collision between the cosmic radiation particles and the particles at the edge of the atmosphere.
    The elementary particles created in collisions are not accelerated. From the moment they are created there is nothing that will push them to accelerate further. The whole combination of their mass and speed is created simultaneously from the energy of the collision.

    I'm not going to delve too much into the temperature clock since you didn't either.
    Can you show information that says the temperature clock is not affected by speeds and accelerations?
    I no longer remember the phrase that appeared in the link you gave at the time to the subject, but many of its components are speed dependent.
    More than that - even the temperature itself - if it is a function of the wavelengths you encounter or of the speed of the particles - is a function of the speed.
    In my estimation - the faster you move you will feel a higher temperature (relative to the rest system) and in terms of the temperature clock you will measure a lower universe age (and this means that at a high speed relative to the rest system your temperature clock will move backwards).
    In any case - when you settle in a shared system with another person, your temperature clocks will show the same temperature time.

    And as I mentioned before - in the calculations of the GPS accelerated system there is a separate consideration of speed and acceleration and a mistake in any of these references would be disastrous.

  327. Miracles,
    Regarding accelerations, it may be possible to handle the details of relativity, but this is not the point of my words. It is impossible to say that the two twins are in balanced systems when only one of them is accelerating.
    Regarding your variation of the paradox, I have to delve into it and I don't really have time (because my daughter wants to go for a walk) but the two twins will age at exactly the same rate anyway, I guess I'm not going into the depth of the example but it's because of the shorter time that my daughter is rocking to me.

  328. Miracles.

    The point is come. Right now we are just establishing agreements. Do you accept that in the video of the young people there will be a 100 degree drop in the space of an hour? And that this decrease will be spread over 5 stages? And most of the descent will be while the accelerometer shows 0?

    ghosts

    I am indeed fasting, not that I am a big (or little) believer, but a woman, a peacemaker, a woman...

    The trouble is that every time I come to a synagogue - God runs away..

    ב

    "B's watch always shows a time that is between the time on A's watch and the time on C's watch."

    B's watch always shows a later time than A's and C's, which is the same time. Elek symmetry.

  329. Shmulik
    It's called a teaser...
    So. Let's say 2 stars are a light year apart. We have a pair of twins - one on each planet and each twin's clock is synchronized with the clock of the other twin.. I guess it is clear that there is no problem in reaching this situation, that the two twins are the same age despite the distance between them. Now imagine a spaceship moving in a straight line, at a constant speed of 0.8c and passing the 2 stars. While crossing the first star, both the twin on that star and the spacecraft record the time. Now - what will happen when the spacecraft crosses the second star? Regarding the second twin, the spacecraft moves a distance of one light year at 0.8c, so the time is 15 months. The spacecraft, on the other hand, sees the distance between the stars as smaller and therefore measures a shorter time. The distance it will see is 0.6 light years, so it will only measure 9 months

    Questions?

    If not - then we have explained the twin paradox without accelerations. And just to clarify, there is no problem to handle accelerations in special relativity. But, it has nothing to do with the twin paradox.

  330. Michael.

    "There are many finite geometries where there is no preferred rest system. The simplest of them is the face of a ball."

    There is no motion on the surface of a sphere. KDA is symmetrical but the air on its surface has a preferred rest system - KDA. The "Shrigin" system is also a symmetrical system. I suggested giving the molecules "sethamin" speeds but you did not agree.

    Can you point to a system where waves pass and does not have a preferred resting system?

    "In fact - the temperature gauges of the twins will show different temperatures along the way."

    Do we agree that at the end of the video - both of the traveling twins and of the remaining twin - the temperature gauge shows 100 degrees less?

    If so, the descent can be divided into stages. I showed that there are 5 stages that include accelerations and traveling at a constant speed. I suggested - and this is also the argument of relativity I believe - that most of the decrease is while traveling at a constant speed.

    If you claim otherwise, show when the descent took place (not that it matters) and provided that at the end after the 5 steps we will reach a descent of 100 degrees.

    By the way, from the link:

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

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

    And as I mentioned, GPS and elementary particles (I assume you meant muons) are accelerated systems.

  331. Shmulik.

    The story has a beginning, an end, and above all a purpose: psychomechanics.

    On the other hand, I am not an expert on the subject. I never studied or even had an interest in psychology. I don't have the time or desire to start dealing with the issue either. But when I look at what is happening in the world, it is hard for me to escape the feeling that human societies behave to a large extent like thermodynamic systems with similar laws of conservation and entropy.

    The Jewish people went through the most horrible holocaust of all, but if we look at the people as a whole and without going into the details of each person (like treating a thermodynamic system does not refer to a single molecule but only to the entire system) the holocaust did not really harm us and we are now in the "golden turn" as before deportation Spain.

    40 years ago we were in a state of war with Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Our friends were Iran and Turkey. The Palestinians and Lebanon were relatively quiet. Today there is peace with Egypt and Jordan, and the Syrian border has been relatively quiet until recently. Iran and until recently Turkey are our enemies. The Palestinians and Lebanon are the ones who shoot.

    Once the mufti shot at us, then he changed his name to Kaukji, later to Nasser, Arafat, Sadat, Yassin, Nasrallah - but under all the heaps of spoons it is always the same Arab who shoots at us.

    The US is fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and arming them in Syria. Isn't it funny?

    Not if you think of a closed system in which the mess cannot go down on its own.

    And I risk and predict that out of all the current mess in our areas, we will suddenly have an ally that we never dreamed of.

    But as I mentioned, I'm just a storyteller. I really don't have the knowledge, strength and desire to start dealing with the issue.

    In a survey conducted on behalf of the "Psychomechanics Group" and including a sample representing all strata of the country's population, the first question was: "Do you believe that the average person is richer today than in the past?"

    A large majority of the respondents - 82% - responded positively to the question, and for understandable reasons. In the past, in many cases, it was considered "rich" to have more than one pair of shoes or one suit. The vast majority of the population worked hard in agriculture, for little pay or as serfs or slaves.
    Only a small minority enjoyed a reasonable standard of living, and even that would not be considered particularly high by modern standards.

    Also to the second question - "Do you believe that the average person is healthier today than in the past?" 78% answered in the affirmative. Indeed, modern life expectancy is infinitely greater than in the past. It is true that there were people in ancient times who lived long and healthy lives, but most people did not pass the age of 40, infant mortality was much higher than today, and diseases and epidemics shortened and made my remaining life miserable.

    Therefore, it is somewhat surprising that the third question: "Do you believe that the average person is happier today than in the past?" Only 18% answered in the affirmative, while a similar number of respondents added that they believe the situation is the opposite!

    why? We are healthier, richer, live longer lives - and still aren't we happier? How?
    And as if that were not enough, today humanity has at its disposal a science that did not exist until the end of the nineteenth century: the science of psychology, whose entire purpose is the mental well-being of man, and whose purpose, it must be assumed, is to increase human happiness.

    Are the respondents wrong? Of course, we cannot measure a vague and immeasurable state like happiness, especially in others, and certainly not in the past. This is also why the questions were formulated in the language "Do you believe?" But many people caught the intuitive truth in the answers.

    The solution to the paradox apparently lies in the fourth question: "Do you believe that personal happiness originates from interaction with nature (fields, animals, the sea, and against them natural disasters, hunger, cold, etc.) or interaction with other people (love, friendship, family, and against them hatred, jealousy Or human-made disasters and damages?"

    No less than 92% of the respondents answered that the main source of happiness is interaction with other people. And in addition, many respondents added on their own initiative, an intentional injury to people is many times more serious than an injury with similar damage caused as a result of an accident.
    After analyzing the question, "the man of psychomechanics" defined the dilemma facing the group as follows:

    Fact: Science and medicine have improved the state of health and life expectancy on earth.
    Assumption: the actions and feelings of humans can be studied and improved through psychological methods (education, therapy, conditioning, etc.).
    Conclusion: We can increase human happiness on earth by "mass production" of these methods, and apply them to as large a number of people as possible, just as mass vaccination eradicated most epidemics.
    Question: Regarding 3: Can we really?

    Let's make the standards stricter: let's say that psychology will reach perfection, and genetic engineering combined with natural selection will create perfect people, so perfect that even the traits of contentment and happiness will be cloned for every person in the world. Will the star of Aquarius finally shine, and happiness and harmony will prevail in the world?

    No, psychomechanics tells us.
    Not with the means and methods used today. These can help the individual to improve his condition in relation to the general, but since happiness is a relative state, the improvement of the individual's condition must come at the expense of the general, or alternatively the caring body whose positive mental energy will be deprived of the general.

    This is the essence of the second law of psychomechanics. Order in the thermodynamic system is compared to happiness in the psychodynamic system, and just as the tendency of order in a closed thermodynamic system is to diminish over time, so the tendency of happiness in a closed psychomechanical system, such as the earth, is to diminish, which causes the system to spread and push the dissatisfaction to the social fringes that are left behind.

    If you succeeded through hard work and study to improve your score on the psychometric test or the IQ test, you inevitably pushed someone else down, because I Q100 by its very definition is a measure that reflects average intelligence. And the same will happen to you if you are forced to compete for your place at the university with a group of endlessly hardworking and devilishly talented Chinese, who will raise the grade bar and fix you without a way out on the left side of the bell curve.

    An interesting thesis being researched by the group refers to the communities of addicts. The assumption is that under constant conditions, a certain and approximately constant percentage of the population will develop an addiction - to alcohol, drugs, food, gambling, etc. Addiction will focus on some people, and ignore others. Now, what will happen if we remove from the system to a lonely island all the drug addicts for example, and leave all the other conditions in the system as they were?
    According to the data of the original assumption, since the percentage of addicts is more or less constant, after the system reaches a new equilibrium, new addicts will spontaneously form to fill the ranks, while on the deserted island, a mass spontaneous detoxification will occur among the original addicts.

    Although there is not yet sufficient experimental data to substantiate the thesis, the implication, if the theory is confirmed, is that the initial addicts, by their very existence, prevented the latter from becoming addicted, without even knowing them or knowing their role in the system!

    Equally interesting is the explanation given by the group to the problem of anti-Semitism. According to the argument of psychomechanics, it does not matter at all what the Jews will do, who they are, what they are and whether they even exist. The source of the problem is one group - the anti-Semites - trying to lower its own psychomechanical entropy by raising the entropy of another group, the Jews.
    This claim fits nicely with the finding that anti-Semitism increases in times of crisis, when the psychomechanical pressure increases, and also with the existence of anti-Semitism in countries where there are no Jews at all. This is because, according to the fundamental law of psychomechanics, our feelings arise from the form in which we perceive reality, even if it is only a simulated reality.

    However, even psychomechanics does not rule out the decrease of entropy in a closed psychomechanical system. It only claims that the mental energy must come from a source external to the system. In the past, most people believed in God, who is undoubtedly an adequate external source. Psychomechanics offers another, more accessible solution.
    Just as the industrial revolution freed humanity from dependence on slavery by turning chemical energy into useful work, so psychomechanics, through the good products of psychotechnology, aims to turn mechanical energy into mental energy, thus reducing the negative aspects of our interdependence.
    The mathematical tools used by psychomechanics are "reversible transformations into simulated vector fields, in order to create virtual spherical symmetry" - a slightly exaggerated phrase, the essence of which is to make the maximum number of people feel "on top" without losing their grip on reality.

    These words, which appeared in the media a few days before Professor Leibnovitz's testimony, echoed in the mind of a PhD student in mathematics at the University of Parma, a young man named Gedalhiu.

  332. What is measured in the experiment is a completely different thing.
    What is measured is the lifetime of a particle moving relative to the system. The particle did not accelerate in one direction and then in the other direction and did not return to rest at its starting point.
    The logical contradiction for reasons of symmetry in the third experiment exists.

  333. Israel:
    First of all let it be clear: it has not been proven that there is no website. There is currently no known way to confirm or disprove it, but there is currently no problem (apart from Ockham that you usually cite) with the claim that the universe is warping as Einstein claimed and that it is full of ether as Maxwell assumed.
    There are many finite geometries where there is no preferred rest system. The simplest of them is the face of a ball.
    I noticed a number of problems in your description of the lengthening of time, but since you said that's not the main thing - I won't dwell on it.
    Your description of the twins is based on the temperature clock we have already discussed and is flawed by the assumption that this clock moves in one direction even in accelerated systems.
    In fact - the twins' thermometers will show different temperatures along the way.

    B:
    There is no symmetry between you and A or between you and C, so the time will be measured differently.
    You must take into account that this fact is also a fact and this phenomenon has already been measured in an experiment.

  334. A)
    Regarding each viewer there is one special point and that is the point where he is.
    If there are infinite observers, then there are infinitely many such points, but this does not contradict the fact that for each observer there is one unique point.
    B)
    About the twins.
    I have already commented before and I will comment again:
    Suppose a trio is in space:
    At the moment of starting the experiment all the clocks show zero.
    A accelerates in one direction C accelerates in the opposite direction. B stays in place.
    B's watch always shows a time that is between the time on A's watch and the time on C's watch.
    This occurs at both constant speed and acceleration.
    Both A and C return to the point from which they left, that is, to the point where B is.
    For symmetry reasons:
    A's watch is the same as C's watch.
    and therefore conclusion:
    All three clocks show the same time.
    For symmetry reasons only.
    without any mathematical formulas.
    It is not possible for one of the trio to be older than the others at the time of the reunion.

    Even without the presence of C, the clocks of A and B at the time of the renewed meeting will show the exact same time.
    It is not possible for one twin to be older than the other.

  335. Israel
    applause.
    about the story
    Are you going to write his ending? Or will it only be in coordination with the publication of your theory?
    we will wait We waited. waiting.
    easy fasting.

  336. Miracles,
    Maybe there is a simpler explanation but this is the explanation I learned and this is the explanation that appears on Wikipedia. If I'm not mistaken, the special theory of relativity, in which the paradox is discussed, only talks about constant velocities and as soon as forces or accelerations enter one system and not the other, the systems cease to be balanced.

    In any case, it is not nice to write that there is a much simpler explanation and not tell it. Come on, write a book (you are welcome, like Israel, to write a story around the explanation)

  337. Israel,
    I don't understand why you brought up the twin paradox. The paradox is not a paradox once you have determined that there was acceleration and that the twins are meeting, since this requires the application of force and acceleration in the opposite direction, which means that the twins are not equal
    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/פרדוקס_התאומים

    A general question about your story, which I hope you will answer once and for all: Is the whole story written? (Beginning, middle and end, enemies become friends, friends become enemies, the hero learns something about himself during the journey - a joke from the series Family Man...) And yes, don't believe the editors too much. The story is very nice and if there is ever a collection of short stories published in Israel, your story, if it is completed and maintains quality, definitely deserves to be there. Also, Haaretz newspaper, for example, holds a contest between short stories (there are other such contests), perhaps worth a try.

  338. Israel
    I didn't understand your point. The twin returned, the old man in an hour and indeed the length of the film is an hour. If the remaining twin were to make a movie, it would be a billion years long. The 2 twins will "agree" to this too.

  339. ב
    a) This point is chosen arbitrarily. And there are infinite such points. Therefore, nothing special about her. as explained.

  340. Israel:
    A)
    The universe is infinite and homogeneous except for one point.
    One point is a very special point in the universe.
    This is the point where the viewer is.
    Everything measured. measured relative to this point. (in relation to the viewer).
    B)
    In Michelson and Morley's experiment:
    No need for an infinite universe.
    There is no need for a homogeneous universe.
    It is only necessary to have a sufficiently large environment of the observer in which a site exists in order to measure any difference between (the speed of light relative to the site) and (the speed of light plus the speed of the Earth) relative to the site.

  341. Before we continue to the main point, I would like to summarize what I said:

    1. Maxwell is not an ordinary scientist and Maxwell's equations are not trivial equations. Feynman said that future generations will remember from the 19th century mainly Maxwell's equations.

    And Maxwell's equations, such as the derivation of the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism, were derived from Maxwell's ether model. My opinion is that it is impossible to separate the equations (the only thing that Einstein did not change in the relationships) from the model. "Inextricable complexity" Aalek.

    2. Every wave known to us moves in a preferred rest system. We don't know of any field that doesn't have a preferred rest system. The MM experiment tried to find the preferred resting state of Maxwell's ether, and failed.

    However, each preferred rest system stems from constraints: air - as in the past. Ocean - as above. Air in the plane - the plane.

    However, in an infinite homogeneous and isotropic universe there is no necessity to have a preference. There may be - but this is the only system (an infinite universe without constraints) in which there may also be no.

    If we ever reach the discussion of what I call an "active site" - a site where there is no preferred rest system - we will see how this assumption solves the problem of the non-dischargeability of the Maxwell model, and other problems as well.

    the extension of time.

    presenting the problem.

    The two postulates of special relativity are:

    1. 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.

    2. Invariance of the speed of light:

    The speed of light is constant for every observer, regardless of his relative speed with respect to the body that emitted the light, or his speed with respect to any other body.

    Why did Einstein conclude from these two assumptions about the lengthening of time?

    Let us describe two tubes each of which is a light second long, one with a diameter of one meter and the other with a diameter of 2 meters.

    A photon leaving the end of one tube will reach the other end in exactly one second.

    Now the thin tube is said to move inside the wide one, and when their backs come together, a single photon is launched along the concentric axis of both in the direction of the thin tube's movement.

    If the photon is launched at time 0 in the clocks of the 2 tubes, it will arrive at both ends in one second according to the clock of each tube (the clocks of each tube are synchronized with each other, but not synchronized with the other tube).

    When the photon reaches the end of the thin tube, it already protrudes a long way from the wide one. It turns out that when he passed at the other end of the field, not yet a second had passed on the timer's clock, and according to the data, exactly one second had passed in the field. In a photograph from a high resolution camera that will photograph the tube clocks together, we will see a time of 1 second in the wide tube clock and a time of less than a second in the thin tube clock.

    From this simple description comes the lengthening of times.

    (The sharp-eyed among you will perhaps notice a certain problem in the description, but this is more or less the description that appears in most explanations, including in Einstein's own book, and it is enough to clarify the point).

    This description is true when we take into account the knowledge in 1905, the year of Einstein's miracles.

    To see the problem that I think is revealed in the lengthening of time, I will talk about the twin paradox (where are the miracles?).

    For the sake of illustration, I will use particularly quick and long-lived twins: when the younger twin returns, he finds that his brother has aged a billion years while he has only aged one hour.

    Furthermore, throughout the journey of the young and agile twin, a video camera inside his spaceship filmed all the systems in the spaceship: clocks, accelerometers, thermometers, hygrometer, compass (very important in space!) etc.

    When he comes back he is sitting with his older brother and they are both watching an hour long video.

    What they see and agree on is:

    1. The whole journey took one hour according to the quick twin clock.

    2. The journey was divided into 5 stages: in the first stage the twin accelerated (the camera shows that it took a minute) in the second stage he flew at a constant speed (26 minutes) in the third stage acceleration in the opposite direction (3 minutes) in the fourth stage he flew back at a constant speed (28 minutes) and in the fifth stage he sprinted (negative acceleration) to compare his speed to his brother's speed (2 minutes).

    All together an hour.

    The camera also shows that the temperature dropped during this time due to the cooling of the universe by 100 degrees Kelvin. It also shows exactly at what stages - most of the cooling occurs while traveling at a constant speed in both directions, over XNUMX m per minute.

    To be safe, they conduct the experiment once more with another twin flying in the opposite direction.

    The three of them set off at sunset and take with them an old dream, a map, water, cameras, thermometers, watches, etc.

    When they compare the photographs, they see that in the (identical) video of the 2 agile twins, the temperature drops at a rate of more than a degree per minute, while for the stationary twin it goes up in a million years at most.

    So much for the initial description. If there are disagreements - and maybe even agreements - I would be happy to hear them before we move on to the main point.

    Michael - Well done for the dedicated care of Dad. Let's hope you find some time for good old Israel as well... my 82-year-old father, who is always in good shape, is coming to visit us in a month. The whole family embarks on an adventure in the desert: a recreation of the Pisau experiment to measure the speed of light but with interesting twists. The planning of the experiment relates directly to everything discussed here and in previous comments, so please, make an effort.

    And borrowing from Yoda: don't react gently! Only as Sah!

    But let it be to the point, individual, and backed by facts.

  342. Israel:
    Yes.
    My father-in-law Ben Nun consulted with me and incorporated some of my words into his introduction.
    Why do you say they don't tell you right after they told you? 🙂

    I didn't read your idea.
    I was waiting for a full presentation of your Torah and did not delve into the partial or derivative descriptions you brought.
    If you think that your explanation of the subject stands on its own regardless of the Torah as a whole, you are welcome to point to the place where it is written, but keep in mind that it will take me some time to address it because recently I have been busy almost all the time taking care of my aging father.

    Shirigin really doesn't have a natural zero point and he doesn't need one either.
    The zero is just there.
    If it would bother you that I would call one point Ephesus and another point Ekhedihu?
    These are just names that do nothing to the universe and in particular do not change its isotropy.
    They also do not change any measurement: the distances between points will remain the same distances, the velocities will remain the same velocities and the accelerations will remain the same accelerations even if we choose the zero somewhere else.

    In the Sharigin model and without Einstein, Sharigin has a preferred rest system.
    This system can be described in any chosen axis system (one that does not move in relation to the points of deviation) and it is not possible to describe it in several alternative axis systems, nothing wrong. As mentioned: choosing a different axis system will not affect the measurements of the physical quantities and the results of the calculations that calculate them.

    Don't get me wrong: I'm not arguing that such a system exists in reality - I'm just arguing against your attempt to dismiss it and the Michelson-Morlay experiment as if things were logically absurd.
    As mentioned - the measurements have already shown that this is not the system we live in, but the measurements were necessary and it was impossible to reach a conclusion without them.

    The GPS calculations take gravity/acceleration and speed into account separately and the results would be wrong if one of these components were omitted.
    There are examples of non-accelerated systems that demonstrate special relativity: for example, some of the particles that are created when cosmic radiation hits the atmosphere would not have been able to pass the atmosphere if they had not lived longer.

    For us they live longer but for them they live exactly the same time and only the atmosphere becomes thinner.

    So here I gave you an example of both the lengthening of time and the shortening of length.

    You didn't understand what I meant by talking about Einstein and his model. It was just a way of pointing out to you the mistake you are making when you apply the exact same consideration to Maxwell's model.

    As mentioned - I answered your questions - also the question regarding the time of the bang.

  343. Shmulik, thank you.

    I sent the episodes to several systems. I received polite letters of appreciation, along with a comment that the story had no financial potential. I have no intention of publishing it myself, not necessarily because of a lack of means, but because, to be honest, I don't think the story justifies publishing a book. Galileo, the site of machines, and the scientist, is his natural size.

    Michael.

    I did not know that Hami Ben Nun consulted with you. We are not told anything!

    If you read and understood my idea, do you see how it solves the friction problem at Lesage in a seamless way? The source of inertia (not closed)? The possibility of non-locality?

    The Sharigin model does not have a natural 0 point. We can determine it arbitrarily - as with the temperature scales - but then it ceases to be isotropic for us.

    We can say that if the dispersion of a sample is not uniform then the 0 point is the center of gravity of a certain area for example. That's why I mentioned the Olvers paradox. However, if we compare this to the rest system of the ether, it raises new questions: if the rest system is proportional to the distribution of the masses and the weighting of their movements, is it the center of gravity and the cosmic movement? Does every galaxy and solar system have a different rest system? Is there a different speed of light in different regions of the universe? Maybe this also explains the speed of stars at the edges of galaxies without dark matter?

    Ockham says: there is no preferred rest system (Einstein too).

    Speaking of Einstein:

    Both the elementary particles from the longest lifetimes and the GPS systems are systems in acceleration. My achievement has always been about inertial systems. Can you point to one and only system that is not accelerated and the time extension exists in it? One example of shortening the length?

    "Is it possible that the model that Einstein built and based on which he developed the theories of relativity that correspond to so many predictions is wrong?"

    No. But Newton's model also matches many predictions. A lot of technologies are based on it. Why did Einstein change it? Is he wrong?

    My achievement has always been only on the subject of time extension in inertial systems. All other things can be explained well.

    I will conclude by saying that, in my opinion, the lack of understanding really lies with me. But the only way I know is to continue nagging and asking everyone and pointing out the supposed contradiction between the absolute bang time and the relative time of relativity, and hope that one day someone who understands the subject - Ehud, Zvi, maybe even you - will agree to devote the effort and time required to answer my questions individually .

    They are not too hard.

  344. Israel:
    I don't know what the person you corresponded with knows, but I'm sure that what he knows, the elementary particles that manage to live much longer when they move quickly don't know what he knows.
    The clocks of the GPS satellites also learned the theory of special and general relativity and that's the only reason they work.
    Now I will ask you the kind of question you like to ask:
    Is it possible that the model that Einstein built and based on which he developed the theories of relativity that correspond to so many predictions is wrong?
    In the event this model matches everything predicted by Maxwell and much more.

    You claim that you can build a model where there will be a site, Maxwell's equations will work and the Michaelson Morley experiment will also be explained.
    Let's say - but then for sure it won't be Maxwell's model either!

    You told the miracles of the Sargin model that in reality there is a problem with a zero point.
    You are clearly wrong! Almost everywhere we set the zero arbitrarily! Just like in the "unreal" model!
    Zero is a reference point and nothing else. It's just a name given to a point.
    In temperature measurement there are several zeros - depending on whether you ask Celsius, Fahrenheit or Kelvin.
    There is a value there that can be called absolute zero precisely because there is no symmetry, but as soon as there is symmetry there is no priority for point A over point B and zero is just there.

    By the way, in the framed article he says that Reuven Nir knew he was recycling Le Sage.

    The scientific editor of the book contacted me and asked me what I thought even before the book went to press and I pointed out to him both the fact that it was a cycle and the fact that the original had been refuted.
    If I'm not mistaken, he mentioned in the introduction that he wrote that it was a cycle but did not point to the refutations.
    Apparently the money was more important to him than a full presentation of the truth.

  345. Miracles

    Michael first described an infinite homogeneous and isotropic space which he called "Shrigin".

    Can Shirigin have a point 0? Yes. Is there a problem for such a space with point 0? No. Not so much, that any point can actually have 0 in it.

    Can a real Regin physical space also have a point 0? Yes. Is there a problem for such a space with point 0? Yes! Because if any point can be the 0 point, then why don't we have some 0 points? Why not infinity?

    And back to the infinite space of 1887: could it have a preferential rest system? Yes! But if it is so homogeneous, then why would it have only one and only rest system, the same system that the MM experiment tried to find?

    If there is more than one and we can't map them, the m-m experiment is illogical.

    Anyway, I still believe there must be a trivial answer to the question. It is inconceivable that everyone - from Newton to Lorentz - missed this point.

    Well, in honor of the terrible days, it is impossible without a joke for you godless people:

    Mishka the commissar arrives at the collective farm and asks Yshka the manager about this year's potato crop.

    "Commissar" answers Ishka with shining eyes "We have so many potatoes that when we pile them in a pile they will reach God's feet!

    "Kharshu Yishka" laughs Mishka "You know very well that there is no God!"

    "Plough Mishka" cries Ishka "You know very well that there are no potatoes!"

    Good night.

  346. Israel,
    Invite the researcher to comment here and not just on the topic you are talking about. It's always good to have experts in a forum like this.
    Regarding the story, respect for the published episode! And what are you going to do with the story? Is it already written? Do you plan to release it in its entirety at some point? come on already with you

  347. Israel
    I have no argument with you about Newton. He had unusual opinions about the Holy Trinity, but he still believed in it.

    You wrote "an open and infinite system has problems that would be a preferred resting system. I have uploaded some of them before. But in any case, if it has no problem having a preferred rest system, why would an infinite straight line have a problem if point 0 is preferred?". I don't see a problem if an infinite straight line that has a preferred 0 point. The axis of numbers is like this - straight, infinite and if the point is 0. Instead of a numerical value, put a distance from 0... And still no problem. I agree with you that it is not exactly homogeneous, but no one claims that the speed space is homogeneous. In my understanding at least…

  348. Michael.

    It is true that sometimes a wrong model yields a correct result. In the case of Maxwell's complex and complicated theory, it seems to me that the probability is very low.

    Maxwell himself claimed that only when he noticed that the speed he calculated for the electromagnetic waves on his site (derived from calculating the speed of a sound wave in a gas) was the same as the speed of light calculated in the Pizzeau experiment, he realized that light itself is an electromagnetic wave.

    You write: "If the solution is suitable for the calculation of the wave movement, but is not suitable for the assumption that the speed of light is the same regardless of the state of movement in relation to the medium, then we are necessarily in a situation where we received correct equations from an incorrect model".

    Not necessarily. There are other options. Lorenz and others have suggested possible solutions that accept Maxwell's model. I also proposed a solution.

    "I must say that I also answered the questions you claim to have asked and remained unanswered, and in my opinion the answers I gave are completely correct. The fact that the answers did not put your mind at ease is not under my control, but I feel you are fine."

    Here is part of an email I received from a person who has been researching the subject for many years. Since I didn't get permission from him, I censored the identifying details.

    On Feb 2, 2013, at 1:01 PM.

    "Israel, Peace be upon you!

    I have been researching the subject of special relativity for over ten years and I have fundamental misgivings about the standard interpretation of special relativity. I want to say that I accept the basic assumptions of the theory of relativity, i.e., the constancy of the speed of light and the covariance of the laws of physics in all inertial systems and of course the Lorentz transformation and all the measurement results of experiments that have been done to date.

    Since that article of mine that you read, I have come a long way and made a lot of progress, and my argument today is much more basic. That is, not only is simultaneity absolute but also time is absolute in all inertial systems! I gave lectures on the subject at two international conferences: IARD2008 held in Thessaloniki, Greece and IARD2012 held last May-June in Florence, Italy. I am currently in the midst of writing an article on the subject titled:

    So if you felt in the past, or thought that time should be absolute, at least according to the cosmological clock, then you were right! You are in good company, at least in my "company" and that of Professor Larry Hurwitz from Tel Aviv University who supports my approach. It will take some more time and effort to convince the rest of the physics community in the world, but this thing will come! I am XNUMX% convinced that I am on the right path...

    I read the nonsense written in their knowledge, some of it in response to your questions - nonsense of people who have never delved into the subject and are just "talking". You are the only one who wrote and said sensible things!"

    Now, of course, I am not claiming that that person is necessarily right - in fact I disagree with some of his mistakes - but here is at least one expert who accepts my basic argument. He is not the only one.

    It is true that you explained to me why I am wrong, but we never came to a real comparison of your mistakes against mine. I believe you are wrong, if you are interested I can show you exactly where. Even then, you didn't want to get too deep into the discussion, and that's your right.

    Regarding the publication of an article - I know a site where articles of what I call "alternative physics" are published every week. In my opinion an article without overwhelming equations to back it up as Maxwell did is weak. Reuven Nir published "Mishka" in the pre-internet era. Nowadays, within 10 minutes of playing, he would discover that he was actually just courting Lesage, saving himself the trouble. He is not the only one.

    Experimentation is in a different league, with experimentation it's hard to argue. This is my direction now.

    Good night.

  349. Israel:
    I must admit that I did not go into the details of the model, but many times it happens that different realities lead to similar mathematical solutions (for example - all types of waves/oscillations) are described by similar equations.
    I think that usually a fact is also a fact and if the solution is suitable for calculating the movement of waves but does not fit the assumption that the speed of light is the same regardless of the state of movement in relation to the medium then we are necessarily in a situation where we got correct equations from a wrong model.
    I must say that I also answered the questions you claim to have asked and remained unanswered, and in my opinion the answers I gave are completely correct. That the answers did not put your mind at ease is beyond my control but I feel you are fine.

    Regarding the reluctance to present a theory that you do not know if it is true - I am sure that I will not tell you anything if I say that this means that you will never publish the theory because you will never know.

  350. Michael

    I am not presenting my "theory", because I am not at all sure that I have one. At the moment I only have questions, and the question of the logic of having a rest system for the site is only one of them. When I posed this question on the site a year ago, I was almost convinced that I would get a simple and trivial answer, like your solution to the third "irreducible" property of perfect numbers.

    No one answered except Mahud who briefly stated that a rest system is natural for us. Correspondence I had with physicists, some of them well-known, did not help to solve the question of the conflict that apparently exists between Einstein's relative time and the absolute time resulting from the big bang. In fact, each one came up with a different answer, and they all contradict each other.

    I also post questions on various physics websites, but the results are poor.

    To write an organized article about a theory that I don't even know if it is true seems to me to be bullshit. I prefer to ask questions and experiment. I don't know if they will lead to anything, but it's a big scoop, not to mention the sense of purpose.

    Well, then just one tiny question that will require 2 minutes of thought:

    If you took a look at Maxwell's site model:

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force

    Do you think that such a detailed and accurate model could have produced equation 136 if it was fundamentally wrong?

    Incidentally, this is the same model from which Maxwell's differential equations were derived. So everything is virtual?

    As far as I know Maxwell died (young) believing that his model describes reality and not an image.

    poker.

  351. boss,

    According to Glick, not only did Newton doubt the blind faith in God, he was also among the few who dared to investigate the essence of the "Holy Trinity" and risked encountering the Inquisition.

    He was one of the driving forces behind the Anglican Church. His preoccupation with religion and God was just as obsessive and profound as any other subject. I believe he knew and understood the subject much better than many of us, and this absolute skeptic of any subject and previous belief would not have put an unnecessary brace on himself.

    I don't know what his considerations are in his pious faith, but I believe that the "spirit of the times" is not the reason. Even Descartes before him doubted everything, including belief in God. But Descartes was afraid of the Inquisition, Newton was not afraid of anything (except women...).

    An open and infinite system has problems that would be a preferred rest system. I have uploaded some of them before. But in any case, if it has no problem having a preferred rest system, why would an infinite straight line have a problem if point 0 is preferred?

  352. Israel
    Aristotle believed in 5 elements, not 4. And yes, he believed in a lot of nonsense - because he didn't check. Just an example I remember - he believed that men have more teeth than women, he didn't even bother to check how many teeth his wife had in her mouth………….

    Newton also believed in nonsense - he assumed that God existed, and never doubted it.

    And no, I'm not saying that an infinite and open system should be a preferred system. I said I don't see a problem with having such a rest system.

  353. Michael, I just read your comment.
    Halas heaviness, what happened to you, Ashkenazi you suddenly become us?

    Well, I'm taking the woman to Lantz, in the meantime tell a joke to the forum.

    In Yiddish!

  354. Ghosts, Shmulik.

    The first chapter of "The Trial of the Second Law" appeared at the time in Galileo Monthly. You can find it on the Ministry of Education's machinery website (applause!).

    http://www.amalnet.k12.il/machine/show_item.asp?item_id=14600&id=1425&level=1&num=3

    Here is the sequel:

    The law came to its senses. "Well, so be it, I don't intend to harm your freedom of belief. Good, there is a God! Can we go home already for God's sake?"

    "No," said the prosecutor firmly. "The question you are on trial for still remains open: why does entropy increase over time?"

    "Look" said the law in Liot. "You may enjoy this circular academic debate that really leads nowhere. I explained to you that it just happens. probability. What in the name of all demons and spirits can I do so that you at least tell me why you think it's my fault?" Law raised his voice in frustration.

    The prosecutor and the professor exchanged glances.

    "Well!" The law demanded.

    "You just said that."

    "I said what?"

    "demons and ghosts"

    "So what?"

    The prosecutor's voice hardened. "Defendant, do you admit that you and you alone are responsible for increasing entropy in the universe?"

    A. Yes.

    That. To increase human suffering?

    A. Yes.

    That. for diseases?

    A. Yes.

    That. to old age?

    design.

    That. to death?

    A. Yes Yes.

    That. For mechanical malfunctions of all kinds?

    A. Yes Yes Yes!

    That. Have you heard of the devil?"

    The audience was horrified.

    A. Yes!

    That. Do you know the purpose of Satan?

    A. Yes!

    That. Can you tell her to the court?

    A. Increasing human suffering, causing disease, old age, death, mechanical breakdowns..

    That. Thanks. Professor Leibnovitz, as a mathematician, could you tell the court the equality rule?

    "Two things that are equal to a third thing are equal between them" recited the professor piously.

    "Thank you professor. Accused, do you admit that you are actually the devil?"

    The crowd froze in place in horror. Here, we know what the second law is accused of, and there is no greater guilt than this!

    "Am I a devil?" The law was amazed, "Of course not! Judge yourselves," he addressed the audience in a plea. "Do I seem to you to be capable of hitting a fly?"

    "Don't believe him," cried the prosecutor, "the devil is known as a tempter and deceiver, and as someone who can take any form that suits his needs. He has already admitted that his goal is to cause a mess to celebrate."

    "You are wrong" the law called above the storm in the courtroom. "I did not admit that it was purposeful, I said that it just happens, and without proof of intent you cannot prove guilt, unless you accuse me of criminal negligence - the accusation is fundamentally unfounded, by all accounts."

    "Oh!" exclaimed the professor. "I proved to you through mathematics and geometry that, contrary to your claim, order in a system can increase and entropy can decrease."

    "But I come from the realm of the laws of physics.."

    "Especially in the world of physics!" The earth started as a hot lump of lava - and see it now! All blooming and confusing, inhabited and industrialized! Wouldn't you call that a decrease in entropy? Had it not been for the intervention of the Almighty, it would have remained a cold world and died like the rest of the promiscuous planets to the merciful grace of the second law!"

    "True, but this is not a closed system!"

    "That's exactly the point!" The prosecutor raised his hand to incite the agitated crowd. "In every system there is a conflict between the forces of good and the forces of evil - between God and Satan - between the Almighty and the second law of thermodynamics - and when the hand of the Almighty prevails, the second law will immediately take care of a new system that has not been able to escape its clutches. This is not negligence, mistake or blind chance. There is a method, purpose and malicious intent here! Stop with your ridiculous impudence - plead guilty immediately and ask for the mercy of the court, or I will accept your punishment with genius!"

    "But I'm innocent! It's simply a probability - the devil is in the small details - countless details!"

    "a lie! lies and falsehood!" The professor slammed his fist into the lectern in anger, which caused the lectern to turn on its axis 180 degrees, and the professor found himself to his horror on the other side of the lectern and this time as the accused, and in front of him the second law of thermodynamics, a feline smile spread across his face from ear to ear.

    "Oh, Leibnovitz, Leibnovitz," muttered the law towards the professor and the terrified audience. "What have you done this time, Leibnovitz?"

    As he sprawled in his chair, a glass of wine by his side and he was looking over a pile of newspapers dealing with the trial, the prosecutor allowed himself a small smile of satisfaction.
    From all corners of the country, from all shades of the rainbow of opinions and the various currents in the population, sharp-edged writers called out and rushed to defend their beliefs and ideas and throw catapults at each other. And as usual in such cases, even in his words about others, each one himself is a miracle. Soon the public debate spilled over and turned into a debate about the very validity and completeness of mathematics.

    "Court drama! The second law was compared to Satan!" - The main headline of "The Completeness of Mathematics" announced - "Professor Leibnovitz was able to prove that, contrary to the claim of the second law, the order in a mathematical system can increase when we add members to the system, and the entropy, as required, decrease."

    "Vanity and ill will! The math is far from perfect!" The feeling of the editor of "uncertainty". "Already in the 0s, Kurt Gadel showed that there are many theorems in mathematics that cannot be proven. Even the pinnacle of Newtonian mathematics, the infinitesimal calculus, rests on chicken's knees. What kind of completeness can one expect from a Torah whose cornerstone is the forbidden division by XNUMX? Release the law immediately, along with a letter of apology for the prosecution's ignorance."

    "insolent! contemptible! reckless!" The editor of "Our Father in Heaven" was enraged - "Isn't it enough that the promiscuous second law is mainly rebellious and apostate, he also enlists for his help the twisted theory of evolution? He must immediately fall on his face, reflect on his actions, and ask for the forgiveness of the Almighty!"

    "The second law is absolutely right and Leibnovitz is just confusing the mind" - the scientific commentator of "Epicurus" mildly explained. "Already Boltzmann in the nineteenth century showed that the reason for the second law is probabilistic - the thermodynamic system simply 'travels' between all possible states, and what can we do that there are many more states of disorder than ordered states? The professor's ridiculous claim to 'order' is like turning the spotlight on the individual winners of the lottery, and ignoring the many thousands who didn't even win a penny. Come on, Leibnovitz, get better."

    "Here we have a great leader in the person of Professor Leibnovitz" enthused the editor of "Principia Mathematica", "a far-sighted visionary who will renew Bertrand Russell's old quest to establish a perfect and flawless mathematical structure."

    All this was summed up by an anonymous person who quoted the high priest of number theory, Andre Weil: "God exists, because mathematics is consistent, and Satan exists, because we cannot prove it."

    The plaintiff poured himself another glass of wine and held it up in a gesture of silent congratulation.
    "Long live the scheming rabbi" he blessed himself in his heart. "Long live the great manipulator of the court walls. The various parties are blindly clashing with each other, just as my original plan envisioned. They don't know - and it's a good thing - that the results are predetermined, and all the cards in the deck are marked. Whoever has the power to determine the composition of the jury, like me, can deliver a verdict as he wishes."
    With a smug look, he began to look at the monthly that bore the name "Psychomechanics News" and felt how the blood in his veins slowly froze.

    "Until the nineteenth century" - wrote a man called "the man of psychomechanics" - many scientists tried to build a "perpetum mobile" - a machine fed by the energy it itself produces. This hope was shattered with the discovery of the law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics.
    The next step was the attempt to build a machine that produces energy directly from heat - by utilizing the heat energy stored in sea water for example. This hope was also shattered with the discovery of the second law of thermodynamics, which requires a reservoir of heat at a low temperature to produce work from the system, and rules out the possibility of an overall decrease in entropy.

    "We believe that similar laws apply to human systems, meaning that improvement in one system must cause deterioration in another system. The "second law of psychomechanics" - the law of increasing human entropy in closed psychomechanical systems - is the reason, in our opinion, for the destabilization of so many of the great scientists, who paid with their mental health and even their lives for the enormous contribution they made to humanity. Intellectual luminaries such as Boltzmann, Leibniz, Gedel, Hardy, Turing, Cantor, and even the mythical Descartes and Newton."

    The prosecutor continued to read frantically until he reached the paragraph that caused his heart to skip a beat and the glass to drop from his hand.

    "We believe that in the current trial for the second law of thermodynamics, the prosecution will not succeed in reaching a conviction, regardless of the quality of the evidence or the composition of the jury. The reason is that jurors, isolated in a room, constitute a closed psychomechanical system, and therefore any decision they make, whether acquittal or conviction, means reducing their own psychomechanical entropy. In-depth observation combined with psychomechanical analysis of the second law, as evidenced by his behavior and reactions in the trial, clearly indicate that the psychomechanical entropy of the second law of thermodynamics cannot be increased. Therefore, according to the second law of psychomechanics, the jurors were condemned to remain in a permanent state of inability to decide."

    Maybe the second law isn't so innocent after all, the prosecutor thought bitterly as he took his place in front of the stand waiting for the resumption of evidence and cross-examination.

  355. Miracles.

    When Newton did alchemy he believed he was doing serious science. Scientists claim that Einstein engaged in nonsense in his last years. Aristotle believed there were only 4 elements, and was wrong about all of them. Did Aristotle also engage in nonsense?

    Which are nonsense in retrospect. At the time they were considered very serious.

    I don't believe in God because I don't see any proof of his existence, but if Newton did it makes me wonder if such a genius saw what I'm missing.

    The claim that this was the zeitgeist is not acceptable. At the beginning of the renaissance, the heretics abounded, before and after Newton. According to Bruno, an ardent fan of the heliocentric theory, Galileo and more.

    And for our purposes: can you explain how Maxwell was able to derive the speed of light from the ether model if the model is wrong?

    Can you explain why an infinite open system should have a preferred rest system?

    And you can call me simply Israel. You've already done this a few times.

  356. Israel:
    All this talk about Newton's nonsense was not my initiative and when you asked about the nonsense mentioned by others I explained what they meant. I also think that it is wrong to judge a person without referring to the period in which he lived, and I refer with the same degree of laughter to the "proofs" brought by rabbis who claim that he believed in God (and therefore everyone should believe like him).
    More than that - I think that even those who talked about Newton's nonsense did not do it to judge him but to show that knowledge is advancing and in this context it is correct to present Newton's beliefs as nonsense.
    Not only others - I am also interested in your theory, but you do not present it at all, so how can it be treated. That's why I wrote that you need to present it in a scientific way because it is difficult to refer to the conclusions of an unknown theory and as long as you don't present the theory - presenting the conclusions is hand waving.
    There is a big difference between the "selling" you do of something that no one knows what it is because you don't present it and the advice I give in the relevant contexts to read what I think about this or that subject including all the substantiation I have for my thoughts. Contrary to what you say about your theory that no one knows what it is - all the things I have to say on the topics I mention on the blog are written in it and anyone can read and decide if they agree with my reasoning or not.
    I must say that I do not understand the feeling of hurt that you convey in the response that you directed to me.

  357. Israel Shapira
    Newton thought that there is friction in space and the planets should fall into the sun - but there is a God who gives them a slight push from time to time.
    Newton was engaged in alchemy for many, many years and even had a laboratory for this nonsense.

    Oh – and Newton believed in God…..the ultimate bullshit

  358. R.H. Rafai.M
    Michael Rothschild thinks you're an idiot. I said that Michael is right.
    I asked you a serious question and instead of answering you attacked me. Why?

  359. Israel
    Your merchandise has more potential buyers than his has only interested parties.
    And whoever blocks you will get a report.
    What about your never ending story? Is it over yet? A rally in the sun that brought a black board and chalk.

  360. Michael.

    Newton was a very serious scientist as we all know. He did not engage in "nonsense" as I understand the term. At the time, alchemy and astrology were considered serious science. He studied the subject just as Einstein and many other scientists tried and are trying to find a grand unified theory. Many things can be said to be nonsense in retrospect, including the MM experiment. At the time they seemed perfectly legitimate. The result test confirms ideas that at the time were considered nonsense by many good people - an ethereal gravitational force acting from a distance (Newton came to the conclusion that this is possible through his practice in alchemy, see Glick), the Hertz experiment to prove Maxwell's theory (the recommended teacher did not believe the trick, to send mysterious "electromagnetic waves" between 2 points, will work), continental migration and more.

    We are all wise in retrospect to know what is true and what is not (see Mr. Nachshon). But there are some exceptions that are simply hard to ignore.

    Contrary to the skeptical attitude towards the theory of attraction, when the "Principia" came out, all of Europe was shocked. Its acceptance was immediate among science circles. The reason is that it is very difficult to argue with quantified mathematical proofs. And this is exactly what Maxwell also brought in his website article: quantified mathematical evidence for the existence of molecular vortices. Deriving the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism.

    Regarding "my theory" - I'm not trying to sell anything. I came up with an idea to solve a problem as I see it, and stated that I don't know if the solution is correct or not, most likely not.

    You have the right to ignore my words and wishes. You also have the right not to read my words. There may be those who are interested - Shmulik expressed his interest in my stories of the second law, miracles and B in the invertibility of the site.

    However, I am not trying to "sell" anything to those who are not interested. The only time I described "my theory" was a year and a half ago, due to R.H.'s express request. So far no one, including you, has proven any error in what I say, neither on the ether nor on the contradiction between the big bang theory and Einstein's relativistic time.

    I am no more "selling" or "waving" than she is selling the "cart of a secularist" and waving her conclusions. In terms of quantity - much less.

    (Will I be blocked now?)

  361. Miracles
    You wrote: "R.H. Rafai.M
    By the way, Machal is right"

    You accidentally slurped the word Machal into the comment.

  362. Israel:
    Three brief comments:
    First note:
    Newton was wrong about many things (such as his involvement in astrology and alchemy) but it really doesn't belong to any matter, so you didn't understand what they were talking about.
    All in all, there is a troll of a troll here who is usually called "ghost" Shemanges and since he talks nonsense - the reference to him also often seems nonsense.

    Second note:
    Regarding Maxwell - even if he used the ether model, it is now clear that the ether is not necessary to carry waves.
    It was an image that worked up to a point and failed.
    Today, no one is looking for some medium to transmit Heisenberg's waves.
    Maxwell himself also progressed beyond referring to the exact features of the site.
    for example In this link You will find the following text:
    Maxwell had however expressed some uncertainties surrounding the precise nature of his molecular vortices and so he began to embark on a purely dynamical approach to the problem. He wrote another famous paper in 1864 under the title of A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field in which the details of the luminiferous medium were less explicit. [A 3]

    Third note:
    It seems to me that you are "running" to sell your theory on a popular science website too soon and by doing so you might just hurt yourself or others.
    I really suggest you sell the theory in the scientific circles first or at least publish it in a scientific way here instead of waving its conclusions.

  363. Mr. Nachshon (you guessed it right) of the tracker had a method for guessing 13 games in Toto: he would count the lamps, multiply by the length of the bumps, and put the neighbors inside. It has to come out.

    That's how he guessed the results by himself 18 times in a row.

    Could it be that Maxwell's site model is also just a successful case? Have you passed the model?

    Well, I'm busy right now counting protruding and neighboring lamps. It seems to me that this is the fastest way to bring Tamacca.

    By the way, where did Newton go wrong? And when did he talk nonsense?

  364. Miracles.

    What I am saying is this: until Einstein, the concept of the ether was a cornerstone of every physical theory. Maxwell, from the Newton Maxwell Einstein trilogy, was able to show that not only is there an ether - he even showed how it works and how the speed of light can be extracted from it from hydrodynamic considerations of pressures, vortices, molecules and currents.

    If the ether model was far-fetched or wrong, it would be impossible for us to get the speed of light from it.

    Einstein arrived and ruled: there is no site.

    So how did Maxwell manage to be so beautiful if there is no website?

    A bit of trivia: even many years after Einstein published relativity, many physicists continued to believe in the site. Among them Lorenz, Michelson and Morley.

    However, the reason Einstein rejected the ether idea is that it requires a preferential rest system. This does not agree with the principle of invertibility, and with the fact that the speed of light is the same for every meter.

    What I'm trying to show is that there can be a system that leaves the ether, and still the speed of light in it is the same for every measurer. I proposed one idea - a system similar to Maxwell's ether model but completely open as an infinite homogeneous and isotropic location requires. This does not mean that the idea is correct - most likely it is wrong for reasons I do not know - but there could also be other models.

    The advantage of my model is that it is relatively easy to simulate it on a computer. It also gives unexpected side results: gravitation according to Lesage but without the problem of friction (the main problem with Lesage), inertia, and the possibility of non-locality.

    It also has another advantage that can be tested experimentally. That's what I'm trying to do now, even though it's not easy at all.

    And it is also possible that someone who knows and understands the subject, will show me where the mistake is or the way in which the problem was solved by others.

  365. Miracles
    Of course, Makhal is right.
    And all the other mathematicians are wrong too.
    And you know what you're talking about.
    my life…

  366. Miracles

    But do you agree that the sponge of the existing universe is not isotropic with respect to velocities? Does it have a certain rest system?

    So why this one? Why discrimination?

    I have shown you that this assumption leads to countless questions.

    Ockham holds: There is no preference.

    Have you looked at Maxwell's site model? Equation 136? Do you accept that it is inconceivable that Maxwell would have been able to extract the speed of light from the model if it is wrong?

    So how can you say there is no website?

  367. Israel
    The "sponge universe" is indeed homogeneous and isotropic. It is the same everywhere and in every direction - there is no necessity for it to be the same at every speed. The whole idea of ​​velocity invariance is later.

  368. Gee, the mathematicians, the neck bones, those….. the amount of nonsense they sometimes spew…. According to Avogadro...

    Miracles

    If you don't understand what language is and what mathematics is, you are welcome to read here:

    http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7hYCAy5SYE4A8nJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzbDBrMTJiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1ZJUDI1MF8x/SIG=13lokfmg0/EXP=1378775938/**http%3a//cms.ed
    ucation.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/56D4BD7B-A345-411A-9B74-350AA3013481/137123/Unnamed5.doc

    And here:
    http://www.limudi.co.il/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%98%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%98%D7%AA-%D7%AA%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%99%D7%91/%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99-%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94/

    (Quote from the link: "...according to many, it is that mathematics is a basic language in science...")

    And here:

    Mora-mathemat.com ("Mathematics is also a language")

    And here:

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

    And here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtupAb3n4wM

    And I even asked a math teacher (I won't mention his name) and his answer was: "Mathematics can be defined as a language. But it would be more correct to be a pseudo-language".

    And you are even invited to explain all this to Uncle "Retard" Dresden.

    Pleasant reading.

  369. Miracles.

    "You wrote "I don't know any field in which there is no preference for certain speeds." And you also wrote "but what reason is there for preferring a certain speed in an infinite system". decide"

    it's simple. I don't know of any field that doesn't have a preference for certain speeds, just like I wrote. (Do you know? Give an example).

    Then I wrote: "But what reason is there to prefer a certain speed in an infinite system".

    This is a new and unfamiliar field. Have you ever heard of such a field? I do not.

    So here is my decision. I don't know, but here is a new one.

    "First thing - you assume that the universe is infinite. If this assumption leads you to a contradiction, and your inference method is correct, then replace the assumption....”

    I assume nothing. I claim this was the picture of the universe in 1887. No? And this picture brings a contradiction with the idea of ​​a preferential rest system.

    "Second thing - there is no contradiction in the idea of ​​an infinite field that has a rest system. Again... the example of an infinite sponge does not cause any contradiction.”

    There is no contradiction, but it is not an infinite homogeneous and isotropic system. I have shown you that such an assumption (even though there is no contradiction in it) leads to a lot of questions about the cause of the lack of isotropy.

    Einstein wanted to call relativity the "Island Difference Theory". His assumption was that the universe is indeed homogeneous and isotropic. So why prefer one rest system over others?

    And that's why I said: Ockham insists: "There is no preference for certain speeds". Just for symmetry reasons.

    Monday, woman, breakfast.

  370. Israel
    You wrote "I don't know of any field in which there is no preference for certain speeds." And you also wrote "but what reason is there for preferring a certain speed in an infinite system". You decide 🙂

    First thing - you assume that the universe is infinite. If this assumption leads you to a contradiction, and your inference method is correct, then replace the assumption...

    Second thing - there is no contradiction in the idea of ​​an infinite field that has a rest system. Again... the example of an infinite sponge does not cause any contradiction.

  371. Michael Rothschild
    Some try to treat mathematics as a language. They don't exactly understand what language is, and/or what mathematics is...

  372. Israel:
    Unfortunately, I am very, very busy these days and will not be able to extend the responses.
    Says only one thing:
    I mentioned that the histamine molecules are at rest relative to the shrigin molecules.
    You want me to give them speed in relation to them and I simply say "I don't want to".

  373. ב

    My usual question to you:

    and….?

    Michael.

    What is missing in Etherin is Spidin.

    Nothing in your shregin is in motion.

    Choose any point in the lattice and call it the beginning of the three-dimensional axis system, 0,0,0.

    The giant to infinity of molecules will form an arc of velocities from minus infinity to infinity in all directions (you can settle for less than infinity, but for the sake of argument we will use infinity)

    Note that at any given moment, sthemin molecules also pass through the 0 point at completely normal speeds, some of them are even stationary relative to it.

    Now, if we start from the assumption that above a certain relative velocity, the molecules will have no effect on a mass of material located at the 0 point (a completely reasonable assumption, even too fast neutrons have no effect on a uranium 235 nucleus, only the slow ones explode it), we have accepted that in terms of the material only a limited spectrum of speeds is relevant . For him, a gas is a normal gas at a speed of 0.

    Now take another block of material that moves at a certain speed relative to the 0 point (for the sake of demonstration - in the positive direction of the X axis).

    As far as that block of material is concerned, it is in exactly the same state as the first block. He can determine that he is actually at a new point 0,0,0, in a system that is in motion relative to the previous point 0,0,0. There is no difference between the two. Although he is in a gas, nothing opposes him (there is no wind) and he is at rest as far as he is concerned.

    When will he encounter resistance to histamine molecules? If he tries to speed up. But once it reaches a constant speed, it will stay there forever, because in all respects it is at rest relative to the gas. (not closed on the subject of acceleration).

    What will happen to the embryo wave in Sethimin? It will always move at the same speed relative to the origin, because every moving point is exactly the same as every other point.

    If we eliminate the collisions between gas molecules, we will get gravitation according to La Sage but without friction (every body is stationary relative to the gas, why would there be friction).

    It is possible to send information at any speed we want, including infinity, because the molecules move at all speeds.

    We therefore received:

    1. The same wave speed for each meter.

    2. Inertia.

    3. Gravitation.

    Feasibility of non-locality.

    If you don't see it, the model can be programmed on the computer. It's not too complicated. The key point is the "ballistic pendulum" - the plausible assumption that above a certain speed the molecules stop having an effect (those who don't believe it will shoot bullets at a block of plasticine hanging on a string. The slow ones will move it, the fast ones won't.

    Maxwell.

    "Maxwell developed a system of formulas that unites all of Faraday's tangible findings.
    He is actually the man who gave the findings an orderly mathematical structure and actually built the theory of the electromagnetic field."

    and did so while using a hydrodynamic model of the site. Currents, eddies, molecules and pressures.

    "Among other things, he calculated the propagation speed of electromagnetic waves and obtained some formula."

    Not just any "formula". He simply took the formula that calculates the progress of a sound wave in a gas, the so-called "hydrodynamic modulus:

    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9C

    replaced the stiffness coefficient of the material with the electric dielectric coefficient and the density of the material with magnetic permeability

    . Maxwell made an analogy between the density of this medium and the magnetic permeability, as well as an analogy between the transverse elasticity and the dielectric constant, and using the results of a prior experiment by Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch performed in 1856, he established a connection between the speed of light and the speed of propagation of waves in this medium.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force

    And so he got the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force

    Formula 136.

    So here we see that the well-known Maxwell equations and also an exact calculation of the speed of light came from a hydrodynamic model of the ether, from the assumption that it is a sine wave advancing in Molecular Vortices, just as a sound wave advances in gas molecules.

    And my question: is it possible that he hit the speed of light out of such a detailed and complicated hydrodynamic model (almost 200 equations!) and the model is incorrect? And if the model is correct, how can there be no website?

    Known throughout the history of physics for another case of such unlucky luck?

    True, Bohr succeeded with A0 distance in his first and incorrect model of the hydrogen atom, but this is a minor error. In the case of the Maxwell model, it is simply impossible for such a model to give a correct result for the speed of light if the model is incorrect.

    And the model is the website model. Currents, eddies, molecules and pressures, hydrodynamics. (Seventh time, I know, but we must emphasize).

    Michael, are you beginning to regret entering the infinite loop? If so, point me out, I'm not offended. R.H. The poor man tired me for two months until he gave up and disappeared forever.

  374. Israel:
    I think you're just messing around.
    Although everything I said is true, but let's move to another image.
    I assume you know what a knit is but for the sake of all readers I will briefly describe the knit I want to talk about.
    You can build such a lattice in any number of dimensions.
    Let's start with a straight line, arbitrarily determine one point on it, and mark it and all the points that are a whole distance from it with a color. These points are the one-dimensional lattice.
    We will continue to the plane, select a straight line and build a two-dimensional grid on it.
    We choose in a plane a straight line that passes through one of the points of the two-dimensional lattice and is perpendicular to the first line and we choose the point of intersection with the first straight line and all the points that are at a complete distance from it as points in the two-dimensional lattice.
    Now we will pass lines parallel to the first line through all the points of the lattice in the second line and also lines parallel to the second line through all the points of the lattice in the first.
    We select all the intersection points created as lattice points.
    I assume you see the picture - it's simply an infinite tapestry of square vertices (where every side of a square is shared by two squares and every vertex is shared by four squares)
    In a similar way, a three-dimensional lattice is constructed as the vertices of cubes.
    So far I have only described a mathematical structure.
    Now let's assume that the site has an infinite three-dimensional lattice where all the points of the lattice are made of the material "Shrigin".
    Let's further assume that the rest of the points of space are filled with a "satamine" substance that is at rest with respect to the "shrigin" points.
    May I think about such a site? Yes!
    Is there anything inconsistent about it? No!
    Is there a system that deserves to be called a "rest system" on this site? for sure!
    Should we choose a specific point as the origin of the axis? of course not!
    Have more questions about it? I hope not.

    In relation to our understanding of Maxwell:
    Maxwell developed a system of formulas that unites all of Faraday's tangible findings.
    He is actually the man who gave the findings an orderly mathematical structure and actually built the theory of the electromagnetic field.
    Among other things, he calculated the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves and obtained some formula.
    This formula did not include the speed of the source or the destination and one could raise the question "What does the speed he received refer to?"
    This question didn't come up because people thought this speed was the speed relative to the site.
    It is not known how much Einstein was aware of the Michaelson Morley experiment when he developed special relativity. Probably not particularly. One of the hypotheses regarding what gave him the inspiration to develop this Torah is that he realized that actually this is not about speed in relation to the site but rather speed in relation to any viewer that we want.
    This is our new understanding of Maxwell.

  375. Israel:
    Two parallel number axes move relative to each other.
    At the zero point of one of the axes, an observer stands and measures their speed relative to each other.
    Where is the problem?

  376. Michael.

    We both agree that the MM experiment was designed to determine the resting state of the ether, right?

    A rest system of air or water is actually the vector of the average of the velocities of the molecules in a certain volume that we are testing, agreed?

    Let's compare it to known rest systems:

    Rest system of stagnant air - KDAHA.

    Ocean rest system - as above.

    Wind rest system - wind speed relative to the earth. A resting system of a river with different cross-sections - varies according to the speed of the flow.

    But in any area, the rest system is the average speed of the molecules in that area, agreed?

    This is why if we are on a raft in a river and we cannot see it because of the darkness, no matter how fast we are sailing (the river narrows and widens and so does the speed of the water) it is always at 0 speed relative to us.

    This does not mean that even a single water molecule is at 0 velocity relative to us - in fact they are at many different velocities - only that their average velocity is 0 relative to us.

    The constraint that requires the air or water to be at 0 speed relative to the ground is gravity. If the air is in the plane, its speed is 0 relative to the plane.

    So much trivia. agreed upon?

    We will take an infinite system.

    Infinite spaces, infinite amount of molecules, infinite speed distribution.

    This is more or less the picture of the universe in 1887. Maybe not an infinite amount of molecules, but certainly not a limit on speeds (Einstein was barely born).

    Why then would such a system have a rest system - which, as mentioned, is the average of the speeds of all the molecules?

    The question I addressed to you: What is new in our understanding of Maxwell?

    All physicists are bogans, all chemists are pedants, and all mathematicians are neck boners.

    (I hate generalizations).

  377. Miracles:
    Rafaim claimed that mathematics is a language.
    For example here:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/ball-state-prez-intelligent-design-not-science-0408135/comment-page-12/#comment-445865
    The illogicality he uses throughout shows that he personally can probably only use it as a language and his misunderstanding of Drazi's parable (until this moment!!! even after all the explanations!!!) raises a sad smile.
    I pointed to the response in which he said that mathematics is a language and there were other responses in which he defended this claim but seeing that it was not defensible he decided to try to obscure the facts and if you ask it is a sign that his strategy of rewriting history is working on some people.

    Israel:
    I can't understand what's bothering you.
    Did you not find an answer to your question in my words?
    I saw that you wrote that you addressed a question to me, but I was in no hurry to put my grom neck in an endless loop, but if I didn't miss some response, then it seems to me that I actually included him in this discussion (by the way - I think he really is a grom and I ask myself how you know that 🙂 ).
    The truth is that I get the impression at a glance that you attribute my words on the subject to miracles.
    Why can't we find a site rest system?
    And the Michaelson Morley experiment was not designed to find the zero point. no and no! It is designed to find only the rest system. In this rest system, we could place the zero wherever we want, provided that it is at rest in relation to the site.
    I brought a parable of air - do you have a problem with this parable?
    Imagine that the ether was composed of massive particles, the passage through which would create a feeling of wind on the earth (and of course also friction that would knock it off its orbit around the sun, but the parable is only meant to demonstrate one idea).
    Couldn't you change the speed of your movement in space until you don't feel any wind?
    In doing so, wouldn't you find what can be called the "rest system of the site"?
    You don't feel wind, but the thought that a wave needs some "material" to move in led them to the invention of ether as a material that can carry the waves but does not create friction.
    If no wind is created then how can you find what is the rest system of the site?
    They thought that measuring the speed of light in different directions could reveal it (and it would indeed reveal it if it showed a different speed of light in different directions - see the example of air and sound waves).

  378. In an isotropic temperature field there is indeed a preference for certain speeds. I don't know any field in which there is no preference for certain speeds.

    But what reason is there to prefer a certain speed in an infinite system? And if this, why not another? And if it is random, why would it be spread over the entire space uniformly and not change randomly?

    A million questions. Ockham incisors: there is no preference for any speed.

  379. Israel
    Think of an isotropic temperature field - everywhere and in every direction the field is uniform. But - if you are in motion then you will find that the temperature changes. Isotropic does not talk about speed.

  380. Miracles.

    You're right, but you don't have to.

    Do you agree that a sponge whose speed is different for each snail is not isotropic?

    B.

    Even a regular bath sponge doesn't do what you said. Universe sponges - even more so.

  381. If your sponge has fast and slow snails moving in different directions, each snail will measure a different speed to the sponge, and there may be snails that measure 0 speed.

    In terms of a coordinate system of velocities, the infinite sponge is not homogeneous. It has an arbitrary 0 point.

    I can also imagine an infinite straight line that is at 0 velocity only relative to one gauge and moving relative to the others, but it is not isotropic.

    One can of course say that the universe is infinite but not isotropic and homogeneous, but this raises a series of questions about the cause of the asymmetry.

  382. Israel Shapira
    You don't even address my comments so why should I read your links? 🙂
    ….I asked you can you imagine a universe made entirely of sponge, which is homogeneous and infinite? Is there a logical contradiction in this?

  383. Miracles

    my question:

    "How can an infinite homogeneous and isotropic universe possibly have a preferred rest system?"

    Purpose of experiment M-M:

    The Michelson–Morley experiment was performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.[1] It attempted to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind")

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

    No "Michelson and Morley's experiment was not designed to find the "rest system of the ether". It is designed to find at most one system where the site is at rest. But that's not accurate either. The correct description is:
    The experiment was designed to measure the effect of the speed of the earth's movement relative to the site on the speed of light relative to the site." As argued in, and not "the maximum speed of information transfer does not depend on the reference system. By chance, light moves at this speed, and this is what experiment M-M showed", as you claim.

    Very simple: check the speed of material movement through the ether ocean. And the ocean has a preferred resting system (the Earth in the case of the Atlantic and the Pacific, Mars if and when it had oceans).

    You too, like B, don't browse the links?

  384. Israel Shapira
    It is possible to show in a thought experiment that the maximum information transfer speed does not depend on the reference system. Coincidentally, light travels at this speed, which is what the m-m experiment showed.
    Einstein only did thought experiments...

  385. Israel:
    Michelson and Morley's experiment was not designed to find the "rest system of the ether". It is designed to find at most one system where the site is at rest. But that's not accurate either. The correct description is:
    The experiment was designed to measure the effect of the Earth's movement speed relative to the site on the speed of light relative to the site.
    This description is true and appropriate even if the site is in some traffic. He just checks the difference between the movement of the ether and the movement of the earth and that's all. It is not at all about the rest system of the site.

  386. Miracles

    First, your claim also implies that if the universe is infinite and homogeneous, then a MM experiment cannot discover the rest system of the ether, right?

    Second, if the universe is not homogeneous, this poses a new series of questions about the nature of the island of homogeneity: Is the Milky Way's environment an area where the "ether ocean" has a rest system, the same rest system that the MM experiment tried to discover?

    And if so, what is it affected by? Solvents? Because then we will get different rest systems according to the distribution of masses for the milk.

    And what is beyond the Milky Way? Is there no site rest system there? Or does the same rest system exist ad infinitum?

    So many questions. Elderly Ockham rambles and adjourns: There is no preferred resting system for the site.

    But if there is not, then the MM experiment cannot discover the rest system of the ether, and is therefore illogical.

    He really didn't find out…

    Einstein's conclusion: there is no site.

    But this is a bit of a hasty conclusion in my opinion, hence the question I addressed to Michael.

    Although it doesn't seem to me that he is in a hurry to put his neck in the endless loop...

  387. It's good that the retarded David Drazi didn't replace the word language on TV, then according to his logic it was clear that he was talking about a mathematical parable.
    And I apologize to the retards for comparing David Drazi to you.

  388. Israel Shapira
    If there is a preferred frame of reference (ie: the ether) then the universe is not homogeneous in a certain sense. Where is the problem here?

  389. His situation is more bleak than I thought... Why should I lie, everything is laid out before us? A parable is not difficult to understand or, in fact, it is complicated for some...

  390. With all due respect (and no respect), ghosts, you are the one who did not understand David Drazi's words.
    Have you heard of the term "parable"?

    He took the word "mathematics" in the responses of both of you and replaced it with the word "man" and showed that the exact same combination of arguments (the one you used to show that mathematics is a language) can be used to "prove" (my eyes) that man is a language.

    Just as you did not understand the difference between mathematics and the language of mathematics - the figure in the parable did not understand the difference between man and human language

  391. David Drazi
    You are not only retarded, you are also a liar.

    Can you show where I wrote, as you say: "Man is a language!" ?

    The fact that you don't understand what language and mathematics is is your problem, not mine.

  392. See a conversation between me (David Darzi) and a retard (ghost):

    retarded:
    Man is a language!

    David Drazi:
    The definition of language:
    "Language is also used for communication purposes by passing verbal messages from an addressee to a recipient, any person who knows the sounds, symbols and grammatical rules of a certain language can create sentences"
    "Language is a tool for thinking and creativity helps the act of thinking by allowing the use of concepts and ideas for cognitive processes such as inner speech.
    Language can allow a person to sail into the world of imagination, like in a symbolic game in childhood or reading a novel in adulthood"
    "Language is a way of communication based on a complex system of symbols with legality, which makes it possible to encode and organize information with many and varied meanings. It is customary to differentiate between the denoting verbal symbol and the concept or content denoted by it, which can be realistic or abstract"
    Most of the settings here are light years away from humans! I skimmed through the discussion and read "ghost" comments? It's easy to go down on another person without identifying with cowardice on their behalf... and the arguments (if you can define them as "arguments") are at the elementary school level... sorry for the "ad hominem" but if a person is retarded I won't vote for it?

    retarded:
    David Drazi
    You are welcome to vote for yourself as retarded, because you gave the impression that you yourself did not understand what "language" and "person" mean.
    You wrote: ""Language is a way of communication based on a complex system of symbols with legality, which makes it possible to encode and organize information with many and varied meanings. It is customary to differentiate between the denoting verbal symbol and the concept or content denoted by it, which can be realistic or abstract" -
    Doesn't sound like human language to you? If not then you are really stupid.
    And how do we know that you are really David Darzi and not Yossi Alfonso who hides behind the name David Darzi?

  393. Miracles
    "God was invented to explain why things happen and not how they happen" - you probably missed the first chapter of the Tanakh where it is written how the heavens and the earth were created.

  394. David Drazi
    You are welcome to vote for yourself as retarded, because you gave the impression that you yourself did not understand what "language" and "mathematics" mean.

    You wrote: ""Language is a way of communication based on a complex system of symbols with legality, which makes it possible to encode and organize information with many and varied meanings. It is customary to differentiate between the denoting verbal symbol and the concept or content denoted by it, which can be realistic or abstract" -
    Doesn't it look like the language of mathematics to you? If not then you are really stupid.

    And how do we know that you are really David Darzi and not Yossi Alfonso who hides behind the name David Darzi?

  395. "There is no equivalence between the existence of a homogeneous, isotropic and infinite space and the determination of zero on an infinite straight line.
    Determining the zero (that's what you do - you don't find the zero but determine it) on an infinite straight line is a special case of determining a coordinate system."

    And this is exactly the problem, in my opinion, with the MM style experiment in a universe that is considered infinite and homogeneous.

    Because he did not come to determine the zero point arbitrarily as we do in a Cartesian axis system, but he came to discover the natural rest system of the site.

    This is possible if the universe is not infinite and homogeneous, but impossible if it is.

    Sound waves move in its system an arbitrary rest system - the earth in the case of thunder, an airplane in the case of messages from the captain, the wind vector in the case of wind.

    But what if the system is completely open as in the case of a non-infinite and homogeneous universe? If, as Nissim says, "I can easily imagine an infinite, homogeneous universe in which there exists a site that provides a reference system" - then why precisely this reference system and not another? Where is the homogeneity?

    Michael, what is the significance that we now know Maxwell's equations had?

  396. The definition of language:
    "Language is also used for communication purposes by passing verbal messages from an addressee to a recipient, any person who knows the sounds, symbols and grammatical rules of a certain language can create sentences"
    "Language is a tool for thinking and creativity helps the act of thinking by allowing the use of concepts and ideas for cognitive processes such as inner speech.
    Language can allow a person to sail into the world of imagination, like in a symbolic game in childhood or reading a novel in adulthood"
    "Language is a way of communication based on a complex system of symbols with legality, which makes it possible to encode and organize information with many and varied meanings. It is customary to differentiate between the denoting verbal symbol and the concept or content denoted by it, which can be realistic or abstract"
    Most of the definitions here are light years away from mathematics! I skimmed through the discussion and read "ghost" comments? It's easy to go down on another person without identifying with cowardice on their behalf... and the arguments (if you can define them as "arguments") are at the elementary school level... sorry for the "ad hominem" but if a person is retarded I won't vote for it?

  397. From what is on the site, I think that "space" is empty and made of nothing, but the particles move back and forth in time many times and therefore feel a kind of "space"

  398. Israel
    Michael explained nicely. I can easily imagine an infinite, homogeneous universe in which there exists a site that provides a frame of reference.

  399. Israel:
    No.
    There is no equivalence between the existence of a homogeneous, isotropic and infinite space and the determination of zero on an infinite straight line.
    Determining the zero (that's what you do - you don't find the zero but determine it) on an infinite straight line is a special case of determining a coordinate system.
    It is a way of naming the points on the line but it is not a way of determining them.
    Also in mathematics, when you deal with Euclidean space using a certain coordinate system, you treat that space as a static space, and this is also the basis for the transformation you do in replacing a coordinate system whose entire function is to enable the representation of that space in another coordinate system.

    Imagine that the universe was indeed infinite and full of this kind of ether, and imagine that light was moving at a constant speed relative to the ether.
    It is not possible?
    why?
    Sound waves travel through the air at a constant speed in any direction, regardless of the size of the air body.
    If you defined the rest system as one where light waves travel at a constant speed in every direction it would make perfect sense.
    Then you would set the system of axes in it as you see fit, provided that it is also stationary in relation to the site.

    Of course, in practice none of this is possible because the Michelson Morley experiment showed that there is no preferred system because at all points, regardless of their relative motion, the speed of light is constant in all directions, but if we ignore Michelson Morley and if we forget the significance that we know today had for Maxwell's equations, there was no determination of this kind problem.
    A sound experiment with sound waves, if it had been carried out (and also in an air body of infinite size) would have allowed us to identify a preferred rest system without any problems and then determine the system of axes in it to our heart's content.

  400. This is indeed the Olvers paradox - the space is not homogeneous.

    On the other hand, do you accept that in an infinite homogeneous and isotropic space, an M-M experiment is illogical?

  401. Israel Shapira
    So they thought there was no after the Milky Way. That is, the space is infinite - but it is empty and therefore meaningless. That is - the Milky Way contains all the stars and should actually provide a reference system. I think the MM experiment is only to confirm that the site is indeed in relation to the Milky Way.

  402. Israel Shapira
    I don't understand the problem. First of all - I don't think the universe was considered infinite then. Much later they thought that the Milky Way was the entire universe, so where do you claim otherwise?
    Second thing - if they thought that the distant stars do not move, and as far as I know they did, there is no logical problem here.

  403. With your permission, another question.

    In 1887, the site was considered an existing fact, like gravity and Newton's laws. The image of the universe was of an infinite universe both in terms of the dimension of space (there are no limits) and in terms of time (it has always existed and will exist forever).

    The Michaelson Morley experiment came to discover the rest system of the ether.

    But here, in my opinion, a logical problem emerged: how can an infinite homogeneous and isotropic universe have a preferred rest system? It is said that Michaelson would have found her, and announces at a press conference that the Leo constellation is at rest relative to the site.

    Why this one? Where is the homogeneity?

    Isn't finding the rest system of the ether in an infinite and homogeneous universe equivalent to finding the center of an infinite straight line?

    Or maybe because of Olbers reservation the universe was not then considered infinite and homogeneous?

    Since there's no way that Maxwell, Lorentz, and Michelson didn't think about this very point, I'd like to understand the logic behind the m-m experiment.

  404. Michael
    I agree with you that there is no connection between mathematics and God….. God was invented to explain why things happen and not how they happen.

  405. Good. Now after attempts to rewrite the history made by ghosts it is really hard to understand. That's why I voted on the comments that ignited it.

  406. Miracles:
    I never said that mathematics is a language.
    Whoever said that is a ghost.
    I was talking about the laws of mathematics.
    Obviously rabbits don't calculate Fibonacci numbers and cicadas don't check primes either.
    It is also clear that the stars do not calculate their course.
    It is also clear that when I have two apples and I give them to someone - there is no calculation here that the apples in my hand make to be zero apples.
    All these are things that do not belong to the claim on which the debate revolved, even though they are gradually trying to obscure it.

  407. I said that mathematics per se is a human occupation. And I said it's like physics, chemistry, blah blah blah….
    I say that there are probably numbers in nature, but I don't think it's "mathematics".

    And again - I don't understand why it's interesting? If there is mathematics in nature, it must not be a language. I distinguish between these 2 concepts. I don't think the rabbits calculate the size of the next generation using the Fibonacci series…….

  408. Well, since everything appears here and now there are those who are trying to rewrite history, you are invited to read the relevant comments.
    My comment:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/ball-state-prez-intelligent-design-not-science-0408135/comment-page-11/#comment-445832
    What ghosts answered her:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/ball-state-prez-intelligent-design-not-science-0408135/comment-page-12/#comment-445865

    Miracles:
    You only referred to one line in my response and all you said about it was "could be".
    It is no longer the same "obvious" as it was before and thus there is already progress but it still ignores all the rest of the response.

  409. And again I repeat:
    The phenomena that were (and still are) present in nature - and those that man defined as mathematics - are natural phenomena. and do not depend on the person.
    But before man defined them as mathematics he defined them as God. And before he defined them as God - he did not define them at all. Just like the cicadas. Man simply lives them. And when he developed he also tried to understand and define them.

  410. Michael
    7 is truly primary, but it does not necessarily exist in nature. You give the example of the cicadas. To say that they discovered that 13 or 17 are prime is a human interpretation of what happens in nature. We decided that this is why their cycle is like this. We don't really know what the source of the phenomenon is.

    It could be that the numbers really have meaning, as you mentioned. For example - for the concept of parity or elaborate polygons in the theory of crystals. But - what does it matter to anyone?

  411. I see that Makhal continues to invent things for me that did not exist and were not created.
    But now he agrees with my opinion. (probably because he really understood where he was wrong in his claims)

  412. By the way - it's interesting that Rafaim - finally - in his mischievous way - actually accepted my opinion.
    He said that the laws of mathematics (which is the only thing I talked about and which he attacked in the first place) had always existed and were just called by different names.
    So it's true - he also writes nonsense there that I would never write because they never called mathematics by the name "God", but from a fundamental point of view he suddenly completely accepts what I have been claiming all along.
    In fact - his claim is now dwarfed by the claim that the decision to call it mathematics is a human decision.
    I completely accept this and I can certainly imagine a world where mathematics would be called "Zirpol" and a prime number called "Karchov".
    In this world, some of the people (the smartest ones) would specialize in Zirpol and others who specialize in discrediting them would claim that they do not understand what they are talking about.

  413. Miracles:
    I know the opposite.
    Many people know the opposite.
    That is to say - it is clear that the person deals with mathematics, but he had no possibility to decide that the number 7 is not prime.
    The laws of mathematics exist in nature long before there were humans.
    I mentioned the mathematician and cosmologist Max Tagmark who even went so far as to claim that all of reality is nothing but mathematics.
    I mentioned that the cicadas discovered the prime numbers without our help and I can mention quite a few systems in nature that discovered the Fibonacci numbers.
    What is beautiful about mathematics is that predictions calculated using it (including those that have zero in them. Including even those that involve complex numbers) turn out to be true.
    This could not happen (and it happens again and again at every turn) if mathematics was not something real that exists in reality.

  414. Israel
    What Makhal is trying to show is that mathematics is hidden in everything in nature.
    But that's only because he's a mathematician.
    Aristotle didn't think it was all mathematics. (But between us who is Aristotle versus Machal: just a dispatch)

  415. Israel
    Do you want me to explain the explanation? So why don't you ask what you didn't understand? Why do you attribute your lack of understanding to me?

    OK. In other words:
    Do you want to get rid of the minus in the bank? The simplest: die.

    There is another option: to make money; earn a living; work. But for that you need to exist first of all - as a person.

    Do you think the cicadas that 'discovered' the numbers in nature called it mathematics?

    What man discovered and called mathematics are phenomena that before he called them mathematics he called them God.
    Therefore God also exists, doesn't he? And even before math!

  416. It's a shame you argue like idiots. It is clear that mathematics is a human invention, just like physics, chemistry, biology, music and football. These are all areas of occupation, areas of interest. None of them exist without humans.
    Let's take a small part of mathematics - number theory. Looks simple and seems to exist in nature. But no - it is not even clear today if concepts like "zero", "one" and "two" exist in nature.

  417. Israel:
    Regarding evolution - it is not entirely clear to me why you wrote what you wrote, is it a reference to something I said?

    In relation to entropy:
    A closed system with time-reversible laws (which, as mentioned, is not the case in nature) will return - if you reverse the state of its components - to the previous state in which it was.
    There is no question of probability here. The past that was is the one you will return to. If the past was orderly, it will return to orderly state. If the situation was messy she will return to a messy situation.

    The thing about the universe is that there are initial conditions (see it's a wonder) only at the beginning.
    As far as we know, the world does not work "toward" anything.
    That is why the second law of thermodynamics exists.

  418. Ghost.

    I'm trying to understand what you meant when you wrote "man invented the orderly mathematics to explain in an orderly and logical way the phenomena in nature. It is not nature that arranges itself according to mathematics, it is man who decides on the order (and what it is) in nature as he sees fit."

    It seems to me that the meaning is that mathematics does not exist without man, just as art does not exist without man.

    Since you don't explain, I try options. Did you mean that negative and imaginary numbers do not exist in nature but we use (at least negative) everyday? (See the minus in the bank).

    The simplest way to explain it is this.

    Michael.

    The explanation of evolution to create a complex order is survival mutations and selection. My intention is that a highly complex order can possibly develop spontaneously from a simple order even beyond random fluctuations. The example I gave: a simple arrangement of consecutive numbers (little order) that spontaneously leads to the phenomenon of perfect numbers (greater order)

    Regarding the second law:

    In a closed system there is no loss of energy due to heat, and in principle if we take 3 states of a system in state A the entropy is low, state B is higher and state C is the highest, then it is statistically clear that the tendency of the system is to increase entropy, and therefore to spontaneously move from state B to C .

    From exactly the same considerations, her tendency is not to move from state B to state A.

    We did not say which of the three situations is past, present or future.

    Now, if we apply Newton's laws to the revolutions of the arrow of time regarding the past or the future, it seems that, theoretically, entropy should also increase in the direction of the past.

    In practice, it only rises towards the future.

    why?

    The solution you proposed: "The second law is a law that can only be distinguished because of the initial conditions in which there was much order" is only one solution. In the nineteenth century, when the idea of ​​the second law was developed, the term "initial conditions" had no meaning. The universe is considered eternal, always was and always will be. Poincare, a mega-mathematician, proved mathematically that entropy must decrease at some point.

    And I ask: if we take a very simple and closed system, where there is no relation to the explosion and the only applicable laws are Newton's laws which are reversible in time, why doesn't the entropy also increase in the direction of the past?

  419. In fact, when you delve deeper into the same passage with Galileo, you also see what is meant because there it is explained that the philosophers of that time saw mathematics as the language of nature or even the language of God - that is - exactly the opposite of the idea that Rafaim tried to hang on to it as if it were a human invention

  420. Unlike you, ghosts, I make sure to tell the truth.
    I identify myself by my name and not by dozens of aliases, I admit when it becomes clear that I was confused, and I don't try to throw sand and garbage in the eyes of mankind.
    I said it's an image title because it's an image title. I guess you are currently trying to convince the readers that this is not a photo caption but you forget that anyone can go to the link and see what the truth is.

    To save people some of the effort, I will quote here the beginning of the explanation that is there for the question of what mathematics is.
    This explanation also has a continuation and nowhere in the explanation is mathematics described as a language. This is nonsense that only appears as a picture title.
    "Mathematics is the field of knowledge that deals with concepts such as quantity, structure, space and change. Some present it as a science of patterns (common patterns), and that mathematicians look for patterns: in numbers, in space, in science, in computers, and in imaginary abstractions [1] [2].

    Mathematics developed from stock, calculation and measurement and from the systematic study of shapes and movement of tangible objects. The knowledge and use of basic mathematics has always been a natural and essential part of human and group life. Generalizations of the basic ideas can be found in the mathematical texts produced by the Egyptians, Babylonians, Indians, Chinese, Greeks and Muslims. Already at an early stage, three characteristics that accompany mathematics to this day stood out:
    Abstraction: Although the origin of some of the mathematical objects is in the real world, the mathematical discussion of them involves considerable abstraction. The number 5 may represent 5 stones or 5 apples, but mathematics deals with number as an independent entity, which does not represent anything. The circle reminds us of round tangible objects, such as a wheel, but geometry deals with an abstract circle, weightless and volumeless and perfect in form.
    Generalization: Mathematics examines its abstract selves with a broad vision, while searching for their general characteristics. The concept of number includes within it a series of generalizations: transition from natural numbers to whole numbers, from them to rational numbers, from them to real numbers and from them to complex numbers. Each of these number systems contains the system that preceded it.
    Proof: every mathematical claim must be proved, that is, justify the correctness of the claim through a series of inference rules. The mathematician makes new hypotheses, the truth of which he must establish through formal deductive proofs arising from axioms (basic assumptions that state that they are true), and definitions chosen accordingly[3]. Formal proofs first appeared in Greek mathematics, and especially in Euclid's "Fundamentals".
    The development of mathematics continued, in an unorganized manner, until the Renaissance period in the 16th century, when mathematical innovations interacted with the scientific discoveries of the time. This led to an acceleration in mathematical research, and at the same time a rapid expansion of mathematics as an independent science began. These two directions of development continue to this day[4].

    Mathematics is used as an essential tool in many fields, including natural sciences, engineering, medicine and even social sciences such as economics and psychology. Problems originating in other branches of science continue to be a catalyst and driver for new mathematical discoveries, and sometimes entirely new mathematical fields develop as a result. At the same time, mathematics develops as an extensive and independent branch of knowledge, without reference to its application in other branches of science, although practical applications are often discovered later for discoveries that began as theoretical mathematics only."

    In fact, there is another quote from Galileo who spoke about the mathematical language and called it "mathematics" when he wrote the following sentence:
    "Philosophy - after all, it is written in the great book spread before our eyes from time immemorial - I mean the universe - but we cannot understand if we do not study the language and grasp the symbols in which it is written. This language is mathematics."

    But it is clear to anyone with two or more neurons that this is a metaphor.

  421. Michal's stupid (and false) responses are actually what is called "a mathematician's apology". Only he doesn't know how to apologize because he's too proud.

  422. I'm really tired of you.

    You will not stop making excuses to justify yourself when you are wrong.

    Good thing you didn't say it wasn't an illustration at all but a collection of computer logarithms.

    moron.

  423. Of course he also brought other links where even this stupid title does not appear.
    And among us - every sane person knows that mathematics is much more than a language and the fact that it also has a language is because the ideas have to be written in some way and the spoken language is not effective in expressing mathematical ideas

  424. Typical of ghosts!
    Please read the link and see what is written there.
    There is a picture with the title "Mathematics is language" and there is the encyclopedic entry that explains what mathematics is (which is far from being a language) so Rafaim chooses to base himself on Meyer's unfortunate title instead of the encyclopedic entry.
    idiot!

  425. I was really confused and thought a ghost asked the question about which mathematician was talking nonsense.
    The reference to ghosts at the beginning of the response was perceived by me as the name of the sender.
    Getting confused - happens - to ghosts it never stops happening even for a moment

  426. The tireless liar continues his lies.
    He simply does not understand himself what he is saying and when it is explained to him then he says that he did not say it, but everything is documented - that is what is beautiful here - anyone can check, for example, if he did not try to explain to us that mathematics is a language.
    Anyone can also check and see how he brought to confirm his words links that show that mathematics is not a language.

  427. "I said Rafaim thinks he is a mathematician because when I said he was talking nonsense he asked ""." - Here is another nonsense said by a mathematician.

    Of course, the one who asked "which mathematician spoke nonsense" was a miracle worker.

    But as I wrote in the comment above - Makhal has no problem starting to lie and write nonsense, if only to make himself appear to be right - even when he knows himself that he is wrong.

  428. His method is to attribute to the commenter things that were not said - as if they were said by him, and then try to hit him in the mouth with them. This is a well-known method used by Ahmadinejad, for example, when he says that there was no holocaust and then tries to convince the world that the Jews actually want to take over the Palestinian lands.

  429. I said that Rafaim thinks he is a mathematician because when I said he was talking nonsense he asked "what mathematician talked nonsense".
    It is clear to me that he does not consider himself a mathematician for the simple reason that he does not even know what it is to think.

  430. True, they did not talk nonsense in the field of mathematics. But they were mathematicians who talked nonsense (as I wrote).
    Just like the math lover who talks nonsense when he is confronted about his mistakes and he is not ready to admit them. So he starts to poop out of his mouth.