Comprehensive coverage

Free comments

Here you can comment on any topic that is not related to a relevant article.

Albert Einstein. Ten quotes
Albert Einstein. Ten quotes

1,088 תגובות

  1. For miracles - there is no doubt that it is simpler, but the impulse per unit of energy will be much smaller
    The formula for the momentum of light is: p=E/c, in this denominator is the speed of light.
    In numbers:
    A beam of light (provided it is all thrown in the right direction) gives an impulse of 0.003 micronewtons per kilowatt of power.
    Today's most advanced ion propulsion engine gives about 60 micro-newtons per kilowatt of power (20,000 times).
    The "impossible" engine in question should give 400 micro newtons per kilowatt of power in the first generation. Theoretically, they are also talking about the possibility of a much higher thrust per kilowatt - but first let's build one that works 🙂

  2. Shmulik
    interesting.
    But - what will happen if I take a spaceship, install solar cells on it, and with the help of the electricity I created - turn on an LED. The LED will create a beam of light that will provide an impulse.
    Isn't it simpler? What am I missing here?

  3. albentezo,
    What's new?
    I have a question about the measurement problem and the interpretation of the many worlds.
    I remember you wrote several times that you are not an expert in the various interpretations and yet here is the question:
    Under the many-worlds interpretation, what does the probability we measure in Schrödinger's wave equation mean? After all, the claim is that before the measurement, there is a probability for the electron, for example, to be at one point or another and when we measure, we find the electron at a certain point (the collapse of the wave under a different interpretation). But under the multiplicity of worlds, after the measurement, all the worlds are actually created and we find ourselves in one world out of this multiplicity. What is my probability if everything was created anyway? Does this mean that the physical interpretation of the wave equation under the many worlds is not one of probability? So what, she predicts the number of worlds that will be created?

    Another question is what actually counts as a viewer. From this quote it can be understood that any "classical" structure of atoms is considered an observer. did I understand correctly?
    the microscopic states of the plasma provide an environment that becomes entangled with the large-scale fluctuations of the inflaton, effectively measuring it and collapsing the wave function

  4. Shmulik
    indeed interesting. I don't believe it breaks an existing physical law. Also note where the successes are posted...

  5. Shmulik, this is already the third group that verifies the results, isn't it?
    Maybe time to increase the research budgets a bit..
    Question: Does the impulse stem from some instance of the Casimir effect?

  6. Miracles, Albentezo...
    where are you? I thought you would enjoy reading something like this.
    In the second link I gave there is a link to the article but I can't read it.

    interesting

  7. which city Las Vegas?

    Didn't you miss the cold of the East?

    I was at Mount Wilson this week, FM CENTER. The power from the antennas there is so high, that the scope measures 2V directly from the probe without amplification. Here in AL they barely measure millivolts.

  8. More annoying than me? 🙂

    Prof. Elitzur writes:

    "The answer to the question is therefore that without triangulation or parallax we cannot know the distance of the body emitting radiation if we do not have knowledge of the intensity of the light it emits."

    Which answers my question:

    "The question is about a device that can know the distance to a radio transmitter, and this without any prior knowledge of the transmitter."

    we

    There is no complication, but indeed it is related to the "project".

    It seems as if the distance of broadcast antennas can be roughly calculated by analyzing the waves, but most likely this is a mistake and I am not receiving the correct station.

    That's why I asked. It is forbidden to ask questions on this site anymore?!

    Here is Prof. Granot's answer:

    Electromagnetic waves New Prof. Yonatan Granot 16:54 15/06/15

    Shalom Israel,
    It is relatively easy to find the direction from which the signals are transmitted (a radio telescope can determine the direction from which
    They come quite well) but it is difficult to measure the distance (because at a great distance from the body the wavefront will be close to spherical, and the size of the measuring device is much smaller than the distance to the source, so that the part of the wavefront that falls on the detector is approximately flat, and therefore contains almost no information about the distance to the source ). There is a degeneracy between the distance and the transmission power (the measured radiation flux is proportional to the transmission power divided by the square of the distance, and you need to know one of them to determine the other).

    For an extraterrestrial source that transmits for a long time, it is possible to measure the direction to it at two different times, half a year apart, and take advantage of the fact that the Earth completes half a circle around the Sun during this time, so that its different position will give a different direction to the same source (the parallax method, which was developed originally for an optical telescope). This can only work for close enough objects, for which the angle of parallax is greater than the inaccuracy on the orientation of the source (which depends on the capabilities of the telescope being used). In astronomy it is sometimes a very serious problem to determine the distance to certain objects.

    Best regards,
    יוני

    Vifim says: Slowly, slowly, equal, equal, parallax, parallax.

  9. Israel
    We already agreed that you can't measure distance in a general way, so why are you bothering important people? 🙂

    Distance measurement by the brain is carried out by several methods, obviously the eyes do not measure anything, right?

    One method is accommodation, meaning changing the focus distance. This is the same method used in many cameras.

    A second method is convergence - the angle between the two eyes.

    A third method is by combining knowing the size of the bone and the angle at which the bone is seen.

    Parallax is not related to the matter - it is a method based on changing the viewing location. This method is the origin of the "farsec" unit, one second of parallax, on both sides of the sun.

    On the subject of distance measurement by the brain, I have been busy for years, as part of flight instructors, and I even did research on the subject for some annoying client...

  10. anonymous
    you're an idiot. What does where Galileo was born or live have to do with what I said? Galileo's famous thought experiment is with the ship at sea.
    The experiments with balls on an inclined plane are experiments.

    You really are an idiot…..

  11. Israel
    At first I wanted to write parallax…. But I also wanted to hear an answer from someone qualified 🙂
    In any case, what are the obstacles you face in order to measure light rays from any source coming from outer space? I didn't quite understand where you get into trouble during your project and I'd love to understand. Is it the devices? Or the calculations? Or something else?

  12. First qualified answer:

    Greetings

    Estimating the distance of bodies close to us through sight is done by the difference in the direction of the light rays coming from the body to the two eyes. This is probably the mechanism referred to by the questioner as "triangulation". For more distant bodies the difference becomes negligible and then to estimate the distance we must know in advance the intensity of the light emitted by the body. The same is the case with astronomical objects. The distance of nearby stars can be estimated by the difference in the angle at which the light rays from them reach us with a difference of half a year, at both ends of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. In this context, the phenomenon is called "parallax". The distance of more distant objects, for which the parallax is smaller than the measurement, can only be estimated by knowing the intensity of the light emitted from them by identifying and recognizing the processes that happen in the light source, for example the intensity of light changing at a certain frequency, or some type of explosion. The answer to the question is therefore that without triangulation or parallax we cannot know the distance of the body emitting radiation if we do not have knowledge of the intensity of the light it emits.

    Prof. Shmuel Elitzur
    Rekh Institute of Physics
    The Hebrew University

  13. Miracles
    Why do you keep embarrassing yourself?
    Galileo was born in Pisa, studied in Pisa and conducted experiments, some of them thought experiments. What is not clear to you about the facts I presented, and which you continue to ignore?

  14. Israel

    I doubt it very much but I don't really have a special understanding in the field. It seems to me that as long as the initial propagation is equal in all directions this should not be possible. If you have information about a certain shape and directionality of the propagation then maybe there is something to work with.

  15. Wookie

    I know the usual methods. The question is about a device that can know the distance to a radio transmitter, without any prior knowledge of the transmitter.

  16. anonymous
    Galileo did experiments with an inclined plane, on which he rolled brass balls. He used a water clock to measure times.

    why are you so stupid

  17. Miracles
    As usual you have a mistake..
    "It is also interesting that the experiment that Galileo did that supposedly showed that the speed of the fall is equal - was wrong!"

    He did not perform the experiment at all.
    The experiment was a so-called 'thought exercise'. Galileo wanted to clarify that two bodies falling in a vacuum - even if their weight is different - will reach the ground at the same time.
    Got it, Nissim?

    Spring.

    Why don't you release my comment? What is this here, a conference of leftists?

  18. Israel
    Nice question. It seems to me that in general there is no way.

    This was a big problem at the beginning of the last century - how to measure distances to distant stars. One of the methods was looking at flickering stars called "variable Cepheids". Henrietta Libit discovered the method a century ago.

  19. Nice, I didn't think of that.

    Question: Is there a device that can know the location of a body just by receiving electromagnetic signals that the body emits? For example, is it theoretically possible to know the location of a radio transmitter without prior information about the strength of the transmitter and without triangulation, but only by analyzing the waves coming from the transmitter?

    It is true that we can know the location of any object by estimating distance using sight, but doesn't this require prior knowledge of the size of the object and the conditions of the area?

  20. Shmulik/Israel
    The tower of Pisa is a legend, as far as I know.

    Galileo did experiments on an inclined plane. To avoid friction - he rolled balls on an inclined plane. The problem is that the ball reaches the bottom of the plane when it also has rotational speed. That is, the potential energy was converted to linear speed and also to rotational speed. As far as I know, Galileo did not correct for rotational velocity.

  21. weak
    I can't believe how much nonsense you wrote.
    Let's start by saying that I can't be wrong because I asked a question and got answers.
    We will continue to point out that a physicist writes to you that the speed of light is not an axiom and you say exactly, but exactly, the opposite.
    We'll let you know that you think God is an axiom when you defined an axiom like this: "a premise that does not require proof but is suitable for experimental results." And the question being asked is which experiments God is suitable for exactly or actually which experiments God is not suitable for and how the hell do you get from "God's axiom" to mathematics and physics And why should we actually put God in there? Where exactly does this axiom help?

    My God, how much nonsense you spewed in one post.

  22. Israel
    It is also interesting that the experiment that Galileo did that supposedly showed that the speed of the fall is equal - was wrong! Galileo used an inclined plane on which he rolled various bodies. The problem is that in this situation the fall speed is not the same :).

  23. Despite the synonymy that may exist in the English language between axiom and postulate, in my uneducated opinion there is a fine distinction between the two:

    The axiom is mainly used in mathematics to indicate a premise that is both self-evident (and I am aware that "self-evident" is not included in the definition of the axiom and is not self-evident), and is formulated as concisely as possible. for example:

    Only one straight line passes between two points, which is also the shortest distance between them.

    From basic axioms such as this one can develop and logically prove complex sentences that are not self-evident. for example:

    In a right triangle, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other sides.

    It is of course possible to start from axioms that are not so obvious and reach other conclusions as is customary in linear algebra, but I hope the intention is self-evident.

    Postulate, on the other hand, is based on experimental results and is not necessarily self-evident, like Postulate 2 in relationships. But also from this postulate it can be logically proven that the speed of light is the upper limit in nature for sending information.

    Interestingly, before Galileo, a basic logically provable fact had disappeared from humanity: all bodies fall at the same speed, regardless of their mass.

    Vifim says: One crazy cow in hand is better than two round horses in a vacuum.

  24. albentezo,
    Indeed, I meant the larger sentence you mentioned and you answered and put a stamp on what bothered me a little. It sounds problematic to me to limit physics in advance, unlike mathematics, but I understand the trade-off and the advantage of a well-defined mathematical structure

  25. Shmulik
    In mathematics, they always try to take as axioms simple things that are taken for granted. Euclid found 4 of these, and another one that seemed to many people too complicated - the axiom of parallels. Euclid thought his geometry described the world, but today we know it doesn't. Many have tried to derive the axiom of parallels from the previous four axioms (especially a number of Arab and Persian mathematicians). Lukaszewski and Boulay succeeded in developing a complete mathematics that includes the negation of the axiom of parallels, and showed that no contradiction is reached.

    In number theory the situation is simpler, there are 9 piano axioms, and I don't think anyone is trying to reduce this number.

    In physics it is different, in my opinion. There is no "obvious". There are models that try to describe the world, and these models have basic assumptions, as Israel described. But - these basic assumptions require an explanation. For example - the cosmological principle, which seems very vague, still needs an explanation.

  26. Shmulik,

    I don't quite understand what the problem is with complete sentences of all kinds. If you mean Godel's first incompleteness theorem (that in an axiomatic system that is effective and consistent there will always be truth claims that cannot be proven within the framework of the theory), then it is a bit troubling, but in exactly the same way it is troubling a mathematician. I mean, you're not going to throw differential and integral calculus out the window just because you know there's some claim you'll never be able to prove, right? I think it can still be said that axiomatic physics would have provided us with information with a very high level of certainty, more so than physics based on working assumptions and requirements consistent with experimental results. But of course there is a basis in what you say. It is certainly possible that within the framework of axiomatic field theory there will be basic and important things that can be easily verified in the laboratory but simply cannot be proven on paper. What I'm trying to say is that I just don't think that's a good enough reason to give it up.

    Regarding "postulate" and "axiom". I don't doubt Nissim's words - if he says he probably knows - but you have to be careful with it, because if you read articles in physics today you will come across the word postulate quite a lot, and most of the time it will be in the sense of a certain assumption. Certainly not in the sense of an axiom, because there is no blanket agreement (and sometimes there is not even any clear reason to believe) that these assumptions are necessarily true, or that they are necessarily necessary for the model.

  27. Thanks everyone for the answers...
    Miracles,
    If the meaning is the same, then can axioms be thought of as very limited definitions?

  28. thanks for the answers!
    At first, for some reason, I read "the ball horse" as "Kadori horse" (the name of the horse will be answered), perhaps inspired by Israel's barn, but then I remembered the joke 🙂

    How are axioms different from definitions?
    Why in advance try to produce axiomatic physics, the theorem of perfection for a lurking world, no?

  29. "Miracles" and Shmolon you are wrong, as usual from the new.
    Physics is based on axioms.
    And an axiom is "a basic assumption that does not require proof but is suitable for experimental results." As Israel Shapira explained to you.
    Without the axioms that were laid down before, it was not possible to construct the theories that were laid down afterward.
    In fact it can even be said that the whole (unfortunate) life of the two of you 🙂 , and the lives of other people would not look the way they do without basic assumptions that do not require proof. Apparently it is also impossible to avoid making basic assumptions that do not require proof - and continue to exist as a human being in a mathematical and physical world. (Perhaps for both of you it is possible, but then your twisted mind creates a twisted world detached from reality and makes you live in fantasies).
    The genesis axiom is of course - God.
    And from there to the creation of a world built from mathematics and physics is quite short (in cosmological terms).
    Contrary to what is written here - there are no "two main types of assumptions".
    What there are are axioms on which all other predications are built. Both in physics and mathematics.
    Like for example: the speed of light. The axiom is that the speed of light is constant for an observer in an inertial frame. All kinds of other theories are built from this axiom.

  30. One man decides to bet on a horse race but he wants to get some scientific help before he puts any money into it.

    he asks a statistician. The statistician goes through all the statistics of all the races of all the horses in the race going back 3 years. Pages upon pages of tables of numbers... checking distributions, checking probabilities, doing calculations and finally saying that a certain horse has a 65% probability of winning the race.

    he asks a vet. The veterinarian does a comprehensive examination of all the horses, looks at their teeth, measures their temperature, gives them stress tests, lung capacity and a million more tests and finally bids on a horse that he thinks is the healthiest and fastest.

    he asks a physicist. The physicist asks for a few days to think about it. A day passes, two days pass, a week passes. The date of the race is getting closer and there is still no answer from the physicist. Finally the man came to the physicist to see what was going on with him, why he didn't give an answer. The physicist tells him: "Listen, this turned out to be a more difficult problem than I thought, so far I've only solved it with regard to a ball horse in a vacuum."

  31. Hello Shmulik,

    So. Since all the physics we know describes the world mathematically, of course it rests on certain mathematical axioms. But beyond that, the answer is more or less no.

    In physics we make a lot of assumptions. We need to distinguish between two main types of assumptions: assumptions that are made for the purposes of "solving the question", and assumptions that we believe are true but cannot quantify or prove. The second type is what Israel called postulates, although I don't know that the word postulate is reserved exclusively for such assumptions (it is certainly customary to use it in articles to describe weaker assumptions as well). The first type of assumption is like the ball horse joke, if you know (and if you don't - I ruined a pretty funny joke for you). It is important to understand that assumptions that are verified experimentally (for example, that the speed of light is constant) are not axioms and do not have the same status. There were and still are attempts to write theoretical physics in an axiomatic way, when the most successful (and the most beautiful in my opinion) attempt is exactly what you brought - axiomatic field theory. There are many beautiful things in this field, but as expected - the requirement to formulate physics as axiomatic is very limiting and gets us stuck very early (that is, with such theories it is usually not possible to arrive at a description of real physical systems).

    And finally - yes. All that needs to be done to develop special relativity is to assume that time is an integral part of space (that is, it is a dimension and not a parameter) and that the whole of space-time is a flat pseudo-Riemannian sheet. From there it is directly obtained that all inertial systems are balanced and that there is one constant velocity that is maximal for massive bodies, that massless bodies must move at it and only at it, and that it is invariant to the Lorentz transformation (that is, constant in every frame of reference). It is customary to mark it with c. From here it is no longer necessary to assume that the speed of light is constant, because all one needs to do is go to the laboratory and see that light fulfills all the above-mentioned properties.

  32. That is, the premise is not an axiom.
    By the way, if I'm not mistaken, Albantazo said that the new formalism of relativity does not assume what you wrote, but there is one basic assumption, if I'm not mistaken?

  33. The physical equivalent of an axiom is the postulate, a premise that does not require proof but is suitable for experimental results.

    Private relativity for example rests on two postulates: the equivalence of all inertial systems, and the invariance of the speed of light.

  34. Shmulik
    I don't think physics itself relies on axioms, but the various models do. Aristotle's model assumed that each type of material preferred to be found in a certain place. Ptolemy's model assumed that the planets moved on epicycles and diferents. Galileo's model assumes equivalence of motion systems, and Newton's model assumes that there is uniform time, that mass is constant, and so on. The special theory of relativity assumes that the speed of light is constant for every observer, and the general theory assumes that acceleration is equal to gravity.

    Albanzo will probably correct me 🙂

  35. Thank you Albantezo!
    Around the time I asked you about black holes, I also asked quora (great site for those who don't know).
    Everyone more or less agreed with you and I don't think you will learn anything new from there, but somewhere in the answers someone threw in the terms Gravastar and Dark Star, so I learned something else along the way.
    https://www.quora.com/Can-there-be-a-planet-that-is-heavy-enough-to-capture-light-and-not-allow-it-to-escape-from-it

  36. Well, in the article there is no mention of any axis or any relation to the structure of the universe. The article is just a presentation by two physicists of their research, the results of which are that the structure constant changes *in time* (not in space!), at a dizzying rate of 0.0001 percent in about 10 billion years (close to the age of the universe). Even in the article itself, the authors admit and explain that there are other groups around the world that have reached contradictory conclusions to their own. To date (the article in Scientific American is 10 years old, and the study was carried out about 15 years ago) their results have not been verified using any other method, or any other group as far as I know. This does not mean that they are necessarily wrong, but it does mean that the apparent result that alpha varies with time does not approach the level of certainty that we require in physics. As I wrote in the previous comment, these studies are of enormous importance, but they also require a high level of certainty. Even if they were right, it is possible to debate the meaning of a difference of one millionth of a percent from a practical point of view (although theoretically this is a very interesting opening because it requires an answer to the question: "Why do the constants change at all?", a question that has a possible answer within string theory).

  37. Shmulik,

    It is not the mass that determines whether there will be a black hole, but the density. The mass determines the Schwarzschild radius, and the density must be such that the total size of the body is smaller than this radius. There is no problem losing mass and becoming a black hole - if at the same time as losing mass the volume decreases so that the total mass density (or energy density, actually) increases.

    Regarding models of planet formation - I hate to sound like a broken record, but my answer is that I have no idea. I am so far from the field that to answer would simply be irresponsible on my part. I can say that I would be very surprised to find out if heavy matter can reach the relevant densities to collapse into a black hole.

    Although my fields of activity are mainly black holes and cosmology, it should be understood that these fields can be studied both from the directions of astrophysics, and also from completely different directions of high energy and particle physics. I'm from the second field, so I don't have a deep knowledge of astrophysical topics like planets, for example.

  38. albentezo,
    Thanks as usual.
    I guess the answer to my next question lies in your answer in paragraph number 1 but I can't figure out why before the star collapsed in on itself, it allowed light to escape it?
    After all, the mass of the star was greater before it collapsed

    By the way, do the models that deal with the formation of planets prevent the creation of a planet large enough and dense enough to be a "black hole" that was not created by the collapse of a star?

  39. Hello Shmulik,

    1. The short answer is that what you said is wrong. The more detailed answer requires caution - we must understand what exactly we call a black hole. If we mean some event horizon, that is, a surface in space-time that divides it into two causally disconnected parts (which is just like saying that a light beam cannot cross it in both directions, at most one), then there are horizons without singularities. Simple examples of such are, for example, the horizon created when a body moves at a constant acceleration (after enough time its speed will aspire to infinity, so light rays that come from points far enough late enough will never be able to catch it) called the Rindler horizon, or a cosmological horizon that results from expansion/contraction the universe. It is clear from these examples that this is not exactly the right horizon for a black hole as we understand it. For horizons that fit a black hole (defined using trapped null surfaces), then there is actually a mathematical theorem proved by Penrose that says there must be a singularity hidden by the horizon. So if we understand a black hole as an object that has collapsed from its own gravity until its size is smaller than the Schwarzschild radius, the mathematical formalism of general relativity guarantees that behind the Schwarzschild radius there is a singularity. One has to be careful with phenomenological descriptions of the collapse process itself, because in such a process quantum gravity will probably play an important role, but it is enough to look at the end result of the horizon to know that there must be a singularity. It might be time to point out that the whole idea of ​​a singularity is a mathematical artifact of general relativity, which we hope quantum gravity can clarify or get rid of. But in the existing formalism, a black hole is bound by a singularity.

    2. I might not be the right person to ask him this question. The idea of ​​a space-time foam is an interesting idea but does not commit to quantum mechanics or general relativity. In fact, the most popular theory (and in my opinion also the most successful) for understanding the structure of space-time, is string theory, not the existence of such foam. On the other hand, its leading rival, Loop Quantum Gravity, actually contains such foam, although in a slightly different way from Wheeler's version, called spin networks. I'm not an LQG expert, so I don't want to assure you that it can be calibrated or changed so that the foam is smaller than the barrier they found (or even say that the foam today is larger than the barrier they found. That is, the barrier may be relevant to Wheeler's predictions but not relevant to the predicted size of spin networks) , but I have a strong feeling that this is not a strong blow to LQG. This does not mean that such studies and experiments are not very important, but this is probably not a paradigm shift in the theoretical community. I don't think I can research the subject in depth and provide you with a better answer, so maybe you should find someone who specializes in LQG in one of the forums or try to look for the answer yourself.

    Is it unnecessary to state that it is recommended to ignore the answer of "Leftists go outside"?

  40. Shmul
    1: A black hole is not a singular point.
    A black hole is created roughly according to the description you described.

    2: If we find a way to calculate distances shorter than the Planck length it will solve many problems in quantum mechanics.

  41. albentezo,
    Two questions if possible.
    1. From what I understand, there is no obligation for black to be a singular point. Am I right that a star is big enough that it will eventually collapse into a black hole, preventing light from escaping even before collapsing?

    2. A few comments ago, I brought here an article from Israel that talks about the fact that if such a "space-time foam" exists, the bubbles that make up this "foam" should be smaller than what quantum mechanics predicts. Did this result make waves or was it expected? Does this result give any thought to how to fix quantum mechanics so that these bubbles (if they exist) are smaller?

  42. Thank you Albantezo,
    I'll see if I can get the person who told you about everything, here, to try to explain.

    For those who like MDB, the books fire upon the deep and Gal Mokh talk about such an idea

  43. Shmulik,

    To the best of my knowledge this is a mistake. There is indeed a lot of interest in the question "are the constants of nature really constant" (alpha is simply the electron charge squared divided by Planck's constant times the speed of light). Many modern physical theories, such as string theory, do not require them to be constants and mathematical theories can be explored where the constants vary. Also, there are attempts to experimentally check the size of such and such constants in space and time (using ancient radiation from distant stars). As far as I know, there is no evidence that the constants change (all the results of the studies provide barriers on the rate of change, which is always a very small barrier that contains 0). Although I did not start digging into the articles of experimentalists, I am convinced that if there was experimental evidence for this phenomenon (that the rate of change is certainly not 0 and that there is some special axis to our universe), there would not be a physicist in the world who would not have heard of it, especially if he deals with cosmology.

  44. Hello Albantezo,
    In some forum discussion I saw the following claim:
    "There are studies that come to test the uniformity of the alpha coefficient (which by the way includes both C and the Planck constant) which is the fine structure constant of the universe, throughout the entire universe.
    And it turns out that it is not constant and the same everywhere in the universe, but changes in a way that points to an apparently central axis through which the universe is arranged, in terms of such significant physical constant uniformity."

    Do you have any idea what this is about?

  45. Hello friends,
    Below is an article from Israel describing further confirmation of the general relationship found by Israeli researchers.
    http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/science/.premium-1.2591311

    What is even more fascinating is that the result the researchers reached contradicts the existence of the "space-time foam" invented by John Wheeler. If such a "foam" does exist, the bubbles that make it up should be smaller than what quantum mechanics predicts.

  46. Hi Shmulik,

    The work and the article are progressing very well, thank you very much. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't think I'll have anything very interesting to tell you on the subject of the existence of the wave function (I use the word existence to distinguish it from reality in the mathematical sense, meaning that the wave function has no imaginary part). I stumbled upon PBR for the first time about two weeks ago, when a friend of mine told me about his interest in the subject. I looked at the article you just sent as well as the other article, and as I said - although the topic interests me very much on a curiosity level, I never got the chance to work in the field (and probably didn't either because it doesn't coincide with my research interests). The logic presented in the article seems reasonable to me, but in my understanding (which is important to qualify because quantum foundations is not my field of research or expertise, and because I have not studied the articles from cover to cover as is necessary to express a serious opinion about them) the statement here is a little weaker than it first appears.

    PBR shows that the interpretation of the Hegel wave being a non-singular characteristic of actual reality, but some kind of statistical or epistemic projection (that is, which reflects a certain aspect of our knowledge of reality and not necessarily reality itself) is not consistent with quantum measurement results. This does not rule out the interpretation that Hegel's phon is indeed a "there is" that characterizes reality, but it characterizes it as a statistical distribution of measurements. That is, they dismiss the statistical interpretation one step higher (or lower, depending on where you look) than what is usually called the "statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics".

    In conclusion, I will mention that, to the best of my knowledge, no way has yet been found to experimentally differentiate between different interpretations (that is, two interpretations that give different predictions from each other and it is possible to check, at least in theory, if one of them is definitely wrong), therefore with all the interest and beauty in these questions, it is important to understand that they More philosophies than physics because they do not affect the way we study nature, or the results of the experiments we perform, or the models we build, but only our understanding of these models when we draw a picture in our head. This doesn't mean that one day we won't find a way to distinguish interpretations, or maybe there is already progress in this field that I'm not aware of because I'm wasting my time on strings and black holes...

  47. albentezo,
    You can search under the search of the site "free comments"
    I have already suggested to the site manager to add a link on the home page to the free comments.
    I don't put the link again or the response will be blocked again for many hours

  48. Sorry for the jump,
    albentezo,
    Do you know the FBR theorem? (I try not to write in English so as not to be blocked).
    It seems that the article that appears two comments before is quite fascinating

  49. Avi,
    Would you please release my comment in the free comments?
    It's all a question for Albantezo about PBR. What have I already done?

    By the way, it seems right to me that the home page will have a link directly to the free comments. If it exists and I missed it, the forgiveness is with you.

  50. Wookie, in the repetitions of time they try to arrange the good at the top, and sometimes "other" factors are involved, usually your good is that souls do not interfere in your life and this is mysticism and it is erased in the repetitions. Another thing is stories like the Tanach that come to correct things in the future for certain reasons or that were deleted in rehearsals. You will, of course, call a "conspiracy" a bad thing that someone knows will happen and intervenes in it, and despite this, it will be revealed to you even if it is meant to return a time that is better than the best. In short, your goodness is affected by a hidden deletion of repetitions, so you are not aware. Sincerely

  51. Water blowing

    "However sometimes I like the feeling of special knowledge"

    You're on to something here. This is exactly what attracts people to all kinds of occult knowledge (mysticism, religions, various conspiracy theories that claim to hide the real truth from the common people, etc.).

  52. There are many bad things about time returns, whether it's trying to prove that you paid bills after the return, whether it's that sometimes you're not the only one using your ID, and whether it's walking down a street that has been renamed after time returns. However sometimes I like the feeling of special knowledge.
    If anyone wants to open a discussion on the subject, welcome

  53. Israel
    In modern radio systems there is a carrier wave on which information rides. To recognize the beginning of a song - you have to decipher the letter. In the case of satellite radio it is even more complicated, because there is compression (think ZIP) and error correction, and more encryption... All this takes time.

  54. Miracles

    Here is exactly what I need:

    I have a satellite radio receiver. I can hear songs by the Beatles in it, and also by the Beetles.

    There is said to be a moment of silence in the broadcast, followed by the opening of DONT LET ME DOWN. As soon as you hit the opening signal, the scoop pops, right?

    I need the arrival time of this special moment, with nanosecond precision if possible.

    Something simpler is also possible: connect another radio to the second channel of the scope, and display the time difference (if any) between the arrival of the two signals from the two radios.

    Capish?

    And why do I suddenly have a snoozing advertisement from the University of Haifa that covers half my screen without the possibility of getting rid of it?

  55. Israel
    If you mean the signal of a GPS satellite then there is a problem in measuring the arrival time. The signal from the satellites is continuous and coded (PRN) so what exactly do you want to measure? Scope will not be able to measure it like this in any case, without amplification, and amplification adds delay.

    I guess I don't understand what you are trying to measure...

  56. Wookie

    You are right, and skepticism is a candle to my feet. The following experiments are designed in such a way that their result will be a slam dunk - either one way or the other with no intermediate option.

  57. Israel

    It's not really winter, but the kids are on vacation, so they go for a walk in the traffic.

    The length of the antenna can be specially adjusted to the features of the device, but I don't think that when they made the adjustment, they thought about this form of use.

  58. Wookie

    Shaw Winter? Aren't you here in California? Today it did drop to 70, but yesterday it was 80. What miracles are you living in the pole?

    The length of the antenna is specially adapted to the features of the device. As far as I know this is the case with any normal antenna.

  59. Israel
    winter break/psychotic break, familiar? Maybe you can ask the blowing water.

    I don't really know, I don't really understand the field close enough. It just occurred to me that maybe we need to understand the effect of acceleration on different electronic components (if it exists) when doing things like this (fan or non-fan).

    If the box with the magnet is just there to connect to the car, what's the problem with removing it?

    A question that might be worth asking is whether the length of the antenna has any effect.

  60. Walkie, where did you go?

    Exactly for your question I performed the new experiment yesterday with the external antenna. Not only is the device not on the fan, the fan is not used at all, but the antenna is rotated by hand like a lasso.

    There is still a small technical problem, since at the end of the coaxial cable that is the antenna there is a small magnetic box designed to stick to the roof of the car or the belly of the plane. During the rotation, it creates an electromagnetic field that can affect the measurement. I'm trying to overcome the problem without damaging the antenna, which is the only one I got with the original device, but I don't think it will change the results. But everything must be taken into account.

    Does anyone have an idea how to accurately measure the arrival time of a signal? I have an oscilloscope but it's not that simple with it.

  61. Israel

    If you are talking to the company. Did you ask them if the device is built to handle being put on a fan, and how is it expected to react to that?

  62. You will see miracles in the decrease of dimensions, from moving back in time many times,, if you do not see the path and cannot functionally restore, we are talking about a direction where statistics are done to decrease a dimension. This is missing information from a decrease in dimension and its image appears to you to be flattened in a statistically low dimension, it is some kind of mathematical compensation for a change in dimensions that also results from moving backwards and forwards in time many times and stabilizes on the forward and backward movement once which seems normal to you and the only one you know, but there is another, another dimension

  63. Your logic should also operate in parallel universes, in a place where one tells the truth and one tells a lie about the same thing, and it changes what you stand for and with what power. Sincerely

  64. Dear Mr. Nissim, if we describe, for example, the two cracks experiment, and we try to check where the particle went through and which crack it came out of, the test will cause the particle to settle on the test and the image of interference will disappear, the part that means the particle no longer passed through the second crack either, that is, the test caused the information to return back Crack from there to the second crack and the movement was erased backwards in time, that is the particle was affected in the section where the particle went back in time and you see the stabilization, that is, you detect a movement backwards in time, and certainly information that returns. Sincerely

  65. If you accept that measuring the state of one particle immediately affects the state of its entangled sibling, it can be shown that the effect can also be in the past.

    I did not invent, according to the Weiler experiment, Gali's articles, and Shmulik's last link. My role is to give an intuitive illustration, if there is a demand.

  66. Israel
    You're right, I accept the correction - buffering is indeed defined for systems at rest. And in the case of the fusion experiment, the systems are at rest. But - where is the backward effect here?

  67. Why?

    Go to the first chapter of Einstein's original relativity essay:

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

    1. Definition of Simultaneity

    He offers a method of how to synchronize clocks between any two points, so that we can talk about simultaneity between 2 points that are at rest relative to each other.

    The experiments today showed unequivocally that the coordinates change even when only the antenna rotates. Yesterday it looked a bit strange, because only the longitude and latitude changed but not the height. A short conversation with the company solved the problem: in this particular GPS there are 2 methods for measuring height: barometric, as you suggested at the time, and satellite. When I switched to satellite only, the observed height also changed accordingly.

  68. Israel
    Simultaneity is only well defined at a point, right? It's true that you can't affect an event outside your light cone, of course, but I don't think you're talking about such a situation.

  69. Confused only at that point?

    If I can influence what happened in Iraq 4000 years ago, even though I have never been to Iraq - wouldn't that make Einstein, a descendant of the Iraqi Abraham after whom he is named - raise an eyebrow?

  70. Nissim, you asked about frequency, wavelength is something completely different!

    Oh, no ..

    We here at Lala Land try to explain everything in a physically understandable way. The fact that an intuitive explanation does not yet exist does not mean that it does not exist. A mathematical explanation without physical logic doesn't really help. That's why gravity wave function is a term, but I'm trying to understand what its physical meaning is. And if it is the one that transfers the properties of the particles intertwined in 0 time, we are still left with the same problem as before.

    Non-locality does not logically contradict relativity, but it puts it to a difficult physical test because it shows that it is possible to influence the past (where is water?). I have a feeling that Einstein would not have been very happy with this interpretation, as expressed in the EPR paper.

  71. Israel
    What is the wavelength, I asked you 🙂 A "physical" explanation is problematic. We can understand what a particle is or what a wave is. I don't think a human being can "physically" understand something that behaves both this way and that way. On the other hand - the properties of light as a wave and as a particle can be seen in simple experiments that are understandable to us.

    Also the shortening of time and length are not understood. That's probably why I'm not a physicist...

  72. In short, the photons sneak up behind and thus transfer negative momentum, eh?

    OK, but what is their wavelength?

    On the topic of interweaving - if the wave function fills the entire universe before the collapse, then it does explain the synchronized state of the particles. But what about the wave function itself? Is it a physical object or just a mathematical probability? Can a mathematical object explain the results of assembly experiments?

  73. Israel, miracles,
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/einstein-big-mistake-0711143#comments
    Read my question that starts with "Albantezo, sorry for the jump" and then the answer

    I then asked a follow-up question that begins with "Albanzo, early in the morning,"
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/daily-modulation-as-a-smoking-gun-of-dark-matter-0812145/comment-page-12/#comments

    At the end of the explanation (which is limited due to my lack of mathematical knowledge) there is a link that might help
    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

  74. Dear scientists Nissim and Israel, because photons move backwards and forwards in time and in other dimensions their momentum is from wind, it is clear that Entagal is related to the transfer of information from the movement backwards and forwards in time many times. And regarding Israel's experiment, I already tried to explain to you that at a processor speed of several gigabytes, and at the speed of light of the photons on average because they are positioned on the movement backwards and forwards in time, you cannot test a distance smaller than thirty centimeters, it is not enough to measure, you have no information, the light moves too fast, and you complicates the experiment. Much respect to both of you, blowing water

  75. Miracles

    "Reverse momentum transfer seems to me to contradict what we know, and yet, you don't argue about that"

    Must argue, and everything is related. The GPS experiments are also related to the debate about the reverse momentum transfer. In fact, this is where they were born.

    The results of the experiment today contradict the explanation I received from Rafi, but they are exactly what I expected, even though yesterday when I received the device I gave the experiment a 1% chance of success. I will wait a few days to have clear results and then I will contact him.

  76. Israel
    First feel good!!!
    My claim is that the thing with the simulated photons is that transferring momentum along them, as opposed to the direction of their motion, is no less strange than instantaneous state transfer in the entanglement case. It is even more strange, because interweaving is strange to us, who were brought up on the limit of the speed of light, but on the other hand does not create a contradiction. Reverse momentum transfer seems to me to contradict what we know, and yet, you don't argue about that 🙂

    Regarding the GPS, I understand that this contradicts the explanation you received, which says that the time in the accelerometer slowed down, correct?

  77. Honorable Israel, the photons move backwards and forwards in time many times, therefore they feel an attraction according to the future potential, and we can talk about that they feel as if by virtual photons, meaning a photon that moves backwards and forwards in time many times. And you can identify here another dimension where information about the potential passes. With respect to water we breathe

  78. Miracles

    I posted your question on several blogs a week ago. The only one who has answered so far is Ofer Maged. Here is part of the correspondence:

    "Hi Ofer, some questions for the new year.

    As far as I know, electromagnetic force is carried by photons.

    If there are two magnets or two static electric charges, how does the force they exert on each other work? If by exchanging photons and virtual photons, what is the wavelength of those photons?

    Thanks.

    Reply

    Ofer Magad Monday, January 05, 2015

    The interpretation of the exchange of photons in the interaction comes from the theory of quantum fields and only in this framework it is possible to discuss its meanings. I want to say, the classical description of an electromagnetic wave has almost no meaning in the discussion about the exchange of virtual photons".

    ZA that we still don't have an answer about the wavelength of the photons that carry the power. It also seems a bit strange that attraction would be created by photons carrying momentum whose direction is opposite to the direction of attraction, no? The same problem also exists in explaining gravitational force with gravitons.

    Today I conducted an experiment with a GPS Garmin Montana 600 with an external antenna. Similar results to the previous experiment are also obtained when only the antenna rotates. I'm a little sick so I couldn't do a rigorous enough experiment, I'll try to do it in the next few days.

  79. reader

    Regarding the helium - I guess we both understand what it is about and agree.

    Regarding the pseudo - do you know any forum where Dex readers can freely express their ideas? Also, who exactly does it bother if the same forum is called "free comments"?

    I agree with you that it might be better that the comments are not displayed in "recent comments", because history proves that they irritate many commenters.

    If, on the other hand, someone chooses to come to Lala Land on his own initiative - the responsibility is his alone.

  80. Don't know who it is, we agreed, but certainly not me. In my opinion, there is no place for pseudo-science on this site.

    By the way, if it interests you, the explanation of the "shells" is good for high school level - but not beyond. The full explanation comes from quantum theory. (Molecular orbital theory, Atomic orbital theory)

  81. reader

    getting. I thought you might have meant that helium is a noble gas because its entire shell is full and hence its stability. I didn't notice you referred to a molecule.

    Regarding pseudo-science in "Hidan" - this has been discussed many times, and we agreed that the appropriate place for it is "free comments". Because of the great freedom of the comments here, everyone is allowed to say what's on their mind. For the same reason, whoever does not like it is also free to leave. Free comments.

    But if he stays, he should respect the writers, no matter how delusional he thinks they are.

    jubilee.

    I have no problem with any assumption, as long as it ultimately leads to the answer to my question: constancy of the speed of light in all reference systems, without postulates and without anger.

  82. ^
    Where have you seen wandering hydrogen atoms and stable helium molecules? (under normal conditions, needless to say)

    Yuval, thanks but no, I'm not interested in learning your model. I have enough models to study. Just want to remind you that you are in the real world and not in the Marvel universe, and that (in my opinion) this site is not the place to spew pseudo-science onto the web.

  83. Israel,
    To understand what I'm talking about, you have to go back. Maybe not all the way, but you have to agree on some point of departure.
    You can start, for example, with the particles of the "dark matter". Although it was not in them that the universe began to be built, your understanding of what is not a bad starting point. At this stage the universe spreads over a four-dimensional space (the dimension of time and the three dimensions of space) which is unlimited and full of precise particles ("dark matter") and non-precise particles ("empty space"). The meticulous particles are in constant motion that varies randomly in speed and direction. At any given moment, each precise particle occupies a fixed exclusive volume in space.
    From here the road is long but beautiful. Did you agree to walk in it?

  84. reader

    "Why are hydrogen molecules stable and helium molecules not?"

    Not a bit the other way around?

  85. jubilee:

    From my response from the 19th:

    "If the questions are annoying, point it out and I'll shut up."

    And from yesterday:

    "Let's get off the island of locality right now.

    Just explain how you can get the determination of the speed of light in any frame of reference".

    and also:

    "A physical explanation. Preferably simple and understandable, but long and complicated is also possible. I have patience".

    So the choice is yours. If you want - explain. You won't want to - Zbarbir. Just no yelling.

  86. Israel or anyone else reading, are you interested in learning my model?
    If you are considering answering yes, then before you answer, please pay attention to the following points:
    A) It is a long story, often boring. Short cuts can be made, but then spaces will be created.
    b) Currently, the model is not perfect. There is no reference to the phenomenon of non-locality in quantum entanglement.
    c) Even if a perfect match is found between him and the known physical reality, and even if his predictions are tested and confirmed, he is not physics itself but only an image of it, and should be treated as such.

  87. Yuval, you talk about "your model" a lot, but is it really like that? I mean, what exactly can be described with it? Mathematically, what can I do with these stories? Can you describe how the computer works? Why are hydrogen molecules stable and helium molecules not? Why does CO2 have a high heat capacity compared to neon? Calculate the average energy of a gas at room temperature? Calculate the wavelength emitted by a molecule/atom after irradiating them? describe electric circuits?

  88. Here is what I asked you about the description you gave:

    "Shouldn't we get different speeds of light for bodies with different massiveness or density?"

    And here is what you answered:

    "My meticulous particles are themselves a consequence of something simpler which is also, in turn, a descendant of something even simpler. The whole story is very complex, and to those who don't know it, it certainly seems complicated, but in the end it claims not to leave any question unsolved."

    Which brings me back to:

    "It goes without saying that I cannot comment on what I do not know."

    as Sah? God forbid. We should finish now.

  89. There is nothing wrong. There is also nothing wrong with Ptolemy's explanation of the movement of the heavenly bodies. Why adopt Copernicus? Just because of elegance?

    Until now I have not been able to understand what according to you is the mechanism that produces the phenomenon.

  90. I am ready to repeat the things I brought a few days ago, if necessary. But before I do so, would you agree to go to the explanations given by great Shems more than a century ago? What is wrong, for example, with "ether drag" or Lorentz contraction? From my side, there is nothing preventing you from categorizing my things in the same category with them, but please note a small difference between them and me: unlike them, I also describe a mechanism that produces the phenomenon.

  91. And doesn't it seem much more complicated to you than the assumption that the speed of light is the same in every direction in the small and limited field of the interferometer in the m-m experiment?

  92. "Seeing the speed of light as varying according to the density of the dark matter particles (those in my model are called "accurate particles") explains these phenomena and eliminates the paradoxes."

    varies even in the small and limited field of the interferometer in the m-m experiment? Variable so that all the variables offset themselves exactly to give the illusion that the speed of light is constant in every direction relative to the interferometer?

  93. The absolute determination of the speed of light in any frame of reference only creates more paradoxes than it solves them. For example, the existence of "dark energy". Seeing the speed of light as varying according to the density of the dark matter particles (those in my model are called "accurate particles") explains these phenomena and eliminates the paradoxes. I treat the constancy of the speed of light as a mistake, an "optical illusion", and point to possible factors for its origin. But for that you don't need to talk to me. Proposals for a solution were submitted over a century ago (you also mentioned one: "dragging the site"). Either way, you will not hear from me that the speed of light is constant and the same in any reference system and I have no intention of explaining something that I do not believe in.

  94. jubilee.

    Let's get off the island of locality for now.

    Just explain how you can get the constants of the speed of light in any frame of reference.

    Physical explanation. Preferably simple and understandable, but long and complicated is also possible. I have patience.

    But let it be anchored in reality and logic. No postulates and no metaphysics.

    Because if you are not interested or able - then how can you expect me to respond seriously to your words? Me or anyone else?

  95. It's not like that, Israel. I have what you ask for, but it is not a five-line story but a long scroll with many chapters. In the past I tried to engage people here, but I realized that this is not the right stage.

  96. A long and exhausting day passed on his strength.

    The game is called "Fourths". When the opposing player would ask you for a card that you did not have, you would tell him "go to sleep" (in my family there were also those who said "gay Schlofen"). Then he would take a card from the cash register and the turn would go to you.

    Not just Ramenjuan. With me, in high school, one learned that the solutions to her geometry homework would come to her in a dream. Her name is Miriam Levy. I wonder what solution she is dreaming of now.

    Definately not. I am looking for a way not to expand the discount system. And even if I expand, without a choice, I will look for the basis for the expansion in the existing data.

    Are you asking if there is a connection between the model and reality? That's exactly what I'm trying to show.

  97. Please kill, Mushon?

    Ramanjuan would solve the math problems in a dream.

    But is there a connection between the model and the world beyond dreaming? For example, a physical explanation for the constancy of the speed of light in all reference systems or is it non-local?

    I am aware that you are looking for an extension of the set of assumptions, but an axiom is not just an arbitrary starting point. It should also be self-explanatory. According to the first 4 axioms of Euclid, and in my opinion also the fifth.

  98. Say, do you perhaps remember in which game they say "go to sleep"? 🙂

    Meanwhile, I have not found within my model a satisfactory explanation for the phenomenon of non-locality in the entanglement of photons or electrons. I think to search in two possible directions:
    1) Expanding the discount system (not in the base but somehow along the way *☼)
    2) Continue investigating the geometry of what exists now
    *☼ The basis of my model is the "nothing" ("the primordial negation" that denies itself to the "yes") and no assumptions can be added to it. From here on, the focus is not on "what" but on "how". That is, how the "is", after being created from the "nothing", develops into all known physics. At the beginning of things I recruit a mathematical "creature", corresponding to the "imaginary" number i, which I call the "root of the negative". I found it in the book "Laws of Form" by an English mathematician named Spencer Brown (George Spencer Brown - Laws of Form). The book was published in 1969 and I only started creating the "yes" from the "non" in 1983, so I can't take the crown of originality for myself 🙁
    And why am I telling you all this? Because I came to understand the method of creating the "is" from the "nothing" in a dream and now you offer me a solution to my dream (probably you must have already heard the story).

  99. Well, Schwinn. Go to sleep.

    You say that the story is complex - I guess the hidden is more than the visible.

    It goes without saying that I cannot comment on what I do not know.

    If you can, dream up a solution to the problem of the entangled photons in the picture below.

    (If you can't see them, it's because of the virtuality of the situations).

  100. Israel, it came out on Fox that my previous response is suitable for both of you.
    Although this complication is ugly, the main problem I'm trying to deal with is not the complication, but rather the presentation of the whole of things using simple building blocks.
    My meticulous particles are themselves the offspring of something simpler which, in turn, is the offspring of something even simpler. The whole story is very complex, and to those who are not familiar with it it certainly seems complicated, but in the end it claims not to leave any question unsolved.
    And now really good night. Even in America there are places where the sun has already set.

  101. jubilee

    With all the respect I have (and I have!) for alternative explanations, I do not find any advantage in an explanation that is much more complicated than the existing explanations that give measurable predictions, while the alternative explanation does not give any such predictions.

    The relationship has been tested and found to be adequate on many occasions. So if I quote from the words of my teachers and Rabbi YH: Why complicate unnecessarily? What's wrong with existing?

  102. Yuval, A. Zukun and Y. "The omission of the rest system of the medium forces the search for other explanations" - Albert and Otto already thought about this and called the system where everything is at rest - the zero point energy. And in this system the AM radiation moves at a speed that is constant.

  103. Israel,
    Probability is some real number. I don't know what it is in this particular context, because of the hypothetical hypothesis you mentioned ("dragging the site") and other hypotheses born to overcome the wonder.
    Although the description you provided presents the experiment in greater detail and accuracy than the description I provided, I did not miss it. This is because here, too, a beam of light is involved that travels back and forth before reaching the rest and the desired property in the interferometer.
    Willam vs. Albert - act XNUMX: the omission of the mediator's resting system forces the search for other explanations, some of them even very complicated - such as my explanation.

  104. jubilee

    "The medium's rest system is local. Each galaxy has its own rest system, each star system and even within one planet there can be several media systems that are not coordinated with each other."

    But I believe you will also agree that the probability that the rest system of the medium will be exactly the rest system of the interferometer is quite negligible, right? It is able to measure quite low speeds, a few meters per second. What is this compared to the huge speed differences within the galaxy or even the solar system?

    Unless you accept the premise of "dragging" the site.

    "The speed of light is measured round trip and the value obtained is necessarily the average between the trip and the return".

    It seems to me that you may have missed an important point in the m-m experiment. There is no question of average here. If the speed of an airplane is 500 km/h and it flies a distance of 500 km in each direction without wind, the flight will take two hours. If a wind is now blowing at 100 km/h so that one side has a speed of 600 and the other 400, the flight will take longer even though the average is still 500 km/h.

    "There are many explanations why the MM experiment did not find the rest system. The most accepted explanation is "Lorentz contraction", but it is not the only one.

    And there is also Einstein's explanation: there is no particular rest system to mediate.

    This is the accepted explanation today.

    Very reasonable in my opinion.

  105. Hi Israel, and thank you for your patience ♥
    The resting system of the medium is local. Each galaxy has its rest system, each star system and even within one planet there can be several media systems that are not coordinated with each other.
    The speed of light is measured round and round and the value obtained is necessarily the average between the round trip and the return. The claim I made is that the speed of light in one direction is not the same as the speed in the other direction, and this cannot be put to a rebuttal test that does not separate the directions.
    There are many explanations why the MM experiment did not find the rest system. The most accepted explanation is "Lorentz contraction", but it is not the only one.

  106. Hi R.H. 🙂
    As scientists, we have several criteria for rejecting models. First and foremost, we discard models that fail the refutation tests. Another touchstone for rejecting a model is used in the comparison between two models that have not been refuted: the model that makes more assumptions is rejected ("Ockham's Razor"). Those among us who are not scientists are given a few more yardsticks to disqualify. They, unlike scientists, also have standards to accept. But what people agree on, does not reflect reality but only what they agree on (and that too, if there is any agreement on how they agree). Do you know "A billion Chinese are not wrong - they ate rice"? So not long ago I heard an upgrade: "A trillion flies are not wrong - they ate excrement".
    The Higgs boson deity turns out to be too early. It is not the boson that gives mass to the world. The Higgs boson in its unholy form has a place in my model, within the growing "zoo" of particles. But the main thing is not one model or another. All accepted models, and even those that have passed all the refutation tests, are nothing more than models. They are not the real thing but the image of the real thing that we draw with all our ability and talent.
    In short, my model is nothing more than a story. It's a long story, and from time to time I release short chapters. If you like the story so far, then you will ask for sequels. Don't like it, change the channel.
    And you know what? Even I, his birth father, am not convinced that he will be able to describe all the physics. Here, to explain the issue of non-locality in quantum entanglement I am forced to add an assumption.

  107. But if the speed of light is relative to the medium, what is the rest system of the medium?

    What's wrong with a round-trip measurement experiment?

    If the MM experiment is acceptable, why didn't he find the rest system of the medium?

  108. It's not so much complicated as it is confusing. When I talk about the speed of light I sometimes forget to emphasize relative to what: to your medium (which is a system of rest) or to a body in motion (relative to your medium).
    The confirmation/refutation test I can pull up my sleeve is in retrospect the Michaelson Morley experiment, but it's not wisdom. The best experiment (which is currently not possible) is to measure the speed of light in each direction separately and not as it is done today - back and forth in one measurement.

  109. "The light beam passes through at least three different environments: the environment of the semi-reflective mirror, the environment of the space between the mirrors and the environment of the mirror at the edge. In each of the environments there are different densities of fine particles, and the light beam slows and speeds up accordingly. The velocities are offset and therefore the premise of the experiment, according to which light moves at a different speed in each direction (relative to the components of the system), is wrong."

    Hmmm.. Isn't it a bit complicated for a model that is supposed to be primary and basic?

    Is there any confirmation or disproof test?

  110. jubilee
    really?
    You don't understand that reality is not what Yuval Chaikin thinks it is. Reality will consist of everything we can agree and disagree with. The facts indicate that there is general agreement about the facts.
    This is the reality we live in. The facts you point to exist only in the general agreement between you. This is not what is in the consensus of the scientific community, as for your theory. From your words it can be thought that the imagination exceeds any reality. Look, it's not because Einstein was Jewish and if you're Jewish then you must be smart too, but because there is a general agreement among the people who understand the thing, about the thing itself (which are the facts).
    One of the facts you forget is this: the existence of the God particle (Higgs) was recently confirmed.
    That doesn't mean he was just born. What's more - you can't talk about such topics, and mention the particle of light without referring to the particle of God. To remind you, if it weren't for the particle, you wouldn't be able to write here: photon.
    Look at the world from a slightly more straight angle: the fact is that from a vacuum (energy) particles (virtual) are created, that as a result of some interaction between them and other particles, the possibility arises for a photon to create a whole world.

  111. Really interesting question. Let's look at the components of the MM test system. It is placed on a table in the laboratory. It has a light source, a semi-reflective mirror, two full mirrors and an interferometer. A beam of light leaves the source, splits into two, each half of the beam moves in a back and forth path, they split again and then two quarters of the original beam form an interference image in the interferometer.
    Let's ignore for a moment that the whole system participates in the complex movement of the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, etc., and arbitrarily define the initial state as rest. We'll take the picture of the struggle and start moving things. For example, we will drive the table along some kind of rail and screen the interferometer screen while driving. Let's choose, for example, the movement of the table perpendicular to the direction of the light beam coming from the source. We will examine, without limiting the generality, the situation in which the light diverging from the half-reflecting mirror chases the mirror at the end until it hits it. So he reverses direction and returns to the half mirror. According to Haikin, his speed in the forward direction will not be the same as his speed in the return direction. But here it is possible to make it difficult and say that the density of the medium in both directions is the same, because it is the same medium, and therefore the speed of light should be the same in every direction. But it is not exactly so. The light beam passes through at least three different environments: the environment of the semi-reflective mirror, the environment of the space between the mirrors and the environment of the mirror at the edge. In each of the environments there are different densities of fine particles, and the light beam slows and speeds up accordingly. The velocities are offset and therefore the premise of the experiment, according to which light moves at a different speed in each direction (relative to the components of the system), is wrong.

  112. And what about a body that does not sustain movement? Interferometer for example? Does the speed of light change there too?

  113. When you say "massive" you are surely speaking in terms of physics, which is not so relevant here. "Density", however, is a term used in the current model. However, a distinction must be made between the fields. In my model, the density is not of a body but of an environment.
    A body in motion is between two environments that have different densities. The speed of light in these environments varies from one to the other.

  114. "Since the speed of the baryonic body's movement is dependent on density and since the speed of the photon's movement is inversely dependent on density, the faster the baryonic body moves in the direction of the light source, the slower the light will move towards it. And vice versa - the faster the bully's body runs away from the direction of the light source, the faster the light chasing it will move."

    Shouldn't we get different speeds of light for bodies with different massiveness or density?

  115. I shared and shared, thank you. Please accept my full appreciation for the dedicated treatment of B's ​​difficulties.

    MM experiment: Lorentz proposed (and Einstein accepted) contraction. Haikin says something slightly different. In order to understand Haikin, you need to understand how according to his opinion the two types of motion occur, that of a baryonic body and that of a photon.

    Movement of a baryonic body: The baryonic body is a collection of precise particles that leave the collection and join it randomly so that a dynamic balance is established that determines the size of the collection. The density of the particles in the environment determines the size of the baryon body: high density - large body, low density - small body, very low density - no body, very high density - black hole. If the density on one side of the body is different from the density on the other side, then within a finite period of time, during the departure of particles and the joining of particles, the body will find itself in a new location closer to the dense area*. It was sixty seconds on the movement of a bully body.
    *It is important not to confuse the mobility of the particles with the mobility of the baryonic body composed of them: the movement of the baryonic body is, in fact, not due to the movement of the particles (because they move randomly in any direction) but to the density differences.

    Photon motion: A photon is an indeterminate particle. Being imprecise it has no fixed size. What determines its boundaries are the precise particles that are around it. When a sharp particle located at point A penetrates into a non-sharp particle located at point B, it turns the area of ​​point B into a sharp particle and leaves behind, at point A, a non-sharp particle, and thus it appears as if the non-sharp particle moves from point B to point A. It is easy to liken this to a relay race: the quality of being careless changes location, but in each and every location it is another careless particle. As mentioned, the boundaries of the inattentive particle are determined by the inattentive particles in its vicinity. The greater the density of the scrupulous, the smaller the size of the unscrupulous. In addition, as their density increases, their mobility decreases and therefore the mobility of the inattentive particles also decreases.
    But there were sixty-seven seconds on the motion of a photon.

    Since the speed of the baryonic body's movement is dependent on density and since the speed of the photon's movement is inversely dependent on density, the faster the baryonic body moves in the direction of the light source, the slower the light will move towards it. And vice versa - the faster the bully body escapes from the direction of the light source, the faster the light chasing it will move.

  116. There is indeed a connection between the electrons, but probably not an electromagnetic field whose speed is c, while in the case of entanglement the speed is infinite.
    It is likely that the connection is continuous and not only during the measurement.

    Whatever it is - it will be a local island.

  117. If after the balls have splashed from each other we lower a partition between them. There are two options:
    1) They will continue their movement as usual.
    2) They will be affected by the partition.

    Regarding large balls, it is clear to me that there is no effect on the partition.
    Regarding elementary particles:
    The entanglement of the electron with itself indicates the wavy character of the material. Will it be affected by the partition?
    If it is indeed affected by the partition, it means: there is something connecting the electrons. (electromagnetic field).
    Don't know if anyone has tried it.
    Even if there is a connection between the electrons it does not mean that the information is delivered from one to the other after the measurement.
    The information is constantly updated regardless of measurement.

  118. In Hebrew.

    what are you claiming Hidden variables?

    Because this is surely implied from the sentence: "The position and momentum of the two balls are determined at the moment of their splashing from each other!"

    So if this is what you are claiming - that is, that the electrons or photons do not interact with each other (as in the example of your balls), and that the spin or polarization was determined at the time of interweaving and not at the time of measurement - say it clearly, and prepare yourself for questions from your little daughter Rachel.

    And her mother and grandmother too.

  119. So what's going on here?
    Let's assume that the bar function common to the system consists of the functions bar one of particle A plus bars two of particle B. I don't have the tools to develop it here, but I assume that the commutator of the psi function of the joint system, which describes the uncertainty, is zeroed out, so there is no contradiction to the uncertainty principle.

  120. Instead of dealing with spin, for which I have no intuition, I prefer to talk about the position and momentum of balls because this is where I have intuition.
    Suppose two balls bounce off each other after impact.
    Every ball has the principle of uncertainty about the place and the momentum.
    But if we treat the two balls together as one common system then:
    According to the position of ball A, the position of ball B can be calculated.
    According to the momentum of ball B, the momentum of ball A can be calculated.
    And from this you can know the location and momentum of each of the balls. And this is against the principle of uncertainty.

    After the measurement of ball A, does he send information to ball B and dictate to him the place and speed?
    no and no ! The position and momentum of the two balls are determined at the moment they are thrown from each other!

  121. OK. When you take a peek, the first question you will have to answer is the results of an experiment from M and others. Lorentz contraction?

  122. Why complicate? Isn't it simpler to write: in the middle of the galaxies the MHA is higher than in the center of the galaxy?

  123. Why complicate? The same laws exist everywhere, only the constants change.
    The density is inversely proportional to the speed of light and directly proportional to the speed of movement of the bullion bodies.

  124. What does "each galaxy is an independent puddle with its own density and physics" mean? Is it that in certain galaxies there is no law of conservation of momentum or energy, or the second law of thermodynamics does not hold?

    And where is the speed of light higher: in galaxies with dense matter or in the sparse medium between them?

  125. You got it right. I did not give any thought to the concept of "center of gravity", because it is not interesting in this context. Each galaxy is an independent puddle with its own density and physics.

  126. OK. "Andromeda is a stationary system" and also "we (including Leo) are a stationary system".

    So it follows from your words that the centers of gravity of the galaxies are the rest system of the medium in the region of the galaxy, and the rest system is distributed according to the mass density. I understand it right?

  127. Write whatever you want. you are a good guy I will treat you with patience and I will treat you with forgiveness.

    Why are you stopped in our galaxy, why? The sun automatically leaves Leo. The virgin is already starting to scream. What's wrong with Andromeda?
    And why am I suggesting Andromeda, you must ask, is it because you love her more than all the others? Yes. But also just because it's a different galaxy and also because it's not very far away.
    The intergalactic medium is less dense than the intragalactic medium. Therefore, Andromeda is a stationary system and we (including Leo) are a stationary system, but these two systems are not necessarily (even very likely not) stationary relative to each other.

  128. Let's start with the "intermediate rest system".

    Do you mean that for example the constellation Leo is at rest relative to this preferred rest system, and every other system that moves relative to Leo also moves relative to that rest system? (Inel Drabek, let me write a website, or some other short name).

    Taxes.

  129. Even if you are annoying, your intentions are good. Not to mention the bonosuskinds ☼

    You probably should have taken my head by now. The "matter" of my model predates physics. The official name of the "piston" is "precise particle" and of the "empty space" "non-precise particle". If by "vacuum" you mean "underpressure", then get rid of it. At this level there are no powers. And there is no pressure.

    In order to understand the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, it is possible to assume a rest system of the medium. The density of the medium determines the speed of light passing through it. It changes according to the speed of movement of the body (the bully) from which the speed of light is measured. As the body approaches the light source, the density of the medium increases and the speed of light decreases. When the body escapes from the light, the density of the medium decreases and the speed of light increases. In fact, it is a reformulation of Lorentz contraction.
    But for the purpose of understanding nonlocality in quantum entanglement, this simplistic medium is not enough.

    The various constants are calculated in more advanced stages, with building blocks taken from known physics, when forces, mass and charge already exist.

    Three twenty in the morning. Say, aren't you sleeping?!

  130. Glad you liked Suskind. By the way, he was one of Feynman's companions.

    If you would like level lectures on relationships straight from the horse's mouth (kind), see his lectures:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAurgxtOdxY&list=PLCCD6C043FEC59772&index=1&feature=plpp_video

    And regarding your model:

    I didn't understand about the pistons: is it an empty space? Is there a substance like air there? Because in the first case, according to my understanding, there will always be a vacuum, before and after the movement of the piston, and in the second, there is no vacuum before the movement on the front side of the piston, nor after the movement.

    we will continue You say: "The medium is the one that determines the speed of the wave passing through it, and the speed is relative to the medium."

    Does the medium have a certain rest system (like the one the MM experiment tried to find)? How do you accept that "it is accepted as if light moves at a constant speed towards any body regardless of the speed of its movement."?

    And what about electricity, magnetism and their constants? How do they fit together? How is it possible to derive the speed of light from them? And how was Maxwell able to do this using his hydrodynamic model? By chance did he succeed?

    If the questions are annoying, indicate and close.

  131. Thanks, I would have liked it more if the material was new to me. Suskind's lecture takes (and thanks again).

    One of my claims is that the medium is the one that determines the speed of the wave passing through it, and the speed is relative to the medium.
    My other claim is that since the medium (which I insist on not calling it an "ether") transmits waves of two types of matter, photons and photons, it is two different mediums that mutually share one space. There is no reason to limit the number of mediators precisely to two, but for the purpose of understanding the results of an experiment MM are no longer necessary. These mediators are not strangers to each other, but there is a reciprocal relationship between them. In the story of the piston and the empty spaces, which I brought up in my previous response (from 1:44), the piston is a metaphor for the particles that make up the baryonic matter, and the empty spaces are a metaphor for photons. While a baryonic matter particle (for example a proton) consists of a large number of such "pistons" while a photon is only one such "empty space", the movement of light is much faster than the movement of baryonic matter. But there is a direct correlation between the speed of the bullion's movement and the density of the medium (the medium), therefore the speed of light also changes so that it appears as if light moves at a constant speed towards any body regardless of the speed of its movement. From then on the mechanics is no longer Newtonian but Einsteinian.
    As mentioned, two mediums are enough to support Einsteinian physics, but then came Bell's theorem and the experimentalists disproving EPR and raised the need for the existence of a third medium. Therefore, until a more successful explanation is found, I stick to the possibility that this system of two mediums is itself a wave essence riding on a third medium.

  132. Something quantum:
    Let's imagine a piston that moves inside a cylinder. We will focus not on the piston itself but on the empty spaces next to it that are before and after it. At the moment of starting the movement there is only one area of ​​empty space near the piston, located near its front side. During the advance of the piston, a new area of ​​empty space is created behind the piston, which grows larger while the area of ​​empty space that was previously on its front side is getting smaller. At the end of the process there will be an area of ​​empty space behind the piston while in front of the piston there will no longer be an empty space. You can simply say that the piston moves forward and the empty space moves backward, but that would not be accurate. This is because, while the movement of the piston is continuous, the movement of the empty space is quantum, so the space disappeared in one place and appeared in another, but its movement was not continuous.

  133. impersonating Israel Shapira,
    Please be serious. If the things I brought are not clear, I will try to explain better.
    Israel Shapira once came up with a hypothesis according to which the speed of light can be higher than c, even infinite (he likens it to a multi-lane "autostrada"). The possibility of moving parts of the medium fits well with this hypothesis.

  134. "We are looking for gravitational waves and gravitons and presuppose that their speed of movement does not exceed c. On what basis exactly do we assume this?”

    Based on this, if gravitational waves - through which information can be transmitted - were faster than c, it would be possible to reverse the cause and environment and shoot great-great-great-grandfather squarely.

    Running train tracks - as above.

  135. good week,

    A.A. said Spooky action at a distance.
    Y. H. Says Not necessarily spooky.

    We know the properties of various objects to influence from a distance: mass, static electricity, magnet (and brainwashing of all kinds). We are well aware of the property of the magnet as a pole. The change in the spatial position of a magnetic body, or its rotation, may be felt at a great distance - even if it is a small magnet. If so, there is no reason to rule out the possibility that optical polarizers affect the light transmission property in their near and even distant surroundings.

    Transferring information in zero time, the following is a parable and a thought experiment: let's take a long steel ingot, for example a 200 meter long railway track. Hit it with a hammer so that the blow moves it lengthwise. Sensors are placed at the far end of the ingot. One sensor measures motion and one sensor measures sound. The impact of the hammer, in addition to moving the ingot, also creates a sound wave passing through it. We know that the speed of the sound wave in a medium is constant regardless of the volume of the sound. On the other hand, the speed of the ingot's movement is dictated by the strength of the blow and it can be higher than the speed of sound.
    And back to the example: the speed of the electron or photon movement within the medium ("ether", for those who like and the doctors allow) is of the order of c. But we don't have any data on the speed of the medium itself, and who would guess that it is no higher than c, maybe even infinite?
    And in a similar context: we are looking for gravitational waves and gravitons and presuppose that their speed of movement does not exceed c. On what exactly do we assume this?
    If someone lifts a glove, no matter right or left, I will immediately lift the other glove.

  136. Indeed, if you look at the link:

    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98_%D7%91%D7%9C

    You will find there:

    "Therefore, if we measure the spin of one of a pair of electrons in an entangled state in one direction and the spin of the other in another direction, we can apparently know the spin of each of them in two different directions. More correctly, we will be able to know what the spin of the electron was in a direction that was not measured if we had measured it."

    Pay attention to "allegedly".

    If you are interested, continue reading the article. I'm going to sleep, night here. Good night.

  137. Even if we assume information transfer in zero time:
    The uncertainty principle claims that if spin is measured in the x direction then there is uncertainty about the spin in the y direction.
    And this is in contradiction to the possibility of measuring the spin in the x direction in one particle and inferring the spin in the y direction in the same particle by measuring the spin in the y direction in the other particle.

  138. Look back at the explanation I gave Tzvi two months ago about the nature of the photon. The same explanation nicely explains both what is happening here, and the delayed choice experiment (back in time).

  139. At time 0, at infinite speed.
    And in the later experiments, the state of the polarizer was determined only after the photons had already gone their way.
    And if you get to lecture 5 at Susskind's, you will argue that there is actually no need for an experiment, the proof is mathematical.
    And in a little while everyone arrives for Shabbat reception.

  140. jubilee
    Grouped - can also be interpreted as - there is some kind of dependency between the individuals, within the group. The dependency is the group itself, at least (when the individuals are the components of the group). That is, the group is the axiom.

    The very fact that the particles can come together as a group (or in other words: be intertwined), indicates that there is a dependency between the particles.
    (as far as I understand)

  141. This! no Information does not travel at speed 0.
    And for good measure I will bring my hypothesis again:
    The polarizer is not a point but a field. Changing the direction of the polarizer changes the polarization in the whole space.

  142. Here again is the definition of the riddle:

    So let's go back to the riddle, and please pay attention to the exact terminology:

    If a person (or an animal, or a machine, please) at point A can send some information to a person at point B at a speed that exceeds the speed of light (or the speed of zebras if you live in Scotland) - you can go back in time and catch a ball even before you threw it up ( reason and spin).

    The spin information passes from electron to electron faster than light (in 0 time actually).

    Anu - Anna, are we coming?

    And there is no end to the cunning and foxiness of quantum mechanics.

  143. Not true, Israel. You are not presenting the experiment correctly. Changing the polarizer on one side changed the polarization on the other side. The question is not who measured first but why an action in one place caused a change in another.

  144. It's not like I don't have my own hypothesis. On the contrary, and I have already expressed it several times. But you didn't get it, and there's no point in repeating the whole story again. So, please, instead of making me run around like a mouse in a maze again (like you did with the Shatanz cars), just give your solution here and now.

  145. The solution is this, say those in the know.

    True, if information can be sent faster than light, it is possible to go back in time, be present at the birth of a father and other pranks.

    But, note: we cannot actually send any information through quantum entanglement!

    We cannot send even the most basic information - spin up or down. Each measurer on his side measures the spin - or polarization - but he has no way of knowing whether he was the one who measured first and thus caused the wave function to collapse, or whether it collapsed first because of his friend's measurement in Andromeda.

    Do you understand the domain? You caught the bear with the spoon inside the beehive, all smeared with honey, and he smiles and says: What the hell, it's not me at all, I don't understand how all this honey suddenly stuck to my face.

    And by the same token, quantum mechanics claims: Ah, oh, it's not that you sent information - it just passed! What, it's my fault that information just flows to him like that? Try sending information - say 1 or 0 - and you will see that you cannot do it faster than light.

    And I ask: it seems to you that Einstein Podolsky or Rosen did not notice the exact same point? After all, all the data was visible before them, so why did they write that there is a contradiction with relativity?

    ?
    ??
    ??!?

  146. R. H., thanks for the reference to the training article.
    Oron, in his last response there (May 20, 2010 at 12:00) to R.H. Raf.Aim (you?), writes as follows: "At any given time there are photons in the system they are in a superposition that they are both in mode 1 and mode 2 with equal chances (what called braids)".
    If I understood correctly, then the term "entanglement" here means some kind of dependence between particles regardless of whether they are grouped together.

  147. jubilee

    From the link you provided:

    The EPR authors preferred the second explanation according to which that information was encoded in some 'hidden parameters[citation needed]'. The first explanation, that an effect propagated instantly, across a distance, is in conflict with the theory of relativity.

    And later:

    There are many Bell test experiments, eg those of Alain Aspect and others. They
    support the predictions of quantum mechanics rather than the class of hidden variable theories supported by Einstein.[14] According to Karl Popper these experiments showed that the class of "hidden variables" Einstein believed in is erroneous.

    These two explanations - Einstein's and Popper's - contradict each other.

    The solution to the contradiction is both the solution to my riddle, and proof of the insidiousness and inclusivity of quantum mechanics.

    B.

    Do you still stick to the localities, or are you ready for your little daughter Rachel's questions? (and her daughter and granddaughter as well).

  148. B,
    The problem is not as simple as you try to make it out to be. It is not an interference or a transition from a wave to a particle, but spin. This experiment can also be done with pairs of photons, then when you check the polarization of one you find that the test determines the polarization of the other.

  149. If we treat the particle as an electromagnetic wave (the interference of a particle with itself) then the particle really loses its locality. But then we will not recognize it as a particle but as a wave. In any case where the wave is identified as a particle, it is a particle for everything including the property of locality.
    Let's look at the example of the two balls splashing from each other after impact:
    If we treat each sphere as an electromagnetic wave (non-local), then there are two waves here that splash from each other. If one wave is identified by us as a sphere (locally) then the other wave is also identified as a sphere. That is, if we found that the first wave describes a ball that is in a certain place, we can know the location of the second ball immediately. without the need to pass information between the balls after the measurement.

    Another example:
    Suppose two electrons bounce off each other in opposite directions. Each of them grapples with itself and hits a target board after grappling. Each of the target plates will show an electron entanglement pattern with itself.
    It is clear to us that an electron that has become entangled with itself is a wave. That is, each of the electrons reached the target plate as an electromagnetic wave.
    But electron B did not wait until electron A hit the target and only then received the information where it should hit its target.
    The two electrons progressed in the form of electromagnetic waves each to its target.
    There was no need to transfer information between the electrons at a speed higher than the speed of light.
    Let's take the example one step further:
    Suppose that electron B takes a double path than electron A until it hits the target.
    If electron B were to hit the target according to the information sent to it from electron A at speed then it should have hit the board that is halfway through it. But there is no board there. The target board is now twice as far away. What will an electron do in ?
    Conclusion: electron b. Although it is described as an electromagnetic wave lacking locality. does not wait for the measurement results of electron A to determine where it will hit. The impact point is defined for him by the electromagnetic wave function. And this wave does not advance at a speed that exceeds the speed of light.

  150. B,
    You say: "Is the particle 'spread' over the entire space? We know not!"
    On what basis do you say no? If the particle is in the form of a cloud, for example, then it is not in one point.

    Israel,
    Please hint or link to the scientific community and its claim

  151. So what?

    B, seriously, do you really think that all of this is unknown to all quantum mechanics?

    After all, they claim that non-locality also exists. If you read all the way through the link I gave you to Herbert's proof of non-locality, or perhaps you prefer Susskind's lectures, you will see that non-locality is enforced.

    If you claim it doesn't exist, prepare yourself for pointed questions.

  152. To Israel:
    In quantum theory, a particle in motion without acceleration is described by a wave function (bands) over the entire space.
    Is the particle "spread" over the entire space?
    We know not!
    But what about the chance of finding the particle at some point in space?
    This chance is indeed "spread" over the entire space.
    If all the information we have is the wave function only then we will not be able to know the location of the particle.

    On the other hand, if we know the location of the particle. Would it be correct to say that it was the very measurement that caused the particle to be where we found it.
    no and no!
    What happened in measurement is that we moved from a probabilistic description to a deterministic one.
    Before we measured we could not know where the particle was. Once we have measured we know for sure where the particle is. The measurement did not launch the particle into place. The measurement only gave us information that does not appear in the probability function.
    Before making the measurement we had an "a priori" probabilistic description given by the wave function.
    After the measurement is made, we have a "posterior" probabilistic description given by another function.

    Now let's say two balls hit each other and after the impact they splash in opposite directions.
    Here, too, the probability function is "spread" over the entire space.
    but:
    If we measure and find the position of one of the balls we can immediately conclude about the position of the other ball.
    Is there a connection between the balls after they splashed apart?
    After we measured the position of one ball, did the information arrive immediately to determine the position of the second ball?
    No way!
    The measurement for one ball does not dictate the position of the other ball. The second ball does not need information that will reach it at a speed higher than the speed of light in order to reach the place where it is supposed to be. It is in the place where it should be found as a result of a process unrelated to measurement.

  153. Come on mate, really. They said nothing to you. Front, bra, please. It's not me - those wicked Bohr and Einstein!

    B, I already gave you the most relevant link for the non-locality proof. See

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/parallel-universes-130812/comment-page-5/#comment-356572

    Note also that although Bell's inequality theorem proves non-locality mathematically, many experiments have also been done in the last 30 years that have confirmed the amazing phenomenon. According to an aspect experiment. There is no escaping the conclusion: our universe is not local. Intertwined particles communicate with each other even at a distance of billions of light years, and do so in zero time.

    Operator, Alec..

    And nothing else. We have not yet touched on the subject of the influence of the present on the past.

    And there is also no doubt that Einstein claimed that non-locality contradicts relativity, this appears in the link to the EPR paradox. (because information travels at a speed that exceeds that of light).

    My puzzle is: why does the scientific community claim that such a contradiction does not exist?

    And as I mentioned before: what, the scientific community knows relativity better than Einstein?

    ??
    ?

  154. thanks b,
    Without going into details, it seems to me that we can create a common front against Israel Shapira. Like you, I also believe that these are two different areas, and accordingly the tools to deal with them are also different

  155. I tried to write down the operator symbols but it doesn't appear in writing. It looks like the signs greater than or less than.

  156. Small correction (not significant for the purpose of the current discussion)

    denotes the span of x .

  157. In the described experiment there is a mixing of fields.
    On the one hand we are talking about a single pair of one electron and one positron.
    On the other hand, they talk about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in connection with finding the spin.

    But the uncertainty principle speaks only of long-term values ​​and does not belong to the individual couple.

  158. I read (not everything, just the heart of the matter).

    The answer is simple.

    Because from the beginning quantum theory deals only with expectancy values. There is no point in talking about a single electron. And since there is no point in talking about a single electron there is no point in talking about the spin of a single electron.

    Quantum theory does not state anything about a single electron.

    Difference between the size marked x and the size marked x> that the second marks the span value of the first.

  159. Read:
    a quote:
    "Later it was proven that Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen were wrong, and that the properties of the two particles are indeed determined randomly during the measurement despite the correlation between them. "
    The article claims to be proven but does not provide the proof.

    In order to have a serious discussion, there is no other way but to bring the body of proof.
    Please bring the proof!

  160. To whom it may concern,
    An innovative technology was invented. "Poke-Meter".
    It is a digital array of buttons, measuring pokey-meters in pokey-seconds.
    And everything is made by "Pokecom".

  161. I offered rebuttal tests in Cosmo. The problem is that they were complicated and required advanced equipment, which also did not necessarily give an unequivocal result. Luckily I didn't try them, because it was just a waste of time and money. At the moment I have an idea of ​​a not too complicated experiment, but what I lack is equipment to measure the arrival of a signal with a precision of picoseconds. I ask everyone here all the time if they know such equipment, the professors at UCLA, and also the rest of the world in many physics blogs.

    However, I still believe that a simpler experiment can be thought of, something style M-M.

    If there is something in the whole idea, it explains, or at least allows quite a lot: non-locality in quantum entanglement, the delayed choice experiment (influence on the past from the future), gravitation according to Le Sage but without friction, inertia, the irreversibility of entropy, and more.

  162. Israel, you don't have to!
    Go for it and shake up the physics picture.

    We made a bit of a mistake when we said that there is no obligation to explain. You can get an automatic exemption if the model manages to correctly predict phenomena that were not known before. All you have to do for this is to propose a test that will confirm this type of phenomenon. In special cases, it is also possible without such a test, but this is provided that the model explains a phenomenon that there is no doubt about its existence and for which there are no better explanations (for example, those that Ockham gives higher marks to).

    I don't think Arkman has a link. He's just rambling. And in general, this is not a serious article, but an MDB story describing the beginning of the era of space flights. As far as I remember, in the first stage they managed to convert matter into energy and go back and convert into matter. In the second stage, they drove the energy at a speed exceeding the speed of light and converted it back to matter in a new location. Please don't underestimate it, because history shows that MDB stories often become reality.

  163. Arkman,

    All the explanations were given in the article in Cosmo. The uniqueness of the speed of light is a derivative of the active site, just as the speed of sound is a derivative of the speed of air molecules. Absorption of the speed of light only - a necessary result of the ballistic pendulum. Remember the shells that pass through the tunnel in DHA, the slow ones are captured (below the escape velocity, 11.2 km/s, the fast ones escape, above this velocity, and do not leave any stamp in the form of momentum on the bullet). Conservation of energy, infinite energy, - the same problem exists in black body radiation. The solution - quantum mechanics. Your question is applicable to any quantum object that is described as a probabilistic wave function and is spread throughout the universe. There too, the same photon or electron that is in many places at the same time, collapses at one particular point and with a unique and finite energy.

    Axioms - there are none here. All developments of Newtonian and Maxwellian physics. The nature of the medium - Maxwell's model, only open. The moving film - very reminiscent of the freeway model I described in Cosmo. If you can, send a link.

    2. If you are right, and there is a change in the frequency of the photon due to the Doppler, in my opinion it pretty much demonstrates everything I am claiming here. The reason is that if a monochromatic photon is sent in a spacecraft, whose detector is able to respond only along the particular wavelength of the photon, then from the point of view of the observers outside the spacecraft the photon will not collapse when it reaches the detector because of the Doppler, while from the point of view of the observers inside the spacecraft it will collapse because there is no Doppler. If the spacecraft is a cat, and the collapse mechanism is connected to a cyanide capsule, as far as the cat is concerned, it is dead, but as far as the observers outside are concerned, it is alive. Attitude at its best!

  164. 1) There is no logical flaw. This solves the problem but creates several new difficulties:
    ☼ What distinguishes the speed c from the other speeds, that the other speeds we do not pick up even once, but c always.
    ☼ Does conservation of energy hold for all infinite speeds? If so, how is it that only the part of the photon that we perceive at speed c takes up ten cabins and the rest of its infinite parts are only zero?
    ☼ Difficulty of permission (since axioms of models, like jokes, have no explanation): How does the medium allow such behavior? What does it consist of? Not long ago I read a serious article that turns the site into a multi-track moving film in which each track moves at a different speed; The photons "come up" on the film in the slow strip, settle in the strip corresponding to them and go back and forth in the slow strip; The greater the distance the photon has to travel, the faster it settles down. But even in that article I did not find an explanation of how this is possible.

    2) Yes. He will arrive at the second mirror at a different wavelength, but when he returns to the first mirror he will be absorbed by it at the same wavelength as he left it

  165. deer.

    I'm sorry that you had to be dragged into the raging politics of the science site, although we must admit that it is quite entertaining.

    I hope you had time to take a look at the link to Maxwell's model. This model, the highlight of 19th century physics, was abandoned with the acceptance of the theory of relativity. Although Maxwell's equations are used in the study of physics and relativity, the model itself is not mentioned (at least not when I was studying), nor is the way they arrived at those immortal equations. The popular opinion is that the equations are correct, the way they used to arrive at those equations is wrong.

    However, this raises a sharp question: if the way is wrong, how did Maxwell manage to deduce the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism? If you noticed, the model is completely hydrodynamic: we remember Maxwell from the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, and he was an expert in fluid mechanics and thermodynamics. If you noticed when developing the equations, the way he deduced the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism is almost the same as the way you deduce the speed of sound in air or the speed of a wave in water from the hydrodynamic modulus. So what, did he just happen to succeed? Can "one say that he just drew the correct targets around the arrows hitting." As Yuval Harakman claims?

    Maxwell himself claims not. According to him, only when it became clear to him that the speed of the waves at his site is the same as the known speed of light, he concluded that light itself is an electromagnetic phenomenon.

    So I will repeat the question I asked earlier: if using a hydrodynamic model of current and pressure vortices, Maxwell was able to derive the speed of light, how can one so easily give up such a successful model, and only use the equations derived from it?

    Let's go back to our problem. You write: "We both agree that the speed of light is constant relative to each observer, how can this be true without time dilation?"

    Let's go back to Maxwell's time. The governing physics is Newtonian physics, where time is absolute and the same at every point. Any system of equations describing the movement of a body will include 4 variables: x, y, z, t. There is no doubt what t is. Newtonian physics.

    Let's go back to our concentric tubes that move inside each other: the signal coming out of the common starting point of the two tubes, arrives at the ends of both tubes at the same time. We have no doubt that this is the same time, because the clocks we use now are temp clocks, or rather universe clocks, whose time is absolute and universal.

    But how is this possible? After all, there is no doubt that if the signal arrived at a distant point at time 10, for example, then when it was at a closer point, the time shown by the clock must also be earlier, right? On the other hand, according to our assumptions, the signal also arrived at the earlier point at time 10, so how does this happen?

    The answer of relativity is known: the lengthening of time. The time at point A is different from the time at point B. But this contradicts our assumption of universal time. Is there another possible solution to the problem?

    My answer is yes. I am not saying that this is the real solution that actually happens, but only that it is a physical possibility that does not contradict any of our starting assumptions.

    And this is the solution: our signal does not move only at one speed, it actually moves at all speeds, from 0 to infinity. With our devices we are able to measure it only at one speed relative to our devices: the speed of light.

    It is understandable then that such a solution solves our problems. When the signal passed at nearby point A, it was there at time 8, but it was transparent to our devices there. Its slow phase arrived 2 seconds later at point A at time 10. The fast phase arrived at point B at time 10. Since the means of measurement there move faster than at point A, it can be measured there, "collapsing" in quantum terms.

    This. Einstein's simple photon, which comes out of a light source and moves at the speed of light to its target, gives way to the photon we know from quantum mechanics, a wave function without a defined location, which has a probability of being found at any point in the universe before collapsing. The same fuzzy description of a photon that Einstein fought all his life, and lost.

    How does this happen? We can explain this if you are interested when we expand the concept of Maxwell's site to what I call an "active site". But right now I would be interested in answers to 2 questions:

    1. Do you find a logical flaw in my description?

    2. In the well-known description of a "mirror clock" that explains the lengthening of time, a photon skips between 2 mirrors, the distance between which is given in advance. Since we know the speed of light and the distance between the mirrors, we can calculate the time it takes for a photon to get from side to side, so we got a clock. When the clock moves, the speed of light remains constant relative to us, the stationary observers, the photon travels a greater distance, it takes the photon more time to get from mirror to mirror, and that's how we got the lengthening of time.

    However, here I think a problem has arisen: in fact, if the light moves at a constant speed relative to us stationary observers whether the watch is moving or at rest, then it follows that when the photon reaches the distant mirror in the mirror clock when the clock is moving, it will reach it at a different wavelength than when it is at rest, and this is because The doppler, right?

    Thanks for the investment. I know the theory sounds like La Lande, and of course it may be exactly what it is. But in my opinion it can explain the absolute time that comes from the bang theory, explain the results of the M-M experiment, and still leave the 2 postulates of relativity intact and all through Newtonian physics only.

  166. 🙂 Almost. "You are very nice," she said to Marciano and Biton in Seven Eyes (Moshe Dein was there). But outside, the cats of Am Yisrael demonstrated (Shapira and his ilk) and she had to release another version to the air.

  167. R.H.

    Before I go to sleep, please accept my apologies. I really shouldn't have mentioned you after you let go. I forgot that this is not a private email with Yuval. It's really my mistake, and I apologize again.

    jubilee.

    Leave panthers, tigers, kittens, what's cute.

    Good night.

  168. The explanations I require: It is not enough that they give a description (however accurate) of the phenomenon, but also that they show where it stems from and that they do not use circular definitions. For example, the law of persistence and the law of gravity both make use of the concept of "mass", but we do not have a definition for this concept that does not rely on these laws. If you ask what mass is, Newton will answer that mass is mass. If you ask Einstein, he will tell you that mass is a function of energy and that energy is a function of mass. With all due respect to both titans, these are circular definitions.
    Even the concept of time, in which you fumble for who knows how many ages, needs an external definition from which it will be possible to derive a coherent explanation for the unclear phenomena it presents.
    Has it been half a year?

  169. From my response from a few hours ago:

    If I'm wrong, show me where I "grossly ignored a lot of things you said". But if you don't succeed, understand that the problem is mainly your dyslexia, admit it, let it go and try again. Everything is chained. This is your chance to put me in my place. But if you don't do this, it will be difficult for me to take you seriously, just as I don't take seriously what the two RH write.

    And now, either you fulfill my request (for the fifth time) to show me where I "grossly ignored a lot of things you said", or I really have to unilaterally stop this stupid game.

    Good night.

  170. Israel! You are a dirty player.
    "You are not able to admit a mistake (as Yuval did)". I admitted one [colossal] error; But you are asked not to categorize me in the department of the righteous just based on that confession, because I am still hot for you because of other annoying statements.

  171. And I demand that you explain what an explanation is, define what a definition is, and sing something from the Haftar.

    Otherwise it is impossible to continue!

    (Except that it will probably keep you busy for about six months, and free us to work).

  172. Chilaba Source: It doesn't matter if I gave birth to your suggestion or just adopted it. Now she is mine.

    Newton: I also demand from him that he explain which apple fell on his head. It is true that his model described physics in a way that satisfied the people of his time, but about a century ago it became clear that it was not perfect. Like Maxwell, he also adapted a theory to observations, and he played a crazy card.

  173. R.H.

    Thanks for the release. You saved me a lot of restoration work.

    To be fair and for the record, Kindergarten kind of amused me, like everything else. Chilaba is an expression of tributary.

    And the reason I dropped out of the discussion at the time was exactly what I wrote to you: if you fail to substantiate your imaginary accusations through the thread, I will be forced to conclude that you are a prisoner of your ego, that you are unable to admit a mistake (as Yuval did), and that a discussion with you is an idle argument without any physical basis or Logical or a chance to end with one of the parties understanding the other. (Jack rests, Jill rests, I am a follower of intelligent creation).

    jubilee.

    With all due respect to the grammar of poverty, has it occurred to you that maybe you just don't fully understand the Maxwell silver hammer model? The same model that at the time was considered the greatest scientific achievement since Newton's theory?

  174. RH, now I understand. I was in Kindergarten Sarah and Kindergarten Yael. The terms we used were "bruges" and "sholem". We also used pinkies and thumbs.

  175. Waiting and a half. Attempt to release the other half:
    Not only does Hayati demand proof from him, but he also insists that he explain where his ether particles came from, how it is that they fill the entire space, do they also make up non-magnetic bodies (after all, magnetism, as well as X-rays, passes through our body) and much more , Much. pedantry? Maybe. But that's who I am.

  176. Israel,
    As mentioned I released, now you.

    Oh, one last thing. You are terribly offended by the fact that I sent you and Yuval to kindergarten, but what am I going to do that since Kindergarten Tami I don't remember anyone calling anyone else Chilaba? Not least in a discussion that pretends to be scientific.

  177. Below is half of what is waiting:
    Right. With friends like that, who needs chilebots?
    also. I would have demanded proof from Maxwell. Just because his model made predictions that he verified doesn't mean it's necessarily true. From the beginning he built his medium from particles suitable for observations, and we can certainly say that he only drew the correct targets around the arrows' impact.

  178. Right. With friends like that, who needs chilebots?
    also. I would have demanded proof from Maxwell. Just because his model made predictions that he verified doesn't mean it's necessarily true. From the beginning he built his medium from particles suitable for observations, and we can certainly say that he only drew the correct targets around the arrows' impact.
    Not only does Hayati demand proof from him, but he also insists that he explain where his ether particles came from, how it is that they fill the entire space, do they also make up non-magnetic bodies (after all, magnetism, as well as X-rays, passes through our body) and much more , Much. pedantry? Maybe. But that's who I am.

  179. ghosts
    And if I answer you, will you start answering factual responses (Za physics), or will you continue exclusively with your obsession (me), apart from which you don't have even one response? For example, questions about watches and thermometers?

  180. Israel

    The answer to your question (the deer): yes. And this "phenomenon" is called scientific progress - if the next model to replace it is more successful.

    Now look what you are, actually, you asked: Is it possible to replace such a successful version of WIN 98?

    What is your answer to the question? (let's see your answer, don't be shy)

  181. ghosts

    You ask "What do you want from us?"

    is nothing. What comments are free. Everyone writes what is in their head. No one forced you to come here. Free comments. You are also free to leave. I'm sure your presence is urgently needed in other articles. Free comments, ghosts. freedom.

    jubilee.

    We're already old friends, and there's no need for us to be Chilvas again. You are of course welcome to stay, but refrain from any blatant personal reference. I've always stated that if my words are too rough for you, call me to sort it out and I'll stop.

    R.H.

    There is a very serious problem with your argument: the thread. So it is true that now it is more difficult and complicated to reproduce comments because of the new format of the blog, but if you promise to answer matter-of-factly for a change without being evasive, I will find you all the relevant comments that prove everything I said. If you can't commit, maybe you should really keep letting go.

    deer

    Let's start with the following link:

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force

    This is part of Maxwell's site model. In the second part, his differential equations are developed, which Einstein's original article on relativity came to update.

    Question: Is it possible to easily abandon such a successful model, a model by which Maxwell was able to derive the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism? (Equation 136).

    By the way Yuval, note that Maxwell did not prove anything. Would you also say to him: "The burden of proof is on you"?

  182. Israel,
    You asked to be released, I released. But you keep slandering and misrepresenting so I have to set some things straight.
    The reason I abandoned the argument with you, if you haven't understood by now, is that I realized that the argument between us is just like the argument that I and others have with Xingua. Both of you come with a sharp criticism of the accepted theories and instead offer a pseudo-scientific explanation (which you wash and call "alternative physics"). Both of you have been shown in Urim and Tomim that the problems you point to are not true. Ehud, Yuval Zvi and Anouki argued to you that they fail to see a contradiction. However, you both ignore everything that was said and repeat and claim "I have shown and no one can contradict my words".
    As I already wrote to you before, I have no problem with discussions at the edges of science, on the contrary, it is a refreshing and nice intellectual challenge. The discussion between you and me stopped being nice when I realized that you don't really read my words and fortify your positions regardless of what I write.
    One of the strongest evidences for this is the same story with Yuval. Until today you didn't understand what I meant. Are you claiming that my pride does not allow me to admit that I was wrong?? You really didn't understand. I didn't care at all if you or Yuval were right and if the model Yuval thought was his was Maxwell's, that was not the point at all. The point was that it took you about 10 grumpy messages from Yuval to realize that something was wrong and that you might have hurt someone. You just didn't read his posts and that's the point.
    So as far as I'm concerned I've let go, now I'm asking you to do the same.

  183. Israel,
    Your stage, your script, your direction, the casting under your close supervision. You are on the right track to producing the best show in town. go for it.

  184. Zvi Z.,

    Q: Why assume that such an intermediary exists?
    A: Because at the moment this is the only conceivable explanation for a wavy condition

    Q: The problems you raised, which I assume you have an answer to, arise when it is assumed that Tavach exists, if it does not exist, then these problems do not arise.
    A: If there is no mediation, these problems do not arise, but then other problems arise - first of all the erratic behavior. Before I say whether or not I have an answer to them, I would appreciate it if you could explain on what basis you assume this.

    Q: I can't solve a problem I'm not convinced exists.
    A: You spoke well. I, on the other hand, may be able to solve theoretical problems, but I am not always interested in doing so.

    Q: If I'm not mistaken you wrote that relativity conflicts with logic, could you expand on that? By clashing with logic I mean the creation of paradoxes and not clashing with intuition.
    A: I will answer this if I understand what you call intuition, what paradox, and how you distinguish between the two. I'm sorry if I sound blunt. simple, Intuition Mine just sent me a paranoid signal

  185. Israel
    "I do not claim that the rest system of the site is in relation to Israel. I claim it has no rest system. I also explain how. But as mentioned - this is alternative physics."

    So you establish a fact in your (imaginary) territory that there will be a site.
    And you state that it has no rest system.

    Beauty. Well done.

    You say it's alternative physics. And of course you can explain it since you invented the idea.

    Well done.
    What do you want from us?
    If anyone wants to know about it, let them write you an email. This is not the place.

  186. Israel,

    Since the times that cesium clocks show do not lead us to a contradiction, then if temp clocks show the same time we will not get a contradiction (in a certain sense), if so the mechanism of the temp clocks can not allow such a situation. Maybe there is another solution. Of course it would not be justified for me to simply assume that such a solution exists, but if universe clocks contradict the fixed speed of light that we both agree on then we can assume that such a solution does exist. Therefore I will ask you to write your alternative explanation.

    Before you write the explanation, I will draw your attention to the fact that universe clocks, if they exist, could move at a speed that exceeds the speed of light. If a spacecraft with a universe clock in it moves at a high speed relative to me and the clock in it ticks at the same rate as the universe clock standing next to me, that is, the speed of the spacecraft does not affect the ticking rate of the clock relative to me, then the speed of the clock, or rather the hand, can exceed the speed of light relative to me.

  187. deer

    According to your previous answers, you seem to accept that the temp clocks must show the same time as the cc clocks adjacent to them, unless perhaps relativistic doppler effects are taken into account. I understand it right?

    I tried to see if this consideration solves our problem, and that's why I came up with the idea of ​​the "clocks of the universe". Their advantage is that they show the same time as the temperature clocks but their doppler is unidirectional. I ran into the same problem as before.

    My preference is of course a mainstream solution, but so far I haven't been able to see the light.

    "Observer A measures the speed of light relative to him and receives c. Observer B, who is in motion relative to A, also measures velocity c relative to himself, that is, velocity c+v relative to observer A. If absolute time and distance do exist, then how is this possible?"

    There is a solution in my opinion, which also combines known elements from quantum mechanics. But he is not mainstream. I would of course prefer to have an acceptable solution that would put my mind to rest. If you are interested, I will present my idea to you, but I really don't want to bother.

    "Regarding your question regarding the ether, I don't see how the rest system of the ether can be the rest system of the earth, does each observer have his own ether that is at rest relative to him?"

    I do not claim that the rest system of the site is relative to Israel. I claim it has no rest system. I also explain how. But as mentioned - this is alternative physics.

  188. The last comment is for Yuval

    Ghosts, if you want me to take anything you say seriously, answer my technical questions about watches. If not, please release.

  189. Seter is perhaps a good example of your lack of distinction between objective and subjective. Just because you didn't remember doesn't mean it wasn't there.

    Maybe you also didn't remember that for a long time I tried to understand what your model was, but you never specified it but assumed that I knew what it was thanks to my famous telepathic skills. If I'm wrong, show me where I "grossly ignored a lot of things you said". But if you don't succeed, understand that the problem is mainly your dyslexia, admit it, let it go and try again. Everything is chained. This is your chance to put me in my place. But if you don't do this, it will be difficult for me to take you seriously, just as I don't take seriously what the two RH write.

    "I don't give answers to your liking, not because of my model but because your questions are complicated for me" I'm here to explain. You can also say "Sorry Israel, I don't understand" instead of "You have a basic mistake, come learn some real physics".

    "You make some assumption, don't wait for it to be recovered or proven, build on it another assumption that is also unproven and ask about the last one. I get stuck already in the first part, and also explain why (the parable of the grandmother and the mac wheels), and you continue on the path of ignoring. An example from today: you start from the assumption that the universe is infinite and require me to build things on this assumption without taking into account that it might be wrong."

    You did not understand. It has nothing to do with whether the assumption is true or false. I say that this was the picture of the universe during the MM experiment (no?) and that if so, the experiment is not logical. I do not claim that this picture of the universe is correct.

    "When I try to direct your attention to this possibility, you start with those "personal papers" in which you adorn others but not yourself"

    "Yes?
    Yes Yes?
    Yes Yes Yes?
    - - - -
    It doesn't matter how long the list of stands and/or hand gestures is."

    "If [the grandmother had wheels] and we say that [they are like a Mac truck] - why exactly [like a Mac]?"

    Well, if you haven't figured it out by now, there's not much I can do. If you want to talk to (what I call) the matter - you will find a listening ear with me. I don't have the time, strength and desire to get into pointless discussions. True, you were invited to my discussion with Zvi, but it seems as if the pointless discussion with you is taking over everything here. I will always like your entertaining writing style, but I'm looking for something a little more to the point. If you could give a serious answer to my questions about the rest system of the site, about the Tuesday-Thursday hours, about the nature of the extension of time, etc. - great. If not, we will find another opportunity to desex models that do not meet minimum standards of reasonableness.

  190. Israel
    You wrote to Yuval:
    "For example: I still did not receive a factual answer from all your responses to my question "If Michaelson found the rest system of the ether, and it is said to be the same as the rest system of the constellation Leo - why this one? If the universe is infinite, homogeneous and isotropic, then why would it have a certain rest system? What about homogeneity?"
    Well,
    Yuval understood you well, and answered you correctly:
    If grandma had wheels - she would take grandpa for a ride.

    Regarding R.H.,
    He answered your questions, and answered correctly. You're just not ready to get the right answers. Why? Do not know. But your problem - not ours.

    Wikipedia also has answers and claims and facts that contradict everything you say, claim and suggest.

    You ask a question, they answer you, you ask the next question and claim that the previous question was not answered.
    What attitude do you expect?

  191. Israel,

    Meanwhile I do not accept that there is a contradiction between the big bang theory and the lengthening of time. It is much more likely to me that there is a problem in our understanding and the fact that the topic is confusing and non-intuitive only strengthens this opinion. We both agree that if the speed of light is constant relative to each observer, how can this be true without time dilation?

    Observer A measures the speed of light relative to him and receives c. Observer B, who is in motion relative to A, also measures velocity c relative to himself, that is, velocity c+v relative to observer A. If absolute time and distance do exist then how is this possible?

    Regarding your question about the ether, I don't see how the rest system of the ether can be the earth's rest system, does each viewer have their own ether that is at rest relative to them?

    jubilee,

    Why assume that such an intermediary exists? The problems you raised that I assume you have an answer for arise when it is assumed that there is an intermediary, if it does not exist then these problems do not arise. I can't solve a problem I'm not convinced exists. If I'm not mistaken, you wrote that relativity conflicts with logic, could you elaborate on that? By clashing with logic I mean the creation of paradoxes and not clashing with intuition.

  192. Israel, one by one,
    It was the attempt to punch Rafaim that burst the valve which in retrospect turned out to be a misunderstanding, but my anger at you started first. R.H. didn't suck the things out of his thumb but understood exactly what I said. But he understood other things concerning the selective manner of the conversations you conduct - and these were the real causes of my anger. You really completely ignored a lot of things I said.
    As mentioned, I am not qualified to speak on behalf of R.H., but if it weren't for the bloody history that was created between us, I can definitely see myself speaking to you in the same style.
    Aryeh Seter is also fondly remembered. I read his articles and comments and was favorably impressed. I did not remember his correspondence with you.
    I don't give answers to your liking, not because of my model but because your questions are complicated for me. You make some assumption, don't wait for it to be recovered or proven, build on it another assumption that is also not proven and ask about the last one. I get stuck already in the first part, and also explain why (the parable of the grandmother and the Mac wheels), and you continue on the path of ignoring. An example from today: you start from the assumption that the universe is infinite and require me to build things on this assumption without taking into account that it might be wrong. When I try to direct your attention to this possibility, you start with those "personal papers" where you adorn others but not yourself.

    do you enjoy it I do not. Definately not

  193. "I had many reasons to be angry with you, and R.H. knew how to point out exactly them" If I remember correctly, the reason was the claim that I used your model to defeat ghosts. A month later, when it dawned on you and everyone else that this was actually the Maxwell model, it took you a long time to fully admit your mistake. R.H. On the other hand, he continued to claim that he understood the reason for your anger, namely that I used your model, and this from reading the exact same comments that we all read. Furthermore, he tried to use this supposed understanding of his as proof of his claim that I don't read comments or skim. When I asked him several times to show me the specific response from which I was supposed to understand what he understood without difficulty, he avoided condescendingly (kindergarten) instead of admitting that he was clearly wrong as you, the subject of the argument, did.

    He continued and continues this way to this day. See his last response "Both in rational creation and in the theory of relativity, you, like Kshingua, assert mountains of reasoning, with Jack and Jill and such and such clocks against theories that were experimentally based and realized in practice. Why? Because that's your gut feeling." So either he didn't understand what I said about intelligent creation (it looks like there is planning here but it also looks like the earth is flat and the center of the universe), even though I said it 20 times, or about relativity (I have no preference between relativity and the bang) or he is unable to admit a mistake. He is also the one who always goes first to a personal and non-business tone. That's why I decided that it would probably be better if we let go.

    Aryeh - Hide.

    And you, go to the thread. Not from a month ago, but about the days and especially the last few hours. See how you are the one who starts with the personal papers, and ignores any substantive question that is not convenient for you.

    For example: I still did not receive a factual answer from all your responses to my question "If Michaelson found the rest system of the ether, and it is said to be the same as the rest system of the constellation Leo - why this one?" If the universe is infinite, homogeneous and isotropic, then why would it have a certain rest system? What about homogeneity?"

    Why don't you answer? Because the answer might, heaven forbid, contradict your model?

  194. Israel! what is going on with you? Please download tones if you can.
    I am not authorized to speak on behalf of R.H., therefore I will only state that the words of his defense attorney about me contained many correct points. I had many reasons to be angry with you, and R.H knew how to point out exactly them. Although I vented my anger in the wrong places (something I still regret and will probably continue to regret until Alzheimer's comes), but it didn't come out of nowhere.
    It is your right to decide whose judgment to trust and whose not to trust. We do not always have the ability to distinguish correctly and in many cases we are forced to decide "from the hip". Wrong decisions are often made because of this, and these we can only eulogize after the fact as bad luck. Despite the bumps in our relationship, I have learned to appreciate and love you, and I wish you that such luck will not befall you.
    Zvi and Meir are indeed thoughtful and thoughtful interlocutors, and it is clear that choosing them is very convenient (I don't remember Aryeh, sorry). I, on the other hand, am very eccentric and it is difficult for people from the settlement to deal with me. But R.H., even though he sometimes uses harsh language, his criticism is usually spot on (I've used it a lot in another area) and I suggest you don't kick it casually.

  195. That's about the time it took you last time to admit you were wrong and treated me for no reason. Even then you drew all kinds of conclusions without any basis. To your credit, Hadit left and sympathized. Your friend R.H. On the other hand, when asked by me to come up with evidence for his accusations that was supposedly a real reason for your anger, and which can be deduced from reading the comments, he fortified himself in his stubborn pride and has not admitted his mistake to this day, even though your previous admission clearly proves that he was wrong. That's why I've lost faith in his objective judgment, and if you keep up your bullshit, I'll lose faith in yours too. (Not that it matters to anyone but me).

    And for your second question, I need an audience for fair criticism of my ideas. By Zvi, Meir, or Aryeh.

  196. In a month, when you have sinned, go over the thread again. You will see that all your questions have been answered, except for those asked via telepathy. You will also argue that most of the questions I asked you remained unanswered.

    You will also prove that your sacred burden of proof also applies to every other model and theory, starting with Newton's theory, through Maxwell, Mach, Einstein, Bohr and all the way to Chaikin. From each of them you can demand: proven! And no one will be able to fulfill your request. At most they will be able to invent indirect evidence, and the model will change with the discovery of a better model (according to Newton - Einstein). That's why it's called a model, and the request is called garbage.

    If you also go through the thread, you will see that there are factual commenters here, whose interest is facts and physics, and there are those whose interest is personal papers. The difference between the first and the second, that the two always start with personal comments when they finish the physics. The other difference is that they usually have no idea what they are talking about.

    Then maybe you'll understand why your fuse blows every time the facts and logic don't add up with your 40 year old model.

    Bye.

  197. I asked: "Do we have an infinite universe with an infinite number of planets?"
    You answered: "Yes".
    I asked: "Prove it."
    You didn't prove it. You just said "yes" and "yes yes".

    You already explained before... you also showed that... again you also showed that... and you showed why... in the end you think it's quite nice for...
    So why do you need an audience?
    will I overlap? OK. Bye.

  198. What kind of hand waving? Burden of proof why?

    If you go back to being a snooze like your friends, I'll ask you to cuddle again, like I asked them to.

    If you have an idea, whip it up. But let there also be sense in the idea. I already explained in the past that there is one excellent model: Maxwell's site model. All that is needed is to simply open it, and then you get the same speed of light for every measurer, universal absolute time, and half of quantum mechanics. I also showed that such a model explains inertia almost perfectly, and completely solves the friction problem in Le Sage's gravitation model. I also showed that such a model allows for non-locality in quantum entanglement and explains Wheeler's delayed choice experiment, according to which it is apparently possible to influence the past from the future.

    And I also showed why this explanation explains the irreversibility of entropy towards the past.

    Seems pretty nice to me for a tiny change and commits to an existing and accepted successful theory (Maxwell).

  199. I will throw you a bone that, as usual, you will bury with the claim of "alternative physics" and continue to struggle within your favorite "mainstream". Still I hope your sense of smell will not fail you, and when the time comes you will know where to find her.

    See the medium as if it were an endless mesh that is meticulous and completely motionless. Each node (or any cube trapped between the nodes) can be in one of a finite number of alternating states.

  200. In 1887 - yes. Today it probably does too. Also suns of course, not just planets. There is an Olbers reservation, but it is not necessarily related to our case.

    And now from a support "they don't have a preferred speed center". Perhaps you are beginning to understand why I claim that M is not a logic experiment? That Michaelson's very ambition to find that preferred center of speed, namely the rest system of the site, is doomed to failure?

  201. It's not a ghost. It's impersonating. The real ghost wouldn't ask about sugar because he understands coffee.

    Basic mathematics: if we have an infinite universe with an infinite number of planets and they are moving at different and infinite speeds - they do not have a preferred center of speed.

    And now my turn: do we have an infinite universe with an infinite number of planets?

  202. jubilee

    I'm sorry you don't understand the question, but on the other hand I'm glad I was able to amuse you. Think about it this way: every rest system of a wave-carrying medium has a natural common center of velocity for the particles: in the land - the land. In the plane - the plane. On Mars - Mars.

    But if we have an infinite universe with an infinite number of planets and they are moving at different and infinite speeds - why then would they have a preferred center of speeds? Does an infinite line have a midpoint?

    Einstein, by the way, agreed at a later stage in his life to accept the concept of the ether, on the condition that a certain rest system would not be attributed to him (as I asked). But on the other hand, what does he understand? All Einstein.

    See, even ghosts and everything doesn't catch, but on the other hand it's not the only thing that ghosts and everything doesn't catch so it doesn't mean anything.

  203. jubilee

    But this is exactly what Israel is asking! How do you not understand? And why don't you answer him? Obviously the answer is seven.
    By the way, if A was a chicken and grandma was B, everything could be possible

  204. Israel, once again I have to admit that I did not understand your question. Changing parameters is exactly like this: if [the grandmother had wheels] and we say that [they are like a Mac truck] - why exactly [like a Mac]? The continuation of the question no longer connects me to anything. Sorry

  205. deer

    If there is no universal absolute time, Lorentz transformations are required.

    The subject of our discussion is that if the big bang theory is correct, at every point in the universe there is an absolute time that is automatically synchronized with every other point in the universe. Otherwise we would not be able to talk about the age of the universe in terms of absolute time, but at each point there was a different age, or as was accepted in 1905, infinite time. The best we can do according to Einstein is arbitrary synchronization of clocks.

    If you accept that there is a contradiction between the lengthening of time and the big bang theory, in my opinion there is an explanation for the results of the MM experiment that leaves the absolute time intact and also the 2 postulates of relativity. But this is alternative physics. It is better to find an explanation for the C-C problem within the mainstream, or in short: what will the clocks show?

    Could you give your opinion on the question I raised: if Michelson found the rest system of the ether, and it is said to be the same as the rest system of the constellation Leo - why this one? If the universe is infinite, homogeneous and isotropic, then why would it have a certain rest system? What about homogeneity?

    jubilee

    Can you also answer the last question addressed to Tzvi? It's true that I only asked 80 times.

  206. deer,
    Let's arbitrarily assume that there is a stationary universal mediating system. We chose two hypothetical bodies that are at rest relative to this system. The speed of a light beam sent from one body to another is c.
    Now we will move on to Michaelson-Morlay's experiments: we will move the two bodies relative to the medium, but we will keep relative rest between them. If the medium has the same characteristics of the medium from the previous assumption, then a light beam sent from one body to another should move at a speed c relative to the medium system and therefore its speed towards each of the bodies is c less than the speed of the bodies. The results of the experiment are known and frequent, and the probably inevitable conclusion is that the speed of light as it is observed from each of the bodies is always constant and probably equal to c ("probably", because I have already warned that all the exact measurements of the speed of light were made only on movement to and fro and not on movement in the direction one).
    Confusion: Does the medium move together with the bodies? And if so, does each body system have its own private media system that does not "friction" with any of the private media systems of other body systems even though it shares a common space with them? Is there even a mediator?
    Instead of me continuing to mince words, and before we examine the speed of light between two bodies that are in relative motion at a speed different from zero, please offer your own solution. And if not, I will continue to develop my idea.

  207. Israel,

    Einstein derived the Lorentz transformations from his two assumptions. Assuming you agree with the assumptions, where did Einstein go wrong?

    jubilee,

    I'm trying to get to the bottom of your mind, you wrote (from time immemorial): "What I'm saying is that light always moves relative to the observer and/or relative to the light source at speed c. Therefore, the true speed of light relative to the source or observer is c minus the relative speed between them. For example, if the light source and the observer are at rest, relative to each other, then the relative speed between them is zero and then the actual movement of the light relative to them is at a speed c minus zero."
    Here you wrote that light does move relative to the viewer at speed c, then you defined "true speed of light". Maybe the problem is in my understanding but I don't see how the concept you defined conflicts with special relativity. If an observer is in motion relative to a light source, and sees the light moving relative to it at speed c, then he can say that the true speed of light, that is, the speed of light relative to the source is cv. What I don't understand is what is real about this speed compared to the real speed that would be measured by an observer who is in motion relative to a source at a different speed. After all, the two real speeds measured by such observers will be different.

  208. This medium appears in different ways At the same time. The Bosmanism of his performances allows for the dual nature (wave-particle) of light, baryonic matter and dark mass, absolute speed and relative speed, gravitation and inertia, matter and energy, and this is only a partial list. The day we have a serious discussion about "alternative" physics, I will provide details.
    One of the shows of this medium is similar to Maxwell's "hydrodynamic" site - only without the moving wheels.

  209. So what do you suggest, that the rest system be located or replaced? what is it And if, as you say, "there is another medium that is not a site." It's not just a name change. This is the understanding that the structure of the medium is more complex than just gas particles." What is that medium? And how did Maxwell manage to derive the speed of light and its equations from a hydrodynamic model of the ether?

  210. Israel,

    This is not a one-way measurement either. Remer/Kassini calculated the speed of light based on the time differences between the departure and return (the approach of the earth to Jupiter and its departure from it).

    It is assumed that the speed of light is constant relative to the observer. The mind gives many things. But one direct experiment puts in the pocket a thousand opinions that give. Michelson Morley did not find the rest system of the site and concluded that there is none. Furthermore, they concluded that the site itself does not exist. Let's take the last conclusion and try to understand how light can move in waves in the absence of ether. My answer is that there is another medium that is not a site. It's not just a name change. This is the understanding that the structure of the medium is more complex than just gas particles.
    Therefore, it goes without saying that talks about the rest system of the ether are irrelevant, and so is all his reference to the characteristics of the universe.

  211. deer.

    1. Do you accept that the speed of light is constant for every observer? Yes.

    2. Lorentz transformations? The lengthening of time and the shortening of the distance? Relative speed connection? - If there is an explanation that will be accepted in my opinion for the problem I raised in example XNUMX-XNUMX, yes. If there is no suitable explanation then either the answer is yes and then I cannot accept the bang theory, or if I accept the bang theory, the answer is no. (Sorry, this is the least complicated answer I have).

    jubilee.

    The measurements using moons etc. yielded results in a fairly good approximation, with a deviation of more or less a percentage from the speed accepted today. On the other hand, according to relativity, if you do not accept the determination of the speed of light, you will receive deviations of thousands and millions of percent in the calculations (twin encounters, etc.). So it is said that Remer or Cassini missed by a fraction of a percent - so what?

    "MM did not come to determine the speed of light, it was known long before, but the rest system of the ether. The question is: let's say they would have found her. Why this one and not another? The universe is infinite, isn't it? (at least in 1887"

    The speed of a wave is measured relative to a medium with a certain rest system. The speed of a sound wave - relative to the air, which if there is no wind, its rest system is as DHA. Tsunami wave speed - relative to the sea. A sound wave in an airplane - relative to the airplane. Waves in Jupiter - relative to Jupiter.

    So if Michaelson found the rest system of the ether, and it is said to be the same as the rest system of the constellation Leo - why this one? If the universe is infinite, homogeneous and isotropic, then why would it have a certain rest system? What about homogeneity?

  212. Hello Zvi,
    I can quote Einstein who said this, but you can do it too.
    A few comments ago I stated that I am not ready to state in rivets an assumption that has not been confirmed by direct experimentation. However, if such a direct experiment is really carried out and it turns out that the speed of light is indeed c and is constant for every observer regardless of the speed of his movement in space, I already have an explanation for this.

  213. Israel,

    You wrote "Sorry, no. Embodied here is the assumption that I accept the lengthening of time in inertial systems. I don't, not at this point.”
    Okay, so first I suggest we figure out what we do agree on.
    Do you accept that the speed of light is constant for every observer? Lorentz transformations? The lengthening of time and the shortening of the distance? Relative speed connection?

    jubilee,

    I have a similar question to you, is the speed of light constant for every observer? Will every observer agree that relative to him the speed of light is c?

  214. 299,792,458 meters per second, is this what Remer recorded in his diary even before the world knew what a meter was?
    And I didn't understand your question that way either 🙁

  215. Israel,

    Last word: we will meet happily and good luck to you too 🙂

    P.S. I think I suggested it to you once but if not, have you thought about maybe writing a theoretical paper with your ideas and publishing it in a theoretical physics journal (for example: http://www.springer.com/physics/journal/10773) to receive criticism from professional people on the subject whose opinion you would at least value a little more? (without any sarcasm).
    It's a win win because if you don't publish you will be where you are now and if you publish you will strengthen your thesis very much and shut the mouths of snoozing skeptical ignoramuses like me. Think about it.

  216. OK, R.H. You are right, as always.

    When you say "even when you insisted that your gut feeling says that there is an intelligent creation" (where?) when you claim "you are the one who read half and a quarter of the comments, immediately assumes that he knows what the other person wants and answers not to the point" (when?) and especially when you state "in both cases" , both in rational creation and in the theory of relativity you, like Kshingua, assert mountains of reasoning, with Jack and Jill and such and such clocks against theories that are experimentally based and realized in practice. Why? Because it's your gut feeling" (literally).

    Does not matter. We agreed to let go and be free - there is no better place to do this than in the land of free comments.

    Say the last word, and we'll be done.

    Except you know I really appreciated your efforts, and I mean it. I appreciate wisdom, ability to express yourself and breadth of horizons, which no doubt rests in everyone. Good luck, and really, NO HARD FEELINGS.

  217. Israel,
    OK, I accepted and released. If my condescending (?) style bothers you so much then don't hear from me again.

    Riddle, can whoever wrote the following and many others on my understanding complain of condescension?
    "In the particular case of you, me and physics, is there any justification for this?"
    "You also start to mention another commenter who has nothing relevant to say even though he is convinced of his intellectual superiority over the Nemoshut, and whose name also for some reason begins with R.H."
    "But has the thought occurred to you that maybe you just don't fully understand the subject?"

    Have I ever claimed that you don't understand something? Even when you insisted that your gut says there is an intelligent creation? So who is arrogant? After all, you are the one who would read half and a quarter of comments, immediately assume that he knows what the other person wants and answer irrelevantly, so am I the arrogant one?

    As a matter of fact, in both cases, both in rational creation and in the theory of relativity, you, like Kshingua, assert mountains of reasoning, with Jack and Jill and such and such clocks against theories that were experimentally based and realized in practice. Why? Because it's your gut feeling. You have not a shred of observational or experimental evidence. On the contrary, in my understanding (and of course you will argue that it is weak) there is a great deal of evidence that is true for today. Even the neutrino experiment turned out to be wrong. Just like he brings mountains of arguments and calculations why there can't be more than two mutations in a billion years when every day in the lab I see several mutations.
    After all, you yourself claim all the time that you are sure you have a mistake and you are "dying" for someone to tell you what it is (alek). So maybe, I'll quote you "but has it occurred to you that you might just not understand the subject completely?"
    Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with you coming up with revolutionary theses. On the contrary, I found it very interesting at the beginning of our previous discussion. However, when you receive criticism, you start with personal attacks and this is not a discussion I like to participate in, your style is not acceptable to me and as mentioned you will not hear from me again on the above mentioned subject.

  218. "All the measurements to date have been performed on light that goes back and forth"? What? What about Remar and Cassini, the moons of justice, please Araf?

    try again. MM did not come to determine the speed of light, it was known long before, but the rest system of the ether. The question is: let's say they would have found her. Why this one and not another? The universe is infinite, isn't it? (at least in 1887).

  219. May Israel be renewed
    I will tell you exactly what is wrong with Nisoi mm. Actually, why wouldn't he be fine? He tried just fine. It just doesn't measure what we are interested in but something else entirely. It does not measure the speed of light. From the beginning it was designed to find out something completely different, and the conclusion obtained from its results is not the speed of light but a strange characteristic of light. We know the average speed of light between two stationary points ("average", because all measurements to date have been made on light that goes back and forth). However, the speed of light has never been measured between two points in relative motion. And until such a measurement is made, I have no reason to accept the second postulate

  220. Finally an iPad. You can open files. Horhoror's computer is an ancient piece of junk located in Bab al-Wad, with the rest of the silent iron skeletons.

    Meir

    Your reference is interesting, and can perhaps shed light on the problem. If Einstein and Planck gave their opinion on the temperature problem in 1908, even before the big bang theory and even general relativity, then it is almost certain that I am simply not aware of its solution (which from a superficial reading is not as simple and trivial as one might think).

    So the right thing for me now is to stop digging, and try the end of the thread you gave me. Thanks. On occasion I will also read the article on the inverse square law, or whatever you call it.

    jubilee.

    What's wrong with the m-m experiment? Why could a different result be obtained? Why would there be a site-specific rest system? And if so, why exactly this one and not another?

  221. Israel,
    waiting

    "It is difficult for me (very even) to accept the explanation you gave. "
    - I didn't give an explanation. On the contrary, I explained why I cannot know what the explanation is.

    "After all, if another identical train travels at the same speed next to the cold one, but has not completed the long journey of its sister, how is it possible that this happened and it is hot?"
    - Who said it was hot and it happened? The Lorentz transformation for temperature depends on the speed of movement and not on time.

  222. A never – endingsto ry – temper at ureandrel at ivity
    The literature on temperature is confusing. Albert Einstein and Wolfgang Pauli agreed
    on the following result: the temperature T seen by an observer moving with speed v is
    related to the temperature T0 measured by the observer at rest with respect to the heat
    bath via

    T=T0(1-V^2/C^2)^1/2

    A moving observer thus always measures lower values ​​than a resting one.
    In 1908, Max Planck used this expression, together with the corresponding transformation for heat, to deduce that the entropy is invariant under Lorentz transformations.
    Being the discoverer of the Boltzmann constant k, Planck proved in this way that the
    constant is a relativistic invariant.
    Not all researchers agree on the expression. Others maintain that T and T0 should
    be interchanged in the temperature transformation. Also, powers other than the simple
    square root have been proposed. he origin of these discrepancies is simple: temperature
    is only intended for equilibrium situations, ie for baths. But a bath for one observer is not
    a bath for the other. For low speeds, a moving observer sees a situation that is almost a
    heat bath; but at higher speeds the issue becomes tricky. Temperature is deduced from
    the speed of matter particles, such as atoms or molecules. For moving observers, there
    is no good way to measure temperature. he naively measured the temperature value even
    depends on the energy range of matter particles that is measured! In short, thermal equilibrium is not an observer-invariant concept. therefore, no temperature transformation
    formula is correct. (With certain additional assumptions, Planck's expression does seem
    to hold, however.) In fact, there are not even any experimental observations that would allow such a formula to be checked. Realizing such a measurement is a challenge for the future
    experimenters - but not for relativity itself.

    Cited from Motion Mountain – The Free Physics Textbook for Download
    http://motionmountain.net/

    http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/PDFdosya/SpecialRelativity-2.pdf
    318 page

  223. Meir

    I could not open. Maybe it's this particular computer at my parents' house. All the time it flashes "open tab". Go find out what it is.

    It's hard for me (very even) to accept the explanation you gave. Note: we can increase the time gap as we wish, and hence the temperature difference, and decrease the relative speed to the same extent. In fact to reach a situation where there is almost no speed difference between the trains and they are standing almost on the platform in Jerusalem. After all, if another identical train travels at the same speed next to the cold one, but has not completed the long journey of its sister, how is it possible that this happened and it is hot?

    Ockham believes: either we analyzed incorrectly, or there is no time dilation in the system in question, or the bang theory is wrong.

  224. Israel,

    "Will this happen even if the time difference is 2 million years and the relative speed between the clocks is 0.6 m/s? Can you see how two trains travel at a relatively slow speed relative to each other, their passengers wave goodbye and even shake hands with the passengers of the opposite train, but in train A the air conditioner is on because of the heat and in train B the heating because it is so cold, and all this because of some distant clocks that have passed the trains in the past?”

    You present another paradox, and I don't feel the need to excuse the absurdities and paradoxes that relativity produces. Temperature is a tricky thing, because it depends on quite a number of factors that need to be known how to weigh them in relative systems, before deciding which train passengers will feel unusually hot and which train passengers will feel unusually cold, if at all. For example:

    Since time flows more slowly on Jill's train (from Jack's point of view), the rate of oscillation of the atoms and molecules in this train, in the air conditioner gas in it, and in the irons of which its temperature clock is made, is lower (Lorentz transformation of velocities), meaning that they colder. If I remember correctly, then in gas the temperature is proportional to the square of the speed of the molecules, and this means that the gas in the Jill train air conditioners does not have to work hard to cool, and rather they should be used for heating if the gas has not yet frozen. The stars from Jill's point of view and the sun as a whole (if it is relevant to the Jack-Jill meeting that takes place somewhere in the vastness of infinity), emit less energy per unit of time, but the universe is more compressed (the length contraction, we already mentioned). In short, I don't pretend to know how to weigh all the relevant factors in a relative sense, in order to come up with the right solution to the paradox. One thing I can guarantee: the adherents of the theory of relativity will always be able to find the explanation that will satisfy him, and they will do it each in a different way (which contradicts the other ways), which will prove that they themselves are not able to know how to weigh all the factors, and what is the Lorentz transformation for relativistic temperature .

    In this regard, please read the instructive section on page 318 in the attached link, and I hope that following this we will agree that we will not be able to convince or convince regarding the explanation of the paradox, and that you will not be able to convince the fans of relativity that a temperature clock can prove that in inertial systems there is no relative time dilation:
    http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/PDFdosya/SpecialRelativity-2.pdf

    If you have a problem opening PDF files, write to me and I will send it as a message.

  225. jubilee

    I have to make sure. When you say "the first fundamental theorem of special relativity" do you mean postulate 2? (constant speed of light in any reference system).

  226. Israel,
    I learned my lesson the hard and painful way. Please let's not return to personal squabbles that do not contribute positively to the main issue.
    The questions you raise are weighty and it is important to clarify them. The grand theories are full of holes. This is expressed, among other things, in the contradiction between relativity and metaphysics that you explore with inexhaustible energy, but not only in this. The first fundamental theorem of special relativity is very infuriating even without the bang, and even the way we understand the bang is not free of confusion. The history of scientific theories is full of "tragedies" in which great models do not agree with each other, and you probably put your finger on exactly one of them. Unlike the one-time and inexorable big bang, relativity can be re-examined at any moment. You have to go back and check the phenomena that led to the strange conclusions, and plan new experiments for that. Today we have technologies at a level of precision that was not there a century ago. I believe that one should not adhere to the conclusions of Michaelson Morley's experiments, because it is possible to design experiments to directly measure the speed of light between two bodies in motion.

  227. jubilee

    Let's check your assumptions for a moment.

    "Israel, why insult?"

    Who like you knows that there is a difference between insulting and reacting. between attacking and defending. between action and reaction. Go over R.H.'s patronizing and condescending personal style, about statements such as "Lords Yehuda Israel and Yuval", see his previous comments "And you know what is most interesting? All of these work perfectly without any strange malfunctions that result from the changing speed of light, as you would very much like." "Don't dig", etc. Compare them to Meir's firm but matter-of-fact style, or to Zvi's polite style of expression.

    Someone like you also knows that the trouble between you and me was your responsibility, and you were guilty of sin, grateful and compassionate. R.H. On the other hand, he continued to send us both to kindergarten, and when asked to provide evidence for his various accusations, he arrogantly avoided it.

    "R.H. invested a great deal of his time to help you when others, including me, said we were desperate. His thinking is analytical and profound, and usually, if not always, he understands what he is talking about"

    I thanked R.H. Several times on the discussion that brought up interesting points, but was quite useless for me because of the failure of R.H. To understand the subject of the inertial system, which was expressed in his insistence that "Jack is stationary" and "Jill is moving", and this without reference to the radiation system. I do not believe that he still understands the subject to his satisfaction as expressed in his last statement: "One last point, Israel. You keep claiming that there is no lengthening of time in non-accelerated systems, but gravity also causes time to slow down (and this is even measured in towers), so in this case it is about systems that are inferior to each other."

    If I were as naive as a few months ago, I would have tried to explain to him that a system in gravity is not inertial according to the principle of equivalence. The sad experience of the past taught me that it is better to avoid this.

    I believe that R.H. He benefited from the discussion with me at least as much as I did. According to him, he enjoys almost every moment.

    "Even with the ghost, by the way, I often found interesting things." I have never looked for faults with ghosts, or any other responder. It is he who will always take care of me, and kidnap accordingly.

    R.H. Expensive.

    "First of all, calm down, no one thinks you're a moron or that I have any intellectual superiority over you.

    In my opinion, your general style towards many commenters is condescending. Not as blatant as Michael, but still looking down. With a hand on the heart: in the particular case of you and me and physics, is there any justification for this?

    "What I said (and here Yuval also answers your question) is that without going into details it is clear from the application of technology that the theory of relativity works."

    Newton's theory also works. It has many successful applications in technology. The cheeky Mr. Einstein should have taken this fact into account when he challenged her.

    "The GPS system is based on the fact that the time when an electromagnetic signal is received from the satellites is proportional to the speed of the signal which travels at the speed of light. Therefore, if the speed of light were to change, the satellites would not be able to coordinate with each other, and the GPS devices on the ground would accumulate errors that would accumulate more and more."

    I don't understand what you mean by "if the speed of light were to change". The speed of light is always the same for any measurer, even if it is a satellite. She is C.

    "You keep claiming that there is no lengthening of time in non-accelerated systems, but gravity also causes time to slow down (and this is even measured in towers) so in this case we are talking about inferior systems in relation to each other." Of course gravity causes time to slow down. Gravity is acceleration.

    And in general R.H., your very claim that there is no problem at all with the argument I made is puzzling. See how much it can complicate even a person who no doubt understands the subject like Zvi, who needs a relativistic doppler to try to solve a dilemma that you easily wave as simply non-existent. I'm really not trying to offend or be condescending, but has it occurred to you that you may simply not understand the subject at all? What I fought with you about for two months, Meir immediately said: "There is no priority for Jack over Jill. Both are resting." Do you really understand that an inertial system, the subject of our discussion, is a system at rest? That even if Jill flies at a speed of 0.9999C, according to Einstein in 1905 she is at rest at all?

    And most importantly: do you really understand that I am not speaking against relativity at all, but only claiming that the lengthening of time in inertial systems seemingly contradicts the absolute time of the Big Bang? For some reason you never bring evidence to support the bang theory, only relationships.

    In my opinion, if you have something relevant about the discussion itself, we would be happy to hear your opinion. If, on the other hand, all you have to say is that we should stop digging and talking because it is a fact, relativity works (as if Newton's theory doesn't) then maybe it's better if you let it go.

  228. R.H., after reading the article.
    The acceleration of clocks in satellites is due to differences in the acceleration of gravity. These are taken care of by the general tehai, but the discussion with Israel concerns the private tehai.

  229. RH, I understood the root of the misunderstanding. As usual, my unsuccessful formulations.
    The relative speed of light is always constant. All calculations are based on this, and currently the GPS system still navigates well with an accuracy of a few centimeters.
    What I did, and I explained this not long ago but maybe I didn't make it clear enough, is to use the term "absolute speed" (calculated as the difference between the constant speed c and the speed of the body relative to which this speed is measured). When I said that T is not included in the calculations, I meant exactly that the speed of light that is used is always c and not the absolute speed. And since c already contains the formulas of Tahi, there is no need to enter them into the computers of the navigation devices.
    Thanks for the reference to the article.

  230. Israel,
    First of all, relax, no one thinks you're a moron or that I have any intellectual superiority over you.
    What I said (and here Yuval also answers your question) is that without going into details it is clear from the application of technology that the theory of relativity works.
    The GPS system is based on the fact that the time in which an electromagnetic signal is received from the satellites is proportional to the speed of the signal which travels at the speed of light. Therefore, if the speed of light were to change, the satellites would not be able to coordinate with each other and the ground GPS devices would accumulate errors that would keep on accumulating.

    And related to your question, of course the theory of relativity must be included in GPS calculations. See for example: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

    One last point, Israel. You keep claiming that there is no lengthening of time in non-accelerated systems, but gravity also causes time to slow down (and this is even measured in towers) so in this case it is about systems that are inferior to each other.

  231. Israel, why insult?
    R.H. invested a great deal of his time to help you when others, including me, said we were desperate. His thinking is analytical and deep, and usually, if not always, he understands what he is talking about. Maybe he had a slight stumble now, and maybe it wasn't him at all but an impostor.
    Even with the ghost, by the way, I often found interesting things. I bet it was he who hosted us in his home and served us Turkish coffee

  232. deer
    You write: "I agree with the things you say but how does that make the watch universal? A universal clock should show the same time everywhere in every system"

    Indeed, if my calculations are correct, that is what he does. I really hoped that the relativistic doppler would show me the contradiction and the enlightenment, but I failed to see it. If you can, expand.

    "In the example of Jack and Jill, at the moment of the meeting Jack sees that at station 1 the clock shows 10 and Jill sees that it shows 6.4, we agree on that right?"

    sorry, no Embodied here is the assumption that I accept the lengthening of time in inertial systems. I don't, not at this point.

    "Therefore, assuming that the universal clock is ticking, it will also show different times in the photographs."

    A universal clock works as follows:

    1. He perceives the time in seconds that the transmitter broadcasts on KDA.

    2. Measures the signal strength and Doppler. I thus arrive at the absolute time that a universal clock face adjacent to it would show at that point if it were there, regardless of their relative speed.

    If it seems to you that it is possible that two such clocks at the same point but different speed can show different time in a joint photo, please explain why.

    If you agree that they will always see the same time, then we have got universal time. Note that this has nothing to do with cosmic radiation, and that if we take another transmitter in motion relative to the transmitter on KDA but synchronized with it and use signals from it instead of the original transmitter, we will get the same time as we received from the original transmitter. An infinite or even finite number of such transmitters can constitute an alternative system to radiation, but for the purpose of time calculations only one transmitter can be thought of.

  233. RH, I did not understand the comparison with xingua
    I said "There is no debate between us about the fact that the relative speed of light is constant. The debate is about the absolute speed"
    And you answered, "So you also agree with Israel that the speed of light is constant relative to the viewer?" Do you believe it would be possible to build such a complex GPS system that would work without deviations and disruptions if that were the case? Even if the speed of the satellites is relatively low?"
    As far as I know, the constancy of the speed of light relative to the observer is the cornerstone of T.H.I.
    Also, as far as I know, in the current technology of Navit Lavein, you don't include the THI in the calculations.
    Please clarify.

  234. R.H.
    waiting

    Meir.

    "Israel,
    If you insist on a single photon, it can't reach two temperature clocks anyway.
    But I was talking about a pulse of light that is activated in half the length of the tubes and makes its way to their four ends. The pulse contains enough photons for some of them to be absorbed by the photocells installed in the four temperature clocks."

    If we finish the Jack-Jill example with the agreement that time dilation cannot occur in an inertial system, it seems that there may be another possibility that has not been discussed yet, and is suitable for what we know from quantum mechanics.

    "What is stationary, please? There is no preference for Jack over Jill. Both are resting"

    Try to explain this to R.H. He claims that Jack rests and Jill moves.

    Jill's clock will show 8.

    Notice what it means. Jack's temp clock shows 10, Jill's temp clock shows 8. A difference of 2 seconds between clocks that are at a speed of 0.6C relative to each other, and what they actually do is measure a temperature and turn it into a calculable time.

    Will this happen even if the time difference is 2 million years and the relative speed between the clocks is 0.6 m/s? Can you see how two trains travel at a relatively slow speed relative to each other, their passengers wave goodbye and even shake hands with the passengers of the opposite train, but in train A the air conditioner is on because of the heat and in train B the heating because it is so cold, and all this because of some distant clocks that have passed the trains in the past?

  235. R.H.

    "If you were aware, you wouldn't continue arguing with someone who floats foam on things that have been scientifically proven and technologies based on them."

    Could you enlighten us where the lengthening of time in inertial systems has been proven by research, and which technologies are based on such lengthening?

    "If it were true, there would be a contradiction between the viewers. For example, the various GPS satellites." interesting. can you expand

    "You received answers about my situation (which, by the way, were quite similar to what I wrote to you at the time)"

    If I remember correctly, your main argument was that between Jack's temp and hr clocks there won't be a gap because it's a "relaxed" system, while between Jill's clocks there will be a huge gap (1000000000:1 rotation ratio) because it's a system "Moving". This was even before the cosmic radiation system was even mentioned.

    Zvi, on the other hand, says b

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-speach-20100800/comment-page-29/#comment-345903

    Israel,
    No matter how I try to arrange the temperature clocks I reach contradictions. The only way that does not lead to contradictions if the theory of relativity is when temperature clocks show the same time as a cesium clock next to them. Then I remembered that in the relativistic Doppler effect, in contrast to the normal Doppler effect, there is a general shift to the blue due to the narrowing of space. If the temperature clock calculates the time according to the temperature of the blue deflected radiation it will show a shorter time. Doesn't that solve our problem?

    ZA that according to his words the CZ and Temp clocks must show the same time. Maybe you also mentioned relativistic doppler effect and I just didn't read, as always.

    Perhaps Zvi also claims that the ratio of 1:1 between Jack's watches is measured by a drop of a degree per hour, and that for Jill it is a degree per minute. 1:1 is 1:1.

    "You're starting to remind me of xingua Zakor Latov who argues against facts proven in the laboratory or B who claims that there is no twin paradox despite the airplane experiment."

    You also start to mention another commenter who has nothing relevant to say even though he is convinced of his intellectual superiority over the Nemoshut, and whose name also for some reason begins with R.H.

  236. Israel,
    "Thanks for the enlightenment, R.H., we really weren't aware of that." — You probably weren't really aware. If you were aware, you would not continue to argue with someone who floats foam on things that have been proven by research and technologies based on them.

    "The conclusion is that the speed of light is constant, but only relative to the measurer, or the observer." —- If this were true, a contradiction would arise between the viewers. For example the various GPS satellites.

    "I would be very happy if I received a suitable answer, but so far I have not received from anyone." — You received answers about my situation (which, by the way, were quite similar to what I wrote to you at the time).

    jubilee,
    "There is no debate between us that the relative speed of light is constant. The argument is about absolute speed. "— Does that mean you also agree with Israel that the speed of light is constant relative to the viewer? Do you believe it would be possible to build such a complex GPS system that would work without deviations and disruptions if that were the case? Even if the speed of the satellites is relatively low?

    You're starting to remind me of xingua, remember the good who argues against facts proven in the laboratory or B who claims that there is no twin paradox despite the airplane experiment.

  237. Israel,
    If you insist on a single photon, it can't reach two temperature clocks anyway.
    But I was talking about a pulse of light that is activated in half the length of the tubes and makes its way to their four ends. The pulse contains enough photons for some of them to be absorbed by the photocells installed in the four temperature clocks.

    What is stationary please? There is no preference for Jack over Jill. Both are resting.
    Jill's clock will show 8.

  238. Meir

    A photon's wave function cannot collapse twice. If there is a time difference between the temp clocks in the example you gave, the function will crash on the first clock and will not reach the second at all.

    So we agreed: 10:8 p.m. Jack 10, Jill XNUMX. Nice. Jack's temp clock also shows XNUMX (stationary, please check). What does a Temp Jill watch show?

  239. Israel,
    The simplest solution to read files that do not open is to upload them to google docs and view them online.

  240. Israel,
    "So that's it, at this point I don't accept that the cesium clocks won't tick at the same rate. All the experiments that confirm the lengthening of times are in accelerated systems. I only deal with inertial systems.”

    So what do you want from Albert? He did not think, like you, that light has many speeds, only one of which is relevant to the viewer, and therefore he had no choice but to conclude that time lengthens in inertial systems.

  241. A pulse of light. Why won't he come? Because the pipes are made of iron? I was actually thinking of plexiglass. If you insist on iron, you will send the pulse from the middle of the gap between the inner and outer tube.

    According to the example in Blink, yes, and we also agreed that from that historical meeting onwards in which they pass in front of each other, the watches next to them will not get to pass in front of each other one more time.

  242. Meir

    I sent Kofi Annan to my father to negotiate the release of the response.

    "A light pulse emanating from the center of one tube reaches the constant temperature clocks at both ends at the same time.
    We will arrange so that the same light pulse also leaves the center of the second tube and reaches the fixed temperature clocks at both ends at the same time.
    From this it follows that the time in the temperature clocks of pipe A is not agreed on pipe B, and vice versa."

    If it's the same pulse, it won't reach the other tube. quanta. The wave function will collapse and inflate its soul at the first edge it reaches.

    Let's finish Jack and Jill. Did we agree that, according to the example in the link, both see and take pictures of czech jack 10 czech jill 8?

  243. Meir and Yuval

    The answers to your questions were given in an article in Cosmo, on the example of the ballistic pendulum (Meir, remember the shell that was captured by the earth's gravity at speeds lower than the escape velocity but not at the escape velocity and above?).

    I'm trying to organize a computer here that will be able to open your article. I'm already jetlagged and I intend to make it to the pool above the five, so I might be able to do it with the iPad.

    In the meantime, regarding your question: "After all, it all started with a disagreement between them about the ticking rate of the cesium clock, that is, about the ticking rate of the enzymes in their body cells, that is, about the lifespan of elementary particles in their particle accelerators. Will the cosmic clock solve their problem?"

    So that's it, at this point I don't accept that the cesium clocks won't tick at the same rate. All the experiments that confirm the lengthening of times are in accelerated systems. I only deal with inertial systems.

  244. Israel, apologizes again. For a moment I forgot what you are actually trying to test.
    When I start from the premise that light can move at speeds higher or lower than c, the first question that pops up for me is why we only perceive the finite light beams whose speed is exactly c and not any other?

  245. Israel,

    "However, if we had used temperature clocks, the photon would have left and arrived at the absolute times agreed upon on the 2 tubes. "

    Why would they agree?

    A light pulse emanating from the center of one tube reaches the fixed temperature clocks at both ends at the same time.
    We will arrange so that the same light pulse also leaves the center of the second tube and reaches the fixed temperature clocks at both ends at the same time.
    From this it follows that the time in the temperature clocks of pipe A is not agreed on pipe B, and vice versa.

  246. jubilee
    The signal does not arrive at the same time. The experimenter is able to receive the early signal only at the speed of light, therefore the rotating antenna. Its tangential speed makes it possible to receive the faster signal, if it does exist. Therefore, the problem is to find equipment that measures the arrival of a signal with a precision of picoseconds. This is a purely technical problem, not a conceptual one. This must be done correctly and accurately for the experiment to have any value.

  247. R. H.,
    There is no debate between us that the relative speed of light is constant. The argument is about absolute speed. Since the Earth and its many satellites form one closed inertial system, only the relative velocity is relevant to the GPS calculations and there is no need to introduce the Einstein corrections. The fluctuations in the distances of the satellites (which result from the fact that the orbits are elliptical) are also exempt from these calculations, because their speed relative to the speed of light is zero.

  248. Ugh! Ugh! Ugh! What nonsense. Only four months have passed since then, and to me it seems like an eternity. OK. OK. It started with a misunderstanding, impatience, frustration and other excuses. But the stain remains on the wall (Naomi Hana Shahar Leslau reads from David Avidan's poems in chapter 43 of Tannochi). In short, I deserve it!

    "A radio transmitter, sending a targeted signal to a point 300 km away from it. There are two receivers at the point: the first has a normal antenna, and the second has a disc-shaped antenna that is parallel to the ground and rotates at enormous speed. What came out is that, in terms of the signal hitting transmitter B, the tangential speed of the disk is the same for it as an antenna flying at the same speed:
    It is not clear to me why the distance between the transmitter and the receivers must be so great if the signal reaches both at the same time anyway. In addition, the speed of the disk, as great as it may be, within the limits of current technology is a negligible fraction of the speed of light, so it is not certain that this experiment will yield significant results.

  249. Thanks for the enlightenment, RH, we really weren't aware of that.

    What you said about GPS and rangefinders does not contradict anything I wrote. You are the first to know that if the possibility I am raising is correct, the conclusion is that the speed of light is constant, but only relative to the measurer, or the observer.

    What I'm trying to do here is see how the dilation of time and the relative time of relativity line up with the absolute time of the big bang. I have no preference one way or the other. I would be very happy if I received a suitable answer, but so far I have not received from anyone.

    That's what's most interesting, at least to me.

  250. Israel and Yuval,
    Don't forget in your enthusiasm that it is very important to state that the speed of light is not constant, that the entire GPS system, all the laser rangefinders used by all the surveyors in the world, all the satellites and even those spacecraft that have landed on the moon and Mars, are all based on the assumption that the speed of light is constant. And you know what's most interesting? All of these work perfectly without any strange glitches that result from the changing speed of light, as you would very much like. But what can be done, that to this day no MTL (laser range finder) in any tank and in any distomat has not measured the wrong distance because suddenly the light moves faster or slower than ever.

  251. Hey! I slipped again. I didn't mean Maxwell's c, but Einstein's c. We need an experiment that would give a direct measurement of the speed of light relative to a body in motion. If such an experiment confirms the conclusion of the MM experiment, I will surrender myself to the first "Metzadik" and will no longer refuse orders. the commander!

  252. Yuval, you are called to order. You are not following orders.

    The definition of the task was clear and unequivocal: "Is it possible to find a solution that preserves the absolute time and postulate 2. But since you mentioned mm - we will go with you." A solution that will also explain the results of experiment M-M".

    Since you did not carry out the instruction - you are fired!!

    Oh well. What's wrong with Mm? Or in Maxwell's equations, after all, C can also be derived from them regardless of the medium.

    Ok, I'll send you an email, I'll answer you don't have mine. Just today you sent me 5 emails, DD.

  253. Israel, why riot?
    And maybe the conclusion from his experience is not correct at all? After all, his goal was not to find the speed of light, but something else. The strange conclusion is a product of luck. Chutsamza, it was conducted under very specific conditions that are not the same as the conditions in your pipe experiment. Instead of continuing to think endlessly, you should plan an experiment to directly calculate the speed of light. In the event I prepared one, but I have no way to upload drawings here. You send me an email and I can forward it to you:
    ivrit.yuval00@googlemail.com

  254. jubilee

    Also in my description you can launch 2 photons at the same time. The question is whether it is possible to find a solution that preserves the absolute time and postulate 2. But since you mentioned mm - we will go with you. A solution that will also explain the results of an experiment from M.

  255. Israel,
    The example of the telescopic tubes nicely illustrates the problematic nature of relativity. The axiom of constant velocity was accepted as a conclusion from Michaelson-Morlay's experiments, but that experiment did not involve a tube within a tube. If instead of a common central axis you launch them side by side and instead of one photon you shoot two photons at the same time, you may get a different result. But as long as we do not know for sure what the mechanics are that cause light to always move at the same speed relative to the body regardless of its speed, or until we actually perform such an experiment, we will not be able to know.

  256. Meir, Zvi, Yuval, everyone who reads.

    What I claim is this: it is not possible that relativity in its entirety is also correct, that the big bang theory is also correct, and that my understanding of them is also correct. The highest probability of course is that my understanding is wrong. If I understood correctly on the other hand, I have no preference between relativity and bang, but it is impossible for both to be true.

    To see this, let's go straight to the source, Einstein's 1905 paper known as "Special Relativity". Go straight to the first chapter, "Simultaneity of events".

    http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/#SECTION11

    According to the text, Einstein tries to synchronize 2 remote clocks. Note how legitimate this problem is in 1905, when the picture of the world is of an infinite and eternal universe. After all, there is no beginning to time, so how can we know what time it really is? The best we can do is to agree on some reset of our clocks, as two observers on an infinite straight line can only arbitrarily decide what the 0 point is.

    On the other hand, according to the bang theory, there is and is a starting point for time. We don't know it for sure at the moment, but there is no doubt that it exists. In 1905 it is natural to think of 30 billion years back, or 30 billion to the power of 30 billion. Today it is impossible. It is estimated that before the Big Bang, about 13.7 billion years ago, there was simply no time. Since then, the natural clock has been ticking, and today at every point in the universe there is a certain time, which is expressed in various physical factors, among them temperature, the relationship between which and the time that has passed since the bang is a continuous function called the Friedman formula.

    If I had been in his place in 1905 and believed in the bang, I would have said: instead of synchronizing with light rays, measure the temperature. A thermometer instead of a flashlight. Friedman's formula, a computer, and here we have synchronized the events for every meter in the universe. The line is not infinite. It has a true 0 point, from which any measurement on the line must start, or at a fixed distance from it.

    we will continue After Einstein succeeded in synchronizing the clocks using light rays whose speed is the same for each measurer, he asks: what will happen if the clocks are in motion relative to each other?

    The way I prefer to think about it is this: we have a long pipe, 300,000 km long, 10 cm in diameter. Inside it moves an identical tube, only with a diameter of 5 cm. The relative speed between them is said to be 1000 m/s.

    When the backs of the tubes come together, a single photon is launched along the common center. According to postulate 2 of relativity, the photon moves at the same speed relative to the 2 pipes. Since it takes exactly one second to get from end to end of each tube, and since when it reached the end of the wide tube the thin tube already protrudes 1000 meters out, it is clear that when the photon reached the end of the wide tube (exactly one second after it was launched from the common source of the 2 tubes) it was not yet reached the other end. And since it takes a second to even reach the end of the thin tube, as far as the thin tube is concerned, not a full second has yet passed when the photon has reached the end of the wide tube. For him, the pace of time is slower compared to the long tube.

    However, if we used temp clocks, the photon would leave and arrive at absolute times agreed on the 2 tubes. What's going on here? Is postulate 2 false? Do the temp clocks not measure absolute time? Or maybe there is another possibility that we haven't thought of, which allows us to leave the absolute cosmic time intact, as well as Postulate 2?

    We will take a break from digesting ideas and criticizing what I said.

  257. Israel,

    I agree with the things you say but how does that make the watch universal? A universal clock should show the same time everywhere in any system, but because different observers can disagree on the simultaneity of events this cannot happen. In the example of Jack and Jill, at the moment of the meeting Jack sees that at station 1 the clock shows 10 and Jill sees that it shows 6.4, on that we agree right? So how can there be some sort of universal clock? After all, when the question is asked what the universal clock shows at station 1 at the moment of the encounter, each viewer will pull out a different photograph, one of the cesium with 10 and the other with the cesium of 6.4, therefore assuming that the universal clock is ticking, he will also see different times in the photographs.

  258. Israel, I believe that you miss something in your statement "Physically - there was no universe or time before the bang". This is because the physical universe after the big bang behaves according to the laws of mathematics that existed even before.
    Measuring time according to the bang requires a calculation according to a logarithmic decay which gradually loses its accuracy with progress, while the stock of clock ticks maintains a constant accuracy in any given range. This may not be proof, but I wonder what William the Elder would say about it

  259. I agree. Both will agree that their personal clocks are out of sync, and there is no telling which of them is right.

    Now you have to convince them using an external clock (cosmic clock, temperature clock) that one of them's cesium clock is broken. The one whose cesium watch is broken will be honored to purchase a new cesium watch, and will honor his colleague with ice cream.

    But you are not an agent of cesium clocks, but of universe clocks. Since you are a successful agent, you managed to convince both of them to give up the cesium clocks and give up the "what time" debate and buy two universal wristwatches, and also two universal wall clocks for the kitchen.

    Did that solve the problems? After all, it all started with the fact that there was a disagreement between them about the ticking rate of the cesium clock, that is, about the ticking rate of the enzymes in their body cells, that is, about the lifetime of elementary particles in their particle accelerators. Will the cosmic clock solve their problem?

  260. Meir

    Comparing with remote clocks is a tricky thing. What about the instants: do you accept that according to the link experiment both will agree that his watch shows 10 and the season is 8? And the photographs will also show this, both from his camera and from her camera?

  261. Israel,
    You are correct in your claim, because in the above experiment the clocks that were reset at the beginning of the experiment were a clock close to Jill in the Jill system and a clock 1.8 million km away from Jack in the Jack system (the clock next to Jack was not reset at the beginning of the experiment with clock C 8). This allows Jack and Jill to meet at one point after 10 seconds according to the adjoined season and after XNUMX seconds according to the adjoined clock.
    The comparison is between the above clock next to Jill and the C2 clock next to Jack (which is 1 million km away from the C1.8 Jack clock in the Jack system).

    It fits exactly with what I wrote.

  262. Oh, math is a whole other matter. Mathematically, not only did the universe exist before the big bang - its root also existed. There were also negative universes, imaginary universes, multiple universes, a squared universe, and a logarithmic universe according to which the universe would rise or fall.

    Physically - there was no universe or time before the bang.

  263. Israel,
    What tributary are you talking about? moi? So by analogy, Yuval was not a hundred years ago but physics was and was - physics was not before the big bang but mathematics was never and will always be. The dimensions of space and time preceded the physical universe. And following the analogy: Yuval will not live forever - is the universe also a passing episode?

  264. Meir

    From the link b

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

    Thus if both Jack and Jill are at C2 as Jill and her clock C' pass C2, both will agree that the clocks look like:

    From what I understand, they are undoubtedly next to each other at zero distance. His watch says 10, hers 8. They also agree on that. My claim is that if they film the moment of meeting, both the photo from his camera and from her camera will look the same: Jack 10, Jill 8.

  265. Israel

    "When Jill passes Jack at a speed of 0.6C she will see his watch behind by 2 seconds and he will see his watch behind by 2 seconds. The photographs from each side will also show this. I understand it right?"

    This is not true. The Jill and Jack experiment begins at the moment of synchronization. The moment of synchronization is the moment when a clock in Jill's system and a clock in Jack's system are reset. Since each of them can have many clocks in the system (let's say a clock in each wagon, or let's say one clock every 150,000 kilometers), first of all it is necessary to define which of the row of clocks in each system is reset in both systems at the moment of starting the experiment. From this point on, only with regard to this single clock in the entire line of clocks in each system, the above claim will be true. The problem is that this special clock in each system meets its friend at the moment the experiment begins, and from then on they move away from each other at a speed of 0.6C, so Jill can no longer pass Jack as you wrote above, since she already passed him at the moment the experiment began .
    So it is correct to say that if this special clock that is reset in each system at the start of the experiment is the clock attached to Jill and Jack, respectively, and if each of them is equipped with a telescope that allows them to see the clock attached to their friend, then both of them will see as if the telescope clock is slower than their personal clock, After they take into account how long it took the light to get from the friend's watch to the personal telescope.

  266. jubilee

    It's a bit hard to digest, but according to the big bang theory there is no such thing as "limited to the time span that begins with the big bang". According to the theory, time did not exist before the big bang. You can talk about what Yuval did a year, ten or 30 years ago. There is no meaning in asking what Yuval did 100 years ago, or where he was. he was not.

  267. Israel,
    Please refer to the distinction between physics and mathematics. Although the temperature clock is universal, it is limited to the time span that begins with the Big Bang. Other watches may not be universal, but they are not limited to this range.

  268. jubilee
    For Einstein in 1905 there is no beginning and no end. Always was and always will be. The only thing we can do is synchronize clocks, and arbitrarily set the 0 point. According to the bang the situation is different: you cannot decide that the time now is plus or minus 30 billion years. In 1905 yes.

    Furthermore: according to the bang theory, there is no meaning in saying what was before the bang. Time did not exist before, the bang created it. In 1905, time always existed. This is also why Poincaré at the end of the 19th century was able to prove that the cosmic entropy is reversible, while according to the well-founded claim of a Technion student, even the entropy of a system that includes a number of particles much smaller than Avogadro's number is not reversible in the universe's lifetime.

  269. Something about the age of the universe
    We neglect an important distinction we must make between mathematics and physics. In mathematics, the dimensions are infinite with no beginning or end. In physics, we start from a defining event, also known as the "big bang", which occurred at some point in the space bounded within three dimensions and in the limited time within one dimension, which many signs indicate is also unidirectional. Although our existence exists in this limited physical universe, we recognize many other metaphysical dimensions. Therefore, the big bang (if indeed the assumption of its occurrence is correct) is indeed the beginning of physical space-time, but not the mathematical one and for that reason one should not look for the beginning of absolute time in it.

  270. deer

    If the two twins separated when their clocks showed 2012 and when they returned for the twin who stayed this year 2092 and for his tourist brother 2032, technically for the home twin a time later. If there are 20 twins, no one can exceed 2092. That's the upper limit.

    Technically it is also impossible to pass the age of the universe, or go back to a time less than 0. This is the heart of my argument.

  271. Israel,

    What does that mean from a technical point of view versus a point of view? The twin who went on the journey will return and is 21 years old and the twin who remains on Earth is 60 years old, how can this be interpreted in different ways? It's just like the atomic clock on the plane that was synchronized with an atomic clock on Earth and when it came back it showed that a shorter time had passed than the clock left here. This is not a matter open to interpretation. When two twins meet, not just pass each other but actually meet and are at rest in relation to each other there must be one answer to the question of how old they are.

    What do you mean by going beyond the big bang? It is true that the twin who will remain on Earth will feel that a longer time has passed than the twins who set out on a journey and returned, but if you put yourself in the shoes of one of the twins who set out, when he set out on his journey, 14 billion years have passed since the Big Bang relative to the resting system of all the twins. Then he went on a journey equipped with a watch and returned to Earth, and in all that time he measured that one more year had passed, that is, 14 billion and one years had passed since the Big Bang. From his point of view, the twin left on Earth exceeds the age of this universe because, from his point of view, 14 billion and 50 years have passed.

    The point is that everything depends on perspective, and time since the Big Bang is a poorly defined concept. If you say that time has passed in reference to the radiation system, then it is no longer something absolute because in a different reference system, a different time has passed.

    "So how do we photograph them if they are in different places?" - With the help of a telescope, then taking into account the distance the light had to travel, we will deduce when the picture was taken. Of course, this inference will bring different viewers to different conclusions. Just like what happened with Jack and Jill, she sees that the temp clock at station 1 shows 6.4 and at the same time Jack sees that it shows 10.

    I understand that it is natural to say that the age of the universe should be measured according to the radiation rest system but I don't think it is justified.

  272. Meir

    If I understood your argument correctly, when Jill passes Jack at a speed of 0.6C she will see his watch behind by 2 seconds and he will see his watch behind by 2 seconds. The photographs from each side will also show this. I understand it right?

    deer

    "After all, the twin that leaves Earth and returns is actually making a journey to the future."

    From his point of view, yes. From a technical point of view, his time is earlier than the twin remaining in the spacecraft. If there are 1000 twins, each of them will show a time earlier than the remaining twin. There is no shortening of times, only lengthening. As long as the stationary twin does not exceed the time elapsed by the bang, no twin will be able to exceed.

    The universe clock can be adjacent to the clock, but then there are no limitations on the time it shows, which can extend from minus infinity to infinity, as Einstein claimed in 1905. The heart of my argument is that this does not fit with the big bang theory, where time has a beginning and a precise current time in seconds at every point in the universe.

    "Two universe clocks in different places will be able to show different time in a system that is not the rest system of the radiation source."

    So how do we photograph them if they are in different places?

    A universe clock that adjusts to a transmitter whose speed is 0 relative to radiation, will show the same time as a temp clock (no?), but is more convenient to work with.

  273. Israel,

    The clock will not be able to show a negative time, but it will be able to tick back as long as the time remains positive, in any case, in my opinion, this is a necessary conclusion if the radiation is indeed red. You ask if the clock can show 16 billion years into the future. Why not? After all, the twin that leaves Earth and returns is actually making a journey to the future.

    Regarding the universe clock. First of all, I don't understand what is absolute about it, after all, such a clock can be built for any system (not attached to a temp clock, but to a cesium clock in a certain system), which means that there is no special system, which is exactly what Einstein said. In the meantime, I don't see a way in which such clocks will show different things when they pass each other, but two universe clocks in different places will be able to show different time in a system that is not the rest system of the radiation source.

  274. Meir.

    You are right, of course, if you assume that there is no cumulative gap between Jill's cc and temp clocks as has been claimed here before, and both of her clocks always show the same time. If you agree on this point, and say you will somehow be convinced that a photo of 2 temp clocks shows the same time on both, are we able to agree that there is no time dilation in the Jack and Jill example?

  275. deer

    A temp clock measures the temperature of the universe and converts it to time according to Friedman's formula:
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/expand.html#c3

    Time 0 means infinite temperature. A time of minus a billion years means a billion years before the big bang. A time of 30 billion years means over 16 billion years in the future. Do you think it is possible within the limits of our discussions?

    A universe clock works in the following way: it receives a signal with a certain number of seconds. (This is the signal sent by the transmitter on KDA, assuming that the transmitter is stationary relative to the radiation. The number is the number of seconds from the bang according to the temperature clock in KDA, which as mentioned is stationary relative to radiation}. According to the strength of the signal, it calculates the distance to the source (KDA). If the signal is biased to blue or red (all data in the clock computer) it weighs everything necessary to arrive at a single output: a number expressing the number of seconds that have passed since the bang in the clock system.

    Its advantage: unidirectional doppler (only from the direction of the east) and computational convenience for our discussions.

    If it seems to you that two universe clocks passing each other can show different time in a photograph, give an example.

  276. Israel,

    If the two trains are traveling at the same speed, there is no way that their clocks are out of sync. It is possible that on train A they will call the first hour on the timetable 0, and on train B they will read the same hour XNUMX, but the clocks of these two trains tick at the same rate, so the discrepancy between their readings requires at most a conversion calculator.

    Since Jack and Jill are not arguing about who is right and each of them knows that the cosmic time is the one shown by the cesium clock next to him, and also knows that his friend's time measurements show as if his own clock is lagging behind, what will a cosmic clock add to the pastoralism that prevails between them? Will the knowledge of a cosmic clock cause short-lived particles that exhibit relativistic time dilation in particle accelerators to change the show?

  277. Israel,

    First, in my opinion, there are no logical contradictions in "negative time" or "stasis-evaporation". Regarding the negative time, a temp clock does not necessarily measure the elapsed time in the system it is in, at least not when the system is in acceleration. Let's say you get a year older and the clock shows minus half a year, so what? You can build a clock that under certain conditions will tick back, only then it won't be a clock anymore, so there won't be a contradiction, because it's not like you went back in time.

    Regarding the stagnation and evaporation of the spaceship. I don't see a contradiction here either. So the spacecraft will heat up on one side and cool down on the other, so what? That's also considering that in any case her temperature is close to zero, yes she doesn't have much to cool down, but to warm up? There is no limit. The point is that there is no linearity here, a deviation to the blue will heat much more than a deviation to the red will cool and then on average the spacecraft will heat up and evaporate.

    It is difficult for me to direct you to a specific source about radiation, I found quite a few discussions and forums on Google that dealt with it, but they did not delve into the subject, also you have the Doppler formulas that show that there is a multiplication by a factor smaller than 1 of the new frequency, that is, the frequency is small and therefore the wavelength increases And there is a general redshift.

    I didn't really understand how the clock in your Absolute works. After all, each observer will measure a different distance between him and the Earth and will therefore conclude about a different time from the other when the signal was actually transmitted, and will therefore conclude about a different time shown by the absolute clock at the moment of the encounter, and hence the clock is not really absolute. You talk as if Jill has to take into account relativistic effects when she measures the distance between herself and the Earth and tell herself that the real distance is different, but the whole point is that there is no real distance, and any experiment that Jill performs will show a different distance than any experiment that Jack will perform

  278. , Meir

    Because of this, Jill's scrap clock will show the same time as the temp clock that accompanies her from the start of the experiment.

    It is said that another train, a different joke altogether, is traveling close to Jill at the same speed. As far as the 2 trains are concerned, they are generally at rest. Their passengers move from train to train without problems. The problem is that the clocks of the second train are not at all synchronized with the first, and show a completely different time. According to you, the two temp clocks, the one on train A and the one on train B, show different times even though they are on one big ramp.

    Therefore, if according to you the scrap clock shows the same time as the temp clock next to it, when it is assembled it is faced with a dilemma: should it show the time of train A or train B? Note that this has nothing to do with synchronization, because train B is not related to A at all.

    "If you can tolerate the idea that system A ages faster than system B, even though they both agree on the time that has passed since the bang, at the beginning and at the end of the experiment, why is this intolerable for you in an inertial system?"

    Surprisingly, the answer is found in your next response: "the energy density per unit of space is higher". We will get to this after we solve the problem of times in inertial systems.

    "Cosmic radiation comes from all directions. Therefore, to the extent that the temperature clock measures a deviation to the blue in the 180 degree sector, it will measure a deviation to the red in the opposite sector."

    At this point I got off temp watches. We have something better: universe clocks. The time in temp clocks is the same as that of universe clocks which are stationary with respect to radiation, and the doppler in universes is unidirectional.

  279. Israel and Zvi,

    I'm not really in the discussion about the doppler, but have you considered these points:

    1) The cosmic radiation comes from all directions. Therefore, as the temperature clock measures a blue shift in the 180 degree sector, it will measure a red shift in the opposite sector.

    2) A temperature clock measures not only wavelengths but also energy density (amount of photons in the relevant wavelength distribution, per unit of space). Since the universe is in motion relative to a temperature clock that measures anisotropic background radiation, a Lorentz contraction applies to the universe, meaning the energy density per unit space is higher.

  280. Israel,
    "Option 2 is the correct one."
    - So in the elaborate experiment you suggested, the temperature clock next to Jill is two million years behind Jack's.

    "Shortly before Jill meets Jack, she assembles another temp clock from scraps. This clock will automatically adjust to the time of its brother, the temp clock next to it. agree? Yes No."
    – Yes, the scrap clock will indicate the time interval between the bang event and the temperature sampling event, two events that are local for Jill, but not local for Jack since the temp sampling by Jill's clock is done at a different location From the position where Jill was at the beginning of the experiment. Because of this, Jill's scrap watch will show the same time as the temp watch accompanying her from the start of the experiment.

    "How is it possible that in the Boeing experiment one cesium clock aged more than the other, if both agree on the temperature of the CBR at the beginning and end of the experiment?"

    "The Boeing experiment is in accelerated systems. Right now we are in inertial systems."
    If you can tolerate the idea that system A ages faster than system B even though they both agree on the time that has passed since the bang, at the beginning and at the end of the experiment, why is this intolerable for you in an inertial system? After all, the theory of relativity does not claim that the slowing down of time causes a physical change, but only a difference in the results between measurements made from systems that are in relative motion. If so, as long as the experiment amounts to measurements and not a meeting over a cup of coffee to compare results, what's the big deal?
    And even if it is a meeting over a cup of coffee, what is good and what is pleasant. After all, symmetry requires agreement in the end.

  281. On second thought (quick, eh?) I realized why he might have dismissed the idea: the limits of universe clocks when considering the big bang theory are 0 to 13.7 billion years. According to knowledge in 1905 - minus infinity to infinity. Maybe the integral just won't converge in 1905.

  282. A small addition to the argument above: unlike the big bang theory and the temperature of the universe that Einstein could not have known about in 1905, all the data of universe clocks were visible to him then, and the chances that he did not think of a similar argument are zero. I have a mistake, just need to find where.

  283. deer

    "If you move relative to the radiation, then you will see it red-shifted, which means it indicates a lower temperature, which means a later time. If you slow down to a stop in relation to the radiation, you will see radiation with a lower wavelength, which means a higher temperature, which means the temperature clock will tick back."

    It's hard for me to understand why. I think the opposite is true. According to the logic above, if we move relative to the radiation we measure lower temperatures, za future. Also collides with vaporizing spaceships that can each be seen as a collection of points. If each point heats up individually, so does their total.

    It seems to me that I do not know enough about the subject of radiation, and especially movement relative to it, even though I searched a lot. Can I have a link?

    ", regarding the absolute clock. Does he take into account that different observers will measure a different distance between them and the Earth even if they are in exactly the same place?"

    I try to stay away from measurements that are not immediate. The absolute clock only measures the strength of the signal, the Doppler (one-sided in the case in question) and what is the signal carried with the signal (number of seconds that have passed since the clock started ticking). It is clear in my opinion that if the clock is at rest relative to the source of the signal (as in DHA), the Doppler is equal to 0. Therefore, this case is reduced to the example of the attack in Tizenbi, and two observers, let's say twins, can agree on a certain time and even coordinate an attack. This is in contrast to the conclusions of relativity, where each twin has its own completely valid time and no twin has a superior time. Here time is absolute.

    If the clocks are in relative motion and on the same line connecting them with the Earth, in my opinion it is possible to deduce the time of a stationary clock at that point using Doppler, and therefore both clocks will show the same time. Definitely possible if the relative distance needs to be weighted. No?

    To avoid logical contradictions (a time of 30 billion years, negative time) we can at this stage calibrate this cosmic Greenwich time to the time that has passed since the bang, and replace the temperature clocks with universe clocks. This will make the calculations easier, avoid contradictions (frozen and steamed spaceships), and will not detract from the essence of the argument. Since universe clocks will always show the same time as the old temp clocks, the latter can be dispensed with. It's possible that as I develop the idea, I'll find some problem, but for now I think it's better to switch to universe clocks.

    The other advantage is that we touch the heart of the problem: synchronization by electromagnetic means only. After all, the whole relationship started from there. It seems to me a promising direction, I just hope that it will also be fulfilled.

  284. And the Boeing experiment:
    When the clocks went back and met it became clear that a mistake had been made. The two clocks should have lagged one relative to the other, but in reality it turned out that only one lagged relative to the other while the other advanced relative to the first.
    We have a great country

  285. It's that simple! How did I not think of this before?
    Say, a token falls. He falls and falls. Inside his hole sits Jake with a camera and a watch and all the kidback...
    abandoned. I got into trouble.

    The speed of light does not depend on the movement of the cannon that shoots it or of the target that hits it in the face. The momentum of the photons is not calculated by mass, because they do not carry such a thing in their wallet. The photons move according to what the medium determines. That is, not the source, not the target, not even the photons themselves determine the speed, but the medium is the one that decides.
    Let's start a thin taboula (there is also such a salad, with dietary semolina), as if we haven't heard of Yuval's model and we don't know how the tavech works (the strict ones will also add that we don't know if there is a tavech at all, but come on, really...). We will define a factor that determines the speed that is mediated from edge to wave. We will have a moment of comparison with another well-known medium, the bird of heaven (the one who conducts the voice). The name of the factor is known - "density". We will cast it on our mysterious medium and arbitrarily decide, for now, that the speed of light is determined by the density of the medium. Light travels at a constant speed as long as the density of the medium is constant. Now we will examine what happens to the density of the medium in the vicinity of a body in motion. Since the speed of light changes and since we do not know of any other factor for the speed changes other than the changes in the density of the medium, then the changes in the speed of the body resulted in the changes in the density of the medium.
    As mentioned, the assumption that this is the density of the medium (if there is a medium at all) is arbitrary. But since she hunted Ockham's two birds with one assumption, I would say with all due modesty that you should look for the coin under that lantern.

  286. Israel,

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/reldop2.html
    In the above link you can see the difference between relativistic and normal Doppler. What happens when the person moving relative to the radiation looks to the left? That is, in a direction perpendicular to the movement? In my opinion it will see the original redshifted radiation, i.e. just the general effect of relativistic doppler. If the person calculates the time according to this temperature, then in my opinion the problem will be solved.

    If you are moving relative to the radiation then you will see it shifted to the red, meaning it indicates a lower temp, meaning a later time. If you slow down to a stop in relation to the radiation, you will see radiation with a lower wavelength, which means a higher temperature, which means the temperature clock will tick back.

    The problem with a simple Kelvin thermometer is what exactly is it supposed to measure? If in front of you the radiation is deflected to blue and behind you to red then what exactly is measured at the point in the middle? average? In such a case, a Kelvin thermometer will satisfy us and will indeed measure a different temperature in each system (it will measure a lower temperature in the propulsion system in relation to radiation). This does not contradict what you wrote in the past about the spacecraft evaporating because that is in total what was measured in a point spacecraft and not in a real spacecraft.

    Regarding the absolute watch. Does he take into account that different observers will measure a different distance between them and the Earth even if they are in exactly the same place?

  287. Light moves at the same speed relative to each system, however each meter will measure a different wavelength for the exact same photon. Herein lies the key to the solution
    How long does it take for a token to fall?

  288. Meir

    "Now, one of the two, either Jack and Jill have agreed in advance how often a temperature sampling will take place and display it as the time elapsed since the bang, or the temperature clocks themselves perform a temperature sampling and display at the fastest rate they are capable of."

    Option 2 is correct.

    It is true that you asked me to answer you, but it seems to me that perhaps the improvement in the experiment below will clarify my idea easily.

    Let's refine the experiment so that instead of 2 years, the time difference between the clocks of the 2rd Jack and Jill clocks is XNUMX million years. Do you think it is possible? Yes No.

    Shortly before Jill meets Jack, she scraps together another temp watch. This clock will automatically adjust to the time of its brother, the temp clock next to it. agree? Yes No.

    If we agree here, we can continue.

    "How is it possible that in the Boeing experiment one cesium clock aged more than the other, if both agree on the temperature of the CBR at the beginning and end of the experiment?"

    The Boeing experiment is in accelerated systems. We are currently in inertial systems. I believe I have an explanation, but this is alternative physics. Cow cow, if we prove that there is no time dilation in inertial systems, or if I am convinced that it exists, we will be sued.

  289. deer

    "A person who is in motion relative to the radiation and slows his speed relative to it will see the temperature rise"

    According to my understanding, only with acceleration relative to radiation will the temperature rise. She will go down slowly. At 0 the lowest temperature. Just like in motion relative to water.

    Don't forget that temp clocks include a doppler meter and a computer that weights the doppler into the output of a close-to-watch clock relative to the radiation. As the stationary clock is always ticking forward, so are temp clocks.

    I still haven't received an unequivocal answer what will happen if we measure with a simple Kelvin thermometer. If he measures
    The same temperature as the radiation, we can dispense with the doppler meter altogether.

    According to your suggestion, I am now trying to calculate what would happen if we built an alternative system to radiation that measures absolute time. In my opinion, this can be done using the system I described in:

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/comment-page-41/#comment-332764

    See the letter in English to Gil Traybitsch from the Particle Accelerator Laboratory at UCLA

    I have no doubt that the Doppler is a critical point. In Einstein's original article, he starts from the assumption that light moves at the same speed relative to each system, but does not address the fact that each meter will measure a different wavelength for the exact same photon. Maybe here is the solution.

  290. deer,

    All the slowing down of time according to the theory of relativity is based on the fact that clocks are synchronized at the beginning of the experiment and from then on everyone lives with their own clocks.

    Therefore, if you offer to photograph the radiation, and to meet with the photographs at the end, then there are only two options:

    Option A:
    Jack and Jill agree in advance to photograph the radiation every 10 seconds according to the cesium clock attached to each of them, or will the symmetry between them be preserved at the moment of the meeting, and we ask if it is possible? After all, each of them constantly saw his friend's watch lagging behind for the entire time from the beginning of the flight to the end, and also saw his friend's photos taken at a slower rate than his own photography rate (the twin paradox, and the temperature clocks do not increase or decrease the size of the paradox)

    Option B:
    Jack and Jill decide on a trick: a row of cams is installed on each train so that every moment two parallel cams touch each other, a local camera is activated that captures the cosmic radiation.
    According to this option, the theory of relativity maintains its dignity because it is not a question of synchronization at the beginning of the experiment, following which a gradually increasing relative slowing of the clocks of the friend is expected, but of synchronization at every moment. Every time the movers activate the camera, the experiment starts over.

  291. Meyer,

    What will happen if we replace the temperature clocks with photographs of the radiation? That is, instead of a clock that will calculate the time based on the radiation it picks up, Jack and Jill will simply "photograph" the radiation at the moment of their encounter. After that they will meet again and compare the photographs, what will they see? If they see the same photo then they will have to agree on the time that has passed since the big bang at the moment of meeting. Therefore I argue that the only way there would not be a contradiction is if the photographs of the radiation were different, even after taking into account the blue and red shifts in the directions parallel to the motion.

  292. Israel,
    If you start from the premise that the twin paradox has a solution within the theory of relativity, which allows for age differences between twins, and on this you ask how it is possible for one twin to have aged more than the other while they both agree on the age of the universe at the beginning and end of the experiment,
    Perhaps we will first answer the question of how it is possible that in the Boeing experiment one cesium clock aged more than its friend, if both agree on the temperature of the CBR at the beginning and at the end of the experiment?

  293. Israel,

    In the Jack and Jill experiment, clock c is attached to Jill and measures local time differences for Jill, and clock c2 is attached to Jack and measures local time differences for Jack.

    We will attach to these clocks temperature clocks that measure local time differences respectively. Clock 'tm will measure a local time difference (time from the bang to the moment of measurement) for Jill, and clock tm2 will measure a local time difference (time from the bang to the moment of measurement) for Jack. As in the original Jack and Jill experiment, the temperature clocks of Jack and Jill managed to synchronize 10 seconds according to Jack's clock and 8 seconds according to Jill's clock before the two pairs of clocks met at the same point in space.

    Now, one of the two, either Jack and Jill agreed in advance how often a temperature sample would be taken and displayed as elapsed time since the bang, or the temperature clocks themselves sample and display temperature at the fastest rate they can.

    I argue that in both cases, since the fast processor in Jack's temperature clock operates at 4Ghz in Jack's system, then in Jack's system Jill's processor operates at a rate of 3.2Ghz, and therefore at the square meeting point between the two pairs of clocks a 'tm clock of Jill will display the time corresponding to the temperature sampled 2 seconds before the temperature whose corresponding time is now displayed by Jack's tm2 clock is sampled. This would be true either because Jack's temperature clock samples the temperature once per second as agreed, but Jack only receives samples from Jill once every 1.25 seconds because she is running on the cesium clock she has (which is retarded for Jack), or because That Jill's temperature clock is not fast enough for Jack's taste and therefore lags in displaying the samples even though he performs the temperature samples and displaying the time for them at the fastest possible rate, which is only 3.2Ghz for a Gel clock in Jack's system.

    And now, before you send me off for more experiments, please explain to me what I'm doing wrong with regard to the original Jack and Jill experiment plus the aforementioned temperature clocks.

  294. Israel,

    Take into account that if the radiation temp does change when you move relative to it then situations will be created where temp clocks tick back. For example, in the case where a person who is in motion relative to the radiation and slows down his speed relative to it, he will see the temperature rise, or am I confused?

  295. Meir

    "I didn't understand what you wanted to prove from a long drive at low speed. If at the end of the journey there is a meeting, then we are in the twin paradox."

    A temp clock is just a thermometer connected to a computer. Therefore, it has nothing to do with how long the train traveled, the only question is what the temperature was at the time of the meeting.

    The assumption is (correct me if I'm wrong) that when the two clocks meet the temperature is almost the same, so the time shown by the clocks is also almost the same time. Otherwise we will reach the absurd. The train rattles its wheels into the station at a speed of 5 km/h, the spectators on the platform are wrapped in coats, but the passengers on the train are sweating from the heat, because the train actually traveled for 12 billion years and there is a huge gap between its clocks and the clocks on the platform, and because according to your claim, the clocks on the train show the At the same time, the temp clock shows the time from 7 billion years ago when the universe was much warmer.

    The twin paradox also has a problem if temp clocks are used, because there is no doubt that when the twins are together, their temp clocks show the same time, unlike the clocks. This is also true in the case of 1000 different twins, each of whom traveled at different speeds and experienced different accelerations: when they all meet at Mama Lachmin's on Shabbat, each of them will have a different time on their clocks, but they will all see the same time on their temp clocks (after all, they all measure the the same temperature, and the system is stationary). This point alone proves that the time between the temp and hr clocks are different. It also proves that the time of the temp clocks is absolute, while the clock time is relative.

  296. Israel,

    I didn't understand what you wanted to prove from a long drive at low speed. If at the end of the trip there is a meeting, then we are in the twin paradox.

    But instead of examples let's go back to the principles for a moment. The theory of relativity is based on certain measurement principles. You can't prove anything for or against relativity before you've defined what measurement principles each component in your experimental system answers to.

    The slowing down of time according to the theory of relativity concerns time measurements that are in situ for observer A and therefore necessarily not in situ for observer B if both observers are in relative motion.

    Local time measurement is the measurement of the time difference between two local events. Non-local time measurement is the measurement of time difference between two events using two synchronized clocks that are far apart. A local time measurement between two world events will show a lower reading than a non-local time measurement for the same two events.

    In light of this brief introduction, if you want to claim a flaw in the theory of relativity or its incompatibility with another theory, you must show how a temperature clock makes it possible to break the above assumptions of the theory of relativity. For this purpose, you must propose a system in which the temperature clock measures a local time difference between two events in system A, two other temperature clocks measure a non-local time difference for the same two events in system B, and despite this there is no difference in the time difference measured in the two systems.

    Alternatively, you must show that for two observers in relative motion the measurement of the time difference between two events using a temperature clock is always local.

    In order to prove one of these two, you cannot avoid the need to define what your temperature clock does and when, between which two events it measures a time difference in each of the systems, does the measurement of the time difference between these two events occur in one place in space and then can be done with a single temperature clock , or it occurs in two separate places in space and in this case there is no choice but to perform it using two remote and synchronized temperature clocks.

    Now for a slightly different matter:
    Is it clear to you that according to the theory of relativity two observers in relative motion do not agree on the simultaneity of events? For example: suppose that two synchronized clocks in system A at a distance of one meter from each other emit a light pulse at the same time, and suppose that system B is equipped with a strip along which a line of photodetectors is installed in such a way that the detectors are at a micrometer distance above the light source in the clocks of system A that emit the light pulses. Is it clear to you that according to the theory of relativity, even though the light pulses are emitted simultaneously according to system A clocks, they will be received by system B detectors with a time difference? That is, two simultaneous events for an observer in system A are not simultaneous for an observer in system B, even when they are measured by detectors located in system B at zero distance from the event in system A?

    I don't see how it is possible to discuss the experiment before it was defined according to the above principles.

  297. Thank you, Zvi.

    The relativistic Doppler undoubtedly sheds new light on the problem of light. Let me study the subject a bit, I want to see how it works out with everything else, and my time is a bit short because of the pace of events in Israel (relationships are reversed at their best). This may very well be the solution to the problem.

  298. Israel,
    No matter how I try to arrange the temperature clocks I reach contradictions. The only way that does not lead to contradictions if the theory of relativity is when temperature clocks show the same time as a cesium clock next to them. Then I remembered that in the relativistic Doppler effect, in contrast to the normal Doppler effect, there is a general shift to the blue due to the narrowing of space. If the temperature clock calculates the time according to the temperature of the blue deflected radiation it will show a shorter time. Doesn't that solve our problem?

  299. Understands the theory, but is looking for a real and existing device, including an accurate presentation.

  300. Probably an excellent bird. Add to that KLB and local patriotism, and the result is inevitable.

    I will try to perfect the device I suggested and expand on the explanation:
    Place two light sources next to each other. At some distance from them place a target. At another distance put another goal (the other goal is refinement). One of the light sources will give a constant stable signal. The second will give signals at different frequencies according to the experimenter's choice. The image that will be obtained in the goals is a struggle. Since the targets are not equidistant from the light sources, the interference will be different. This will be expressed in different illuminance intensities. Since the frequency of the carrier wave (the constant light) is known, as well as the frequency of the modulating waves, a device must be tested to know how much time has passed between the moment the light hits the first target and the moment it hits the second target.

  301. Neither the timid learn nor the diligent teach. I retire for a light siesta. Along the way I will try to dream up a simpler explanation.

    What I suggested is studied in every vocational high school. What high school did you go to?

  302. I did not understand anything. Ghost is right. Not how the light travels, not how its speed is the same for every meter, not how its speed results from the constants of electricity and magnetism, not what equipment to use in the experiment.

    After all, how will you build the facility? Where do you get the equipment? How will you measure the modulation? It doesn't move along with the beam at the speed of light? Why would he tune in at this particular point?

    Better already with an oscilloscope, but they are too slow for what I want.

  303. Leave the "average particle speed". The particles in my model are not moving anywhere. They merely oscillate in place, vibrate, at most move a distance on the order of a particle's diameter. Practically, they are completely static and therefore the entire universe is a stationary system.
    Those who travel great distances are not the particles. The baryonic matter is not the particles themselves but their spatial arrangement. Also photons are not particles but bits of space empty of particles.
    The density in which the particles are arranged dictates the speed of light and the speed of movement of baryonic matter. Therefore, from the point of view of a baryonic body, the movement of light towards or away from it is always at a constant speed. But from the point of view of the particles, the movement of light is at different speeds.

    Get from me for free a sweeping agreement to the claim that there is no extension of time.

    My idea for testing the arrival time of an electromagnetic signal is based on interference. Transmit a fixed beam to some point and send to that point several signals at different frequencies. Measure the amplitude of the modulated signals at the meeting point and make appropriate calculations on the results.

  304. Maxwell's equations simply yield C without any specific frame of reference. The way he arrived at them is through hydrodynamic calculations, fluids, vortices, zebras, literally La Sage and the particles.

    Everyone including Maxwell assumed that C is relative to the site. However, this is not required by the equations, and Einstein developed relativity through the extension of Maxwell's equations to a restless system.

    Your model implies a rest system: the average speed of the particles. That's why I don't see how you can derive from it the same speed of light for every meter.

    In my experiment I am trying to send a targeted radio signal and measure its arrival time with great accuracy. Let's go into the details if we come to an agreement that there is no time dilation in an inertial system. Better convince me she exists, no?

  305. Wonderfully beautiful 🙂

    The solution to your first question requires a graphical description: baryonic matter is not a solid unit but a "colony" of mobile particles. Particles join and particles leave non-stop. Only a central area within the colony is dense enough to be seen as a solid body and gain recognition as a thuggish body. But the environment outside it is also dense enough to create its mass and the gravity around it. The motion of a bully body is simulated motion. The amount of particles joining it on one side is greater than the amount of particles joining it on the other side and then it disintegrates in the sparse area and is rebuilt in the dense area. The speed of its progress is characteristic of the density of the particles that make it up and its environment. This density is inversely proportional to the speed of light passing through them. If, by analogy, the particles are so dense that it is impossible to thread a photon between them, let's imagine the speed of light is zero, then the progress of the baryonic body is maximum. On the other hand, the lower the density, let's say the speed of the chasing light is higher, the speed of the bully's escape also increases.

    I don't remember how it was deduced from Maxwell's model that the speed of light is constant and the same for every measurer. I thought this was a conclusion they reached only following their experiments. Maybe I didn't understand your question. The speed of light was already known in Maxwell's time. He just found that it is also the speed of the magnetic wave, and this is one of the things that led to the conclusion that the two radiations are actually two faces of the same radiation. I'm not very strong in history. Please help me get things straight.

    A certain rest system? Each partial volume of physical space is one rest system. You can also define the entire universe as a single rest system if you want to perform an experiment that requires it. I'm not sure what you're after. Maybe my private jetlag also plays some role here...

    PS, you didn't tell me about the experiment for which you need a time measurement on the order of Picoshania. I have some ideas, but I can't tell how relevant they are

  306. A great deal in Israel for those on a budget. Everything is open all night, everyone is out, kibbutz, action, the pool of the Ma'aleh Ha'amish, nibbling at the roots, not like sleepy Los Angeles.

    Well, we'll see how we talk in two weeks..

    Meir Your article is undoubtedly enlightening. Fact: I tried several times to open the PDF and the whole computer started flashing: open tab, open tab. Maybe I can do it on another computer.

    Physics.

    Yuval, how do you manage to get the same speed of light for every meter in your model? Because if not, what's wrong with the Maxwell model? Is it possible for you to derive the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism as with him?

    And what does "there is no specific rest system" mean? If, as you say, "take the average of the movement of all the particles", then this average gives you a defined rest system: the earth in the case of a calm ocean or windless air, the plane in the case of an airplane. But light moves at one speed relative to each meter, so how does it work in your model?

    Meir, you write "both the temperature clocks and the conventional clocks in the opposite train will advance at the same rate" I will try to show you why this is impossible. Put a temp clock next to a XNUMX hour clock on the light rail in Jerusalem and let them travel the amount of time it took to approve and build the light rail. We'll call them Jill's system. There is no fundamental difference here. Although the speed is much lower than the speed of the original Jill, the duration of the trip is much longer, so when the train reaches the patient Jack who is waiting for her, the difference between his and her clocks can reach several minutes.

    Since Jack's temp and temp clocks always show the same time, there is a gap of a few minutes between Jack's temp clock and Jill's temp clock. If, as you say, the time of Jill's temp clock was equal to that of Jill's XNUMX's clock, then there would have been a difference of a few minutes between Jack's temp clock and Jill's temp clock even at this low speed. However, at the moment of the meeting, the two clocks measure the same temperature, and the speed between them is so low that there is almost no Doppler. So it turns out that both show almost the same time, maybe a few picoseconds difference, and that's without even considering the Doppler that brings them to the exact same time.

    The conclusion is that, as Tzvi said, the only system in which there is no cumulative difference between temp clocks and clocks is the "resting" system of radiation.

    R.H. He proposed to place a transmitter that would transmit the time to the entire universe, thus creating an alternative absolute time system to the radiation temperature. According to David Israel's calculations, this is exactly what will happen: if we build such a cosmic clock that will weigh the strength of the signal with the Doppler, and place it next to the CZ clock, then in a system that is at rest relative to the transmitter (equivalent to Jack at rest relative to radiation) there will be no Doppler at all, And both watches will always show the same time.

    In a system that moves relative to the transmitter, there will be a difference between the clocks, and this is of course provided that there is at all a lengthening of times in non-accelerated systems.

    Be that as it may, two such "universal clocks" will see the same time in a common photograph, and it does not matter what their relative speed is.

    So is it possible to give up the temp clocks and replace them with YK clocks? The answer is negative, and an explanation will be provided if requested.

    3.33 – a good time to finish.

  307. Israel,

    I claim that both the temperature clocks and the conventional clocks on the opposing train will advance at the same rate, and therefore the photographic film will show the same reading in each frame, which according to the theory of relativity will lag behind an increasing lag from frame to frame compared to the clocks of the train in which the camera is installed.
    Comparing the photographic films we will get identical and opposite results. As we know, in order to allow a comparison, it is necessary to first solve the twin paradox (or other paradoxes arising from the theory of relativity). According to the twin paradox, symmetry requires that the photographic films be identical in reverse. Therefore, the paradox must be resolved in one of two ways: either by a calculation that contradicts the prediction of the slowing down of time arising from the theory of repulsion (to date this prediction has not been tested under symmetry conditions), or by a calculation that shows that stopping the trains for the purpose of comparison causes the opposite train to travel into the future.
    I can suggest a thought experiment where symmetry is maintained by having the trains travel in opposite directions on a circular track. In each stop, each train leaves a copy of the photographic film on a shelf placed between the rails, and collects from the shelf the copy left by the other train.
    Comparing the photo films on each train will show symmetry. The pair of self-clocks ticks at a uniform rate, and the pair of counter-clocks ticks at a slow rate. To the question of how it is possible that two different temperatures are apparently measured at the same point in space, my answer is that from the point of view of an observer of one train, the other train is backward in time, and therefore the temperature samples performed there are from an earlier time. As for the question of how it is possible to replace the entire coffee film, with an opposing train that is in the past, my answer is that since the track is in relative motion from the perspective of the second train, the second train sees its scope as if it is shorter, and therefore it is sufficient to complete a round in synchronization with the opposing train despite the slowing down of times .
    In short, my claim is that all the claims should be directed to the theory of relativity and the paradoxes it produces, but regarding the temperature clocks I claim that they are no different from a conventional clock for the reason that they do not measure proper-time, which by definition is a local measurement. As soon as, from the observer's point of view, the temperature sampling and the display of the time on the opposite train do not occur at the same point in space, it is no longer a local time measurement.

    The article about the square of the distances is actually about the Inverse square ROOT law
    http://vixra.org/abs/1205.0066
    And he closes a circle with the article about inertia.

  308. Something in the style of the ocean or the air ocean?
    Well, so be it

    Doesn't this require a preferred rest system in an infinite universe?
    It requires a rest system. But if we stick to the ocean analogy, then the universe is not infinite. I make a distinction between physical space and mathematical space. There is infinity in mathematics, but not sure in physics either. Instead of "infinite" I prefer the term "unlimited", to say that at any given moment it is finite but can expand. Coincidentally or not, this fits the description of the physical universe as indicated by the big bang theory.

    Why exactly this?
    There is no specific one. We define the limits of the space in which we conduct the experiments, and treat everything within it as the rest system (the unit).

  309. Something like the ocean or the air ocean?

    Doesn't that require a preferred rest system in an infinite universe? Why this one?

  310. Israel! What is this retreat? No more relationships.
    But if you insist on being relative to something, then take the average movement of all the particles (in the entire universe or in a limited area - it doesn't matter) as a stationary system to which everything is related.

  311. R. H.,
    I'm bad at mixing jokes.
    There was an incalculable love. His teacher would tell him you're a loser, you have no future. After many years the teacher meets the lover and he is so-so rich.
    - How do you become rich, you love?
    - I take ten percent
    - What is ten percent? You don't know arithmetic
    - I will tell you. I buy goods for ten shekels and sell for twenty. I have ten percent left in my hand

  312. "Measurement equipment of signal arrival in picoseconds". If I understood correctly, then I think I found a way to measure such a thing. But so that I know if I understood correctly, remind me, please, what experiment you are planning.

  313. R.H. Come on! Did they take off 20 percent from Zatumar? Gold only 4 instead of 24?

    Israel, thank you ♥ finally 🙂 Avira de Corridor Jerusalem from Kinisa to Proproportion 😛

    Simply, the medium that transmits the light needs to be well defined. The mediator in my vision consists of two different entities that are integrated with each other. I avoid the use of the name "Ether", because it refers to only one entity. One component is made of solid particles that are in random self-motion. The second component is empty bits of space. All physics is the interplay between these two elements. The story is long, and I have already tried to present it here before without much success. In essence, the particles are responsible for what we call "mass" and the empty space between them is responsible for "energy". At a low density of particles what we know as "dark matter" is obtained and at a high density the baryonic matter. The movement of particles from place to place is simultaneously a counter movement of pieces of empty space. The higher the density of the particles, the more limited their random movement and therefore the movement of pieces of empty space is also limited. Without going into exhaustive explanations at the moment, the pieces of empty space are identified with photons, and from this it can already be understood that an increase in the density of particles slows down the speed of light. When baryonic matter (eg a proton) is in motion, the density of particles in the region to which it is moving is higher than the density of particles in the opposite direction. Because of this, light moving towards it will slow down and light chasing after it will speed up.
    It was on the tip of the fork. To understand how to arrive at this model, you have to start from absolute "nothing" and develop things mathematically. Anyone interested?

  314. Israel,
    True, each ship has its own time, but they can coordinate an attack according to a third system which could be radiation, an external clock or anything physical that measures time and is not related to spacecraft.

    This is similar to two people with broken watches who change their pace according to the pace of the people walking. Despite this, the two people can schedule a meeting according to the clock in the city hall tower.

    So I still don't understand where the contradiction is.

    A Nobel is no longer worth it. Take off 20% of the prize.

  315. I think it's more for the Israeli villains (loosely).

    Why don't you find equipment to measure the arrival of a signal in picoseconds?

    Or alternatively, explain what is the problem with Einstein's definition of instantaneousness? What is the explanation for the results of the m-m experiment? Can it be explained through the site? how?

    PA (alternative physics) is allowed.

  316. there is,
    Despite how I may sound, know that I have a lot of respect for you and the effort you put in.
    Thanks to Einstein and his genius we have come a long way. His genius is not in the calculations, because Lorenz had already done them, but in a very simple step. Instead of trying to understand how a certain strange phenomenon reconciles with common sense, he decided to bypass the hurdle and move on. So it is true that we got Paradoxchick, who has since been joined by several others, but thanks to that detour we have come a long way. Now all that remains is to add one more parameter to the formulas, one that will preserve the achievements and also solve the paradoxes. This is not a new patent. After all, relativity is also just adding a parameter to a previous physical theory. Who knows, maybe thanks to your tireless efforts you will be able to add a line to the list of Israeli novelists?

  317. R.H.

    Get a fix. In the event that you described the attack will be simultaneous. I am not saying that radiation is the only synchronized system. Anyway, according to Tizenby's definition, there are no radio signals there. And according to relativity, each ship has its own private time which is absolutely acceptable, which I do not agree with (in fact, it seems to me that neither do you. If you don't believe it, try to answer my previous question: Why does Aliba d'Einstein time dilation exist?).

  318. Meir

    Even at relativistic speed, the photographs will still show a clear picture. The question is of course what. But it seems to me that we should synchronize positions.

    Your argument, as I understood it, is that the seven times of the meeting, the temp clocks will show different times. This will be reflected in the photos. Can you clarify what you mean? If for example the photo from Jack's spaceship shows: Temp Jack 10, what will he see as Temp Jill? And what will the photo of the two watches from Jill's space show?

    Could you also send me a link to the square of distances article?

    jubilee

    It's not entirely clear to me that I'm right, so I'm just asking questions. It is quite possible that I have a mistake, this is the reason for the discussion.

    The weighted damage of the annual trip to Israel is estimated at $15,000.

  319. B,
    What you write is one of the well-known attempts to solve the paradox, claiming the lack of symmetry because one twin (the one that feels accelerations going back and forth) is really flying while the other is not really flying.

    Your suggestion that the two twins fly in opposite directions and with equal accelerations restores the symmetry and in any case restores the paradox.

    The father who remains in the middle does not resolve the contradiction between the arguments, because he does not explain how it is possible for each twin to see time for his friend as crawling according to the assumptions of the theory of relativity, and how when they meet the cumulative creep (which, as mentioned, is bound by the assumptions of the theory of relativity) disappears.

    In conclusion, there is a paradox.

  320. The twin paradox that I know and to which I referred is a situation where a twin who left the earth will be younger than the twin who remained.

  321. This is a restrained statement, addressing only one point in a broad field that I accept in its entirety. You are obviously right, but the lengthening of time in relationships contradicts not only the absolute time of the big bang theory but many other things in logic and basic calculation in general.
    Your treatment is spot on. The problem with the specific point you've chosen is that it sits between two theories, neither of which are completely clean of content. When you examine relativity against simple mathematics, the twin paradox immediately emerges. When trying to confirm the Big Bang, we stumble upon the mystery of the CMBR (shall I remind you what it is?). I am of the opinion that each theory should be examined separately.
    $2000 per head? And a dog sitter for my dog? Allah will be hidden! You probably had a good reason...

  322. Israel,
    If what you wrote is true for a non-relativistic speed, it will obviously change when they are at a relative speed to each other.

  323. B,
    But what you wrote is exactly the twin paradox. The paradox is that although each twin sees the other twin's clock lagging behind his own clock during the entire flight, when they meet their clocks should show the same time due to symmetry.

  324. R.H.

    I did not clarify until the end. The time of 1000 cz for spacecraft A is equal to 2000 cz for B, when they are at rest on both sides of the sphere. If, for example, before the opening fire they had confirmed the times by radio (which is not allowed because of the listening unit of the ball), they would have discovered that they are not synchronized and that several good years separate them. This problem does not exist with temp clocks. Radio or not, they are always in sync.

  325. B.

    "The father's clock will always show each of the twins a time that is between the twin's own time and the time that the twin measures in the other twin."

    how? Why? How will the measurement be carried out?

  326. R.H.

    The difference is that with the CZ clocks, the attack will not be simultaneous. The time of 1000 CZ is private time, while the time of the temp clocks is absolute time. If, for example, the bullet defenders can withstand a fire rate of 500 shells per hour but not 800, and the fire rate of each spaceship is 600 shells per hour, the attack will fail in the case of the CZ clocks but not in the case of the temp clocks. If the inventory of shells is limited to 2000 per spacecraft, they will lose the battle with CZ and win with Temp.

    No?

    Meir.

    Okay, so we got that every cat and dog comes with a unique time stamp. Now, if besides the pet pictures there is also a clock on it. Do you agree that in terms of the photos you will receive, in each photo will appear: your private time (say 123453), Mitzi, and the specific time of the car in front of you (say 043523)? Will it change if the train moves at 0.9C? Remember, the cameras are sharp resolution.

    jubilee.

    I did not come with an unequivocal statement that the relationship is wrong because that is not what I think. Nor did I come with a statement that relativity is in conflict with quanta. I came with a statement that the lengthening of time in relationships contradicts the absolute time of the big bang theory, or I don't understand something. I also mentioned the infinitely high probability of B compared to A. According to our discussions.

  327. Lemair:
    Assume motion without acceleration and without gravity:
    Let's say the father is in the spaceship and the two twins are moving in opposite directions.
    Each of the twins measures the time of the father and the time of the other twin.
    It is clear that the father's time is between twin time A and twin time B.
    Let's say the twins return to the father's spaceship.
    Because of the symmetry their times are the same.
    The father's time was always between the times of the two twins and therefore it is also the same.

    acceleration:
    Even in the state of acceleration, the two twins are symmetrical, so after returning to the father's spaceship, their times are the same.
    Are they also the same as father time?
    When the two twins are in acceleration then they are in acceleration relative to each other and also in acceleration relative to the father's spaceship.
    With the change in speed between the twins, deviations between the twins' clocks are revealed. But their speed relative to the father is always smaller than the mutual speed of one twin compared to another. That is, the deviation they will measure on the father's clock will always be smaller than the deviation they will measure with each other.
    conclusion:
    The father's watch will always show each of the twins a time that is between the twin's own time and the time that the twin measures in the other twin.
    After the father's return to the spaceship, the difference in reading between the twins is zero. (as mentioned because of the symmetry).

    The general conclusion:
    The times for the twins after the father's return to the spaceship are identical to each other and also identical to the father's time.

  328. Israel,
    In the description you described, each image will indeed have one time stamp, that of the clock placed on my window.
    How does this relate to our discussion?

  329. B,
    You write:

    "2) Because of the symmetry, it is not possible that at the time of the reunion on Earth one of the twins will be of a different age than the other twin."

    And from this he concludes: "In other words, the real time is the father's time."

    I did not understand the connection between the claim and the conclusion. The age of the twins at the moment of the meeting will be the same as you said (and let's assume for the purpose that it will be one year older according to their clocks than the age when they set out on the journey), and still according to the theory of relativity the meeting can take place on Earth 500 years after the father moved to a universe without gravity according to Earth clock.

  330. Israel! It's all your fault.
    If you came in advance (a few months ago) with an unequivocal statement that the relationship is wrong, you would immediately declare that you are right and also show the world how and by how much. But you chose a winding and dim path, and got involved with a bunch of watches (by the way, was it you who robbed the Museum of Islam?), the Aspect-Bel-Aprre experiment, Le Sage, and a long list of discus with Sabdarmish Yehuda ztzal var. H Shalita When I tried to flow with you with the motorcycle wheel in the water, you laughed out loud. When I tried to present my model, you dismissed it with "this is alternative physics". So now you come to me with complaints? To him?!?
    It is true that the Chilbay movement was fueled by the warmth of my mind, and for that I take full responsibility. But It takes two to tangle or Tango or V'Votaber.
    Are you asking about photos? Tell me: aren't you ashamed of yourself? Are you in the Holy Land and want me to send you photos?! Before I receive from you a set of at least a dozen photos from our beloved country, you have nothing to mess with my camera!! Come on, to work. And greetings to our common neighbors

  331. B, you are not precise in your conclusion "there should be a plausible mathematical explanation". The correct wording is: "There should be a plausible physical explanation".
    At the time, more than a hundred years ago, such explanations were given. The most famous of them is the Lorentz transformations, which was also accepted by the majority and became the computational basis of T.H.I. However, the mechanism that activates these transformations is still unknown. A few comments ago I made a claim that the absolute speed of light is not constant. I guess I'm not the first to make this claim, but I also have a model that shows a possible mechanism that causes the absolute speed of light to be controlled so that its relative speed is constant. In due course I will present it.
    Not determining the speed of light solves the twin paradox. One of his hoped-for products is solving the mystery of dark energy.

  332. Israel,
    To the same extent that the spaceships can synchronize an attack in Tizenby by a temp clock, they can:

    1) At the moment of the first meeting, take out a stopwatch that projects the time into space. The clock is reset to time 0.

    2) Go out, travel, go crazy

    3) Meet at the clock when the clock shows 1000. The cesium clocks that were in the spacecraft will show a difference, but for both of them the radiating clock will show 1000. Just like the determination to meet when the radiation shows 4 degrees.

    I mean, what I want to say is that your temp is just another reference system like any other reference system. A system where time 0 is the big bang like in a stopwatch time 0 is the reset moment. Where is the contradiction?

  333. deer

    It is a bit difficult for me to understand from your words what you mean when you write: "Jack sees" and "Jill sees". Do you mean that when they pass each other they see different things? After all, our first agreement was that his and her photographs would be identical. If that's not what you meant, correct me.

    Regarding the attack on the ships. Even if we start from the assumption that temp clocks in motion relative to each other show different times, then the ships can adjust themselves to the speed of the ball and therefore be at the same speed relative to it and relative to each other. Will their clocks not be synchronized even then? why?

    "Note that if temp clocks are always synchronized then they cannot be equivalent to cesium clocks in Jack's system" Why? After all, the principle is that the temperature clocks always show the time that has passed since the bang. Jack's time clock is calibrated to the same time, and since then it shows the same time as the temp clock, doesn't it? The numbers 0, 8, and 10 are just symbols so we can work with Jill's system. In practice it's something like 2345676800098976543,4,5,6...

    But the main question is why do you think two temps won't show the same time when they pass each other. Let's break the argument into sub-arguments:

    1. A clock that is stationary relative to radiation shows the time in seconds that has passed since the bang. Yes No.

    2. A clock in motion relative to radiation can know its speed by measuring the Doppler in both directions. Yes No.

    3. A computer will be able to process the data and give the output as the number of seconds from the bang shown by the stationary clock. Yes No.

    If you answered yes to everything, my conclusion is that two temp clocks will always show the same time in a joint photo. If not, please explain to me why not.

    Meir.

    Let's say that in front of your window there is a train passing a centimeter away from the window. On a trailer, which is the size of the window, a different picture. You take a picture with a high resolution camera of the window above the clock from a millimeter away. The output is of time-stamped images.
    Can you describe to me a mechanism in which you will see the same image with different time stamps? And if so, how long will the difference be?

    B.

    I have no problem with a supposed contradiction between relativity and quanta. Only with the lengthening of times.

    I believe I understood Einstein's explanation, but it seems to me that this explanation is at odds with the absolute time derived from the big bang theory. I also believe that this is not the only explanation, but other explanations are not mainstream. First we will see if I can be convinced that maybe I have a mistake in my understanding, hence our discussions. It hasn't happened yet.

    jubilee.

    Berakaka D'Hantrisha HaKishkoshidda.

    $1200? What is this, the shortening of prices? $2000 dollars per head, ya shabbi.

    Maybe I will finally be able to get a simple answer from you to my simple question: what about the photographs?

    You claim they will show the same time on all watches. Relativity, as expressed in the example of Jack and Jill, claims that there will be differences. So either the relationship is wrong or you are, aren't you? And if relativity is wrong, why are you trying so hard to show me I'm wrong and wasting your time and everyone else's time?

    Or as Rabbi Daniel Sanderson's article, the author of the story Pogi, in the tractate Containers: Gib mi de mani and enough with the regret, you have no money, so go home.

  334. B.
    Everything you wrote is very beautiful. There are only 2 problems:

    1) The twin paradox has been experimentally proven by clocks that have been flown so that all your logical deduction is necessarily wrong -
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/atomic-clocks-reveal-relativity-at-a-personal-scale-2609101/

    2) The contradiction between quantum mechanics and general relativity is a basic and well-known thing and this is the motivation of the physicists to create the so-called "theory of everything" when among the proposals are the theories of strings:

    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D

  335. A small addition:
    The same claims exist even if the experiment is carried out in empty space (an area without gravity) and also if the experiment is carried out from Earth (an area with gravity).

  336. The Twin Paradox:
    1) Father who is on Earth sends the twins in two separate spaceships in opposite directions.
    Both spacecraft are symmetrical with respect to the father.
    2) Because of the symmetry, it is not possible that at the moment of the reunion on Earth, one of the twins will be of a different age than the other twin. That is, the real time is the father's time.
    For reasons of symmetry: this also includes the case where the two spacecraft went through some series of symmetrical accelerations with respect to the father. That is, the claim is not limited to inertial systems only, but is also valid for systems that have acceleration. Provided that the symmetry in relation to the father is preserved.
    Conclusion: at the moment of the meeting the two twins will be the same age as they should have been according to the father's clock. And this includes even if they had accelerations on the way, provided that their accelerations were symmetrical with respect to the father.
    All this follows from symmetry alone without the need for any additional claims.

    3) trick:
    We will break the symmetry and send only one twin. This twin will do exactly the same trip he did earlier in the process where he had symmetry with the other twin.
    what will happen now
    Is it because the other twin didn't start, so the clock of the twin that did start will show a different time than the father's time?

    And what will happen if we take ten twins and then nine and then eight and so on?

    It is not possible that the clock of one of the twins depends on the other twins.

    We are faced with two facts:
    1) As long as the symmetry is maintained: all the clocks will show the time according to the father's clock at the moment of the reunion.
    2) There is no dependency between the clocks.

    conclusion:
    Each watch on its own must show at the moment of the reunion exactly the time according to the father's watch.

    conclusion:
    The twin paradox does not exist! It is only a figment of the imagination.
    One must continue to study the conclusions from the theory of relativity.
    There should be a plausible mathematical explanation.

  337. B, you are wrong. A camera in one system will photograph some of the events occurring in another system moving at relative speed, in a different order than the order in which they would be photographed by a camera in the same system.

    This is due to the fact that events that are not local in a propulsion system can (according to the assumptions of relativity) be compressed to be local in an assumption system. From this it follows that the time interval that will be measured between them in an assumption system will be shorter than the time interval that will be measured between them in a propulsion system, and from this it follows that from the point of view of a resting observer they will end before local events in the propulsion system, for which the resting observer measures a lengthening of times.

    A simple example of this is a pulse of light emanating from a source in the center of a train car. According to the measurements of the passenger in the car, the pulse will reach the front wall of the car and the back wall of the car at the same time.

    From the point of view of an observer standing on the platform, the pulse will first reach the back wall and only then the front wall.

    Here is a basic disagreement about the order of events. Observer A's panoramic camera records both events in one image, while Observer B's panoramic camera records them in two separate images.

  338. Fix:
    The order of things will not change!
    Events 1, 2, 3, 4 will appear in the same order in terms of time in any inertial system.
    Only the time intervals between the events will change.
    And of course the distance intervals will also change along with them.

  339. Small correction:
    "My result #2 and the neighbor's result #2 will appear on frames that are 0.67 seconds apart and so on, while the lag is increasing."

  340. Israel,
    "Meir - put a clock above the window and ask one of the grandchildren to pass pictures in front of it every minute."
    - Which grandson? The one on my train, or the one on the other train? Because if it means the grandson on the second train, then when he transfers drawings every minute for him, it will happen for me every 100 seconds (assuming that the speed between trains is 240M/s).

    "What does the speed of the camera have to do with it?"
    - The connection is that the camera on my train is now taking pictures in front of the clock above the time measurement windows that are conducted on the other train when there is a relative speed between the trains.

    "Could you take the cat out of 114326 and put the dog in it from 132147?" Can you describe a mechanism that does this? And if you can, I'll ask the child to pull out random pictures that even he doesn't know about before the exposure, even then will the camera be able to switch between the times?"
    - I didn't understand what your interest is in being able to exchange content between images. If we have come to this, then the camera really switches between times. According to the theory of relativity, the slowing down of the neighbor's proper-time leads to a disagreement between systems in relative motion on the order of events. A series of events that occur in one system in the order 1, 2, 3, 4 can appear to an observer (camera) in the other system as if it occurs in the order 1, 3, 2, 4. A series of clocks that are considered synchronized in one system will be considered unsynchronized to an observer from the other system.

    "In the same way, it is not possible to separate the photographs of two temperature clocks that pass in front of each other. This has nothing to do with the mechanism." – – – The connection to the mechanism is that, except at the moment of synchronization, the observer in one system photographs events that occurred according to the other system in an ancient time. That is, if the time that takes between a temperature sample and the display of the number of seconds from the moment of the bang is 6 nanoseconds, then when the camera on my train takes the first reading of my temperature clock, a result will not yet appear on the display of the temperature clock on the second train. In order to compare results, I will have to wait for another frame that will be taken in 4 seconds, in which the result of the temperature clock of the second train will appear, which will be the same as the one displayed by the temperature clock next to me in the first frame. If the clocks sample the temperature one per second, I will have to wait 1.67 seconds to make comparison #2, meaning my #2 result and the neighbor's #2 result will appear on frames 1.67 seconds apart, and so on, while the lag is increasing.

    And also a footnote: I saw that "the rest system of the cosmic radiation" was mentioned here in the messages (I don't remember by whom). According to the theory of relativity, electromagnetic radiation has no rest system. I assume that when someone uses this expression they mean "a system in which the cosmic radiation is isotropic".

  341. 1)
    To Israel:
    What is the contradiction between the theory of relativity and the quantum theory?

    2)
    For Jubilee:
    What are the internal contradictions in the theory of relativity?

    To date it has not been found that the speed of light is not constant. Michelson and Morley's experiment has been performed many times.
    The level of accuracy was found to be appropriate. Nevertheless, the results of the experiment did not change.

    Is there today another theory that explains better?

  342. B,
    You can ask Israel about the contradiction between Tahiti and quantum mechanics. It's his baby.
    By "holes" I meant internal contradictions.
    By "explanation" (for the paradox) I meant to say "solution". thanks for the correction.
    What is the difference between Torah and theory?
    And how do you prove a physical theory? (refute I know).
    In order to disprove the theory, an experiment is needed to show that the speed of light is not constant. For this purpose, the Michaelson-Morlay experiments can be repeated under other conditions and with more accurate optical equipment. But you don't always have to disprove a theory to reject it. It is enough if another theory is found that assumes less and is more explanatory.

  343. Overall :
    In science there is no "Torah" in science there is only theory.
    Every theory will either be proven or disproved.

    Until the theory of relativity is disproved, unfortunately we have nothing better.
    Furthermore:
    Even if the theory of relativity is disproved we will not be able to return to the situation we were in before.
    A comprehensive explanation is needed which will both disprove the theory of relativity and give another explanation for the phenomena it explains.

  344. 1) I am not aware of a contradiction between the quantum theory and the theory of relativity.
    Please detail!
    2) "holes" do not rule out the whole theory.
    A "paradox" is something that has yet to be explained. That doesn't mean there isn't an explanation.

  345. B,
    Einstein's explanation is beautiful, and it is also quite simple, but there are holes in it. And that, even without showing that it is hidden by quantum mechanics. All attempts to rationalize the twins' paradox (and no matter how many pairs of watches they wear on each hand and each foot) do not hold water.

  346. BSD Netavg, welcome ☼

    1200 hours of flying between screaming zeitgeists, and all this to get more responses from the U.S.A.? After all, you could save XNUMX US dollars and do it from the unsurpassed Californian convenience. Obviously not to fulfill my humble request (probably because there is no bare ground in the terminal, we forgive you). And besides, you promised us silence for the purposes of alternative physics...

    What trouble and what immigration? I am a loyal subject of Yerom Hoda, May d'he quin lib forever (may God protect the queen forever).

    Tell me when you want a lesson in real physics. You don't have to wait until the moon is full ☺

  347. "So come on, explain: why the lengthening of times. But some consistency. Until now, I have heard more than 10 different explanations from the defense, ..."

    What is wrong with Einstein's explanation?
    Did you refer to him?
    Did you understand him?

    The explanation is simple!

  348. Israel,

    To remind you, I wrote:
    Jill Rua - at her place: 8 p.m., 6.4 temp. At his place: 10,10
    Jack sees - at her place: 10 p.m., temp. 8. At his place: 8,8.

    If you want I can detail exactly how I arrived at these numbers. As I said before, they contradict the claim that all two temp clocks always show the same time. A claim that I think is incorrect.

    These numbers also allow each of the viewers to explain the photographs they see without reaching contradictions.

    I cannot support the opposing argument you brought because Jill will see that Jack's cesium clock's diameter shows 6.4 and therefore the temp clock also shows 6.4 and hence her temp clock that is synchronized with these clocks will not be able to show 10, this is why in my calculation I wrote that her clock shows 6.4 . Jill did not sync with the first car so there is no reason for the two temp clocks in this session to show the same, however her temp clock must always show what Jack's locomotive temp clock shows.

    Regarding your questions, I think the answer is negative in both cases, unless the ships synchronized their temp clocks sometime in the past, in which case the answer to the second question would be positive. All this when I don't assume that temp clocks are always synchronized.

    Note that if temp clocks are always synchronized then they cannot be equal to cesium clocks in Jack's system, and vice versa. Otherwise Jill would have to conclude that Jack's locomotive temp clock reads 10 next to a cesium clock reading 6.4, contradicting that they are equal. That is, there are problems with our assumptions, so I suggest that we reexamine them.

  349. my father

    The problem is that when you start writing a comment and go back, the comment is deleted. 50 comments will load in 2 seconds instead of a single second, a reasonable price considering the benefits. asked the friend. Thanks.

  350. jubilee

    Why can't you come to Israel? The old story of absenteeism from the BHA? Is immigration chasing you once again? It's okay, Mapai is no longer in power.

    R.H.

    You write: "The point is that the egg/universe is not uniform. Analogous to your egg. There are areas in the swamp where the temperature will be different from other areas."

    A bit of an argument, isn't it? "Israel, you don't understand, the conditions you describe do not exist in reality because of borderline quantum effects." So what? Do Newton's equations not work because in reality there is friction? The equations of thermodynamics because of non-uniformity in the gas? Euclid's theory because there is no perfect triangle in reality?

    In the first year you are already taught that all physics is an idealization of a reality that does not exist. But special for you - the experimental field in Tizenby has your favorite ideal conditions. Will the temperature clocks work there and there will be no time extension? After all, one example is enough to collapse the theory.

    And in general, to you and to all the defenders of time extension who are so convinced of her innocence only because she is a good daughter: can you or someone explain why time extension exists at all? And if physics and music don't interest you, Albert simply said this: Newton, not exactly homeless, argued for absolute time. Lorenz, Morelli, many other scientists, who read and understood relativity, strongly opposed it until the day they died. Are they also just dozing out of their minds?

    So come on, explain: why the lengthening of times. But some consistency. So far, I have heard more than 10 different explanations from the defense, who is so determined to get her client out, that she doesn't even consider the possibility that he was even there.

    And the natives here do not say "don't dig". It's so 2011. Here they say "I eat thrash".

  351. Anonymous - me.

    Father, isn't it better to leave 50 comments together so that you can see what the previous comments are?

  352. In Siyaita Dashmia, we landed in Kiryat

    Did you enjoy your vacation? Come on, to work.

    Meir - put a clock above the window and ask one of the grandchildren to pass pictures in front of it every minute. Every time a picture comes by, take a picture of the event. This way you will get a sequence of pictures, each of which shows a certain time and a certain picture.

    How can you separate the one-time time in the photograph and the image attached to it? What does the camera speed have to do with it? Can you take out the cat from 114326 and put the dog in it from 132147? Can you describe a mechanism that does this? And if you can, I'll ask the child to pull out random pictures that even he doesn't know about before the exposure, even then will the camera be able to switch between the times?

    It is also not possible to separate the photographs of two temperature clocks that pass in front of each other. This has nothing to do with the mechanism.

    Hope to have a chance to read the article.

    Zvi - Temp watches weigh the doppler and deduce from it what their speed is relative to radiation. Why would it be difficult for them to deduce what the temp would be if they were stationary? Like the frogs in the swamp that reach the absolute swampy time by weighting their speed relative to the water.

    To see the problematic nature of your argument, here's a question: If, as you say, a joint photograph of Jack and Jill's temp clock shows 10 for her and 8 for him, what would the photograph look like if the doppler was not weighed? Surely the result would have been different, wouldn't it?

    I believe the argument against my idea could be this: when Jill's car passes in front of Car A at Jack's, the photo will show: Temp Jack 10, CZ Jack 10, Temp Jill 10, CZ Jill 8. On the other hand, when Jack's jet passes in front of Krone A. Jill, the photo will show: Temp. Jack 8, CZ Jack 8, Temp. Jill 8 and CZ III Year 10.

    There is no logical problem with such a combination (which you brought up earlier and for that thank you) and it does not contradict any of our previous assumptions. Jill's hr clock is indeed ahead of her temp clock, but we don't know anything about its previous state and it is very possible that at the meeting with Jack's trolley it showed 2, 2-, so everything works out. The problem is different, if you ask, I will explain.

    To see the clear difference between Einstein's original theory and the idea of ​​absolute time, I will describe to you a place that R.H. Known as the "experimental field in Tizenbi".

    It is a vast space that stretches at the edge of the universe, in the twilight zone between the finite and the infinite. Uniqueness - that there is nothing there. No stars, no ships, no zebras, just nothing, nada, nicht. Darkness over an abyss.

    We place a ball there, and send 2 ships to the area that arrive in different ways and at crazy speeds that throw their CZ clocks out of sync. There is no computer.

    Questions:

    1. Will the ships be able to synchronize a simultaneous attack on the ball according to relativity in 1905?

    2. Would you be able to do this if they had temp clocks?

  353. B,
    Let's flow according to your understanding because this is the beginning of the time of the universe.
    But first, with your permission, we will make a distinction between two concepts: physical space and mathematical space.
    By the term "physical" I meant the space that contains the matter of the universe. We do not see its end but we do not know if it is limited. By the term "mathematical" I meant something abstract and infinite.
    That is, the point of time and the point of space where the universe began are the zero of the physical space, but not the mathematical one.
    There is a point in mathematical space where the big bang occurred. This point contains all the matter in the universe. This substance spreads continuously, and creates the physical space.
    And if so, you say, and I agree:
    "There is one reference system that is special from all other reference systems. It is special in that the coordinates of the big bang are all zero." But I do not accept the continuation of your words: "And this is in contradiction to the theory of relativity. Because the theory of relativity claims that there is no single system that is more special than all of them." My agreement only concerns the mathematical space, but for calculations in the physical space parameters must be added.

  354. Zvi Z.,
    The implications are for Lorentz transformations. According to my claim, they are not real. You don't need to ask me for a trial; All the watches and cameras you analyze will fit. If my claim is correct, then the clocks will always be coordinated.

  355. jubilee,

    How is what you say different from what relativity says? I mean in the sense of consequences. Do you have an idea for an experiment that could differentiate between the two theories? Will calculations with clocks like Israel and I did bring different results if your theory is correct?

    B,

    The Big Bang did not occur at any point in space. The cosmic radiation comes from every direction. In any case, why is the rest system of cosmic radiation a special system?

  356. Israel,

    "After all, time is absolute and automatically synchronized. Like an egg that cools down slowly."
    The thing that the egg/universe is not uniform. Analogous to your egg. There are areas in the swamp where the temperature will be different from other areas. For example, at depth it will be colder than the egg. There may also be local areas where the temperature is hotter/colder due to currents for example. Can you talk about the "real" temperature of the egg?

    As above in the universe, in large gravitational bodies and in elements moving at close to light speed, time behaves differently from other places and therefore you cannot talk about the "real" time of the universe even referring to point 0 like the big bang.

    Have a good trip and don't dig into the flight attendants too much.

  357. A note on the "Big Bang" matter.
    According to my understanding, this is the beginning of the time of the universe.
    That is, it is the zero point of time and also the zero point of space.
    That is :
    There is a point in space where the "Big Bang" took place.
    And if so :
    There is one reference system that is special from all other reference systems. It is special in that the coordinates of the "Big Bang" are all zero.
    And this is in contradiction to the theory of relativity. Because the theory of relativity claims that there is no one system that is more special than all of them.

  358. Zvi Z.,
    The claim that there is an absolute speed contains the assumption that there is a stationary medium that transmits the light.
    The claim that this stationary medium allows for a variety of speeds adds an assumption that it is flexible.
    By the term "relative speed of light" I meant the constant size c.
    By the term "actual speed of light" I mean, for example, the speed of light between point A and point B as measured from an external point C.

  359. Now you have managed to confuse me:
    If a "temperature clock" is not a clock in the sense of measuring time, then why even include it in the discussion of the theory of relativity?
    The theory of relativity talks about time and not about the measurement tools. Certainly not on measuring tools that do not measure time at all.

    And if, after all, the temperature clock measures time, then we will take the measurement and display it on a television screen in the form of an electronic clock.
    We will get an electronic temperature clock.
    If we do this in the same way in two inertial systems and reset the clocks then we will get two systems with identical clocks which are on the one hand temperature clocks and on the other hand electronic clocks for everything.
    After we do this, the discussion will return to the topic of time and not the mechanism of the clock.

  360. Hi Israel,
    I hope you remembered to kiss the earth in my name, because I will only see from the other side and will not come to it.
    Thanks for the instructive lesson in Roman law.
    It takes two for a mango, and when I say you're dragging me, it's only half the truth because I'm spending my share of the deal. What will I do, and you are so tempting to answer and try to prove to you that you are wrong. And suddenly a surprise, now I'm on your side in your rightful struggle to give light freedom of speed, to say: the relative speed of light is indeed always c, but its absolute speed is c plasminus something. The claim that "the absolute speed of light is always equal to its relative speed" is indeed the accepted one today, but I predict that it will soon give way in favor of the claim I made.
    Go to peace and come back to peace and please send a sign of life from time to time.
    Goodbye

  361. Israel,

    A photograph will not necessarily show the same time, as in the numbers I calculated earlier.

    jubilee,

    What is "real/actual speed of light"? It also depends on the point of view.

  362. Israel,
    There is no problem with my argument. The camera will give exactly the same result that it would give according to the theory of relativity following a photo of cesium clocks spread on the embossing films. The result depends on the system in which the camera is placed, and the footage will never show the same between the clock readings on the two films, except at the moment of starting the experiment. All I added is that other people's temperature clocks are subject to relative time dilation just like other people's cesium clocks are, because they, like the cesium clocks, produce time measurements that are only local to the system in which they are located.
    Have a good trip, and if you haven't read the article on the inverse square root law of gravitation (published on May 15th), I recommend you use some of your flight time to do so. I believe Newton was willing to pay a lot to get it in the mail before the Principia went to print.

  363. Meir

    I believe you can see the problem with your argument if you think about the following example: a sequence of bumps in a long row, each of which has a number written on it. A similar ribbon of protrusions runs next to them. A camera located at a certain point takes a picture whenever two bumps from the two films are below it. The camera is only able to photograph these 2 bumps together.

    The output of the camera is an image of 2 bumps on each of which a number is written. Now, if your claim about the delay due to the length of time was correct, we would have received a picture of Balta from movie A with Balta from movie B, but from an earlier time. The problem is that we haven't defined what the numbers on the reliefs are, and they could be for example duplicates of 1777 or even Mickymus paintings. How can the unambiguous image output give us a different image? What number exactly will it have? After all, the delay is not synchronized with the exact multiple, so how can it give an accurate output?

    Yuval - I hope that your alternative physics arguments are a little more grounded than the argument "you are dragging us all into an academic discussion about incorrect facts and incorrect conclusions". No one is dragging you or anyone into anything, certainly not me.

    Lycaniolea - Ley, a Roman law, is a law that allowed senators to marry the plebeians.

    Therefore, when a senator passed a plebeian and tried to evade his duty under the pretext of the prohibition that was in force before, and said to her: I rily wont to meri yo bat i cant, de lao, yo understand. She would answer him: Oh yes, you can, you lia(r)!.

    (In English it sounds better).

    What about the photos?

    deer

    Photographs from distant cameras involve the shortening of distances, etc. My question is simple: according to you (still) will a photo of 2 sophisticated temp clocks attached, which include doppler scales, show the same or different time? Only it.

    R.H.

    Defining simultaneity is the first chapter in relations. He came to answer a simple question: How do we know what the exact time is in an empty piece of space?

    If the universe is eternal, the answer is that there is no such thing as absolute time, everyone has their own timekeeper and we can only synchronize clocks. By an egg with a constant temperature.

    But if the universe had a beginning and that empty piece of space has a density and temperature that varies as a continuous function of time, then time is absolute and automatically synchronized. By an egg that cools down slowly.

    This is a company, the flight is in 5 hours. You have 24 hours to play without interruption.

    Yuval, it's time for alternative physics!

    (What about the photos?).

    Israel the tourist.

  364. Zvi Z., to your question: "Are you saying that a person who is at rest with respect to a light source and sees a spacecraft moving away from him will see the light moving more slowly, at speed cv?"
    I'm not sure I understood your question, probably because I didn't explain myself well. What I'm saying is that light always moves relative to the observer and/or relative to the light source at speed c. Therefore, the true speed of light relative to the source or observer is c minus the relative speed between them. For example, if the light source and the observer are at rest, relative to each other, then the relative speed between them is zero and then the actual motion of the light relative to them is at a speed c minus zero.

  365. Israel,
    13.7 billion according to our measurement of the distance of galaxies. If there was some spaceship running back and forth at a speed close to light from then until today it would measure a shorter time. Everything seemed faster with her.
    Your insistence on "the universe in 1905" is also not clear. What is the connection if Einstein did not know about the big bang? There is still no contradiction to what he claimed and relativity has not changed as a result of the discovery of the evidence for the Big Bang.

  366. jubilee,

    "Not the speed of light alone is always constant, but the sum of the speeds, of the light and the spacecraft, is always constant (and equal to c)"

    Are you saying that a person who is at rest relative to a light source and sees a spacecraft moving away from it will see the light moving slower, at speed cv?

  367. Israel,

    When I say "point of view" I don't mean something subjective. You can replace "point of view regarding station number 1" with "looking through the telescope at point number 1" or "photograph of station number 1 at this moment".

    When Jack is at station number 2 and his watch shows 10 and he looks through the telescope to station number 1, he sees 4. Light takes 6 seconds to travel the distance between the stations and from this he concludes that the watch there also shows 10.
    When Jill is at station number 2 and looks through the telescope to station number 1, she also sees 4, only her calculations show that the light took 3 seconds to reach her from the time of the photo. She also knows that while these 3 seconds passed for Jack, 2.4 seconds passed. And hence comes to the conclusion that the clock at one station shows 6.4=2.4+4.

    At the same time she sees that Jack's watch at station 2 shows 10 seconds. Both clocks are ticking at the same rate, so she concludes that the clock next to Jack is speeding up by 3.6 seconds. Jack, on the other hand, sees that there is no difference between the time shown by the clocks. That is, for him both clocks showed 0 at the same time and for Jill there was a difference of 3.6 seconds between the events.

    We agreed that temp clocks are equivalent to cesium clocks in Jack's system, therefore two observers can also disagree about the simultaneity of their reset.

    So far I have only used the principles of special relativity and the assumption that a temp clock is equivalent to a cesium clock in Jack's system, things that I understand we both agree on. Relying on the same things, we arrive at the photos I described earlier.

    The other assumption you make, we do not agree on, and it is the one that leads us to contradictions.

  368. Hey! Israel! you are still here A pleasant surprise 🙂
    You're turning the creator a bit (though not through your fault). Precisely the problem of the watches is the alternative physics, and the cameras are completely irrelevant. You drag us all into an academic discussion about incorrect facts and wrong conclusions. If and when you want to hear other things, I will come to lecture.
    A good trip. Take care and come back safely.
    P.S. What is Licheniolea?

  369. Israel,

    There is no flaw in my argument, which is exactly what the theory of relativity claims (which I am not one of its followers, but I have no objections to this specific argument of its). The slowing down of time is symmetrical when observers of relative motion compare clocks that measure time that is local in their own system (and anyway not local in the system of others).

    All I have done is to show that a temperature clock is a clock that measures local time in the self-system but from the perspective of an observer in the local system the other's temperature clock measures non-local time. This is because it takes time from the moment the temperature is sampled to the moment the result is displayed. If in the local clock one has to wait 18 microseconds for the result, then given a relative speed of 240M/s an observer in the local system will have to wait 30 microseconds for the result in the drive system. Therefore, from the moment the clocks are synchronized at the beginning of the experiment and onward, the viewer in one system will see as if his friend in the other system is watching the movie "The Big Bang" in slow motion.

  370. R.H.

    Regarding your words: "You constantly, both now in an argument with Zvi and then in an argument with me, insist that "there is an absolute time in the universe, the time that has passed since the Big Bang. This is what the bang theory claims."

    Isn't our universe about 13.7 billion years old? Isn't this time, after we specify it to the level of seconds for example, absolute? Isn't it expressed in temperature with a continuous function, the Friedman formula? Is a second that passes by it different from a second that passes by us (assuming our speed is 0 relative to radiation)? Isn't time the same at every point in the universe? Can you show me the point where the universe is 30 billion years old? If not, why?

    Isn't there a point of departure for me and Zvi, and also yours at the time, that it is possible to build "temp clocks"? That these clocks will automatically synchronize to the time that has passed since the bang? that if we synchronize a clock and place it next to a temp clock, a shared photo will always show the same time on both? How does all this happen if there is no absolute time for the universe?

    And isn't this picture different from the picture of the universe in 1905? of an infinite and eternal universe without beginning and end where there is no absolute time simply because of the basic mathematical fact that infinity plus a constant = infinity? Where even entropy must eventually reverse itself, and evolution is not only a possibility but a certainty?

  371. waiting

    And Yuval, if you "see in all the words that are poured out here empty words and poor grammar about irrelevant things", why do you stay here? Politely invited, but not obliged to stay. These responses are therefore: free.

    What about the photos?

  372. deer

    You write:

    "Do you agree that two observers will not necessarily agree on the simultaneity of events?"

    I will agree to this if you can convince me that a photo of two devices that I call "temperature clocks" located at the same place and moment, will show a different number in their output.

    "Also all the other clocks in his train reset at this moment, both cesium and temp.
    Jill, on the other hand, doesn't have to agree that all his clocks reset at the same moment. We already agreed (?) that this is true for cesium clocks, so why shouldn't it be true for temp clocks?"

    If my description is correct, there is no need to reset temperature clocks. They automatically adjust to absolute cosmic time.

    "I wrote that she would see 6.4 because that's what, from her point of view, Jack's cesium clock on the locomotive is showing right now"

    Perspectives interest me much less than photographs. The only question I keep asking is: what will the photographs show?

    If we agree on objective and unequivocal photographs, and not on subjective and vague "points of view", it will be much easier to move forward.

    R.H.

    Your question is not entirely clear. You write "accelerating". I only deal with inertial systems. You are talking about the temperature of an isolated system, a spaceship, I am talking about an external measurement with which time can be tapped, as in the case of the frogs (they will not be able to tell what time it is by measuring the temperature inside the submarine, only the external temperature). In the discussion with you, I defined the necessary conditions and even named it: the experimental field in Tizenbi.

    Also remember that one example where there is no time dilation is enough to collapse the whole theory. At least that's what Einstein claimed.

    jubilee

    "The claim that the speed of light is an absolutely constant quantity has nothing to rely on" - this is alternative physics. We are currently in Jesters. What about the photos?

  373. Zvi Z,
    Due to the delay policy, some of the past tense responses have not yet been published. From my last comments you can understand that I see things completely differently from the "mainstream". I agreed to participate in the discussion only because I was politely invited, but the truth is that I have long since left my philanthropic pursuits. Whether the clocks are equal or not, I see in all the words that are poured out here empty things and poor grammar about irrelevant things.
    Please accept my apologies.

  374. B,
    With your permission, we'll start with the Michelson-Morlay experiment. We know that the system of the light source and detectors changed its direction, so it is clear that every component in it changed its speed, and yet the speed of light relative to the system remained constant in every situation.
    My assumption is not the same assumption in changing words, as you say, but a different assumption. Because they couldn't find the medium that conducts the light ("ether"), they decided to simply give up on it. This concession only added to the mystery, since light has a distinct wave behavior and therefore a conducting medium must exist. However, thanks to the correct predictions that this Torah foresaw, they decided to stay with the mystery. The assumption I made and the accepted assumption are indeed not the same assumption, but both ultimately lead to the same conclusions and predict the same results. Now we have to choose between two "imaginary" options. One is unmediated wave motion but with a twin/clock paradox. The second is the medium "equipped" with a mysterious mechanism that controls the speed of light but also solves the mystery of "dark energy". I have a nice model that shows how my assumption is possible, but in this I am stepping outside of what Israel Shapira calls "mainstream", so I will rest with him. We can come back to it anytime.
    All your other questions are derived from the first question. If you accept the assumption I made, they will all be solved.

  375. jubilee:
    Fix:
    I understood that the speed of the spacecraft is relative to the light source.
    Why does light change its speed according to the speed of the spacecraft?
    Is this a better assumption than the assumption that the speed of light is constant in all inertial systems?

    Isn't this the exact same assumption just changing the words?
    And if the reference system is not on a spacecraft?
    Assume a frame of reference moving in space without any relation to any material body.
    Will the light also then change its speed according to the speed of the reference system?
    And if so, isn't it the same as saying that the speed of light is constant in any frame of reference (inertial)?

  376. jubilee:

    1)
    In relation to what is the speed of the spaceship measured?

    2)
    The claim that the speed of light is constant in all inertial systems. She has nothing to rely on.
    This is a discount! The basic premise of the theory of relativity.
    If the experiment shows that this assumption is wrong then the theory of relativity will not be correct.
    To date, to the best of my knowledge, no one has been able to prove that this assumption is wrong.
    On the other hand, with the acceptance of this assumption, the theory of relativity developed and we got an explanation for phenomena that cannot be explained without the theory of relativity.

  377. The claim that the speed of light is an absolutely constant quantity has nothing to rely on. Since the speed of light seems constant relative to the receiving system, regardless of the speed of the system relative to any point in space, it is clear that the speed of light alone cannot be globally constant. Not the speed of light alone is always constant, but the sum of the speeds, of the light and the spacecraft, is always constant (equal to c). If the spacecraft is approaching the light source at speed v, then the speed of light is c minus v. And if she moves away from him, then the light is on after her at speed c and another v. Without currently going into additional calculations and the resulting consequences, this explains many phenomena. For example, why is the color of the light reaching us from the distant galaxies redshifted (which led to the wrong conclusion that "dark" energy exists). It also removes the paradox from the watches.
    Maybe it's not "soda-stream" enough for your taste? so no. Come on! grow up! Get out of the frame already. Follow the sun and you'll be back exactly the day after the independence celebrations, patriot!
    And no! I don't know what Licheniolea is, but thanks for the title ☼

  378. Israel,
    You constantly, both now in an argument with Zvi and then in an argument with me, insist that "there is an absolute time in the universe, the time that has passed since the Big Bang." This is what the bang theory claims."

    But I think you are wrong. Would a temp clock inside a spaceship, meaning the cosmic radiation cooling inside the accelerating spaceship, look exactly the same as a clock left outside?

    I don't think so. As the pilot ages less, the cesium clock inside the spacecraft will show less time and the temperature of the radiation inside the spacecraft (assuming it can be measured of course and ignore any effect of engine heat and the like) will be higher than outside.

    That is, as Einstein claims, there is no absolute time, but relative time, and cosmic radiation also obeys this law.

  379. Israel,
    Do you agree that two observers will not necessarily agree on the simultaneity of events?
    In our example context: when the locomotives pass this past all the clocks on the locomotives are reset. As far as Jack is concerned, all the other clocks on his train also reset at this moment, both cesium and temp.
    Jill, on the other hand, doesn't have to agree that all his clocks reset at the same moment. We already agreed (?) that this is true for cesium clocks so why wouldn't it be true for temp clocks?

    I wrote that she would see 6.4 because that's what from her point of view the cesium clock in Jack's engine is showing at this moment, the temp clock at Jack's is equal to cesium and therefore also shows 6.4. As far as Jill is concerned, she only synchronized with the clock in the locomotive and since temp clocks tick at the same rate, hers will also show 6.4.

    jubilee,
    Awaiting confirmation.

  380. deer

    The only thing I get right now is the photos. The reasoning I gave about the Doppler weighting ensures that in a photograph of two temp clocks we will see both showing the same time.

    This does not agree with your words b
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-speach-20100800/comment-page-24/#comment-344858

    "Regarding our example, this means that at the moments when the locomotives meet the first cars:
    Jill Rua - at her place: 8 p.m., 6.4 temp. At his place: 10,10

    If we can resolve this disagreement between us, we can proceed.

    Keto the tributary.

    Before you storm Carthage with a large force, explain to me how your claim about the photographs is compatible with the claim of relativity.

    And as the elder of the senators, do you know what Lycaniolea is?

  381. jubilee,

    The clocks are not equivalent to each other because the tick rate of temp clocks varies from one system to another (this is what we assumed about them), while the tick rate of a cesium clock does not change. Temp clocks are actually not really clocks because if you put such a clock by your side you will not necessarily measure the time that has passed from your point of view, but time that has passed in the radiation rest system from the point of view of an observer in this system.

    In any case, I am still not convinced that there is some kind of contradiction between the two models or that the twin paradox is really a paradox.

  382. Zvi (MM Israel until it returns to its narcissus and frogs),
    A pendulum clock counts ticks while a temperature clock samples the number of ticks counted by the substance (usually dark, probably) at the point where the clock's thermometer is located. If we assume for any reason that the ticks of the cesium clock do not correlate with the ticks of absolute time, then we also have no reason to assume that the ticks at the point where the temperature is measured correlate with absolute time. Thus, the temperature clock and the cesium clock are equivalent to each other.
    But an even more important question is whether there is such a thing as absolute time. If we accept the speed of light as an absolute quantity, we can derive time from it in exactly the same way that in Newtonian physics we derive speed from time. For this we must define a reliable unit of distance whose size does not change due to the passage of light through it (we call it, for example, "pico-second of light", because that is what Israel is looking for), and we define the basic unit of time according to it and according to the speed of light. However, unfortunately, such a reliable unit of distance does not exist, because distances, like time, are not fixed but relative.
    The entire uproar that Israel has created is a question of two physical models which are both acceptable but both apparently contradict each other. As I presented earlier (and Narcissus graciously ignored) the twins/clocks paradox didn't get its nickname for nothing either. In such cases at least one of the models is wrong unless a way is found to justify the contradiction.
    Likewise, I also believe that the debate about the type of clock desired is a waste of time [Kato Y. the old man].

  383. Israel,

    If you accept my words then theory A does agree with theory B, if you don't accept my words then you actually don't accept theory B by itself, and that's a completely different matter.

  384. waiting for me

    Avi - if possible, try to leave at least 50 recent comments attached. It hardly delays the loading time, and allows you to read all the relevant comments.

  385. To all the detractors 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 lover of frogs by birth, planned a simultaneous night attack on the nests of the Hasids, which was supposed 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 a toad and a 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.

    Yuval - I don't know what you will do with the free time you will have. Maybe spend in free comments?

    R.H. - I don't know what Science claims, but the #1 problem in physics on Suskind's blog is: What is time?

    Meir - The main problem with your argument is that you can't say where time slows down in the two clocks that pass each other: Jack's time or Jill's? Don't forget, this is a relative slowdown of a system of clocks, not of a single clock. If we had changed the system, the slowdowns would have switched sides. And yes, it is confusing.

    Zvi - Your words are correct if I accept the lengthening of time in inertial systems. At this point I am very skeptical. (Where is the experiment style the airplane experiment that will prove the lengthening of times in non-accelerated systems?)

    This. Running to Leon's wedding.

  386. ב

    We dealt with cesium clocks and temperature clocks because while a cesium clock is a normal clock and equal to a pendulum clock or an hourglass, a temperature clock is not equal to them for the reason that it does not measure time. Our assumption was that two such clocks tick at the same rate relative to each other in different reference systems and we tried to see if this brings us to a contradiction.

  387. To all distinguished debaters,
    I recommend the latest issue of Science magazine which devoted a considerable part to today's burning problems in physics.

  388. deer:
    If the clocks were synchronized at the second station it means that they were not synchronized at any other station (station zero, station one) they can only be synchronized at one point.
    If the clocks were indeed synchronized at the zero point. Then an asynchronous call will be received at any other point. The difference in reading will increase with each station.

    From Jel's point of view. The cooling she sees in the binoculars did not start at zero time. The start of cooling was at a different time. And this is because her temperature clock is synchronized with a clock of another station and not of the zero station. Therefore there is no problem with a different reading of the two temperature clocks that she watches.

  389. It is not clear why you delved into messing with different examples of watches.
    There is no point in that.
    According to the theory of special relativity:
    The measurement difference between the time measured in the self system and the time measured in the drive system depends on the speed.
    What does this have to do with the type of watch?
    Does it matter if someone measures length with a yardstick or with a laser beam? After all, in his own system, the same result will always be obtained.
    The device used for measurement is irrelevant.
    And those who want to know the time differences should be respectful and perform the Lorentz transformation (the translation from system to system).
    There is no reason that during a photo the same reading will be obtained on the clocks. On the contrary, according to the theory, a different reading should be obtained except for one time point (eg the starting point) where it is possible to equalize the reading of the clocks.
    A cesium clock, a temperature clock, a pendulum clock and any other type of clock are nothing more than a measuring tool. If they do measure time then they will measure in their own system the own time and in another system the time according to the transformation (translation).

  390. Israel,
    Congratulations, have a good trip, goodbye
    Really, once in a while a man deserves a little time off
    I already know what I will do when I have free time
    😛

  391. Israel,

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but you agreed that in Jack's system cesium clocks are equivalent to temperature clocks. You also agreed that when Jill passes station number 2 she sees Jack's watch showing 10, and the watch at station number 1, using a telescope and considering the distance the light had to travel, shows 6.4. If we add temperature clocks it means that for Jill one temperature clock shows 10 and at the same time another temperature clock shows 6.4.

  392. Israel,
    You write here https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-speach-20100800/comment-page-23/#comment-344547
    "The speed of the calculation is not relevant in my opinion, and to see this, let's assume that the difference between the CZ clocks did not reach only 2 seconds, but 2 years.
    We are now pulling a shiny new temp clock out of the box with a 4Ghz processor, (or even 4 million). According to the promise of the manufacturer, Rolex Universal, this watch automatically adjusts to absolute cosmic time, just as our cell phone adjusts to terrestrial time."

    But that's exactly the point, that there is no such thing that we pull out "now". Whose now? Jack's or Jill's?

    The slowing down of time refers only to local time measurements. A local bo time measurement on Jill's system will appear longer to Jack than a local bo time measurement on his own system and vice versa. If it were possible to cause time measurement to be local in both systems, such as by a temperature clock that displays the time in seconds from the moment of the bang within zero time from the moment the temperature is sampled, you would be right. But as soon as the display of the time by a temperature clock is subject in some way to a process that takes time, its measurement can no longer be local in two systems that are in relative motion. If it is not local in him, everyone will see that the measurement process at his friend's takes longer, and that his friend is lagging behind in performing the agreed upon series of samples. You said they pull out the Trolex after two years. After two years of who?

  393. Zvi, Yuval and everyone who reads (who? who?).

    I am too busy with visiting family and packing for the trip to Israel, so it will be difficult for me to respond. If you have the book "The Fabric of the Universe" by Brian Green, you are invited to read on pages 200-190 and especially on pages 197-196: "Clocks whose only movement is due to 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".

    The sheet is short of continuing, the book holds (in my opinion) that cosmic radiation is this absolute yardstick.

    There is also a logical consideration as to why temp clocks must show the same time at every point at a given moment, but I have to go to sleep. We will continue later. Good night.

    Yuval, the article is

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/

  394. Hey Israel,
    First an apology and a request: I lost the article in Cosmo. Please link.
    And to the last question you addressed to me: the problem is more complex than what you presented. It does start with Jill's season lagging behind Jack's, but it doesn't end here. There is a sequel: Jack's watch lags after Jill's watch is on time. A brief processing of a system of inequalities shows that Jill's season lags behind itself. The only mainstream explanation is that the degree of lag must be zero, and any calculation that shows a different number is wrong. Therefore, all the cameras must show the same reading, and it is up to you (or anyone else) to recheck the calculations.

  395. Israel,
    First of all thanks for your patience in reading my incorrect explanations of the contradiction, I will ask you to give me another try.

    I think there is a problem with one of our assumptions, that two temperature clocks passing each other will always show the same time. This assumption is actually built on two sub-assumptions, the first that two temperature clocks tick at the same rate relative to each other, and with this assumption in the meantime I don't see any problem, and a second sub-assumption that temperature clocks are always synchronized, meaning that there is a moment when all observers will agree that the clocks have synchronized.

    The second sub-assumption is wrong, since according to special relativity two observers can disagree about the simultaneity of events.

    Regarding our example, this means that at the moments when the locomotives meet the first cars:
    Jill Rua - at her place: 8 p.m., 6.4 temp. At his place: 10,10
    Jack sees - at her place: 10 p.m., temp. 8. At his place: 8,8.

    I may have gotten the numbers wrong, but do you agree that our assumption is wrong?

    And if my calculations are correct it means that the assumption that Jill's cesium clocks lag behind the temperature clocks is also wrong.

  396. If you accept what I said earlier, meaning that each tick on the temp clock as far as Jill is concerned lasts 0.8 seconds, then the temp clock that Jill will see in the photo that shows 10 ticks will be interpreted as showing that 8 seconds have passed.

  397. jubilee

    The whole matter of the experiment was explained in an article in Cosmo. The experiment came to decide between the lengthening of time in relationships and the big bang theory, which in my opinion are incompatible with each other.

    But this is alternative physics, and we are currently looking for an explanation in mainstream fields. Hence the matter of the photographs.

    You answered: All the clocks will show the same time in the photo. You didn't answer my question about how this fits with the data from the original problem, where Jill's season lags behind Jack's. Can you answer this question now using a mainstream explanation?

    deer.

    If Jill's clock shows 10 and her temp clock is 8, this contradicts our previous assumption that in a joint shot of her clocks, the clock always lags behind the temp clock. In this case he is in a hurry.

    Note that this has nothing to do with Jack's system.

  398. Israel,

    One must refer to the clock's working mechanism to ask what the clocks will look like. After all, when you say 8,10,10,10, you are referring to time. But if you mean that the temp clock ticks once while the cesium clock ticks once in Jack's system, then yes, the picture you describe is correct, ie Jill's cesium clock ticks 8 ticks, the other clocks 10 ticks.

    The photo opposite will show Jill's cesium clock 10 ticks, the other clocks 8 ticks.

  399. The movie you brought is very dramatic. In your previous incarnation, were you an Amnonitchak?
    Thought experiments are sometimes confirmed by the test of action and sometimes impoverished. But the current thought experiment cannot be put to the test at all.
    Let's focus on "measuring equipment for the arrival time of a radio signal with a precision of picoseconds". First, please tell the viewers and listeners what it is needed for and maybe someone from the audience will come up with an idea for suitable replacement equipment

  400. deer.

    We have not yet reached the question of the working mechanisms of the time and temperature clocks. The subject is not simple at all and relates to one of the most difficult and complicated questions that exist: what is time?

    However, the question before us is much simpler and it is: what will the photographs show?

    According to the data of the original problem, which we edited a little, when Jill's car arrives at the first car of Jack's train, the photo shows: CZ Jack 10, temp Jack 10, temp Jill 10 CZ Jill 8. Do you accept? Yes No.

    And now I'll ask you to tell me what the opposite shot will look like, where Jack's locomotive arrives at the first car of Jill's train. Just that. We will refer to the interpretation later.

  401. Israel,

    You can't see time. You can see a clock whose ticking lasts a fixed period of time. This is what happens with cesium clocks, the clocks of the model used by Jill and Jack tick every second. If you take a video of such a clock and see it tick once then you will know that no matter how fast it is moving in the system it was filmed in one second has passed.

    If, on the other hand, you see a video of a temperature clock ticking once, you will not be able to conclude anything about the system it is in.

    The asymmetry between Jack and Jill is only reflected in the fact that the ticking rate of a temperature clock will be the slowest in Jack's system. Even so, Jill can claim that the clock ticks every 0.8 seconds.

    Can you (as Jack) prove to Jill that the clock ticks every second universally?

    The assumption that two temperature clocks will always show the same time can be interpreted in two different ways, one that two such clocks in the same state will always represent the same elapsed time, and the second that physically such clocks will always be in the same state, I agree with the second interpretation and you, as I understand it, with the first interpretation.

  402. Israel,
    I'm glad you find humor in my words. This is the little I can do to play with your tormented soul.
    Between you and the ungrateful because Jack and Jill never really existed in any spaceship that traveled at a tenth of the speed of light, etc. What you are trying to build in these marathon discussions are thought experiments, and you already know what their verdict is (see, for example, what happened to APR). What Zvi, R.H., you and I can contribute to these discussions is just more flourishing thoughts. From time to time I also hear about real experiments you are planning. These interest me much more and I suggest we put a strong emphasis on them. Let us define for ourselves what we are looking for and build devices that will help us look for what we want.
    When are you expected to return from the US?

  403. deer

    Until the waiting is released, here is the logical question again:

    1. A photograph of A and B always shows the same number in A and B.

    2. A photo of A and C always shows the same number in A and B.

    3. A photo of C and D always shows a lower number in D than in C.

    Could a joint photo of A, B, C, and D show a lower number in B than in D? Yes or No?

    Let's call A clock temp Jack, B clock cz Jack, C clock temp Jill and D clock cz Jill, and this at the time of the meeting of locomotive Jack with wagon #1 In Jill's train (not the locomotive where Jill is sitting).

    According to the answer you gave, the czech clock cannot show a lower number than the czech jill clock. Since in clocks a lower number means an earlier time, then a Jack clock cannot show an earlier time than a Jill clock, regardless of the temp or clock mechanism.

    (One can of course speculate on what exactly this time is, but according to relativity the image will be the opposite of the one obtained by our logical approach, and this is regardless of the essence of time and the ratio of the ticks between the clocks).

  404. deer

    There is something that distinguishes Jack from Jill and countless other passengers and that is that he is stationary relative to radiation and they are not. He is the only one of all for whom a joint photo of the 2 watches always shows the same time on both.

    (Of course, this applies to any other passenger who is comfortable relative to radiation).

    Therefore, even though Jack's temp clock may be an "external mechanism" as you say, it is impossible to distinguish it from the cesium clock next to it. Both tick at the same rate. In fact, one of them can be waived.

    So far everything is consistent with previous agreements between us. Another agreement was that two temp clocks show the same time in both when meeting. Therefore, it can be concluded that during the meeting all the temperature clocks will show the same time, and the logical implication is that this is the time of the C.H. clock relative to radiation.

    So my question to you is: from the laws of logic, doesn't it require that if all our previous agreements are valid, every temp clock always shows the same time as a stationary cz clock relative to radiation, and always at the same rate as a cz clock that is stationary relative to radiation?

  405. Shorten the loading time? Will the time shorten? I don't believe in the shortening or lengthening of times. Only in temp clocks.

  406. The answer to the logical question is no, but this does not contradict what I said.

    I claim that every viewer will see something different in the photographs, and by awe I do not mean the image itself, but the time. You and I can get frustrated over a shared photo and agree that the clock will tick five times, but in your system each tick takes one second and in my system each tick takes ten seconds, so you will say that the photo shows that 5 seconds have passed and I will say that it shows that 50 have passed.

    This is something that exists only for clocks that are based on an external mechanism such as the temperature clock. Regarding a normal cesium clock, for example, if each of its ticks lasts one second in your system, then also in my system each tick lasts one second, therefore in such a case agreeing on a photo would be equivalent to agreeing on the time.
    For this reason when Jack and Jill see the photo that shows 8 on Jill's watch and 10 on Jack's watch they agree on the numbers 8 and 10.

    If, on the other hand, everyone also had a temperature clock, let's say it showed that 10 ticks had passed at Jack and Jill's, each of them would claim that a different time had passed, because who determined that a tick is equal to one second? In the case of a cesium clock, you can simply make a measurement in each system and see that a tick is equal to a second, but in the case of a temperature clock, such a measurement will yield different results in each system.

    So my question to you is why should Jack's opinion be given more weight than Jill's opinion about the time shown by the temperature clock?

  407. We conduct experiments with all kinds of features that will help shorten the loading time of the pages. There is a programmer who works on this especially and he is free to do any experiment, for example to show only some of the comments and only those who want to see them all or all kinds of other things that will help reduce the size of the page (not only in the comments but all possible things)

  408. Friend, I'm seriously asking, have all the responses been reversed for you too and they appear from the end to the beginning, or only for me? Avi Blizovsky?

    Yuval, that's what I like about you, you always joke.
    (What not?).

    Because note: there is a problem here. You claim that a photo of all the clocks will show the same time on all of them. Relativity claims that there will be a difference between the cesium clocks because of the lengthening of time.

    It's hard to argue with photographs, or maybe it is? Maybe every viewer sees something different in the photos? Jack and Jill look at the same photo, Jack says to Jill: You're retarded. She answers: You yourself are retarded.

    Indeed a relationship at its best!

  409. I got a new idea:
    Come on, instead of looking at the relationship between them as an absolute inequality (really big, really small) let's see the relationship between them as a partial inequality (big or equal, small or equal). We know that these two relations can exist simultaneously without contradicting each other (if A≤B and B≤A then A=B). It is true that at every moment of the movement the absolute inequality exists, but at the moment of the meeting (or when the cameras are activated) the partial inequality exists.
    What do you think?
    A gita shaabes to you too. Wait for the candles to go out before you go to sleep. They have already turned off for me.

  410. Did the comments to the article change for you too?

    Yuval, at this point I'm not trying to do anything, just get simple answers to simple questions. You claimed that all watches would look the same. In the example of Jack and Jill there is a difference of 2 seconds between his time and her time. how does it work out

    Shabbat Shalom.

  411. Israel, I think I'm starting to understand your mind
    You start from the assumption that information can pass at a speed many times higher than the speed of light (this is the conclusion from the Aspect experiment) and try to build a picture of a medium (which you call "active site") that transmits light at infinite speeds. For the purpose of illustration, you once brought us the parables of the freeway and the ballistic pendulum, and now you are trying to attack the twin paradox.
    Am I right?

  412. Israel!!! What happened??? All is lost?!?!
    David Albert is not evil and he is not saying that the cameras will see a different reading. He doesn't talk about cameras at all, but not in the context of the twins.
    Please find us a new stage. The current shows instability.

  413. deer

    The reservations you raise also apply to any broken clock that rushes or lags. The question I raised in the previous response does not refer to watches at all, but is a question of logic: if you believe that the question I asked can be answered "yes" and that it does not contradict the 3 conditions I set, try to do so. You don't have to use real clocks, you can just as easily draw them on paper.

    We will talk about the relevance after we see if such a situation is logically possible at all.

    In a framed article, I will point out that unlike a thousand and one thousand, Bell's inequality theorem is also not a physical theorem but a logical theorem: what is in A and not in B + what is in B and not in C, is greater or equal than what is in A and not in C. Here again, the simplest demonstration is through a drawing.

    The application of Bell's theorem to quantum entanglement is the mathematical proof of non-locality (for your attention Yuval, aspect experiments are only empirical confirmation of what has been proven mathematically). I believe that the application of the sentence I brought before is the mathematical proof of the non-prolongation of time, if all the conditions we agreed upon before are met.

    (Of course, it is possible that we were wrong in our assumptions, it is possible that, as Meir claims, the temp clocks at Jack's do not always show the same time, it is possible that they are not consistent, that the temp clock next to the XNUMX:XNUMX clock behaves in a chaotic manner, one time showing an early time and the other late). But here the question immediately arises: what then is Friedman's formula?

    But first we must come to an agreement on the logical question I asked earlier.

    jubilee

    You maintain: "My claim is that the cameras will show the same reading on all watches."

    As always I flow with you, but what about evil Albert? He claims that there will be a difference, by Jack and Jill.

  414. Something about the temperature watch:
    Unlike a clock with an internal pendulum like, for example, a cesium clock, the ticking of the temperature clock occurs outside of it. The entire universe pulsates with temperature and the number of pulsations is recorded everywhere in the universe. The temperature clock does not count the pulses but only shows the record of the number of pulses as found at the point where it samples.
    If we assume that all clocks with an internal pendulum are activated by the pulses of the universe (which are expressed not only in temperature), there is no difference between a temperature clock and a conventional clock.
    A claim was made here that due to deviation to blue (or red) the thermometer element will cause the temperature clock to be "falsified". This claim could only be true if the measured heat emanates from a single point in the universe. However, the existence of such a point has not been proven and/or is unknown. If, on the other hand, we assume that the measured heat emanates from each and every point, then in each and every place two deviations will be created at the same time, to the red and to the blue, and their effects on the thermometer will offset each other.
    For the above reasons I suggest to stop using temperature clocks.

  415. Israel,
    With all the mess between the delay and the collection of the guarantee, it's hard for me to know what you got and what you didn't. So in short:
    My claim is that the cameras will show the same reading on all watches. My reasoning is that at the moment of photography all reference systems are unified into one system. If anything in this claim doesn't seem right, please say so

  416. Israel,

    where we suppose that some photograph shows a clock in a certain state. Two people will agree on what they see in the picture, that is, on the above description, but they will not necessarily agree on the time. One will say that the clock shows that 2 minutes have passed and the other will say that the same situation shows that 4 minutes have passed and not 2 minutes. Which one is right?

    If it is a clock that is based on an internal mechanism, for example an hourglass or an atomic clock, then it will be possible to decide the question, simply by measurement, regardless of the inertial system in which the watcher and the clock are located. If, for example, the observer aged ten years and the clock ticked once, then the observer knows that the clock ticks once every ten years, and he will do so no matter how fast the observer and the clock move. This is why both Jack and Jill agree that the cesium clock on Jill's locomotive shows that 8 seconds have passed.

    If, on the other hand, the clock is based on some external mechanism, such as the temperature clock, then it will not be possible to decide the question. One observer will see that every year the clock ticks once, and another observer will see that the clock ticks every minute. They will have no way of deciding the question because the clock ticks at different rates in different systems.

    And so I claim that the photograph of the temp clock is irrelevant, because even though the viewers will agree on the physical image of the clock, for example that it will tick twice, they will not agree on the time that the clock shows because for each of them the ticking will be a different length of time. It is true that for Jack each tick lasts one second, but he cannot impose his measurements on Jill, since in her system any measurement she takes will show that one tick on the temperature clock takes 0.8 seconds, and she can equally claim that the clock shows that 8 Seconds and not 10 as Jack claims.

  417. jubilee.

    The day of alternative physics will come. Until then, could you answer my request and say what you think the photographs will look like? Is that so much to ask?

    deer

    You can see the problem as a logical question in the psychometric test, without involving clocks at all.

    Here are the following data:

    1. A photograph of A and B always shows the same number in A and B.

    2. A photo of A and C always shows the same number in A and B.

    3. A photo of C and D always shows a lower number in D than in C.

    Could a joint photo of A, B, C, and D show a lower number in B than in D? Yes or No?

    If you (or anyone) can answer yes or no (with or without an explanation, as you wish) we can continue after I return with my dogs from the mountains.

  418. But what exactly is meant by the photo showing 10 on the temp clock? The temp watch is not really a watch. A cesium clock, for example, shows the time passing in the system it is in, the temp clock, on the other hand, ticks at a different rate in each system. In the resting system of radiation, it ticks the slowest. Therefore, my idea is that in order for the time it shows to have meaning, the clock needs to be calibrated according to another clock that is next to it in the system.

    If we accept these things, then the temperature clock will have no meaning, because when you put it next to a cesium clock that shows 8 seconds have passed, you will conclude that 8 seconds have also passed in terms of the temperature clock. And what you got is two clocks that show 8 seconds.

    In such a case, the photograph is not relevant, because while the photograph will show that the temperature clock will tick, let's say 10 times, the viewers will not agree on the time because for each of them, the ticking takes a different time.

    And this is consistent with our assumption, since from Jill's point of view the cesium clock and also the temperature clock with which it was synchronized will show 6.4 seconds.

  419. Israel! We are relatively synchronized. You don't understand what I want from you and I don't understand what you want from me. This is exactly the same misunderstanding. The so-called "twin paradox", derived directly from the theory of relativity, holds that both will see the same thing. What C1 sees in C2 is exactly what C2 sees in C1 and what C1 sees in himself is exactly what C2 sees in herself. You can find that at Einstein and you don't need me to tell you. It also doesn't really matter what clocks they use, cesium or Celsius.

    In the meantime, I would like you to pay attention to one important point that we have not yet discussed, and Albert also ignored it: as long as the systems of J1 and J2 are separate, what happens in one system does not affect what happens in the other. But when they photograph each other, there is communication between them and then they are one unified system. Therefore I estimate that all watches will show the same reading.

  420. deer

    The sarcastic response was of course aimed at Yuval the Stotnik.

    There is a problem with the way you described things, and you can see it I believe if you look at the following 3 photographs:

    1. The photo of the first meeting which, as you suggested, will be between Jack and Jill sitting in the locomotives, in which all 4 clocks will show time 0.

    2. The photo of the meeting between Jill sitting in the locomotive and the next car in Jack's train (this is the car that was Jack himself in the original example). According to the data of the problem, the CZ clock in the trailer Jack shows 10, the temp clock Jack 10, the temp clock in the tractor gill 10, the CG clock gill 8.

    3. The photo of the meeting between Jack sitting in the locomotive and the next car on the Jill train. According to the symmetry of relativity, we were supposed to get: 10 CZ clock in the car, 10 CZ clock, 10 CZ clock, 8 CZ clock in the Jack XNUMX tractor.

    Everything is fine and dandy, but our assumption is that Jack's train is relatively stationary relative to the radiation, so the time on his temp and hr clocks are always the same.

    There is another problem: guests have arrived and they need to be pampered.

    jubilee

    Indeed, what exactly does this tributary want from his life? Why don't you tell me what the photos will look like and close the deal? Leave alternative physics for now. Maybe we'll get to it later. We are currently mainstream only. No philosophy and no skirts.

  421. Israel, you must be asking yourself, "What exactly does this tributary want from my life? How the hell can you measure proper time?", so like this (amazing in its simplicity):
    It is not possible to measure it, because there is no known rest system that can be referred to. But there is no problem in measuring the neighbors' time. They all have a "conventional" clock, a computer and a speedometer installed. Everyone knows what their speed is relative to the other. The relative speed data and the local time reading are entered into the computer on which the Lorentz transfer function was run. The time reading of the other J appears on the display.
    you are joking? But that's exactly what Einstein did. He didn't know how to interpret the conclusions of the MM experiment, so in order not to get stuck, he decided to ignore the website and skip ahead.
    When we expand out of the mainstream we can redefine the site and then we will also find a complete stationary system

    Mazel Tov. Regards to the child. Be careful of Leon's leg (help him). how do you fly

  422. Get correction:
    As far as Jill is concerned, her temperature clock will show that 8 seconds have passed and Jack's temperature clock will show 10, and at station number 1 6.4.

    This is a continuation of the previous comment that is awaiting approval.

  423. If you keep rambling, I'll make you a Technion student.

    Here's the question: Jack and Jill fly past each other. Jill puts on makeup, Geek does his hair, toothy smiles, the cameras are rattling, flash, action! The shared photo shows 0 on all 4 clocks: CZ Jack, Temp Jack, CZ Jill, Temp Jill.

    After some time, Jill meets another clock synchronized with Jack's system. Her clock shows 8 in the photo. What will the other watches look like in the photo?

    And on the other hand, what will the reverse shot look like, the one that takes pictures of Jack and his watches and Jill's car watches?

    I'm going to work. Snoozy is coming tonight and will be with us all weekend and Leon is also getting married on Sunday, so we should mainly focus on solving the cosmic and existential problems until Monday, when I fly to Israel.

  424. Israel Shapira,
    I was wrong about the lag of the clocks, and I think you might be wrong too. Let me try a new direction and tell me what you think.

    Let's go back to the example where Jack sits at station 2 and Jill flies towards him, and synchronizes with station 1, and we add temperature clocks at each station and in the spaceship.

    When Jill passes Station 2, Jill sees that her cesium watch reads 8 and Jack's cesium watch reads 10. Jill looks at her temperature watch and sees that it reads 10, but, she knows that her temperature watch has synchronized with the cesium watch Hers was 8 seconds ago, so for her every second of the temperature clock is equal to 0.8 seconds. Therefore she can say that her temperature clock shows 8 seconds, and so does Jack's clock, and also the temperature clock at station number 1. What is a clock? In total, a device that we will assume ticks every fixed period of time, and if you see that your device ticks every 0.8 seconds, then you take this into account when you want to know what time it is. That is, although Jack and Jill will agree on the physical image of the clock they will not agree on the time the clock represents.

    In the end, if we compare the spacecraft to station number 1 at the moment of the meeting between Jack and Jill, from Jack's point of view: the two clocks at station 1 show 10 and Jill's cesium clock shows 8 while the temperature shows 10. From Jill's point of view: The two clocks in her spaceship show 8 and so does the temperature clock in station 1, while the cesium clock shows 6.4.

    Maybe the whole problem stems from the fact that Jill can't really treat the temperature clock as if it shows that 10 seconds have passed, after all she could just as well have given up on the clock and just done the calculations we did and found out that Jack thinks 10 seconds have passed.

  425. If they show proper time, they are in sync
    Are you coming to the old city next week? Kola Cry, Morning Dogs, Blastic record (not in you)...

  426. Pasteur, Robert Dame.

    What about the clocks in the meeting of Jack and Jill? What will they see? Proper time Elek.

  427. 🙁 True. Explains a lot.

    The only absolute time we can rely on is derived from the progression of light through space. Light travels at a constant speed for any system. Havi says that no matter which system you check it with, you will always be able to get the correct time from it. Call it "Proper Time" or whatever name you like. It is absolute and does not depend on space.

  428. Did your Schneller pin fall on your head when you were little? Ah, that explains a lot.

    "The assumption of absolute time does not contradict the relative time of relativity, but the opposite" ??!? Did you check? Are we talking about the same relationship? Does Einstein know this?

    Unless you are talking about Meir's proper time, but that includes space coordinates if I remember correctly. This is not applicable in our case.

  429. Right! Impolite like me! Welcome back Meir 🙂

    Israel! Do you think I'm a watchmaker? Well, well, I dealt with it once. One of my uncles, A.H., once repaired the Schneller Tower clock, and one of the hands fell on me (the seconds hand, so to this day there is no seconds hand in the Schneller Tower clock. On occasion, when you are in Jerusalem, you will be able to prove it for yourself, and maybe that is what will save my reputation as a truth teller...). So I'm a bit of a watchmaker, right, but to explain how the passage of light from point to point always happens at the same speed, you don't need me. That's what Einstein is for.

    The assumption of absolute time does not contradict the relative time of relativity, but the opposite. Absolute time is measured using the only mechanism qualified to measure it. All other mechanisms measure time incorrectly.

    What problem did you raise? Too much walking in the rut, I lost it in one of the turns.

    Mary's son, James VI of Scotland, is James I of England. That is, the kingdom was united under a Scottish king. Our queen, Elisheva ['Sorry. There are letters that I am not always allowed to use], she is a direct descendant of him (ninth generation). And what a surprise: we only had one King of David, but the Scots had six of them.

  430. Meir, welcome back.

    The temp clock indeed "does not measure time differences between local events". It only measures the radiation temperature from both directions, and weights that into an absolute time output at that moment and point. The speed of the calculation is not relevant in my opinion, and to see this, let's assume that the difference between the CZ clocks reached not only 2 seconds but 2 years.

    We are now pulling a shiny new temp clock out of the box with a 4Ghz processor, (or even 4 million). According to the promise of the manufacturer, Rolex Universal, this watch automatically adjusts to the absolute universal time, like our cell phone adjusts to the terrestrial time.

    What time will the clock be set to and what will be the difference between it and the CZ clock next to it, the one that is now showing a lag of two years relative to the CZ clock that passes by in the locomotive opposite? 2 seconds? 2 years? And if we now pull out a temp clock in the locomotive opposite, how would it know that it should automatically adjust and show a time two years later than the temp clock in front of it?

    A difference of two years, I believe, is enough time to calculate everything even with a bead invoice.

    Mendel Tsbinji and Yuval.

    Can you describe to us that "clock that samples the local time at every point in the universe where it is located regardless of the speed at which it moves"?

    And doesn't this assumption of absolute time (on which my entire argument against the lengthening of time is based) contradict the relative time of relativity?

    And will we get a solution to the problem I raised?

    And will we get to see Mary's descendants lead again?

  431. ♫ Girlfriend, girlfriend! Wait, wait! ♪
    Don't you think that the discussion about the temperature clock is blown out of proportion? Look where you went! Blueshift and redshift that do not offset each other even though they occur simultaneously, the computer that translates temperature to time pulses at a variable rate. Don't you waste time (and it doesn't matter how you measure it)?
    I propose to bypass the temperature clock obstacle and simply assume the existence of a clock that samples the local time at each and every point in the universe where it is located regardless of the speed at which it moves. In my opinion, such an assumption is not completely baseless, since there is at least one clock mechanism that is not relativistically affected - and that is the light itself.

  432. I assume you were thinking of Loch Ness. It's a bit far. We only went around Loch Lomond (that's from the song).
    As we know, the Scots hate the English, and they have plenty of just reasons. Soon they will part, inshallah. But the reason that broke the camel's straw is not very famous. It happened about ten years ago. Until then Loch Ness was a monster. She didn't hurt anyone. Everyone loves her. It is not known what her real name is, but she was known in the world by the affectionate name Nessi. Nessie lived her life quietly and peacefully, attracting tourists from all over the world and making a good living for thousands of Scottish families. However, ten years ago some one who flaunts the feathers of a biologist decided to prove that she does not exist. He scanned the bottom of the lake with modern destructive tools and, ending the search without finding any signs of Nessi, declared to the world that Nessi is nothing but a myth and not only that it does not exist but that it has never existed in the past either. He did not rise to the Scots xinghua worthy of his name who will fight to the last drop of blood. They swallowed the insult and thousands of families lost their livelihood at once. The same researcher, Yamash, Draon will live on in his memory, is of course an Englishman.

  433. Israel,

    I think the solution is that the two temp clocks will not show the same time. If Jack has 10 o'clock on both clocks, then he will see that Jill has 8 o'clock on both clocks.

    The explanation is that, as far as Jack is concerned, Jill's temperature clock does not measure time differences between local events, but rather calculates what is the local temperature that a clock would measure. This calculation includes the sampling of the temperature differences (Doppler), the calculation of the temperature that was measured by a clock, adjusting the time from the bang according to the Friedman formula, etc. These are all processes that take time. The fast 4Ghz processor in Jill's temp clock is only running at 2.4Ghz from Jack's point of view. Therefore, from Jack's point of view, each tick of Jill's temperature clock (calculation cycle) is spread, from Jack's point of view, along a proportional path for the duration of the calculation (as short as it may be, but it still takes time). Therefore, just as for Jack, Jill's cesium clock does not make local time measurements and is therefore lagging behind proper time, so her temperature clock is also not making local time measurements and is therefore equally lagging.

    All of the above is symmetrically true of Jill's point of view regarding Jack's watches.

  434. jubilee

    Regarding your comment about the accuracy: let's say that the level of accuracy of temp clocks is less than that of clocks due to nuances of relativistic quantum tunneling and can even reach a full second per million years!!

    So what?

  435. deer

    Although it is not critical to the discussion, it is desirable that we synchronize what we mean by "retarded". If two clocks are synchronized to time 0, and in a late measurement clock A shows a time of 10 hours and clock B 8 hours, then clock B lags behind clock A.

    Because in our example when the locomotives of Jack and Jill meet, Jack's time clock shows 10, so his temp clock also shows 10 (they always show the same time because they are both stationary relative to radiation) and because the temp clocks at the time of the meeting They show the same time, so Jill's temp clock also shows 10 while her hr clock shows 8, then it is correct to say that the hr clock is the one that lags behind the temp, isn't it?

    A second point, and it is critical to the discussion, is that in each and every car of Jill's train, from the moment the temp and hr clocks were calibrated to the same time, any later photo of the 2 clocks in the same car in each of Jill's cars will always show the hr clocks As laggards, and it doesn't matter in which direction relative to the radiation, Jill travels, forward, west, north or backward, up or down. As long as it is in motion relative to the radiation - its C.H. clocks will lag relative to the temp.

    (In the enclosed article - it doesn't matter even if they speed up, as long as they are consistent in their deviation, but this assumption can lead us to a paradox: the time on the temp clocks cannot exceed that of the age of the universe. If they lag behind, theoretically the time on the clocks can reach thousands of billions of years).

    Regarding your words "that the two viewers will agree on photographs from the other cars, but not on the time when the photographs were taken." According to the cameras that show the same shot from the two cars passing each other, they always agree on 3 clocks: the 2 temp clocks that always show the same time, and Jack's cc clock that always shows the same time as the temp clock.

    The problem is the fourth clock in each session, the clock at Jill's. According to relativity, when Jack driving the locomotive meets later cars on Jill's train, his clock will lag relative to her clocks (because of symmetry, this is what happens to Jill's clock). However, if his time clock lags behind, then the temp clocks also lag behind, and this is contrary to our previous insight.

    Note that if we reverse the generator and say that the temp clocks are the ones that always fall behind, then we will encounter a problem in the other direction with Jill in the role of Jack (symmetry).

    So what is the origin?

  436. And also asked her what level of accuracy she thinks can be reached: seconds, hours, years, jubilees... In Loch Ness they are not talking to you about less than a millennium.

  437. Please don't feed the monsters in Loch, certainly not the guests, and ask the monster what parameters are being ignored, and does Friedman know it.

  438. Until the trial of the field of the awaiting trial ends:

    1. Do you accept that it is even possible to build a temp watch?

    2. Do you accept that two such watches at the same point and moment will show the same time, regardless of their relative speed?

    3. Do you accept that a clock calibrated to the same time as the temperature clock next to it can later show a time earlier than the temperature clock (due to the lengthening of time), but not a later time?

  439. Attempt to rescue the hostages:
    I understand that you are actually looking for the clock in the news, the one that measures the correct and accurate time in every system. You are currently examining the differences between an accurate but non-relativistic clock (cesium, aluminum, etc.) and a clock that is currently not accurate but is also not affected by the speed of its movement in space (temperature). I will share with you for a moment the assumption that the CMBR temperature is indeed a measure of time and also that it is possible for a thermometer to exist whose accuracy is so great that the quanta of the temperature changes it measures are characterized by the small time units that the opaque clocks are able to measure.
    Have I understood correctly so far?

  440. Let's leave poor grammars. I understand that you are actually looking for the ultimate clock, the one that measures the correct and accurate time in any system. You are currently examining the differences between an accurate but non-relativistic clock (cesium, aluminum, etc.) and a clock that is currently not accurate but is also not affected by the speed of its movement in space (temperature). I will share with you for a moment the assumption that the CMBR temperature is indeed an indication of time and also that it is possible for a thermometer to exist whose accuracy is so great that the quanta of the temperature changes it measures are characterized by the small units of time that the sealed clocks are able to measure.
    Have I understood correctly so far?

  441. Do you mean the sync issue? This was discussed in Einstein's original paper and in fact the dilation of time and all other relativity derive from it.

  442. Thank you very much for both the warm welcome and the cold shower.

    As long as we are within the mainstream it is very likely (although not completely 100%) that at least one of the conclusions is wrong. Since for now I am exempt from bringing my model I will use the right of silence.

    Regarding the problematic nature of the temporal situation: it is not clear to me why the claim is heard that the clocks are not coordinated at a certain moment if we know that at a previous moment they were indeed coordinated. The fact that one time they show the same reading and another time their reading is different but can be calculated according to a formula, does not mean that they are uncorrelated.

  443. Great, so you're back from Edinburgh. Until Zvi returns as well, have you understood the problematic nature of the temporary situations? Or maybe you will finally explain what local solution you have for quantum entanglement, including for the aspect experiment as demonstrated by Nick Herbert?

    http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html

  444. Here, in Scotland, a skirt is considered mainstream as long as there is nothing underneath. The anger of the flutes is also somehow tolerated, despite the shrill sounds.
    So what is your question actually?

  445. Israel Shapira,

    1. Jill's Bacter temperature clock will lag behind the cesium clocks. What happens in the other cars will depend on who you ask. It is important for me to emphasize again that the two viewers will agree on photographs from the other cars, but not on the time when the photographs were taken.

    2. Yes.

  446. Israel! Do you need me to teach you to read newspapers?
    So the law of grief predicts. Big deal. First let the prophecy come true and only then will we jump off the bridge.
    It is true that the cosmic microwave background radiation was initially received with trumpets, but when the results came in from all over the world, the orchestras started to fake.
    We fought a lot about the Aspect experiment and the battle has not yet been decided. In general: if conclusions obtained in one place contradict conclusions obtained in another place, then someone messed up. You may say APR, I may say Bel, and the truth may be somewhere else.
    Now leaving Edinburgh. Perhaps returns at night with a skirt and a bag of flutes.

  447. As usual, I flow with you in everything, except for the marginal details here:

    1. Non-locality. According to Bell's inequality, aspect experiments.

    2. Agile galaxies. See

    http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3114432,00.html

    3. Disconfirmation of the Big Bang theory by the CMBR. In fact, the discovery of the CMBR is considered the most serious confirmation of the big bang theory, which predicted the radiation even before it was discovered by chance, and in almost complete agreement with the observed spectrum.

    I agree with you on one thing: if cosmic radiation is not useful for measuring time, and if this time is not absolute at every point in the universe, then Einstein is right about the relativity of time and the big bang theory faces a serious challenge.

  448. Obviously. After all, that's what the cauldron was boiling over here. A fact you understood 🙂
    And as of right now, I don't know about galaxies traveling at a higher speed than light, nor about other bizarre phenomena that you point to.
    The CMBR reaches us at the same temperature from any distance in the range between zero and 14 billion light years (and from any direction), this indicates with a high probability that there has been no cooling for a very long time. Therefore, it is probably not a confirmation for the Big Bang hypothesis and is not useful for measuring time anyway.

  449. waiting Let's try to sneak:

    deer.

    Ok. Let's now take the statement "in such a case that it is the poor temperature that will lag behind, and not the cesium".

    1. Does this also apply to temperature watches that include a doppler meter and a computer?

    2. Do you accept that temperature clocks that include a doppler meter and a computer will always show the same time when they pass each other regardless of their speed relative to radiation?

  450. deer.

    Ok. Let's now take the statement "in such a case that it is the poor temperature that will lag behind, and not the cesium".

    1. Does this also apply to temperature watches that include a doppler meter and a computer?

    2. Do you accept that temperature clocks that include a doppler meter and a computer will always show the same time when they pass each other regardless of their speed relative to radiation?

    jubilee.

    Quantum entanglement is laboratory work. Did you perhaps mean non-locality?

  451. b) I will explain. I will definitely explain. I will explain every detail - when we agree to go beyond the rut
    a) In the meantime, you are welcome to collect examples that require an explanation (shall we start with quantum [dis]entanglement? 😛 )

  452. deer.

    Ok, so we agreed. And also the prime in all the following cars where the locomotives meet the cars. A photo from system A will show the same time as a photo from system B. agreed upon?

  453. jubilee.

    Not only does the radiation advance at a speed that surpasses MHA, entire galaxies do so on their suns, planets, moons, comets and zebras. And yet there is no contradiction to relativity here and no Lucy was hallucinating in the sky with her diamonds. did you explain

  454. The frame from Jill's shot must show the same thing. That is 10 in Jack's time and 8 in hers.

  455. deer

    The photographs show a clear picture, I believe there is no dispute about that. We have no practical way of knowing what the time is on clocks that are synchronized but are not in immediate proximity to the camera. Let's see what happens with the attached watches, and see what the assumption that "Jack would claim that the photo was taken the moment Jill and he met, while Jill would claim that the photo was taken after they met" can lead us.

    Let's take our original example. Jill passes Jack at a breakneck speed of 0.6C. We will reduce the entire clock and camera device to the size of a millimeter, and say that in the fraction of a second that the devices pass each other, the cameras are activated, or perhaps it is better a video that takes pictures all the time and we examine the frame in which the 2 clocks on the ships appear.

    What will the frame from Jack's ship show? I claim: Jack 10 watch, Jill 8.

    What do you think the frame from the shot from Jill's ship will look like? Is 8 Jack and 10 Jill? (an answer I often get and I do not agree with it at all).

    Something else? If so what?

    Because one thing is certain: we will have photographs, and they will be unequivocal.

  456. Israel Shapira,

    I still have a problem with the cameras thing. I agree that the cameras would be able to photograph the four clocks, and that both Jack and Jill would agree that at the time the photograph was taken the four clocks showed what the photograph showed. I claim that they will not agree on the time when the photo was taken in relation to the synchronized clocks.

    In the previous example, if Jack had set up a camera at a station and photographed the clock at one station when it showed 10 seconds passed, Gil would of course agree that the photo was real, however, Jack would claim that the photo was taken the moment he and Jill met, while J Yell would claim that the photo was taken after they met.

    In our situation, Jack and Jill will have a lot of photos of four watches, but for each of them, the photos were taken at different times in a way that will allow both of them to claim that they are right without reaching a contradiction.

  457. Beautiful. Probably really every point, therefore at every point the diversions will balance each other.
    I only knew Pocho through "Haaretz Nenu". My kibbutznik romance only started when I was in the army.
    The mystery is that this radiation is the same (or almost the same - up to a tenth of a degree) from every direction and from every distance. Therefore, it seems to be moving at a speed that exceeds the speed of light (or other magical explanations). In any case, its ability to serve as a measure of the Big Bang is questionable.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%93+%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%9C%D7%93%D7%AA&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:he:official&client=firefox-a

  458. every point

    And he said: "Give me a fulcrum and I will determine the speed of the land Eureka".

  459. We certainly can, but this is provided that there is a point from which the radiation emanates.
    Was it Archimedes who said "Give me a focal point and I will determine the speed of the earth relative to it"?

  460. and..? Why can't we, for example, from measuring the red and blue deviation, what is our speed relative to the radiation and what is the temperature at the point where we are of a stationary system? Isn't that what we're talking about?

  461. Thanks for the explanation. I understand the role of Doppler in devices that measure speed. It is also clear to me that movement relative tosource of radiation What causes the color in which the radiation is seen. But in this case we know nothing about the origin of the radiation. We hypothesize that it is the product of a one-time event, the "Big Bang", but even if we agree that this event did occur, we do not have a single spatial point to which we can refer as a focal point. In fact, the accepted claim is that the Big Bang occurred throughout the universe (which at that moment was smaller than a pinhead) and is still occurring throughout the universe, and it spreads in all directions without us being able to determine a center for it. Therefore, the radiation is everywhere, in every direction and at the same temperature.

  462. deer

    The issue of high-resolution cameras is so critical to the discussion that it might be worth dwelling on it a bit.

    The accepted version of relativity on the lengthening of time is that "each system sees the other's clocks as ticking slower". In our example, Jack sees the time as 10 and Jill as 8, but Jill "knows" that the time on the first clock that passed by is 6.4.

    Since there is no theoretical or practical way to verify this, I suggested the issue of high-resolution cameras: they only record what is in front of them and at a very small distance (a millimeter, for example). If you remember from the example of the cars on the road, when the car passes the clock on the road, the camera captures the 4 clocks: time on the road, temp on the road, time in the car and temp in the car, and this even though the car stays only a fraction of a second near the road clocks. It is still possible, theoretically and practically, to make all 4 watches be at a negligible distance from each other and from the camera, despite the car's enormous speed. The high resolution ensures that we get a clear image despite the speed.

    My claim is that the two photographs of all 4 clocks, the photograph from the road and the photograph from the car, which were taken in the split second that the car (or the locomotive) passed by the other clocks and were activated by a proximity switch for example, will show the same time on each clock as the photograph from the road or the car opposite shows. Because of the zero distance between the cameras and the clocks, the gap you talked about in the telescope example is also zero. Therefore, it cannot be said that every system considers the second clocks to be slower in this specific case (an answer I received many times, although I believe I managed to convince that it is not correct), but both sides agree on the time in clocks that pass each other, and we even have photographs to confirm this . (Jill and Jack, for example, agree that at the time of their meeting, his watch shows 10 and his watch shows 8, neither of them claims the opposite).

    If we agree on this point, we can proceed.

    jubilee.

    When you are at rest relative to the radiation, you will theoretically measure the same spectrum in each direction. If, on the other hand, you are moving (such as DHA moving at a speed of about 600 km/s towards the constellation Leo), you will measure a spectrum deflected to the blue in the direction of the movement and to the red against the direction of the movement. Doppler.

    A temperature clock that passes quickly at a certain point (for example near an identical clock that is stationary relative to radiation), will measure different spectra than the stationary clock. However, a simple calculation that processes the data of the 2 spectra (and for that the computer) will be able to show him which spectrum he would have measured if he was at rest, which was the same as the spectrum of the stationary clock, and from which he deduces the temperature, Friedman, and here we have the same time in the number of seconds that have passed since the Big Bang on both clocks .

  463. Israel, sorry for the next dumb question
    I did not understand what a doppler meter does in the temperature clock. If the clock is based on Friedman, then it only shows the local temperature (translated into units of time). The Doppler is only relevant if the temperature is radiating from a point whose location is known, but this is not the case with the CMBR.
    What did I miss?

  464. The lengthening of times means that the time you will measure will always be longer than the self-time. When Jack measured Jill's own time he got a 10 when she got an 8, that's the elongation. Therefore Jill's temperature clocks will lag behind the cesium clocks. The cesium clock is synchronized with Jack's own clock and therefore basically shows how much time has passed for Jack from Jill's point of view, this time will be longer than Jack's own time, which is shown by the temperature clock. So far I'm only talking about the locomotive.

    Regarding the Kelvin thermometer, I think the answer you received refers only to the deflection to the blue in the direction of movement and not to the deflection of all radiation. This means that both observers will measure the same temperature. This does not mean that the temperature inside the trains will be the same, only that the measurement of the radiation taking into account the Doppler effect will bring the same temperature.

    I didn't understand the camera thing. After all, it will take time for the photos to reach Jack and Jill and you have to take that into account as well. The previous example also talked about this only that instead of photographs Jill and Jack had a telescope and even then there was no contradiction. The point is that Jack and Jill only sit in the engine and not in all the carriages, so they don't have to agree on what goes on in the other carriages. In the previous example Jack claimed that on the clock at station 1 the time was 10 and at the same time Jill claimed that the time was 6.4. Photographing the station will not help because the question arises when to photograph it? From Jack's point of view, the clocks are ticking simultaneously at the same rate, from Jill's point of view, on the other hand, the clock at station 1 lags behind the clock at station 2 and ticks more slowly. So even if Jack brings a photo of the clock from Station 1 showing that 10 seconds have passed Jill will not agree that this photo depicts what happened while she met Jack.

    Unfortunately I can't help you with the radio signals.

  465. deer

    Temperature watches are built from a radiation meter, a doppler meter and a computer.

    The assumption is that no matter what the speed of such a clock is relative to the radiation, its output will always be one: the time in seconds that has passed since the big bang, if the clock was at rest relative to the radiation at the point of measurement.

    If this thing is theoretically possible, it turns out that two such clocks that pass each other will always show the same time.

    If you don't find a flaw in the argument so far, and since as far as I know there is no "shortening of time" (?) but only lengthening of time (could temp clocks theoretically show more time than the time that has passed since the bang? For example 30 billion years?) then the CZ clocks Can only show time equal to the temp clocks like Jack's clocks, or less time like Jill's clocks.

    Apart from that, I still haven't received a clear answer about the matter of measuring the temperature with a simple Kelvin thermometer. It is clear that if, contrary to the answer I received in the English quote, two gauges at the same point will measure the exact same temperature regardless of their speed, it is possible to waive the Doppler issue altogether.

    Am I wrong?

    In connection with the fact that they are both sitting in locomotives, you can see that when such a locomotive passes by 10 consecutive wagons with clocks, with each new wagon the gap will increase and increase between the times. When you write "even though Jill agreed that her watch showed 8 and Jack's watch showed 10 there was no contradiction because for Jill the original watch showed 6.4 and not 10", I believe it is not what she sees but what she knows based on her knowledge of relativity. That's why I added the cameras, to avoid disagreements. And the photographs will show (I believe) that the gap between the locomotive's clock and the cars is increasing by two seconds in each car, and this is for both Geek and Jill, or at least that's what relativity claims.

    I'm going to bed now (3am in LA). I have another technical question that you might be able to help me with:

    How can I measure the arrival time of a radio signal with as high an accuracy as possible, preferably picoseconds? Are there timers that do this? Computer Program? Oscilloscope?

    Good night and thank you for your investment.

  466. What correspondence? This is an apparent contradiction in the lengthening of time in relationships, about which you wrote to me "your assumptions are fundamentally wrong" and also "you are just playing with numbers without understanding where they come from". Isn't that the issue? Because if so and you don't know him, where did you get the sayings today?

    Just, I already know you too well. Let me know if you are interested in an explanation of the problem. It is true that we only discussed it for two months with R.H.

  467. Yes, Israel. I vaguely remember that you once told about some correspondence you had. please update.
    and ok For your sake I will not deviate from the rut (unless...)

  468. deer

    I am still waiting for the parole of the response.

    I went through the Doppler link. As far as I understand, it is not about the lengthening of time in clocks or any other physical object, but of the electromagnetic waves themselves.

    jubilee. If you are interested in getting to know the subject, let me know.

    Warning: We are not dealing here with any "alternative physics", or any explanation that goes beyond the limits of accepted and established knowledge. We may get to that in the future, but right now I'm only interested in an explanation of the problem I presented from the so-called "mainstream".

  469. The diversion to blue in question will be in the direction of traffic, in the opposite direction there will be a diversion to red. From here it is possible to know whether you are in motion in relation to the cosmic radiation or not. Jill will have to account for the Doppler effect or she will measure two completely different temperatures in each direction.

    When we talked about Jill's temperature watches I started from the assumption that Jill takes into account the deviations and calculates the temperature that Jack calculated.

    In such a case it is the temperature clocks that will lag, not the cesium. The temperature clocks will show Jack's own time, which is always shorter, and therefore will see that less time has passed than the cesium clocks.

    Regarding the picture of the four watches. First of all, it is established that both Jill and Jack are sitting in the locomotive, and when the locomotives meet all four clocks are synchronized. In that case, there would be symmetry between the cesium clocks. That is, in the following cars, Jack will see Jill's cesium watches lag behind his watches, and Jill will see Jack's watches lag behind hers. It has to be that way for symmetry reasons.

    How does that fit with what you wrote? Remember that in the link you sent me in chemotherapy when Jill and Jack compared their watches they did not compare the watches they were seeing but the original synchronized watches, so even though Jill agreed that her watch showed 8 and Jack's watch showed 10 there was no contradiction because in terms of Jill's original clock showed 6.4 and not 10. This means that in our case Jack and Jill will have to compare their clocks with the clock on the second train with which they synchronized and not with the clock they see in front of them.

    You can do the calculations and make sure that this is indeed the case. Besides that, you can imagine another temperature clock, only this time it shows Jill's own time and not Jack's, add this clock to all the cars and you will get a completely symmetrical system. I don't see how such a situation can lead us to a contradiction.

  470. Thank you Israel,
    I am not familiar with all your correspondence with that person who sounds like he understands the matter, but on the surface it seems to me that he was wrong when they said "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 vaporise your spaceship"
    This, in my opinion, is because the medium that conducts the light is not the same as the medium that conducts the sound and the phenomenon of the supersonic boom has no supersonic boom equivalent [not only a boom but also intermediate densities]. The color (frequency) in which the radiation appears to the eye of the observer is a consequence of the Doppler effect and can be used as a measure of relative speed but does not reflect the temperature of the measured radiation.
    I judge only based on this one sentence, and probably other things can shed new light.

  471. Yuval, can we ask you not to bother Zvi at the moment, even so the subject is quite confusing. I can explain the matter to you later. Thanks.

  472. Thanks Zvi.

    Regarding the radiation, here is an answer I received not long ago from a person who sounds like he understands the matter:

    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

    Since I do not have sufficient knowledge on the subject (and would be very happy about references or detail in the context of movement speed and cosmic background radiation), I accept these things as they are at this point.

    trains. We have reached a situation where in every car of Jack's train (relative to radiation) the temp and hr clocks always show the same time. agreed upon?

    On the other hand, in Jill's train, the temperature clocks are always lagging behind the temperature clocks, and this in every car. agreed upon?

    Taking a picture of 2 temp clocks at the same point, on the other hand, will always show the same time on both. agreed upon?

    And here's the problem:

    From Jack Train's point of view, Jill's clocks are moving slower. Therefore, every time a car from its train passes by a car from its train, a joint photo of all 4 watches will show the following image:

    A Temp Jack clock shows the same time as a CG Jack clock and also the same time as a CG Jill clock, but a CG Jill clock lags behind.

    So far everything is fine and fits with the relativity claim.

    The problem arises when we look at w