It requires at least 60N of force to prevent from sliding snow sled downward through the mountain.And mountain slope is 30 degrees.Then if you release that rope connected to the snow sled from your hand,It will slide with 2m/s squared of acceleration downward through the mountain.How much force you need to apply to the snow sled to push upward through the mountain.I really hope you will answer my question🙏🙏🙏
The raisin dough is a nice picture but it creates a question that may be decidable. In the dough, not all positions are equal. Some are located in the middle, some at the edge. Now assuming that there is no god that has placed us in the center of the universe, the distances to the edge of the universe are not equal. Therefore by looking at the most remote stars or galaxies, we might see that their distance depends on the direction of looking. A practical problem that prevents us from doing this is that we can only look 14 billion light years into the past, and the diameter of the universe may be larger. But that would mean it must have expanded faster than the speed of light. Hmm not easy to decide which principle to violate first. The sphere picture avoids all these problems, since the largest distance is pi x r and r is the radius which must be smaller or equal to 14 billion light years.
How would you model mathematically the relation between instantaneous distance versus instantaneous speed between objects in space? How would the math model it be any different than elementary high school physics? How do you distinguish in your math model "one object moving farther from another" versus "the space expanding between them"? Let x(t) = distance other galaxy is away from us at time t. Suppose x(t) = 5*t^2. Then v(t) = 10*t. So v = 10*(x/5)^(1/2) expresses the idea of the more distant object, greater x, move away from us faster, greater v. But, these equations hold no distinction between "the space expanding between the 2 objects" versus "the objects simply moving relative to one another".
You say in this lecture that, "...space is expanding the same everywhere...." Do you mean this literally? If it were literally true then the space within each galaxy would also be expanding. The space within each astronomical body would be expanding, the space between molecules would be expanding,....and so forth. So if such expansion were universal, how could we detect it? We need to postulate that space is not expanding locally or that forces overcome such expansion locally. But we know forces are propagated by space so one would think that space is even more fundamental than forces. How does one deal with this dilemma? Do forces act independently from the nature of space?
Space is assumed to be expanding everywhere. But the forces between charges are far too strong, for the expansion to have any effect on the structure and interaction of matter.
@@MichelvanBiezen So you fall into the school that holds that forces balance and determine distances between entities by means independent of the attributes of space. Is the alternative view untenable?
And yet we will collide with Andromeda some day. The forces between our galaxies being stronger than force of space “fabric” doesn’t seam as intuitive....but I’m not an astrophysicist. 😀
ok, i started at video 1 and finished 5, now i can see that this expanding of space theory is just back peddling on the original premise that galaxies are physically moving apart. This sounds like they have realized that they based there prediction on an assumption and that assumption has come to light so that now they are trying to go in a different direction. Which is not only an assumption but makes less sense than the original premise. That is because space has no properties of its own, space is the property of time and if they say space is expanding then time is also inversely changing also which would cancel their explanation. Basically if they say space is expanding that is akin to saying time is slowing down which is the complete opposite of the factual information of their observations. I enjoy your presentations, they are helping me to discover just how much in the past 100 years the scientific community has gotten wrong. Dont think im criticizing your presentation because i am not, just the information that the originator of this stuff say is true. There is a third explanation they arent looking at because i guess they simply haven't progressed to that point yet. I also enjoy the interactions in the end with the students that bring about clever quips.
@@MichelvanBiezen I stated space was not separate from time so you have to work things out in relation to time. Space-time gives the impression that the words main factor is space when it really isnt. If you were to walk down the sidewalk and look at your shadow you would see it move around in relation to how the sidewalk was laid out. That doesn't mean you can place any characteristics to your shadow separate from you as the basis of the shadow. Im saying if scientists would stop referring to space as a factor and give it its own characteristics and use the root of space which is time then they will have an easier time figuring things out accurately.
@@MichelvanBiezen Michel, just so that you know, im not trying to be critical of your teachings, im trying to learn more about the topic because i have a different view of the universe and im looking for certain characteristics of it that can be interpreted using a different path. If there is no way to separate gravitational red shift from velocity red shift that may show an entirely different model of the universe and one ive already included in a book i wrote a year ago. Im prepping to write about it for PRL.
write at first definition of space, please, to let us to understand what exactly is expanding. (because nowhere in "great" works of famous "scientists" there is no definition of space -they don't know what space is or didn't have enough paper) expanding /and interrupted, and curved/ space is nonsense. for properties of space I will don't ask :)
Tony Tomov Empty space cannot be empty, we know, because we can see stars. So empty space must conduct electromagnetic waves. Thus it must be more than nothing. You may think of it as a fabric of tiny oscillators that are exited by a light source and they carry the oscillation forward.
@@maxtabmann6701 "space cannot be empty" - true! "think of it as a fabric of tiny oscillators " - popular hypothesis only - not true . anything in Universe can be explain with: 1.well known normal physical laws/they are valid on all level of organization of matter/; 2.real, viscous and compressible gas: ether; 3. basic invariants: matter, length, time and their relevant units: [kg] , [m] , [s]
@@tonytomov4553 What you enumerate are all the elements of theories, but theories can be verified or not but they cannot explain nature. How do you explain that we can see stars? Of course there is Maxwell's theory, but it only "describes", it does not "explain" anything.
@@maxtabmann6701 to explain nature you must work with knowledge, not with theories. difference is: a theory is "before scientific" construction, based on assumptions and incomplete knowledge in some scientific area, which just trace path for future research . when a theory was proven, strictly according to Scientific method for obtaining of knowledge and science Logic, it recognized from the international scientific community as knowledge and nobody call it theory. " How do you explain that we can see stars? " - as we see everything else , according to the science of biology, it is very simple - the photon falls on photosensitive cells in our retinas, where electrical impulses are formed, which are transmitted by the brain, which perceives them as an image. :))) refine the question, please
@@tonytomov4553 OMG, you persistently missunderstood everything I sayed. Theory vs. Explanation: Take the example of barometric air pressure. There are 2 completely different explations, (Stacked air, Statistical) that all lead to the exact same formula This occurs many times in physics, where you have one end result but several different model explanations. Physics does not distinguish between them, because it only cares about the end result. Why do we see stars? There you exposed the worst misunderstanding. I am not referring to the eyes. Here again we have two models, the wave and the particle. For the wave, the medium in between has to be able to carry waves. Why is empty space able to carry waves? If you prefer the particle picture, there is no problem on this side, but then you have difficulties explaining interference.I get the impression, you have only consumed physics lika a journalist, but never developed own thoughts about the implications. Physicists in the 19. century have already asked this question, why can we see stars? This question lead to the theory of the ether. Now you will say, the existance of the ether was disproved by Michelson and Morley, but you have never seriously thought about what this experiment proves and what it disproves.
It requires at least 60N of force to prevent from sliding snow sled downward through the mountain.And mountain slope is 30 degrees.Then if you release that rope connected to the snow sled from your hand,It will slide with 2m/s squared of acceleration downward through the mountain.How much force you need to apply to the snow sled to push upward through the mountain.I really hope you will answer my question🙏🙏🙏
The raisin dough is a nice picture but it creates a question that may be decidable. In the dough, not all positions are equal. Some are located in the middle, some at the edge. Now assuming that there is no god that has placed us in the center of the universe, the distances to the edge of the universe are not equal. Therefore by looking at the most remote stars or galaxies, we might see that their distance depends on the direction of looking. A practical problem that prevents us from doing this is that we can only look 14 billion light years into the past, and the diameter of the universe may be larger. But that would mean it must have expanded faster than the speed of light. Hmm not easy to decide which principle to violate first. The sphere picture avoids all these problems, since the largest distance is pi x r and r is the radius which must be smaller or equal to 14 billion light years.
How would you model mathematically the relation between instantaneous distance versus instantaneous speed between objects in space? How would the math model it be any different than elementary high school physics? How do you distinguish in your math model "one object moving farther from another" versus "the space expanding between them"?
Let x(t) = distance other galaxy is away from us at time t.
Suppose x(t) = 5*t^2. Then v(t) = 10*t. So v = 10*(x/5)^(1/2) expresses the idea of the more distant object, greater x, move away from us faster, greater v. But, these equations hold no distinction between "the space expanding between the 2 objects" versus "the objects simply moving relative to one another".
You say in this lecture that, "...space is expanding the same everywhere...." Do you mean this literally? If it were literally true then the space within each galaxy would also be expanding. The space within each astronomical body would be expanding, the space between molecules would be expanding,....and so forth. So if such expansion were universal, how could we detect it? We need to postulate that space is not expanding locally or that forces overcome such expansion locally. But we know forces are propagated by space so one would think that space is even more fundamental than forces. How does one deal with this dilemma? Do forces act independently from the nature of space?
Space is assumed to be expanding everywhere. But the forces between charges are far too strong, for the expansion to have any effect on the structure and interaction of matter.
@@MichelvanBiezen So you fall into the school that holds that forces balance and determine distances between entities by means independent of the attributes of space. Is the alternative view untenable?
And yet we will collide with Andromeda some day. The forces between our galaxies being stronger than force of space “fabric” doesn’t seam as intuitive....but I’m not an astrophysicist. 😀
ok, i started at video 1 and finished 5, now i can see that this expanding of space theory is just back peddling on the original premise that galaxies are physically moving apart. This sounds like they have realized that they based there prediction on an assumption and that assumption has come to light so that now they are trying to go in a different direction. Which is not only an assumption but makes less sense than the original premise. That is because space has no properties of its own, space is the property of time and if they say space is expanding then time is also inversely changing also which would cancel their explanation. Basically if they say space is expanding that is akin to saying time is slowing down which is the complete opposite of the factual information of their observations. I enjoy your presentations, they are helping me to discover just how much in the past 100 years the scientific community has gotten wrong. Dont think im criticizing your presentation because i am not, just the information that the originator of this stuff say is true. There is a third explanation they arent looking at because i guess they simply haven't progressed to that point yet. I also enjoy the interactions in the end with the students that bring about clever quips.
You made the statement that: "space has no property of its own". They how can E&M waves travel through space?
@@MichelvanBiezen I stated space was not separate from time so you have to work things out in relation to time. Space-time gives the impression that the words main factor is space when it really isnt. If you were to walk down the sidewalk and look at your shadow you would see it move around in relation to how the sidewalk was laid out. That doesn't mean you can place any characteristics to your shadow separate from you as the basis of the shadow. Im saying if scientists would stop referring to space as a factor and give it its own characteristics and use the root of space which is time then they will have an easier time figuring things out accurately.
@@MichelvanBiezen Michel, just so that you know, im not trying to be critical of your teachings, im trying to learn more about the topic because i have a different view of the universe and im looking for certain characteristics of it that can be interpreted using a different path. If there is no way to separate gravitational red shift from velocity red shift that may show an entirely different model of the universe and one ive already included in a book i wrote a year ago. Im prepping to write about it for PRL.
Amazing!
write at first definition of space, please, to let us to understand what exactly is expanding.
(because nowhere in "great" works of famous "scientists" there is no definition of space -they don't know what space is or didn't have enough paper)
expanding /and interrupted, and curved/ space is nonsense.
for properties of space I will don't ask :)
Tony Tomov Empty space cannot be empty, we know, because we can see stars. So empty space must conduct electromagnetic waves. Thus it must be more than nothing. You may think of it as a fabric of tiny oscillators that are exited by a light source and they carry the oscillation forward.
@@maxtabmann6701 "space cannot be empty" - true!
"think of it as a fabric of tiny oscillators " - popular hypothesis only - not true .
anything in Universe can be explain with:
1.well known normal physical laws/they are valid on all level of organization of matter/;
2.real, viscous and compressible gas: ether;
3. basic invariants: matter, length, time and their relevant units: [kg] , [m] , [s]
@@tonytomov4553 What you enumerate are all the elements of theories, but theories can be verified or not but they cannot explain nature. How do you explain that we can see stars? Of course there is Maxwell's theory, but it only "describes", it does not "explain" anything.
@@maxtabmann6701 to explain nature you must work with knowledge, not with theories.
difference is: a theory is "before scientific" construction, based on assumptions and incomplete knowledge in some scientific area, which just trace path for future research . when a theory was proven, strictly according to Scientific method for obtaining of knowledge and science Logic, it recognized from the international scientific community as knowledge and nobody call it theory.
" How do you explain that we can see stars? " - as we see everything else , according to the science of biology, it is very simple - the photon falls on photosensitive cells in our retinas, where electrical impulses are formed, which are transmitted by the brain, which perceives them as an image. :))) refine the question, please
@@tonytomov4553 OMG, you persistently missunderstood everything I sayed. Theory vs. Explanation: Take the example of barometric air pressure. There are 2 completely different explations, (Stacked air, Statistical) that all lead to the exact same formula This occurs many times in physics, where you have one end result but several different model explanations. Physics does not distinguish between them, because it only cares about the end result. Why do we see stars? There you exposed the worst misunderstanding. I am not referring to the eyes. Here again we have two models, the wave and the particle. For the wave, the medium in between has to be able to carry waves. Why is empty space able to carry waves? If you prefer the particle picture, there is no problem on this side, but then you have difficulties explaining interference.I get the impression, you have only consumed physics lika a journalist, but never developed own thoughts about the implications. Physicists in the 19. century have already asked this question, why can we see stars? This question lead to the theory of the ether. Now you will say, the existance of the ether was disproved by Michelson and Morley, but you have never seriously thought about what this experiment proves and what it disproves.