What form, let's assume a physical body, does time have? Your opinion. - page 54
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
gravity on the ground 9.81 m/s2
gravity in the morning in bed under the blanket 999.81 m/s2
And I do not understand at least why to get into polarization of relic radiation and search for confirmation or refutation of the big bang. After all to comprehend the same, for example, gravitation only two things are enough: a simple optical telescope and a brain.
The point is not that there is gravity, but that there are gravitational waves. With the optical telescope and the brain it is possible to understand that gravitation exists, and it is even possible to deduce its relation to the curvature of space-time (for example, through such purely astronomical effects as perihelion displacement of planets and gravitational lensing). But there is no way to calculate the gravitational waves preserved since the end of the inflation phase in this way - the effect is too small to be observed with an optical telescope, even on the scale of the visible universe. But this hypothesis, of course, did not arise from nothing. And it follows from inflation theory, and even wider - from multiverse theory, that relic gravitational waves must exist. They try to measure them directly, by fluctuations of gravitation proper, but sensitivity of instruments at the moment is insufficient by several orders of magnitude. But an indirect measurement turned out, and it is, it must be said, a very remarkable result, because it says a lot about how well we understand the history of the universe in its early stages. After all, by and large, what BICEP has seen is a kind of photograph of the gravitational field of the Universe as it was more than 13 billion years ago. And given that at these stages the universe must have exhibited the properties of the vacuum and elementary particles, and in a very specific way depending on which theory is more correct, the result says a lot about the microcosm as well.
In short, at least I do not understand how such things can not strike to the heart.) Imho, it's worth thinking about and... reading, reading, of course.
In short, I don't understand how such things can't strike you to the core.) It's worth thinking about, imho, and... reading, reading, of course.
Yeah, I don't get it either.
In short, I don't understand how such things can't strike you to the core.) It's worth thinking about, imho, and... reading, reading, of course.
Life is so much more interesting thanks to such things!
The point is not that gravity, it's that gravitational waves. ...
Gravitational waves don't exist. If only because gravity is not of a wave nature, as many are used to thinking by analogy with electromagnetism.
And to raise money for pseudoscientific research with archaic names is right.
They are trying to measure them directly, by fluctuations in gravity itself, but the sensitivity of the instruments is currently lacking by several orders of magnitude.
And it won't. If there are no fluctuations, let them measure them at least.
But an indirect measurement was obtained, and it is, it must be said, a very outstanding result, because it says a lot about how well we understand the history of the Universe development in the early stages of its existence.
It's not wrong at all. We search gravitational waves and invent neutrinos to save the law of conservation of energy, but we do not see the obvious. In simple optical telescope, by the way.
After all, by and large, what BICEP saw is a kind of photograph of the gravitational field of the universe as it was more than 13 billion years ago.
You're being tricked. You're being tricked. The measured gravitational propagation rate to date is already 30 orders of magnitude higher than "c". And what they have caught there, they count on the basis of the speed of light, because you see, one clever man said long ago, that nothing is faster, and the rest is nonsense.
Alexey, you are interesting interlocutor on these subjects, but you are too trusting of modern science, to which it is high time to attribute"pseudo" in these oblation.
Would you like a "simple" question for a refresher? How do the followers of the Newtonian theory of gravity explain the origin of Saturn's rings? And Jupiter? And the disc-like nature of the solar system? And the Milky Way? Look it up, look it up... You'll be disappointed. Isaac Newton's mistake is still being cleared up by mankind.
Meanwhile nuclear reactions at the centre of our star and (approximate) coincidence of planets' orbits are one field of fish. But Newton would not like it, and consequently, neither would the whole official "science".
So it remains for us, only to look with amazement at those in whose history there was no Isaac Newton:
Gravitational waves don't exist. If only because gravitation is not of a wave nature, as many are used to think by analogy to electromagnetism.
And to raise money for pseudo-scientific research with archaic names is the right thing to do.
And there's not enough. No hesitation, at least let them measure.
Not at all wrong. We look for gravitational waves, invent neutrinos to save the law of conservation of energy, but we do not see the obvious. In simple optical telescope, by the way.
You're being tricked. You're being tricked. The currently measured speed of gravity propagation is already 30 orders of magnitude higher than "c". And what they have caught there, they count on the basis of the speed of light, because you see, one clever man said long ago that nothing is faster, and the rest is nonsense.
Alexey, you are interesting interlocutor on these subjects, but you are too trusting of modern science, to which it is high time to attribute"pseudo" in these oblation.
Would you like a "simple" question for a refresher? How do the followers of the Newtonian theory of gravity explain the origin of Saturn's rings? And Jupiter? And the disc-like nature of the solar system? And the Milky Way? Look it up, look it up... You'll be disappointed. Isaac Newton's mistake is still being cleared up by mankind.
Meanwhile nuclear reactions at the centre of our star and (approximate) coincidence of planets' orbits are one field of fish. But Newton would not like it, and consequently, neither would the whole official "science".
So it remains for us, only to look with amazement at those in whose history there was no Isaac Newton:
The point is not that there is gravity, but that there are gravitational waves. With the optical telescope and the brain it is possible to understand that gravitation exists, and it is even possible to deduce its relation to the curvature of space-time (for example, through such purely astronomical effects as perihelion displacement of planets and gravitational lensing). But there is no way to calculate the gravitational waves preserved since the end of the inflation phase in this way - the effect is too small to be observed with an optical telescope, even on the scale of the visible universe. But this hypothesis, of course, did not arise from nothing. And it follows from inflation theory, and even wider - from multiverse theory, that relic gravitational waves must exist. They try to measure them directly, by fluctuations of gravitation proper, but sensitivity of instruments at the moment is insufficient by several orders of magnitude. But an indirect measurement turned out, and it is, it must be said, a very remarkable result, because it says a lot about how well we understand the history of the universe in its early stages. After all, by and large, what BICEP has seen is a kind of photograph of the gravitational field of the Universe as it was more than 13 billion years ago. And given that at these stages the universe must have exhibited the properties of the vacuum and elementary particles, and in a very definite way depending on which theory is more correct, the result says a lot about the microcosm as well.
In short, I for the life of me don't understand how things like this can't fail to amaze to the core.)) Imho, it's worth thinking about and... reading, reading, of course.
Such things do NOT shock you to the core when you realize that the ONLY THING THAT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE WITHOUT EVER HAVING TO BE THERE, IS THE VAST... (The total absence of anything). (!!!)
Having declared the existence of ANY OTHER OBJECT (except for emptiness) - you IMMEDIATELY STAND UPON THE NEGOTIATING TO DESCRIBE THAT IN ABSOLUTE VOICE... out of nothing (!!!) this object suddenly appeared.
So as not to make up GODs... or Big Bang stuff, you just have to realise that all the world that's going on around us... and visible world is "drawn" only by the PRESENT STATUS OF PROPERTIES OF EVERY POTENT OF ABSOLUTELY Hollow SPACE. (as an example, you can take the most bizarre processes occurring in the bowels of a switched on computer, when nothing changes inside it, except the STATUS in each single point).
Yeah... as many people as there are opinions, very interesting thread!
In my opinion, time is a "point" of existence (a moment between the past and the future), in principle, it is the same for all, but how we perceive it! it is individual characteristics of perception laid down by someone from on high.
A "point" of existence may be presented as an electromagnetic scale, we perceive only a small strip of visible spectrum, it is the same with time, we perceive milliseconds, hours, days, years, decades, centuries, etc., and what is smaller or larger unfortunately ... either life is short or the frequencies are too high for perception...
If we make an analogy with the market, then, the minimum frequency of time is 1 min, and the maximum frequency is the whole history...
The only confusing thing is the evenly distributed time scale in the terminal, inherently it should be dynamic.
... (as an example, you can take the appearance of the most bizarre processes in the bowels of a switched on computer, while nothing changes inside it, except the STATUS in each individual point)
No, it doesn't. The HDD head moves, charges in the memory cells appear and are erased, areas of the disk are remagnetised...
... If you make a market analogy, then, the minimum frequency of time is 1 min and the maximum frequency is the whole story...