Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would say the best counter-example is Saturn. 9x the Earth's radius, 95x the Earth's mass ... and 1.065 G surface gravity.
 
Bjarne said:
No..
If the yardstick also expands, 1 meter is still 1 meter and 1 m3 is still 1 m3
1*1*1 = 1 ( not 8 )
Click to expand...

Ehm, no. Let's look at this symbollically..:

Let's call a length at time T for X. A given cube A of matter has a mass of X^3 times density D.

Let's assume that at time T' the length has doubled to X'. Now the cube A has a mass of X'^3 times density D'.

Given that no matter is created we have

X'^3 * D' = X^3 * D

Solving for X' = 2X gives

2^3 * X^3 * D' = X^3 * D

Solving for D' gives

D' = D / 8

I think we would notice if this was happening...
 
Last edited:
Landrew said:
My only point was that a smaller planet should have less gravity. If I'm wrong about that, then I really don't know much about physics and I'll withdraw my whole point.
Click to expand...

You're wrong.

Smaller size with same mass has higher gravity. That's why we have black holes.
 
Bjarne said:
molapyk
Click to expand...

(The word you're looking for is "volapyk".)

How so? Please provide a counterargument.

I showed that a doubling of a given length will cause the volume to grow by a factor of 8. (ETA: By way of density being 1/8th)

Show me your math refuting this. By the way this is 6th grade stuff. It should be easy to point out where you think I made a mistake.
 
Last edited:
erlando said:
(The word you're looking for is "volapyk".)
Click to expand...
Mathematical language like "Let's call a length at time T for X" is volapyk for him, because he does not have any understanding of it, and he distrusts it because people always use it to show that he is wrong. And that is not acceptable to him.
 
I would not take bets on Bjarne's mathematical ability.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
No but that 1 = 2
1 = 1 to all time
That 1 today is different that 1 once was is irrelevant
Click to expand...

Just when I thought that you could not be any more fluent in gibberish.

I'll give you one oh
Green grow the rushes oh
One is one and all alone and ever more shall be so.
 
Last edited:
erlando said:
Fundamental math FAIL!

I'm sorry but you're a kook.
Click to expand...


1m*1m*1m = 1m3
  • today,
  • tomorrow,
  • after 100 years,
  • and also after 100 million years.
Doesn’t matter if the yardstick is growing.

When also times (on Earth) go proportional slower, with the distances expansion (on Earth) nothing would seem to change. We would not be able to discover anything. - And also not to calculate any changing’s.

Imaging that you were only 10 % of your size tomorrow, the hole world (universe) too, included the yardstick), and that times were running 10 times faster than today.
You would have not way to prove it. Also not with the silly "math" mentioned.

Only when comparing distances and time with how these factor was before (which is impossible) or comparing distance and time with none changing proportional (which also is impossible, since everything expands proportional).

Hence, seen from our perspective time ands distance change (over time) could not easy be discovered. - Also not by the stupid example mentioned above.

As mentioned, there is only way to discover if distances are changing (here on Earth), and this is to measure the EM spectre over time.

I am not sure how accurate this can be done.

Forget the stupid math, this is too silly.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
Forget the stupid math, this is too silly.
Click to expand...

I think that pretty much sums up this and all your other threads.

---

Ok, since maths, no matter how rigorous, isn't going to make a difference, how about this:

If we accept (erroneously) that the expansion of the universe is such that we cannot measure it, with all distances growing at the same rate...this WONT cause 'recurving' of the Earth's crust and lead to the growth of mountains, since the Earth's crust is growing too.

So how do you merge the expansion idea with the recurving idea?
 
Ok, since maths, no matter how rigorous, isn't going to make a difference, how about this:
Click to expand...

I am not saying that math doesn’t matter, but only that in this case it can't be used.
If time and distances both change, the world would always look the same.
All law of nature would still be the same.
There is nothing math can prove or disprove.
So fare I see it you can only prove / measure that if you compare EM spectre measurement over time.
These you can "store" and compare. - You can not “store” what time/distance difference was yesterday compared to today.

If we accept (erroneously) that the expansion of the universe is such that we cannot measure it, with all distances growing at the same rate...this WONT cause 'recurving' of the Earth's crust and lead to the growth of mountains, since the Earth's crust is growing too.

So how do you merge the expansion idea with the recurving idea?
Click to expand...

The point is that everything expands proportional to its stretch factor.
Let sat that space in the central Earth have a stretch factor 10% bigger than the surface. (110% compared to 100% at the surface).

When the Universe expands to the double size the Earth would expand more than double because the inner area would expand to 220% - the crust to 200%. Simply because everything must expands proportional to its stretch factor.

This could explain that the crust of the Earth is cracking

Now look at Mars
http://www.science27.com/images/img_4e11b.jpg
http://www.science27.com/images/Lava Lake.jpg

Mars is 10 times smaller that the Earth, hence also its central strength factor is much weaker.

I know this all sounds "strange" .
But what do you really see at the crust of Mars ? - Seriusly think about it before you totally reject reality.

If it is true that gravity is consuming/stretching space towards a object/mass (and hence that the expression "curvature of space" is a old fashion expression), - This must mean that space everywhere must stretch proportional to its stretch factor.

I am too surprise to see where my own thought leads me. I do not “invent” all this, but only innocent follows the logical main thread: Curvature of space = Stretched space.

There are several arguments that support that space also here expands;

  • India / Himalaya can not be pushed by convection, this force is simply to weak, this is a wrong theory, or rather thesis, Neal Adams is right. – The Earths is growing.
  • Subduction is not proven; recurving of the crust is a logical alternative.
  • Gravity have unlimited power to rise mountains.
  • The expansion of the Universe has no logical “borders”. The idea that the Earth and space around us should be an exception is illogical.
  • The big crack on Mars, - we MUST try to implement this H U G E fact in our overall picture of the world. This is really a broad hint, - The big bell wake up call.
  • The Earth’s continental plates fit.
  • New ocean bottom is created.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
IThere are several arguments that support that space also here expands;

  • India / Himalaya can not be pushed by convection, this force is simply to weak, this is a wrong theory, or rather thesis, Neal Adams is right. – The Earths is growing.
  • Subduction is not proven; recurving of the crust is a logical alternative.
  • Gravity have unlimited power to rise mountains.
  • The expansion of the Universe has no logical “borders”. The idea that the Earth and space around us should be an exception is illogical.
  • The big crack on Mars, - we MUST try to implement this H U G E fact in our overall picture of the world. This is really a broad hint, - The big bell wake up call.
  • The Earth’s continental plates fit.
  • New ocean bottom is created.
Click to expand...
Space here also expands. This is well known.
There are several arguments that support plate techonics

  • India / Himalaya can be pushed by convection, this force is simply strong enough, this is a valid theory, or rather thesis, Neal Adams is wrong. – The Earth is not growing.
  • Subduction is proven; "recurving of the crust" is a idea in someone's head that has no evidence.
  • Gravity has no power at all power to rise mountains.
    It is an attractive force not a replusive forcse as somone seems to think.
  • The expansion of the Universe has no logical “borders”. The idea that the Earth and space around us should be an exception is illogical.
    This is something that no one disputes.
  • The big crack on Mars, - we MUST try to implement this H U G E fact in our overall picture of the world. This is really a broad hint, - The big bell wake up call.
  • The Earth’s continental plates almost fit.
  • New ocean bottom is created.
 
Space here also expands.
This is well known.
There are several arguments that support plate techonics
Click to expand...
These arguments are empty air.
Only an expression that we MUST answer doesn’t matter how illogical the answer is.
Convection is simply too weak, and do not follow a such stable heat/cold "conveyer belt"
This is fantasy based "science", nothing else. Far from being even a theory.

India / Himalaya can be pushed by convection, this force is simply strong enough, this is a valid theory, or rather thesis, Neal Adams is wrong.
Click to expand...
Only speculation.
Where is the evidence?

Subduction is proven; "recurving of the crust" is a idea in someone's head that has no evidence.
Click to expand...
Only fantasy / speculation.
Where is the evidence that this happen due to convection.

Gravity has no power at all power to rise mountains.
It is an attractive force not a replusive forcse as somone seems to think.
Click to expand...
So long you don't know what gravity really is, this statement is nonsense.
Gravity is a property of space; - it’s in fact an expression of the density of space.
You can’t separate it from for example dark matter or dark energy.
It’s all the same nature / property of space.

Bjarne
The expansion of the Universe has no logical “borders”.
The idea that the Earth and space around us should be an exception is illogical.
RC
This is something that no one disputes.
Click to expand...
So how much does space expand here my friend?

The big crack on Mars, - we MUST try to implement this H U G E fact in our overall picture of the world. This is really a broad hint, - The big bell wake up call.
Click to expand...
If you really agree. ? (!)
( I thought you would deny [ignore] it was existing)
But since you accept realety, - Explain what do you think had / is causing that mystery.
Convection (HA HA HA HA…..) ?
But so far I “know you”, - I think you prefer to ignore reality right RC ?
And that’s why should have chosen the name; “Limit Reality Check” Or, - Orthodox Bunkerbuilder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom