Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bishadi]

And thereby show htat they understand next to nothing.

DK and DM are a fignewton of the imagination. They are both from the errors of the physics of used to describe the universe. They were created to fix the problems and not the hadron, not your beliefs or your best phds on the earth can prove either exist.

If you cant sustain that as true, then you are lying to yourself.

No. They are no gods. However, their work has been scrutinized by greater minds than yours or mine for decades, and had there been any serious flaws, they would have been discovered.

funny....

if there were no flaws then this thead would not exist.

You would comprehend what you are and each child could comprehend nature, evolution and what life is all about, without having to lie to themselves.

Then Bjarne must be learning a LOT!

Hans

i believe we are all capable. Just just i am enjoying that he at least is formulating questions that put your hans down

 

[MRC_Hans]

DK and DM are a fignewton of the imagination. They are both from the errors of the physics of used to describe the universe. They were created to fix the problems and not the hadron, not your beliefs or your best phds on the earth can prove either exist.

That is partly right, partly wrong. Dark energy and dark matter are hypothetical concepts made to fill the gap between our present understanding of physics and certain observations.

However, they are neither illusion nor imaginary, they exist. Once we (hopefully) understand what they really are, we may find that the names are misplaced, in which case we shall rename them, but there is absolutely no doubt that the phenomenon exist.

if there were no flaws then this thead would not exist.

There are flaws, but if you read Bjarne's musings, provided you can understand any of it, you will find that he claims current physics to be fundamentally wrong. I think we can be pretty sure of two things:

1) It is not very likely that it science should not have discovered that physics is fundamentally wrong.

2) It physics should after all be fundamentally wrong, it is not plausible that the likes of Bjarne, you, or me will be the ones to find out.

You would comprehend what you are and each child could comprehend nature, evolution and what life is all about, without having to lie to themselves.

I fond it very naive to assume that the complete truth about nature and all must be comprehensible to each child, or even to the average mind.

i believe we are all capable. Just just i am enjoying that he at least is formulating questions that put your hans down

He is not. I am ignoring some of his questions because they have no answer.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

On gravity:

I just visited Taipei 101 this morning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taipei_101

The building stands 509m tall, and is protected by wind movement and earthquakes by, among others a 660 ton steel ball at a height of appr. 380m. A high-speed elevator whisks you to the observatory platform at 385m with a speed of up to 60km/h.

Does anybody really think it would be possible to construct such a building, if our understanding of how gravity behaves inside a structure was flawed?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

sure.... that a kid could be smaughter than most any one of them guys named by hans.?

It might even be able to spell.

Hans

 

[Paul]

On gravity:

I just visited Taipei 101 this morning.

Excellent.

Pictures? In the name of science, naturally.

 

[Paul]

sure.... that a kid could be smaughter than most any one of them guys named by hans.

Reading about science doesn't make you smarter than Einstein, it just gives you a short cut to the knowledge he had to work for.

perhaps a new thread "common sense vs IQ", which do you prefer?

Ability.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Excellent.

Pictures? In the name of science, naturally.

One of my colleagues brought a good camera (and took ages to take pics ). I will get those later, but I can post a few I took with me cell phone:

Here is the view to wards West. The visibility was less than optimal, but reasonable. The small red arrow points at my hotel-room window .

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

- And the opposite view, at the 101 from my window, later in the day. The visibility had deteriorated.

Next is a close-up of the 660 ton damper.

Hans

 

[Paul]

Thanks

 

[Bjarne]

No, because you say it is gravity. You can't both claim the process is loss free AND that it is gravity.

The strong force accumulate it self as = matter (E=Mc²)

The strong force contracts space to matter.
The strong force / interaction pulls space and keep it together.
THIS is how the energy / space is absorbed / accumulated to matter.

Gravity is only a side effect, - space stretching towards matter (towards the strong force / interactions / contracted space)

Energy "loses" can happens as EM waves.
In this case there is lose of energy, and hence both of energy and also of gravity.

This mean if a cow would lose heat, - it would lose both energy and gravity.

This is why cows know that gravity and energy (the strong force) is united.

But so long a cow doesn’t lose energy (ex heat) it does also not lose gravity.
Hence cows do really have a good understanding of how energy and gravity is connected.

Again I can strongly suggest you some advances cow logic lessons.. I think you will need between 8 and 10.000. And as I told you, you get it free, because you are a good friend of me.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The strong force accumulate it self as = matter (E=Mc²)

What do you mean that the strong force accumulates "it self"? The strong force is, it doesn't accumulate itself, and certainly not as matter. Are you referring to the creation of mesons?

Secondly, if you want to express matter using that equation, then you should write m = E/c². That's the formula for matter, what you wrote was the formula for energy.

The strong force contracts space to matter.

As you just posted yourself, energy is matter, not space. Space is not energy.

The strong force / interaction pulls space and keep it together.

No it doesn't. It keeps matter together.

 

[Bjarne]

What do you mean that the strong force accumulates "it self"?
The strong force is, it doesn't accumulate itself, and certainly not as matter.
Are you referring to the creation of mesons?

SPACE DENSITY
Space must have some kind of “density” otherwise it cannot curve, or expand…

INTERACTION – THE STRONG FORCE
The interaction pulls the space density together to = matter.
Particles can be compared to small whirlpools, spinning space-density around then.
The interaction means; you (particle A) pull the space-density to matter, - I (particle B) push it to you.
Opposite if you “A” release that space-density (push it to me) “B”, - I pull it to matter.
Push and pull, - push and pull, - push and pull.
Hence there are no energy lose.
THIS is how the space density is contracted to something as you feel as matter.
(There is no matter as such........Max Planck)

As you just posted yourself, energy is matter, not space. Space is not energy.

ENERGY
Energy of Elementary Particle is a property of space, it is only a phenomena that occurs when particles spin them self into space.
Or if you prefer; - it is something that occurs due to interactions.
Energy and Mass is equivalence.
Mass of nuclear are must larger as the quark these exist of.
This mean after quarks has becomes nuclears; energy/gravity seems to pop up up from nowhere.
It is the interaction, - the pull-push-osculation-process that is responsible for energy and mass.
The energy responsible for the interaction is FAST (collective) oscillations in space.
When space is released from being; absorbed/consumed/twisted, - space is simply just released. You would say; space expands.
Hence energy is a property of space.
Energy is without substance.
Space density is the substance where that energy can maintain itself.
Energy = is space-density playing with itself.

GRAVITY
Gravity = is a result of contracted space, - a side effect.
Release contracted space = a gravity wave, - simply just; released space density, - or if you prefer; expanding space.
Big Bang = A Gravity Explotion, - it happens when the interaction stops, when the strong forces outplay it self, and for a moment not exsist.
A Supernova = A small BigBang

MATTER
Matter = is only contracted space.

Space-density is all what exist.
Oscillation of the space density is what you are made of.
This is what the world is made of.
This is all what exist.

No it doesn't. It keeps matter together.

There is no matter as such.............Max Planck..

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

SPACE DENSITY
Space must have some kind of “density” otherwise it cannot curve, or expand…

No. You should try to understand relativity before you claim it is wrong.

The interaction pulls the space density together to = matter.

No it doesn't.

(There is no matter as such........Max Planck)

This does not back up your claims.

Mass of nuclear are must larger as the quark these exist of.
This mean after quarks has becomes nuclears; energy/gravity seems to pop up up from nowhere.
It is the interaction, - the pull-push-osculation-process that is responsible for energy and mass.

You're right about everything here, other than the use of "the pull-push-osculation-process", which is something you just made up.

Energy = is space-density playing with itself.

Someone's certainly playing with themselves.

There is no matter as such.............Max Planck..

This quote still doesn't support your assertions. And you're not going to win a Nobel prize.

 

[Bjarne]

No. You should try to understand relativity before you claim it is wrong.

You should try to understand for exsample WHAT is a gravity-wave, - before the concrete gets too hard.

You're right about everything here, other than the use of "the pull-push-osculation-process", which is something you just made up.
So how does the gravity "suddenly" enters the process after quarks have become nuclear, - do you think?

 

[MRC_Hans]

The strong force accumulate it self as = matter (E=Mc²)

No.

The strong force contracts space to matter.

No.

The strong force / interaction pulls space and keep it together.

No.

THIS is how the energy / space is absorbed / accumulated to matter.

No. Matter does not accumulate energy.

Gravity is only a side effect, - space stretching towards matter (towards the strong force / interactions / contracted space)

Wrong, and it does not answer the question about how your particle spin yo-yo can both create gravity and be loss-free.

Energy "loses" can happens as EM waves.

EM waves cost energy, but matter does not emit EM waves except when having received energy first.

In this case there is lose of energy, and hence both of energy and also of gravity.

No, there is no loss of gravity. Gravity is entirely independent of the energy state of matter.

This mean if a cow

Parse error: Bovine reference.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

SPACE DENSITY
Space must have some kind of “density” otherwise it cannot curve, or expand…

When you draw a curved line in the sand, does the line have a density?
If you make the line longer, does it have a density?

The answer to both is no. Space also does not need to have a density.
According to some theories, space has a structure, but not density.

INTERACTION – THE STRONG FORCE
The interaction pulls the space density together to = matter.
Particles can be compared to small whirlpools, spinning space-density around then.

No. There is no basis for that claim. It is pure, unsupported speculation.

The interaction means; you (particle A) pull the space-density to matter, - I (particle B) push it to you.
Opposite if you “A” release that space-density (push it to me) “B”, - I pull it to matter.
Push and pull, - push and pull, - push and pull.
Hence there are no energy lose.

If there is no energy loss, there is no interaction with the surroundings, if there is interaction with the surroundings, there is energy loss. You can't have it both ways, and you can't fool thermodynamics.

THIS is how the space density is contracted to something as you feel as matter.

Get your story together; you are laternatively claiming that there is interaction and that there is not. You can't have both.

ENERGY
Energy of Elementary Particle is a property of space, it is only a phenomena that occurs when particles spin them self into space.
Or if you prefer; - it is something that occurs due to interactions.
Energy and Mass is equivalence.

No, it is a property of the particle.

Mass of nuclear are must larger as the quark these exist of.
This mean after quarks has becomes nuclears; energy/gravity seems to pop up up from nowhere.

You are out in the deep end, here. Better read the whole book.

The rest of your post also doesn't make sense. You are fabulating wildly about things you don't understand. You must learn that NOTHING becomes right just because you say so.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

So how does the gravity "suddenly" enters the process after quarks have become nuclear, - do you think?

We don't know for sure. However, that does not mean that you are free to make up anything you like.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Wrong, and it does not answer the question about how your particle spin yo-yo can both create gravity and be loss-free.

Because gravity is only a side effect.
The strong force / interaction pulls the space density to matter.
In this process space is stretching. Stretching space IS gravity.
Space is stretching towards matter, because matter pulls space.
The result is gravity.
WHAT is you problem.

EM waves cost energy, but matter does not emit EM waves except when having received energy first.

Have you hear about dynamite, atom-bombs, gasoline, coal, the earth emit heat, all planets does, -Jupiter even x-ray.
I think I could write you 11 books about EM waves that contradict your statement, - but I am not sure it would change your concrete mind.

No, there is no loss of gravity. Gravity is entirely independent of the energy state of matter.

Cows knows that a full charged 12 Volt car battery is heavier as a empty one.
Did you really not know that?
If so, - as I wrote, - you really should accept the advanced free cow logic lesson.
You are my friend; you can spend 10000 hours free together with Mother Cow, no problem.

When you draw a curved line in the sand, does the line have a density?
If you make the line longer, does it have a density?

The sand does, and if you would draw a line it in wallpaper clue, it too would have density. The line is not the main-important, it only tells what the lines does, not what the soup does.

According to some theories, space has a structure, but not density.

Hairsplitting…We could call it; "muuhhh", - it make not much difference, we will anyway never be able to completely comprehend the nature of space.

No. There is no basis for that claim. It is pure, unsupported speculation.

Albert Einstein was spending the last 30 year of his live to unite the 4 forces mathematical.
Even at his deathbed he wrote equations to solve that problem.
He was sure that gravity, the strong force and the electromagnetic force was a unity.

If he was living today maybe my words could have give him the right input.
I HATE mathematic. I can, but ONLY if I have to.
But maybe a good left-brained person will one day come across my words, and be able to use these. - Or maybe this is only possible by simple farmer words, also even though you never would except it.

If there is no energy loss, there is no interaction with the surroundings, if there is interaction with the surroundings, there is energy loss. You can't have it both ways, and you can't fool thermodynamics.

First at all gravity and the strong force is a unity.

When the interaction is balanced, - there are no EM waves emitted.
If you bombard matter with EM waves or you dustups the interaction chemical, on the electromagnetic level or on the atomic level, fusion or fission, you name it, the interaction too will be disturbed. .
So soon electrons are lost, this is like opening the door to the nuclear interaction process.

All the gamma x-ray all kind of EM waves from a A-bombs is caused by interruption of billion of interaction processes - the processes are not neutralized, by interaction and hence such bombs emit so much of that .

Bjarne
Mass of nuclear are must larger as the quark these exist of.
This mean after quarks has becomes nuclears; energy/gravity seems to pop up up from nowhere.
Hans
You are out in the deep end, here. Better read the whole book.

What i wrote is a FACT
But certainly one more of those you do not understand.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Because gravity is only a side effect.
The strong force / interaction pulls the space density to matter.
In this process space is stretching. Stretching space IS gravity.
Space is stretching towards matter, because matter pulls space.
The result is gravity.
WHAT is you problem.

I don't have a problem. You have. It is that you insist on speaking nonsense.

- If space is alternatively stretched and released, how can it create gravity even as a side-effect? The net result of stretching and relaxing is zero.

- Even if gravity is a side effect, it still represents energy, so how can the process be loss free?

- If the process is not loss free, where does it get the energy to continue?

Have you hear about dynamite, atom-bombs, gasoline, coal, the earth emit heat, all planets does, -Jupiter even x-ray.

In none of these cases, the matter itself releases energy. It is the processes it is undergoing that release energy. The only cases where matter, on the particle level, emits energy as EM waves is when electrons change level and when nuclei are split. And that only happens after the atom has first absorbed energy from outside.

I think I could write you 11 books about EM waves that contradict your statement, - but I am not sure it would change your concrete mind.

That would be 11 books of nonsense.

Cows knows that a full charged 12 Volt car battery is heavier as a empty one.

I have tried to get you from talking about cows all the time because it makes you appear completely idiotic, but if you insist that is the impression you want give the world, by all means, suit yourself.

No, the battery is not heavier. The energy stored in the battery has, theoretically, a weight, although it would probably be impossible to measure. Your claim was that matter looses gravity. It does not.

The sand does, and if you would draw a line it in wallpaper clue, it too would have density. The line is not the main-important, it only tells what the lines does, not what the soup does.

You are being intentionally obtuse. The line in the sand was YOUR OWN point. The fact is that structure does not imply density. The structure of the program in your computer does not change its density.

We know of no properties of space that imply structure.

Albert Einstein was spending the last 30 year of his live to unite the 4 forces mathematical.
Even at his deathbed he wrote equations to solve that problem.
He was sure that gravity, the strong force and the electromagnetic force was a unity.

And he and other great minds after him have so far failed.

If he was living today maybe my words could have give him the right input.

No. They might give him a good laugh, though.

I HATE mathematic. I can, but ONLY if I have to.

No you can't. You keep making the most elementary mistakes.

But maybe a good left-brained person will one day come across my words, and be able to use these. - Or maybe this is only possible by simple farmer words, also even though you never would except it.

Bjarne, I have not rejected your words because you are a simple farmer. I am rejecting them because they don't make sense. I am rejecting them because you show again and again that you don't know what you are talking about.

First at all gravity and the strong force is a unity.

That may be so, but nobody knows how, least of all you.

When the interaction is balanced, - there are no EM waves emitted.
If you bombard matter with EM waves or you dustups the interaction chemical, on the electromagnetic level or on the atomic level, fusion or fission, you name it, the interaction too will be disturbed. .
So soon electrons are lost, this is like opening the door to the nuclear interaction process.

No. the interactions you mention have nothing to do with gravity.

All the gamma x-ray all kind of EM waves from a A-bombs is caused by interruption of billion of interaction processes - the processes are not neutralized, by interaction and hence such bombs emit so much of that .

Still no.

What i wrote is a FACT

No.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

If space is alternatively stretched and released, how can it create gravity even as a side-effect? The net result of stretching and relaxing is zero.

The interaction keep space contracted.
There is a pull of space towards matter.
This pull in space is caused by the interaction, and this pulls you too towards matter, - as a side effect. This side effect is gravity.

Even if gravity is a side effect, it still represents energy, so how can the process be loss free?

There are no lost to gravity...
Mass/ Matter /gravity/the strong force is one and the same soup.

What you in reality ask is: - where does the energy in the Univers come from?

Answer;
The energy clump it self together as matter, and as a side effect it creates gravity.

Have you considered asking the pope, where the energy in the Universe comes from, why it clump itself to matter why gravity is a side effect.

Gravity is not using energy; it is a side effect of the fact that energy clumps space together to matter.

All what we can say; energy it is there……exactly like a cow on the field is there, the cow does not explode., so energy does not "relax"

It would explode if the energy (strong force) would say, aaahhh today I want to relax, - the result would then be that BANG and the Universe + the cow would explode.

No, the battery is not heavier. The energy stored in the battery has, theoretically, a weight, although it would probably be impossible to measure.

The battery is losing weight, due to power lost, -and that’s it.
Weather you can measure / understand it is not the point.

You can use the battery to send EM waves (energy) to the end of the world,
WHERE do you think that energy/gravity/weight comes from.
And who will pay the bill ?

Your claim was that matter looses gravity. It does not.

It is losing mass, cows know that mass have gravity.
Hans you are making a fool of your self. (again) ..