Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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

Gravity waves do not imply space having density.

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

I don't know. But the point is that neither do you. And I'm not just making random stuff up.

 

[Aitch]

We know of no properties of space that imply structure.

I am probably wrong her, and working off memory of a book I read 30 years ago (and so most likely superceded, scientifically speaking) - The Ambidextrous Universe by Martin Gardner.

In that an experiment he talks about demonstrates that the universe (at least locally) has a left-handed bias - something to do with particles given off by decay of radioactive cobalt.

Doesn't that imply some sort of structure to space? as I said, I'm probably way off base, but it would be nice to know. And may inspire Bjarne to greater heights of something or other.

 

[Bjarne]

Gravity waves do not imply space having density

You cannot explain any gravity phenomena without involve space, - can you ?
But the problem is only that "we" are not use to think about how this is possible.

A such philosophic framework must in all it s simplicity be able to explain both

• The cause of Mass attraction
• What is a Gravity Wave
• The Cause of Acceleration Due to Gravity
• How can matter affect space in a way that all this is possible?
• How is the property compared /relative to the property of expanding space?

The new theory can explain all that
Whether you can accept is or not doesn’t mean the thought is wrong, especially not when you have nothing to replace it.

 

[Paul]

You cannot explain any gravity phenomena without involve space, - can you ?

How does that imply density?

But the problem is only that "we" are not use to think about how this is possible

Stop speaking for others, even in quote marks.

A such philosophic framework must in all it s simplicity be able to explain both

OK, simply:

The cause of Mass attraction

Curved spacetime, gravitons, something we haven't discovered yet?

What is a Gravity Wave

Not what you think.

If, however, you mean gravitational wave, a disturbance in spacetime caused by a source with spherically or cylindrically asymmetric acceleration.

The Cause of Acceleration Due to Gravity

Curved spacetime.

How can matter affect space in a way that all this is possible?

You didn't really think about that question did you?

How is the property compared /relative to the property of expanding space?

What property?

The new theory can explain all that

No it can't and you don't have a theory.

Whether you can accept is or not doesn’t mean the thought is wrong, especially not when you have nothing to replace it.

You're the one that wants to replace existing theories with unsupported, unnecessary, untested, ill-considered, contradictory, nonsensical hogwash.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You cannot explain any gravity phenomena without involve space, - can you ?
But the problem is only that "we" are not use to think about how this is possible.

A such philosophic framework must in all it s simplicity be able to explain both

• The cause of Mass attraction
• What is a Gravity Wave
• The Cause of Acceleration Due to Gravity
• How can matter affect space in a way that all this is possible?
• How is the property compared /relative to the property of expanding space?

The new theory can explain all that
Whether you can accept is or not doesn’t mean the thought is wrong, especially not when you have nothing to replace it.

None of that addresses what I said.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The interaction keep space contracted.
There is a pull of space towards matter.

Can you really not see you are going in circles?
- You say space is sucked towards matter, and this creates gravity.
... I ask where does the space go once it is sucked in and where does the energy comes from?
- Then you say space is alternatively sucked in and released (and that the effect is somehow loss free).
.... I ask how it can have an effect when it is alternatively sucked and released, and how it can cause gravity if it is loss free.
- And you are back saying that matter sucks space.

Could you make your mind up, for once?

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.

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

You could say it this way, yes. But then you are simply describing conventional gravity. Where is YOUR model different from conventional gravity?

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

No, that is not what I ask.

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

A rather crude description, but not contrary to conventional science.
Your point is?

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.

The pope? No, I don't trust popes or cows to know anything about physics.

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

You already said that.

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"

We all know that.

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.

Maybe so. And?

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

The point was whether the weight loss was due to matter loosing weight or because energy has a mass. The reason is that energy has a mass.

You can use the battery to send EM waves (energy) to the end of the world,

No, but I can use the battery to power a transmitter that can send EM waves.

WHERE do you think that energy/gravity/weight comes from.

It comes from the electricity company.

And who will pay the bill ?

Whoever pays your electricity bill. Since you use your time and money on stupid experiments, I assume it must be your wife.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I am probably wrong her, and working off memory of a book I read 30 years ago (and so most likely superceded, scientifically speaking) - The Ambidextrous Universe by Martin Gardner.

In that an experiment he talks about demonstrates that the universe (at least locally) has a left-handed bias - something to do with particles given off by decay of radioactive cobalt.

Doesn't that imply some sort of structure to space? as I said, I'm probably way off base, but it would be nice to know. And may inspire Bjarne to greater heights of something or other.

There are a number of theses on the structure of space or spacetime. However, none of them (the serious ones, that is) imply that space can move past an object and interact with it in that way, I assume mostly because we have never observed space interact wiht a moving object.

Hans

 

[Aitch]

There are a number of theses on the structure of space or spacetime. However, none of them (the serious ones, that is) imply that space can move past an object and interact with it in that way, I assume mostly because we have never observed space interact wiht a moving object.

Hans

Fair enough and thanks for the reply. I wasn't supporting Bjarne's 'hypothesis', but just querying the blanket dismissal of the idea of space having a structure of some sort. If you see what I mean.

I suppose it's yet another example of the ambiguity or misunderstanding on someone's part that seems to happen a lot on this type of thread.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You cannot explain any gravity phenomena without involve space, - can you ?
But the problem is only that "we" are not use to think about how this is possible.

Has anybody denied that there is an interaction between gravity and space?

A such philosophic framework must in all it s simplicity be able to explain both

• The cause of Mass attraction
• What is a Gravity Wave
• The Cause of Acceleration Due to Gravity
• How can matter affect space in a way that all this is possible?
• How is the property compared /relative to the property of expanding space?

What makes you assume it must be simple?

The new theory can explain all that

You haven't managed to explain any of it yet.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Fair enough and thanks for the reply. I wasn't supporting Bjarne's 'hypothesis', but just querying the blanket dismissal of the idea of space having a structure of some sort. If you see what I mean.

I suppose it's yet another example of the ambiguity or misunderstanding on someone's part that seems to happen a lot on this type of thread.

I know you weren't. It could be quite interesting to discuss the properties of space, and the rest of us are of course free to do so, but discussion does not seem to be Bjarne's goal here. His goal appears to be foisting his half-baked ideas on people and ridiculing the science he doesn't understand.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Can you really not see you are going in circles?

Not at all, - you are.
I think you invent circles that not exist..

- You say space is sucked towards matter, and this creates gravity.
... I ask where does the space go once it is sucked in

The density of space is twisted around elementary particles, - in that process the space density is "amassing" / "compressing" the space density..
The space density gets “harder” (and again softer when space due to the interaction-pulsating).
Hence you can say; there is a constant consumption of space, (because when one particle pulls, - another push /release space) …

and where does the energy comes from?

The Energy / space is amassing / compressed as: matter.
You too accept this already since energy /gravity is represented as matter.
My mission, redarding this issue is only to show how space can twist it self to matter.
The rest of the story you already know from the science textbook.


You should rather ask; how can energy keep matter together?
Why does matter not just explode?
I have answered that question before, maybe it is the speed of matter (through the Universe) that make it able to keep matter contracted.

I mean the speed of galaxies, cluster of galaxies etc.
Exactly like cluster of galaxies forms a central gravity field , - I do believe that the Universe as well do have a common center of gravity, and that all cluster of galaxies moves around that center, - with huge speed, - much larger as the speed seen in cluster of galaxies.

I have also before written that I think we can calculate that speed we already moves, based on the LHC’s energy consumption.

Then you say space is alternatively sucked in and released (and that the effect is somehow loss free).
.... I ask how it can have an effect when it is alternatively sucked and released, and how it can cause gravity if it is loss free.

I have not mentioned any “alternative”.
When space is twisted to particle, you can say the space density is “compressed” to matter.
Due to that process space-density nearby the elementary particles and nearby matter is "lacking " . This side-effect is the cause of gravity...
Tha't all...

Bjarne
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.
There are no lost to gravity...
Mass/ Matter /gravity/the strong force is one and the same soup.
Hans
You could say it this way, yes. But then you are simply describing conventional gravity. Where is YOUR model different from conventional gravity?

There are no such theories / thesis that describe how space and matter is connected. Not according to what I know...

Bjarne
The energy clump it self together as matter, and as a side effect it creates gravity.
Hans
A rather crude description, but not contrary to conventional science.
Your point is?

How it happens, - the nature of space, - the cause of ADG,- the cause of mass attraction, - the nature of dark energy, - the cause of Bigbang.

Bjarne
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.
Hans
Maybe so. And?

So the strong force is doing "a job" - It cannot "relax"
This in fact leads to the necessity that “something prevents” the explosion to happen. .
I mean why does the strong force not just relax, what prevent if from that?

I begin to believe that the strong force cannot exist without speed of matter.
We know already that speed of matter accumulates to energy, matter / mass / gravity.
Speed is maybe necessary to prevent matter to explode.

Bjarne
You cannot explain any gravity phenomena without involve space, - can you ?
But the problem is only that "we" are not use to think about how this is possible.
Hans
Has anybody denied that there is an interaction between gravity and space?

All our attention and founds are used on; - matter fixation.
Abstract thinking / frameworks to solve the nature of space + the connection to space and matter, + the connection between space and the strong force etc….. - is necessary, - BUT underestimated.

This is where the key is to understand everything is buried.

We should give such possible frameworks the attention it deserve.

I have only reached the feed of a huge mountain, - made of space.
But the fact is many have mysophobia whit that “subject”
This is ridiculously..

I know you weren't. It could be quite interesting to discuss the properties of space, and the rest of us are of course free to do so, but discussion does not seem to be Bjarne's goal here. His goal appears to be foisting his half-baked ideas on people and ridiculing the science he doesn't understand.

I believe most important is to think coherent and simple.

Off course sometimes stupid thought must skipped and replaces. I have done that several times, so don’t accuse me for the opposite.

The physicist's greatest tool is his wastebasket.
- Albert Einstein

An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field
Niels Bohr

If dark matter not is a phenomena cause by misunderstood gravity. - I am sure the solution still is to be found in misunderstood science or undiscovered science.

I will NEVER accept invisible dark matter.
Only to a certain degree inside a black hole, but NEVER as a main content of the Universe.

The fast motion of stars in the periphery of galaxies, - and the fast motion of galaxies inside cluster of galaxies, is without doubt due to RAM (resistance against motion) , but there is much more to learn / solve regarding that question..

It is so obviously that this is the path to follow, simply because a lot point to exactly that direction, but also because the way that dark matter always "should" repeat itself in certain patterns, like was it Carl Smart, - is simply ridiculous

 

[Reality Check]

You should rather ask; how can energy keep matter together?

You should rather ask: how could someone be ignorant enough to ask "can energy keep matter together"?

Energy does not keep matter together. Forces keep matter together. For example, the strong nuclear force keeps atomic nuclei together by overwhelming the electromagnetic force which are pushing them apart.

You are probably still confused about E=mc^2. This does not state that matter is energy or the energy is matter. It states that you can treat them as equivalent.

P.S.
How does your new theory explain the deflection of light by the Sun? - give your calculation of the deflection from your theory.
First asked 9 Feb 2011

Bjarne's completely debunked "central gravity"
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)

 

[Bjarne]

Energy does not keep matter together.
Forces keep matter together. For example, the strong nuclear force keeps atomic nuclei together by overwhelming the electromagnetic force which is pushing them apart.

The strong force would be nothing without energy.
Energy is the cause of the force.

You are probably still confused about E=mc^2. This does not state that matter is energy or the energy is matter. It states that you can treat them as equivalent.

There are no matter as such...........................
Left is only energy........................................
Everything in the soup is soup or properties of soup.
Everything in space is space and properties of space.

The question is what happen if the strong force would "relax" for just a second?
The answer is BAAAAANGG..

One thing is to consider how the interaction / strong force keep matter together.
But you I can guarantee you that matter "prefer" to explode, - if it could.

The point is; - you know that speed of matter can cause gravity and energy of matter to increase.

The question is therefore; - is speed of matter always involved in the phenomena’s; mass and gravity.

Or in other words;
Is matter/gravity always a result of speed of matter.
Is speed of matter always where the strong force gets its energy / force.... SIR?
Yes or no, - how can we be sure.

Such answer is decisive for fundamental understanding of whole the Universe.

So PLEASE keep creeds out of the question.

 

[Reality Check]

The strong force would be nothing without energy.
Energy is the cause of the force.
...snipped gibberish...

Wrong.
A force is a cause of energy.
Energy

In physics, energy (Ancient Greek: ἐνέργεια energeia "activity, operation"[1]) is a quantity that is often understood as the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems.[2][3] Since work is defined as a force acting through a distance (a length of space), energy is always equivalent to the ability to exert pulls or pushes against the basic forces of nature, along a path of a certain length.

For example a body falling in a gravitational field gains kinetic energy because a gravitational force is acting on it.

The question is what happen if the strong force would "relax" for just a second?
The answer is BAAAAANGG..

The answer is BAAAAANGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.
For the simple reason the protons are positively charged and repel each other.
So what?
No one is idiotic enough to think that protons hang aroung in a nucleus just because they like each others company .

It is the strong force which keeps then there.

 

[Bjarne]

A force is a cause of energy

This is the most silly you have wrote
You can force a dog to sit
But not when you did not have energy.
No energy = no force.
Energy is the cause of a force
Not opposite.

For example a body falling in a gravitational field gains kinetic energy because a gravitational force is acting on it.

Which then mean you believe gravity is a phenomena that can happen without energy?
If that is what you believe it is wrong.
Energy was there in the first place.
Gravity and the strong force = a unity.
Energy is the cause of gravity.
Not opposite.

 

[Reality Check]

This is the most silly you have wrote
You can force a dog to sit
But not when you did not have energy.
No energy = no force.
Energy is the cause of a force
Not opposite.

Totally idiotic semantics.
What a a human feels as "energy" is not energy in physics: Energy

In physics, energy (Ancient Greek: ἐνέργεια energeia "activity, operation"[1]) is a quantity that is often understood as the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems.[2][3] Since work is defined as a force acting through a distance (a length of space), energy is always equivalent to the ability to exert pulls or pushes against the basic forces of nature, along a path of a certain length.

Compeling a dog to sit is not a force.

Which then mean you believe gravity is a phenomena that can happen without energy?
If that is what you believe it is wrong.
Energy was there in the first place.
Gravity and the strong force = a unity.
Energy is the cause of gravity.
Not opposite.

You are wrong.
Energy is always there - it is a property of the system. A falling body has kinetic energy because it is falling. It has gravitational potential energy because it is in a gravitational field. As it falls gravitational potential energy converts into kinetic energy, i.e. the body falls faster.

Gravity, the strong force, the weak force and electromagnetism are hoped to be a different aspects of the same force.

P.S.
How does your new theory explain the deflection of light by the Sun? - give your calculation of the deflection from your theory.
First asked 9 Feb 2011

Bjarne's completely debunked "central gravity"
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)

 

[MRC_Hans]

I have also before written that I think we can calculate that speed we already moves, based on the LHC’s energy consumption.

Yes, I remember that. Another demonstration that you don't know what you are talking about.

There are no such theories / thesis that describe how space and matter is connected. Not according to what I know...

Here we are at the core of the matter, Bjarne: You know so little, and for some reason you can't grasp the fact that others know more. You are judging the world from your own position of nearly total ignorance.

I believe most important is to think coherent and simple.

Well, you are certainly thinking simple. .... You need to work a bit on coherent.

Off course sometimes stupid thought must skipped and replaces. I have done that several times, so don’t accuse me for the opposite.

Mmm, no, you haven't really.

I will NEVER accept invisible dark matter.
Only to a certain degree inside a black hole, but NEVER as a main content of the Universe.

Exactly why should anybody care what you can accept?

The fast motion of stars in the periphery of galaxies, - and the fast motion of galaxies inside cluster of galaxies, is without doubt due to RAM (resistance against motion) , but there is much more to learn / solve regarding that question..

Bjarne, there IS no resistance against motion. Don't you remember we explained that to you, and you failed to provide arguments for the opposite?


Hans

 

[phunk]

I will NEVER accept invisible dark matter.

Do you accept neutrinos?

 

[Bjarne]

Do you accept neutrinos?

All attempts to prove neutrinos (etc.) should be the cause is dark matter have failed.

A falling body has kinetic energy because it is falling. It has gravitational potential energy because it is in a gravitational field.

And while it falls its kinetic energy will increase, the KE increase would cause larger mass, the mass would cause larger gravity towards that body. – So as you can see, the gravity force is last in line, not first.

Bjarne
There are no such theories / thesis that describe how space and matter is connected. Not according to what I know...
Hans
Here we are at the core of the matter, Bjarne: You know so little, and for some reason you can't grasp the fact that others know more. You are judging the world from your own position of nearly total ignorance.

I have not heard about any official thesis approved from the authorities. .
So you must be counting other crackpot thesis.
I thought you would ignore such.
And still I have not hear about any thesis..

Bjarne, there IS no resistance against motion. Don't you remember we explained that to you, and you failed to provide arguments for the opposite?

Liar, particles moving (with almost c), pulls a strong magnetic field in its wake.
A magnetic field = energy, - that must come from the particles that “pull” that magnetic field.
This magnetic energy cannot just come from nowhere, and hence must mean lost of kinetic energy.
Lost of kinetic energy = resistance against motion.
So cow logic simple is that.
Have you forgot I told you that at least 5 times ?
--

 

[Bjarne]

THE CAUSE OF ; DARK MATTER - GRAVITY - BIGBANG - AND A BIGCHRUNCH..

Everywhere in the Universe we see; orbits around extended masses.

This means that matter (cluster of galaxies) must also orbit the Universe,- since the Universe is also an extended mass.

The maximum speed matter can reach in a orbit, - depends first at all of the acceleration due to gravity (ADG) but also of how long the "accelleration lane" is
For exsample; the time matter can continue to accelerate before reaching perihelion (the closest point to the Sun).

Even though the ADG affecting us from the MilkyWay is much weaker than the ADG affecting us from the Sun, - the Sun (and us) are orbiting the Milkyway 10 times faster as the Earth (and we) are orbiting the Sun.

Stars in the Milky Way moves with averagely 250 000 m/s
The spreading speed of galaxies in cluster of galaxies happens with up to 1 000 000 m/s

This is from Barcelona to Paris in one second.

But what about orbits on much larger scale.

Matter must orbit the Universe too, due to the gravity of the Universe.

Imaging an “acceleration lane” not only 100.00 LY but billion of Light Years (LY).
We could have been constant accelerating, - round the Universe, the last 13,7 billion years, and right now be moving with almost the speed of light.

Because the size of the Universe very well could be billion of times larger than the 13,7 LY we can see, - we would not be able to discover our huge speed, - if everything around us would be moving with almost “c”

This would mean that the cause of all the gravity in universe could be due to huge speed, so fast (relative to the speed of light) that it could chock us the day it would be (mathematical) proven.

This would mean it could be totally wrong to understand the strength of gravity of difference systems in motion, based on the amount of matter.
But rather it should be understood based on the total speed,- relative to the speed of light, + the amount of matter..
This could explain the so called dark matter.

This could also explain that so soon the so called “dark Energy” is out of breath, nothing would prevent all matter of the Universe to reach “c” .
In the process of reaching “c” distances would get shorter, and gravity would go mad (according to special relativity)..

The gradually shortening of distances, and the huge gravity increase, - would mean dramatically absorption of space.
This would be the track to a new Big Bang.

The expanding space (release of absorbed space) that have happen the last 13,7billion years, and that we still can see today, is only the rest of a HUGE gravitionel field that once was reaching it culmination.

Right now and the last 13,7 billion years the Universe have lost “absorbed space” // gravity.
The continuous lost of gravity prevents matter in orbit of the universe to accelerate “too fast” and hence to reach “c”.

The secret is; “c” cannot be reach before;

• The previously BigBang is out of breath, and the lost of gravity (absorbed space) from a previous Universe is finish / released.
• That gravity gets mad / strong enough to overcome the HUGE resistance against motion..

There are no increasing accelerating of the expanding Universe, (dark energy) - it only looks so.
Time is ticking gradually faster, proportional with the expanding Universe.
When space absorbed due to huge gravity of the Universe is released, this would cause the "meter stick" (an everything else) to shorten (here on Earth) ..
This is the real cause of the cosmological redshift.
We are living in a gravitonal field, we call the Universe, - that field of gravity sometimes goes mad.

All this is based on knowledge we already have, - so why invent dark matter, when it not is necessary, but properly only caused by a combination between naturally (huge) speed, and Resistance against motion.