Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

It would be much easier if you did it

Because Bjarne can only barely operate a standard calculator, and he doesn't know where to type in which numbers.

But he thinks that if he can get someone to do the calculations, he can still make grand discoveries from the results. So, at best, he is a leech, at worst, he is a complete fool.

Hans

 

[steenkh]

It would be much easier if you did it

What an understatement: we know perfectly well that you are utterly incapable of doing it yourself! And yet you think you are able to come up with a better theory than Einstein!

Well, Google is your friend: http://www.jrank.org/space/pages/2362/general-relativity.html:

General relativity predicts the bending of rays skimming the Sun's surface to be 1.75 arcseconds

 

[Paul]

RC brought that up not me.

Try to keep up with your own questions:

What “F”?

And this was not the point.

It is the point. You seem both incapable of formulating a question and unwilling to acknowledge that what you ask either makes no sense or asks a different question to the one intended.

Right different mass / gravity results

For A's frame of reference and for relativistic mass, yes.

Try to google: incompatibel general relativity Quantum physic

That's what you should do.

You either lied when you said you have read about the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and GR, or you cannot understand even a basic explanation of said problems.

 

[Paul]

You will see why

Now someone else has done all that hard googling for you, what earth-shattering revelation do you have for us?

 

[Bjarne]

Now someone else has done all that hard googling for you, what earth-shattering revelation do you have for us?

It seems there is no 100% precise answer to that.
http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/genrel/ch06/ch06.html#Section6.2

6.2.7 Deflection of light

 

[phunk]

It seems there is no 100% precise answer to that.
http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/genrel/ch06/ch06.html#Section6.2

6.2.7 Deflection of light

I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

Here's the conclusion of the section you refer to:

These techniques have now verified the deflection of light predicted by general relativity
to a relative precision of about 10^-5.

 

[Paul]

You will see why

Ok, now someone has done the googling and the reading for you, do you have anything useful to say?

 

[MRC_Hans]

These techniques have now verified the deflection of light predicted by general relativity
to a relative precision of about 10-5.

You should know that Bjarne has very little sense of proportions, if any at all. He used the Pioneer anomaly and the fly-by anomaly, both 9th decimal phenomenon, as argument for his space wind, which he at one time claimed was the explanation for dark matter.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

You should know that Bjarne has very little sense of proportions, if any at all. He used the Pioneer anomaly and the fly-by anomaly, both 9th decimal phenomenon, as argument for his space wind, which he at one time claimed was the explanation for dark matter.

Hans

I have NEVER made such connection to dark matter.
I have always claimed that dark matter was the source for dark energy.
I did a big mistake not immediately to understand how dark matter (which I always have believed ONLY was gravity) - got there….
I thought central gravity was the answer.
This was in fact NOT logical, - because if gravity of known matter should be the source of dark energy it would mean that all known matter must dissolve to feed dark energy...
But if the source is gravity from the previous universe, where speed and gravity went mad, this certainly and nicely solves the problems, and leaves a much better holistic coherent picture.

 

[Bjarne]

These techniques have now verified the deflection of light predicted by general relativity
to a relative precision of about 10-5.

I am not asking for "techniques" but a law of nature / a equation, and if possible so logical and simple as possible

 

[Paul]

I am not asking for "techniques" but a law of nature / a equation, and if possible so logical and simple as possible

That post, and the similar one I was about to make, was in response to you having not read the link you posted.

 

[Bjarne]

That post, and the similar one I was about to make, was in response to you having not read the link you posted.

If it all was so simple , where is the simle equation

 

[Reality Check]

I am not asking for "techniques" but a law of nature / a equation, and if possible so logical and simple as possible

Here you go then: The deflection of light by a body can be calculated from the Einstein Field Equations:

As you can see the equations are logical and simple as possible .

Of couse you have to plug in a metric to get started so go to it Bjarne.

 

[Reality Check]

If it all was so simple , where is the simle equation

That is your ignorance speaking, Bjarne.
No one has said that GR is simple. It is in fact extremely complex.

Luckily there are smart and knowledgeable people that have done the work for you. They have written many textbooks about GR. Some of these are even available on the Internet, e.g. your link.

 

[Bjarne]

Here you go then: The deflection of light by a body can be calculated from the Einstein Field Equations:

This is not what I asked for.

BUT

How much is space bending at the surface of the Sun

Please dont answer like that; "1½ cow " etc...

 

[phunk]

I'm confused. Are you saying you don't want a numeric answer? Or are you saying you don't want it in units of cows?

 

[Reality Check]

This is not what I asked for.

BUT
...cow fetish snipped...

It is what you asked for (a logical and simpe equation). That you cannot understand it is your problem not mine.

BUT
http://www.jrank.org/space/pages/236...elativity.html:

General relativity predicts the bending of rays skimming the Sun's surface to be 1.75 arcseconds

Or the simple program to do the numerical technique in
http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/genrel/ch06/ch06.html#Section6.2

6.2.7 Deflection of light

Or use the weak field approximation:

4Gm/c^2r

which works for the Sun since m/r << 1.

 

[Paul]

I have always claimed that dark matter was the source for dark energy.

That's a lie.

I did a big mistake not immediately to understand how dark matter (which I always have believed ONLY was gravity)

Another lie.


Before you make a fool of yourself again Bjarne, refresh your memory as to some of the things you actually said (in chronological order):

Nobody has ever seen dark matter nobody knows what it is. (PLEASE don’t try to convince me that it exists).

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.

You will easy could understand that central space (encircled by matter) will be consumed / affected stronger and hence dark matter is suddenly only a naturally property of a flexible matter feeding space.

And there are no longer any logical (coherent) reason to believe in dark matter really is matter, or that dark energy (acceleration) of the Universe exists

And at the same time you can visit the dark matter sect that still haven’t and NEVER will find the EXPENSIVE evidence they believe in.

Further out in the MilkyWay the SpaceWind is much stronger, but we have only math to take us further, but first we off course must get rid of the crazy dark matter.

Dark matter must just be naturally stronger central space vacuum, compered to the peripheries weaker space vacuum, (of a extended mass).

The first fortress to fall is; dark matter, but this will only be the beginning of the catastrophe

The final kill preparations of the sick dark matter idea matter have just begun.
​

 

[MRC_Hans]

Please dont answer like that; "1½ cow " etc...

Oh? You got tired of cows? Or you can't take your own medicine?? THAT is really pathetic.

I have just made a decision: All my future replies to Bjarne will, if at all possible, be based on cow references. What's good for the goose .....

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

That's a lie.

That's a lie.

Another lie.

Really
There are many places at the internet that proves the oppesite
For exsample this

Big Bang er derfor dybest set en ”tyngdekrafts eksplosion”, og dermed blot rummet der frigør sig fra en den sammentrækning som tyngdekraften har opnået i alliance med den stærke kernekraft. 25-10-2008, 13:54
Sourse;http://debat.ateist.net/showthread.php?t=4179

Google translate it yourself it is danish
So now please stop you rubbish accusation Ok liar ?