Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

Oh, what the heck. Let's not give him that excuse...

What is a gravitational wave made of?

Gravity.

Let us say the answer of question 1 is “space”, would a gravitational wave have a certain “amount” of space?

The answer is not "space", but even if it was, the answer would be no. Waves don't have an amount of anything, they are a fluctuation in something.

What would be the different between "that space" and space that not is a gravitional wave ?

Nothing.

Where have a such gravitational waves hide it self?

Among your belly button fluff.

Have it hide it self inside matter?

No thanks.

Try the best you can to explain how matter can “hide” - “keep” such gravity wave back (until matter explodes).

Waves can run, but they can't hide.

Is dark energy, really some kind of energy ?

Yes, per definition.

Large fonts make you look sillier.

Hans

 

[Paul]

It must be.

So it can't be a perfect analogy for 4 dimesions can it?

So is Newtonian gravity .

We're not talking about Newton.

A lot of science is like that.

That is meaningless.

If space is infinite, the motion of your little finger effects infinity.

Is there some point you are trying to make?

110% as expected, you would dig you own grave, and you can smell it already.

You are spending alot of time pretending to blow a huge invisible trumpet, care to prove that it exists?

Define it what is space-time made of ? - Nothing ?

Space and time, hence spacetime.

Or in other words, what make space-time different one place compared to another if you forget time

Without time you can't have spacetime, it's in the name.

What make space-time different at your feed compared to your head?

The coordinates are different.

How can the process of formation of matter possible keep back / affect space-time until matter explodes ?

Matter is in spacetime, it exists at relative points in space and time, it doesn't effect it like you seem to think.

WHAT is difference when you ignore time ?

You just have space.

So 1 dark galaxy + 1 more = 2 dark galaxies, even though none of them exist ?

Yes, just as 1 IPU plus 1 dragon in my garage equals two invisible mythological creatures.

 

[MRC_Hans]

It must be.
So is Newtonian gravity .
A lot of science is like that.

Like what? Rubber sheets? Please spare us your fetishes.

If space is infinite, the motion of your little finger effects infinity.

Yes. And?

Clumsy description, now changed;
This shows us that although our understanding of acceleration due to gravity is based on the fact that the acceleration will diminish as the function of the distance square (r2), the potential of space-vacuum will diminish as a function of the radius (r) and hence it is no conflict by uniting the distance dilation with the time dilation characterizing the general relativity.

What is space-vacuum?

110% as expected, you would dig you own grave, and you can smell it already.

Well, something smells, here. Could it have something to do with cows?

Define it what is space-time made of ? - Nothing ?
Or in other words, what make space-time different one place compared to another if you forget time.

If you forget the time, you may not be in the right space on time.

What make space-time different at your feed compared to your head?
How can the process of formation of matter possible keep back / affect space-time until matter explodes ?
Notice that 0,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 mm above the surface of the Earth space-time is different as at the surface.

Not necessarily. We have not quantified the space-time quantum, but you can rest assured there is one, and probably at far less decimals than you just mentioned.

WHAT is difference when you ignore time ?

You miss your train.

So 1 dark galaxy + 1 more = 2 dark galaxies, even though none of them exist ?

That is correct. Stay with that level of math, and you'll do much better.

Hans

 

[Little 10 Toes]

When will the space-vacuum go from suck to blow?

 

[Reality Check]

You are lying about your equation uniting gravity and the string force, unless...

...snipped alread answered questions.

Don’t be a sissy, Bjareene
Try to learn some science.
Don't ignore this very important post.
Take it like a brave man and read the answers to the questions.

You can answer Bjarne, show us "the equation hat unite gravity and the strong force"

 

[Reality Check]

This shows us that although our immediate understanding of acceleration due to gravity is based on the assumption that the acceleration will diminish as the function of the distance square (r²), the potential of space-vacuum will diminish as a function of the radius (r) and hence it is no conflict by uniting the distance dilation with the time dilation characterizing the general relativity – the formula is shown below.

http://www.science27.com/images/img_49.jpg

That is not only insane gibberish about acceleration due to gravity, Bjarne

• it is a lie - The formula has no acceleration in it. It does not "unite" anything.
• it is ignorant
  • The acceleration due to gravity in General Relativity (it does in Newtonian gravitation) does not vary as distance squared.
  • Newtonian gravitation has a potental that varies as 1/r
• it has an idoitic image in it that comes from your crank web site and has no caption or labels.

If you are going to refer to a formula than cite the source not your crank web site.
A proper citation would be: Gravitational time dilation

A common equation used to determine gravitational time dilation is derived from the Schwarzschild metric, which describes spacetime in the vicinity of a non-rotating massive spherically-symmetric object. The equation is:

, where

• t0 is the proper time between events A and B for a slow-ticking observer within the gravitational field,
• tf is the coordinate time between events A and B for a fast-ticking observer at an arbitrarily large distance from the massive object (this assumes the fast-ticking observer is using Schwarzschild coordinates, a coordinate system where a clock at infinite distance from the massive sphere would tick at one second per second of coordinate time, while closer clocks would tick at less than that rate),
• G is the gravitational constant,
• M is the mass of the object creating the gravitational field,
• r is the radial coordinate of the observer (which is analogous to the classical distance from the center of the object, but is actually a Schwarzschild coordinate),
• c is the speed of light, and
• r0 = 2GM / c2 is the Schwarzschild radius of M. If a mass collapses so that its surface lies at less than this radial coordinate (or in other words covers an area of less than 4πG2M2 / c4), then the object exists within a black hole

 

[Reality Check]

So is Newtonian gravity .
...snipped usual gibberish rant....

Wrong yet again, Bjarne
Newtonian gravity is 3 dimensional.

But you did get one thing right (sort of) - space is made of "nothing". Space is "Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which and events occur and have objects relative position and direction".

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne
What is a gravitational wave made of?
Hans
Gravity.

And what is gravity then made of ?

Let us say the answer of question 1 is “space”, would a gravitational wave have a certain “amount” of space?
Hans
The answer is not "space", but even if it was, the answer would be no
Waves don't have an amount of anything; they are a fluctuation in something.

A gravity wave means release of that what before was curved space.
Now,- WHAT could that curved space possible be ?
We cannot use “something” – in that case a theory is in fact supported by NOTHING.

So what is “the curvature of space” made of?

• Do you imagine there are rails above you head made of invisible “something” – which mean a new strange kind of matter.
• Or do you imagine these curvature of space “structures” maybe are build of dark matter ?
• Or do you imagine that there are real rails made of matter we already know, but the rails are in the 21th bright blue dimension and therefore we cannot see them

WHAT – “SOMETHING” amigo RC – WHAT

Bjarne
What would be the different between "that space" and space that not is a gravitational wave ?
Hans
Nothing.

A gravitational wave is only release of”the curvature of space” – now you claim THAT it is; "nothing" - before it was at least “something”
Make up your mind.

Among your belly button fluff.

As I wrote you would dig you own grave.
Already you have running out of sharp ammunition.

Waves can run, but they can't hide.

I cannot see or measure a gravitational wave near the sun, so it must be hiding somewhere.

So it can't be a perfect analogy for 4 dimensions can it?

This is not the way the equation work, it is rather finding a dot value.

We're not talking about Newton.

I am http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6985983&postcount=3351

Without time you can't have space-time, it's in the name.

I did not say time was not there.
Still you should be able to define space-time, but I can see you can't.

If you are going to refer to a formula than cite the source not your crank web site

It would not help grandmother or a stupid cow, because no web site except science27.com explain how the clumsy expression “curvature of space” possible can be understood”

If you do not agree, answer PLEASE that questions:

WHAT is “the curvature of space” made of?

• Do you imagine there are rails above you head made of invisible “something” – which mean a new strange kind of matter.
• Or do you imagine these curvature of space “structures” maybe are build of dark matter?
• Or do you imagine that there are real rails made of matter we already know, but the rails is in the 21th bright blue dimension and therefore we cannot see them

WHAT – “SOMETHING” are these “curved rails” build of amigo RC – WHAT
WHAT – “SOMETHING” are these “curved rails” build of amigo Paul – WHAT
WHAT – “SOMETHING” are these “curved rails” build of amigos everybody else – WHAT

 

[phunk]

A gravity wave means release of that what before was curved space.

No, a gravity wave is something completely different. You are talking about a gravitational wave, which is not a release of anything. A gravitational wave is simply the propagation of the change in gravity when mass moves.

 

[Bjarne]

No, a gravity wave is something completely different. You are talking about a gravitational wave, which is not a release of anything. A gravitational wave is simply the propagation of the change in gravity when mass moves.

Correct ...
But a propagation of WHAT
The expression "gravity" is a pretty empty expression.
The expression "space-time" is not about the nature of space.
We are in this context using to the expression "curvature of space"
We must understand WHAT is that; curvature "made of"
WHAT is the nature of "curvature of space"
Propagation or not is not decisive, rather what we are dealing with in the first place...

 

[Paul]

And what is gravity then made of ?

Fundamental interactions.

A gravity wave means release of that what before was curved space.

No it doesn't. Neither does a gravitational wave.

Now,- WHAT could that curved space possible be ?

The answer is in the question.

We cannot use “something” – in that case a theory is in fact supported by NOTHING.

I have no idea what you think you are trying to say here.

So what is “the curvature of space” made of?

Changes in space and time.

Do you imagine there are rails above you head made of invisible “something” – which mean a new strange kind of matter.

You are the only one stupid enought to keep asking that question.

Or do you imagine these curvature of space “structures” maybe are build of dark matter ?

No structures, just space and time.

Or do you imagine that there are real rails made of matter we already know, but the rails are in the 21th bright blue dimension and therefore we cannot see them

No rails, no 21^st dimension, still just space and time, space and time.

A gravitational wave is only release of”the curvature of space” – now you claim THAT it is; "nothing" - before it was at least “something”
Make up your mind.

A gravitational wave is not the release of curved spacetime.

I cannot see or measure a gravitational wave near the sun, so it must be hiding somewhere.

That is a the answer you would get from a child if you asked why they couldn't see something.

This is not the way the equation work, it is rather finding a dot value.

We are talking about the rubber sheet analogy, which you claim is perfect.

I am

Curvature of spacetime is relativistic.

I did not say time was not there.

You said "if you forget time". No time, no spacetime.

Still you should be able to define space-time, but I can see you can't.

In physics, spacetime (or space–time, space time) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum.

▶noun [mass noun] (Physics)
the concepts of time and three-dimensional space regarded as fused in a four-dimensional continuum.

spacetime A four-dimensional description of the Universe in which the position of an object is specified by three coordinates in space and one in time

no web site except science27.com explain how the clumsy expression “curvature of space” possible can be understood”

That's because it's spacetime that curves.

If you do not agree, answer PLEASE that questions:

Again? Are you too stupid to understand any of the previous answers?

WHAT – “SOMETHING” are these “curved rails” build of amigo Paul – WHAT

There aren't any rails.

There isn't any 'something'.

There is space and time.

 

[Paul]

Correct ...

Don't pretend you believed that before, or that we have just come round to your way of thinking.

But a propagation of WHAT

A fluctuation in the curvature of spacetime.

The expression "gravity" is a pretty empty expression.

No it isn't.

The expression "space-time" is not about the nature of space.

It's not supposed to be.

We are in this context using to the expression "curvature of space"

You are using that expression.

We must understand WHAT is that; curvature "made of"

What is the curvature of paper made of?
What is the curvature of the earth made of?
What is the curvature of mother cow's spine made of?

Propagation or not is not decisive, rather what we are dealing with in the first place...

Fundamental interactions.

 

[Reality Check]

WHAT – “SOMETHING” are these “curved rails” build of amigo RC –

It is clear that this BIG TEXT is displaying the fact that you have not bothered to learn about General Realtivity, amigo Bjarne.

Space-time is not a solid. You do not look from outside of space-time and see something curving.

The curvature of space-time is built of space-time !

To be more exact, from The curvature tensor and geodesic deviation

It is important to distinguish two different kinds of curvature: intrinsic and extrinsic . Consider for example a cylinder. Since a cylinder is round in one direction, one thinks of it as curved. It is its extrinsic curvature i.e. the curvature it has in relation to the flat three- dimensional space it is part of. On the other hand, a cylinder can be made by rolling a flat piece of paper without tearing or crumpling it, so the intrinsic geometry is that of the original paper i.e. it is flat. This means that the distance between any two points is the same as it was in the original paper. Also parallel lines remain parallel when continued; in fact all of Euclid's axioms hold for the surface of a cylinder. A 2D ant confined to that surface would decide that it was flat; only that the global topology is funny!
It is clear therefore that when we talk of the curvature of spacetime, we talk of its intrinsic curvature since the worldlines [ geodesics ] of particles are confined to remain in spacetime.

 

[MRC_Hans]

When will the space-vacuum go from suck to blow?

Never, it just sucks.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

And what is gravity then made of ?

Gravitons.

A gravity wave means release of that what before was curved space.

No, it means that a gravity field is not constant. This means that in a given direction, the strength and gradient of the gravity field changes. This change propagates into space as a gravitational wave.

Now,- WHAT could that curved space possible be ?
We cannot use “something” – in that case a theory is in fact supported by NOTHING.

Iti s not curved space, it is curved space-time. It means that distances are different, and that times runs at different paces.

*large font ignored*

Do you imagine there are rails above you head made of invisible “something” – which mean a new strange kind of matter.

No, I don't imagine that.

Or do you imagine these curvature of space “structures” maybe are build of dark matter ?

No, I don't imagine that.

Or do you imagine that there are real rails made of matter we already know, but the rails are in the 21th bright blue dimension and therefore we cannot see them

No, I don't imagine that.

*large font ignored*

A gravitational wave is only release of”the curvature of space” – now you claim THAT it is; "nothing" - before it was at least “something”
Make up your mind.

A gravitationa wave is the propagation of a variation in a gravity field.

I cannot see or measure a gravitational wave near the sun, so it must be hiding somewhere.

No. The sun does not create gravitational waves.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

The curvature of space-time is built of space-time

This expression space-time is to often only an expression used to wrap something that not fully is understood.

But I can see that you now are saying that the curvature of space is a property of space-(time).

The fact that time is ticking (in space-time) is not decisive, for how to understand the nature of space-differences from place to place - hence we can in fact only focus on the nature of space deformation, without to pay attention to that time is is ticking (or ticking differently from place to place).

I can see below that Hans begin to understand which property (except time) that can define the nature of space(-time) from place to place. Let us take a closer look at what Hans just wrote;

Bjarne
Now,- WHAT could that curved space possible be ?
We cannot use “something” – in that case a theory is in fact supported by NOTHING.
Hans
It is not curved space, it is curved space-time. It means that distances are different, and that times runs at different paces.

Correct, Hans have "divided" space-time in 2 properties, one of these is time, and we will not pay attention to that property, but also not deny it is real.

So left is to focus on the “deformation of space” property.
After to have insulated time, - we can easy conclude that; deformation of space is not “made of time” but can only be made of space.

And as we can see Hans have wrote that; distances are affected due to deformation of space.

It can only means that distances are different from place to place or ?

Hans can by this only mean that 1 meter stick at the surface of the Sun is not the same relative length as it would be when you would move 50 million or 150 million km away from the sun.

Otherwise distances can't be; different from place to place, - or if you prefer; from space-time to space-time.

Now explain WHAT happens to distances and why do you think?

Are the changes of distances always proportional to the change of dilation of time?

Imaging the rubber sheet, try to mark every centimeter inwards the center with a pen, now stretch the rubber sheet down in the center
WHAT happens to the centimeters, - are these "centimeter" now relative longer as before ?

Is the nature of gravity (space) insulated from time so simple?
What do you think?

 

[MRC_Hans]

This expression space-time is to often only an expression used to wrap something that not fully is understood.

Space-time is quite well understood, but not completely.

But I can see that you now are saying that the curvature of space is a property of space-(time).

No, we are saying that it is a property of space-time. You cannot separate the two.

The fact that time is ticking (in space-time) is not decisive, for how to understand the nature of space-differences from place to place - hence we can in fact only focus on the nature of space deformation, without to pay attention to that time is is ticking (or ticking differently from place to place).

No. We cannot understand space without paying attention to time.

I can see below that Hans begin to understand which property (except time) that can define the nature of space(-time) from place to place. Let us take a closer look at what Hans just wrote;

Bjarne, cut the teacher attitude out. You are not the teacher, here. You could become the student, if you would listen to what we say.

Correct, Hans have "divided" space-time in 2 properties, one of these is time, and we will not pay attention to that property, but also not deny it is real.

No, I have not divided spacetime into two properties. They are inseparable. Stop misinterpreting me.

So left is to focus on the “deformation of space” property.
After to have insulated time, - we can easy conclude that; deformation of space is not “made of time” but can only be made of space.

Wrong. The deformation of spacetime is made of spacetime.

And as we can see Hans have wrote that; distances are affected due to deformation of space.

I also wrote that time changed. You did not oversee that, you ignored it. You are deliberately distorting what I say. Stop it.

It can only means that distances are different from place to place or ?

Hans can by this only mean that 1 meter stick at the surface of the Sun is not the same relative length as it would be when you would move 50 million or 150 million km away from the sun.

Bjarne, answer this: Can you have the same time in two different places, millions of km apart?

Otherwise distances can't be; different from place to place, - or if you prefer; from space-time to space-time.

Times AND distances are different. A meter is not the same, but it still takes one second to travel one meter at one m/s.

Now explain WHAT happens to distances and why do you think?

They are different because spacetime is 'bent'.

Are the changes of distances always proportional to the change of dilation of time?

Yes.

Imaging the rubber sheet, try to mark every centimeter inwards the center with a pen, now stretch the rubber sheet down in the center
WHAT happens to the centimeters, - are these "centimeter" now relative longer as before ?

Ehrm, yes.

Is the nature of gravity (space) insulated from time so simple?
What do you think?

You cannot equate gravity and space. And you cannot isolate it from time. So no it is not 'so simple'.

Bjarne, the universe, spacetime etc. may be fairly simple, but that does not mean it is easy to understand.

Simple things can be very hard to understand and complex things can be quite easy to understand. For example, your computer is VERY complex, but it is quite easy to understand.

The Mandelbrot set is quite simple ( zn+1 = zn2 + c ), but it is basically impossible to understand.

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

I think you will have to study quite hard before you can even begin to understand the universe.

Hans

 

[Paul]

Bjarne, I think it would be a good idea if you stopped interpreting everything literally. Language is complex and subtle, the way it is used, it's context, specialist definitions etc, all play an important part in understanding it's meaning.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

The word spacetime is not the same as space + time.
The word catfish is not the same as cat + fish.
The word whiteout is not the same as white + out.

 

[Bjarne]

Space-time is quite well understood, but not completely.

What is the main problem according to your opinion?

But I can see that you now are saying that the curvature of space is a property of space-(time).
Hans
No, we are saying that it is a property of space-time. You cannot separate the two.

I am not "separating" these two things, but only defining the 2 properties involved.
One as you wrote; time, - and the other; - distances.
There are different.
This is enough to show my point.

No. We cannot understand space without paying attention to time.

Of course not without time there would be no observation.

No, I have not divided spacetime into two properties. They are inseparable. Stop misinterpreting me.

Even though these are inseparable, we are dealing with 2 different properties of space.

Bjarne
So left is to focus on the “deformation of space” property.
After to have insulated time, - we can easy conclude that; deformation of space is not “made of time” but can only be made of space.
Hans
Wrong. The deformation of spacetime is made of spacetime.

From an overall perspective yes, since the Universe too have gravity and anything are never without influence of that.

But even though time always is “bound” to how space differ from place to place, you can still dig deeper in the; - structure / density/ tension/ curvature/ space-vacuum - property of space.
Off course time dilation can't be separated from that, - nothing wrong with that, nobody denies this, - rather this is my point; -you cannot change the structure/density/vacuum of space without also to disturb time, - proportional.

Times AND distances are different. A meter is not the same, but it still takes one second to travel one meter at one m/s.

Exactly
So how did Einstein solve the Mercury Perihelion Precession Anomaly?
Because even though there is more time for those "living there", (due to the clock ticks slower) – distances are proportional longer.
So even though there is more time to get things done, for example to complete a orbit around the sun, - distances are simply proportional longer , and therefore Mercury shall not orbit faster as calculated from a Earth perspective..

Bjarne
Is the nature of gravity (space) insulated from time so simple?
What do you think?
Hans
You cannot equate gravity and space.

This is not what I am doing, but only digging so deep as possible in one of the 2 properties of space have, - even though we both agree these are inseparable connected.

And you cannot isolate it from time. So no it is not 'so simple'.

Of course not, - but the point is space-time have 2 properties, - the only "one" I am researching is the “space-structure” property.

Off course times dilation follows as an equal proportional” effect” doesn’t matter where you end up with the “space-structure” property – at the end of the day.

The point have never been to deny that, but only to keep “distance” to the time-property, since that is not the (main) point, - time dilation follows "automatically" you do even not need to mention it.
Here is an example; you can say space is twisted around an elementary particle and space deforms, - This description is fine, - but to be complete you must then add, - and therefore time ticks slower. – BUT there is no reason to mention this, because we are discussion the structure property, insulated, - not the time property, - this is ignored.

Here is another example.
I am in Sahara, it is June, and 12 a clock the sun are shining not a single cloud of the sky.
We was measuring the very low moisture content (one inseparable property of Sahara connected to the desert)
It is not necessary to mention it was hot that day (another inseparable property)
You can insulate all you research to; - the measurement of the moisture, and completely ignore to report anything about yes it was hot.
But this doesn’t mean that Sahara no longer is what it once was, but just that this is not the point with the mission.

I wonder, - you do now admit to agree to that that time and distances are always equal proportional connected (in GR), - how would it now be possible to explain the Mercury Perihelion Precession Anomaly?