Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

• what is "E".

“E” = energy.
Normally when we speak about the strong force we think about the force of attraction between particles.
Let me make these properties a little clearer

• Force = Attraction
• Attraction = The spin of a particle is twisting space around itself, whereby each particle absorbs space + in the same process creates a space-vacuum around itself. Below will be explained how and why this attract a particle with opposite spin (strong force) - this is a particle property, + how this at the same time curves space aorund it self (weaker force), this is a "side effect", - due to that space has been used/consumed/absorbed/contracted/stolen,,, you name it
• Energy = Is involved in the process just mentioned.

Pulling together, contracting 'elastic' space requires energy.
Therefore the energy of a particle must be proportional to the amount of space such a particle can pull together (bend/contract).
This also means that the spin of a particle has its culmination at the point at which space would absorb its entire energy.
At such a point the extent of space contraction absorbs all the energy of a particle.

For each spinning particle there is a maximum level (culmination) of the amount of contraction of space it can generate
Since the "elastic" space has ability to absorb the energy of a particle, it can absorb the entire energy of each particle. We can say that such a particle has "twisted its energy" into the elastic space or, in other words, that space has absorbed the energy of a particle.

This 'twisted' (elastic) space will release the absorbed energy and force a particle to spin (unwind). As the result, the particle begins to release 'twisting' space around it until a new culmination point is reached at the opposite end.
This process continues in an endless cycle of repetitions, powered by the counterbalancing force imparted on the elastic space. What we see is really that space 'plays' with itself.

The force of attraction between particles is a result of that it is easier to absorb that space a opposite spinning particle is releasing, than absorb it self, - from the beginning.
In the above mentioned process one particle is borrowing absorbed space from its neighbor particle, and give it back a split second later.
Hence this is an endless push – pull - push – pull process. (And thereby no energy is lost; so long the process is in balance)

So you cannot separate; force, - attraction, or energy, - unless if you destroy the process.

You are finally getting one point: gravity and the stong force are different processes with different causes.

That‘s 50% true, different processes yes, - but the cause of these forces are for both; - the interaction process.
RC if not the strong force somehow should be responsible for the curvature of space, what on Earth should then ?
A unification of the cause of gravity and the cause of space deformation, screams to heaven to be done..

The attraction (force) between particles (the interaction process) is explained above.
But because billion of particles keep space absorbed / contracted, all the time, by using the above mentioned push-pull technique, you will from a overall perspective have a huge amount of space that is absorbed (lacking). .
THIS is a space-vacuum;
THIS is the cause of gravity.

This is not fantasy; there is enough fragmented knowledge to support such conclusion.
www.phy.ohiou.edu/~elster/research/dspin.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_dragging
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron

 

[phunk]

This is the normal formula for the energy of matter, with a postulated constant mu added to the equation. The way it is used, mu is a constant, just like c.

Except that he ends up with the unit of m³ when he tries to calculate it. This means his equation doesn't balance, and is therefore wrong.

E != mass*distance³*speed²

 

[MRC_Hans]

“E” = energy.
Normally when we speak about the strong force we think about the force of attraction between particles.
Let me make these properties a little clearer

• Force = Attraction

OK, so far.

Attraction = The spin of a particle is twisting space around itself, whereby each particle absorbs space + in the same process creates a space-vacuum around itself. Below will be explained how and why this attract a particle with opposite spin (strong force) - this is a particle property, + how this at the same time curves space aorund it self (weaker force), this is a "side effect", - due to that space has been used/consumed/absorbed/contracted/stolen,,, you name it

Unfounded speculation. There is no evidence that particle spin interacts with space, except for the very tiny frame-dragging effect.

Energy = Is involved in the process just mentioned.

False, there is no energy conversion involved in particle spin, in itself.

Pulling together, contracting 'elastic' space requires energy.
Therefore the energy of a particle must be proportional to the amount of space such a particle can pull together (bend/contract).
This also means that the spin of a particle has its culmination at the point at which space would absorb its entire energy.
At such a point the extent of space contraction absorbs all the energy of a particle.

For each spinning particle there is a maximum level (culmination) of the amount of contraction of space it can generate
Since the "elastic" space has ability to absorb the energy of a particle, it can absorb the entire energy of each particle. We can say that such a particle has "twisted its energy" into the elastic space or, in other words, that space has absorbed the energy of a particle.

This 'twisted' (elastic) space will release the absorbed energy and force a particle to spin (unwind). As the result, the particle begins to release 'twisting' space around it until a new culmination point is reached at the opposite end.
This process continues in an endless cycle of repetitions, powered by the counterbalancing force imparted on the elastic space. What we see is really that space 'plays' with itself.

Not only is this speculation, it is factually wrong. We observe no general cyclical property of particle spin.

The force of attraction between particles is a result of that it is easier to absorb that space a opposite spinning particle is releasing, than absorb it self, - from the beginning.
In the above mentioned process one particle is borrowing absorbed space from its neighbor particle, and give it back a split second later.
Hence this is an endless push – pull - push – pull process. (And thereby no energy is lost; so long the process is in balance)

Such a process would be very much observable. We do not observe it, thus we can conclude that it does not exists.

So you cannot separate; force, - attraction,

True in the sense that attraction = force. (However, force does not always equate attraction)

or energy,

Again a half-truth: Energy implies force, but force needs not imply energy.

- unless if you destroy the process.

There is no process.

That‘s 50% true, different processes yes, - but the cause of these forces are for both; - the interaction process.
RC if not the strong force somehow should be responsible for the curvature of space, what on Earth should then ?

Gravity.

A unification of the cause of gravity and the cause of space deformation, screams to heaven to be done..

That may be so, but you have failed to do so.

The attraction (force) between particles (the interaction process) is explained above.
But because billion of particles keep space absorbed / contracted, all the time, by using the above mentioned push-pull technique, you will from a overall perspective have a huge amount of space that is absorbed (lacking). .

Logical fail. If the speculative process consists of winding and unwinding, the net result must be zero, no matter how many particles are involved. 0 * a billion = 0.

THIS is a space-vacuum;
THIS is the cause of gravity.

This is not fantasy; there is enough fragmented knowledge to support such conclusion.
www.phy.ohiou.edu/~elster/research/dspin.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_dragging
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron

FAIL. Your idea is what we in Danish call "luftkastel" (castle of air). It has no support in reality, and not even in logic. The three links aboce don't support you in any way (the third one is, in fact, not even relevant).

So yes, it is fantasy. 100% fantasy.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

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

“E” = energy.
....

Actually: E = energy, "E" is the letter E in quotes.
The rest is some basic definitions and a lot of unphysical spculations.

RC if not the strong force somehow should be responsible for the curvature of space, what on Earth should then ?

Mass.

A unification of the cause of gravity and the cause of space deformation, screams to heaven to be done..

There are theories that try to unify all of the forces.
You have a fantasy about a theory to unify just gravity and the strong force. Your igorance of mathematics and physics has meant that you have failed.

You are persisting in your assertion:
Bjarne, show us "the equation hat unite gravity and the strong force"
Asked on 16 March 2011 (8 days and counting)

Why not just admit that you only have your fantasies and not an equations?

 

[Bjarne]

False, there is no energy conversion involved in particle spin, in itself.

Max Planck calls it a force. – You properly too.
But there are no forces, and no particle spin without energy.
Matter is particle spin, no more than this…
Energy must be in exactly this process.
But it depend how you define “energy”.
Ask you self; where in the process of being matter do “E” hide itself.?
Never mind call it a force if you prefer, - in that case you don’t know where the energy is.
It is all right to see it at a force, - there is in fact no difference.
The attraction force is created by the spin.
I think this question would end the same place as the chicken and the egg.

There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.

Not only is this speculation, it is factually wrong. We observe no general cyclical property of particle spin. We observe no general cyclical property of particle spin.

We observe that spin up and spin down are mutual connected, - we will properly never be able never be able to directly observe more than this. Even not Lucky Luck is fast enough.

The interaction frequencies are billion and billion and billion Hz pr second.
EM-waves that can escape an imbalanced process, - and carry the evidence, - what really happens in these processes, since all what these are is “disturbed space” – also with huge frequencies. .

Such a process would be very much observable. We do not observe it, thus we can conclude that it does not exists.

Not at all.
So long a process is balanced nothing get out, and there is nothing to measure. An imbalances process results in emission of evidence, - such are EM-waves.
These are either interaction that can’t be balanced (hidden) or broken interaction (gamma x-ray etc,) .
These are small pieces of released vibrating space created in the described vibration processes, - interaction.
I assume you do not expect that it at all is possible to observe such extreme fast interaction with your naken eye. (?)
A bird can almost be so fast you can't directly observe it.

Try to serious ask your self, - where does the EM waves come from and why?
From the bight blue 21 th dimention and just because it is funny ?
Or ?

Why do you think particles vibrate?
Because they are drunk ?
Or how ?

Logical fail. If the speculative process consists of winding and unwinding, the net result must be zero, no matter how many particles are involved. 0 * a billion = 0.

No, because absorbed space is never released, but only swapped.

 

[Bjarne]

There are theories that try to unify all of the forces.

But none have succceed, so far only mine.

 

[Reality Check]

But none have succceed, so far only mine.

You are lying. You have no theory only a bunch of gibberish.
You cannot even show that your gibberish is Lorentz invariant (a requirement for gravity) because the only math it contains is insane and nothging to do withy either gravity, teh striong force or the real world.

Bjarne, show us "the equation hat unite gravity and the strong force"
Asked on 16 March 2011 (8 days and counting)

Why not just admit that you only have your fantasies and not an equations?

 

[Bjarne]

You are lying. You have no theory only a bunch of gibberish.
You cannot even show that your gibberish is Lorentz invariant (a requirement for gravity) because the only math it contains is insane and nothging to do withy either gravity, teh striong force or the real world.

Bjarne, show us "the equation hat unite gravity and the strong force"
Asked on 16 March 2011 (8 days and counting)

Why not just admit that you only have your fantasies and not an equations?

Bad loser

 

[Reality Check]

Bad loser

Bjarne, show us "the equation hat unite gravity and the strong force"
Asked on 16 March 2011 (8 days and counting)

I win !

Not that it means much winning against such a poor opponent.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, show us "the equation hat unite gravity and the strong force"
Asked on 16 March 2011 (8 days and counting)

I win !

Not that it means much winning against such a poor opponent.

I have the equation , you have nothing
You are the loser

 

[Little 10 Toes]

What equation?

 

[dafydd]

I have the equation , you have nothing
You are the loser

Show us this equation.

 

[Reality Check]

I have the equation , you have nothing
You are the loser

You have no equation, you have nothing.
You are the loser.

Otherwise you would be be able to post your equation that unites gravity and the strong force.
That equation will have to:

• Reduce to general relativity (i.e. gravity) in the appropriate limits (e.g. outside an atom).
• Reduce to quantum chromodynamics (i.e. the strong force) in the appropriate limits (e.g. inside a nucleus).

The reason for this is simple: General relativity works for gravity. Quantum chromodynamics works for the strong force. Any theory that unites the 2 will have to duplicate what they do.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Max Planck calls it a force. – You properly too.
But there are no forces, and no particle spin without energy.

You are wrong.

Matter is particle spin, no more than this…
Energy must be in exactly this process.

You are wrong.

But it depend how you define “energy”.

There is only one definition, but energy can have many forms.

Ask you self; where in the process of being matter do “E” hide itself.?

It does not 'hide itself'. Matter is ultimately a form of energy.

Never mind call it a force if you prefer, - in that case you don’t know where the energy is.

You are displaying your almost total ignorance.

It

is all right to see it at a force, - there is in fact no difference.

For the completely ignorant, maybe there is no difference.

The attraction force is created by the spin.

Wrong.

We observe that spin up and spin down are mutual connected, - we will properly never be able never be able to directly observe more than this. Even not Lucky Luck is fast enough.

Where do we observe this?

The interaction frequencies are billion and billion and billion Hz pr second.

More ignorance. First of all, Hz is cycles per second, so it is not Hz per second (that would denote a frequency change), secondly we know and can detect very high frequencies.

EM-waves that can escape an imbalanced process, - and carry the evidence, - what really happens in these processes, since all what these are is “disturbed space” – also with huge frequencies. .

Complete nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are just babbling words. Words that sound superficially technical, and you might impress a 6 year old, or a cow (although I doubt the latter), but you don't impress adults who know even a little bit about this.

So long a process is balanced nothing get out, and there is nothing to measure.

You are contradicting yourself: You are saying that the process is 'balanced' whatever that is supposed to mean, and does not influence its surroundings, yet you say it is the cause of gravity. Now, make up your mind: Is the process 'balanced' and undetectable, or is it the cause of gravity? You can't have both.

An imbalances process results in emission of evidence, - such are EM-waves.

Wrong.

I assume you do not expect that it at all is possible to observe such extreme fast interaction with your naken eye. (?)

How very silly a question. Of course I don't expect to see it directly. However, we have instruments that can detect radiation of basically ANY frequency.

Try to serious ask your self, - where does the EM waves come from and why?
From the bight blue 21 th dimention and just because it is funny ?
Or ?

Bjarne, I'm a professional specialist on EM waves. I have taught about EM waves at the Delta institute. I know exactly where EM waves come from.

Why do you think particles vibrate?

Thermal energy makes them vibrate.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

double

 

[Bjarne]

That equation will have to:

Reduce to general relativity (i.e. gravity) in the appropriate limits (e.g. outside an atom).

Space deformation is the basic for general relativity, there is nothing to “reduce” except yours ignorance.

educe to quantum chromodynamics (i.e. the strong force) in the appropriate limits (e.g. inside a nucleus).

The reason for this is simple: General relativity works for gravity. Quantum chromodynamics works for the strong force. Any theory that unites the 2 will have to duplicate what they do.

The inner process of an atom is simple; it is only push pull (swap) –(interaction) of small pieces of absorbed space. That’s all.

If a particle would pull space together and then totally release it, its energy (and force) would be gone, disappear out in the big blue, in a split second.

When a “helper” (with opposite spin) can hold that “work” for a short period, and then give that “work” on space back,- no energy is lost.

Notice two particles can’t do this alone, - the interactions are a collective push/pull process.
You can say that 2 opposite particles all the time is exchanging “a virtual particle” , this is not true, they are exchanging a small piece of contracted /absorbed space, nothing else.

THIS is the simple process, there is nothing more important to add, except that this is how nuclear attraction works .

On a global perspective it is different, here it is the total absorbed space vacuum, due to all the “virtual particles” that constantly is held contracted. - The result of that is a global space vacuum.

The idea that gravity must be quantizing is absurd.
You can quantizing the energy in the interaction process, as well the energy emitted from that, but you can NEVER quantizing gravity.

Gravity is ONLY – and I repeat ONLY elastic stretching space, - NOTHING more than that.
It is NOT and I repeat NOT separated in any pieces..
You can use space to make “small pieces” this and that, - BUT gravity is unchanged elastic space, not divided in any pieces at all.
NOT and I repeat NOT Hiigs and gravitation, this is nothing but fantasy.
So you must NOT quantizing gravity.

Gravity = pure space, - and pure space is the basic for everything, also for the interaction process, which is the factory of Quantum’s.
So Pure space and gravity is the basic.
On that primary foundation of pure elastic space- the secondary phenomena of nature is build > the factory of Quantum’s are build, - which mean the interaction process. You cannot and you must not unite these two, these are 2 separated realities. .

It does not 'hide itself'. Matter is ultimately a form of energy.

Cows, even the most insane, know that energy of matter not is matter, but the process of creating it.

we know and can detect very high frequencies.

Tell me now how do you know that; - “atoms vibrate with extremely fast frequencies” - as you can read below is the case; >
There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration…………….Max Planch

Now when you are so omniscience, - tells us the reason to that this happens.
How do you think this it is “observed”, and why does it happen ?
You seems to know that so much that you just have blab blap above.
So, now make it clear what is observable knowledge of that , and how did we got that knoglege, - do you think ?.
The whole universe is in front of your eyes, can you see observe it is vibrating ? - Can you measure it ? - HOW (do you think ) ?

You are saying that the process is 'balanced' whatever that is supposed to mean.

That means that the nuclear "vibrations" do not reach longer as to the nearby particles, where 100% of these disturbances are absorbed (borrowed) and 100% returned a split second latter. This is matter without EM-emittion.

That balance can easy be disturbed, in such a case normally only low frequency EM –wave is emitted from the interaction process.
For example heat or light etc.
This have nothing to do with the fact that gravity also is result of the same process.

How very silly a question. Of course I don't expect to see it directly. However, we have instruments that can detect radiation of basically ANY frequency.

Only when the interaction process exposes itself as EM-wave, but in this case (a free wave) it is a different phenomenon’s but still a flow of evidence form the process behind.

Bjarne
Why do you think particles vibrate?
Hans
Thermal energy makes them vibrate.

An Ice crystal vibrate too, cows and Max Planck know that, But I don’t expect you to agree.
Even an ice crystal on Neptune vibrates in its nuclear; hence I can’t see which thermal energy you might be blap blap about.

Bjarne, show us "the equation hat unite gravity and the strong force"
Asked on 16 March 2011 (8 days and counting)

I think the main problem here is that before you understand the last equation you must first understand the first one mentioned here > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6969139&postcount=3300

 

[Paul]

Space deformation is the basic for general relativity, there is nothing to “reduce” except yours ignorance.

must . not . use . laughing . dog

The inner process of an atom is simple; it is only push pull (swap) –(interaction) of small pieces of absorbed space. That’s all.

Then you will be able to provide the simple equation that demonstrates this.

If a particle would pull space together and then totally release it, its energy (and force) would be gone, disappear out in the big blue, in a split second.

Really? You propose that energy can be destroyed?

When a “helper” (with opposite spin) can hold that “work” for a short period, and then give that “work” on space back,- no energy is lost.

But, if releasing energy to the helper means total release as you just claimed, you would be left with a particle with zero energy and another with twice it's previous energy.

Notice two particles can’t do this alone, - the interactions are a collective push/pull process.

How do they do this when half of your particles lose all their energy every time they spin?

On a global perspective it is different, here it is the total absorbed space vacuum, due to all the “virtual particles” that constantly is held contracted.

You just said virtual particles don't exist.

The idea that gravity must be quantizing is absurd.
You can quantizing the energy in the interaction process, as well the energy emitted from that, but you can NEVER quantizing gravity.

You don't think someone might wan to explain gravity in terms of quantum mechanics?

NOT and I repeat NOT Hiigs and gravitation, this is nothing but fantasy.
So you must NOT quantizing gravity.

I expect the professional community will be rushing to thank you for saving them so much actual work.

Gravity = pure space, - and pure space is the basic for everything, also for the interaction process,

Yes, yes, we know you don't understand anything about gravity.

which is the factory of Quantum’s.

You don't actually know what quanta are, do you?

The whole universe is in front of your eyes, can you see observe it is vibrating ? - Can you measure it ? - HOW (do you think ) ?

Do you really think it is impossible to measure things we cannot see with the naked eye?

An Ice crystal vibrate too, cows and Max Planck know that, But I don’t expect you to agree.

I'm surprised you do, you can't see the vibration so how can it possibly happen?

Even an ice crystal on Neptune vibrates in its nuclear; hence I can’t see which thermal energy you might be blap blap about.

The thermal energy that causes vibration at any temperature.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne
The inner process of an atom is simple; it is only push pull (swap) –(interaction) of small pieces of absorbed space. That’s all.
Paul
Then you will be able to provide the simple equation that demonstrates this.

Divide the total space vacuum (calculated above) in 1 mu with the amount of nuclear in 1 kg., and then with 2, - this is the amount of space each of the “virtual particles” consumes.

Bjarne
If a particle would pull space together and then totally release it, its energy (and force) would be gone, disappear out in the big blue, in a split second.
Paul
Really? You propose that energy can be destroyed?

The energy of the particle would be “destroyed”, which should be understood that the particle is destroyed, not the energy of couse..

But, if releasing energy to the helper means total release as you just claimed, you would be left with a particle with zero energy and another with twice it's previous energy.

The strong force is not limited to a single particle or two, it is a collective osculation process, so all particles continue to oscillate / vibrate “because all other does the same”.

How do they do this when half of your particles lose all their energy every time they spin?

It is not lost but borrowed by a particle with opposite spin.

You just said virtual particles don't exist.

And I mean …..there are no matter as such…..only absorbed space + energy/force

You don't think someone might wan to explain gravity in terms of quantum mechanics?

Many does, but it is total impossible.

Do you really think it is impossible to measure things we cannot see with the naked eye?

Tell me about it with reference to this context?

 

[Reality Check]

Space deformation is the basic for general relativity, there is nothing to “reduce” except yours ignorance.

You are really showing your ignorance, Bjarne.

What I said was that your equation (which you are obviously lying abut) will have to

• Reduce to general relativity (i.e. gravity) in the appropriate limits (e.g. outside an atom).
• Reduce to quantum chromodynamics (i.e. the strong force) in the appropriate limits (e.g. inside a nucleus).

This is similar to the requirement that GR reduces to Newtonian gravity and quantum mechnaics reduces to classical machanics.

Vague mutterings will not do. You need to have an equation that reduces to Einsteins field equations at least

Bjarne, show us "the equation hat unite gravity and the strong force"
Asked on 16 March 2011 (9 days and counting)

...more fantasies snipped...
The idea that gravity must be quantizing is absurd.

The idea that gravity must be "quantizing" is a fundemental part of the Theory Of Everything that is speculated to describe all forces.
The idea that gravity must be "quantizing" is a fundemental part of the equatrion that you have lied about having that "unites" gravity and the strong force.
The strong force is a quantum force (like electromagnetism and the weak force)

Gravity is ONLY – and I repeat ONLY elastic stretching space, - NOTHING more than that.

Gravity is an effect of the curvature of space-time by mass.
You are still ignorant of this basic part of GR after 2 and a half years
Curved space is not contracted space
First pointed out 11 November 2009

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

 

[Paul]

Divide the total space vacuum (calculated above) in 1 mu with the amount of nuclear in 1 kg., and then with 2, - this is the amount of space each of the “virtual particles” consumes.

I said an equation, not a jumble of meaningless rambling.

The energy of the particle would be “destroyed”, which should be understood that the particle is destroyed, not the energy of couse..

Schrödinger's energy eh?

The strong force is not limited to a single particle or two,

No, it is limited to protons and neutrons.

it is a collective osculation process, so all particles continue to oscillate / vibrate “because all other does the same”.

Nonsense.

It is not lost but borrowed by a particle with opposite spin.

Borrowed as in given all it's energy to.

And I mean …..there are no matter as such…..only absorbed space + energy/force

You previously claimed that matter wasn't basically energy.

Cows, even the most insane, know that energy of matter not is matter, but the process of creating it.

Many does, but it is total impossible.

How would you know?

Tell me about it with reference to this context?

The LHC.