Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

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

I don’t think you self know what you are blab blap about, if you did you would have expressed you self clearer.

The idea that gravity must be "quantizing" is a fundamental part of the Theory Of Everything that is speculated to describe all forces.

And this is where the derail took place.
You can never quantizing gravity.
Such idea only pops up by people that have no idea what gravity possible could be. This is mist talk.

The idea that gravity must be "quantizing" is a fundamental part of the equation that you have lied about having that "unites" gravity and the strong force.

Rubbish, what you just wrote is a fundamental part of systematical brainwash.

The strong force is a quantum force (like electromagnetism and the weak force).

Exactly, but gravity is NOT.
I think I have made myself very clear and explained why to even small details.
I wish you sometime could support your own statement like that.
.
There is no evidence or even clues at all that tell you gravity MUST be quantizing. – Nothing at all. Forget it.

Gravity is ONLY – and I repeat ONLY elastic stretching space, - NOTHING more than that. A depression in the space density, - and that's it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Gravity is ONLY – and I repeat ONLY elastic stretching space, - NOTHING more than that. A depression in the space density, - and that's it.

And you know this how?

Hans

 

[dafydd]

I don’t think you self know what you are blab blap about, if you did you would have expressed you self clearer.


And this is where the derail took place.
You can never quantizing gravity.
Such idea only pops up by people that have no idea what gravity possible could be. This is mist talk.


Rubbish, what you just wrote is a fundamental part of systematical brainwash.


Exactly, but gravity is NOT.
I think I have made myself very clear and explained why to even small details.
I wish you sometime could support your own statement like that.
.
There is no evidence or even clues at all that tell you gravity MUST be quantizing. – Nothing at all. Forget it.

Gravity is ONLY – and I repeat ONLY elastic stretching space, - NOTHING more than that. A depression in the space density, - and that's it.

Equation? Do you know what an equation is? I'm beginning to have my doubts.

 

[Reality Check]

I don’t think you self know what you are blab blap about, if you did you would have expressed you self clearer.

I experessed myself clearly. You just cannot understand it so you go into a blab blap rant.

And this is where the derail took place.
You can never quantizing gravity.
Such idea only pops up by people that have no idea what gravity possible could be. This is mist talk.

Totally ignorant again: Any theory describing the strong force (already covered by quantum chromodynamics) must be a quantum theory.
Adding gravity to this theory means that the theory must still be a quantum theory. There are theories of quantum gravity.

Rubbish, what you just wrote is a fundamental part of systematical brainwash.

Rubbish, what you just wrote is a fundamental part of systematical ignorance and crackpottery.

Exactly, but gravity is NOT.

Exactly, you confirm that you are lying about having an equation
Bjarne, show us "the equation hat unite gravity and the strong force"
Asked on 16 March 2011 (9 days and counting)

You still MISS the point. Your imaginary equation must unite

• the strong force (quantum chromodynamics)
• gravity (general reltivity)

That equation must be both a GR equation and a quantum equation. Thus it will describe a quantum gravity. It does NOT so you are lying about having such a equation.

Gravity is ONLY – and I repeat ONLY elastic stretching space, - NOTHING more than that. A depression in the space density, - and that's it.

Repreating your ignirance and delustions just make you look ignorant and delused, Bjarne.

Gravity is ONLY an effect of the curvature of space-time. I have 90 years of scientific literature on General Relativity to back me up. I have the many confirmed tests of GR to back me up.

You have nothing except the ability to write scientific sounding gibberish to back you up.
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)

 

[Reality Check]

What is "space density",Bjarne

Gravity is ONLY – and I repeat ONLY elastic stretching space, - NOTHING more than that. A depression in the space density, - and that's it.

By the way: You define gravity as both "ONLY elastic stretching space" and "a depression in the space density".

Which one is it?

And
Bjarne
What is "space density"?
How do you calculate it?
Give some examples, e.g. how much does the Sun "depress" space density?

Space is what density happens in. For example the density of a mass is the mass divided by its volume.

Say we have a volume of 1 m³: How much space is in it?
The answer is 1 m³Thus the "density" of space is always 1 !

Or say we have a volume of 1 m³: How many points are in it?
There are an infinite number of points.
Thus the "density" of space is always infinite points/m^{3[/SUP :jaw-dropp!}

 

[Bjarne]

Totally ignorant again: Any theory describing the strong force (already covered by quantum chromodynamics) must be a quantum theory.
Adding gravity to this theory means that the theory must still be a quantum theory. There are theories of quantum gravity.

Have you read the post above;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7011258&postcount=3458

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

In other words and simple; - just multiply the space each of the "virtuel particles" consumes, - the total = a space vacuum, - this is the cause of gravity. So now I have quantizing it all for you.
Are you now happy ?

That equation must be both a GR equation and a quantum equation. Thus it will describe a quantum gravity.

And this is excactly what i wrote above...
The "virtuel particle" keeps all the energy and all the force of the strong force too.
Now you must be happy ?

By the way: You define gravity as both "ONLY elastic stretching space" and "a depression in the space density".

Which one is it?

Both, space are increasingly stretching towards the center of a space vacuum. A field of gravity = a space vacuum, the "stretch" is a certain distance in that field, towards the inner center.

And
Bjarne
What is "space density"?
How do you calculate it?
Give some examples, e.g. how much does the Sun "depress" space density?

Time dilation in a gravitational field is propotional / percent-wise the same as distances deformation.
This mean if the sun not was there "space" would in fact not expand, but rather contract, because that space that the sun is absorbing now would be released.

Right now space is stretching towards the sun; the meter stick too, with the exact same rate as time too is "stretching" towards the sun.

If the Sun is gone, all what in fact would happens is that the meter stick would be SHORTER, that much shorter as it now is stretching towards the sun. (and time would "shrink" to / be faster)
So we are moving nowhere, but the meter stick as well as the size of the Earth would shrink.

Say we have a volume of 1 m3: How much space is in it?
The answer is 1 m3
Thus the "density" of space is always 1

No because the meter stick is now shorter.
This gives you the illusion that space have expended.
You would in fact measure more m3 in the “bobble” of the solar system after the sun has disappeared; because of distances not are the same anymore.

The fact is that right now space of the universe is not expanding, it is rather contracting, - it is released from a previously extreme stretch, - hence now the meter stick is contracting, you too, and the Earth the sun too, and time and the EM specter too.

And thereby distances are getting larger.....

But this effect mainly so called dark energy and its source so called dark matter, - because this is a parallel process independent from gravity created by visible matter.

 

[Paulhoff]

The word "Dark" is the only thing they have in common with each other. The names are only place holders for now.

Paul

 

[phunk]

What are 'nuclears'?

 

[Paul]

Have you read the post above

It's still nonsense, and you still haven't responded sensibly.

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

Why?

In other words and simple; - just multiply the space each of the "virtuel particles" consumes, - the total = a space vacuum, - this is the cause of gravity.

The virtual particles you deny and the space vacuum that doesn't exist?

So now I have quantizing it all for you.

"The idea that gravity must be quantizing is absurd.

So you must NOT quantizing gravity.

You can never quantizing gravity.
Such idea only pops up by people that have no idea what gravity possible could be. This is mist talk.

There is no evidence or even clues at all that tell you gravity MUST be quantizing. – Nothing at all. Forget it."
​

So we are moving nowhere, but the meter stick as well as the size of the Earth would shrink.

You do know that we don't actually use a stick anymore, don't you?

The fact is that right now space of the universe is not expanding, it is rather contracting

Of course it is, the people at the telescope you used must be very exited by your discovery.

it is released from a previously extreme stretch, - hence now the meter stick is contracting, you too, and the Earth the sun too, and time and the EM specter too.

You proved this how?

And thereby distances are getting larger.....

Logical thinking doesn't feature much in your world, does it?

But this effect mainly so called dark energy and its source so called dark matter, - because this is a parallel process independent from gravity created by visible matter.

Apparently it is possible produce new balderdash indefinitely.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Logical thinking doesn't feature much in your world, does it?
...

Well,

We all know a cow is a not a cow, - but a muuhhh-cow because muuhhh-cows is muuuhing...
It is not possible to separate the muuuh from the muuhhh cow, -because the muuuuhh (from the cow) cannot exist without the cow.
...

...
And thereby distances are getting larger.....
....

If you were traveling on a muuhhh-cow

mother cow

perhaps, and this cow was muuuuhing continuously, I suspect your travel distance would be getting larger by the minute.

stupid cow

Quite logical, really

 

[Anders Lindman]

And there is:

3. Redshift caused by the vacuum energy.

I found an interesting article that may be related to the quote above:

"Vacuum has friction after all

...
In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle says we can never be sure that an apparent vacuum is truly empty. Instead, space is fizzing with photons that are constantly popping into and out of existence before they can be measured directly. Even though they appear only fleetingly, these "virtual" photons exert the same electromagnetic forces on the objects they encounter as normal photons do.

Now, Alejandro Manjavacas and F. Javier García de Abajo of the Institute of Optics at the Spanish National Research Council in Madrid say these forces should slow down spinning objects. Just as a head-on collision packs a bigger punch than a tap between two cars one behind the other, a virtual photon hitting an object in the direction opposite to its spin collides with greater force than if it hits in the same direction.

So over time, a spinning object will gradually slow down, even if equal numbers of virtual photons bombard it from all sides."

Full article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927994.100-vacuum-has-friction-after-all.html

 

[Bjarne]

"The idea that gravity must be quantizing is absurd.

If you mean hiigs and graviton , yes I fully agree.
There are no reverse into such fantasy particles.

The fact that a space vacuum is created by huge amount of particles that keeps space contracted has been obvious in that theory for years.

So over time, a spinning object will gradually slow down, even if equal numbers of virtual photons bombard it from all sides."

Possible, but which force is behind the strong force, - why does a particle at all spin.

The only answer I can find is speed of particles (speed of matter).

So even though matter could have an energy lost, speed of the universe could be slowly increasing and compensate for that.
Imaging a universe of chaotic spinning particles, and without the strong force (interaction). Randomly spin could easy create a coordinated collective wave of spinning particles as well as begin to interact with exact opposite particles simply because that would save energy.

To get just a little coherence understanding out of all that, we must ask;

• What is the “vibration of particle” (Max Planck) and why?
• Why does particle begins to interact?
• Why does such processes sometimes emits extreme fast pulsating waves?
• What are these particles made of if it not should be space ?
• Is the only possible answer; - space?
• How can only space+ energy possible be responsible - for creating the Universe?

 

[Paul]

If you mean hiigs and graviton , yes I fully agree.
There are no reverse into such fantasy particles.

That was a direct quote from you, in response to you claiming to have quantised gravity yourself.

The fact that a space vacuum is created by huge amount of particles that keeps space contracted has been obvious in that theory for years.

What theory would that be?

Possible, but which force is behind the strong force,

Residual colour force?

why does a particle at all spin.

It's a fundamental property.

The only answer I can find is speed of particles (speed of matter).

Then you looked in the wrong place.

So even though matter could have an energy lost, speed of the universe could be slowly increasing and compensate for that.

And how would loss of energy cause increased speed?

Imaging a universe of chaotic spinning particles, and without the strong force (interaction).

A universe of elementrary particles.

Randomly spin could easy create a coordinated collective wave of spinning particles as well as begin to interact with exact opposite particles simply because that would save energy.

What?

To get just a little coherence understanding out of all that,

There's always a first time.

we must ask;

You must ask, and much, much more carefully.

 

[Anders Lindman]

I found an interesting article that may be related to the quote above:

"Vacuum has friction after all

...
In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle says we can never be sure that an apparent vacuum is truly empty. Instead, space is fizzing with photons that are constantly popping into and out of existence before they can be measured directly. Even though they appear only fleetingly, these "virtual" photons exert the same electromagnetic forces on the objects they encounter as normal photons do.

Now, Alejandro Manjavacas and F. Javier García de Abajo of the Institute of Optics at the Spanish National Research Council in Madrid say these forces should slow down spinning objects. Just as a head-on collision packs a bigger punch than a tap between two cars one behind the other, a virtual photon hitting an object in the direction opposite to its spin collides with greater force than if it hits in the same direction.

So over time, a spinning object will gradually slow down, even if equal numbers of virtual photons bombard it from all sides."

Full article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927994.100-vacuum-has-friction-after-all.html

I checked with an expert and he said that their theory is just a speculation and that there are many such speculations presented every year. It could still be interesting though I think if they can test and verify their theory with experiments.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped gibberish...

The gibberish did not answer:
What is "space density",Bjarne?
This is a simple defintion, Bjarne: juts tell us how to calculate it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

What is your measuring unit for space?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

The gibberish did not answer:
What is "space density",Bjarne?
This is a simple definition, Bjarne: juts tell us how to calculate it.

We don't know, and will properly never know what space really is, or how it can curve/deform/be absorbed/stretch etc..
We do only have ice cold math, and our imagination, + and now also coherence and hence a simplified picture of the Universe. – Not many weeks ago, - we had almost nothing, except total confusion.
Space does have a elastic (stretching and contracting) property, but not a curving property.
Simplifying space makes it much easier to decide one's attitude to what this is about, and what is not is about. But fully understand it, don't expect that.

What is your measuring unit for space?

I thought you had understood.
We where through all that above, - allready..
You haven't read anything of that, right ?
1 Kg matter absorbs 1 mu space.
Read above how to define 1 mu.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped a non answer....

That did not answer:
What is "space density",Bjarne?

 

[Bjarne]

That did not answer:
What is "space density",Bjarne?

A better expression compared to the clumsy and & dead end; > "curved space".
That expression makes it possible for the human mind and imagination to understand a coherent Universe.

 

[Reality Check]

A better expression compared to the clumsy and & dead end; > "curved space".
That expression makes it possible for the human mind and imagination to understand a coherent Universe.

That did not answer:
What is "space density",Bjarne?
First asked 25th March 2011