Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

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.

You have defined mu as a constant, not as a measuring unit.
You have defined mu as the amount of space that 1kg of matter absorbs; that is a differential value, hence a constant.

How much space is in 1km³ of intergalactic space? How does this amount relate to 1 mu?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

RC Wrote

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

A much better "mathematical" & mind friendly expression than the clumsy, misleading dead end ; The curvature of space. - There are no such curved "structure" above you head.

You want to know what space / the Universe deformation really is?
"Distances are strange" - very strange, - this is all what we know...

Space deformation is properly only deformation of distances without any motion at all.

Rather ask what are really distance?

From a photons perspective, distances do not exist.
For you, distances are not the same as for one living at Mercury.
So what is real distance?
A local illusion?, - or a local reality ?
Is the photons reality more real than yours?
And by the way, - where does space (distances) ends?

But the question was; - what is "space density”.
The only way we know something happens to space is that also distances are affected.

What space really is ?; all we can truly can say is that it is; a flexible property.
There are no other necessary deformation properties than that.

You have defined mu as a constant, not as a measuring unit.
You have defined mu as the amount of space that 1kg of matter absorbs; that is a differential value, hence a constant.
How much space is in 1km³ of intergalactic space? How does this amount relate to 1 mu?
Hans

You can relate to what I wrote above mathematical, better and more coherent as you could before, - because of a relative almost insignificant modification of a simple expression unifies, - the "trinity" - the cause of gravity, + the property of dark matter + the property of dark energy. - Elastic space is responsible for all these 3 "mysteries".

All you need to do is only to remove the concrete check block in front of the "curvature" expression.

When absorbed space is released (by dissolving matter) - there will be more space, - (more m³ space), because distances will shorten.
This is enough for you to reach a deeper coherent understanding as before.

 

[Reality Check]

What are the units of measurement of "space density"?

...
But the question was; - what is "space density”.
....

And still you have no idea how to define space density.
What is "space density",Bjarne?
First asked 25th March 2011 (6 dayes and counting!)

How about an even simpler question, Bjarne?
What are the units of measurement of "space density"?

It is a density so it has to be something divided by a volume, i.e. length cubed.

 

[Paul]

For you, distances are not the same as for one living at Mercury.
So what is real distance?

What is the speed of light at mercury?

And by the way, - where does space (distances) ends?

Space doesn't have to end, and distances end at the number used in the expression of said distance.

Elastic space is responsible for all these 3 "mysteries".

That doesn't explain mu. It seems that you can't even explain a constant that you invented.

When absorbed space is released (by dissolving matter) - there will be more space, - (more m³ space), because distances will shorten.

Why? The volume is increasing, so why would distances shorten?

This is enough for you to reach a deeper coherent understanding as before.

There is enough to show that you understand nothing, not even your own ideas.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You can relate to what I wrote above mathematical, better and more coherent as you could before, - because of a relative almost insignificant modification of a simple expression unifies, - the "trinity" - the cause of gravity, + the property of dark matter + the property of dark energy. - Elastic space is responsible for all these 3 "mysteries".

You didn't answer my question, and your answer is nonsense.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

What is the speed of light at mercury?.

c - measured with the Mercury meter stick

That doesn't explain mu. It seems that you can't even explain a constant that you invented.

Its not a constant, but a amount of space.

Why? The volume is increasing, so why would distances shorten?

Distance will shorten when absorbed space is released

 

[Bjarne]

You have defined mu as a constant, not as a measuring unit.

1 mu is a certain amount "volume" of absorbed space.

You have defined mu as the amount of space that 1kg of matter absorbs; that is a differential value, hence a constant.

Why a constant ? - It is "an amount"

How much space is in 1km3 of intergalactic space? How does this amount relate to 1 mu?

What you are asking is really how much can space contract or expand?
How do you expend I should know that?
This has nothing with the basic of the theory to do.
You can calculate a local stretching influence, that's enough.

 

[MRC_Hans]

1 mu is a certain amount "volume" of absorbed space.

No, it is a constant. It denotes the relationship between mass and space absorbtion. At 1kg (btw, mass is measured in kiloponds [kp] not kilograms; kilograms is a weight), a certain amount of space is claimed to be absorbed, but how much is that? Presumably, it will be measured in m³.

Why a constant ? - It is "an amount"

No, it is only an amount in relation to a given mass.

What you are asking is really how much can space contract or expand?

No, I'm asking how much space 1 mu is.

How do you expend I should know that?

Well, its your claim. Who else should know?

This has nothing with the basic of the theory to do.
You can calculate a local stretching influence, that's enough.

No, you can't. - Or if you do, all you get is a replica of gravity, which means that all you have invented is another word for gravity.

Which again means that you have explained nada.

Hans

 

[Paul]

c - measured with the Mercury meter stick

Perhaps you should have discovered how a metre is measured before embarking on the usual path of complete idiocy.

Its not a constant, but a amount of space.

The way you use it, it is apparently both.

Distance will shorten when absorbed space is released

I asked if you could say why this would happen, not if you could spout the same crap again.

 

[Bjarne]

No, it is a constant. It denotes the relationship between mass and space absorbtion. At 1kg (btw, mass is measured in kiloponds [kp] not kilograms; kilograms is a weight), a certain amount of space is claimed to be absorbed, but how much is that? Presumably, it will be measured in m³.

Have you read this;

1KG matter=

Energy (as you know it) based on; Mc² + absorbed space (the opposite of dark energy) = M*mu*c² ( this is a different kind of energy)

To define 1mu we can use the time dilation near the Sun, since the distance deformation is proportional the same (percent-wise the same), like that ;

2E30mu (the mu of the sun) = the (lacking) space (space vacuum) inside a ball can be found based on the volume difference of space (with and without the present of the Sun) > between 2 different size ball shape > Radius 700,000,000 meter compared to radius 700,001,472 = 6,5E22 meter³
Hence 1mu = 6,5E22 meter³ / 2E30mu = 3.27*10^-8 m³ space vacuum, (or absorbed space if you prefer / depending on perspective)

That space vacuum is the basic for the cause of gravity. - Hence we have here united the strong force and the cause of gravity in one equation.

Bjarne,

Is mu a unit or a constant?

Why is a known amount of matter equal to an undefined amount of matter multiplied by an undefined volume multiplied by a speed squared?

The volume difference between your 2 spheres is 13360171691.969 m3

Space vacuum doesn’t exist.

I asked if you could say why this would happen, not if you could spout the same crap again.

The Universe is a strange place.
Try to see the whole of this Video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEzRdZGYNvA&feature=player_embedded
You are part of the process you are observing did you know that?

 

[Paul]

Have you read this;

Unfortunately I have. It's the reason people keep asking you what you are trying to say; something you apparently will not explain.

The Universe is a strange place.

That's still not an answer.

Try to see the whole of this Video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEzRdZGYNvA&feature=player_embedded

And neither is the double slit experiment.

You are part of the process you are observing did you know that?

Don't even pretend you understand that.

 

[phunk]

btw, mass is measured in kiloponds [kp] not kilograms; kilograms is a weight

You have that backwards.

 

[phunk]

1KG matter=

Energy (as you know it) based on; Mc² + absorbed space (the oppesite of dark energy) = M*mu*c² ( this is a different kind of energy)

To define 1mu we can use the time dilation near the Sun, since the distance deformation is proportional the same (percent-wise the same), like that ;

2E30mu (the mu of the sun) = the (lacking) space (space vacuum) inside a ball can be found based on the volume difference of sapce (with and without the present of the Sun) > between 2 different size ball shape > Radius 700,000,000 meter compared to radius 700,001,472 = 6,5E22 meter³
Hence 1mu = 6,5E22 meter³ / 2E30mu = 3.27*10^-8 m³ space vacuum, (or absorbed space if you prefer / depending on perspective)

That space vacuum is the basic for the cause of gravity. - Hence we have here united the strong force and the cause of gravity in one equation.

You never responded last time so I'll say it again.

If 1mu = 3.27*10^-8 m³, then E=M*mu*c² is not a valid equation. It has different units on either side.

 

[Bjarne]

If 1mu = 3.27*10-8 m3, then E=M*mu*c2 is not a valid equation. It has different units on either side.

It is proportional calculation, - that what it is.

If you know how much space m³ 2E30Kg matter absorbs.
I believe you are able to figure out how much 1 Kg matter absorbs.

Is that really so hard for you to get that simple point?

For example if you know 10 cows cow require 60 m³ space in a lorry, - how much space m³ does 1 cow then require ?

So simple is the unification of the strong force and the cause of gravity.

It is only about how much space is absorbed, - by each particle + total. That’s all.
So don’t make it more difficult as it is.

 

[phunk]

If the units on both sides of your equation are different, it's not an equation.

Is that really so hard for you to get that simple point?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Have you read this;

Yes, I have read and understood it. Apparantly you haven't.

The Universe is a strange place.
Try to see the whole of this Video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEzRdZGYNvA&feature=player_embedded
You are part of the process you are observing did you know that?

I take that as an admission that you have no idea what you are talking about and can't answer my questions.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

It is proportional calculation, - that what it is.

If it is, then mu does not exist.

If you know how much space m³ 2E30Kg matter absorbs.
I believe you are able to figure out how much 1 Kg matter absorbs.

Assuming the function is linear, yes.

Is that really so hard for you to get that simple point?

It is obviously too hard for you to get that if you make a proportional calculation all you get is ... a proportion.

So simple is the unification of the strong force and the cause of gravity.

It has absolutely nothing to do with that. All you, or try to do, is find the constant for how much spacetime is distorted by mass. - I have news for you: We already know that (and you used that knowledge for your calculation).

We call it bending, you call it absorption. That is all you have 'discovered': You use another word for exactly the same thing. And that thing is, as far as anybody knows, an effect of gravity, not the cause, but at any rate you have not discovered anything new.

It is only about how much space is absorbed, - by each particle + total. That’s all.
So don’t make it more difficult as it is.

There ISN'T anything difficult about it. It is all plain vanilla standard physics. So congratulations, you are beginning to discover physics. Just don't make believe you have discovered something new; the rest of us have known all along.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne
It is proportional calculation, - that what it is.
Hans
If it is, then mu does not exist.

1 mu = is only the amount absorbed space per kg matter , - that exist.

It is obviously too hard for you to get that if you make a proportional calculation all you get is ... a proportion.

That’s enough, to show how quantum gravity is connected with the nuclear quantum process.

It has absolutely nothing to do with that. All you, or try to do, is find the constant for how much space-time is distorted by mass. - I have news for you: We already know that (and you used that knowledge for your calculation).

I do not deny that (except the empty expression "distorted").

We call it bending, you call it absorption.

And I agree it is the same pipe of tobacco we are talking about.
The solution how to unite gravity and strong force + at the same time quantum gravity is connected with the nuclear quantum process; - is so near you, - that it almost pitifully painful you and “we”; Can’t see how these are connected...

Tell me where is the same that is missing in the “triangle” that is cut out from the circle below:

From > http://www.physics.ucla.edu/demoweb..._and_general_relativity/curved_spacetime.html

That lacking cut “part” / triangle; - is the total absorbed space.

Divide it with the number of particles that is responsible, - whereby gravity is quantified..

That is all you have 'discovered': You use another word for exactly the same thing. And that thing is, as far as anybody knows, an effect of gravity, not the cause, but at any rate you have not discovered anything new.

Because:

1. You and “we” forget to ask where is that space,- that is “lacking” (illustrated above) ? -
2. As well to understand the stretching property is real, - and not only a property of a rubber sheet, -

- "we" have failed a possible coherent understanding, and is self to blame for not understanding what dark matter and dark energy is.

So you are right I do in fact not change much, - else as a clumsy concrete expression.

Well this has serious consequences.

Try serious to ask yourself:

Do you not believe that

1. The FORCE; Acceleration due to gravity is real?
2. Do you believe the Centripetal force is real?
3. Do you believe these two forces are responsible for keeping the moon it is orbit. ?

Or do you believe that knowledge is no more necessary because now we have the curvature of space. ?

Try to tell us all so detailed as possible how; the curvature of space keeps the moon in orbit, how does it work?
How does the moon know that space exactly there where it is “curving” ?

I believe that General relativity is half finish work.
Newtonian forces MUST be fully respected.

We do not need 2 different causes for the fact that the Moon orbits the Earth.
We cannot ride 2 so different horses.

Either there is a force between the Moon and the Earth, or there is NOT, - and ONLY the curvature of space holds the moon.

My opinion is: Newton was right, - there is a force between the Moon and the Earth, - and I do believe Newton would be a hell critical to: WHAT is really curved space and HOW does it exactly (in details) does that affect the Moons orbit.

I am not saying “deformation of space” is wrong.
BUT I am saying this contradiction mentioned above MUST form a synthesis. We have more to learn. – GR is uncompleted work.
Newtonian force MUST form a synthesis with the understanding of deformed space.

 

[Paul]

1 mu = is only the amount absorbed space per kg matter , - that exist.

Which would make mu a volume, a pointless one, but still a volume.

Because you seem to be referring to literal absorption, what density of space are you using for your standard?

That’s enough, to show how quantum gravity is connected with the nuclear quantum process.

Do you know what quanta are?

I do not deny that

Then stop denying it and use the proper terms.

(except the empty expression "distorted")

Distortion is the whole point, the cognitive dissonance is great in you.

The solution how to unite gravity and strong force + at the same time quantum gravity is connected with the nuclear quantum process;

If you had ever demonstrated an understanding of gravity, fundamental forces or quantum mechanics, you might be able to consider discussing a unified theory.

Divide it with the number of particles that is responsible, - whereby gravity is quantified..

You mean the gravity you claim can never be quantised?

You and “we” forget to ask where is that space,- that is “lacking” (illustrated above) ? -

It's not lacking and it's not real space. It is a cone simulating the distortion of spacetime by a star, the cutout is to allow the circle of acetate to fold easily into a cone.

As well to understand the stretching property is real, - and not only a property of a rubber sheet, -

It's an analogy. Look it up.

- "we" have failed a possible coherent understanding, and is self to blame for not understanding what dark matter and dark energy is.

What is your problem with having a placeholder to describe something which is still being investigated?

The FORCE; Acceleration due to gravity is real?

Don't you believe in gravitational acceleration?

Do you believe the Centripetal force is real?

Do you believe it isn't?

Do you believe these two forces are responsible for keeping the moon it is orbit. ?

Where do you think the moon's centripetal force comes from?

Or do you believe that knowledge is no more necessary because now we have the curvature of space. ?

Gravity is curvature of spacetime.

Try to tell us all so detailed as possible how; the curvature of space keeps the moon in orbit, how does it work?

It has all been explained numerous times, the fact that you refuse to understand is not our fault.

How does the moon know that space exactly there where it is “curving” ?

You can't be taken seriously if you ask that question after claiming to revolutionise physics.

I believe that General relativity is half finish work.

You seem to believe a lot of things, that doesnlt make them true.

Newtonian forces MUST be fully respected.

In quantum mechanics?

We do not need 2 different causes for the fact that the Moon orbits the Earth.

We don't have two.

Either there is a force between the Moon and the Earth, or there is NOT, - and ONLY the curvature of space holds the moon.

So you don't understand gravity at all then.

My opinon is: Newton was right, - there is a force between the Moon and the Earth, - and I do believe Newton would be a hell critical to: WHAT is really curved space and HOW does it exactly (in details) does that affect the Moons orbit.

Your problem is that the opinion of someone who won't believe water vapour is less dense than air does not hold much weight.

I am not saying “deformation of space” is wrong.

You seem to be having a jolly good try at it.

 

[Bjarne]

Which would make mu a volume, a pointless one, but still a volume.

Because you seem to be referring to literal absorption, what density of space are you using for your standard?
It is not important exactly like it is not important which “curvature of space” you are suing as your standard.

Distortion is the whole point, ….

It make no sense and is exactly such a empty expression as the; curvature of space.
If you by distortion mean; - "stretching" - only then it make sense.

Bjarne
Divide it with the number of particles that is responsible, - whereby gravity is quantified..
Paul
You mean the gravity you claim can never be quantized?

In the way such attempt are to be understod as gravition or highs, it is impossible.
If you mean the cause of a space vacuum, with reference to the amount a space each particle absorbs, it is a different story, and possible.

It's not lacking and it's not real space. It is a cone simulating the distortion of spacetime by a star, the cutout is to allow the circle of acetate to fold easily into a cone.

Yes just export the cutout to the 21 th bright blue dimension, then the fact that matter absorbs space is solved , at least in "our" brain dead reality.