Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Paul]

It is not important

Of course it's important, if mu is 'the amount absorbed space per kg matter' then we must know exactly what you mean by space.

exactly like it is not important which “curvature of space” you are suing as your standard.

It's still spacetime.

It make no sense and is exactly such a empty expression as the; curvature of space.

It makes no sense to you, partly, I suspect, because you think about it literally.

If you by distortion mean; - "stretching" - only then it make sense.

Distortion, stretching, curvature, in this case they are all the same: the curvature of spacetime.

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.

Well that answers my question about quanta.

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.

Actually you put the acetate on the overhead projector and use it to illustrate curved spacetime.

 

[Bjarne]

Of course it's important, if mu is 'the amount absorbed space per kg matter' then we must know exactly what you mean by space.

I can say exactly the same about curved space.
Is the structure / density of that “curved space” different from place to place.
And if it is what is the consequences.

Distortion, stretching, curvature, in this case they are all the same: the curvature of spacetime.

So long you know that space is stretching proportional with time dilation you are on the right track.

• Now you only need to ask why?
• and what that have with matter to do.
• what it have with the strong force to do,
• or in another way explain a possible option what / which force is responsible for stretching space.
• Please explain that in a way where you respect quantum mechanics and still can explain; the cause of gravity.
• Well it is all right to assume “gravitons” are real, so long you mean “virtual particles” we have discussed above. In this case these are supported by reality (as I describe it above) . – Please save me from science fiction, - supported by nothing.

And by the way before you get totally lost in the curved bush;

• Tell me why an apple falls to the ground?
• Do you believe there is a force between the Earth and the Apple?
• Or do you believe that just in front of you nose (where the apples hang) space is curving?
• Do you really believe; - the way Sir Isaac Newton in this case described gravity (as a force affecting the apple) not is valid anymore?
• If so why does the apple know that space just in front of you nose is “curving”, - do you think?
• How much peer meter (elevation) does space “curves” just in front of you own nose?
• How does the apple feel / know that, - do you think?
• How do you know that - do you think?? (!)

 

[Paul]

I can say exactly the same about curved space.

You could, but it would be pointless.

Is the structure / density of that “curved space” different from place to place.

It's spacetime, spacetime, spacetime.

Spacetime is a model, not a physical entity.

And if it is what is the consequences.

Please go away and read a child's physics book.

So long you know that space is stretching proportional with time dilation you are on the right track

Are you referring to gravitational time dilation?

Now you only need to ask why?

Why time dilation or why curvature of spacetime?

or in another way explain a possible option what / which force is responsible for stretching space.

You have that backwards.

Please explain that in a way where you respect quantum mechanics and still can explain; the cause of gravity.

Curvature of spacetime.

Well it is all right to assume “gravitons” are real, so long you mean “virtual particles” we have discussed above. In this case these are supported by reality (as I describe it above)

I can't remember the last time you described reality.

Tell me why an apple falls to the ground?

Gravitation.

Do you believe there is a force between the Earth and the Apple?

Gravitation.

Or do you believe that just in front of you nose (where the apples hang) space is curving?

It's still not space.

Do you really believe; - the way Sir Isaac Newton in this case described gravity (as a force affecting the apple) not is valid anymore?

Newtonian gravity is valid within it's limits.

If so why does the apple know that space just in front of you nose is “curving”, - do you think?

Please stop asking really stupid questions.

 

[Bjarne]

Gravitation.

You could be a excellent politician
Øhhh I think you forgot to answer any of the question
For example this; - do you believe gravity is a force and this is the reason to that the apple fall, or do you believe it fall because gravity must be understood as curved space.

If curved space is the correct answer, - try the best you can to put a few words to; how do you believe the apple know that space is curving and how does that curved space pulls the apple to the ground.

But I guess that answer is; it is because of the eastern wind in Novosibirsk, north west from the 21 demotion - correct ?

I mean why should this answer have any earth connection, when sooo many also not have.

My grandmother is waiting for the answer.

 

[Reality Check]

What are the units of measurement of "space density"

I see that your last post is displaying yet again your ignorance of the very physics you say you are replacing !
Any answer to:

]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]

You could be a excellent politician

How very dare you.

Øhhh I think you forgot to answer any of the question

Only if you ignore the answers I gave because you have no genuine response.

do you believe gravity is a force

Look up the definition of gravitation.

and this is the reason to that the apple fall, or do you believe it fall because gravity must be understood as curved space.

In other words, do I believe in gravity or gravity.

If curved space is the correct answer, - try the best you can to put a few words to; how do you believe the apple know that space is curving and how does that curved space pulls the apple to the ground

The apple doesn't know anything, it's an inanimate object.

The apple follows it's world line.

But I guess that answer is; it is because of the eastern wind in Novosibirsk, north west from the 21 demotion - correct ?

That depends on if you actually have anything but nonsense to spout.

I mean why should this answer have any earth connection, when sooo many also not have.

?

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

And we're back to square one don't pass Go, don't collect 500$)....

Mu is an amount of space. How much? How do you measure space? How much space to you claim that 1 kp matter absorbs?

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

No.

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...

Well, YOU are certainly not able to explain it.....

Tell me where is the same that is missing in the “triangle” that is cut out from the circle below:
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/demoweb...ence_and_general_relativity/curved_space2.gif
From > http://www.physics.ucla.edu/demoweb..._and_general_relativity/curved_spacetime.html

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

It is a cardboard model. The missing part is probably in the waste bin. In a gravity well, there is no space missing.

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

No. Which particles, Bjarne? There are many kinds, and they don't all have the same mass.

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, -

The cardboard model and the rubber sheet are all analogies. Did you think they were real?

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

Don't worry, "we" are working on it.

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

No, you change nothing. Nada.

Try serious to ask yourself:

Do you not believe that


The FORCE; Acceleration due to gravity is real?

That can hardly be a serious question. Of course it is real.

Do you believe the Centripetal force is real?

That can hardly be a serious question. Of course it is real.

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

Actually, it is the kinetic energy of the moon that keeps in in orbit.

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

Does not compute.

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

The cirvature of space is rather insignificant when it comes to the moon's orbit, but now I see where you lost it: You are confusing the 'rubber sheet model' with Relativity and gravity lensing. They are not the same (they are, of course related, but not the same).

The rubber sheet model explains how gravity works; it depicts a gravity well in a graphical way, and yes we do call this 'bending space'.

In Relativity, we realize that time actually changes in a gravity field, and a non-linearity becomes apparant close to a very strong gravity field. This bends EM waves and perturbs Mercury's orbit.

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

How does a cow know where to ******

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

Before you entertain any beliefs, you might do well to try to understand it forst.

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

We don't have two different reasons.

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

There is a force. It is called gravity.
And gravity curves space.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Do you really believe; - the way Sir Isaac Newton in this case described gravity (as a force affecting the apple) not is valid anymore?

It is perfectly valid. For apples. And for cows.

It is not perfectly valid when it comes to very strong gravity fields like the ones surrounding stars. There, small, otherwise unnoticeable flaws creep in on the last decimals.

How much peer meter (elevation) does space “curves” just in front of you own nose?

About 1.2 moo.

How does the apple feel / know that, - do you think?

In much the same way as you and your pet cow feel it.


Hans

 

[Paulhoff]

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

Mu is an amount of space. How much? How do you measure space? How much space to you claim that 1 kp matter absorbs?

Based on how much space is stretching now and if the Sun not would be there you can calculate a different square / volume.
Here is the key to find how much space each particle consumes.

But before I promise too much, we have a problem.
I can see that gravity waves seem to continue without to flatten / merge with nearby space this is a huge problem, great error....
I will come back to this; - let me have your comments?

That can hardly be a serious question. Of course it is real.

You cannot ride 2 horses.
Either you belive a orbit is caused by the curvature of space, or you believe it is due to the attraction force + Centripetal force, - which is a beautiful down to earth explanation.

The cirvature of space is rather insignificant when it comes to the moon's orbit, but now I see where you lost it: You are confusing the 'rubber sheet model' with Relativity and gravity lensing. They are not the same (they are, of course related, but not the same).

The rubber sheet model explains how gravity works; it depicts a gravity well in a graphical way, and yes we do call this 'bending space'.

In Relativity, we realize that time actually changes in a gravity field, and a non-linearity becomes apparant close to a very strong gravity field. This bends EM waves and perturbs Mercury's orbit.

According to Einstein it is the curvature of space that is responsible for keeping the moon in orbit.
I thought you knew that.
We don't need two different reasons.
Can't u see it ?

I think you have misunderstood something , when it come to how the cause to a orbit is explained today...……

The planets orbit around the Sun because they are rolling across through this distorted space-time, which curves their motions like those of a ball rolling around inside a shallow bowl.

Read for exsample this: Sourse http://science.jrank.org/pages/3131/Gravity-Gravitation-General-relativity.html

Amen.

 

[Paul]

Based on how much space is stretching now and if the Sun not would be there you can calculate a different square / volume.

That's not an answer, it's first thought best thought acid physics.

Here is the key to find how much space each particle consumes.

If you don't know, just say so.

I will come back to this; - let me have your comments?

You have no idea what you are doing.

You cannot ride 2 horses.

Actually you can, but in this case you do not need to. Gravity and centripetal force are both real.

Either you belive a orbit is caused by the curvature of space, or you believe it is due to the attraction force + Centripetal force, - which is a beautiful down to earth explanation.

Gravitation, your attraction force, is curvature of spacetime.

According to Einstein it is the curvature of space that is responsible for keeping the moon in orbit.

Your little quote mining expedition came up short as usual:

"...like those of a ball rolling around inside a shallow bowl. (These images are intended as analogies, not as precise explanations.) Gravity, from this point of view, is the way objects affect the motions of other objects by affecting the shape of space-time."


​

Amen.

Now you've decided to pretend that you agreed all along, are you going to stop asking stupid questions about curved spacetime?

 

[Reality Check]

Either you belive a orbit is caused by the curvature of space, or you believe it is due to the attraction force + Centripetal force, - which is a beautiful down to earth explanation.
...
According to Einstein it is the curvature of space that is responsible for keeping the moon in orbit

That is ignorant Bjarne.
If you knew any anything about Einstein (i.e. general relativity) then you would know that an orbit is caused by the curvature of spacetime. This curvature causes a force called gravity.
So the curvature of spacetime and gravity are the same thing. You can state in in eaith way. Both ways are correct.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Based on how much space is stretching now and if the Sun not would be there you can calculate a different square / volume.
Here is the key to find how much space each particle consumes.

No, it is not. It is the key to the curvature of space due to gravity. The absoeption part is your entirely unfounded claim.

But before I promise too much, we have a problem.
I can see that gravity waves seem to continue without to flatten / merge with nearby space this is a huge problem, great error....
I will come back to this; - let me have your comments?

What are you talking about?

You cannot ride 2 horses.

I guess you haven't been to circus much.

Either you belive a orbit is caused by the curvature of space, or you believe it is due to the attraction force + Centripetal force, - which is a beautiful down to earth explanation.

It is the same thing. Just two ways of expressing it.

According to Einstein it is the curvature of space that is responsible for keeping the moon in orbit.
I thought you knew that.
We don't need two different reasons.
Can't u see it ?

It is not two different reasons. Just two different ways of illustrating it.

I think you have misunderstood something , when it come to how the cause to a orbit is explained today...……

No. I haven't misunderstood anything.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Gravitation, your attraction force, is curvature of spacetime.

You can say so, but only when changing the time dilation equation
I will get back to that.

 

[Bjarne]

I guess you haven't been to circus much.

OK
What I mean was, you cannot ride two cows.

 

[Paul]

You can say so

You're fond of quoting Einstein, try reading about him for a change.

but only when changing the time dilation equation

Why would I do that?

I will get back to that.

I won't hold my breath for anything sensible.

 

[Paul]

OK
What I mean was, you cannot ride two cows.

Of course you can, either way your intended analogy is mistaken.

 

[Bjarne]

It is the same thing. Just two ways of expressing it.

Curvature is not a force, I assume you understand this.
We also don't know whether the curvature is caused by force.
Can't you see you have a problem to claim you have a "united understanding?"
Can't you see are speaking in the darkness?
Please explain how you can understand this these 2 opposite way of understanding is “the same”.
And by the way, tell us the cause of mass attraction, and how this is connected with the curvature of space.
I guess you will never answer, and nobody else will.
Or you answer would be so simple, that that muuuh would tell the same wisdom.

 

[Bjarne]

1
How much time does a geostatic satellite gain / lose per year - due to GR / SR ?

2.
I have often heard about 2 aircrafts with atomic watches on board was testing mainly SR (due to the low altitude)

We know space probes do have précis watches on board, and these can test both GR and SR

GPS Satellite do have atomic watches on board too, - but these are used for commercial use and auto adjusted for time dilation as well for altitude all the time, in order to earn money.

Have it even been scientific test with use of satellites + atomic watches to prove SR and GR
If so please let me have the source

 

[Paul]

Curvature is not a force, I assume you understand this.

I assume you understand, although you show signs to the contrary, that no one said it was.

We also don't know whether the curvature is caused by force.

It's curved by matter.

Can't you see you have a problem to claim you have a "united understanding?"

The problem is that you cannot understand that gravity is gravity, whether Newtonian or relativistic.

Can't you see are speaking in the darkness?

The difference is that we brought torches.

Please explain how you can understand this these 2 opposite way of understanding is “the same”.

They are not opposite.

And by the way, tell us the cause of mass attraction

Gravitation.

and how this is connected with the curvature of space.

In general relativity, gravity is a ascribed to the curvature of spacetime.

I guess you will never answer, and nobody else will.

What will happen is that you will simply ignore any post with answers you don't want and continue to ask the same questions in more stupid ways.