Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

Interesting news, it's a shame someone didn't post that 2 days ago

I am not denying the existents of "dark energy"
But only claiming; it can and must be understood within the frame of General Relativity.

All what we need is only extreme Gravity when the BigBang went off.

This is no pronblem since speed of matter could have cause that 13,7 billion years ago.

The Universe is losing gravity (dark matter converted to dark energy), this is one of the 2 evidence for so called dark energy.
So called Cosmological redshift is the second factor, - this too can be explained inside a frame of GR
Dark Energy is only a gravitionel wave. It is not necessary to make that more complicated than this.

 

[Paul]

I am not denying the existents of "dark energy"

What's the title of this thread?

But only claiming; it can and must be understood within the frame of General Relativity.

That is not what you have been claiming.

All what we need is only extreme Gravity when the BigBang went off.

So you haven't read the link then?

This is no pronblem since speed of matter could have cause that 13,7 billion years ago.

You are deliberately misunderstanding gravity again, despite just calling on the authority of General Relativity.

The Universe is losing gravity (dark matter converted to dark energy), this is one of the 2 evidence for so called dark energy.

So now you're disputing dark energy again?

So called Cosmological redshift is the second factor, - this too can be explained inside a frame of GR

What are you talking about?

You seem to be picking terms you don't understand and just throwing them together.

Dark Energy is only a gravitionel wave. It is not necessary to make that more complicated than this.

You're wrong again and gravitation isn't simple.

 

[Reality Check]

PS

If no one can't answer the question above, no one understand SR

A couple of people have answered your question above (given that you have not expressed it very coherently)
It makes it obvious that you do not understand SR enough to even ask a clear question about it.

 

[Reality Check]

I belive I know all this
...
y = 1/√(1 - v²/c²) = 1,0000000000503
t' = 86400/√(1 - v²/c²) = 86400,0000086
...

You are wrong: According to you y has units of acceleration. So if you multiply t by y to get t', t' cannot be a time. It must be a length*speed.

You assign y the units of acceleration in:

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no !
​

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.science27.com/forum/abc77.jpg

That image makes it even clearer that a cow drew it!
Lets try to express this correctly:


Take 3 observers Alice, Bob and Charles.

• Alice is on a planet.
• Bob is on a spacecraft going 100,000 km/s to the left.
• Charles on on a planet (for some weird reason) going 100,000 km/s to the right.

Thus:

• Relative to Alice: Bob and Charles are both moving at a speed of 100,000 km/s (one left, one right).
  Alice will measure the same time dilation for Bob and Charles.
• Relative to Bob: Alice is moving 100,000 km/s to the left, Charles is moving 200,000 km/s (classically) to the left.
  Bob will measure different time dilations for Alice and Charles.
• Relative to Charles: Alice is moving 100,000 km/sto the right, Bob is moving s00,000 km/s (classically) to the right.
  Charles will measure different time dilations for Alice and Bob.

This is all really simple math - t' = yt where y is the Lorentz factor.
Just for you, Bjarne: The v in the Lorentz factor is the speed relative to the observer. Different v's = different Lorentz factors = different time dilations.

N.B. The velocities have to be added using SR, i.e. you do not get 200,000 km/s.

 

[Bjarne]

Lets try to express this correctly:
Take 3 observers Alice, Bob and Charles.

• Alice is on a planet.
• Bob is on a spacecraft going 100,000 km/s to the left.
• Charles on on a planet (for some weird reason) going 100,000 km/s to the right.

• 
  
  
  
  
  
  No, - Bob moves relative to Charles not relative to Alice.
  
  

  Relative to Alice: Bob and Charles are both moving at a speed of 100,000 km/s (one left, one right).

  
  No only Charles (C) moves relative to Alice.(A)
  C have launched Bob (B) just above the Earth.
  B is only moving relative to C not relative to A.
  Notice B was launched when moving 100,000 km/s east, therefore B is not in the same ref-frame as A
  
  Let us also know why tehre are "no point" here :
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV9jngicFH4&feature=related

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.science27.com/forum/rocketl3.jpg

No, - Bob moves relative to Charles not relative to Alice.

No - Everyone moves relative to each other. You have to state their movement relative to each other. That is the relativity part of special relativity.

Alice measures that:

• She is at rest.
• Bob is going 100,000 km/s to the west (left).
• Charles is going 100,000 km/s to the right.

Bob measures that:

• He is a at rest
• Alice is moving 100,000 km/s to the east.
• Charles is moving 100,000 km/s to the west.

Charles measures that:

• He is a at rest
• Alice is moving 100,000 km/s to the east.
• Bob is moving 200,000 km/s to the right.

Thus:

• Alice will measure the same time dilation for Bob and Charles.
• Bob will measure different time dilations for Alice and Charles.
• Charles will measure different time dilations for Alice and Bob.

And you still have the previous idoicy that you think that time has the units of length*speed because you were dumb ebough to assign assign y the units of acceleration in:

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no !
​

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Notice B was launched when moving 100,000 km/s east, therefore B is not in the same ref-frame as A
...

No.
After B's launch, B is in the same frame of reference as A.

 

[Bjarne]

No - Everyone moves relative to each other. You have to state their movement relative to each other. That is the relativity part of special relativity.

Alice measures that:

• She is at rest.
• Bob is going 100,000 km/s to the west (left).
• Charles is going 100,000 km/s to the right.

Bob measures that:

• He is a at rest
• Alice is moving 100,000 km/s to the east.
• Charles is moving 100,000 km/s to the west.

Charles measures that:

• He is a at rest
• Alice is moving 100,000 km/s to the east.
• Bob is moving 200,000 km/s to the right.

Thus:

• Alice will measure the same time dilation for Bob and Charles.
• Bob will measure different time dilations for Alice and Charles.
• Charles will measure different time dilations for Alice and Bob.

And you still have the previous idoicy that you think that time has the units of length*speed because you were dumb ebough to assign assign y the units of acceleration in:

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no !
​

No you still do not get the point

B is launched with the speed 100,000 km/s towards west , but only relative to C .
C moves all the time 100,000km/s towards east

This mean A and B relative to each other both are in rest.

 

[MRC_Hans]

No you still do not get the point

B is launched with the speed 100,000 km/s towards west , but only relative to C .
C moves all the time 100,000km/s towards east

This mean A and B relative to each other both are in rest.

OK, somebody (other than Bjarne) asked me about this, in a PM, so let's clear it up:

A is a planet. We consider it to be at rest.
C is a spaceship which is observed, from A, to move at 100,000km/s in some direction, le't call it west. In passing A, C launches a space capsule, B, which decelerates (acclerated eastwards) to match speed with A.

Obvoiously, after this, a clock on B will match a clock on A, but what about C?

Well, it is all about reference frames.

If C is speeding at 100,000km/s, by its own reference frame, it must have accelerated to that speed from a reference frame similar to that of A. Thus it will experience some time dilation. And thus, B is not accelerating away from it, but is decelerating back to zero. So it is not strange that B's time dilation disappears. This is quite according to SR.

But what if we say that C considers itself stationary, but comes from a part of the universe that moves very fast, relative to A? Well the answer is that it does not give meaning to compare time with A, then. Time comparisons only make sense within a given reference frame. However, it must be stressed that such parts of the universe do not, according to our present knowledge, exist. All parts of the universe are either in roughly the same reference frame, or they are moving away from each other.

Time dilation (and mass increase) occur when something is accelerated within its reference frame.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

OK, somebody (other than Bjarne) asked me about this, in a PM, so let's clear it up:

A is a planet. We consider it to be at rest.
C is a spaceship which is observed, from A, to move at 100,000km/s in some direction, le't call it west. In passing A, C launches a space capsule, B, which decelerates (acclerated eastwards) to match speed with A.

Obvoiously, after this, a clock on B will match a clock on A, but what about C?

Well, it is all about reference frames.

If C is speeding at 100,000km/s, by its own reference frame, it must have accelerated to that speed from a reference frame similar to that of A. Thus it will experience some time dilation. And thus, B is not accelerating away from it, but is decelerating back to zero. So it is not strange that B's time dilation disappears. This is quite according to SR.

But what if we say that C considers itself stationary, but comes from a part of the universe that moves very fast, relative to A? Well the answer is that it does not give meaning to compare time with A, then. Time comparisons only make sense within a given reference frame. However, it must be stressed that such parts of the universe do not, according to our present knowledge, exist. All parts of the universe are either in roughly the same reference frame, or they are moving away from each other.

Time dilation (and mass increase) occur when something is accelerated within its reference frame.

Hans

Now I begin to be a litle confused..
What about Bantokfomoki.
I have tried to simplified his point, - but I am not sure I succeded so good as he did.
I think it would be better to anylyse his point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV9jngicFH4&feature=related
Do he have a point ?

It is easy just to say; "he is wrong" - but better to tell excactly why he should be wrong.

 

[Bjarne]

What's the title of this thread?
That is not what you have been claiming.
So you haven't read the link then?
You are deliberately misunderstanding gravity again, despite just calling on the authority of General Relativity.
So now you're disputing dark energy again?
What are you talking about?
You seem to be picking terms you don't understand and just throwing them together.
You're wrong again and gravitation isn't simple.

I have read the article (fast).
There is no contradiction according to my point of view...

General Relativity (GR) is enough to understand the expanding Universe.
Start to imaging that right after BB gravity was extreme, - let us say 100 times stronger....
Therefore distances must RELATIVE to today have been 100 times "larger"; and therefore the meter stick RELATIVE to today 100 times "larger"?
BUT everything was looking exactly the same as now.

So when the Universe “expands” all what happen is only RELATIVE change, - exactly so when you is zooming in,- and out, - using your digital camera.

Different “zoom effect” reflect change of the magnitude of gravity, - hence it is also proportional with the lost of gravity.

Which mean that because we are losing gravity every day (so called dark matter converts to so called dark energy) EVERYTHING is just getting RELATIVE ""smaller"" today.
Or if you prefer; - the stretch of space (due to extreme gravity is gradually released after the BigBang) (BB)

Hence space is now “zooming out”, everything get RELATIVE smaller. In the same process time will tick faster (due to lost of universal gravity) ...

EM valves = frequencies per time.
Let say you was living 10 billion years ago and send a photon in certain direction (100 Hz) towards where I am living today.
Today time HERE is ticking faster RELATIVE compared to yours (10 billion years ago). Let us say 10 times so fast.

The photon you have sent me will make it possible to compare a process 10 billion years ago with the same process today. I will measure the 100 Hz photon in my reality. But because my time is 10 so fast as yours the Photon will only be measured to 10 Hz,- so it look like it have lost 90% of it’s energy.

EM waves are “PATTERN” we will always be able to recognize such pattern.
I mean even if you fingerprint would be 10 times enlarged we would know this it is yours fingerprint.
We can see in the EM-pattern that the process 10 billion years ago was different but the PATTERN still the same.
BUT we have NO evidence WHY.
So we have INVENTED an expending property of space, only based on a pattern we don’t understand.

BUT this is invention is NOT necessary because General Relativity can in fact explain the ZOOM OUT property of space and matter responsible. - All you need is more gravity by BigBang (BB).

More gravity (when BB went off) is necessary to explain the ZOOM OUT property, - BUT it do ALSO explain the content of the article you have shown by the link.
Because YES when gravity is lost, - gravity-system cannot be held together. So yes these systems are dissolving and we can see it happen. = The cause of that is simple; lost of gravity.

If the diameter of the Universe today is for example 100 billion years, then the size of the previous Universe was the same size, all what have changed is the “ZOOM. And the ZOOM is changing proportional with gravity...

When a BigBang went off distances was in fact REALTIVE “BIGGER”.
Yes I know this must surprise you, but now take it easy.
It was ONLY RELATIVE "bigger", you would not be able to discover that.

The invention of the expanding property , prevent us to reach a united understanding of dark matter, dark energy and the cause of gravity.

We have invented a property by space that really is not necessary, there is no evidence at all that such property exsist.

We have a proverb her saying; - it is no need to invent the deep plate twice. This is what “science” has done with the Universe.

The so called expanding Universe is only; - an optical illusion.

Why is the so-called expansion accelerating?
As I wrote the “zoom” of the Universe is different from time to time, and the size is HUGE.

Let us just say it is diameter 100 billion LY.
There is not one gravitionel wave spreading from the center and outwards.
BUT there are billions of gravitionel waves spreading in ALL direction.
We are therefore today “hit” all the time by such waves 13,7 years old and tomorrow 13,7 billion years + 1 day old etc…..etc… etc..
This happens everywhere.

In addition to that the lost of gravity is dissolving first at all clusters of galaxies.

It is in this framework the accelerating of the process must be understood.
I am so far not sure what should cause the acceleration, - I will think a little more of that, - it must be possible to understand that aspect within the frame of General Relativity, - too..

 

[Paul]

Now I begin to be a litle confused..

I don't think there are any more ways of trying to explain it to you.

What about Bantokfomoki.

What about him? He's an internet conspiracy nutter, why should you believe him?

I have tried to simplified his point, - but I am not sure I succeded so good as he did.

You haven't even succeeded in providing a simple diagram of the relative velocities of three observers.

I think it would be better to anylyse his point.

Go right ahead.

Do he have a point .

Yes, it's just wrong.

It is easy just to say; he is wrong but better to tell excactly why he should be wrong.

He thinks he can refute the first postulate of Special Relativity, but he seems to have the same problems with the relative part that you do.

 

[Paul]

I have read the article (fast).
There is no contradiction according to my point of view...

You either changed your point of view or didn't read the article.

General Relativity (GR) is enough to understand the expanding Universe.
Start to imaging that right after BB gravity was extreme, - let us say 100 times stronger....
Therefore distances must RELATIVE to today have been 100 times "larger"; and therefore the meter stick RELATIVE to today 100 times "larger"?
BUT everything was looking exactly the same as now.

And at that point it is sufficient to say that you still appear to have no concept of any of the terms you throw about like so much really underwhelming cheap confetti.

 

[Bjarne]

You either changed your point of view or didn't read the article..

Change ?
I did a mistake when I firts thought there was a "zoom in" due to the expanding Universe.
The word "expantion" confused me.
The correct = "zoom out" everything get RELATIVE smaller when gravity is lost.

 

[Paul]

The word "expantion" confused me.

Then you have no business discussing relativity.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV9jngicFH4&feature=related
Do he have a point ?
...

He argues strictly from the 'non moving' frame of reference.
It appears that he cross-assigns undefined relationships as a set of value comparisons between elements in two different reference frames, and then says that SR would have these value comparisons sets differently, without saying why.
Although he is now claiming that there is a contradiction, he fails to actually point one out.

 

[Reality Check]

The relativity in special relativity is that velocity is relative

No you still do not get the point

B is launched with the speed 100,000 km/s towards west , but only relative to C .
C moves all the time 100,000km/s towards east

This mean A and B relative to each other both are in rest.

Wrong:
Bob started with no velocity relative to Alice. If he still had no velocity relative to Alice you would be correct. But he has accelerated from the inertial frame of reference which he shared with Alice into his own inertial frame of reference.
Or for the simple minded: He now has a velocitiy relative to Alice as shown in your diagram.

Try reading what I posted again:
Alice measures that:

• She is at rest.
• Bob is going 100,000 km/s to the west (left).
• Charles is going 100,000 km/s to the right.

Bob measures that:

• He is a at rest
• Alice is moving 100,000 km/s to the east.
• Charles is moving 100,000 km/s to the west.

Charles measures that:

• He is a at rest
• Alice is moving 100,000 km/s to the east.
• Bob is moving 200,000 km/s to the right.

Thus:

• Alice will measure the same time dilation for Bob and Charles.
• Bob will measure different time dilations for Alice and Charles.
• Charles will measure different time dilations for Alice and Bob.

And you still have the previous idoicy that you think that time has the units of length*speed because you were dumb ebough to assign assign y the units of acceleration in:

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no !
​

 

[Bjarne]

Wrong:
Bob started with no velocity relative to Alice. If he still had no velocity relative to Alice you would be correct. But he has accelerated from the inertial frame of reference which he shared with Alice into his own inertial frame of reference.

You still have misunderstood that.
Bob started moving 100,000 km/s east together with Charles. Bob’s spacecraft is very special because it can accelerate from 0 to 100,000 km/s with 1 nanosecond, and this is what he did just above the earth after Charles dropped / launched him east with the speed 100,000 km/s
Therefore Alice will not see Bob moving away, because the speed he had 1 nanosecond earlier is counteracted due to his acceleration.
Only Charles will see it like Bob was accelerating way from him.
Alice will see that B is in rest in the same ref frame.

 

[Bjarne]

Then you have no business discussing relativity.

Come on Paul.....

The physicist's greatest tool is his wastebasket.
- Albert Einstein,

An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made, in a narrow field.
Niels Bohr

I have thought about why the Universe is accelerating.

Imaging that all what exist is a big black Universe and you computer monitor.
You cannot see anything else.
We will now speeding up the deformation of the Universe 100 billion times.
You would now be able to see your PC monitor shrinking.

We have different way to measure distances in the Universe.
The further away from us we are able to do this, - the more time the light have travelled, - and the less these object have shrink before we finally can see the light from these objects.
This can be compared to that you would see 10 PC monitors, further and further alway, - out in space..

Let's say; It will take 1 day extra for the light to reach you for each of these monitors that are gradually further away from you.
So when you today look at a Monitor distance factor 10 (10 light days) away from you, you will not be able to see that the size have change the last 10 days, because the changing first happen after that light have left.
If you compare with the monitor closer to you you can easy determinate that the closer the monitors are relative to you, the more have the size changed the last 10 days.
This creates the illusion that the monitors close to you are moving faster away from you than the monitors further away.

Can you now see how mad big the illusion is, that the Universe is accelerating.
We have all what we need. We have General Relativity, and this is certainly enought.
Without seeing it all within that frame we are creating a lot of mysteries.