Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[DeathDart]

You are still not making sense.
If I rest my coffee cup on top of a gravity meter and then remove it again there will not be any residual change in gravity.
Your "model" say there should.

You are wrong.

One area of some contention, is the speed of gravity.

If a rapidly moving mass passes by you, how much of a lag is there between the mass and it's gravitational field. Most the answers I have seen have it either just under the speed of light (minority view) to just above the speed of light. Some older theory's had it as infinite, to several hundred times the speed of light.

Making this measurement is tough without a very big baseline.

Because gravity is so much weaker than other forces it tends to get drowned out by the noise.

 

[Ziggurat]

One area of some contention, is the speed of gravity.

Contention among whom? Serious physicists? Nope, that's pretty damned well-settled. Among crackpots? Perhaps.

Making this measurement is tough without a very big baseline.

Actually, no, that's not the way to do the measurement. Just measure the frame dragging from a rotating object.

Oh, wait... it's been done.

You're a decade late and quite a few dollars short.

 

[Bjarne]

You are still not making sense.
If I rest my coffee cup on top of a gravity meter and then remove it again there will not be any residual change in gravity.
Your "model" say there should.

You are wrong.

Good question.


What you really are asking is;

• Where is dark matter and why it is exactly where it is.
• Does space remember stars and planets from a previous Universe as well as it remember the space-density-depression left by galaxies and clusters of a galaxies, - or a previous Universe?

Let me answer the question by a question; - would space be able to remember a grain of sand for billions of years ? The answer is yes, but it would be too weak to make any difference.

Notice the abused expression "dark matter", which mean gravity left by a previous Universe already was there when the formation of galaxies begun, many believe so.
Dark matter was the "drawings" - to the new Universe, 13,7 billion yeaers ago.
Deep depression in space have automatically created a new Universe exactly where the old was lost.

This off course leads to a new discussion; - how fast can a star or planet travel before these will dissolve?

A depression left by a grain of sand, or the Earth (13,7 billion years ago) would not have any significant importance in that re-creating process, of the Universe..

But on the other hand yes also stars exploded 13,7 billion years ago have left space-vacuum-depressions, - and some (maybe many) of these could today be the naturally place new stars are born, - (because the depression already is there.)

Hence so-called dark matter can also be present in stars, and a little maybe also in Jupiter.

The earth? - I think we are now close to insignificance. But well buy coincidently the Earth could to be created in an old vacuum-depression too.

But it is the huge field of gravity that leaves the deepest depression and hence also here you find gravity left from a previous Universe.

Places that have such huge depression is center of galaxies, and center of cluster of galaxies, - BUT don't forget the center of the Universe, that is the biggest one.

So if we one day should measure that the Sun is losing more gravity as expected, - don’t be surprised. This is very possible...

But the Earth, - no I don’t believe it.
Nothing seems to show that either.

So the closest place you, the coffee and the gravimeter should travel for measuring decreasing gravity is to the center of the Milkyway……Here the result is guaranteed… I can tell you 200% sure that here was a galaxy before... 13,7 billion years ago...as well as i can guarantee you, we (the galaxy /clusters and the Universe) are losing gravity. - Call that; dark energy, - also a abused and misunderstood expression / phenomena..

 

[DeathDart]

Gravity of galaxies is "measured" by the speed.

We know that the Universe is losing gravity, because cluster of galaxies cannot hold so good together as before.

Some scientist suggest Gravity disappear to unknown dimension

I suggest that the process is naturally; - extreme gravity is left by a previously Universe, - it takes billion of years to lose that gravity (to flatten space) left by a previous Universe.

We don't have a lot of ways of measuring gravitational fields remotely. We measure stars or groups of stars velocity by their light shifts. We guess the amount of mass that it is orbiting from the visible components of the galaxy. By combining one kind of precise measurement (velocity) and one educated guess (mass), we INFER the strength of gravity.

Visible changes in orbits of Galaxies are measured in centuries. How well galaxies are holding together, doesn't have enough data to come to a conclusion.

The only sneaky things that I have found to be good at hiding in other dimensions, are neutrinos.

The speed of gravity is probably faster than light. It is why black holes are black.

 

[Toke]

You have still not explained why that residual gravity does not exist any more.

 

[Ziggurat]

The speed of gravity is probably faster than light. It is why black holes are black.

Uh, no.

General relativity requires gravity to propagate AT light speed. Since black holes are a prediction of GR, they don't need gravity to be faster than c. I think you have no idea about why black holes are black.

 

[Paul]

Good question.

Plan on answering it?

What you really are asking is;

No.

Let me answer the question by a question

Why not answer it with an answer, just for a change?

This off course leads to a new discussion; - how fast can a star or planet travel before these will dissolve?

In your head perhaps.

 

[Paul]

You have still not explained why that residual gravity does not exist any more.

Then again, he also hasn't noticed that the gravimeters he was so sure of a while ago prove he is full of crap.

 

[DeathDart]

Uh, no.

General relativity requires gravity to propagate AT light speed. Since black holes are a prediction of GR, they don't need gravity to be faster than c. I think you have no idea about why black holes are black.

Do you eat the Nits you pick?

Gravity can have an acceleration that exceeds the speed of light.

 

[Daylightstar]

... an acceleration that exceeds the speed of light.

^{Bolding by Daylightstar}Right.
Would you explain this please?

 

[Toke]

^{Bolding by Daylightstar}Right.
Would you explain this please?

That is simple enough.
Acceleration is in m/s², speed is only in m/s.
As you can see one unit is clearly bigger than the other.

 

[DeathDart]

^{Bolding by Daylightstar}Right.
Would you explain this please?

Earths gravity produces a force on objects resting on it's surface that is equivalent to being accelerated at 9.8 meters per second. Also if you drop something near the surface it will have a velocity that increases 9.8 meters every second. In 3 seconds (discounting drag) an object will have a velocity of29.4 meters per second.

If the gravitational acceleration of a black hole is greater than light >300,000Km, light is not fast enough to move up through this gravitational field.

If a photon can't get away from a black hole then the Black Hole proper (not counting things on this side of the event horizon) cannot emit light.

 

[DeathDart]

A mass takes on temporal properties of the space in which it is embedded.

Until this point, it had always been assumed that time was limited to a maximum speed of ONE.

I believe that this assumption is fundamentally wrong.

The flow of time in Space without matter or gravity, may be very rapid or infinite.

The speed up in time is not significantly observable in our local environment.

A phenomena that could support a possible speed up in time is Supernova Remnant (SNR) Brightening. As the isotopes created by the supernova move into weak gravitational areas (near the critical value) they experience time speeding up. An isotopes half-life is dependent upon the flow of time. Faster time equates to a shorter half-life. A decrease in half-life means an increase in energy production from radioactive decay. The SNR becomes brighter as the isotopes reach gravitationally weak space.

The distance that the isotopes need to travel to experience rapidly accelerating time is dependent on the critical value of gravitational strength. My best guess at present is equal to G 6.674e-11. This is only a guess.

After the isotopes move through the critical value for the gravitational strength, time speeds up more with relatively short distances being covered. They begin to radioactively decay more rapidly, so the remnant becomes brighter.

Local gravity=g 1 +SQRT(G/g) G=6.674e-11

The current explanation is that the shock wave from the supernova collides with material that had been released at much lower velocities several thousand years prior to the supernova. Why does the star conveniently blow up after waiting for the previously released material to get to the same distance as a possible time speed up would occur?

A collision process in an optically thick media should have more of a blackbody response rather than a high X-Ray output and a low thermal output signatures seen from 1987A.

The speed up would also explain the galactic velocity curves.

Calculate from best practices how much mass is in a galaxy, for any data points near the center of the galaxy, you will need to compensate for the distribution of mass.

Use this 1 +SQRT(G/g) to calculate the speed up of time, or time correction.

Given the mass of the galaxy (and the distribution for close data points) calculate the strength of gravity at a particular distance(radius) or data point.

Calculate from MV(2)/R what the velocity should be for the strength of gravity calculated previously.

Multiply by Time correction, are you close to the actual measured velocity?

 

[Ziggurat]

Earths gravity produces a force on objects resting on it's surface that is equivalent to being accelerated at 9.8 meters per second.

No. 9.8 m/s is a velocity, not an acceleration. Earth's gravity is 9.8 m/s². The difference is fundamental. It's like saying that I'm five gallons tall: it makes absolutely no sense.

If a photon can't get away from a black hole then the Black Hole proper (not counting things on this side of the event horizon) cannot emit light.

True. But the acceleration at the event horizon doesn't reach c. In fact, that statement doesn't even make sense since the acceleration doesn't even have the same units as c (which is a velocity). Instead, it diverges to infinity.

Your failure to grasp basic dimensional analysis demonstrates how little you actually know. You've picked up a few buzz words, but have no idea what they actually mean.

 

[Ziggurat]

A collision process in an optically thick media should have more of a blackbody response rather than a high X-Ray output and a low thermal output signatures seen from 1987A.

But the medium in question is NOT optically thick. It's optically very thin. Didn't you know that?

The speed up would also explain the galactic velocity curves.

No, it doesn't. We can measure gravitational time dilation. It matches the predictions of general relativity. And unless you're very near a black hole (which close to 0% of our galaxy is), it's completely negligible. It's simply far too small an effect to account for observations.

 

[Bjarne]

You have still not explained why that residual gravity does not exist anymore.

Energy cannot disappear
Gravity can
Gravity in this context shall only be understood as; deformation of space.
I prefer to call a gravitionel field; a depression of in the space-density, -(that affects the whole Universe).

When such depression is released, there is only one thing Space / the Universe can do, and this is to release the stretch (towards the matter causing the depression).
Then space will return to a tension free state.

Such release happens fast because the release of the stretched space (or if you prefer; the flattening of the space density depression) happens with the speed of light.

Because the depression reaches a diameter billion of light-years it takes long time even with the speed of light, to flatten it.
I expect the gravity (so called dark matter) of the Universe to have been many thousand times stronger as it is today.

Today only a fragment is left.
We believe that there is "much" (dark matter), - but compared to how mad / extreme gravity of the Universe was just before BigBang, - it is relative insignificant what is left.

Seen form an outside observer, not affected by gravity of our Universe, - the diameter of our Universe would always looks the same.
But measured with our meter stick it is not, because when gravity (stretching space) after a BigBang is released, the meter stick will become SHORTER and measure a larger diameter.

The distance deformation happens inside our Universe (or solar system) etc.., but will never be as extreme as the prevailing Big bang speculation claims.

When the Sun or the Universe would dissolve it takes billion of years to flatten such depression in space, because the stretch is EVERYWHERE.
Hence space EVERYWHYRE most contribute to release / flatten space.

If space-stretch only is released near the center, e.g; between the Sun and us (after the Sun would dissolve) this would only cause the depression to decrease “a little”, and can be compared to that gravity is weaker, (since less space deforms).

So called “gravity waves” are misleading expression exactly so as dark matter is or dark energy, - or even “the curvature of space”..

 

[Daylightstar]

Earths gravity...emit light.

Bjarne also mixes up units or unit/unitless numbers.

 

[DeathDart]

No, it doesn't. We can measure gravitational time dilation. It matches the predictions of general relativity. And unless you're very near a black hole (which close to 0% of our galaxy is), it's completely negligible. It's simply far too small an effect to account for observations.

If the local g is 6.674e-11 that is 9,427 A.U. from the sun (Sol). I'd love to have your frequent flyer miles. I don't know if the local galactic gravity field (Milky Way) gets that low.

How did you measure time dilation Expansion?

It is NOT time dilation, it is the opposite, time expansion. It begins to occur in the near ABSENCE of gravity.

This means you cannot measure it near a large visible mass. Although a visible mass that is embedded within <6.674e-11 space will inertially respond to sped up time.

The Super Nova Remnants SNR's are also the current contender for generating cosmic rays.

Conservation of energy would suggest that any decaying isotope within <6.674e-11 space would put out the same amount of energy regardless of the flow of time. Obeying conservation, an isotope can generate particles with much high energies, when less of the energy is being carried away by a neutrino, and more by a larger particle.

This high level of radiation could also pump up atomic nuclei by multiple particle/neutrino impacts before the nuclei can decay. This would be rare, but statistically significant.

You would think that time speeding up would cause a blue shift in any light passing through a region of rapid time. Light is on the timeless plane and is unaffected (or very weakly affected) by an environment that is mostly time and NOT gravity.

Gravity affects light, but time does not affect light.

Light travels in a plane or dimension, where time does not exist.

 

[DeathDart]

This is more like it, do your worst, either I am correct or wrong. If I am wrong, best to find it out now.

I would like my theory to be correct, but if it is wrong, I can improve it, or discard it and find another possible solution.

It gets better and better.

 

[Daylightstar]

...

I would like my theory to be correct, but if it is wrong, I can improve it, or discard it and find another possible solution.
...

So, how does your theory relate to Bjarne's theory?

Or do you at this time consider your theory more correct than Bjarne's theory?
In other words, would you at this time be willing to discard your theory for Bjarne's theory?