Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Ziggurat]

Can we use M33 as a test bed.

Why use indirect measurements from M33 as a test bed when we have direct measurements of gravitational time dilation?

 

[Reality Check]

Energy cannot disappear
Gravity can
...gibberish resulting from the above ignorance sniiped...

The first two sentences have nothing to do with each other.
Energy is not a force. Gravty is a force.
Gravity never disappears. It has an infinite range.

Energy is conserved. It disappears all of the time to reappear in other forms. For example, the energy lost by cosmological redshift is converted into gravitational energy (though some scientists are content with it just vanishing since GR has not been shown to conserve energy globally).

 

[DeathDart]

Why use indirect measurements from M33 as a test bed when we have direct measurements of gravitational time dilation?

But you don't have any direct measurements of time expansion

The indirect proof from SNR brightening is pretty good.

 

[Ziggurat]

But you don't have any direct measurements of time expansion

You have a theory for how time changes with gravity. We have measurements of how time changes with gravity. The choice of words, dilation vs expansion, is of no consequence.

The indirect proof from SNR brightening is pretty good.

No, actually, it isn't. Brightness makes for a very poor clock.

 

[DeathDart]

You have a theory for how time changes with gravity. We have measurements of how time changes with gravity. The choice of words, dilation vs expansion, is of no consequence.



No, actually, it isn't. Brightness makes for a very poor clock.

A particles half life was good enough proof for time dilation.

An isotopes shortening half life should be reasonable proof for time expansion.

The SNR is getting brighter because the flow of time is not just increasing a little, it is accelerating.

There are only so much isotope material available and as each one is used up, their may be isotopic radiation signatures which can be identified. If the Isotope signature shows a greatly reduced half-life, versus here on earth, that could be a clue.

Also monitor the material that is approaching other masses, does it go dim as it encounters slower time?

 

[Ziggurat]

There are only so much isotope material available and as each one is used up, their may be isotopic radiation signatures which can be identified. If the Isotope signature shows a greatly reduced half-life, versus here on earth, that could be a clue.

First, you can't measure half-life directly for SNR's. Second, and more importantly, if time is flowing at a different rate for an SNR, then any characteristic radiation for nuclear decay would be either red or blue shifted. That would be directly observable.

But it isn't observed. As far as I can tell, the only spectral lines which have been observed come from atomic ionization, not from nuclear decay. The nuclear decay from SNR's appears to be too weak to detect. So any brightening isn't coming from a change in decay rates, because it's not coming from decay in the first place.

 

[steenkh]

The thread is about Dark Energy which is related to dark matter.

Is it? I am only aware that they both have the word "dark" in common. Dark energy is a property of the universe that causes it to expand, and dark matter is matter that - as far as we know - does not interact with other matter except through gravity.

 

[DeathDart]

First, you can't measure half-life directly for SNR's. Second, and more importantly, if time is flowing at a different rate for an SNR, then any characteristic radiation for nuclear decay would be either red or blue shifted. That would be directly observable.

But it isn't observed. As far as I can tell, the only spectral lines which have been observed come from atomic ionization, not from nuclear decay. The nuclear decay from SNR's appears to be too weak to detect. So any brightening isn't coming from a change in decay rates, because it's not coming from decay in the first place.

Time is not gravity, light travels in a plane of ZERO time. There isn't any blue shift.

Conservation says that time is irrelevant since there is only so much energy in the Isotope radioactivity. Time cannot create energy. By blue shifting a photon it has more energy.

The higher orbital velocities from faster time and greater apparent gravity have to come from falling into the gravity well until orbital velocity is achieved. It continues to fall till gravitational force (multiplied by time flow) are matched by centrifugal force of orbital velocity and radius.

Time is not a force or an energy source.

There explanation for a collision seems squirrely. The say that the source of energy is for the residual brightness after the explosion isTi-44 which has a half-life of 60 years. Why is it dying away after 20.

Why did energy output start increasing? Talking about 1987A

 

[MRC_Hans]

Why not ask what the difference is between linier and not linear.
RR is not linear resistance.

Bjarne, I asked you what is the difference between 'lost speed' and deceleration. How about answering that question, instead of asking a new, and irrelevant, question?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

This is about Bjarne's silly scenario "what happens if the Sun suddenly disappears?".

The idea of answering is to try to make Bjarne understand how a gravity wave will behave. (Yeah, I know )

This is a BIG problem, without imagination... no understanding, - all the brian can understand is “pictures” (imagination).
Also even though these picture are numbers.

I said I don't know exactly what will happen when the gravity wave strikes Earth. I can easily imagine something, but ... that will be a waste of time without knowledge. I'm sure it can be calculated approximately what will happen, but the question is rather moot, since the scenario is implausible.

No this is wrong, the problem is that;

• You don’t know really what a gravitional wave is

Yes, I know exactly what it is, it is a fluctuation in the force of gravity.

You can also not imaging what really happen when it is passing you.

Yes, I can easily imagine that, but what I imagine is irrelevant.

• Now try that, try to imagine what really would happen when a gravitional wave comes your way.For example that from the Sun
• Try to imagine;
• how heigh would it be ?
• how width ?
• how long ?
• how long time would it hit you before it is gone ?
• What would i be made of ?
• try to put some word on it, how would i be , just something, - come on Hans ?

I just put some words in it, in my previous post. Didn't you read it?

Now ask you self WHERE would the deformation-release be in that moment a gravitional wave is passing you?

It would be at Earth, dummy. I don't know where you are, but I'm on Earth.

If you answer “it do not exist anymore” why should “THE GRAVITIONAL WAVE then continue to Jupiter”

Because that is what waves do. They move through something, in this case space.

Try to throw a stone in a pond, and you see a ring of waves spreading.
Just like the gravity wave would.

Now, stop asking silly questions, and start answering some, according to your own model.


Hans

 

[edd]

First, you can't measure half-life directly for SNR's. Second, and more importantly, if time is flowing at a different rate for an SNR, then any characteristic radiation for nuclear decay would be either red or blue shifted. That would be directly observable.

But it isn't observed. As far as I can tell, the only spectral lines which have been observed come from atomic ionization, not from nuclear decay. The nuclear decay from SNR's appears to be too weak to detect. So any brightening isn't coming from a change in decay rates, because it's not coming from decay in the first place.

Supernova light curves are driven by the decay of radioactive nickel. However, it's a messy old place inside a supernova and you don't easily observe the half life directly.

That said, light curves do decay slower for more distant supernovae but only in exactly the way you'd expect from the redshift you see in the other lines.

For supernova remnants I think it's even less clear cut.

In other words I don't think it helps DeathDart's ideas at all.

 

[Ziggurat]

Time is not gravity, light travels in a plane of ZERO time. There isn't any blue shift.

Oh yes there is.

Conservation says that time is irrelevant since there is only so much energy in the Isotope radioactivity. Time cannot create energy. By blue shifting a photon it has more energy.

Conservation of energy requires gravitational red shifts.

Think of it this way. You've got two identical unstable isotopes. You keep one on the surface of the earth (call it A), and you send one high into space (call it B). Getting that nuclei high into space requires energy, and the energy required depends on its mass. We'll call the energy required to get that nuclei into space E_B

Now let the two nuclei decay by kicking out a gamma ray. Suppose that the gamma rays from both isotopes are detected at the same place, so that their wavelength at that location can be compared.

Finally, we take the earth-bound decayed nuclei and send it up into space to where the other one is. That too takes energy E_A. But the nuclei lost mass through the decay process (E=mc²), so it takes less energy to get it into space. In other words, E_A<E_B.

But they ended up in the same place. So why the energy difference? That energy difference had to go somewhere. And it did. Where did it go? Into an energy difference of the two gamma rays, when measured in the same place. If you measure gamma_A on earth and gamma_B in space, you'll get the same answer, but if you measure gamma_A and gamma_B in space, they will not be the same. They cannot be the same, or you will have violated energy conservation.

So gravity requires gravitational red shifts in order to maintain energy conservation.

 

[DeathDart]

There is something interesting in what you say, another facet to the puzzle.

 

[Bjarne]

The first two sentences have nothing to do with each other.
Gravity never disappears. It has an infinite range.).

When matter dissolve gravity is gradually lost (with the speed of light)

Energy is conserved. It disappears all of the time to reappear in other forms.

Exactly, and hence it is never lost.

For example, the energy lost by cosmological redshift is converted into gravitational energy (though some scientists are content with it just vanishing since GR has not been shown to conserve energy globally).

Haleluja Haleluja
Amen

Amen

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, I asked you what is the difference between 'lost speed' and deceleration. How about answering that question, instead of asking a new, and irrelevant, question?

Hans

It is not important to me.
All what matter is that RR is not linear as well as the "deceleration" also not is.
THEREFORE forget "m^2" and accept lost of speed as; ”m/s”
That's all

 

[Bjarne]

This is about Bjarne's silly scenario "what happens if the Sun suddenly disappears?".

The idea of answering is to try to make Bjarne understand how a gravity wave will behave. (Yeah, I know )

First try to understand it you self.
In the previous post you admittet that you did't
So that would be a perfect place to start
Then understand thayt gravity wave are different
Such from Binary system will not faltten but continue forever
BUT such that emarge due to lost of matter will certianly gradually fatten / weakening.

I said I don't know exactly what will happen when the gravity wave strikes Earth. I can easily imagine something, but ... that will be a waste of time without knowledge. I'm sure it can be calculated approximately what will happen, but the question is rather moot, since the scenario is implausible.

The fact is that we have so many facileties able to detec gravitional waves, we SHOULD long ago have results.
BUT when gravity waves (from supernovas or Binary stars) are changing everything propotinal we have nothing to compare with, and cannot detect such.

Tak a look at this > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzZgFKoIfQI

Yes, I know exactly what it is, it is a fluctuation in the force of gravity.

So left is now to understand what is the force of gravity.

Yes, I can easily imagine that, but what I imagine is irrelevant.

Ohh no this tell everything. All you brain can do is imaging. Nothing else.
For example imaging, - what is 2+2, - or what is a cow ? - or what is a gravitational wave ?

I just put some words in it, in my previous post. Didn't you read it?

It would be at Earth, dummy. I don't know where you are, but I'm on Earth.

Because that is what waves do. They move through something, in this case space.

Try to throw a stone in a pond, and you see a ring of waves spreading.
Just like the gravity wave would.

Now, stop asking silly questions, and start answering some, according to your own model.

Gravitational waves are pretty good expression when we talk about such from binary systems, - but we are not.

We are talking about such as are the result of matter dissolving and hence off course also dissolving depressions of space.
This can be illustrate as below..

You can see the stretch of space between the Sun and the Earth (fig.A - red area) would be released after 8 minutes if the Sun would dissolve but still the depression would be there, after passing the Earth.
In this case it is misleading to talk about a "wave"- simple because there are no waves, but instead flattening of a depression, - with the speed of light.

A BigCrunch / BigBang will leaves billions of such. Because gravity was extreme when BigBang went off, - which mean a previous Universe was exploding.
Therefore when matter again is created, there are still old depressions left.
Such old depression-remains is what so-called dark matter is.

 

[Reality Check]

When matter dissolve gravity is gradually lost (with the speed of light)

Almost total gibberish.
If a mass vanishes (which is physically impossible but this is just a thought experiment) then the gravity from that mass vanishes immediately.
It is the gravitational field that vanishes ('is gradually lost') with the speed of light. Changes in the gravitational field propagate with the speed of light.

Exactly, and hence it is never lost.

Exactly, hence it miust be converted into some other form of energy, e.g. gravitational energy. Thus you must have no problem with cosmological redshift !
This is really simple, Bjarne:

1. We observe that light from distant galaxies is redshifted (the light loses energy).
2. We observe that this redshift varies lineraly with the distance of the galaxy from us.
3. The laws of physics tells us that the only viable way that this can be happening is if space-time is expanding.

Though some scientists are content with the energy just vanishing since GR has not been shown to conserve energy globally. GR does conserve energy locally.
That is the science that you remain ignorant about.

 

[DeathDart]

Supernova light curves are driven by the decay of radioactive nickel. However, it's a messy old place inside a supernova and you don't easily observe the half life directly.

That said, light curves do decay slower for more distant supernovae but only in exactly the way you'd expect from the redshift you see in the other lines.

For supernova remnants I think it's even less clear cut.

In other words I don't think it helps DeathDart's ideas at all.

This may take a while.

However, it's a messy old place inside a supernova

Messy doesn't begin to describe it. Can I borrow your spaceship to check it out? I just had my hull replaced, and don't want it to get scratched, (or vaporized).

For describing SNR brightening., the collision theory between the super nova and previously released material, seems to be the only game in town. It also seems counter-intuitive, especially about the reverse shock wave. I guess they needed the counter flows to develop charge separation, and magnetic fields for acceleration.

I'd say a significant minority of the researchers would like to take a long drive into the country, and lose this theory. Not too many seemed very enthusiastic about the results of the super nova collision SNR simulations done on the super computers either.

I lean towards no blue shift in isotope radiation in regions of fast time, but I have found nothing that will even convince me.

That burning smell is me trying to figure it out, (or the cat fell asleep on the heating register again)

 

[MRC_Hans]

It is not important to me.

Yes it is, you just don't realize it.

All what matter is that RR is not linear as well as the "deceleration" also not is.

RR does not exist. Deceleration can be linear or non-linear, depending on what causes it.

THEREFORE forget "m^2" and accept lost of speed as; ”m/s”
That's all

That is nonsense. It is quite shocking how silly statements you can make.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

When matter dissolve gravity is gradually lost (with the speed of light)

If matter disappears (it can't, but if ....) the gravity from it stops. Just like if you turn out a lamp. But the gravity/light that already left the mass/lamp will continue to spread at the speed of light.

(Note that otherwise gravity an light are quite different, but in this context they behave in the same way.)

Hans