Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

LIAR: The post where you gave your example starts with gravitational time dilation.

Your calculation is even dumber now - you have to show that the different gravitational fields of the planets at the surface (where the clocks are) is negligible in comparison with the solar gravitational field.
I suspect that it is the solar gravitational field that is negligible. After all we are not pulled off the surface of the Earth by it .

In actual fact it is your obsession with Mercury and the Earth thst is the dumb part. You should have expressed the problem more generally:

Take an star that is in an orbit in a galaxy.
Let there be a observer Alice with a clock orbiting that star at a distance r₁.
Let there be a observer Bob with a clock orbiting that star at a different distance r₂.
Alice and Bob measure the time taken for one orbit of the star in the galaxy. Thsi is the orbital period.
According to GR the clocks tick at different rates (gravitational time dilation). Alice will measure a different orbital period from Bob.

Kepler's third law is: "The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit."

Thus Alice will calculate a different semi-major axis of the star's orbit from what Bob will calculate.
​

Scientists have no problem with this because there are many examples of different measurements from different observers in relativity.

NO RC I am not a LIAR
Have you mother not learn you not to talk so slighting about other people, when the trueth is that you misunderstood, and you just did it again.
You don't understand the point and you did also not understand the math I have shown you.
We are and have all the time discussed the gravitational influence of the Sun

Go back to the image, - can you see that it is mentioned “The surface of the Sun”
Now we moves further away, - 1 line down in the table.
Can you read it is written “the ORBIT of Mercury".

So the calculation shows the time dilation due to the gravity of the Sun.

It is pretty large, and as I wrote; 6 years “lost” of time for a clock on Mercury – (still you can and shall ignore the mass of Mercury.)

But well I can admit there was some confusion, because I also mention the planets Earth and Mercury (without telling you to ignore that mass)
We can easy simplify the scenario even more, to avoid confusion.

Because we could say that the 2 clocks are following the Sun’s orbit around the Milkyway.
(Technical we could say the orbiting clocks have devices (small rockets) on board to counteract the gravity from the Sun.

Seen from our perspective both the Sun and the two clocks (all 3 objects) are therefore orbiting the Milkyway in the excact same radius to the center of the Milkyway) .

The one clock is 50 billion km. behind the Sun, and the other 150 billion km behind.

This scenareo should eliminate he last confusion according to the Special relativity as well as local gravity influence, since all relative speed now are the same.

I mean still the math should be simple.
We know the 2 relative time rates and I believe we also know the speed, - the logical result (so far I can understand it) hence should be that B impossible can travels the same distance, simple because speed multiplied with time = distance.

I think we have a serious mathematical problem here and wonder how such a simple obviously unsolved mystery possible can have existed the last 100 years without any explanation. ?

I mean how difficult can that really be ?

 

[MRC_Hans]

If you would not percept it, what would that reality then be, except NOTHING?
Nothing because all you know about “that reality” is NOTHING.
Hans you are dreaming about something no one ever have seen, and something you have no idea of what is.
All what you possible can know anything about are objective observable realities.
I thought you know that. But now I understand you believe in a “certain reality” .
I believe this is why we are so far from each other.,
Well this is also the essence of religion. There is not much difference.

Even the reality by your feed is different from the relaity by your nose.

Do you have a point, or are you just exercising your keyboard?

I asked you a concise question. How about answering it?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think we have a serious mathematical problem here and wonder how such a simple obviously unsolved mystery possible can have existed the last 100 years without any explanation. ?

I mean how difficult can that really be ?

Certainly way too difficult for you to solve. You don't even understand the problem, so how can you expect to find the solution?

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

NO RC I am not a LIAR

Yes Bjarne, you were lying about the fact that we are talking about gravitational time dilation.
What you missed out in your accusation was that you mistakingly thought that I was only talking about your example.
I have been talking about that actual physics that can be applied to every situation. I mentioned your example in passing.

The fact remains that your mathematics is useless bacause you have ignored the gravity of the planets.

We are and have all the time discussed the gravitational influence of the Sun
http://www.science27.com/forum/td2.jpg

Another mistake - you have been talking about tha Sun.
I have been ataling about every star in the universe.

I think we have a serious mathematical problem here and wonder how such a simple obviously unsolved mystery possible can have existed the last 100 years without any explanation. ?

I know that you have a serious mathematical problem here. No one else who knows abut relativity has this problem. This problem has not existed for 100 years. It has existed since you decided to ignore that fact that you are the only one with the problem.

Simple fact: Gravitation time dilation means that observers in different gravitational fields have clocks that tick at different rates. Every measurement that they make using these clocks will differ.
You do not have to even look at the orbit of the Sun. Have each observer measure the lifetime of a radioactive particle. They will report different results!

It is not a mathematical problem. It is the way the universe works.

 

[Bjarne]

Do you have a point, or are you just exercising your keyboard?

I asked you a concise question. How about answering it?

Hans

Before it makes sense to answer your questions, it is necessary for you to answer these as follows.

Imaging 2 clocks are following the Sun’s orbit around the Milkyway.

Technical we could say the orbiting clocks have small rockets on board to counteract the gravity from the Sun.

Both the Sun and the two clocks (all 3 objects) are therefore orbiting the Milkyway in the exact same radius to the center of the Milkyway) .

The one clock is 50 billion km. behind the Sun, and the other 150 billion km behind.

The one clock is after 1 MilyWay-orbit "losing" 6 earth-years relative to the other.

I assume you know that speed multiplied with time = distance.

We know; - speed – time and distance seen from observer A’s reality.

But for observer B time is ticking slower.

Anyway will both observers complete 1 orbit of the Milkyway (together with the Sun) in the exact same period.

How is this mathematical possible?
Do you agree that distance and "real" speed cannot be the same for both observers?

If you cannot understand or serious relate to this 9 years-old-schoolboy-basic-math, - Hans honestly I will not waste more time on discussion further consequences of this with you, - or reply to question that you obviously is unable or uninterested to understand or relate to already when it come to basic simple cow logical principles.

I hope you understand that you seems to have already set the limit for how much further I can bring you.

 

[Reality Check]

Anyway will both observers complete 1 orbit of the Milkyway (together with the Sun) in the exact same period.

If I take this is written then you are wrong. The 2 observers complete 1 orbit of the Milkyway (together with the Sun) in the different periods as measured by their clocks.
It is 2 observers on the Sun that would complete 1 orbit of the Milkyway (together with the Sun) in the exact same period since they would experience the same time dilation and have clocks ticking away at the same rate.

This suggests the source of your confusion. You think that Alice and Bob (see below) are in the same orbit around the star. But the problem states that they are in different orbits!

How is this mathematical possible?

That is a rather stupid question. You have just shown that it is mathematically possible .
Everyone here agrees that it is mathematically possible.
Gravitational time dilation means that observers in different gravitational fields have clocks that tick at different rates. Every measurement that they make using these clocks will differ.

It is also physically possible because we have observed gravitational time dilation in experiments.

Do you agree that distance and "real" speed cannot be the same for both observers?

Also a rather dumb question.
No one would agree with this.

Take an star that is in an orbit in a galaxy.
Let there be a observer Alice with a clock orbiting that star at a distance r₁.
Let there be a observer Bob with a clock orbiting that star at a different distance r₂.
Alice and Bob measure the time taken for one orbit of the star in the galaxy. Thsi is the orbital period.
According to GR the clocks tick at different rates (gravitational time dilation). Alice will measure a different orbital period from Bob.

Kepler's third law is: "The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit."

Thus Alice will calculate a different semi-major axis of the star's orbit from what Bob will calculate.
​

Scientists have no problem with this because there are many examples of different measurements from different observers in relativity.

 

[Bjarne]

If I take this is written then you are wrong. The 2 observers complete 1 orbit of the Milkyway (together with the Sun) in the different periods as measured by their clocks.
It is 2 observers on the Sun that would complete 1 orbit of the Milkyway (together with the Sun) in the exact same period since they would experience the same time dilation and have clocks ticking away at the same rate.

How stupid
You live in NZ and I in Denmark.
At the exact same time we both would take a trip round the Earth.
Our speed would be the same. 4000 km /h
The distance was for both of us time 40 000 km .
We would both be back in our countries after 1 round, - at the same time, - and we would both be back after to have travel the same distance and speed.
That you started from NZ and I from Denmark is irrelevant. - 1 orbit = 1 orbit.
The same principle is the case with the 2 clocks following the sun.

That is a rather stupid question. You have just shown that it is mathematically possible .
Everyone here agrees that it is mathematically possible.
Gravitational time dilation means that observers in different gravitational fields have clocks that tick at different rates. Every measurement that they make using these clocks will differ.

Let say we would take a second trip round the Earth...
Again we would both have completed to travel round the Earth in a certain period.
After 10 of my hours we would both be back in our countries.
But your clock have only counted 5 hours for the exactly same event.
Cow intelligent logic shows that here is something rotten.
Either you would have travel 8000 km/h or the distance for you was only 20,000 km
Concrete cow brains know that these are the possibilities.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Before it makes sense to answer your questions, it is necessary for you to answer these as follows.
*yada, yada*

I hope you understand that you seems to have already set the limit for how much further I can bring you.

Bjarne, I don't give a damn how much further you can bring me, and neither should you. This is not about me. It is about YOU showing the world that you can answer a very simple question about your own 'theory':

The pioneer probes are moving with a speed and direction relative to the sun, but the sun is moving through space with them at a different, and much higher, speed. So the real speed and direction of the probes is not the one you used in your calculation of RR.

How do you explain this?

Reply with an answer, not with questions.

Never mind if you think I can understand your reply or not, just answer.


Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, I don't give a damn how much further you can bring me, and neither should you. This is not about me. It is about YOU showing the world that you can answer a very simple question about your own 'theory':
The pioneer probes are moving with a speed and direction relative to the sun, but the sun is moving through space with them at a different, and much higher, speed. So the real speed and direction of the probes is not the one you used in your calculation of RR.
How do you explain this?
Reply with an answer, not with questions.
Never mind if you think I can understand your reply or not, just answer.
Hans

Seen from a larger perspective we could even be moving with the speed near light, and the RR would be huge.
We could right be on our way almost directly towards the center of the Universe or towards the center of the local cluster, or towards the center of the MW.
All because of RR.
On each step of speed RR is already affecting us.
BUT if you want to understand the RR and different perception of speed on all steeps YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THE LEVEL OF TIME/DISTANCE/SPACE DEFORMATION inside these realities.
But Hans, once again, you have shown that even at the simple level you are not able to distingue and understand that there is no "certain reality".
Plenty different realities exist and all are real. I better stop here, I know it is hopeless to even try to take you further, because you are lost in the idea that there is a, - certain reality, - so you lost the starting gun Hans. .Tell me you are ready.

 

[Paul]

All because of RR.

Which doesn't exist.

On each step of speed RR is already affecting us.

No it isn't

But Hans, once again, you have shown that even at the simple level you are not able to distingue and understand that there is no "certain reality".
Plenty different realities exist and all are real.

I know you will refuse to engage with anything other than your own silly notions, but for the sake of any lurkers I feel I should point out that since around 1513 reality has meant:

reality, n.

I. The quality or state of being real.

1. Real existence; what is real rather than imagined or desired; the aggregate of real things or existences; that which underlies and is the truth of appearances or phenomena.

2.
a. The quality of being real or having an actual existence.
†b. Correspondence to fact; truth. Obs.

3. Something that is real; a real fact or state of things; (also) the real nature of something.

5.
a. That which constitutes the actual thing, as distinguished from what is merely apparent or external.
b. The real nature or constitution of something; the real thing or state of things.
​

"reality, n.". OED Online. September 2011. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/158934 (accessed September 30, 2011).

I better stop here, I know it is hopeless to even try to take you further,

This, I believe, is the sentiment often experienced by those trying patiently to help you understand the universe.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Seen from a larger perspective we could even be moving with the speed near light, and the RR would be huge.
We could right be on our way almost directly towards the center of the Universe or towards the center of the local cluster, or towards the center of the MW.
All because of RR.
On each step of speed RR is already affecting us.
BUT if you want to understand the RR and different perception of speed on all steeps YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THE LEVEL OF TIME/DISTANCE/SPACE DEFORMATION inside these realities.
But Hans, once again, you have shown that even at the simple level you are not able to distingue and understand that there is no "certain reality".
Plenty different realities exist and all are real. I better stop here, I know it is hopeless to even try to take you further, because you are lost in the idea that there is a, - certain reality, - so you lost the starting gun Hans. .Tell me you are ready.

Evasion noted.
I repeat:

The pioneer probes are moving with a speed and direction relative to the sun, but the sun is moving through space with them at a different, and much higher, speed. So the real speed and direction of the probes is not the one you used in your calculation of RR.

How do you explain this?

Reply with an answer, not with questions.

Never mind if you think I can understand your reply or not, just answer.

At least TRY to show you can understand your own model.


Hans

 

[Reality Check]

How stupid
You live in NZ and I in Denmark.
...
The same principle is the case with the 2 clocks following the sun.

How stupid.
You cannot understand your own example - you need different gravitational fields for gravitational time dilation to make clocks tick at different rates.
FYI: NZ and Denmark are on the same planet !

 

[Reality Check]

RR is causing a long list of phenomena’s.

The only thing RR is causing is a permanant record of a continuing display of ignorance of basic science

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
• Why is your multiplier 1 m/s^2? Why is X not 2 m/s^2? Why not 300,000 m/s^2? Why not 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s^2?

And you displaying a persistent delusion that RR exists when it does not match reality:

• Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance"
  11th December 2009
• The Pioneer anomaly proves that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!
• Spiral galaxies prove that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!

 

[Bjarne]

Evasion noted.
I repeat:

The pioneer probes are moving with a speed and direction relative to the sun, but the sun is moving through space with them at a different, and much higher, speed. So the real speed and direction of the probes is not the one you used in your calculation of RR.

Hans

I have try to explain you; - we don't know the space-time reality where that more or less absolute speed can be understood.
We are by the foot of a huge unknown mountain. - In that scenarios we are lost, until we begin to measure and understand RR.

The point is that from "that" "absolute" reality, 1 of yours meters would be MUCH shorter.
So when you see the Sun moving 250 km/s, - such observer would say, it took 10 s. or maybe 20 or 30, and the speed was the same, but not comparable the same.
And a such observer would have a meter stick, - the same as yours - but comparable 10 - 20 or 30 times larger. Therefore distances are for you also propotional smaller.

Hans if you want to understand absolute speed, you must also understand that other reality’s are exactly as real like yours, and also how the time-distance-speed-proportionals are.

But the problem is, - that you believe that time difference is some kind of illusions and that there only is 1 certain reality right ?
This is your problem, and this is where you lost the starting gun.

Before you are ready to continue you must relate to the poison here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7593789&postcount=4385
I am waiting for answers. - I was asking first, - you must understand the simple points before you can understand the next level...

 

[Reality Check]

I have try to explain you; - we don't know the space-time reality where that more or less absolute speed can be understood.
We are by the foot of a huge unknown mountain. - In that scenarios we are lost, until we begin to measure and understand RR.
...

I have try to explain you: It is you that is at the foot of a huge mountain.
The rest of the world is most of the way up the mountain because they can understand relativity.
They can understand that relativity is a well tested theory.
They can understand that the consequences of relativity are that different observers can measure clocks ticking at different rates and measure that lengths differ.

You on the other hand are busy digging a pit of ignorance with your RR fantasy:

• Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance"
  11th December 2009
• The Pioneer anomaly proves that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!
• Spiral galaxies prove that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!

 

[MRC_Hans]

How stupid.
You cannot understand your own example - you need different gravitational fields for gravitational time dilation to make clocks tick at different rates.
FYI: NZ and Denmark are on the same planet !

Though hardly the same planet as the one Bjarne is on.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I am waiting for answers. - I was asking first, - you must understand the simple points before you can understand the next level...

This is not a question of asking first. You have a claim, you are the one who answers questions. It does not matter if you think I can understand your answer or not. It matters if you have an answer or not.

I repeat:

The pioneer probes are moving with a speed and direction relative to the sun, but the sun is moving through space with them at a different, and much higher, speed. So the real speed and direction of the probes is not the one you used in your calculation of RR.

Hans

PS: I'm not letting you off the hook, Bjarne. Answer, or face continued questioning.

 

[MRC_Hans]

you must relate to the poison here .

poison?

 

[Bjarne]

This is not a question of asking first. You have a claim, you are the one who answers questions. It does not matter if you think I can understand your answer or not. It matters if you have an answer or not.

I repeat:

The pioneer probes are moving with a speed and direction relative to the sun, but the sun is moving through space with them at a different, and much higher, speed. So the real speed and direction of the probes is not the one you used in your calculation of RR.

Viggo

PS: I'm not letting you off the hook, Bjarne. Answer, or face continued questioning.

If you REALLY want to understand RR in its full scale, you MUST:

• Try to forget that there are only ONE certain reality and all other perceptions “only” “some kind of illusions”
• Also start to understand it from the basic level and this *** IS *** here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7593789&postcount=4385
• Try to answer ALL the questions so good you can at this post.
• I can try to tell you where you we not wrong, but I am sure you are not prepared understand.

Imaging this;
Viggo lives far far far far away, and not in our universe, a place that not is much affected by the gravity of our Universe.
Therefore Viggo’s clock ticks 10 times faster as HUBERT’s clock.
HUBERT see a decelerating cow, moving backwards - 1 meter in 1 second.

1. Viggo measure the same cow-event, - but not to 1 second but to 10 second
2. The distance the cow was moving in a certain period of time was 1 meter seen from HUBERT’s reality, - but Viggo do not agree, he saw it was 10 meter (of his meters) - (since Viggo ’s meter stick is 10 times shorter as HUBERT’s meter stick)
3. Hence Both observers (Viggo and HUBERT) agrees that the cow was moving 1 m/s according to their own meter stick and clock, - but NOT comparable 1 m/s.
4. This is why HUBERT can see the cow decelerating 1 m/s, - but Viggo would not agree , and see that the cow decelerate 10 meters (in 10 second) . This happens in one and the same period, but still the “same” relativistic speed, “per second” for both.
5. So within a certain and common period, Viggo measure the cow to decelerate a distance = 10 times “longer” as HUBERT does.

In the same way if HUBERT and Viggo can see a star moving with 50,000 km/s – the speed is real for both even though both; time, - speed and distance NOT is comparable the same for both.

The point is now, - that RR ONLY can be understood with respect to a certain and well define reference frame. We can say that the Moon is moving 1000 m/s with reference to our reality.

BUT we cannot say that the Sun is moving 250 km/s with reference to our reality, or even that the Earth is moving 30 km/s with reference to our reality, - because we are already are part of the time/distance/ speed transformation caused by that speed.

For example.
Both Viggo and HUBERT would agree that the speed of the Sun is 250 km/s .
The difference is that HUBERT is part of that motion, - Viggo is not.
HUBERT can therefore not calculate a transformation process based on well defined time/distance reference frame, - that apply for HUBERT ‘s reality, - but Viggo can do this because Viggo’s time/distance is not affected by that speed.

Viggo can therefore calculate and send HUBERT a massage; - HUBERT you are decelerating (for example) 1-E8 Meter per my-second, because you moves so and so much faster as me - in these period the Sun travels towards the RR direction and blab la bla.

HUBERT (and many cows) know that the deceleration Viggo was reporting only can compared to 10% of his own understanding of time/distance, - as well as 10% at the comparable speed, -because HUBERT (and many cows) are in a difference reference frame as Viggo.

Therefore the data from Viggo must be “transformed” to a different reference frame.

The calculated Viggo have done is correct because these are done based on a well define reference frame, but these still need to be correct “translated” to HUBERT’s reality, -if HUBERT want to understand the consequence of that speed in his reality.

Which mean when Viggo see the deceleration to be for example 1 meter in a certain period, - HUBERT would say to Viggo, I know you are not lying but 1 of yours meter is only 10 cm on my meter stick.

So Viggo, - ONLY when the total motion towards the RR direction happens relative to a well define reference frame you can rely on it, if it doesn’t you can’t.

Both the influence of GR and SR matter.

Shortly spoken, - you must KNOW the exact time rate, and the speed towards the RR direction before you can calculate RR.

You cannot mix realities like you want.

The speed affecting the earth is already “included” the equation, - due to time dilation, - when you for example want to calculate the RR affecting the moon.

 

[Paul]

I'm no physicist, but I think Bjarne has failed to grasp almost every concept he's tried to abuse in that post.