Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Anders Lindman]

No. I tend to agree with what Reality Check said, that this spreading is probably an artefact of presentation. But it's worth checking out. Why don't you email one of the Astrostatistics guys and see what they say?

I have now sent an email asking them about the increase between the spectral lines. They should very quickly be able to explain the anomaly/artifact. That's better than me trying to guess.

 

[Farsight]

Yes photons don’t lose energy. Time ticks slower and distance stretching more the deeper inside a gravitionel photons are created. All processes take more time in a slower environment, - also matters interaction with space. It takes a loooong second to walk a loooong meter. This is why time some places ticks slower. A loooong meter is a result of stretching space, and hence a result of gravity. Hence also EM-frequencies are slower the deeper inside a gravitational field a process takes place, and the EM frequencies are created. This mean gravitational redshift is not a result of motion, but a result of the environment where the photon was created. When we in a weaker gravitational field can observe the spectra coming from a strong gravitational field now is redshifted, - it is only because we compare the spectra with a different (shorter) time – distance reality. (less stretched reality)

Good stuff Bjarne. You know though that time doesn't really tick slower? It's gravitational potential that changes. Or vacuum impedance if you prefer.

The reason why lights bends near a heavy object is that it follows the stretch tension of space. When such tension bends (as it most of the time does) the path of photons also does so.

I've used tension myself in a gravitational context, referring to the bowling-ball analogy, but actually it's a negative tension gradient, a pressure gradient. Stress-energy is the key, stress is directional pressure. And note that the path of photons bends because the tension/pressure gradient is there.

A photon is part of that “stretch tension.” – Photons can be compared to waves of the ocean. – The ocean and the wave are one; - there cannot be any friction of resistance.

Good stuff. If you look at an oceanic swell wave, that's where the surface of the ocean is "bent". But if this wave traversed a river mouth where there was a salinity gradient in the water, it wouldn't follow a straight path. It would veer a little towards the open ocean. In similar vein a photon doesn't follow a straight path when it traverses a region of space where there's a gradient in gravitational potential. The path is curved, and we talk of curved spacetime when referring to it.

Opposite a fish can be compared to an elementary particle, the fish moves through the water, and thereby it interacts with the ocean.

I think a better analogy is a wave going round in circles. After all, we can create an electron (and a positron) from a photon via pair production, and the electron exhibits spin angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment. And you can diffract an electron.

 

[Farsight]

Good one Anders.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I have now sent an email asking them about the increase between the spectral lines. They should very quickly be able to explain the anomaly/artifact. That's better than me trying to guess.

MUCH better.

Good show.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

No mother cow has a bigger brain, - that is enough.
I don't need to have a bigger brain, - just to be open minded.
You see it is almost like in religion; Sankt peter is watching the gate to heaven, only the orthodox can enter.
But mother cow is watching the gate to the scientific heaven. Only those that not are not brainwashed and humble can enter.
( why haven't I see you around – up there)

Ehrm ... *My hovercraft is full of eels*



Have a nice Christmas, Bjarne.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Ehrm ... *My hovercraft is full of eels*

Uhmm eel + parsley sauce, - moomf.

Have a nice Christmas, Bjarne.

Hans

Have a nice Christmas, - you too compatriot
And thank you for many wunderbar discussions this last year.
Without you and RC I would never thought about to make my new video very easy to understand. (anti-stubbornness).

Now take a look, it is probably not the last improvement, but don't worry it is worth to watch it anyway.

It is much better than the version from last week.

I mean it is a very compressed summary (4 minutes) off all we have discussed.

So here is my Christmas gift for you & RC and everybody else.
I am sure it will damage something deep inside (under the bunker concrete).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgAFUjfnSGg

 

[Paul]

It is much better than the version from last week.

Well, the spelling's definitely better.

I mean it is a very compressed summary (4 minutes) off all we have discussed.

If by "we have discussed" you mean "stuff I made up because I refuse to understand reality".

I am sure it will damage something deep inside

It certainly will if you believe any of it.

 

[Bjarne]

Good stuff Bjarne. You know though that time doesn't really tick slower? It's gravitational potential that changes. Or vacuum impedance if you prefer.

I am not sure I understand the point, - in a relative stronger gravitional field time is slower ( a clock is ticking slower).

I've used tension myself in a gravitational context, referring to the bowling-ball analogy, but actually it's a negative tension gradient, a pressure gradient. Stress-energy is the key, stress is directional pressure. And note that the path of photons bends because the tension/pressure gradient is there.

It is difficult even to imagine the nature of space. I don't think a framework where "pressure" is a property can be very coherent, in a way that for example both satisfied a deeper Newtonian as well as a deeper relativistic understanding.
Our understanding must form a synthesis from all the points of perspective, otherwise it doesn’t make sense. - I believe a stretching framework is very suitable; hence the tension must be an “elastic property” of space density. This is off course only words, but anyway words are all we have when it comes to a deeper understand than the present. I believe that “words” can take us a just little further, and just enough that for example the huge “dark energy mystery” can be understood.

Good stuff. If you look at an oceanic swell wave, that's where the surface of the ocean is "bent". But if this wave traversed a river mouth where there was a salinity gradient in the water, it wouldn't follow a straight path. It would veer a little towards the open ocean. In similar vein a photon doesn't follow a straight path when it traverses a region of space where there's a gradient in gravitational potential. The path is curved, and we talk of curved spacetime when referring to it.

Yes, but again I believe these "worlds" will always be too abstract. - When we remember the process where EM waves are created, such is (in my universe) only "noise" in the "space-density" - What we then meassure also depends how the "tension" of that density is from place to place (gravity). I have never tried to dig very much deeper in this, but it is an interesting area.

I think a better analogy is a wave going round in circles. After all, we can create an electron (and a positron) from a photon via pair production, and the electron exhibits spin angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment. And you can diffract an electron.

Excactly
A fish was a "stupid" example.
A whirlpool is much better.
There are already many theories / thesis using such anolagy. .

 

[Farsight]

I am not sure I understand the point, - in a relative stronger gravitional field time is slower ( a clock is ticking slower).

Yes, a clock is ticking slower, but all clocks clock up some form of regular motion. The simplest clock we use in relativity is the parallel-mirror light clock. When one is at a lower gravitational potential than the other, this is what's happening:

|----------------|
|----------------|

There's no actual time ticking here, just light moving.

It is difficult even to imagine the nature of space. I don't think a framework where "pressure" is a property can be very coherent, in a way that for example both satisfied a deeper Newtonian as well as a deeper relativistic understanding. Our understanding must form a synthesis from all the points of perspective, otherwise it doesn’t make sense. - I believe a stretching framework is very suitable; hence the tension must be an “elastic property” of space density.

Words like pressure, tension, and density aren't ideal when it comes to space, but you can get a ball-park picture by thinking of space as a block of ghostly transparent rubber. It has a tension quality, but is also under pressure. They nearly balance, if they didn't, space would explode outwards due to unmatched pressure, or shrivel rapidly pulled by unmatched tension. And it still has "elastic properties". In mechanics the velocity of a shear wave is given as v = √(G/ρ), where G the shear modulus of elasticity, and ρ is the density. In electrodynamics there's a somewhat similar expression c = √(1/ε₀μ₀). Now look at those two parallel-mirror light clocks above and note that vacuum impedance Z₀ = √(μ₀/ε₀). It isn't time ticking slower where gravitational potential is lower. The vacuum impedance is higher.

This is off course only words, but anyway words are all we have when it comes to a deeper understand than the present. I believe that “words” can take us a just little further, and just enough that for example the huge “dark energy mystery” can be understood.

Agreed.

Yes, but again I believe these "worlds" will always be too abstract. - When we remember the process where EM waves are created, such is (in my universe) only "noise" in the "space-density" - What we then meassure also depends how the "tension" of that density is from place to place (gravity). I have never tried to dig very much deeper in this, but it is an interesting area.

Energy is described in relativity via the stress-energy tensor (or more properly the stress-energy-momentum tensor). If you've got a concentration of energy it's pushing outwards in the rubber-block analogy rather than pulling inwards in the bowling-ball-on-the-rubber sheet analogy. The latter is back to front. But it's a rubber analogy in both cases, so tension still applies.

Exactly. A fish was a "stupid" example. A whirlpool is much better. There are already many theories / thesis using such anolagy.

Like Maxwell's electromagnetism. Look at the title he used. Pity he didn't know about the electron. Shame Thomson and Tait's work never caught on too. Such is life.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Have a nice Christmas, - you too compatriot

Thank you.

And thank you for many wunderbar discussions this last year.

De nada.

Now take a look, it is probably not the last improvement, but don't worry it is worth to watch it anyway.

It is much better than the version from last week.

I'm glad I didn't watch that one, then.

I mean it is a very compressed summary (4 minutes) off all we have discussed.

So here is my Christmas gift for you & RC and everybody else.
I am sure it will damage something deep inside (under the bunker concrete).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgAFUjfnSGg

It will deeply damage something, yes: Your reputation (what little you might have).

It is not only nonsense, but it contains a number of straight lies.

If you want to remove the lies, then every time you write "there is no evidence", you must change it to "I have not bothered to understand the evidence".

Also, the English is very bad, unless you are trying to impersonate Gollum.

However, you are not bad at making videos. I suggest you concentrate on that, as cosmology and physics are obviously not your 'thing'.

I'm sorry to be this harsh, but anything else would be dishonest.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I am not sure I understand the point, - in a relative stronger gravitional field time is slower ( a clock is ticking slower).


It is difficult even to imagine the nature of space. I don't think a framework where "pressure" is a property can be very coherent, in a way that for example both satisfied a deeper Newtonian as well as a deeper relativistic understanding.
Our understanding must form a synthesis from all the points of perspective, otherwise it doesn’t make sense. - I believe a stretching framework is very suitable; hence the tension must be an “elastic property” of space density. This is off course only words, but anyway words are all we have when it comes to a deeper understand than the present. I believe that “words” can take us a just little further, and just enough that for example the huge “dark energy mystery” can be understood.


Yes, but again I believe these "worlds" will always be too abstract. - When we remember the process where EM waves are created, such is (in my universe) only "noise" in the "space-density" - What we then meassure also depends how the "tension" of that density is from place to place (gravity). I have never tried to dig very much deeper in this, but it is an interesting area.


Excactly
A fish was a "stupid" example.
A whirlpool is much better.
There are already many theories / thesis using such anolagy. .

This is a strange phenomenon we have seen with other crackpots: The Grammar Fairie suddenly swoops, and instead of the usual pidgin, we suddenly get a well formulated, almost correctly spelled post.

Whatever you did (including having someone to help you), kindly take the same trouble with all your posts, Bjarne. That would make the conversation a little more sensible (and we sure could use that).

Hans

 

[Ziggurat]

Now look at those two parallel-mirror light clocks above and note that vacuum impedance Z₀ = √(μ₀/ε₀). It isn't time ticking slower where gravitational potential is lower. The vacuum impedance is higher.

You cannot simply declare that (μ₀/ε₀) changes and be done with the problem. μ₀ and ε₀ are specific to electromagnetism. But processes governed by nuclear forces will be slowed down just as much. Now, I suppose one might be able to formulate a model where this whole collection of constants all change in perfect sync with each other, but why bother? Why not treat it as if time itself slows down? Occam's razor favors time slowing down rather than all these other constants changing.

 

[Bjarne]

Words like pressure, tension, and density aren't ideal when it comes to space, but you can get a ball-park picture by thinking of space as a block of ghostly transparent rubber. It has a tension quality, but is also under pressure. They nearly balance, if they didn't, space would explode outwards due to unmatched pressure, or shrivel rapidly pulled by unmatched tension. And it still has "elastic properties". In mechanics the velocity of a shear wave is given as v = √(G/ρ), where G the shear modulus of elasticity, and ρ is the density. In electrodynamics there's a somewhat similar expression c = √(1/ε₀μ₀). Now look at those two parallel-mirror light clocks above and note that vacuum impedance Z₀ = √(μ₀/ε₀). It isn't time ticking slower where gravitational potential is lower. The vacuum impedance is higher.

Energy is described in relativity via the stress-energy tensor (or more properly the stress-energy-momentum tensor). If you've got a concentration of energy it's pushing outwards in the rubber-block analogy rather than pulling inwards in the bowling-ball-on-the-rubber sheet analogy. The latter is back to front. But it's a rubber analogy in both cases, so tension still applies.

Right, and this is why we expect; a gravitational wave as a result of dissolving matter.
The strong force prevents it to happen, but the history is much longer like this.
Because how is the deformation of space “held together” - is still an open question.

But how difficult can the answer be?
It can be no doubt that matter must exert tension on space.
Matter is really only a simply thing; whirlpools, (and not matter … as such) but energy “playing with space”, (if energy not should play with space , what then is left to play with ? )

It is the particle interaction with each other that creates the attraction (an hence matter) .
The strong force is the cause of the interaction and the interaction is the cause of the strong force.
The tension on space is only a side effect of this process, and that tension is gravity.

And yes matter in the universe should still explode, because where is the “anchor”, - something must counteract that tension that deformed space must be.
What is that something?
In the end of the day it can only be speed, - which mean without speed of matter there would be no strong force, no electromagnetic force and no gravity.
It is all part of the same process. The key for how this is possible is; relativistic resistance against motion, - this is the dynamo .

Think about mysterious (dark) speed of matter at the edge of the Universe?

Mysterious 'dark flow' at the edge of the universe
source http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41984

NEW EVIDENCE THAT MYSTERIOUS DARK FORCE FROM OUTSIDE TUGS AT OUR UNIVERSE
First came dark matter, the gravitational source from within our galaxy that astronomers couldn't see. Then came dark energy, the undetectable force pushing the expansion of the universe. Now, NASA scientists believe they have confirmed a new player, dubbed "dark flow," that is dragging hundreds of galaxies along the same path. Even stranger, the researchers believe that dark flow is actually the gravitational pull from matter beyond the edge of the known universe.
source http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...eyond-known-universe-tugging-visible-galaxies

"The clusters show a small but measurable velocity that is independent of the universe's expansion and does not change as distances increase," says lead researcher Dr Alexander Kashlinsky at Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Greenbelt, Maryland. "We never expected to find anything like this."
The astronomers detected bulk cluster motions of nearly two million miles per hour. The clusters are
Source http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...-lurking-beyond-the-edge-of-the-universe.html heading toward one spot in the sky.

At the edge of universe are several secrets buried. We will discover much more from out there, - and forced to re consider a lot - no doubt about it.
Gravity was stronger in the past ("remains" from a BigCrunch) so was speed. Evidence is just above our heads. We need a completely new understanding. – The old paradigm is sick .

 

[Paul]

For Bjarne, and those who might really be interested:

LHC: Higgs boson 'may have been glimpsed'

 

[steenkh]

For Bjarne, and those who might really be interested:

LHC: Higgs boson 'may have been glimpsed'

I predict that Bjarne will stick to his religious view that the Higg's boson does not exist, no matter what evidence will crop up.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Right, and this is why we expect; a gravitational wave as a result of dissolving matter.

How many times must I tell you that matter is not just dissolved?

Because how is the deformation of space “held together” - is still an open question.

It is not held together. Space is not a substance.

But how difficult can the answer be?

It can be quite difficult.

It can be no doubt that matter must exert tension on space.

Why?

Matter is really only a simply thing; whirlpools, (and not matter … as such) but energy “playing with space”, (if energy not should play with space , what then is left to play with ? )

Gibberish.

It is the particle interaction with each other that creates the attraction (an hence matter) .

This is at best empty talk. It is like saying that moving air creates wind.

The strong force is the cause of the interaction and the interaction is the cause of the strong force.

Both cannot be true. The effect cannot be the cause.

The tension on space is only a side effect of this process, and that tension is gravity.

And yes matter in the universe should still explode, because where is the “anchor”, - something must counteract that tension that deformed space must be.

Which tension?

What is that something?
In the end of the day it can only be speed, - which mean without speed of matter there would be no strong force, no electromagnetic force and no gravity.

How can speed do anything like that?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I predict that Bjarne will stick to his religious view that the Higg's boson does not exist, no matter what evidence will crop up.

Since Bjarne consistently and systematically ignores any evidence that contradicts his ideas, that is a good, if easy, guess.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

For Bjarne, and those who might really be interested:

LHC: Higgs boson 'may have been glimpsed'

And Santa Claus too

 

[Bjarne]

How many times must I tell you that matter is not just dissolved?
Hans

How many times shall I tell you that gravity is a side effect of the nuclear interaction - and that nuclears certainly that can dissolve ?

It is not held together. Space is not a substance

Hans what do you honestly know about; - the cause of deformed space ?.
How can you bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla about the process whereby space deforms, when you obviously know NOTHING about how it is caused.

I could accept this if you had a thesis or a idea, but you have NOTHING except bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla .
So how can you pretend you know whether deformed space is held together, or not held together..?

Why do you think that a gravitional waves moves ?
When the cause of deformed space (matter) ”dissolves" and space no longer can be held “deformed” a gravitionel wave is the result.
Even Jens Peter Jensen most sick cow knows that that such wave MOVES and dissolves.
Explain us what happens, - do you believe the gravitional wave is pushed forward, - or do you belive it moves because because it was “held” by a process you haven’t understood.

All you have; is what you believe, and this is the holy truth right ?
But objective you have absolutely NOTHING (as usual)

Cataclysmic cosmic events such as supernovae, colliding neutron stars and black holes, as well as more familiar objects such as rotating neutron stars (pulsars) are expected to emit gravitational waves
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Europe_Takes_Step_Toward_Detecting_Gravitational_Waves_999.html

 

[Paul]

And Santa Claus too

Obviously everyone was correct, Bjarne just wants to play the juvenile troll.