Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
No need to add something that isn't.
Just as good as using a god to explain anything.
Paul
Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.
- Thread starter Bjarne
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dark energy
- Status
No need to add something that isn't.
Just as good as using a god to explain anything.
Paul
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Ah, the 'shifting the burden of proof' trick which is so well known from the woo crowd.
No Bjarne, you have not supported your poorly defined ideas with any facts or non-fantasy evidence whatsoever.
It is up to you to provide evidence for your claims.
If you are incapable of convincing a critical crowd of your poorly defined ideas (which you are), then it's your responsibility to try and change that.
Acting like a childish clown won't help you one bit at all.
Last edited:
Ok, what does this new definition of aether have to do with space?
The rest of the post is not even worth bothering with.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Ah, so bread is made of 'aether'.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
”Aether” is a bad expression, because it is associated with a classic concept.
This is why I haven’t used it before.
Today as well as in the last centuries there are reasons to consider that space not is nothing.
We have assign space with a properties, - e.g; curvature of space.
Furthermore we know space somehow is connected to matter,- you can truly say and understand that space somehow must be woven in to matter or opposite.
To continue trying to get a coherent impression of what space is, you do know (at least) that acceleration of matter through space is not resistance free.
You should know that matter “as such” does not exist.
Matter is only a temporary reality, creating itself and dissolving in split second.
If you cannot come to a coherent impression of what space and matter then possible can be, except nothing, then you have only your own imagination to blame, because this is all what is left if we want to at least try to understand the nature of what is left; - which mean space, and the properties of space.
So space MUST be “something” that both can create matter and in that process curves space.
It is up to you to get the best understanding out of this naked truth.
Now back to the point.
Imagine that I live in a reality where time is ticking 10 times slower as yours. –“Between” our realties there are realities where time is ticking only 1 – 2 – 3 etc… times slower.
Speed of these “worlds” could be extreme, seen from an outsider.
An outsider could seen from a larger perspective be in rest relative to these reference frames.
He would understand that the reason to all these difference worlds were what he would say is speed, seen from his perspective.
He would conclude that the faster an object (you) moves, the more are both your time and reality is deformed.
Let us say the outsider and you live on 2 exact same size planets.
Let say a trip round the planets takes 24 hours, and the exact same for the outsider, - but when you compare the time it took you, to the time it took the outside to complete 1 orbit, - based on your definition of 1 second and 1 meter, - the outsider would have completed 1 orbit 10 times faster.
This should show you that even if you both can say “c” is the same for us both, - “c” would not be so when you compare time / distance definitions, but only when you compare what you both have achieve.
So this must show that there always is at least a “larger time / distance perspective”
Whether you in the end of the day can imagine an absolute reference frame is not important, you can always chose to see an event both as a relative limit event, and in such a large perspective you can imaging.
So what is your problem?
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Expressions like "we know", "this must", "this should" etcetera, do not provide evidence.
You write these expressions from your believe in your fantasy trip where you imagine all kinds of things. They also show that you are childishly naive in how you think others will look at your imaginations.
The pulp that you put these expressions in front of, makes them completely worthless.
You write these expressions from your believe in your fantasy trip where you imagine all kinds of things. They also show that you are childishly naive in how you think others will look at your imaginations.
The pulp that you put these expressions in front of, makes them completely worthless.
We're still at that exact same point.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
I do not imaging "things" -and belive these are really things, - you do
"Things" only exist temporary; these appear and disappear so fast that you believe these are real.
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
Max Planck
Only until you tell me which differences there would be between 2 different space time realities, - if you could jump between them and see the difference.
Would there bee some compareable difference between "things"?
Would there bee some compareable difference between "seconds"?
Would there bee some compareable difference between "rulers"?
Would there bee some compareable difference between "realities"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc&context=C3315f7eADOEgsToPDskJ8g4KC2guYel5tPoWf7Xy6
Last edited:
Then stop using it; at least pretend to think before you post.
Why did you start using it now?
Try looking up the appropriate definitions of space.
So?
Nope, it's still spacetime.
I know you either refuse to or can't accept this, but space and spacetime are not the same.
You can, and do, say that. A lot. Without any justification.
Just not in the way you want to pretend.
Stupid word games do not help.
It's funny, because you have a wild imagination but absolutely no ability to construct coherent ideas about science.
No.
No it isn't.
When you say 'back to the point', it is a good idea to return to the point of the argument, not to engage in more wild flights of pointless ignorant fantasy.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Bolding and references by Daylightstar.
1 Yes you do. There is ample evidence for that in this thread.
2 Please stop being childish!
3 Here you add the imagination of someone else to your own. This also is not evidence but a poor attempt at an evidence free appeal to authority.
4 No Bjarne, I have to tell you no such thing. You are the one who has to provide proper evidence for your claims.
As noted earlier, we're still at that exact same point.
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes
Master Poster
If this is true, why are you still here? Shouldn't you have already "dissolved"?
You haven't provided any proof. Like you've already said:
Is it because my dragon that lives in my garage ate it all?
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
History is important; it shows that not only cows have wondered what space possible could be about.
History shows how we understand nature step by step. - The first step of understanding space is important and always will.
You can’t separate
It is simple math, that when time is different, realities must be too.
Think about the laws of nature must be the same.
And now try you to imaging how that possible can be possible.
Right, - speed is most likely at the end of the day maybe that what keeps things together. This is why I am here.
I will.
I will prove RR exist, thereby we are forced also to understand, more about how space and matter possible can be connected, - how matter and space interacts, - the cause and the ultimate cause of gravity, - space density and much more
It will open the main door to the most basic understanding of nature, and hence also provide a much more coherent picture, - a new framework, - contribute to reestablish what soon will be gone due to the total crash of the standard model very soon will be a fact, - and much more….
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
It also shows they were wrong, so aether has no place in this discussion.
Then why don't you use Babylonian classical elements?
You can. Quite easily. One, in this context, is the hard vacuum between celestial bodies and the other is a mathematical model.
Have you spotted the problem yet?
Are you planning on starting anytime soon?
You forgot to add MUAHAHAHA!
It's nice to hear somebody say that. I get hacked off with people thinking curved spacetime is curved space. Even physicists make this mistake, as epitomized by Wheeler's "Matter tells space how to curve. Space tells matter how to move". A gravitational field is described as curved spacetime, but what that really is is curvilinear motion through space.
But do note that space isn't nothing. It sustains waves and fields.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
What exactly do you mean by 'sustain'? You may as well say that it sustains rocks, as they too can move though space. This does not imply that space is some sort of medium; it may as well be the absence any medium.
Matter propagates without loss through space, without any apparent interaction with any medium, I'm not aware of any reason to assume that this should be different for energy.
Hans
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
Ohhh yehhh now I see
And the third is how cows see it, the fourth how fools see it etc..
Any time
Anyone that can program and knows what to program, and will to do the job, can start doing the job.
No, - only certain expatiations was wrong.
The concept that space must be “something” – some kind of “substance” responsible for known properties of space, - is still valid, also even though c is the “same” for all observers, - simply because "the same speed" (c) is only proportional to a local reality, but can't be comparable the same.
That “something” seems to be woven into everything, whereby space "aether" is not only “something" – but rather the substance of everything, even included energy and EM waves.
So “aether” is rather one big pot of soup, able to create different realities, that all looks the same, even though these are comparable different.
Nature is much stranger as we can imagine. Even the process of observation is woven into this strange everything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc&context=C3315f7eADOEgsToPDskJ8g4KC2guYel5tPoWf7Xy6
Daylightstar
Philosopher
No you won't.
You don't even have a theory to prove.
You have clearly shown that you lack the cognitive ability to understand science, let alone the cognitive ability to form a scientific theory.
It will simply not happen with you.
In fact, your opinion about science can readily be dismissed as inconsequential.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Well, here you clearly demonstrate how ignorant you are that you don't understand what observation in the relevant scientific context means.
Let me give you a hint....it does not mean "looking at".
Science is clearly not your thing, Bjarne.
I very much doubt that.
As if to prove me right you make another incredibly stupid post.
Really?
Ah, I see. By anytime, you meant 'no, because I have none of the required abilities and as usual I expect others to do all the work for me'.
Only if you insist on redefining aether to fit something you can't even describe.
Well isn't that terribly convenient.
You seem to be giving it a pretty good run for its money.
Holds and/or supports.
And sometimes they don't move straight. When they don't, we say there's a field in that space. People tend to think of the field as something separate to the space, but they shouldn't. In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein described the gravitational field as inhomogeneous space. A field is where the properties of space are not uniform and isotropic. If they were, the rock would fly straight. This is worth a read.
It isn't a medium in the usual sense. But waves do move through it, and we can create electrons and positrons out of them, as per pair production. Then we can fiddle around with particles and make a rock. Rock is a medium. It's made out of matter. But the wave nature of matter is definite - you can diffract neutrons and buckyballs. So a medium is just a bunch of waves in space anyway.
And I'm not aware of any reason to assume that at the fundamental level space is any different to energy. Sounds unfamiliar I know, but take a look a LIGO. See the bit that says gravitational energy ripples throughout the universe.They're hoping to detect a length change. So this gravitational energy is a bulge in space passing through.
Anyway, don't be too skeptical of "aether". Yes it's a dirty word, but things like "the vacuum" or "quintessence" aren't that different. Nor is the Higgs substance.
- Status