Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Daylightstar]

...
But do note that space isn't nothing. It sustains waves and fields.

What exactly do you mean by 'sustain'? ...

Holds and/or supports.
...

How exactly do you think space holds and/or supports waves and fields?
Wires? Glue? Nails? Screws? Scaffolding?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Holds and/or supports.

No. At best, we can sat that space lets radiation and fields pass.

And sometimes they don't move straight. When they don't, we say there's a field in that space.

The effect is due to the field, not space.

People tend to think of the field as something separate to the space, but they shouldn't.

Why not?

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.

So you have something a bit more recent? Or do you have an example where there is a field, without a source that is distinct from space?

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.

Gibberish.

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.

Space is not a necessary component. There is no evidence that space interacts with anything at all. Such evidence may be forthcoming, but currently, it is not there.

Hans

 

[Farsight]

How exactly do you think space holds and/or supports waves and fields? Wires? Glue? Nails? Screws? Scaffolding?

Via an elastic response. For example a gravitomagnetic field is a torsion field. Check it out. Tensors came from elasticity, see wiki. I'm not kidding you about this. Do your own research.

 

[mike3]

⁴ No Bjarne, I have to tell you no such thing. You are the one who has to provide proper evidence for your claims.

He doesn't appear to be asking for evidence but for more explanation of your views. Could you give the explanation to me, as I myself am curious?

 

[Paul]

Do your own research.

Oh dear...

 

[Farsight]

No. At best, we can sat that space lets radiation and fields pass.

Yes. Read what Einstein said:

"...the recognition of the fact that "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials...)

A gravitational field is a region of inhomogeneous space. That's what it is. When a wave goes through it, the path of that wave bends. And that wave might be a gravitational wave. Which is a wave of... inhomogeneous space.

The effect is due to the field, not space.

The field is inhomogeneous space.

Why not?

Because you can't separate the field from the space. It's the state of space.

So you have something a bit more recent? Or do you have an example where there is a field, without a source that is distinct from space?

Go look on arXiv at gravitational aether.

Gibberish.

No it isn't. Read up on neutron diffraction or proton diffraction or the wave nature of mnatter.

Space is not a necessary component. There is no evidence that space interacts with anything at all. Such evidence may be forthcoming, but currently, it is not there.

Space bends light. Or makes a gyroscope precess. Or makes an electron go round in circles. It isn't some magical mysterious action at a distance doing it. The altered motion occurs because the space around the object isn't homogeneous. And when it does occur, we say there's a field in that space. But wave your hand around in it. It's just space. Now go and do some research of your own and think it through for yourself.

 

[Paul]

He doesn't appear to be asking for evidence but for more explanation of your views.

It doesn't really matter what he is asking, or what he thinks he is asking, as it concerns a different reality. A different reality has, by definition, nothing to do with the conditions in this reality.

Could you give the explanation to me, as I myself am curious?

You want someone to explain the differences in a theoretical different reality?

 

[Toke]

Oh dear...

Come on, that is a perfectly valid statement on any freeman sit.... oops.

 

[Farsight]

Oh dear...

Oh yes. Do your own research. The alternative is letting other people do your thinking for you, believing everything in your good book, and dismissing any evidence or logic that challenges what you've been taught.

 

[Paul]

Yes. Read what Einstein said

You mean read what Einstein said when it supports your position.

Unless, of course, you're going to play the tired semantic argument again.


Do you remember being shown this in 2009, after trying the same thing at UKSkeptics?

Even the great Einstein made mistakes - he admitted so himself in 1938

"All our attempts to make ether real failed. It revealed neither its mechanical construction nor absolute motion. Nothing remained of all the properties of the ether except that for which it was invented, i.e., its ability to transmit electromagnetic waves. Our attempts to discover the properties of the ether led to difficulties and contradictions. After such bad experiences, this is the moment to forget the ether completely and to try never to mention its name."
(The Evolution of Physics Einstein 1938)

Now, if you want to argue your own pet ideas, kindly do so back in your own thread.

 

[Daylightstar]

Via an elastic response. ... Do your own research.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in papers about gravitomagnetism that links it to your "space holding and/or supporting waves and fields" in their propagation through space.

You'll have to detail your 'elastic response'.

 

[Daylightstar]

He doesn't appear to be asking for evidence but for more explanation of your views. Could you give the explanation to me, as I myself am curious?

No, Bjarne appears to be playing a carrot and stick game. In response ⁴ I am indicating that I'm not playing that infantile game.
But the explanation was there already. When you run into a period, you might want to check whether it is followed by another sentence.

I hope this has been helpful for your understanding the point of view expressed in ⁴.

 

[Bjarne]

Mike wrote
He doesn't appear to be asking for evidence but for more explanation of your views. Could you give the explanation to me, as I myself am curious?

Daylightstar Wrote:
No, Bjarne appears to be playing a carrot and stick game. In response ⁴ I am indicating that I'm not playing that infantile game.
But the explanation was there already. When you run into a period, you might want to check whether it is followed by another sentence.

I hope this has been helpful for your understanding the point of view expressed in ⁴.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.
It is important to understand that there is no certain reality.
Even here on the planet reality is just not "out there" - but different and determined by different tension of space.

Let's assume the solar system was heading straight into a black hole, and hence accelerating.
Which differences would we now notice,- due to increasing gravity?

It will still take the same time to orbit the sun, - but time would tick slower ( if all laws of nature still must be the same) .

This mean everything else also must be stretching too (propotional with 1 second) , - whereby 1 second now, - compared to yesterday is longer / slower .

If you do not agree to that version, then tell us what are the differences between realities you would see if we pretend you could jump between realities of today and yesterday and see the differences?
It is impossible that only time is ticking different.
Something more must happen.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Via an elastic response. For example a gravitomagnetic field is a torsion field. Check it out. Tensors came from elasticity, see wiki. I'm not kidding you about this. Do your own research.

Please explain how this supports your claim.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

A gravitational field is a region of inhomogeneous space. That's what it is. When a wave goes through it, the path of that wave bends. And that wave might be a gravitational wave. Which is a wave of... inhomogeneous space.

The field is inhomogeneous space.

Because you can't separate the field from the space. It's the state of space.

You are playing with semantics. Every time we subtract any of these effects from the equation, we end up with zero. You can claim that space is a part of it, but it does not make any difference.

Now go and do some research of your own and think it through for yourself.

No. You make the claim, you provide the specific evidence.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Wrong. Imagination is very important, but without knowledge it is useless. Fantasy without knowledge is just idle speculation.

It is important to understand that there is no certain reality.

Even if we accept that, it does not mean you can substitute it with pure fantasy.

Something more must happen.

And science is trying hard to find out what. You should study it sometime.

Hans

 

[Daylightstar]

...
You write these expressions from your believe in your fantasy trip where you imagine all kinds of things. ...

I do not imaging "things" -and belive these are really things...

Imagination is more important than knowledge....

See how dishonest you are, Bjarne?

For you imagination is more important because you can create that out of nowhere.
Knowledge however, appears unobtainable for you.

 

[Daylightstar]

...

Let's assume the solar system was heading straight into a black hole, and hence accelerating.
Which differences would we now notice,- due to increasing gravity?...

No, let's not assume such a thing for someone (you) who at the same time of his request, shows to have no knowledge whatsoever.

The word 'must' is used three times in your knowledgeless post.
No one and nothing 'must' anything because you as an uneducated crackpot says so.

...
If you do not agree to that version, then tell us ...

The shifting of burden of proof again.
No Bjarne, we have to tell you no such thing, you have to provide evidence for your claims.
But all you give are your imaginations.

... you have not supported your poorly defined ideas with any facts or non-fantasy evidence whatsoever.
...

As noted earlier, we're still at that exact same point.

 

[MRC_Hans]

As noted earlier, we're still at that exact same point.

As we have been for a couple of years, now.

This parrot wouldn't WOOM if you .........


Hans

 

[Daylightstar]

What isn't in there can't come out, ever.