Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

Yes.
Bjarne...
my question was quite deliberate...
thinking of say SR and GR as purely mathematical theories (stay with me here)...what is the requirement (as you stated) for density in order to define[/B curvature? mathematically that is.. what is the requirement in mathematics or the relationship in mathematics whereby curvature of a given 'space' or 'spacetime' is inherently reliant upon density?
I suppose I am asking what a lot of others have already.. where is your rigorous formulation in mathematics in order that the theory can be tested and compared to existing ones... so that instead of 'handwaving' ideas it can be formally and clearly matched against observations?
Generally speaking, in modern physics, without that sound background anybody would be free to say almost anything and get away with any old rubbish.
It is not a conspiracy against those poor at maths, merely a way of defining clearly your theories predications so that they can be tested against observation.
So...
Please show me, in your favourite theory, the mathematical link between density and curvature...
(it may help to define curvature first, and indeed density).

Replacing the expression “curvature” with “space-density” is not the answer of everything, the new expression is only replaced to allow your imagination to follow a main thread, and hence hence follow "gravity" into different aspect of science.

For example, if you understand that matter is absorbed space, it is easy as a consequence to get a much better impression of what is then the consequences of that “gravity is lost” – which mean when matter is losing its ability to keep space absorbed.

Furthermore it allows you to understand why there is resistance against motion (both against acceleration as well against constant speed). This will automatically solves “mysteries” such as the missing link to fully understanding ice ages, and all kind of space probes anomalies.

The main thread also leads you to the simple conclusion that space (gravity) already is a flexible property whereby the unnecessary invention (a repulsive force) so called dark matter , not is necessary, the property is already included in general relativity, (but far so dramatical) so why invent it again.

I have never claimed that I have all the answers, still I wonder a lot, for example why the mass of a galaxy (etc) is proportional with a magnitude of a black hole; - and that there are no certain reality (but a lot), - and much more.

The problem to answer your question and calculate the density is maybe that there are much larger surprises waiting to be discovered.

I mean you have often hear about fantasy multi dimension, but maybe the final understanding when it comes to gravity must basically be understood in a 2 D perspective, - this is at least how gravity density seems to work according to the inwards square law, - since the magnitude is decreasing as a result of the inwards square, and not as a result of cube.

Even to begin to speculate in such 2 D direction seems of course to be crazy, - but quantum physics learn us long ago, that this is what we shall expect.

I ‘am not saying that the third dimension or the fourth not count of course these does, but I am saying that everything seems in the end so strange that our understanding simply cannot follow.

I would not be surprised when also, - the way we observe reality, - one day is included (much more) - also this is in fact only basically a 2 D reality.
The third, - the depth of space / distances is not something you’re directly “observes” but something you learned so good that you have forgotten that your own reality basically only is 2D.
A child have to learn that there is 3 meter to the wall etc,

Think about the fact that there are no certain realities “out there” – but the environment you live (speed and gravity) is decisive for “which” (of plenty) realities you would see .

So we can't say the reality is exactly like “that” , - you too and your environment is important too.

I mean almost like the 3D is an illusion that even also a computer can simulate. – But well this was just a crazy thought. I know this was "too much" but I hope not so much too much as for example the parallel Universe etc.. We must be open for all possibilities, also the most "insane".

I am optimistic; step by step in the future I am sure there will come more strange things we have to accept, as it was when GR/Gr and quantum physic was introduced. This was only the beginning.

Just so that I do not misunderstand you, can you define what you understand by "spin" of a particle?

I wrote this several years ago > http://www.science27.com/english/quantum_physics.html
Also check this http://www.phy.ohiou.edu/~elster/research/dspin.html

 

[Daylightstar]

...
I have never claimed that I have all the answers, ...

I beg to differ:

You cannot explain any gravity phenomena without involve space, - can you ?
But the problem is only that "we" are not use to think about how this is possible.

A such philosophic framework must in all it s simplicity be able to explain both

• The cause of Mass attraction
• What is a Gravity Wave
• The Cause of Acceleration Due to Gravity
• How can matter affect space in a way that all this is possible?
• How is the property compared /relative to the property of expanding space?

The new theory can explain all that
Whether you can accept is or not doesn’t mean the thought is wrong, especially not when you have nothing to replace it.

...
This could explain that the Earth really is expanding
...
But it could also explain what so called dark energy really is.
...

^{Bolding by Daylightstar}
to name a few examples.
Looks like you're lying, Bjarne.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
I have never claimed that I have all the answers, ...

And how about this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7429174&postcount=4033 (bottom of post from: "The alternative thesis I represent")

...
The alternative thesis I represent:

1. Do not conflict with science itself, (so like the expanding space thesis does on 2 large areas).
2. It can explain why BigBang happened, based on well knowb simple science, - - which your religion cannot.
3. It can explain / comprehend / and solve all gravity mysteries; such as what is the curvature of space REALLY, what is dark matter REALLY what is dark energy REALLY.
4. It can form a beautiful syntheses which give you a perfect coherent Universe, without billion of ton of dark this and that (rubbish), - no one knows where to bury.

Again, looks like you're lying, Bjarne.

 

[Daylightstar]

It should be noted that Bjarne does not actually have a thesis.

 

[Reality Check]

You can find plenty of professional scientists with the exact opposite opinion. Here is a opinion from a lector from Niels Bohr institute.
...
So dear RC ...incoherent rant snipped...

And once again you show that you cannot understand what you read.
The facts are that the LHC results are that a Higgs boson has possibly been detected (statistical significance of 2.3 to 3 sigmas depending on the experiment and analysis). That means that there is ~90% chance that the Higgs boson has been found.
Few scientists think that the Higgs has actually been found. The criteria for this is 5 sigmas.

Sleeping with the Higgs states that the Higgs boson is likely to have been detected.
The Niels Bohr institute "lector" does not state the opposite opinion (that the Higgs boson is unlikely to have been detected).

He states what everyone is stating

1. The Higgs has possibly been found.
2. More data needs to be collected before this matches the criteria accepted for the discovery of a new particle.

He emphasizes that the results come in today, neither would confirm nor deny whether there is a Higgs in the researchers' data. Physicists have simply not enough data. But they can unveil some signals that may point towards something interesting.
"We can not yet say that we have found the Higgs particle - we have some strict requirements on how significant our results must be before we can say with certainty that it is a discovery. It is necessary, otherwise we may be accused of crying wolf too much, "he says.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
I have never claimed that I have all the answers, ...

And from your own site:
http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html
The fact that RR also applies to constant speed, make it possible to explain;
the cause of the Pioneer Anomalies,
the cause of accelerating space probes anomalies.
how solar systems was created
why stars continue to circle inwards to the black holes of galaxies; reference here.
the cause of a BigCrunch and a BigBang
The cause of Ice ages.
and much more

You appear to believe you have all the answers ....

 

[Reality Check]

For example, if you understand that matter is absorbed space, ...

Bjarne, you do not understand that "matter is absorbed space" is gibberish as is most of that post.

You reveal more ignorance with the link to your web site, e.g. we know exactly what a gravitational wave is made of: spacetime.

The web page is just more of your gibberish, e.g. thinking that spin is gravity.

 

[Daylightstar]

...link
The web page is just more of your gibberish, e.g. thinking that spin is gravity.

^{Bolding by Daylightstar}
From that page:

What we see is really that space 'plays' with itself.

When Bjarne really sees that space 'plays' with itself, Bjarne's head spins and he gravitates towards the back end of a cow.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7854745&postcount=5074
No wonder he's in such a state.

 

[Paul]

I think it's worth pointing out at this point, that a quick look on the Niels Bohr Institute website gives the lie to Bjarne's obsession with closed-minded science orthodoxy:

The misrepresented Jørgen Beck Hansen, an associate professor at the Niels Bohr Institute who has worked at CERN and who gets money through the Danish government, lists physics beyond the standard model as a primary research area and is currently researching new physics beyond the standard model, in particular Higgsless and gravity inspired models.

 

[MRC_Hans]

For example, if you understand that matter is absorbed space, it is easy as a consequence to get a much better impression of what is then the consequences of that “gravity is lost” – which mean when matter is losing its ability to keep space absorbed.

However, gravity is not lost. Regardless of your fantasies, reality is that matter does not loose its gravity.

Furthermore it allows you to understand why there is resistance against motion (both against acceleration as well against constant speed).

Regardless of your fantasies, reality is that there is no resistance against motion. Neither during acceleration, nor constant speed. This is an observable fact. There is inertia, but we know the reason for that.

This will automatically solves “mysteries” such as the missing link to fully understanding ice ages, and all kind of space probes anomalies.

Another fantasy, and even in your fantasy world it, is wrong: Your fantasy physics do not explain these things.

maybe the final understanding when it comes to gravity must basically be understood in a 2 D perspective, - this is at least how gravity density seems to work according to the inwards square law, - since the magnitude is decreasing as a result of the inwards square, and not as a result of cube.

Inverse, not inwards. It is the cube, because it follows the area of he sphere, not the volume. - Pretty easy to understand, for most.

I ‘am not saying that the third dimension or the fourth not count of course these does, but I am saying that everything seems in the end so strange that our understanding simply cannot follow.

YOUR knowledge cannot follow. Nobody else seems to have a problem.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Inverse, not inwards. It is the cube, because it follows the area of he sphere, not the volume. - Pretty easy to understand, for most.

I am busy so I will only answer this, this morning

No equation reflecting the laws of nature is based on the cube, but always based on the square.

• The energy law E=mc^2
• Lorenz Transformation (v^2/c^2 )
• All Newtonian en Keplerian laws of gravity is also base on ^2
• Nowhere you see any mathematical laws describing the law of the universe as, - cube - ^3

Think about that you can jump between different space-time-realities in very short time, - for example when falling down from a mountain or aircraft, - in second you reality has change.

And my friend this mean in seconds the universe and even time is no longer the same.

Look at your own reality right now, - you do see the Universe “out there” .
But your space-time reality can change within a split second, and so does everything.

This mean the universe “out there” is changing every day, depending on local gravity and speed where you are right now.

For example if you are onboard of an aircraft etc. – the universe is simply different comparable to what it was just before take of. – Because now is gravity different (and speed).

BUT there is a dilemma here, and that is that the universe “out there” impossible can change so fast as you can change the space time reality you live in.

Changing the “density” or “deformation” of the universes can only happen with the speed of light, that is much too slow compared to how fast you can change the reality of the univse you live in.

As mentioned you can change the whole universes (the way laws of nature allow you to see it) in a split second.

So now you can speculate whether the local laws of nature is some kind of “filter” and the reel universe “on the other side” - No this sound stupid right.

So WHAT then ?

WHAT is reality?

As you should be able to see, - the universe / reality can't be “out there” but rather “in there”, in your own local environment.

The universe / reality seem to be “an optical illusion” determinated by the local laws of nature just there where you are right now.

In other words, when your reality can change (and does so) within a split-second, there is NOT time enough for the universe “out there” to do the same. Because it would take billion of years, which then must mean there aree NO MATHEMATICAL LAW OF NATURE THAT CAN COMPREHEND THE THIRD DIMENTION.

Furthermore your reality and my (let’s say I live on the Moon) – can’t be the same, - these must contradict each other.

And my friend THIS seems to be what the entire math we have seems to demonstrate.

But well I know it, I have just smashed your "reality", - this is forbidden, - but what I just wrote is still a FACT.

We have to think total differently when realities “out there” and “right here” shall be understood.

We have the entire math but it is too crazy to understand what is really seems to tell us,.
What it seems to tell us is that , - the attemp to understand the laws of nature , - the third dimension cannot be comprehended by math.
The third dimention is therefore only real because we locally make it real in the way we are allowed to observe the reality LOCALLY.

So shortly spoken, Mat CAN only be 2D, the 3D follows as a consequences of what is dictated as a basic 2D reality.

I know this sound much too much for you and all other, - BUT this is how nature seems to work. Better get used to it.

It seems to be no mathematical space / possibility for a universal third dimension
If it was , there would be billion of contradictions, - since plenty realities cannot reflect ONE and the same reality.
There MUST be a flexible common denominator and this is that the third dimension mathematical MUST GO

I am looking out of my window now. I do see a car out there on the parking area. - If you would see it from the same position, but your reality would be 50% comparable different, it would be a 50% comparable completely different universe.
Do you understand this?

This makes a universal basic mathematical 3D dimension impossible

 

[MRC_Hans]

I am busy so I will only answer this, this morning

No equation reflecting the laws of nature is based on the cube, but always the square.

Wrong.

• The energy law E=mc^2
• Lorenz Transformation (v^2/c^2 )
• All Newtonian en Keplerian laws of gravity is also base on ^2
• Nowhere you see any mathematical laws describing the law of the universe as, - cube - ^3

In 3 dimensions, the volume inside a sphere (that is, the volume of a ball) is given by the formula

Oh Bjarne, will you never start thinking?

This mean the universe “out there” is changing every day, depending on local gravity and speed where you are right now.

For example if you are onboard of an aircraft etc. – the universe is simply different comparable to what it was just before take of. – Because now is gravity different (and speed).

This is nonsense. The reality is the same, it just looks different from different places. A house looks in one way from the inside, and in a different way from the outside, but it is the same house, the same reality.

Because it would take billion of years, which then must mean there aree NO MATHEMATICAL LAW OF NATURE THAT CAN COMPREHEND THE THIRD DIMENTION.

Bjarne, do you even know what 'dimension' means? Because if you do, you can't be serious.

Furthermore your reality and my (let’s say I live on the Moon) – can’t be the same, - these must contradict each other.

Nonsense. Total and unadulterated nonsense. They are the same realities, and there are no contradictions.

And my friend THIS seems to be what the entire math we have seems to demonstrate.

Bjarne, you don't even understand simple math, so how would you know?

But well I know it, I have just smashed your "reality", - this is forbidden, - but what I just wrote is still a FACT.

Nonsense. Bjarne, you are just rambling. Stop, relax, and try to think.

This makes a universal basic mathematical 3D dimension impossible

Bjarne, how big is the fuel tank in your car?

Please state the value as a 2D value.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Wrong.

In 3 dimensions, the volume inside a sphere (that is, the volume of a ball) is given by the formula

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/e/6/7/e678db0137d57dddf5d66f02a6fdf4ef.png[/qimg]

Oh Bjarne, will you never start thinking?

As expected you didn’t got the point.
I do not mean how to calculate the volume of a ball, but whether mathematically laws of reality, - which mean space-time or gravity, - are treated as 2D or 3D realities.

This is nonsense. The reality is the same, it just looks different from different places. A house looks in one way from the inside, and in a different way from the outside, but it is the same house, the same reality.

No it is not only a question of how realities "looks" but how these are.

Nonsense. Total and unadulterated nonsense. They are the same realities, and there are no contradictions.

They are NOT the same. They looks the same, but comparable they are different.

 

[DazzaD]

Ok.. seen a tincy bit of maths and it is enough for me to conclude, for now, unless he can produce something more rigorous, that he doesnt even have a sound of level of mathematics and physics and 'reality' as my year 11 class I taught today (bottom set year 11 doing area, volume, dimensions and units.. perhaps they can explain to him about 2D and 3D mathematics).

As for the statement that 'no law in nature relies upon a cube of a property' that is just laughable in the extreme and demonstrates an incredible lack of willingness to understand some rather basic principles.

I would look forward to engaging you more Bjarne if you can clarify the above with more mathematics... not words.. not handwaving.. but maths...please....

And you have not even attempted to answer my question about what you have as a definition of curvature (mathematical definition)...

 

[Reality Check]

As expected you didn’t got the point.
I do not mean how to calculate the volume of a ball, but whether mathematically laws of reality, - which mean space-time or gravity, - are treated as 2D or 3D realities.

As expected you seem to be ignorant that we exist in a 4D reality (length, width, height and tme) and that science is the process of describing that reality. The laws of physics describe that 4D reality (sometimes omitting time).

You are ignorant of the Newtonian law of gravity (F=gMm/r^2) where r is the radial distance between the 2 masses. This is calculated in a 3-dimensional space.

 

[Bjarne]

Ok.. seen a tincy bit of maths and it is enough for me to conclude, for now, unless he can produce something more rigorous, that he doesnt even have a sound of level of mathematics and physics and 'reality' as my year 11 class I taught today (bottom set year 11 doing area, volume, dimensions and units.. perhaps they can explain to him about 2D and 3D mathematics).

As for the statement that 'no law in nature relies upon a cube of a property' that is just laughable in the extreme and demonstrates an incredible lack of willingness to understand some rather basic principles.

I would look forward to engaging you more Bjarne if you can clarify the above with more mathematics... not words.. not handwaving.. but maths...please....

And you have not even attempted to answer my question about what you have as a definition of curvature (mathematical definition)...

You don't need new math, but only to understand what already exist.
What I am trying to say is: that it is not enough to understand what for example gravity does, but rather whether you can get a deeper and more coherent understanding of what it is.

What is the underlying (deeper) understanding of :

• The energy law E=mc^2
• Lorenz Transformation (v^2/c^2 )
• All Newtonian en Keplerian laws of gravity is also base on ^2

Nowhere you see any mathematical laws describing the law of the universe / realities as, - cube - ^3, - but only as ^2

WHY ?
Tell us WHY ?

You don't need new or more math, but rather to understand the meaning with the already existing

And therefore now you need WORDS / understanding of the mathematical language that already is on the blackboard.

I am not sure that math regarding these questions can take us further, I believe better coherent understanding can, - but I am 200 % sure that the higgs religion can't

Notice I am not changing a lot, but almost only extending the range of a possible understanding of what you already know (or should know), - and off course skipping the junk that doesn’t belong to science.

The concept; curvature of space is the same as “stretching / absorbed space, but the understanding possibilities are "a bit" different, at the same time you get the possibility to follow a main thread, that really forms a synthesis whereby gravity mysteries and even the holy big bang all seems to be unnecessary .

The question is off course, can we get futher on that path ?
Yes we can, the day you, mother cow, or someone else have cracked the code , why the already known math always is so strange, when it comes to reality / realities ?
This is something you se everywhere in physic.
Can we crack these codes, - or just some few ? - not by using more math, but understanding the language that already is there?
Got that ?

Not ?

Ok then try this

As dizzying as it may sound, the impression that we are living in a 3D world is actually a continuous fabrication of our brains..........
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-12-insights-brain-reconstructs-dimension.html

 

[DazzaD]

You don't need new math, but only to understand what already exist.
What I am trying to say is: that it is not enough to understand what for example gravity does, but rather whether you can get a deeper and more coherent understanding of what it is.

What is the underlying (deeper) understanding of :

• The energy law E=mc^2
• Lorenz Transformation (v^2/c^2 )
• All Newtonian en Keplerian laws of gravity is also base on ^2

Nowhere you see any mathematical laws describing the law of the universe / realities as, - cube - ^3, - but only as ^2

WHY ?
Tell us WHY ?

You don't need new or more math, but rather to understand the meaning with the already existing


The concept; curvature of space is the same as “stretching / absorbed space, but the understanding possibilities are "a bit" different, at the same time you get the possibility to follow a main thread, that really forms a synthesis whereby gravity mysteries and even the holy big bang all seems to be unnecessary .

I dont want new maths.. I want your maths.. YOUR maths...you are still feigning ignorance of the fact that your statement "no laws of nature have a cubed relationship" is outrageously and utterly incorrect, wrong, false, not true, demonstrably not so.

And you have STILL not produced one iota of maths to describe your vague ideas, none, in fact none to describe any EXISTING idea...

I put it to you sir that you are unable to understand the mathematics of general relativity (or indeed newtonian physics) and so are completely unable to describe your 'alternative' to the 'big bang' theory you seem to make a mockery of.

Prove me wrong please.. explain briefly what a Hamiltonian is, or perhaps a tensor, or explain how relationships such as others have posted involving a cubic term are NOT descriptions of the world around us.

 

[Bjarne]

As expected you seem to be ignorant that we exist in a 4D reality (length, width, height and tme) and that science is the process of describing that reality. The laws of physics describe that 4D reality (sometimes omitting time).

The third dimension is a fabrication of our brain, you cannot prove it also exist in "reality" – “out there”
If a certain part of you brain is damage the third dimension doesn’t exist, you would live in a 2D universe.
Don't think this even is easy to understand even for mother cow, but this is how it is.

The fourth dimension is not a 2 "reel dimension” but "only" a expression of comparable differences between different 2 (3) D realties.

You are ignorant of the Newtonian law of gravity (F=gMm/r^2) where r is the radial distance between the 2 masses. This is calculated in a 3-dimensional space.

No this law is based on the inwards square and not based on cube. It works in a 3d perspective as well, but the equation is basic a 2D equation, - you can use a 3D reality.

 

[DazzaD]

So let me get this right.. you accept General Relativity but deny it is expressed in a four dimensional 'manifold' ?

 

[Bjarne]

I dont want new maths.. I want your maths.. YOUR maths...you are still feigning ignorance of the fact that your statement "no laws of nature have a cubed relationship" is outrageously and utterly incorrect, wrong, false, not true, demonstrably not so.

And you have STILL not produced one iota of maths to describe your vague ideas, none, in fact none to describe any EXISTING idea...

I put it to you sir that you are unable to understand the mathematics of general relativity (or indeed newtonian physics) and so are completely unable to describe your 'alternative' to the 'big bang' theory you seem to make a mockery of.

Prove me wrong please.. explain briefly what a Hamiltonian is, or perhaps a tensor, or explain how relationships such as others have posted involving a cubic term are NOT descriptions of the world around us.

In the end of the day the universe / realities are first at all exactly as you brian tells you.
But also like science tells you.
I am not denying a 3D dimension, but only pointing out that it is strange, and difficult to understand.
The most basic math we have that directly shows reality transformation, are all only based on 2D, and so is the reality before you brian change it.

You can make you own conclusions, such are of course only speculations.

The only point is in fact that this is strange, and could be a possible path to a deeper understanding.

This parts is NOT something anybody even not mother cow can prove now, so the point is that the time where we again can be deeply surprised, - how strange reality / realities is / are, - is far from over.

Gravity and general reality is the most basic knowledge available; we have far from understood the range of this knowledge.