Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[phunk]

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

Magnetic field strength is inversely proportional to the cube of the distance.

 

[Bjarne]

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

You can use 2D equations in a 3D reality, - no doubt
I am speaking about basic equations that must reflect a deeper understanding of reality / realities - and why these are strange 2D and not 3D
Me and even mother cow have not fully understood that, you not either.
THIS is the point.

 

[Bjarne]

Magnetic field strength is inversely proportional to the cube of the distance.

Show the eqaution please.

 

[DazzaD]

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.

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

No.. you said there was no need for the third dimension, now you claim it is here but hard to understand.

I dont believe it is that hard to understand, my GCSE students do a fair job of grasping the basics...

Gravity and general reality (sic) are of course imperfect descriptions, but GR operates (nominally) in a 4D mathematical framework, directly contradicting your earlier statement.

And you are still pussyfooting around the question...


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.

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

 

[DazzaD]

Stefan–Boltzmann law

Ramberg–Osgood equation

Keplar's Third Law

 

[Bjarne]

No.. you said there was no need for the third dimension, now you claim it is here but hard to understand.

I dont believe it is that hard to understand, my GCSE students do a fair job of grasping the basics...

Gravity and general reality (sic) are of course imperfect descriptions, but GR operates (nominally) in a 4D mathematical framework, directly contradicting your earlier statement.

And you are still pussyfooting around the question...


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.

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 think I have make my self clear.

Let us finish this part of facts with the words from a master

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
Albert Einstein

 

[DazzaD]

I think I have make my self clear.

Let us finish this part of facts with the words from a master

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
Albert Einstein

And the great man himself came up with the clear cut ideas, definitions and mathematical framework that I am asking you to replicate a little of please...

 

[Reality Check]

The third dimension is a fabrication of our brain, you cannot prove it also exist in "reality" – “out there”

That is ignorant to the point of stupidity. Any child knows that you can measure the third dimension. Just use a ruler and measure the volume of a box:

• The first dimension is the length of the box.
• The second dimension is the width of the box.
• The third dimension is the height of the box.

The r in Newtonian gravity is the radial distance in three dimensions.
With the origin at (0,0,0): r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2.

• x = the first dimension.
• y = the second dimension.
• z = the third dimension.

 

[Bjarne]

Stefan–Boltzmann law
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/6/a/1/6a199e4a2a95a857f1021dd156421036.png[/qimg]

Ramberg–Osgood equation
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/1/6/7/167bc2184a5a241ab97e3fc6a6ff02d0.png[/qimg]

Keplar's Third Law
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/2/b/3/2b370270c6afa47961ae205f0b02bc2a.png[/qimg]

Last time....
I am talking about the basic equations that must reflect reality changing’s / creations, - or the cause of gravity - these are 2D, - NOT 3D.
It is NOT about what gravity does as consequences in a 3D reality

Same message to your stupid box RC

 

[Reality Check]

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

Ignorance and gibberish.

The fourth dimension is time. It exists.

 

[Bjarne]

Ignorance and gibberish.

The fourth dimension is time. It exists.

And it shows only difference between 2 (3) D realties.
When I am 10 cm taller than you it is also not a reel dimension is it ?

 

[Reality Check]

Last time....
I am talking about the basic equations that must reflect reality changing’s / creations, - or the cause of gravity - these are 2D NOT 3D.
It is NOT about what gravity does as consequences in a 3D reality

Complete gibberish.

Same message to your stupid box RC

The basic equations you have cited have have no dimensions.
It is the reality that they describe that has the dimensions.

r is not a dimension. Squaring it does not give you another dimension.
The r in Newtonian gravity is the radial distance in three dimensions.
With the origin at (0,0,0): r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2.

You also have the same delusion about c.
c is a speed, not a dimension. Squaring it does not give you another dimension.

ETA: The Casimir effect has a basic equation that has r^4 (where r is the separation of the 2 plates). According to your inane logic this is a 4D equation !

 

[Reality Check]

And it shows only difference between 2 (3) D realties.

No. It allows a single 1 (2) (3) D reality to change.

Consider the single reality of a particle on a line (1D). Without time it only has 1 position. With time it can change position.


Consider the single reality of a particle on a plane (2D). Without time it only has 1 position. With time it can change position.



Consider the single reality of a particle in a volume (3D). Without time it only has 1 position. With time it can change position.

 

[Vorpal]

Last time....
I am talking about the basic equations that must reflect reality changing’s / creations, - or the cause of gravity - these are 2D, - NOT 3D.
It is NOT about what gravity does as consequences in a 3D reality

Then I guess you shouldn't have included Kepler's laws, then, huh? Dipole fields of all kinds are fair examples.

Coulomb's law and Newton's law of gravitation are inverse-square because they are dealing with three spatial dimensional. The dimensionality is something you put in by hand, because spacetime is 3+1 dimensional and the surface are of a sphere scales as r². If the dimensionality was different, we'd have different scaling laws. This is something extremely explicit in the case of gravity that you're harping on, since the Einstein field equation directly prescribes the acceleration of the volume of a ball of test particles, and as the ball shrinks, a tiny change in volume of a ball is naturally expressible as (surface area)*(change in radius). The surface are of a sphere in three dimensions 4πr², and the rest is history. If we had more dimensions, that would be different. If we had less, again similarly so.

Looking at something squared and concluding that the fundamental mechanism is two-dimensional is a completely idiotic way of thinking, on so many levels that I can't begin to hope to list them all. So I'll just again emphasize this for the sane members of the audience: inverse-square relationships are common because they are in 3D spatially! Moreover, the fundamental laws don't actually care. Neither Maxwell's equations not the Einstein field equations "knows" about the dimensionality of the space(time) we're working in. It's something we put in "by hand" because we know we have 3+1 dimensions; the fundamental laws themselves don't care.
(N.B. Coulomb's law is derivable from Maxwell's equations, particularly Gauss's law, which is as usually actually just a 3D special case of Stokes' theorem and again more general.)

 

[MRC_Hans]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

 

[Bjarne]

Let us say "an outsider" would know the, -Length Weight and Height of the physical universe, - based on HIS SPACE TIME REALITY.
He would say this is how the reality of the universe “out there” MUST be.
But all the inhabitants of the Universe would not agree, because when they begin to compare their reality to the outsiders, - none of them would agree.
THERE ARE NO CERTAIN UNIVERSAL REALITY “OUT THERE” in the 3D

You cannot say that the space-time reality, you right now experiences truly is:- “out there” - it is NOT “out there” NOT AT ALL.

Your reality is ONLY limit to a very certain environment that is purely local.

So YOUR REALITY can’t be shared with others “out there” (in 3D) – but only here, - “at ground zero”.

So the basic simple cow logic point is that YOUR REALITY can ONLY be REAL at a 2D platform.

You can say that RC’s box also must be reel too, - but so soon the third dimension in your own fantasy / brain is projected “out there” to 3D where the third dimension seems to be, – THERE ARE NO CERTAIN REALITY anymore. ( But only plenty contradictions)

You can change your reality in seconds; - the universe as you see it (yours reality) is not the same after taking off in an aircraft, - or after jumping out form 3rd floor.

BUT the reality of the universe CANNOT change so fast as yours reality can, it is in fact a challenge to understand the consequences of that.

Try to imaging that the cow you can see is 100 times comparable bigger seen from RC’s perspective, simply because RC’s time-space reality is very different.

You do not expect to see such a big (comparable) cow as RC can see, - do you ?
OK , you did not, - this is also what I thought
So you expect the math responsible for your reality to reflect YOUR REALITY and not the insane reality that now apply for RC , - right?

You would now like to know the math responsible for exactly the reality you now live in. This mean, you must see the right size cow, and not the comparable very big cow that RC now can see, and also not a comparable multi-size cow, right ? (I mean madness must have it limit - right ?)

This simply must mean that the basic 2D reality what is the only one that can be true for you – ALSO MUST be a 2D mathematical truth.

I can’t push that psychological explanation any closer - except showing this link again http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-12-insights-brain-reconstructs-dimension.html

It will probably take a long time even to accept 1% what I just was saying, because your brain is doing all it can, to tell you that the only true reality is 3D.

If you could swift of that part of the brain it would be a lot easier.

Now let us jump to the mathematical 2D reality.

Each time the radius of a circle doubles, the area quadruples.
Since, in this case, the circles share a common centre, the space the larger circle occupies, that the smaller circle does not, accounts for 75% of the larger circle’s area.
At the same time the force of acceleration due to gravity (ADG) always decreases by 75%.
This result is not a coincidence, but rather expresses a relation between space and gravity.
This relation seems to convincingly support the claim that matter absorbs "space-density".
When matter absorbs space, we can say the "density" of space near matter decreases, and hence space stretches towards a body.
When space stretch towards a body it spreads in a domino-like effect across the whole universe.
This seems to be exactly the proportionality that the formula of Acceleration Due to Gravity (ADG) shows.
In that sense even a grain of sand can cause curvature / stretching of the whole universe.
This is not merely a matter of diction or semantics, but rather a new found understanding of gravitations, and how the reality of gravity must be understood in its basic as 2D phenomena.

When the acceleration due to gravity decreases by 75 %, the distance square increment will increase inversely proportional by 75 %. This is no coincidence but rather an expression for cause/effect: The stretching of space contains a domino effect where even a sand grain will influence (stretch) the whole universe.

Maybe you will now ask what gravity have to do with your reality ? -, ohh boy, this is a long explanation.
The easy answer is EVERTHING.

 

[Paul]

From now on, I shall refer to you as Dougal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U

 

[Paul]

Let us say "an outsider" would know the, -Length Weight and Height of the physical universe, - based on HIS SPACE TIME REALITY.

You seem to be confusing reality with systems of measurement.

He would say this is how the reality of the universe “out there” MUST be.

Now come on Dougal, not everyone has the same trouble as you with the basics.

But all the inhabitants of the Universe would not agree, because when they begin to compare their reality to the outsiders, - none of them would agree.

Are all these inhabitants idiots? Because if they are not they might realise that it's their view that differs, not reality.

You cannot say that the space-time reality, you right now experiences truly is:- “out there” - it is NOT “out there” NOT AT ALL.

I realise that you appear to live entirely in a magical pixie kingdom in your head, but the rest of us don't.

So the basic simple cow logic point is that YOUR REALITY can ONLY be REAL at a 2D platform.

I don't know if you can remember all the way back to the first sentence of your post, but in it you gave everyone's universe three dimensions.

You can say that RC’s box also must be reel too, - but so soon the third dimension in your own fantasy / brain is projected “out there” to 3D where the third dimension seems to be, – THERE ARE NO CERTAIN REALITY anymore.

OK, let's try this really slowly:

Imagine a line, it goes forward and backward; that is one dimension.
Now, stack lots of lines side by side to form a plane, they go forward, backward, left and right; that is two dimensions.
Finally, stack the planes to form a cuboid, this goes forward, backward, left, right, up and down; that is three dimensions.

Now, please explain what part of three dimensions you are having trouble with.

the universe as you see it (yours reality) is not the same after taking off in an aircraft, - or after jumping out form 3rd floor.

But the universe at it objectively is does not change.

BUT the reality of the universe CANNOT change so fast as yours reality can

Why not?

it is fact a challenge to understand the consequences of that.

I think you should try to understand the reasons for thinking that before you try something difficult.

I can’t push that psychological explanation any closer

You should look up psychological and explanation.

except showing this link again

It would help if you read it and then proceeded to try and understand it.

This is not merely a matter of diction or semantics

It's not even a matter of those.

but rather a new found understanding of gravitations, and how the reality of gravity must be understood in its basic as 2D phenomena.

I think that justifies a not even wrong.

 

[Bjarne]

Are all these inhabitants idiots? Because if they are not they might realise that it's their view that differs, not reality.

Ok let's start the very first place where you went wrong , before continuing to other points yoú have.

So what you saying is that your view of mother cow is different from REALITY.

Fine, - but now tell us then, - how is then the REAL COW-REALITY?

You don’t’ need to be exact, just guide me.

Is the REAL cow bigger or smaller, - and is time where the reel cow is ticking faster or slower, - or not at all ?

So far I can only say muuuuuhh

 

[Paul]

Ok let's start the very first place where you went wrong , before continuing to other points yoú have.

It's so generous of you to give us the benefit of whatever it is you think you know.

So what you saying is that your view of mother cow is different from REALITY.

I'm saying that a cow looks different from different viewpoints and that if I used different systems of measurement I would get different results every time.

Fine, - but now tell us then, - how is then the REAL COW-REALITY?

The cow.

You don’t’ need to be exact, just guide me.

The reality of the cow is the cow.

So far I can only say muuuuuhh

I know.