Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

I saw a film few weeks ago about Hiroshima. A old lady surveyed. She was experience terrible thing when that bomb went off, today Hiroshima is rebuild, and she was wondering, and said, - it is hard to understand that it really was happening , today it all seems so unreal for here, that all what she once saw really did happen
Many people’s tell that after terrible experiences, - that it all was so surrealistic, - many uses the words, it was like a unreal dream. - And this is what it is, - everything is only "dreams" - second world war too, - “only” a bad dream.
People was getting heard, and was dying, but this is part of the bad dream. - A 500 ton heavy train is also part of the dream. - There is a lot that makes it look real, - but the stuff everything is made off seems to be nothing but dreams.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO4GH8bmYEg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4jMiiwefAA

Are you now claiming that the Hiroshima bomb was not reality?
Well there are other people as mad as you, out there.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Gravity (ADG) decreases 4 times when distances (radius) increases 2 times.
This gives us the proportional 1:2.

so what if the distance increases 3 times. Does gravity decrease 6 times? That would be 1:2. But the answer is 9. Bjarne it is so ridiculous that you try to be wise on cosmology and you cant even do primary school arithmetic.

If the gravity decrease should have been proportional to the cube decrease it would have been a completely different story, - that reality DO NOT exist (except in RC's fantasy).

It is not so in anybody's fantasy. It is proportional to the area; everybody but you understands that.


Hans

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne does not understand what the distance between 2 points

If the gravity decrease should have been proportional to the cube decrease it would have been a completely different story, - that reality DO NOT exist (except in RC's fantasy).

How idiotic to think that I states that "gravity decrease should have been proportional to the cube decrease". I have stated how gravity varies in Newtonian gravity:

F=GmM/r^2
​

The gravitational force is an inverse square law . It has a power of -2. Your delusion of "2D dimensions" which seems to be your obseesion with the factor of -2 implies that you cannot even understand the concept of negative numbers .

So you are unable to understand that the distance r in that equation is the distance between 2 points which is taught to school children .

The radial distance r in Newtonian gravity is the distance between 3 dimensional points.
The first point is (a, b, c). This has 3 dimensions.
The second point is (x,y,z). This has 3 dimensions.
The distance between these 2 3D points is r^2 = (x-a)^2 + (y-b)^2 + (z-c)^2

Newtonian gravity is 3D.

Bjarne demonstrates that he cannot count to 3

Bjarne, Given an equation, how do you determine the n in nD for it?
First asked 16th January 2012 (3 days and counting!)

Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang
First asked 21st October 2011 (99 days and counting!)

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)

 

[Paul]

...That reality is indeed must stranger as you think.

You do realise that basically, this makes you a holocaust denier?

 

[DazzaD]

Aha

Clearly as others have pointed out you have failed to understand some extremely basic principles in mathematics, ones in fact that are tested directly at GCSE.

Additionally, you fail to understand the relationships described above that relate the 3D description to the powers that appear in the equations. This is something to be expected of an A Level student.

I therefore put it to you, that you cannot truly grasp SR and GR, as these really require an understanding of mathematics that would be a good few years in advance of the standard required to understand the first point (typically 4 years or so of solid schooling in the UK system).

In which case all your musings are hypothetical and philosophical.

Which is fine. I enjoy reading them.

But please dont pretend to try to back them up with maths which is clearly and demonstrably wrong.

 

[DazzaD]

Originally Posted by Bjarne
Gravity (ADG) decreases 4 times when distances (radius) increases 2 times.
This gives us the proportional 1:2.



Could it be that Bjarne has made the classic mistake of taking too limited an example and making a leap of faith?

I.e. because 2x2 = 2 + 2 he has confused the two completely.

So in his limited example of doubling the distance means the force is "divided" by four... he thinks it is because 2+2 = 4 rather than 2x2 = 4?

Thusly confusing

3+3=6

with

3x3 =9

in his "scale factors"

 

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Bjarne
Gravity (ADG) decreases 4 times when distances (radius) increases 2 times.
This gives us the proportional 1:2.



Could it be that Bjarne has made the classic mistake of taking too limited an example and making a leap of faith?

I.e. because 2x2 = 2 + 2 he has confused the two completely.

So in his limited example of doubling the distance means the force is "divided" by four... he thinks it is because 2+2 = 4 rather than 2x2 = 4?

Thusly confusing

3+3=6

with

3x3 =9

in his "scale factors"

Very likely.

Well, that's what happens when you only employ two dimensional thinking.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Yes, and this is exactly because it is three dimensional. Only in a three-dimensional realm can a distance translate to an area. If it was two-dimensional, it would be decreasing proportionally to distance.
Hans

Rubbish
Gravity don’t care that you project the third dimension into space.

 

[Bjarne]

so what if the distance increases 3 times. Does gravity decrease 6 times? That would be 1:2. But the answer is 9. Bjarne it is so ridiculous that you try to be wise on cosmology and you cant even do primary school arithmetic.

Hans

Start with 1

1*1 = 1

2*2 = 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you double r (again), (which mother cow know is factor 2) - then gravity decreases 4 time) (Which mother cow know is factor 4) = proportional between 2 and 4 = 1:2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you double r (again), (which mother cow know is factor 2) - then gravity decreases 4 time) (which mother cow know is factor 4) = proportional between 2 and 4 = 1:2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you double r (again), (which mother cow know is factor 2) - then gravity decreases 4 time) (which mother cow know is factor 4) = proportional between 2 and 4 = 1:2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you double r (again), (which mother cow know is factor 2) - then gravity decreases 4 time) (which mother cow know is factor 4) = proportional between 2 and 4 = 1:2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(if you double r (again), (which mother cow know is factor 2) - then gravity decreases 4 time) (which mother cow know is factor 4) = proportional between 2 and 4 = 1:2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you double r (again), (which mother cow know is factor 2) - then gravity decreases 4 time) (which mother cow know is factor 4) = proportional between 2 and 4 = 1:2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So now we’re soon by the Moon, - did you got the point.

Now is only left to multiply with GM But I guess you don’t know what I am talking about. It is OK just keep chewing the blue pill.

 

[Bjarne]

It is proportional to the area; everybody but you understands that.

Hans

And that area is identical to the area of your inner 2D reality / monitor.

And in the exact same way, also the basic of the Lorentz equation you have the same 2D reality, that fits to a inner 2D reality.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Start with 1

1*1 = 1

2*2 = 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you double r (again), (which mother cow know is factor 2) - then gravity decreases 4 time) (Which mother cow know is factor 4) = proportional between 2 and 4 = 1:2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you double r (again), (which mother cow know is factor 2) - then gravity decreases 4 time) (which mother cow know is factor 4) = proportional between 2 and 4 = 1:2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you double r (again), (which mother cow know is factor 2) - then gravity decreases 4 time) (which mother cow know is factor 4) = proportional between 2 and 4 = 1:2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you double r (again), (which mother cow know is factor 2) - then gravity decreases 4 time) (which mother cow know is factor 4) = proportional between 2 and 4 = 1:2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(if you double r (again), (which mother cow know is factor 2) - then gravity decreases 4 time) (which mother cow know is factor 4) = proportional between 2 and 4 = 1:2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you double r (again), (which mother cow know is factor 2) - then gravity decreases 4 time) (which mother cow know is factor 4) = proportional between 2 and 4 = 1:2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So now we’re soon by the Moon, - did you got the point.

Now is only left to multiply with GM But I guess you don’t know what I am talking about. It is OK just keep chewing the blue pill.

What if you move 3 times farther away?

 

[Reality Check]

Start with 1
...

Yes - really simple math: If y = x^-2 then replacing x with 2x decreases y by a factor of 4. Duh !

For gravity:
F=GMm/r^2 where r^2 = (x-a)^2 + (y-b)^2 + (z-c)^2 (the distance between 2 three dimensional points)
r = 1 and F=GMm
Now double: r = 2 and F=GMm/4 (Which mother cow know is factor 4)
Now double: r = 4 and F=GMm/16 (Which mother cow know is factor 4)
Now double: r= 8 and F=GMm/64 (Which mother cow know is factor 4)
Now double: r= 16 and F=GMm/256 (Which mother cow know is factor 4)
etc.

So what?

 

[Bjarne]

What if you move 3 times farther away?

1). if you double r (again), (which mother cow know is factor 2) - then gravity decreases 4 time) (which mother cow know is factor 4) = proportional between 2 and 4 = 1:2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.) (if you double r (again), (which mother cow know is factor 2) - then gravity decreases 4 time) (which mother cow know is factor 4) = proportional between 2 and 4 = 1:2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.) if you double r (again), (which mother cow know is factor 2) - then gravity decreases 4 time) (which mother cow know is factor 4) = proportional between 2 and 4 = 1:2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Muuhh

 

[Bjarne]

Yes - really simple math: If y = x^-2 then replacing x with 2x decreases y by a factor of 4. Duh !

For gravity:
F=GMm/r^2 where r^2 = (x-a)^2 + (y-b)^2 + (z-c)^2 (the distance between 2 three dimensional points)
r = 1 and F=GMm
Now double: r = 2 and F=GMm/4 (Which mother cow know is factor 4)
Now double: r = 4 and F=GMm/16 (Which mother cow know is factor 4)
Now double: r= 8 and F=GMm/64 (Which mother cow know is factor 4)
Now double: r= 16 and F=GMm/256 (Which mother cow know is factor 4)
etc.

So what?

Try to yse the mantra "basic" 1 week ,- 19 hour in the morning and 17 hour in the evning.
Then let's talk again.

 

[MRC_Hans]

1). if you double r (again), (which mother cow know is factor 2) - then gravity decreases 4 time) (which mother cow know is factor 4) = proportional between 2 and 4 = 1:2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.) (if you double r (again), (which mother cow know is factor 2) - then gravity decreases 4 time) (which mother cow know is factor 4) = proportional between 2 and 4 = 1:2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.) if you double r (again), (which mother cow know is factor 2) - then gravity decreases 4 time) (which mother cow know is factor 4) = proportional between 2 and 4 = 1:2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Muuhh

Thank you for this well-crafted and thoughtful answer. I realize that it must have stressed your intellect to the outmost, and I'm grateful for your efforts on this. However, in all your strenuous efforts, I fear you must have missed my question. I shall therefore ask again. This time, read carefully, take notes if necessary, seek bovine support if you must, and then tell the waiting world:

1) By how much is gravity reduced, if the radius is increased by a factor of 3 (three)?

2) Which ratio does this constitute?

I'm sure you can do it, if you really try.

Hans

 

[DazzaD]

And that area is identical to the area of your inner 2D reality / monitor.

And in the exact same way, also the basic of the Lorentz equation you have the same 2D reality, that fits to a inner 2D reality.

It is proportional to the surface area of a three dimensional shape is the key aspect you are missing.

Think of it as


F = constant x M x m /(4 x pi x r squared)


4 x pi x rsquared
4 x pi x r^2

the surface area of a sphere...

Crudely, the 'effect' is radiated equally in all directions and the 'effort' is spread out over the surface area of a sphere, with r being the distance from the point source to the edge of the 'expanding' sphere.

Similarly for Coloumb's Law...

It is more of a historical accident that we use G rather than k/(4 x pi x r^2)

 

[Bjarne]

Thank you for this well-crafted and thoughtful answer. I realize that it must have stressed your intellect to the outmost, and I'm grateful for your efforts on this. However, in all your strenuous efforts, I fear you must have missed my question. I shall therefore ask again. This time, read carefully, take notes if necessary, seek bovine support if you must, and then tell the waiting world:

1) By how much is gravity reduced, if the radius is increased by a factor of 3 (three)?

2) Which ratio does this constitute?

I'm sure you can do it, if you really try.

Hans

It is completely irrelevant, and only an attempt to derail from the point.
I have a point you have not.

The mentioned proportional 1:2 is something you see repeated in several phenomena’s, the electromagnetic force, the strong force, and so fare I remember also magnetism.

Many have asked WHY, but an answer or even suggestion haven't been possible.
It is off course not just something that happens by change.
So here we have a clear challenge to try to crack the secret and most basic law of reality, since this is what gravity in fact is.

Why do you not suggest,- if you can do better.

I did that, but I believe you even haven't read it http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7928823&postcount=5296

If basic reality must be understood in a basic 2D it is in fact a completely different universe , - I am afraid we have to think completely different, both when we want to get a deeper understanding of the relativity theories, but also even when we want to get a deeper understanding of "Newtonian gravity".

 

[Bjarne]

It is proportional to the surface area of a three dimensional shape is the key aspect you are missing.

Think of it as


F = constant x M x m /(4 x pi x r squared)


4 x pi x rsquared
4 x pi x r^2

the surface area of a sphere...

Crudely, the 'effect' is radiated equally in all directions and the 'effort' is spread out over the surface area of a sphere, with r being the distance from the point source to the edge of the 'expanding' sphere.

Similarly for Coloumb's Law...

It is more of a historical accident that we use G rather than k/(4 x pi x r^2)

You are now talking about mass attraction, this is not a point.
The equation for ADG ( acceleration due to gravity) is the basic for Newtonian gravity, - when you want to try to understand deeper what is the underlying nature for that equation / gravity.

Let’s say GM = factor 100 and distance = 2 meter (r^2) result = 25 m/s^2
But when you want to divide GM factor 100 with 4*pi*r^2 - you get much less.
So I don't see any point here.

 

[Bjarne]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMUiwTubYu0

 

[Paul]

Don't even think of trying to implicate Bill Hicks in your ********.