Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[DazzaD]

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.

have you read what I wrote?

the point is that the power of r represents the surface area of a sphere.

I have no idea what you are doing in the calculation above but the value of the constants do not change the proportionality arguments.

plus I said k divided by 4 x pi x r^2 I did not say G divided by 4 x pi x r^2.

 

[Vorpal]

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.

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

No one's projecting anything. It's just calculus, Bjarne, and it is independent of what the number of dimensions we happen to perceive and how we perceive them, as proved by the elementary fact that we can do calculus in any number dimensions, regardless of whether or not we experience them. Well, I doubt "we" includes Bjarne, but that doesn't change the facts.

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 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.

Listen to DazzaD, Bjarne; he speaks sensibly and simply.

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.

No, Bjarne. What ADG gives you is a fundamental solution of a something even deeper.

Newtonian gravity of an arbitrary matter distribution with density ρ is described by Poisson's equation ∇²φ = -kρ, with homogeneous version being Laplace's equation that has fundamental solutions proportional to log(r) in two dimensions and to 1/r^n-2 in n>2 dimensions. This gives the field potential, so the gravitational force is itself proportional to 1/r^n-1 in n>1 dimensions.

Thus MRC_Hans and DazzaD are exactly correct (and as at least several other people have told you previously, e.g., myself at 5294): the very fact that Newton's law is proportional to 1/r² shows that it is fundamentally three-dimensions. ADG in Euclidean space of different dimensionality would be something different.

As for GTR, which Bjarne likes to reference so much yet understands absolutely nothing of it, I found a nice presentation of deriving Newton's law directly from the Einstein field equation that I referenced earlier. The dimensionality of the balls of test particles is put in explicitly by hand, in particular the surface area of a ball in three dimensions. Again, if gravity wasn't 3+1 dimensional (+1 being time), it wouldn't be proportional to 1/r².

The Einstein field equation is the "deepest" level of understanding gravity currently known. It's as close to the "underlying nature" as we can currently get using well-established and tested science. And it says Bjarne is wrong in just about every way.

 

[DazzaD]

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.

eh?

the difference is a factor of m, doesn't change any of your arguments about r.

quite apart from the fact you have.made some arbitrary decision to look at g rather than F, why is one more fundamental than the other?

 

[Bjarne]

No one's projecting anything. It's just calculus, Bjarne,

No one's projecting anything. It's just calculus,

And this is where the chain went off and the point was lost.
I guess we both agree that ADG is a result of the inwards square. I mean I have never heard that it is a result of the inwards cube

Look at the images, Let’s say xyz is the same length , hence r^3 = cube, - but r^2 = square.
And that’s it.
Do you deny that ?

Now when you know a certian value (ADG) at a certian distance , you can now rotate the “box” (or the ball), and conclude that ADG is the same all the way around the object, whereby you of course can conclude that the equation also applies in a 3D perspective.

Off course you must then find a way to justify that the equation not both can show 2D as well as a 3D reality. It must be either a 2D or a 3D.

BUT already by doing exactly that, a aboriginal would say that this is a certain sign that you are trapped by Maya, because the ball or the ultimate reality of the box is only 2D, - it is only a image in your head.

You went to a unreal 3D universe exactly at the moment your “calculus” begun, - or rather at the moment you thought it was necessary. .

I guess you have only try to chew blue pills, and also 800 % sure that the red pill only is insane nonsense in your universe.

I have tried the blue pill too and like so many others the hole of my life I have been sure that this was how it was, - I mean there could be no doubt, - science and reality should be possible to understand in such framework as i see it.

But when I begun to "speculate" how strange the universe / reality really is, - I must say that I begun to understands how really strange reality is, especially the math we have showing how reality can chance. - The most direct evidence for that is the Lorentz equation.
My freind we are talking about how your reality can change / deform, - do you really understand what that mean , and that this is real ?

At least everyone should try to taste the red pill.

Changing something as fundamental as people’s reality is a big deal.
This is not my mission; I was asked about what I thought about how a space-density framework could be understood mathematical, and I answered that question.

You can disagree, laugh of it, shake your head, or think serious about it 2 second, - or the rest off you live. It doesn’t matter for me.

You believe that science reflect the reality you live in – fine. - I do so too.

The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth.
Niels Bohr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7kDWGIQcnw&feature=player_embedded

 

[Paul]

Instead of spouting the same ignorant crap again, why don't you try and answer some of the questions that have been asked recently.

 

[Paul]

Also, that video is still nonsense.

 

[Vorpal]

And this is where the chain went off and the point was lost.
I guess we both agree that ADG is a result of the inwards square.

Uh-huh. We just disagree that ADG being an inverse square means that it's two-dimensional.

Look at the images, Let’s say xyz is the same length , hence r^3 = cube, - but r^2 = square.
And that’s it.
Do you deny that ?

A sphere in three dimensions has a 2-dimensional surface area, measured in units of length².
A sphere in two dimensions has a 1-dimensional surface area (commonly called circumference) measured in units of length.
A sphere in one dimensional has a 0-dimensional surface area (commonly called endpoints) measured without units (it's just 2).

More to the point, ADG being inverse-square comes from the three-dimensional fundamental solution of Laplace's equation:
[latex]$\partial^2_x\phi + \partial^2_y\phi + \partial^2_z\phi = -\delta$[/latex]
If you drop one of the dimensions, you don't get inverse-square gravity. If you add one more dimension, you don't get inverse-cube instead. Inverses-square gravity is there because of three[/n] spatial dimensions: x,y,z.

Now when you know a certian value (ADG) at a certian distance , you can now rotate the “box” (or the ball), and conclude that ADG is the same all the way around the object, whereby you of course can conclude that the equation also applies in a 3D perspective.

Perspective is completely irrelevant. Brain perception is completely irrelevant. I can do the calculation in 35-dimensional space to get inverse-34th-power-gravity from the basic laws of gravity even though I have no personal experience of living or experiencing 35-dimensional space.

The only question is which dimensionality ADG implies.

You went to a unreal 3D universe exactly at the moment your “calculus” begun, - or rather at the moment you thought it was necessary.

Nope. I didn't go there by assuming it at all. The ADG form proves a spatially 3D universe. If the universe wasn't spatially 3D, ADG could not be inverse-square.

 

[Bjarne]

A sphere in three dimensions has a 2-dimensional surface area, measured in units of length².

Off course the surface of a ball (3D) is 2D, - also the surface of a cow is so, - but this does not represent what the nature of a cow is, for example what is inside the ball or the cow.

Let's keep that simple
Let’s say you have a squared lawn, - 10*10 meter = 100 m2.
And let say that your neighbor’s lawn is ball shaped, and also r = 10 meter = 4 x pi x r^2 = 1256 m2
The surface of your neighbor’s lawn can’t be used in the equation g=GM/r^2 – because the factor r^2 means that GM will be divided with 100, - NOT with 1256

So what have your neighbor’s ball shaped lawn (1256 m2) with the equation of gravity g=GM/r^2 (ADG) to do ?
If the surface of a ball should be the only true way gravity should be calculated and understood ADG would be about 10 times weaker. It is not.

 

[Vorpal]

Off course the surface of a ball (3D) is 2D, - also the surface of a cow is so, - but this does not represent what the nature of a cow is, for example what is inside the ball or the cow.

Let's keep that simple
Let’s say you have a squared lawn, - 10*10 meter = 100 m2.
And let say that your neighbor’s lawn is ball shaped, and also r = 10 meter = 4 x pi x r^2 = 1256 m2
The surface of your neighbor’s lawn can’t be used in the equation g=GM/r^2 – because the factor r^2 means that GM will be divided with 100, - NOT with 1256

So what have your neighbor’s ball shaped lawn (1256 m2) with the equation of gravity g=GM/r^2 (ADG) to do ?
If the surface of a ball should be the only true way gravity should be calculated and understood ADG would be about 10 times weaker. It is not.

You can use a calculator, Bjarne, yet you completely fail to understand the basics of physical units. There's no problem at all with using the actual surface area of that hypothetical sphere, as long as your dimensionful constant (G) is defined appropriately.

The numerical value of G is an artifact of how we define our units. There's absolutely no problem in saying
[latex]\[ \text{ADG} = \left(8.386\times 10^{-10} \frac{\text{m}^3}{\text{kg}\cdot\text{s}^2}\right)\frac{M}{4\pi r^2} \][/latex]
It doesn't make gravity any weaker. It just redefines how we measure the constant of proportionality.

In fact, there's an even more radical historical accident that people have pointed out to you before. In the old statCoulomb (esu) unit of electric charge, electrostatic force is
[latex]$ F = \frac{q_1q_2}{r^2} $[/latex]
with no constant of proportionality whatsoever, because it's absorbed into how the unit is defined. For gravitationally, analogous units of G = 1, or 4πG = 1, or 8πG = 1 are very commonly used in various places in physics.

But in modern SI units, using coulombs for electric charge, it's
[latex]$ F = \frac{1}{\epsilon_0}\frac{q_1q_2}{4\pi r^2} $[/latex]
There was no change in electric forces in the time between 19th century and the 20th, but Coulomb's law got an extra factor of 4π.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

You are wrong, and I am not. Your attempts at waving it away are pathetic, because you obviously realize that you are wrong.

The inverse square rule means that if you increase the distance 3 times, ADG is reduced 9 times, which is (obvious even to you) not 1:2.

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.

No, it does not exist. Or rather it is only true for doubling. ANY other change is not 1:2.

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.

The only one asking why is you, and only because you refuse to understand this simple law. The rest of us fully understand why it must be so. There is no secret and no mystery.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

You can use a calculator, Bjarne, yet you completely fail to understand the basics of physical units. There's no problem at all with using the actual surface area of that hypothetical sphere, as long as your dimensionful constant (G) is defined appropriately.

The numerical value of G is an artifact of how we define our units. There's absolutely no problem in saying
[latex]\[ \text{ADG} = \left(8.386\times 10^{-10} \frac{\text{m}^3}{\text{kg}\cdot\text{s}^2}\right)\frac{M}{4\pi r^2} \][/latex]
It doesn't make gravity any weaker. It just redefines how we measure the constant of proportionality.
.

Which mean you must redefine G all the time, depending on which object (density) you is calculating right?

 

[Bjarne]

You are wrong, and I am not. Your attempts at waving it away are pathetic, because you obviously realize that you are wrong.

The inverse square rule means that if you increase the distance 3 times, ADG is reduced 9 times, which is (obvious even to you) not 1:2.

Hans I guess you must have missed this post...........

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.

There is a 100% equal proportionality between space (square) increase, and gravity decrease.
Now we are speaking about the propotional 1:1
Have you ever been wondering what it possible could be hidden here ?
No you have not., and you never will.

Hans you and Vorpal & Co (Not Cow) can try to confuse / camouflage this truth for you self and others, - but it doesn’t change the fact that here is a secret buried, and it should be taken a lot more serious.

Truly understanding that will certainly bring us a huge step further when it comes to a deeper understanding of the nature of gravity.

 

[Vorpal]

Which mean you must redefine G all the time, depending on which object (density) you is calculating right?

Not so. Once you decide to use units in which ADG = G'M/(4πr²), you can use the value of G' for every object, density, etc. It's true that some calculations would look slightly different, e.g., in SI units, Poisson's equation for gravity is ∇²φ = -4πGρ, while in the redefined units it would be ∇²φ = -G'ρ, but this works out completely consistently and independently of the physical object

Again, when compared to modern SI units, the older Gaussian units had a similar change for electromagnetism, though even more radical (not only just a factor of 4π). The basic equations of the laws of physics do look different in them: you can compare them side-by-side here. But nothing is physically different; the universe doesn't change just because we choose to describe it in different units, anymore than it would change just because we decide decide to write our textbooks in a different language. Both systems of units can handle predicting electromagnetic phenomena just as well.

By the same token, that ADG doesn't have a factor of 4π in SI units is just a historical convention with no fundamental physical relevance.

 

[Bjarne]

Not so. Once you decide to use units in which ADG = G'M/(4πr²), you can use the value of G' for every object, density, etc. It's true that some calculations would look slightly different, e.g., in SI units, Poisson's equation for gravity is ∇²φ = -4πGρ, while in the redefined units it would be ∇²φ = -G'ρ, but this works out completely consistently and independently of the physical object

Again, when compared to modern SI units, the older Gaussian units had a similar change for electromagnetism, though even more radical (not only just a factor of 4π). The basic equations of the laws of physics do look different in them: you can compare them side-by-side here. But nothing is physically different; the universe doesn't change just because we choose to describe it in different units, anymore than it would change just because we decide decide to write our textbooks in a different language. Both systems of units can handle predicting electromagnetic phenomena just as well.

By the same token, that ADG doesn't have a factor of 4π in SI units is just a historical convention with no fundamental physical relevance.

Slighty ?
When it is an exstreme dense object what then ?

Anyway you have succeeded to covert a 2D law of reality to 3D, so what ?
Notice that the 100% equal proportionality just described above hereby is spoiled.
Mother Cow doesn’t like that.
But when this brings peace to your 3D reality that doesn’t exist, it is off course OK.

 

[Vorpal]

Slighty ?
When it is a exstreme dense object what then ?

Exactly the same thing as they would be in normal conventions. The redefined G' (let's call it G' to distinguish it numerically) can be used equally well for all problems in both Newtonian gravity and general relativity.

Anyway you have succeeded to covert a 2D law of reality to 3D, so what ?

That's the problem, Bjarne: it was never a 2D law in the first place.
It was always a 3D law. I'm not "converting" it; I'm simply explaining why the argument you made--based on the presence or absence of 4π--is completely ridiculous.

Using different units doesn't change the laws of physics. Using a different convention for G is even less fundamental than, say, using feet instead of meters or esu instead of coulombs.

 

[Bjarne]

Exactly the same thing as they would be in normal conventions. The redefined G' (let's call it G' to distinguish it numerically) can be used equally well for all problems in both Newtonian gravity and general relativity.

Whereby both human and cows can understand it is no longer a basic equation.

That's the problem, Bjarne: it was never a 2D law in the first place.

Which mean you must have a 3D lawn, since for example radius^2 now = 3D – So a 2 D lawn is ridicules.

It was always a 3D law. I'm not "converting" it; I'm simply explaining why the argument you made--based on the presence or absence of 4π--is completely ridiculous.

You only need to close your eyes and your third dimension does no longer exist. This is a scientific fact. Still you can dream about (and calculate) the 3rd dimension, but still it ONLY is what it always was, - imagination in your own mind.

Using different units doesn't change the laws of physics. Using a different convention for G is even less fundamental than, say, using feet instead of meters or esu instead of coulombs.

This refelct how your brain always works, this time you mathematical fabricate the reality you belive is , - out there.
Based on Geometry you can off course calculate the cube or surface of any objects, but this doesn’t prove that 3D is "out there", - still it is only produced by your brain. This is all we know.

The flow of EM-information is a much stranger reality than the one you claim exist out there and is real. EM-information is all what the “real” reality (out there) is about.

A computer connected to your brain can (in principle) take you on a 100% absolute “real” journey to Jupiter, you will now in the PC introduced dream see that Jupiter is 3D, - and say I can prove it, - and also that the universe is also 3D, it is all evidently, since you have seen it all.

The fact is that a computer have cheated you, included the mathematic to get there. Now think about (at least 7 second of your live) how also gravity cheat you until you believe it happens” out there” in the 3D reality.
Still you can say this and that is a mathematical fact. But you can do the exact same in a dream, even though there is absolutely nothing out there “now” causing that dream.

Everything, also the 8 km long 500 ton train is always only inside your head, it is basic exactly the same as a dream. Dreams are all what the brain visually can understand.
All we can say for certain is that our inner cinema is ONLY 2D and on that basic we must try to understand the basic of everything, included gravity. But there is off course a lot more than that to learn.

Calculated surface or cube, is never 3D realities "out there" but something very different inside "our realities" that certainly in its basic is rather 2D images reality than 3D.

Understanding gravity included the square / magnitude symmetry (equal proportionality) is according to mother cow something that shouldn’t be ignored. Dont underestimate that.

Think about that in a cinema you will see for example 1 billion fast changing images. This will take you to a different reality, sometimes so strong that you many years after will continue to see scenes from it.
Exactly the same is what real reality is about,- only billion of images, + other spices to make it more real. Quantum physic teaches us that the universe is almost like a big cinema, only fast flashed so fast that we belive it all is "real". Think about that, and now rethink what is 3, - really ?

So long we have no idea why there is equal proportionately between ADG magnitude and square increase, - we should be more carefully to determinate what the basic nature of gravity / reality is.
Add to that that also the Lorentz transformation also tells a different story of what reality is.

The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth.
Niels Bohr

 

[DazzaD]

Which mean you must have a 3D lawn, since for example radius^2 now = 3D – So a 2 D lawn is ridicules.

Well I have a 3D lawn, otherwise there wasnt much point in me growing my grass.

You only need to close your eyes and your third dimension does no longer exist. This is a scientific fact. Still you can dream about (and calculate) the 3rd dimension, but still it ONLY is what it always was, - imagination in your own mind.

No it is not. And it if was, it could equally well be applied to the second or first dimension.

All we can say for certain is that our inner cinema is ONLY 2D and on that basic we must try to understand the basic of everything, included gravity. But there is off course a lot more than that to learn.

All your arguments boil down to "cos I say so". You still have not answered any of my questions that I have raised previously because you have no answer other than "cos I say so".

So long we have no idea why there is equal proportionately between ADG magnitude and square increase, - we should be more carefully to determinate what the basic nature of gravity / reality is.
Add to that that also the Lorentz transformation also tells a different story of what reality is.

Aside from the poor wording and maths and physics here... we DO have a good idea... at least we do..

What is so special about the Lorentz transformation? Do you know what it is ?
Can it not be applied to 4 or 3 dimensional "spaces"?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

You only need to close your eyes and your third dimension does no longer exist. This is a scientific fact.

Go to a busy shopping center, typically a mall. Stand somewhere in the middle of pedestrian traffic. Focus on someone walking to you. Close your eyes Bjarne. Wait a few seconds. What is the location of this person in relation to you?

Do this same experiment, but this time stand near some stairs, preferably on a landing in the middle of the stairs. Again, what is the location of this person in relation to you?

The point to this all? Just because you close your eyes doesn't mean that the dimensions don't exists, it just means you have your eyes closed.

Using the same analogy, gravity must not exist because I can't see it. Same for time.

 

[Bjarne]

Go to a busy shopping center, typically a mall. Stand somewhere in the middle of pedestrian traffic. Focus on someone walking to you. Close your eyes Bjarne. Wait a few seconds. What is the location of this person in relation to you?

Do this same experiment, but this time stand near some stairs, preferably on a landing in the middle of the stairs. Again, what is the location of this person in relation to you?

The point to this all? Just because you close your eyes doesn't mean that the dimensions don't exists, it just means you have your eyes closed.

Using the same analogy, gravity must not exist because I can't see it. Same for time.

Ohh yeh, reality seems very real, but you can actually experience it different. Many have had such experiences, both in our time, and to all time, all around the planet.

 

[Bjarne]

Well I have a 3D lawn, otherwise there wasnt much point in me growing my grass.

I have a cow for sale.

What is so special about the Lorentz transformation? Do you know what it is ?
Can it not be applied to 4 or 3 dimensional "spaces"?

Your reality can change faster than the universe "out there" can do the same, - and it tells you that you can't share a common reality with a person in a different space time, even though you are observing the same.

So it tells you that a certain reality NOT is out there, but only local realities counts.

Now try for you self to understand what "Local reality" mean.

Furthermore it tells you that all these separated items you see "out there" - birds, cars, lakes, ants, trains - everything, - even also space and time, - can deform proportional, - as was it made of the same substance.

To be extreme now imagine you was a photon or almost traveling so fast, - imagine how much comparable different your reality would be.

Notice a photon is most likely the same place as you right now, hence reality-difference is huge, - where you are right now..

Tell me HOW is the outer reality , except plenty of contradictions ?