Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Daylightstar]

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

I have a cow for sale.

Bjarne, state your understanding of DazzaD's growing grass on his 3D lawn.

 

[Paul]

Ohh yeh, reality seems very real

Reality does seem real, such is the nature of actual phenomena having substantive empirical existence.

but you can actually experience it different.

So? What does that have to do with the nature of reality?

Many have had such experiences, both in our time, and to all time, all around the planet.

Again, what does the existence of different viewpoints have to do with the nature of reality?

 

[Paul]

Your reality can change faster than the universe "out there" can do the same

How?

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

Yet again you demonstrate a complete failure to understand even the most basic nature of the concept of spacetime.

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

It does no such thing, you do that without any reason but your own fantasies.

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne, Have you just found out that 2*2 = 4

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

Gibberish.

My question was easy:

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?

This is a simple bit of math. If you double a quantity that is squared then you get 4 times the quantity. The reason is that 2 squared = 4.

Have you just found out that 2*2 = 4, Bjarne?

ETA:
Why this obsession with doubling , Bjarne?
We can replace the squared quantity x with nx and get a factor which mother cow knows is n^2..

 

[DazzaD]

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.

Well we know it works. That everything that "seems" to be 3D works "as if it was". Reality or not, I do not care.. the principle of it working remains the same no matter your chosen interpretation of how the brain works (which by the way is not backed up in any way shape or form by real science or maths).

Again, going by your argument you could easily replace 3D with 2D and it would still stand (and thus blow your argument out of the water).

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.

Really? Why? What is "EM-information"? Is it the same as the fields described by Maxwell's equations?

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, state your understanding of DazzaD's growing grass on his 3D lawn.

How can you prove it is growing when you have a cow at the lawn ?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Two ways leap to my mind: Measuring the lawn's growth, and cutting the grass at an even height and examining if anything was cut,

 

[Daylightstar]

Bjarne, state your understanding of DazzaD's growing grass on his 3D lawn.

How can you prove it is growing when you have a cow at the lawn ?

There's no proof nor evidence for a cow on the lawn.

No Bjarne.
Let me adjust the way the question is asked.
This statement:

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

Explain, why is the lawn obviously 3D?

 

[MRC_Hans]

How can you prove it is growing when you have a cow at the lawn ?

Ahh, not a bad question, if you want a simple introduction to the scientific method.

The answer is: Remove the cow.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Ahh, not a bad question, if you want a simple introduction to the scientific method.

The answer is: Remove the cow.

Hans

And what then when the cow would move you instead ?

 

[steenkh]

And what then when the cow would move you instead ?

Eat it, and carry on measuring the grass.

 

[Daylightstar]

And what then when the cow would move you instead ?

So, you can't explain it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7959878&postcount=5448

 

[MRC_Hans]

And what then when the cow would move you instead ?

It won't.

Bjarne, what happens to gravity when distance is increased 3 times?
1.3 times?
27 times?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

It won't.

Bjarne, what happens to gravity when distance is increased 3 times?
1.3 times?
27 times?

Hans

Irrelevant
There is a equal proportionality (1:1) between square increase and gravity (ADG) decrease.
You and nobody else have even any idea why, .... and worse you even doesn’t understand what I just wrote. If you did you would have repeated that stupid question

 

[DazzaD]

Irrelevant
There is a equal proportionality (1:1) between square increase and gravity (ADG) decrease.
You and nobody else have even any idea why, .... and worse you even doesn’t understand what I just wrote. If you did you would have repeated that stupid question

Arglle...

Please read what I wrote about the factor of 4 times pi times r squared again.. how it is related to the surface area of a sphere... then please reconsider your statement that "nobody else have even any idea why".

 

[MRC_Hans]

Irrelevant
There is a equal proportionality (1:1) between square increase and gravity (ADG) decrease.

Yes, but that was not what you said. You claimed that it was a 1:2 ratio.
And don't deny it, because we can all read.

You and nobody else have even any idea why,

Wrong, we know exactly why it is so. Gravity behaves just like any other force: When it spreads out, it is weakened. It is weakened proportionally to the area it is spread over.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Yes, but that was not what you said. You claimed that it was a 1:2 ratio.
And don't deny it, because we can all read.

As expected you haven't understood it
The proportional 1:1 reflect what I just wrote, that square increase is causing a equal proportional gravity (ADG) decrease.

The proportionals between ADG: SQUARE is nailed.
You can convert this already nailed ASD/square proportional to a “radius language” – but then the proportional are 1:2
Which mean each time you double Radius (factor2) ADG will decrease 4 times (factor 4) .
Hence you have a proportional 1:2, which ALSO reflects that proportional’s between ADG: SQUARE.

But Hans you will not understand this.
So I think we better give it up.

Wrong, we know exactly why it is so. Gravity behaves just like any other force: When it spreads out, it is weakened. It is weakened proportionally to the area it is spread over.

This is not an answer. Cows also behave like many other animals, because cows eat grass, but nothing of that explains why the square of space is equal proportional to the magnitude of ADG.

Either it also does not explain why other forces follows the same pattern.

We have come to a dead end, where both gravity and relativity cannot take us further. - We have come as close as possible to where our own reality “begins” (and ends).

 

[Paul]

As expected you haven't understood it

The problem is that you haven't understood what you think you are trying to say.

The proportional 1:1 reflect what I just wrote, that square increase is causing a equal proportional gravity (ADG) decrease.

What do you think a square increase is?

The proportionals between ADG: SQUARE is nailed.

That, as usual, makes no sense.

You can convert this already nailed ASD/square proportional to a “radius language” – but then the proportional are 1:2

No.

Which mean each time you double Radius (factor2) ADG will decrease 4 times (factor 4) .

What if you triple the radius?

Unless you wish to propose the stupid and useless tactic of only being able to double from a point on the surface of the previous result.

Hence you have a proportional 1:2, which ALSO reflects that proportional’s between ADG: SQUARE.

Still no.

But Hans you will not understand this.

Yes, that's the real trouble, it's all Hans' fault. Naughty Hans.

So I think we better give it up.

If you wouldn't mind, we'd all be very grateful.

This is not an answer.

It is an answer, your inability to process simple information does not invalidate it.

We have come to a dead end,

You may have, science disagrees with you.

 

[DazzaD]

bjarne, you are very selective in which posts you reply to, seemingly avoiding those that have plainly stated maths that you can't argue with.

I and others have clearly explained that your insistence on using the example of doubling the distance is blinding you to the behaviour of the equation.

plainly you are confusing 2 x 2 with 2 + 2

you are also wilfully ignoring the simple explanation of a force spreading out in all directions and having its effect weakened with the square of the distance, simple GCSE maths.

tell me, in your reality, does the energy received from the sun, per square metre, change with the square of the distance from the sun? why?

 

[DazzaD]

simple challenge, explain to me again this proportionality but without using doubling or timesing by two