Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

Yes we do. We have a sound mathematical model that distinguishes between different types of curvature which makes testable predictions which are checked in a mryiad of experiments.

I ask again as you make yet another handwaving "you don't know what you are talking about" statement while contributing nothing but ignorance - do you know what a ricci tensor is? geodesic?

If not then it is YOU who knows nothing about curvature of space (or spacetime).

Do you know what ein ersplitten ladenburmer is ?
OK, as expected, - then it is you that don’t know anything about anything.
Why don't you explain how and why matter curves space, - and what make it possible for space to curve, - how speed of matter create mass and hence gravity, - or how time is disturbed by space?
Well, because you don't know what you are talking about, right?
Shortly spoken you know almost nothing about what you are dealing with.
All you have is almost only a word.
Cows to curves, but this explain nothing about why a cow is or cow, - what it is made of, - how it was made, - why it eat grass, - why milk can be converted to butter, - or why the cow is here on the planet - does it ?

 

[DazzaD]

Do you know what ein ersplitten ladenburmer is ?
OK, as expected, - then it is you that don’t know anything about anything.
Why don't you explain how and why matter curves space, - and what make it possible for space to curve, - how speed of matter create mass and hence gravity, - or how time is disturbed by space?
Well, because you don't know what you are talking about, right?
Shortly spoken you know almost nothing about what you are dealing with.
All you have is a word.
Cows to curves, but this explain nothing about why a cow is or cow, - what it is made of, - how it was made, - or why it is here on the planet - does it ?

Nope.. not off hand... Should I know?

Am I claiming that the existing "theory" is wrong and plainly incorrect? no.

Am I claiming that units of acceleration are m/s? no

Am I claiming that the existing mathematical description is wrong without offering anything to replace it? no

Am I the one who misunderstands basic acceleration due to gravity, GR, SR etc? no.



You seem to still be misunderstanding what GR tells us about space-time and its relationship to curvature, matter and gravity.

If you are asking me WHY matter curves space-time and want a simple description devoid of any maths or physics then I am not sure I can offer you one (or anyone else for that matter).

Note I am talking about space-time... not space.. not time.. space-time.

If you want a simple synopsis I can offer this:

On the left you have a description that is purely geometrical.. it describes the curvature of space-time. It is a mathematical description of the 'curvature' of space-time. This means it describes a mathematical property of how a four dimensional "thing" changes as you "move" across it...i.e. it describes how "curved" it is (note you must NOT get too hooked on the word curvature here in the everyday sense.. we are talking about higher dimensional mathematical structures and you can get the wrong idea if you insist on thinking of curvature as purely being the "curve" of your car's slopes or similar).

On the right you have the energy-momentum tensor. This is purely to do with "mass" (or energy if you prefer...they are equivalent) in the physical universe.

This is one of the most beautiful results in all of physics.

On the left you have a purely geometrical thing, a thing of shapes, a thing of ideas, a thing of mathematicians' dreams... on the right you have a purely physical thing.. a thing of mass, energy, momentum, movement, stuff... pure physics... hands on "real" stuff you can measure...

and the beauty is that equals sign...

the way one is related directly to the other...

Wonderful stuff... and knowing the full background to the maths and physics and building up to it over several years only heightens the wonder at arriving at that equation.


My questions pre-empted yours above.. I asked what a Ricci tensor was, and contravarient and covarient for several reasons.

1. I wanted to know if you were familiar with them so I didn't talk down to you if you were already well versed in this maths.

2. I wanted to see your reaction, if you would "google" them and try to bluff your way through.

3. I wanted to see if you would ignore those questions and try to turn the tables and avoid the questions and extend the thread by deliberately evading the very answers you seek.

4. I wanted to see if you were genuinely interested in these items or even the fact that I asked about them (i.e. "no I have not got a clue what they are ... why do you ask? what have they got to do with ...")


Your response was quite telling.


If you want the full maths then I suggest we clear up the GCSE level mathematics problems before we attempt any degree or post-degree level mathematics that fully describe GR and the curvature of space-time.

I am quite willing to sit down and explain SR and GR to you but it would take one hell of a thread to get through it from the start.

If it is a petty game of credentials you want I can provide direct evidence of my qualifications if you wish.

I have a first class degree in mathematics and astrophysics and I studied cosmology (dark matter) for my PhD work.

You?

 

[Paul]

Do you know what ein ersplitten ladenburmer is ?

It's a tired word game that you already tried 3 years ago while being ignorant on another board.

OK, as expected, - then it is you that don’t know anything about anything.

I'm afraid it only works that way on planet Bjarne.

Why don't you explain how and why matter curves space, - and what make it possible for space to curve, - how speed of matter create mass and hence gravity, - or how time is disturbed by space?

Why don't you, you're the one who thinks he knows everything.

Shortly spoken you know almost nothing about what you are dealing with.
All you have is almost only a word.

Don't confuse your total ignorance with the patiently imparted knowledge of others.

Cows to curves, but this explain nothing about why a cow is or cow, - what it is made of, - how it was made, - why it eat grass, - why milk can be converted to butter, - or why the cow is here on the planet - does it ?

The problem is, Bjarne, that the word cow carries with it the answers to all your questions. It's your problem if you want to play childish word games and ignore the way language actually works.

 

[DazzaD]

Taken from your website Bjarne:

"Increasing acceleration of matter of the Universe must cause increasing mass, and hence increasing gravity"

This shows a massive misunderstanding of the right hand term in the equation above.

Note I called it an energy-momentum tensor... in short it sums up all the mass/energy/velocity type things in one go...

So your handwaving idea of "the faster I go, the more mass I have, hence more gravity" is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels. It does not even pass muster on conservation of energy, let alone SR, let alone GR.

All the "energy" associated with the increase in speed has already been accounted for in that tensor. It already includes the "go faster" bit.. the "extra gravity" because of "increased mass" because "you went faster" just came from some other bit of energy.. that was already taken into account.. you are just moving the apples from one side of the lorry to another and claiming there are more apples in the lorry now...

I think your massively over simplistic play with words and avoiding the real physical context and the maths is really causing you a great misunderstanding.

 

[DazzaD]

"The prevailing BigBang thesis is unnatural. For example no known force could have brought all the energy we know exist in the Universe into a point of nothing, and no known force of nature could have brought it out from that "point"."

Except that is no real claim of the standard model.



"The theory claim that BigBang not was an explosion that happen from a "dot" - but it happen instead from everywhere. Because of everywhere stars was exploding due to extreme speed / gravity."

Do you think that stars were around in the first 3 minutes?

"We are aware of a similar process in miniature; - when a supernova explodes.
The law of nature responsible for a BigBang is the same as responsible for a supernova, except a BigBang is bigger (and extreme gravity caused by extreme speed is involved in a BigCrunch)."

Er.. is it? what law of nature is this then?

and extreme gravity is NOT caused by extreme speed

"Extreme speed of matter was causing extreme gravity. After the universe was exploding it begun to lose gravity. "

Like losing your car keys? Doesnt make sense...at all..

"The cause of strong gravitational lensing is therefore truly created due to stronger gravity as we today can account for. Hence it have nothing to do with real dark matter."

Eh? Eh?

Even according to your warped and twisted explanations and physics above this still doesnt make sense and is a massive leap from the previous sentences.

And besides.. if you mean gravitational lensing is due to "increased" "gravity" somewhere along the line of sight.. then.. yeah.. that is kind of the whole point... coupled with that fact that this is not the be all and end all of dark matter

(I bring this point up again for another reason.. you asked me if I knew anything.. to expand on what I did during my PhD - Cosmology - Dark Matter - Gravitational MicroLensing as a possible means of using MACHOs to explain some of the galactic dark matter).

 

[Bjarne]

Am I claiming that the existing "theory" is wrong and plainly incorrect? no.

I also not, I am just claiming that is not complete or fully understood, either is the connection between matter speed and space.

Am I claiming that units of acceleration are m/s? no

I also not, - I wrote about how deep a stone would fall after 1 second, - hence ^2 is not necessary.

Am I claiming that the existing mathematical description is wrong without offering anything to replace it? No

I also not, I am only trying to make the main parts of unsolved mysteries possible to adapt to a coherent understanding, this is often possible only by twisting what we already know without violating certain knowledge. Off course in this mission I can’t accept or equalize speculation with science like to many brainwashed fools believe is OK. What is only rubbish must be thrown to hell where it belongs.

Am I the one who misunderstands basic acceleration due to gravity, GR, SR etc? no.

I also not, but I am sure that the proportionality between square increase and ADG decrease 1:1 not is a coincident.
It could very well be a key to a better understanding.

 

[Bjarne]

Taken from your website Bjarne:

"Increasing acceleration of matter of the Universe must cause increasing mass, and hence increasing gravity"

This shows a massive misunderstanding of the right hand term in the equation above.

Note I called it an energy-momentum tensor... in short it sums up all the mass/energy/velocity type things in one go...

So your handwaving idea of "the faster I go, the more mass I have, hence more gravity" is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels. It does not even pass muster on conservation of energy, let alone SR, let alone GR.

All the "energy" associated with the increase in speed has already been accounted for in that tensor. It already includes the "go faster" bit.. the "extra gravity" because of "increased mass" because "you went faster" just came from some other bit of energy.. that was already taken into account.. you are just moving the apples from one side of the lorry to another and claiming there are more apples in the lorry now...

I think your massively over simplistic play with words and avoiding the real physical context and the maths is really causing you a great misunderstanding.

I am sure you understand E=Mc^2 - Hence also that M= E/c^2 .
Do you deny that E is increasing due to speed of an object?
My friend we are speaking about mathematical facts.
Why do you want to deny it ?

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne Wrote
"The prevailing BigBang thesis is unnatural. For example no known force could have brought all the energy we know exist in the Universe into a point of nothing, and no known force of nature could have brought it out from that "point"."
DazzaD wrote
Except that is no real claim of the standard model.

It is a consequence of the BB speculation that all energy must have got "in there". At least that something completely unknown must have hold in back until someone (and most likelky god ? - as least the pope belive so) must have pushed the red button.

Bjarne wrote
"The theory claim that BigBang not was an explosion that happen from a "dot" - but it happen instead from everywhere. Because of everywhere stars was exploding due to extreme speed / gravity."
DazzaD wrote
Do you think that stars were around in the first 3 minutes?

I am sure that the Universe we live in will collapse due to a BigChunch, - and from the remains will a new universe be created. This has happen many times, and who knows maybe always.
The day you understand that Relativistic Resistance (RR) due to motion in space also apply by constant speed, you will also understand how a small error in physic loooong ago could lead to such big load of rubbish what the BigBang speculation really is. I will prove RR is true. BB and what follows (dark matter and dark energy) is the biggest load of rubbish ever created by mankind, this tower of speculation build on speculation build on speculation will turn into rubbles. Guaranteed,

Bjarne wrote
"We are aware of a similar process in miniature; - when a supernova explodes.
The law of nature responsible for a BigBang is the same as responsible for a supernova, except a BigBang is bigger (and extreme gravity caused by extreme speed is involved in a BigCrunch)."
DazzaD wrote
Er.. is it? what law of nature is this then?

Space is elastic, there is a limit how much you can strength it. Stretching it too much will lead to that the strong interaction (particle spin) no longer will work. Hence absorbed space will be released., Call that a gravitational wave or whatever you want

Bjarne Wrote
"The cause of strong gravitational lensing is therefore truly created due to stronger gravity as we today can account for. Hence it have nothing to do with real dark matter."
DazzaD wrote
Eh? Eh?
Even according to your warped and twisted explanations and physics above this still doesnt make sense and is a massive leap from the previous sentences.
And besides.. if you mean gravitational lensing is due to "increased" "gravity" somewhere along the line of sight.. then.. yeah.. that is kind of the whole point... coupled with that fact that this is not the be all and end all of dark matter

Not somewhere, but everywhere.
Notice my friend, the concept behind ”Cosmological Redshift" is the biggest scientific lie that ever have existed on this planet and ever will. It has NOTHING with science to do. It only belongs to the most idiotic ignorant brainwashed fanatic ideology you can imagine. Billion of innocent humans belives that this is certian knoglede. Soon only cows are left to save us.

 

[Paul]

I will prove RR is true. BB and what follows (dark matter and dark energy) is the biggest load of rubbish ever created by mankind, this tower of speculation build on speculation build on speculation will turn into rubbles. Guaranteed

Feel free to start.

So far you have failed to show even the beginnings of an attempt to properly describe what you think is true.

 

[Paul]

I am sure you understand E=Mc^2 - Hence also that M= E/c^2 .
Do you deny that E is increasing due to speed of an object?
My friend we are speaking about mathematical facts.
Why do you want to deny it ?

Speaking of mathematical facts, do you understand the term constant and it's use in that equation?

 

[Bjarne]

Speaking of mathematical facts, do you understand the term constant and it's use in that equation?

It could be seen from an observer outside our universe, or outside a system of multi universes..

 

[Bjarne]

Feel free to start.

So far you have failed to show even the beginnings of an attempt to properly describe what you think is true.

http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

 

[DazzaD]

Laughable responses...

On the one hand you say you are NOT saying that the existing SR/GR etc is wrong

On the other hand you rubbish everything about it and all its uses and predictions in cosmology.

Laughable...

And yet again.. no direct answer to any of the maths or physics because you fail to understand even the most basic tenet.


"I am sure you understand E=Mc^2 - Hence also that M= E/c^2 .
Do you deny that E is increasing due to speed of an object?
My friend we are speaking about mathematical facts.
Why do you want to deny it ?"

Yes I do.

The TOTAL 'energy' is not increasing.. the total energy of the whole system.

Maybe if a rocket is getting faster and faster we could say its KINETIC energy is increasing... and if you wish its mass... but where did that energy come from?

You say mathematical facts and you understand nothing about the maths.

For instance.. do you understand that the famous (and useful) E=mc^2 is just a SIMPLIFICATION of a much more important equation? That it is in essence the first few terms of something like a series expansion?

Do you understand what the m represents? Do you know what 'rest mass' is?

Do you understand what the c represents?

Do you know when this equation applies and when it does not?

Do you understand that has no bearing on the relationship I posted between the two tensors?

Do you know what a tensor is?

What on Earth do you mean space is elastic?

Why on Earth would the strong interaction "cease to work" if you stretch it too much?

Do you know what cosmological redshift is? How it is measured?


All your speculations are like me saying "cows are really boogoid rocks in a flartishis muso-mode... you know it.. you know cows dont work like that... it is a big lie that cows have four legs.. we have no evidence they eat grass.. have you seen a cow eat grass? it is a big lie put forward by the scientific community so they can brainwash us into drinking milk"

 

[DazzaD]

Just read this:

"KE = (y - 1) mc² - where y = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)"

"But the basic process of resistance against motion (RR) must off course be directly proportional to the energy converting process. To be able to calculate RR the well known equation must be slightly modified, so that the result is with unit (m/s). All we need to add is therefore “m/s” as shown > ; RR = (y – 1m/s) - where y = 1m/s/√(1 - v²/c²)"

This is brilliant.

I love this now...

I may use some of this with my A Level students...



Perhaps we can look at some other well known "false" results.


Let us take

F=ma

Now clearly F should be proportional to the circumference of the cylinder. So all we need to do is add "m" to the formula.

Thus

Fm=mam

What have I been doing all these years? It is so clear to me now.

 

[Bjarne]

Just read this:

"KE = (y - 1) mc² - where y = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)"

"But the basic process of resistance against motion (RR) must off course be directly proportional to the energy converting process. To be able to calculate RR the well known equation must be slightly modified, so that the result is with unit (m/s). All we need to add is therefore “m/s” as shown > ; RR = (y – 1m/s) - where y = 1m/s/√(1 - v²/c²)"

This is brilliant.

I love this now...

I may use some of this with my A Level students...


Perhaps we can look at some other well known "false" results.


Let us take

F=ma

Now clearly F should be proportional to the circumference of the cylinder. So all we need to do is add "m" to the formula.

Thus

Fm=mam

What have I been doing all these years? It is so clear to me now.

The Lorentz equation is in its basic root an expression of resistance against motion.
The fact that we use it only to get a unit neutral transformation factor for calculating parallel effects, is not a contradiction, - but something that should get the awake to understand the underlying process.
The factor is simply in its basic a refection of resistance against motion. It is mathematical obvious.

You can compare it with a equation whereby you can calculate all the resistance your car is affected by, but so that you only know a factor reflecting how much fuel you must fill into it. You will get so used to the fuel-version of the equation that you one day will forget that the basic always was about resistance against motion.

 

[Bjarne]

Laughable responses...

Yes I do.

The TOTAL 'energy' is not increasing.. the total energy of the whole system.

This is where you went wrong.
The object will increase its total E, - not the whole system, - whatever it mean (?).

 

[Paul]

It could be seen from an observer outside our universe, or outside a system of multi universes..

What question was that supposed to answer, it certainly wasn't mine.

 

[DazzaD]

The Lorentz equation is in its basic root an expression of resistance against motion.
The fact that we use it only to get a neutral transformation factor for calculating parallel effects, is not a contradiction, - but something that should get the awake to understand the underlying process.
You can compare it with a equation whereby you can calculate all the resistance your car is affected by, but so that you only to know how much fuel you must fill into it. You will get so used to the limit version of the equation that you one day will forget that the basic always was about resistance against motion.

WHAT Lorentz equation?

Do you mean the Lorentz transformation as used in SR?

Do you mean the Lorentz force as in EM?

Do you mean the Lorentz–Lorenz relationship between refractive index and polarisability?

 

[Paul]

http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

Precisely my point.

 

[DazzaD]

This is where you went wrong.
The object will increase its total E, - not the whole system, - whatever it mean (?).

Read my WHOLE reply.. not just the first sentence and you will see where I explained myself.

The "whole system" is important.. it is a way to make sure you considering all that is important. If you just look at ONE object you may find that conservation of energy does NOT hold... Conservation of energy is true for the WHOLE system (i.e. everything... or at least all the things that are important in your model).

Else you will again misunderstand this "increase in energy" you talk about and you will not understand why the T tensor in the equation above is so important (as it talks about the TOTAL energy/momentum etc of the 'universe').