Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[PixyMisa]

1. I don't not believe that convection is like such stable conveyer areas. For example I don't believe there is a flow under India (or Italy) towards north. - What about the earth's rotation would that not interrupts a such flow (!).

No.

2. My friend this idea is all based on naive believes.

No, it's based on solid evidence. The continents are actually moving. The Earth is not actually expanding.

3. Convection is much more randomly

More random than what?

4. The force is much to weak to rise mountains.

On what evidence do you base this claim? The continents are moving. When two continental plates collide - as is happening with India and Asia - what exactly do you expect to happen?

Much stronger force MUST be involved.

Evidence?

This idea is invented of people that never had have a hammer in their hands.

I think you will find that most geologists have held a hammer at some point in their careers.

I agree you can have something that "looks like subduction zones"

We do. They are called subduction zones.

This must be a result (some places) when the crust is re-curving,

The crust is not "re-curving", whatever that is supposed to mean. However, the continents are moving.

Does the curvature of space mean that space is stretching, and hence the exact same property as stretching/expanding space ( "dark energy") ?

No.

If so this have several logical indisputable consequences.

Well, not, therefore not.

For exsample these:

1. We have taken a big step forward better to understand gravity as a coherent whole, and especially what "curvature of space" really is.

That would follow, but your premise is false.

2. The "density" of space must be inhomogeneous. Gravity/Matter is tinning out the density of space. (and that's it, gravity can do no more, also not locally stop the expanding universe )

That is meaningless.

3. Since gravity and expanding space is two side of the exact same coin, space here (arround us) must stretch together with the rest of the Universe. Gravity can not stop (only limit) this since gravity only mean mean thinner density nothing else.)

This is likewise meaningless.

4. Space between galaxies must expand a little faster because the density between galaxies are "thicker" .

Meaningless.

5. Space inside matter must expand too since space is space doesn't matter if it is inside or outside matter,

Whatever.

6. Space inside the central areas of the Earth must expand a little less because central space-density inside the Earth is "thinner" - which mean at the surface is expanding more - therefore the crust must crack.

The Earth is not expanding. It's not hard to comprehend. The Earth is not expanding. If your "theory" predicts that the Earth is expanding, then your theory is wrong.

7. A kilo must always be a kilo, otherwise we would have discover it was changing proportional with the expanding earth and universe, it doesn't seem to happen. (observation is the scientific method)

Again you have completely failed to grasp even the simplest principles of scaling.

You didn't read the article. Read the article.

8. Galaxies forms because matter also must contracts space from a inwards central direction, which mean huge extended masses have common gravity from the first moment. - Central space-density will be under enormous "vacuum pressure" - this is excactly what dark matter and black holes is about..

No, none of this is true.

9. Black holes is naturally because matter must sucks space from all direction, when a central area is encircled by matter, the effect on space will be greater, the result is black holes proportional with the mass of a galaxy, and of the same reason dark matter is only a naturally property of space, - and hence not matter.

None of this is true either.

10. The Cause of gravity must be the spin of elementary particles. (spinning / contracting space together) ((what else))

Spin? No. This is mathematically and physically impossible.

11. The accelerating expanding of the universe is only a "illusion" because observation shows that distances must change proportional with time and the expanding universe.

What?

12. Gravity and the strong force is united, - this is now easy to "trace".

No.

 

[Cosmic Roy]

1. I don't not believe that convection is like such stable conveyer areas. For example I don't believe there is a flow under India (or Italy) towards north. - What about the earth's rotation would that not interrupts a such flow (!). My friend this idea is all based on naive believes.
2. Convection is much more randomly
3. The force is much to weak to rise mountains.
4. Much stronger force MUST be involved.
5. This idea is invented of people that never had have a hammer in their hands.

Bjarne, the driving force of plate tectonics is not simply the convection of the mantle. Spreading centres are topographically high, so gravity causes ocean lithosphere to move away from the ridge at which it was created. Also, as the subducting lithospheric slab descends into the mantle, it tugs on that portion which is still at the surface.

I agree you can have something that "looks like subduction zones"
This must be a result (some places) when the crust is re-curving,

If you find a feature that looks like a subduction zone, and you find the sinking slab beneath it, and you find the volcanic arc at an appropriate distance from it, and you measure the convergent motion of the plates adjacent to it, then it makes no sense to deny that what you have found is, indeed, a subduction zone. Yet that's what you are doing. To say that "This must be a result (some places) when the crust is re-curving" (my emphasis) is simply an unsupported assertion. Why must it be as you say? Because otherwise your theory would be undermined?

Space inside the central areas of the Earth must expand a little less because central space-density inside the Earth is "thinner" - which mean at the surface is expanding more - therefore the crust must crack.

You have to understand, Bjarne, that real-life observations have precedence even over the most beautiful of theories; when facts in the real world falsify your theory, it is not the real world that is wrong.

 

[Belz...]

This is conclusion based on too little and incoherent knowledge.
It already happens.

Huh ? I'm not sure I understand your post.

Did you or did you not understand what I said about acceleration ?

Forces are all about acceleration.

 

[dafydd]

This is conclusion based on too little and incoherent knowledge.
It already happens.

Every irony meter in the world just exploded.

 

[Brian-M]

Every irony meter in the world just exploded.

Damn straight. Look what happened to mine...

 

[Brian-M]

I think we have been it all through
The point is simple.

Does the curvature of space mean that space is stretching, and hence the exact same property as stretching/expanding space ( "dark energy") ?

We've already repeatedly told you the answer to this question is NO. Were you not paying attention? Why else do you keep repeating the question, and proceeding as if the answer was yes?

No. Gravity is not explained by a "stretching / expanding space". It is explained in GR by a curving space-time. Gravity can not be explained by stretching or contracting space-time as pointed out to you last November in another thread (replacing contraction by expansion and drain by source does not change the conclustion)

This would be a consequence if gravity curvature of space = stretching space.

This would be complete nonsense.

In that case the "BIG and important" answer is NO, the curvature of space is not the same thing as the expansion of space.

Shortly it is possible to prove whether the curvature of space is the exact same property than expanding spaced.

If so this will change a lot;

Bjarne, I'm tired of your "soon". Put up or shut up.

Bjarne, I DO understand how is gravity and the expanding space connected. Gravity does not cause expanding space. Expanding space does not cause gravity. Gravity can slow down or even reverse the expansion of space (but that does not seen to be our universe).

As first demonstrated to you on 11 November 2009 - Curved space is not contracted space and neither is expanding space.

How does it explain E V E R Y T H I N G ? It can't even explain itself. Gravity pulls things together, stretching space pulls things apart. Wouldn't that make stretching space the opposite of gravity?

Does the curvature of space mean that space is stretching, and hence the exact same property as stretching/expanding space ( "dark energy") ?

No.

 

[ferd burfle]

You have to understand, Bjarne, that real-life observations have precedence even over the most beautiful of theories; when facts in the real world falsify your theory, it is not the real world that is wrong.

Bjarne, I agree with Roy. Having read all of your threads (AFAIK), I think what you're actually doing in these threads is presenting the results of your personal philosophy. You may think what you are presenting is science but your assertions are contradicted at every turn by measurements made in the real world and you have persuaded none of the scientists on this board of any of your ideas. One interpretation of this is, as Roy says, you are wrong. The other is that there is some vast, coordinated conspiracy by scientists to suppress your ideas.

Maybe you can salvage some aspect of your thinking as philosophy. May I respectfully suggest you present one of your ideas as such in the philosophy section? You might get a better reception there.

ferd

 

[Bjarne]

I think what you're actually doing in these threads is presenting the results of your personal philosophy.

Off course.
Let's measurement have the final word.

Correction
Space is expanding proportional to the stretch factor, I have mentioned few times above.
But this means that the central area of the Earth is expanding more like the crust area.
I must say the "main thread" of my own theory leads to conclusion that even surprised my self.
( I thought it was opposite) This as well is possible to prove, - but this will be the next step…

 

[dafydd]

I think that you are an illusion Bjarne,no one could be so ignorant of basic physics and so willfully obtuse.

 

[ferd burfle]

Off course.
Let's measurement have the final word.

The measurements have already been done and they contradict your assertions. You've stated a number of times that you are going to make measurements and so far you've produced nothing. I think all we'll ever see are words and pretty pictures, unsupported by any measurements.

You're wasting everyone's time, Bjarne, including your own. Goodbye and good luck.

ferd

 

[Bjarne]

The measurements have already been done and they contradict your assertions

wrong

 

[Reality Check]

Please give a mathematical or even English definition of the "density"of space

wrong

Wrong.
Every measurement that is made of the Earth confirms that plate tectonics is the correct theory.
All of physics shows that an "expanding Earth" theory is lunacy that only a completely ignorant person could believe in.

The real point that you have ignored is that there is no such thing as density of space-time.
First asked 15 March 2010
Bjarne, Please give a mathematical or even English definition of the "density"of space.


For example

• What units does it have?
• How can we measure it?
• What determines how "dense" space is - (is it just whatever you want it to be and does that make you God?)?

Not that I expect any coherent answer from you, given the unanswered questions about flaws and ignorance displayed in your other threads:

• Flaws in and outstanding questions about Bjarne's magnetic field of the Earth idea (ferromagnetic material in the crust + the solar wind)
• The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two gravity threads

 

[Bjarne]

Every measurement that is made of the Earth confirms that plate tectonics is the correct theory.

There is no objective prove at all.
Different underground structure could very well be caused by re-curving of the crust.
This "history" is not longer than that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe-Rsbl_NIA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8tsuZde7rU&feature=related

All of physics shows that an "expanding Earth" theory is lunacy that only a completely ignorant person could believe in.

""All of the Physics""
Come on my dear......
There is no physic at all that forbids this idea.
On the contrary there is physics that support it.

You know space is stretching / expanding between galaxies.
Even the worlds most stupid cow would never even dream about that there "somewhere" out in space between two galaxies, there always are (VERY strange) "borders" where space on the one side is stretching / expanding on the other side of the border not.

A such idea is in fact not only lunacy , it is fare beyond common sense, and only a expression of total lack of logic.
There is no such "border" my friend, this would be soooooooooo strange if there were.
The effect of gravity have no limits, - a grain of sand effects the whole Universe.

Do you honestly believe such borders exist? – If so, - prove it.
Show me the exact math result, - how many

• km.
• meter
• centimetre
• millimetre

from us is that "border" .
My friend it only exists in yours (and others) fantasy, and that's it.
Space exactly where you are expands too, every second, and the same and even relative faster happens inside the earth.
Distances are relative too, that’s why we are totally BLINDED.
Space is expanding relative to its local stretch factor.
You body is expanding each second too.
Space is space, and you can stop it from being space or having the properties (you don't like or don't understand) .

The real point that you have ignored is that there is no such thing as density of space-time.
Bjarne, Please give a mathematical or even English definition of the "density" of space.

For example

• What units does it have?
• How can we measure it?
• What determines how "dense" space is ?

If space were nothing how can nothing for example:

• curves / deforms
• expands
• how can light be affected differently depending of where it moves.

You can not say space is nothing...

Space must be must be “something”.

Einstein too agreed to that...

Space must have some kind of “density”.

Exactly like you nicely can describe the property of space like “the curvature of space” – I can with the exact same right describe the exact same property like ; “the density of space”
WHY ? - Because there are NO DIFFERNCE, - IT IS THE EXCACTLY SAME.

Now you'll mayby think we only are struggling about word/expressions.
We are not, because the new expression is better, - it will force you to open you eyes for a must more coherent and simple universe.

Measurement can and will give you a better insight in that pretty simple issue.

 

[Cosmic Roy]

There is no objective prove at all.
Different underground structure could very well be caused by re-curving of the crust.
This "history" is not longer than that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe-Rsbl_NIA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8tsuZde7rU&feature=related

Bjarne! Do you think that repeatedly posting links to those laughable videos constitutes a defence of your claims? It does not. The arguments in the videos are worse than wrong; they're dishonest. Try putting forth an actual case. Be specific about how adjustment of the continental crust to a greater radius of curvature could result in structures similar to those formed by subduction. If you cannot do this, your claim that "Different underground structure could very well be caused by re-curving of the crust" is hollow and useless, and you should admit it gracefully.

 

[edd]

You know space is stretching / expanding between galaxies.
Even the worlds most stupid cow would never even dream about that there "somewhere" out in space between two galaxies, there always are (VERY strange) "borders" where space on the one side is stretching / expanding on the other side of the border not.

And it's just as clearly ludicrous to suppose that on a journey up into the sky to the Moon, there exists some point where suddenly up becomes down and down becomes up, because when I stand on the Moon it had better be on my feet and not my head.

The analogy is actually pretty close - it's a matter of gravity in both cases, and it just happens we can pinpoint that location for the Moon and the Earth a lot more easily than the local group and the Hubble flow.

I think it should be fairly obvious why we have trouble pinpointing that exact location (we're dealing with diffuse masses we cannot completely map and so on), so why do you make the absurd request quoted here:

Do you honestly believe such borders exist? – If so, - prove it.
Show me the exact math result, - how many

• km.
• meter
• centimetre
• millimetre

from us is that "border" .

Moving on...

You body is expanding each second too.

Middle-age spread aside, no it isn't. Actually I suspect my widening girth is proceeding at a rate substantially greater than the Hubble parameter.

As for whether space is something or not, that's more a philosophical question and not one that's terribly interesting to me. It clearly has some properties (as GR tells us) - whether that makes it a substance or not is not a meaningful question beyond that for me, unless there's some other measurement we can make to distinguish it.

 

[sol invictus]

You know space is stretching / expanding between galaxies.

Actually not. It's stretching between clusters of galaxies.

Even the worlds most stupid cow would never even dream about that there "somewhere" out in space between two galaxies, there always are (VERY strange) "borders" where space on the one side is stretching / expanding on the other side of the border not.

That's almost certainly true. Evidently that lack of imagination is shared by some humans as well.

A such idea is in fact not only lunacy , it is fare beyond common sense, and only a expression of total lack of logic.

Argument from incomprehension.

There is no such "border" my friend, this would be soooooooooo strange if there were.
The effect of gravity have no limits, - a grain of sand effects the whole Universe.

That's why such boundaries exist. See edd's rather nice analogy.

Do you honestly believe such borders exist? – If so, - prove it.
Show me the exact math result, - how many

• km.
• meter
• centimetre
• millimetre

from us is that "border" .

That would be easy enough in a simplified model. For example I can do that assuming that the matter in the universe is uniformly distributed apart from some spherically symmetric concentration of mass. But for the real universe such math isn't possible, because we don't know the distribution of mass well enough, and even if we did it's extremely complex and constantly in motion.

As for space expanding inside us, or inside the earth, to be frank that's a extremely stupid idea based on a silly misconception. It's completely backwards. The force of gravity on the earth makes it want to contract, it pulls things down and in, not out.

 

[Reality Check]

Please give a mathematical or even English definition of the "density"of space

""All of the Physics""
Come on my dear......

Come on my dear - there are crackpots who know nothing about physics that support it.

[/quote]
You know space is stretching / expanding between galaxies.
...
[/quote]
I know space-time is expanding everywhere.
I know this expansion of space-time is not seen locally.

There is only one cow who dreams that there is some kind of border:

To understand the apparent acceleration of the universe one must first ask:
Why does space inside galaxies or solar system not seems to expand.
This makes no sense.
For example think about; where is the “border” in space, - between where space expands and not expands.

But now you seem to have changed your mind and you may have learnt one basic fact: no scientist thinks that there is such a border.

If space were nothing how can nothing for example:

• curves / deforms
• expands
• how can light be affected differently depending of where it moves.

You can not say space is nothing...

Space must be must be “something”.

I did not say that space is nothing.
Space is "something" - it is where everything resides.
That does not mean that it has a density. A density is a quantity of somthing per unit volume of space. A unit volume of space per unit volume is the number 1. It is a constant.

I will not try to explain how space-time curves since you have shown no sign of being able to understand it. But maybe you can also ignore: Introduction to mathematics of general relativity.

For people who may be interested there is an interesting series of lectures by Leonard Susskind recorded at Stanford University on YouTube.
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (Lecture 1 of 12)
Be aware that theses are 2 hour long videos! There are lots of math in them but he does cover some good examples.

And since you totally ignored the actual question here it is again:
First asked 15 March 2010
Bjarne, Please give a mathematical or even English definition of the "density"of space.


And to make this explicit:

1. What units does the "density" of space-time have?
2. How can we measure it?
3. What determines how "dense" space is - (is it just whatever you want it to be and does that make you God?)?

I did remark the following. So far you have shown that I was right. Please, please, please prove me wrong !


Not that I expect any coherent answer from you, given the unanswered questions about flaws and ignorance displayed in your other threads:

• Flaws in and outstanding questions about Bjarne's magnetic field of the Earth idea (ferromagnetic material in the crust + the solar wind)
• The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two gravity threads

 

[Belz...]

wrong

Translation: "I have no intention of educating myself on the subject and prefer to use said ignorance to bolster my unconventional beliefs."

 

[Belz...]

There is no objective prove at all.
Different underground structure could very well be caused by re-curving of the crust.

You know, one can make up any number of explanations for a particular observation. Picking the right one is tricky, but you can usually bet your life savings that the one that defies all known science is not it.

 

[Bjarne]

You know, one can make up any number of explanations for a particular observation. Picking the right one is tricky, but you can usually bet your life savings that the one that defies all known science is not it.

The point is we don't know what space is..
We also don't know what the curvature of space really is..
But we know that space "deforms" - but without knowing what "deforms" really is.

We can say space have some kind of "density" and yes we also do not know what "density" really is.

It really doesn’t matter which expression we want to use.
The point is what if the "deformation" of space towards matter or the expanding "deformation" of space not are 2 different properties of space, but exactly the same. - What then?
The answer is simple; - this will make our universe 100.000 times easier to understand.
Dark matter and dark energy will automatically disappear like mist under the sun.
Black holes and the cause of gravity will immediately be self explanation.
How galaxies were formed is soooo simple ….etc. etc…etc…

Is it forbidden to use the right brian half in science ?