Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[wollery]

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

Using more than half a brain is usually advisable.

 

[Belz...]

The point is we don't know what space is.

YOU don't know what space is.

Under relativity, however, we have a pretty good idea how it works. It may not be a perfect idea, but it's a much better one than the ones we had before.

Just because it doesn't fit in your worldview doesn't make it suddenly wrong, and just because you don't understand the evidence doesn't make it go away.

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

"Really is" are meaningless weasel words. We know how it works. What else do you need ?

The answer is simple; - this will make our universe 100.000 times easier to understand.

For YOU. But the universe is in no way obligated to make sense to Bjarne.

Dark matter and dark energy will automatically disappear like mist under the sun.

That's what you really want, then. A simpler universe that you can understand. I'd like that, too. Simpler is better. But is may not be realistic, and I prefer to stick with reality.

 

[Bjarne]

That's what you really want, then. A simpler universe that you can understand. I'd like that, too. Simpler is better. But is may not be realistic, and I prefer to stick with reality.

It's not a personal question, what I want or like.
It's a question about reality
There is a lot that point to the fact that there is much more to understand.
When it comes to "dark matter" and true understanding of black holes, reality seems to show that we have not fully understood central gravity.
One example (of several) is that black holes have force/sizes proportional with the masses of galaxies . This is not understood.

You can not pretend we know everything about the relation matter / space, and hence that we really have understood the central nature of gravity..(!).

Read the BIG paint on the wall, (not what i want, believes, or like).
But read the fact that we have not understood central gravity.

 

[Landrew]

Here's a left-field pitch that you can take any way you want:

Suppose time and space and matter are all expanding together at an equal rate?

Neal Adams is convinced that the earth is much larger than it was in the time of the dinosaurs, and the physics of the flying pterosaurs (being too heavy to fly in today's gravity) seems to support this.

The anthropic principle says that the distance between the earth and the sun is critical for life, yet life seems to have existed fairly contiguously on earth for billions of years. how could that be possible if space were growing continuously? A possible answer is that mass and space have grown proportionally, therefore preserving the critical orbit of the earth around the sun.

The dilation of space itself may account for the apparent acceleration of distant objects and the apparent violation of the speed of light from our point of view.

As for time itself becoming dilated over time, perhaps it helps explain why our estimates for the age of the universe seem to contradict with some of our observations.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I can see that I'm lagging behind, so I'll just point out a few things

No you would not
Since 1 meter is still one meter.

Bjarne confirms that he is unable to grasp the simple fact that if lenght doubles, volume will be 8 times bigger, which means that either matter must get heaver or less dense. That we happen to call a certain distance '1 meter' is entirely irrelevant.

I see it is difficult for you to understand relativity.

Yes, relativity is indeed quite difficult to understand, and you have not even grasped what it is about, much less what it is.

If you have 1 hour you can run 15 km - if this one hour is relative 2 hours on Mercury it doesn't mean you can reach the double distances on Mercury.

No. Where would I get the extra energy

This is a old mistake.
Still you can only run 15 km per hour but in this case one km is relative "longer" - and that's why times is relative shorter.
All the law of nature are still the same...

Complete gibberish , but what could we expect?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Here's a left-field pitch that you can take any way you want:
Suppose time and space and matter are all expanding together at an equal rate?

Yes, and the stretch-factor of space is “longer” in a gravitational field.

Neal Adams is convinced that the earth is much larger than it was in the time of the dinosaurs, and the physics of the flying pterosaurs (being too heavy to fly in today's gravity) seems to support this.

I believe gravity always will be the same, simply because of distances are relative.
If not we should be able to measure changing gravity over time. It doesn’t seem to be the case. We can't off course not be sure.

The anthropic principle says that the distance between the earth and the sun is critical for life, yet life seems to have existed fairly contiguously on earth for billions of years. how could that be possible if space were growing continuously? A possible answer is that mass and space have grown proportionally, therefore preserving the critical orbit of the earth around the sun.

Yes, - all law of nature could always be the same.
Distances also expand.
1 meter will be relative longer today, but still a meter.

The dilation of space itself may account for the apparent acceleration of distant objects and the apparent violation of the speed of light from our point of view.

When you today can see that the expansion of the Universe was gradually slower and slower, in the past. What you in fact can see (with the blue eyes) is that distances before was relative “shorter” – but still 1 meter was 1 meter.
This give you the illusion that the expanding universe accelerates.

As for time itself becoming dilated over time, perhaps it helps explain why our estimates for the age of the universe seem to contradict with some of our observations.

I don’t know what you refer to, but yes time and distances dilation must be connected.
When space here in the last 100 mio. years have expanded twice, time must 100 mio. years ago have been double so fast.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne confirms that he is unable to grasp the simple fact that if length doubles, volume will be 8 times bigger, which means that either matter must get heaver or less dense. That we happen to call a certain distance '1 meter' is entirely irrelevant

No..
If the yardstick also expands, 1 meter is still 1 meter and 1 m3 is still 1 m3
1*1*1 = 1 ( not 8 )

No. Where would I get the extra energy

Same answer as above..

 

[Landrew]

I believe gravity always will be the same, simply because of distances are relative.
If not we should be able to measure changing gravity over time. It doesn’t seem to be the case. We can't off course not be sure.

I wasn't suggesting the gravitational constant had changed. If the size of the planet earth itself were smaller in the mesozoic, the gravity would be less. Therefore the flying pterosaurs would be able to get off the ground. If the air were simply thicker as some theorists suggest, the muscle power required would have been too great for the bone structure and the wings would have broken before it could get off the ground.

 

[Belz...]

Bjarne, would you mine learning to use the QUOTE function properly, so I don't have to ascertain who you're responding to ?

It's not a personal question, what I want or like.
It's a question about reality

Then why do you choose to ignore the science and go with your own theories, then ? Are you a physicist ?

There is a lot that point to the fact that there is much more to understand.
When it comes to "dark matter" and true understanding of black holes, reality seems to show that we have not fully understood central gravity.

How do you figure ? Dark Matter is posited because of several observations, not because of some crackpot's whim.

 

[Bjarne]

I wasn't suggesting the gravitational constant had changed. If the size of the planet earth itself were smaller in the mesozoic, the gravity would be less. Therefore the flying pterosaurs would be able to get off the ground. If the air were simply thicker as some theorists suggest, the muscle power required would have been too great for the bone structure and the wings would have broken before it could get off the ground.

Distance is an important factor by understanding gravity, - both according to the law for how space is affected, - as well as how acceleration due to gravity works.

If the Earth today were half size and distances not relative I believe gravity would be 4 times stronger, - not weaker.

Bjarne, would you mine learning to use the QUOTE function properly, so I don't have to ascertain who you're responding to ?

I do not know how this works, when clicking; ",," - nothing happens, only when clicking "quote". - I would like it to be a multi quote but it doesn’t seem to be there.

Then why do you choose to ignore the science and go with your own theories, then ?

Like Einstein I believe that everything fits together.
Unification of the 4 forces (etc.) is a challenge.

The last half of Einstein’s live he tried to unite the 4 forces of nature mathematically. Not many could understand why he wouldn’t give up.
I love this idea, and I am sure it is true.

But I don’t believe that the left mathematical brain half can do the job.
But the right brain half can, but only in simple words > http://www.science27.com/english/quantum_physics.html

How do you figure? Dark Matter is posited because of several observations, not because of some crackpot's whim.

Seen from a overall perspective there is no dark matter only uncomplete (wrong) understood natural central gravity. >> http://www.science27.com

 

[Reality Check]

Suppose time and space and matter are all expanding together at an equal rate?


Neal Adams is convinced that the earth is much larger than it was in the time of the dinosaurs, and the physics of the flying pterosaurs (being too heavy to fly in today's gravity) seems to support this.

The problem is that Neal Adams is a cartoonist with little understanding of physics. So citing him is a bad idea until he publishes his science in a actual scientific journal.
There is no evidence that matter "expands", e.g. that atoms were smaller in the past. There is plenty of evidence that matter in the past has been the same for billions of years, e.g. the fundamental constants have not changed. As an example, stellar physics depend critially on very specific parameters. a small change in them will turn stars off.

The anthropic principle says that the distance between the earth and the sun is critical for life, yet life seems to have existed fairly contiguously on earth for billions of years. how could that be possible if space were growing continuously? A possible answer is that mass and space have grown proportionally, therefore preserving the critical orbit of the earth around the sun.

You have the same misconception as Bjarne.
The entire universe is expanding. That includes us, atoms. etc. But local forces dominate at short distances and pull things together again.

As for time itself becoming dilated over time, perhaps it helps explain why our estimates for the age of the universe seem to contradict with some of our observations.

I am not aware of any observations that contradict our estimates for the age of the universe. You may be thinking of outdated estimates of globular cluster ages.

 

[MRC_Hans]

No..
If the yardstick also expands, 1 meter is still 1 meter and 1 m3 is still 1 m3
1*1*1 = 1 ( not 8 )


Same answer as above..

Bjarne, try to calculate that in cm instead.

A meter is a purely arbitrary unit.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

If the Earth today were half size and distances not relative I believe gravity would be 4 times stronger, - not weaker.

Your ignorance would embarrass even a cow.

If Earth was half the size, but the same density, gravity would be weaker. If Erth was half the size but the same mass, gravity would be stronger.

You simply don't understand what you are talking about.

Hans

 

[Brian-M]

Distances also expand.
1 meter will be relative longer today, but still a meter.

Longer relative to what?

And since the meter is the measure of length, something that was a meter in length, and is still a meter in length is, by definition, no longer than it was before.

Saying that a meter is longer but still a meter in length is gibberish.

If it's longer than it was, and is currently a meter in length, then it must have been less than a meter in length before. To say that previous length is a meter (because you're using the object itself to define the length of a meter) then the definition of the meter has changed over time, and conflating the definitions that applied at different times by assuming they are all the same unit is to commit the fallacy of equivocation.

 

[Toke]

As a child I read about the expansion of the universe and wondered if gravity were real or just a result of the earth's expansion at the equivalent of 1G.

I came to the conclusion that such expansion would have made the solar system rather crowded and we would have bumped into the sun.

ETA: it was about the same time that I considered if drinking gasoline would let me run as fast as a car.

 

[ServiceSoon]

No..
If the yardstick also expands, 1 meter is still 1 meter and 1 m3 is still 1 m3
1*1*1 = 1 ( not 8 )
...

I understand what you've been repeating for the last 4 pages.

You're real good at coming up with objections. Now tell me how you will measure (prove) this. Otherwise you're wasting everybodies time. If that is the case, and you still believe in your philosophy, I kindly request that you disapear into the shadows and come up with an experiment or explanation on how your theory is correct...prove it. That's what scientist do.

It's not a personal question, what I want or like.
It's a question about reality
There is a lot that point to the fact that there is much more to understand.
When it comes to "dark matter" and true understanding of black holes, reality seems to show that we have not fully understood central gravity.
One example (of several) is that black holes have force/sizes proportional with the masses of galaxies . This is not understood.

...

These are the things I like to discuss. Flaws of the current and accepted theories. However, it seems to me this is discussed as Schwarzschild radius???

Your ignorance would embarrass even a cow.

If Earth was half the size, but the same density, gravity would be weaker. If Erth was half the size but the same mass, gravity would be stronger.

You simply don't understand what you are talking about.

Hans

Wouldn't two planets with the same density have the same gravitational pull?

As a child I read about the expansion of the universe and wondered if gravity were real or just a result of the earth's expansion at the equivalent of 1G.

I came to the conclusion that such expansion would have made the solar system rather crowded and we would have bumped into the sun.

ETA: it was about the same time that I considered if drinking gasoline would let me run as fast as a car.

I'm interested in your opinion on the latter

 

[Toke]

Wouldn't two planets with the same density have the same gravitational pull?

Assuming you mean mass, not density, the smaller diameter planet will have shorter distance from most of the mass to the surface where you experience the gravity. It is something about gravity pull decreasing with square of distance.

I'm interested in your opinion on the latter

For some reason or other I never got around to test it.

 

[Brian-M]

Wouldn't two planets with the same density have the same gravitational pull?

Two planets with the same density but different sizes would have different mass. A planet half the size with the same density would have half the mass, and therefore have half the gravitational pull from the same distance [from the center of the planet].

Of course, you'd be closer to the center if you were on the surface, so you'd be experiencing more than half the gravity on the surface, but it'd still be less than on a planet twice the size.

 

[Reality Check]

These are the things I like to discuss. Flaws of the current and accepted theories. However, it seems to me this is discussed as Schwarzschild radius???

I believe that what Bjarne means by "One example (of several) is that black holes have force/sizes proportional with the masses of galaxies . This is not understood." is the known correlation of the size of galaxies with the size of the super-massive black holes that they contain.
What is understood is:
Galaxies seem to have one (or more!) super-massive black holes.
Super-massive black holes are a small percentage of the size of galaxies in mass and infinitesimal when sizes are compared.
When we look at nearby galaxies the size of the central bulge is about 700 times that of the super-massive black hole. Also quasars are thought to be active super-massive black holes. Star formation and quasar activity both peaked around the same time, 8 to 10 billion years ago.

This suggests a link between the two events:

• The formation of the central bulge of a galaxy in its infancy.
• The formation of the super-massive black hole.

The theory has been that the galaxy and its central bulge formed first and then the super-massive black hole formed from merging stellar black holes and accretion from the stars and gas in the galaxy.
An alternative has been suggested - that the super-massive black holes formed first, jets from them caused shock waves that create galaxies which then grab the black holes. See this New Scientist article.


Of course Bjarne is ignorant of this and so thinks that means that there is something that he calls "central gravity" which is gravity but not as we know it! From what I can gather he takes Newtonian gravity, throws away the superposition principle and then makes various unsupported assertions out of his head, e.g. that the acceleration due to gravity (ADG) inside a sphere is constant. In case you are interested this is very easy to disprove:

1. The proper derivation of ADG using the proper mathematics shows that ADG varies as the radius. It is zero as you would expect at the center where all of the forces balance.
2. The forces balance at the center of the sphere balance out so ADG has to be zero. His idea could have ADG as Constanta for any radius within the sphere. But if it is zero and constant then it must be zero at the surface and then suddenly increase to the ADG at the surface of a sphere which is definitely non-zero, 9.8 m/s^2 for the Earth. Discontinuities are not favored by nature. Miners under the Earth do not suddenly become weightless.
3. It has been experimentally shown that the force of gravity acts as expected (Test of Newton's inverse-square law in the Greenland ice cap) as Bjarne was told last October in another thread (The force of gravity is not constant within a sphere).

 

[wollery]

No..
If the yardstick also expands, 1 meter is still 1 meter and 1 m3 is still 1 m3
1*1*1 = 1 ( not 8 )


Same answer as above..

In which case we wouldn't notice the expansion of space, because everything would be expanding relative to everything else.