I'd like to see your math behind this. Or at least an amusing MS paint drawing.
I was unable to replicate your window experiment. Notably I saw no cows and was given no method for distinguishing the second look from the first look.
The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017
- Thread starter Bjarne
- Start date
- Status
I'd like to see your math behind this. Or at least an amusing MS paint drawing.
I was unable to replicate your window experiment. Notably I saw no cows and was given no method for distinguishing the second look from the first look.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,075
You must be the wrong place then..
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Farsight had an ill applied modicum of intellect, liquidspacetime could string grammatically correct sentences together and Bjarne can .... ehm ..... pull a cow's tail.
They're probably not all Bjarne.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
You're very clever, Mr Daylightstar, but it's Bjarnes all the way down.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Nope, as the energy of a particle is relative a particle can’t ‘try’ “to reach lower possible energy level” in all reference frames.
No, actually you…
As stated you are asserting that you are misrepresenting the image.
Again “Zero time” is not undefined so you are deliberately using an amount of time not supported by the transformation equations. Yes we know the transformation equations don’t give a definitive answer of time for a photon. We also know that Relativity and QM are incompatible so one or both need to change to some degree
You have provided no evidence to support this claim and based on you assertion just above I find it unlikely that you even understand why QM and GR are currently incompatible.
And you are failing at it.
While confusion certainly seem to be an integral part the contribution of your ignorance (at times apparently deliberate) can’t be overstated.
Do you even understand why QM and GR are currently incompatible?
Obviously false as noted above.
Actually you haven’t even scratched above the surface as nothing you have asserted even remotely addresses the most basic incompatibility between QM and GR
Frequencies, like energy, are relative
I’m well aware of the various vibrations of atoms and boob-tube videos don’t constitute research (except perhaps for a media course)
Great so endeavor to express yourself better, unfortunately other can only go by how you do express your notions.
Fortunately, making sense to you is not a requirement. Can you show flat space to be internally inconsistent in some way?
It wasn’t a question, so it is evidently you who doesn’t understand.
Ignorance…. apparently deliberate as the next part of the post you quote says why you or anyone doesn’t have to imagine it.
While I can’t seem to parse this stamen I’ll simply ask you your own question “what is” your elastic “space made of”? I’ll caution you as to anything you claim can be just as well curved as streached or extended.
Nope, I said “properties” because I meant properties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature
“what is it made of”?
Look around you, find something curved and ask yourself “what is it made of” then find something else and do the same, repeat until you find that “what is it made of” is not restriction to curvature. Your analogy and imagination continue to fail you miserably.
Again I can’t even begin to parse this assertion, however the latter part indicates that if you were less superficial you (or just your understanding) might be less incoherent. The recommendation remains that you actually start trying to learn the concepts involved instead of dismissing, ignoring and mis-representing (apparently often deliberately).
Hercules Rockefeller
Woof!
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2011
- Messages
- 4,504
No. Bjarne is Danish, Farsight whose real name is John Duffield is English and LiquidSpacetime was a retarded Koala who accidentally got hold of a laptop.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,075
I was think about atoms, - of course, - we spoke about the interaction... OK
Decay is one example..
Absorbing and emitting energy is another.
We have much more to learn… For example why The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5619954/the-...ive-decay-and-breaking-the-rules-of-chemistry
In the end of the day you have energy (nothing) playing with space (nothing).
So we are discussing whether nothing is the correct definition?
The density MUST be some kind of NOTHING, - right ?
Again Google this; - Time doesn’t exist for a photon, - or in QM, -
From our level of rational thinking; - no time can only mean NOTHING.
I wonder why you want to discuss nothing so much?
And you know why?
Because space = nothing, and noting is the basic for everything, so simple..
The main problem is mainly that Einstein took his mouth too full.
GR is not the correct theory for gravity..
Finally something we could agree about..
Not so bad..
We are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down.
The word "reality" is also a word, a word which we must learn to use correctly.
Niels Bohr.
I believe we in the late 1800 was close to that answer, - a elastic substance, - or if you prefer ether.
Such a property really makes sense, even though we can’t get much closer to what that is…
There is no need for the; - ”curvature of space” – it was a property invented to explain the cause of gravity…. BUT THERE ARE NO EVIDENCE FOR SUCH IDEA.. ..
Curvature of Space.... No reason to lose time on such concept..
There are nothing even not a tiny little hint able to justify that space is “curved” and this is the cause of gravity..
This is nothing but absolute pure speculation..
If you disagree pl tell me the strongest evidence you have...
Last edited:
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
I'll see your 2010 article and raise you a 2014 article:
Old textbook knowledge reconfirmed: Decay rates of radioactive substances are constant
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,075
Anyway, why does it happen at all ?
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
Why does what happen?
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Repeating ignorant fantasies dating from 2009 is not science, Bjarne.
One more time: The evidence that spacetime is curved is that GR works with curved spacetime
!The RR fantasy appearing on 15 October 2009 here, continued ignorance of high school level science and digging a pit of fantasies from Bjarne.
And what seems to be lies since you cannot back up your assertions after 2 weeks:
1 June 2016 Bjarne: Please cite your calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes leaving the solar system, e.g. Voyager 1 and 2.
1 June 2016 Bjarne: Please cite your calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes in a n Earth flyby.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,075
Repeating ignorant fantasies dating from 2009 is not science, Bjarne.
One more time: The evidence that spacetime is curved is that GR works with curved spacetime
The RR fantasy appearing on 15 October 2009 here, continued ignorance of high school level science and digging a pit of fantasies from Bjarne.
And what seems to be lies since you cannot back up your assertions after 2 weeks:
1 June 2016 Bjarne: Please cite your calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes leaving the solar system, e.g. Voyager 1 and 2.
1 June 2016 Bjarne: Please cite your calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes in a n Earth flyby.
You will see dear...tik tak tik tak tik tak....
What started with innocent RR fantasy will soon turn over Special theory of relativity and later general theory of relativity..
I wonder if you the day you too is forced to face such a fact, - still not will admit to understood anything at all, - about what I all told you, - despite you spend 17 years at the university..
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Which only leaves:
The RR fantasy appearing on 15 October 2009 here, continued ignorance of high school level science and digging a pit of fantasies from Bjarne.
These claims are now lies since you cannot cite where you did those calculations or cannot honestly admit a mistake:
1 June 2016 Bjarne: Please cite your calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes leaving the solar system, e.g. Voyager 1 and 2.
1 June 2016 Bjarne: Please cite your calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes in a n Earth flyby.
All these are actually bound to happen at the precise moment when hell is turned into solid ice!!!!!!
Daylightstar
Philosopher
tik tak tik tak 2016 .... nothing.
tik tak tik tak 2017 .... nothing.
tik tak tik tak 2018 .... nothing.
tik tak tik tak 2019 .... nothing.
...
tik tak tik tak 2024 .... nothing.
etc.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Nice fantasy, too bad you haven't substantiated it....
hasn't even substantiated a single reason to get to substantiating that the words mean what he thinks they do!!! I do await with baited breath his listing of his degrees/lschool name(s)/publications in professional, juried/and-or peer reviewed journals/ professional experimental work, any vague sign he knows jack feces about anything even vaguely involved with any precision in the field or any actual scientist/maths people in it who meet those criteria I list for him who would be able and willing to vouch for his experience and trustworthiness/qualifications..
I am "guessing"* there will be no functional response to this post.
*Where "guessing " may be understood with a great degree of assurance to mean I am dead solid certain of it!!!!!!
I am here being helpful by giving your sentence (hilited above) clearer meaning in English . If you disagree with it, fix it: " I wonder if some day you will be forced to face the facts I state -though still unwilling to admit that you do not understand anything at all despite your 17 years in university!"
Hope my above posts help you out. Literally, of course.............The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Atoms are collections of particles, you have much to learn.
Wrong, evidently just your notions and understating "MUST be some kind of NOTHING"
Energy is a property of particles and fields (which can be represented as virtual particles).
Space, physical space in this regard, is a collection of physical locations.
Density is a value over volume (3 dimensions of physical space), if you get "some kind of NOTHING" for the result, you are doing it wrong.
If you want your understanding of the above to be "NOTHING" then you are indeed left with nothing. I'd rather you learn something at least.
You're the only one asserting their understanding of the subject matter to be "NOTHING", I don't wonder why . Again you seem to confuse the implications of GR or just SR with that of QM. QM is discrete while GR and SR are continuous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_mathematics
Yes, you don't know what you're talking about.
Physical space is a collection of locations and has physical properties. In a more abstract sense a mathematical space is a set with some organizational properties. The former conforms to the latter or to put it more succinctly, physical space conforms to a set with some organizational properties. Specifically ordering and hence locations relative to some point of origin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_(mathematics)
Stop trying to denigrate people and theories of which you evidently have little to no understanding.
Again out of context quotes won't help you.
Actually it doesn't, the properties of an ether don't conform to experimental data. Which is why it was abandoned. Simply "elastic substance" is a rather vague property and in itself doesn't precluded a curvature of said vague "elastic substance"
Again, a curved space has specific and well defined properties one was the parallel transport of a vector not pointing in the same direction when returning to the starting point in a closed loop in such a space, as mentioned before. Another is that the angles of a triangle don't add up to 180 degrees.
Again, if your space ain't flat, then it must be curved to some degree or other.
See above.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
You need to learn about science, not repeating fantasies, etc. Bjarne.
- Radioactive atoms decay - so what?
- Atoms emit and absorb energy - so what?
- Obsolete, invalid science exists - so what?
- Energy is not "nothing" - it is a property of a system.
- Space is not "nothing" - it is the position of objects.
- Density is a quantity divided by the volume the quantity occupies.
So we can have the density of a brick or density of energy. - Time exists for a photon.
SR tells us that an observer travelling with a photon will always measure time intervals between events to be zero. - Time exists in QM.
- Rationally : No time means no time!
- Repeating ignorance about space.
- Insulting Einstein just emphasizes ignorance about GR.
- Lying about GR is not good.
GR is the correct scientific theory of gravity because it has passed all of its tests (second detection of gravitational waves just announced!).
There may be a better theory but you definitely do not have one. - Irrelevant Niels Bohr quote.
- A delusion that the aether was not shown to not exist by the late 1880's (Michelson-Morely experiment).
- Ignorance: The mathematics of curved space time was developed decades before GR. It was taught to Einstein so that he could use it in GR.
- A lie: That GR works is evidence that curved spacetime exists.
- Followed by repeating the lie about gravity and curved spacetime
Last edited:
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,075
but still particles, are particles, - and that's the point
Define matter Sir, - and you will ,understand that nothing mean nothing.
Exact… A virtuel nothing
If space is nothing and matter is made of absorbed space, what do you have then? - Absorbed nothing right ?
Call that NOTHING matter, all it can do is maybe make you happy, - but in the end of the day your nothing/matter illusion is still nothing but NOTHING..
Or you should try to learn what Albert and Max really have try to tell you and the world ?
There are no matter as such…… So I lost you from the very beginning ...
This is not a mystery, - there are no matter as such , did you really not know that….. (?)
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
The point is not irrelevant quotes in images but just how many items of ignorance and delusion you are willing to put into a post, Bjarne
!17 June 2016 Bjarne: 17 irrelevant, ignorant and deluded items (and a couple of lies) in one post!
Only 2 or 3 in this post:
20 June 2016 Bjarne: Ignorance about matter (it is things like atoms and is not his current obsession with the word nothing!).
20 June 2016 Bjarne: The delusion that virtual particles are nothing (they are basically particles that exist for a short time)!
20 June 2016 Bjarne: The delusion that Einstein and Planck quotes are science textbooks?
The RR fantasy appearing on 15 October 2009 here, continued ignorance of high school level science and digging a pit of fantasies from Bjarne.
1 June 2016 Bjarne: Please cite your calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes leaving the solar system, e.g. Voyager 1 and 2.
1 June 2016 Bjarne: Please cite your calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes in a n Earth flyby.
Last edited:
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Daylightstar
Philosopher
If "matter" was just a naming convention, why would Einstein say matter doesn't exist?
If according to Einstein matter does not exist, what is Einstein's definition of matter?
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
That image seems to be a lie from a New Age crank web site.
Quote Investigator: Everything Is Energy and That’s All There Is To It. Match the Frequency of the Reality You Want
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
This quote appears on the web with no citation to a Einstein publication. Given that it is also attributed to Tesla in a couple of places, the quote is probably a fake.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
This is a speech from Max Planck:
This is the personal religious opinion of Planck. More of the speech (in German) is at https://www.raymedy.com/files/documents/Max_Planck.pdf and makes it clear this is a speech on religion, not science.
Last edited:
Mister Earl
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 3,504
Was #1 ever readdressed, given gravitational waves have been detected twice, now?
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,075
Energy
So what is energy ?
If you ask me , - its a vibration of the elastic property of space, or if you prefer; - vibration of the elastic ether..
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,075
Copy / Paste 1 week BEFORE Gravitational waves was found
Gravitational waves
According to the theory I represent, - space is elastic.
Matter absorbs, is entangle in the elastic property of space.
This mean space is stretching towards matter.
Based on thought experiments, everything is stretching proportional with time.
This mean that towards a gravitational field not only time is stretching, - but the ruler (and everything else) is too.
Now, - if the Sun suddenly would disappear, - stretching (tension of) space towards the sun will be released with the speed of light.
This mean that the because the Earth also in entangled in space, it will be brought away from where the Sun before was,- together with the tide wave of released space-tension. This is what dark energy really is. – Just the opposite of what gravity is.
So when the Sun would just vups disappear , - at the same time, due to loss of background gravity the Earth and everything on it, as well as time, - will shrink, and time off course will tick faster.
There is no reason to believe that there was nothing before Big bang.
Rather it must have been a collapsing universe that at last exploded everywhere, due to critical mass density everywhere.
Now let’s say the universe has a radius of 1000 billion light years, and that the strong force as well as gravity is lost right now.
The result is that is that tension of space will continue to be released in 1000 billion years.
Notice parallel with loss of space-tension, the strong force and gravity is “reborn” so soon matter again cools enough.
So parallel with the loss of tension, a new wave of reborn tension is also spreading all over the universe.
It is the race between these 2 that have led to the discovery of the so called accelerating universe.
Nothing of this contradict with any hard evidence, - but is only a better and more complete understanding of the nature of what deformation of space really is.
In the exact same way as release of space-tension, also changing of background gravity, caused by collision etc. is also traveling to all corners of the universe.
So when LIGO is hit by a gravitational wave, it means that it is hit by an effect where the ruler and (everything) as well as time is changing proportional.
Notice this actually happens all the time (because of so called dark energy) , - but from all directions.
I mean of you could jump from one space time reality to another, and compare the difference, you could see that your body is now only the half size your clock thick half so fast (or opposite) compared to before .
But the fact is you cannot compare to before, so everything will look the same as before, because everything have change proportional.
I am not sure that LIGO can detect such wave of reality change. Lets see.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11117631&postcount=331
Last edited:
Daylightstar
Philosopher
In that case, according to you, "matter" is just another word for "energy", which means that according to you, in spite of your very own protestations, matter exists.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,075
You can dissolve matter into energy, that's what the equation E = mc ^ 2 meansIn that case, according to you, "matter" is just another word for "energy", which means that according to you, in spite of your very own protestations, matter exists.
And therefore, you also have to define what exactly is energy, - when it is no longer matter?
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Actually that is just a tautology. As you evidently have chosen to forget this was your point…
.
Again lower energy in one frame can mean higher energy in another. Also un-composed particles, like say an electron, never have more than their rest energy in a commoving reference frame. Your currently stated “point” is just a tautology as your previously stated point doesn’t stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.
Matter is not considered a fundamental concept in modern physics, as such there is no universal scientific definition of that concept. However, if you choose to define matter as well “nothing” then that definition and the problems it subsumes are entirely yours.
Look up the meaning of virtual…
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtual
So “A virtuel nothing” is explicitly not nothing.
As you are the only here claiming space to be “nothing” and that “matter is made of absorbed space” the nothing you end up with is simply and entirely your problem.
Again that you assert your notions are “still nothing but NOTHING” should tell you something, like you need to improve your notions.
I’m quite familiar with the works of both Albert Einstein and Max Planck. Which are far more than just some out of context quotes.
As indicated above the only one you have lost here is yourself, which again should tell you something.
As I said “I don’t wander why” I was thus expressing no “mystery”. That this somehow becomes a “mystery” for you again should tell you something. Evidently that you just aren’t paying attention, apparently even to just yourself. I don’t wonder why you want your notions to be “still nothing but NOTHING” because it is magical thinking that “nothing but NOTHING” can have whatever or no properties you wish to ascribe to it as you choose and when you choose. The problem is of course that it lacks self-consistency. If you define space as nothing, as you do, and define matter as absorbed space, as you also do, then absorbing space and nothing else is the same as not absorbing space and nothing else. As absorbing nothing is the same as not absorbing anything. You are explicitly claiming that your notion of gravity is the absorption of, well, nothing which is the same as not absorbing anything. Even you oppose your own basic premises that gravity originates from the absorption of something by particles with rest mass. Again if even you can’t agree with yourself then no one else can either.
Again out of context quotes won’t help you.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Ah, so now suddenly "matter" is not another word for "energy".
If, according to you, matter can be dissolved into energy, then clearly, by your own words, matter exists.
But your posted fraudulent 'Einstein' quote above says there is no matter.
Do you now disagree with that fraudulent 'Einstein' quote?
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
OK so energy isn’t “(nothing)” as you claimed before?
Again, you have to at least be able to agree with yourself.
As you also define space as nothing, how do you distinguish nothing vibrating from nothing not vibrating?
Daylightstar
Philosopher
HIlite by Daylightstar
Then, previously, it was matter, thus existed .....
Do you now disagree with that fraudulent 'Einstein' quote about there being no matter, which you posted above?
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,075
Energy is not physical only matter "seems to be"
- Status