Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

MRC_Hans · Sep 19, 2011

Bjarne said:
You cannot limit simple fact to some kind of refrain, - or just based it on a a certain reality, - and ignore others, - as was these only subjective perceptive illusions.

That is actually correct, Bjarne! Which leaves the obvious question: Then why do YOU insist on doing EXACTLY that?

If you were living on Mercury your clock would REALLY tick slower as a clock on Earth. It would not just be something wrong with your perception etc.

Yes. We all agree on that.

Therefore you would REALLY orbit the MW in less time as a person living on the Earth.
Simply because you physical atomic clock would prove this.

No. I would only experience it as less time (and so would my atomic clock).

The size of the MW can impossible be the same, - when viewed from the perspective of both Mercury and from an Earth perspective.
The size MUST change relativistic.

The Milky Way can only have one size. .... Unless you want to claim that there is somehow a different universe for each observer?

Hans honestly, when I refer to cow logic it is always when the point is cow logic crystal clear, even for a brian damage cow concrete brian.

You know, cows are so stupid they can't even spell the word 'brain'.

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough”. Albert Einstein

That doesn't mean that a simple explanation must be correct.

Hans

Reality Check · Sep 19, 2011

Bjarne said:
The size of the MW can impossible be the same, - when viewed from the perspective of both Mercury and from an Earth perspective.
The size MUST change relativistic.

And that is where you really go wrong in your idiotic example
The orbit of the Sun in the MW has notihng to do with the size of the MW.

The Earth orbits the Sun in a different orbit from Mercury. The Sun orbits the MW. Thus the actual orbits of Mercury and Earth are different around the center of the MW. They go around in the same time (ignoring relativity) and travel different distances.
This has nothing to do with the size of the MW.

GR means that the clocks on Mercury tick at a slighty different rate than those on Earth. Without doing the very complex claculations involved we have no idea what this means for the period of an orbit as measured at Mercury (with its different orbit from Earth around the MW) compared to the period of an orbit as measured at Earth. Once again this is all to do with the orbits of the 2 planets about the MW.
This has nothing to do with the size of the MW.

Now if you really wanted to waste your time, you could

Work out the total distance that Mercury travels in its helical orbit around the MV (an eliptical orbit around the Sun + the Sun's orbit around the MV).
Work out the total distance that Earth travels in its helical orbit around the MV (an eliptical orbit around the Sun + the Sun's orbit around the MV).

and guess what - they would be different because of the simple fact that Mercury and Earth are in different orbits around the Sun :jaw-dropp

!

On average the planets have the same speed as the Sun in its orbit around the Sun. So you could go another way: Use this as an orbital speed and then the distance can be calculated from this speed and the orbital period. But the 2 clocks will measure a slightly different orbital period due to gravitational time dilation. So an observer on Mercury would calculate a slightly different length of the orbit from an observer on Earth. That should be a slightly different radius of the orbit. But...
This has nothing to do with the size of the MW...
Until you move the Sun out to the outskirts of the MV. Then gravitational time dilation will cause the 2 observers to measure a slightly different size of the MW.

So the answer to your original question (abut the size of a galaxy in SR) was:

(PDF) Appearance of a rapidly moving sphere: A problem for undergraduates The same basically goes for an elliptical body like a galaxy. A galaxy with a diameter of 100,000 LY will still appear as 100,000 LY wide.

The answer to this question is: gravitational time dilation can cause 2 observers in different gravitational fields and in an orbit around a galaxy to calculate a different slightly radius of the orbit that they are in.

Bjarne · Sep 19, 2011

Reality Check said:
And that is where you really go wrong in your idiotic example
The orbit of the Sun in the MW has nothing to do with the size of the MW.

The Earth orbits the Sun in a different orbit from Mercury. The Sun orbits the MW. Thus the actual orbits of Mercury and Earth are different around the center of the MW. They go around in the same time (ignoring relativity) and travel different distances.
This has nothing to do with the size of the MW.

GR means that the clocks on Mercury tick at a slighty different rate than those on Earth. Without doing the very complex claculations involved we have no idea what this means for the period of an orbit as measured at Mercury (with its different orbit from Earth around the MW) compared to the period of an orbit as measured at Earth. Once again this is all to do with the orbits of the 2 planets about the MW.
This has nothing to do with the size of the MW.

Now if you really wanted to waste your time, you could

Work out the total distance that Mercury travels in its helical orbit around the MV (an eliptical orbit around the Sun + the Sun's orbit around the MV).

Work out the total distance that Earth travels in its helical orbit around the MV (an eliptical orbit around the Sun + the Sun's orbit around the MV).

and guess what - they would be different because of the simple fact that Mercury and Earth are in different orbits around the Sun !

On average the planets have the same speed as the Sun in its orbit around the Sun. So you could go another way: Use this as an orbital speed and then the distance can be calculated from this speed and the orbital period. But the 2 clocks will measure a slightly different orbital period due to gravitational time dilation. So an observer on Mercury would calculate a slightly different length of the orbit from an observer on Earth. That should be a slightly different radius of the orbit. But...
This has nothing to do with the size of the MW...
Until you move the Sun out to the outskirts of the MV. Then gravitational time dilation will cause the 2 observers to measure a slightly different size of the MW.

So the answer to your original question (abut the size of a galaxy in SR) was:

(PDF) Appearance of a rapidly moving sphere: A problem for undergraduates The same basically goes for an elliptical body like a galaxy. A galaxy with a diameter of 100,000 LY will still appear as 100,000 LY wide.

The answer to this question is: gravitational time dilation can cause 2 observers in different gravitational fields and in an orbit around a galaxy to calculate a different slightly radius of the orbit that they are in.

If you would use just some few minutes to calculate that statement you would know it was rotten.
Time dilation on Mercury relative to the Earth = 0,000000016 s.
Time per year = 60*60*24*365 = 31,153,000 s.
Orbit of the MW = 314,000 Light Years.
Earth-Time to orbit the MW (250 km/s) = 377,000,000 years.
Total Earth-second to 1 MW orbit = 377,000,000 * 365*24*60*60 = 1,19E16 seconds.
Lost" of Mercury-time in years = 1,19E16 s. * 0,000000016 s. = 194,000,000 s.

So after 1 MW orbit the clock on Mercury have "lost" 194,000,000 s ( = 6 earth-years) relative to a clock on the Earth.

If you was living at the surface of the Sun, you would have "lost" much more time..(relative to the Earth) I guess 50 years.. It is easy to calculate, try it.

A theoretical muon would have lost MUCH MUCH MUCH more time relative to the Earth after 1 MW orbit.

So RC you must longer out on Jens Peter Jensen’s ploughed field, to sell that load slurry .

Reality Check · Sep 19, 2011

Bjarne said:
So after 1 MW orbit the clock on Mercury have "lost" 194,000,000 s ( = 6 earth-years) relative to a clock on the Earth.

Thanks for the math but that is exactly what I said: Gravitational time dilation happens!
This has nothing to do with the size of the MW.

But it could cause 2 observers in different gravitational fields and the same orbit around a galaxy to calculate a different slightly radius of the orbit that they are in.

The problem is that Mercury and Earth are not in the same orbit around the MW. They are in different orbits around the Sun so their orbit around the MW differs. But if you assume (probably incorrectly) that they are the same then you will see gravitational time dilation could cause the Mercury observer to calculate a different radius of the orbit from the Earth observer.

This GR result has nothing to do with the fact that in Special Relativity (your original question) the measured radius of a galaxy is not affected by the speed of an observer (so long as they are far enough away from the galaxy)
Read (PDF) Appearance of a rapidly moving sphere: A problem for undergraduates The same basically goes for an elliptical body like a galaxy. A galaxy with a diameter of 100,000 LY will still appear as 100,000 LY wide.

So what its your point other than GR is correct?

Then there is this:

Bjarne said:
A theoretical muon would have lost MUCH MUCH MUCH more time relative to the Earth after 1 MW orbit.

That is wrong. A muon in orbit around the Earth would have lost SOME time relative to the Earth because of gravitational time dilation (about 45,900 nanoseconds per day).

Once again you seem to be back to Special Relativity. But a muon traveling at a large % of the speed of light is not in the same orbit as the Earth or Sun. Within minutes it is far from both. Within a year the muon is a large % of a light year from the Sun :jaw-dropp

!
It is quite trivial that after 377,000,000 years (the orbital period for the MW orbit) a clock attached to the muon could read differently from a clock on the Earth but that is just SR time dilation. However the muon would have to be travelling at 99.9999999999% of the speed of light (the lifetime of a muon traveling at 98% of the speed of light is only 5 times the lifetime at rest of of 2.22 μs).

Bjarne · Sep 20, 2011

Reality Check said:
Thanks for the math but that is exactly what I said: Gravitational time dilation happens!
This has nothing to do with the size of the MW.

But it could cause 2 observers in different gravitational fields and the same orbit around a galaxy to calculate a different slightly radius of the orbit that they are in.

The problem is that Mercury and Earth are not in the same orbit around the MW. They are in different orbits around the Sun so their orbit around the MW differs. But if you assume (probably incorrectly) that they are the same then you will see gravitational time dilation could cause the Mercury observer to calculate a different radius of the orbit from the Earth observer.

This GR result has nothing to do with the fact that in Special Relativity (your original question) the measured radius of a galaxy is not affected by the speed of an observer (so long as they are far enough away from the galaxy)
Read (PDF) Appearance of a rapidly moving sphere: A problem for undergraduates The same basically goes for an elliptical body like a galaxy. A galaxy with a diameter of 100,000 LY will still appear as 100,000 LY wide.

So what its your point other than GR is correct?

Then there is this:

That is wrong. A muon in orbit around the Earth would have lost SOME time relative to the Earth because of gravitational time dilation (about 45,900 nanoseconds per day).

Once again you seem to be back to Special Relativity. But a muon traveling at a large % of the speed of light is not in the same orbit as the Earth or Sun. Within minutes it is far from both. Within a year the muon is a large % of a light year from the Sun !
It is quite trivial that after 377,000,000 years (the orbital period for the MW orbit) a clock attached to the muon could read differently from a clock on the Earth but that is just SR time dilation. However the muon would have to be travelling at 99.9999999999% of the speed of light (the lifetime of a muon traveling at 98% of the speed of light is only 5 times the lifetime at rest of of 2.22 μs).

Still the same load of slurry.
I don't know if any of the readers are attempted to buy it. - I am not.

RC try for minute to completely forget you live on the Earth, imaging you really would live on Mercury and I at the Earth.

We are both looking at the Sun, we are both calculating how much time it takes our Sun to travel 1 MW-orbit ?

As relative reference please use these data; ( to compare)

Time dilation on Mercury relative to the Earth = 0,000000016 s.
Time per year = 60*60*24*365 = 31,153,000 s.
Orbit of the MW = 314,000 Light Years.
Earth-Time to orbit the MW (250 km/s) = 377,000,000 years.
Total Earth-second to 1 MW orbit = 377,000,000 * 365*24*60*60 = 1,19E16 seconds.
Lost" of Mercury-time in years = 1,19E16 s. * 0,000000016 s. = 194,000,000 s. = 6 years

How is the speed of the Sun seen from Mercury?
How is the MW-radius (MW-diameter) – seen from Mercury
What about the 6 years “lost” of time on your clock relative to mine, - how would that affect the way you calculate the MW-orbit of the Sun ?
And most important; How much Mercury-second would such orbit take - for the Sun?

Reality Check · Sep 20, 2011

Bjarne said:
...
We are both looking at the Sun, we are both calculating how much time it takes our Sun to travel 1 MW-orbit ?
...

You are wrong: You are the only one here wasting your time doing the calculations.
I already know that gravitational time dilation happens and so 2 observers in different gravitational fields and the same orbit around a galaxy can calculate a different slightly radius of the orbit that they are in. Big whoops!
I am not even bothering to check that your calculations are correct. I doubt that they are given that you have displayed an abysmal ignorance of mathematics and physics:
Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no !

I am saying exactly what you are saying. You on Earth will calculate a slightly different radius from me on Mercury (or equivalently a slightly different velocity).

So what its your point other than GR is correct?

Bjarne · Sep 20, 2011

Reality Check said:
So what its your point other than GR is correct?

Like it always have been.
Distance can't be the same as at Earth - if you was living at Mercury, at the Sun, or at the space station.

Because it take less time for you to orbit the MW at the mentioned circumstances.

You must agree that speed is the "same" (since “c” is untouchable).
Left is only that distances cannot be the same for 2 observers in different ref-frames.

And this mean the gravity constant "G" must at least be different as well, - for example not exact the same at your feed as at your nose level.
If not the law of nature can't be the same for all observers.

Time is important for all you observe, so don’t deny or underestimate the consequences of time dilation.

Bjarne · Sep 20, 2011

Spiral galaxies are perhaps the most fascinating structures in astronomy, yet their nature is still a mystery.
For galaxies with nearby companions, astronomers theorize that tidal forces may pull out the spiral structure. But for isolated galaxies, another mechanism is required in which galaxies form these structures without intervention from a neighbor….
Source;
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/05/the-unsolved-mystery-of-spiral-galaxies.html

Hmmmm
So what could possible “pull out the spiral structure”
Guess which direction the RR (Relativistic Resistance) direction is from ?

Obviously (Relativistic Resistance) right ?
Periodically one arms is "pulled out" -due to less RR (and the other pushed in) due to strong RR...
After one orbit it is oppesite...
That's the secret.

Reality Check · Sep 20, 2011

Bjarne said:
...Time is important for all you observe, so don’t deny or underestimate the consequences of time dilation.

How idiotic - I have never denied or underestimated the effect of gravitational time dilation.

Read this:

Reality Check said:
I already know that gravitational time dilation happens and so 2 observers in different gravitational fields and the same orbit around a galaxy can calculate a different slightly radius of the orbit that they are in.

and

Reality Check said:
But it could cause 2 observers in different gravitational fields and the same orbit around a galaxy to calculate a different slightly radius of the orbit that they are in.

and

Reality Check said:
GR means that the clocks on Mercury tick at a slighty different rate than those on Earth.

So your point is the trivial fact that gravitational time dilation exists :jaw-dropp

!
People have known about this for decades (almost a century now!).

But then you go off into a fantasy world yet again:

Bjarne said:
...And this mean the gravity constant "G" must at least be different as well

It does not mean that G (the gravitational constant) is different. The same force is always acting on the Sun in its orbit aroung the MW.

Measuring G does not involve measuring time using a clock in another gravitational field. Look at the original Cavendish experiment.
If you repeated the Cavendish experiment on Mercury you would get the same value of G as you get on Earth.

And of course the real idiocy is that if G is not a constant then all of the calculation you have done are wrong! In fact gravitational time dilation might not even exist in your fantasy.

Reality Check · Sep 20, 2011

Bjarne said:
Obviously (Relativistic Resistance) right ?
...
That's the secret.

Obviously (Relativistic Resistance) wrong becuase it does not exist except in you head :jaw-dropp

!
There is no secret that you have an fantasy of RR that actual physics states does not exist:

Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
First posted 2 November 2009
Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).

and your delusons about another version of your RR:

The Mystery of Spiral Galaxies -- Is their Structure an Illusion?
The article is about results that cast doubt on one of the theories of spiral arms in isolated galaxies (the Lin-Shu density wave theory). What the authors found was that their observations did not match the predicted phases of star formation.

Instead, this finding is in agreement with the possibility of transient spiral arms that break apart and reform periodically.

MRC_Hans · Sep 20, 2011

Bjarne said:
Like it always have been.
Distance can't be the same as at Earth - if you was living at Mercury, at the Sun, or at the space station.

Helloooo! TIME is different on Mercury. Not distance. I don't know why you insist that time changes distance. It doesn't. Time dilation can affect the way we perceive distances we travel, but it doesn't change the distances.

We don't measure the distance to the sun by the time it takes for our planet to orbit it, because as long as we don't know the distance, we can't know our speed. We measure the distance to the sun by triangulation, and this measurement is completely independent of time.

Because it take less time for you to orbit the MW at the mentioned circumstances.

We also don't measure the size of the milky way by the time we take to orbit it, we use other methods.

You must agree that speed is the "same" (since “c” is untouchable).
Left is only that distances cannot be the same for 2 observers in different ref-frames.

No. c is the same, distance is the same, but time can change. Our perception of speed can differ, because we perceive time differently.

And this mean the gravity constant "G" must at least be different as well, - for example not exact the same at your feed as at your nose level.
If not the law of nature can't be the same for all observers.

Actually, after all the work you put into gravity earlier, I thought you might have understood it, but it seems not. The gravity constant is exactly what does NOT change. Hint: This is why it is called a 'constant'. It does not change.

Here is why:

$09e3baf8ff8e37804c151fd5572dcf9e.png$

This is the formula for 'g'. You have looked at it before. Notice the little 'm', in this case the mass for Earth? Now remember E=mc². Notice the 'm'? This is the same m, namely mass. When time changes due to GR, mass also changes, therefore G remains the same. And this is also the reason c and distance can remain the same. AND it also explains why we won't feel heavier even in a very fast spaceship. Close to c, it will take you a year to lift your arm, because it has a huge mass, but to you that year will pass in a second, so you won't notice (grossly simplified explanation for the benefit of cows, still .....).

Hans

MRC_Hans · Sep 20, 2011

Bjarne said:
Hmmmm
So what could possible “pull out the spiral structure”
Guess which direction the RR (Relativistic Resistance) direction is from ?

http://www.science27.com/forum/agal.jpg
http://www.science27.com/forum/bgal.jpg
http://www.science27.com/forum/cgal.jpg

Obviously (Relativistic Resistance) right ?
Periodically one arms is "pulled out" -due to less RR (and the other pushed in) due to strong RR...
After one orbit it is oppesite...
That's the secret.

Wheee, we really need the laughing dog here:
:sdl:

Bjarne, those galaxies seem 'pulled out' in the pictures because we see them from an angle. :roll:

I have news for you: We don't view all galaxies full face, they are slanted in all possible directions.

I have some other news for you: There is no such thing as RR. :dio:

Wow, you really overdid yourself, there.

Hans

Bjarne · Sep 20, 2011

Reality Check said:
How idiotic - I have never denied or underestimated the effect of gravitational time dilation.
.

Off course you do, so long you deny that distances must change proportional to time, - and so long you ignore to reply to these questions.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7593789&postcount=4385

Bjarne · Sep 20, 2011

MRC_Hans said:
Helloooo! TIME is different on Mercury. Not distance. I don't know why you insist that time changes distance. It doesn't. Time dilation can affect the way we perceive distances we travel, but it doesn't change the distances.

Off course distances must change proportional to time, - why do you refuse to reply to these questions.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7593789&postcount=4385

Bjarne · Sep 20, 2011

Notice the little 'm', in this case the mass for Earth?
Now remember E=mc2. Notice the 'm'? T
his is the same m, namely mass.
When time changes due to GR, mass also changes,

Where did you got that from?

And this is also the reason c and distance can remain the same.

c is relative the same, but seen from an overall perspective not the same.
If you measure a photon to move from the moon to the earth in 1 second, and another observer see the same event but at his clock it only takes ½ second – how do you expect he can he agree that only your way of time perception (distances) must be the right one and not his own?

AND it also explains why we won't feel heavier even in a very fast spaceship.

Fantasy.

Close to c, it will take you a year to lift your arm, because it has a huge mass,

Rubbish, - if mass was too heavy you would not be able to lift it at all.

but to you that year will pass in a second, so you won't notice (grossly simplified explanation for the benefit of cows, still .....).

This is a different story, - times ticks slower and distances are propotional shorter, so everything looks normal, - but this is over your head , - so you better forget it Hans.
http://quantumweird.wordpress.com/2007/06/23/does-time-exist/

Reality Check · Sep 20, 2011

Bjarne said:
Off course you do, so long you deny that distances must change proportional to time, - and so long you ignore to reply to these questions.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7593789&postcount=4385

More idiocy - Distances usually change proportional to time'. Moving things change their distance from each other all of the time!
Special Relativity has length contraction.
General Relativity has an much more complex definition of distance but includes SR.

I will state one more time for the simple minded. It is insane to waste my time doing the calculation when you have done it! The fact that it is probably wrong because of your displayed incompetence is another matter.
My answer to your question is: I agree with the science (and you!). The Earth and Mercury observers will calculate different radii for the Suns orbit around the MW because their clocks will measure a slightly different orbital period. That orbital period will be plugged into the equations of gravity to give a different radius according to the 2 observers.

Where I disagree is in your unsupported assertion that this GR result means that G changes. G is a constant in GR.

Bjarne · Sep 20, 2011

It does not mean that G (the gravitational constant) is different. The same force is always acting on the Sun in its orbit aroung the MW.

G is connected with our time, and only a value to make Acceleration Due to Gravity (ADG) fits to our reality.
A person that not share ours time-rate can naturally also not share "G".
A person living at mercury and another at the Earth could never agree about the distance the Sun travels , - the MW, - simple because time is not the same. – Evidence are atomic clock would't lie.
This clearly demonstrate that a person on Mercury must calculate his own “G”
This is so much down to logic earth that it can be.
I don’t understand why you so desperate cling to illogical nonsense, that you clearly not have understood, - and therefore also completely have failed to explain others.
Keeps things Crystal Cow logic Cool - then nothing can go wrong.
Science has a lot to learn from Cows.

Bjarne · Sep 20, 2011

MRC_Hans said:
Wheee, we really need the laughing dog here:

Bjarne, those galaxies seem 'pulled out' in the pictures because we see them from an angle.

Hans

Did you read that ;
Spiral galaxies are perhaps the most fascinating structures in astronomy, yet their nature is still a mystery.
For galaxies with nearby companions, astronomers theorize that tidal forces may pull out the spiral structure.
But for isolated galaxies, another mechanism is required in which galaxies form these structures without intervention from a neighbor….

Source; http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...-galaxies.html

Reality Check · Sep 20, 2011

Bjarne said:
G is connected with our time, and only a value to make Acceleration Due to Gravity (ADG) fits to our reality.
..snipped gibberish....

Your ignorance is showing again: gravitational constant.
It is a constant that relates gravitational force to mass and distance.
It is "connected with our time" only in the sense that force has units that includes time. It does not vary with time (it is a constant). It does not vary in GR (it is a constant).

Reality Check · Sep 20, 2011

MRC_Hans said:
Bjarne, those galaxies seem 'pulled out' in the pictures because we see them from an angle.

I agree that Bjarne is continuing with his delusional obsession with his fantasy of RR but the article's "pulled out" is referring to the spiral arms in spiral galaxies.
The Mystery of Spiral Galaxies -- Is their Structure an Illusion?
When a galaxy has nearby companion galaxies, the spiral arms seem to be pulled out by the gravity from those companions.

The situation is different for spiral galaxies that have no such companions. In that case there are 2 major theories about the formation of the arms.
One is that shock waves in the interstellar medium cause new star formation (the arms) which then causes further shock waves so that the arms sustain themselves (the SSPSF model).
The second theory is the one being tested by the astronomers in the paper - the Lin-Shu density wave theory. This is basically 'traffic jams' caused by the different orbits of stars in the galaxy. These may be long-term or transient. If they are long-term then there should be a certain profile of emission from the arms. Previous eye-balling of data supported this. This paper actually measured the appropriate regions in serveral galaxies and found that there was no such profile.

The result is that this 'casts doubt on long lived spiral structure as predicted by the Lin-Shu theory. Instead, this finding is in agreement with the possibility of transient spiral arms that break apart and reform periodically.'

Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Share this page

ISF - Join now!