I must assume you have to buy them, as well as eye-wash and lens tissue, by the truckload on that basis.
And, "he know what have been seen" ? Get back with your English teacher on that, please!!!
Last edited:
The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017
- Thread starter Bjarne
- Start date
- Status
I must assume you have to buy them, as well as eye-wash and lens tissue, by the truckload on that basis.
And, "he know what have been seen" ? Get back with your English teacher on that, please!!!
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,075
My dear old friend, you know that I am not lying when I tell you we have been arguing here the last 7 years, long before the latest WMAP, and ever since I have claimed; “there are no inflation”
Now several years after I claimed this first time, I am no longer alone, - you, - everybody else,- god and the devil , - can all with their own ears hear the exact these same statement now comes from leading figure in Cambridge / ESA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eavab9siYg
The interpretation of the strange WMAP pattern, - is that Big Bang CANNOT has happen from a singularity. This is a matter of fact.
We have seen that you and RC simply continue to deny that simply fact. This demonstrates how serious irreparable damage “education” has done the last 100 years.
Try to screw up you loudspeaker and listen gain, again again again agin and again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eavab9siYg
Today many top-scientist doubt that the inflation theory is true. Hans this is a fact.
This is the first reprogramming you have to go though, before I can have any success of bringing you to the next step of true holistic coherent understanding of the universe.. ..
What the new WMAP really tells you is that the prevailing BB theory, not is the correct theory how the universe was created 13,8 billion years ago.... There must have been something before BB
BB must have been different, ( which mean it cannot have started from nothing / a singularity)
So the HUGE question is now why did that “something” that was here before BB once explode ?
If you still believe that the explosion should cause the universe to expand, - why should that happen?
You know science is always about cause > effect, - therefore these 2 question is relevant.
Dear Hans, you are like a ignorant stubborn boy claiming up a vulcan, - you can hear that the vulcan is angry and warns you , again and again, from all direction..
It tries to tell you that soon will the world you know (your paradigm) will blow up. But you cannot hear it.
OK let’s get to the point…
Cosmological redshift is completely misunderstood, we discussed this many times before.
Cosmological redshift is evidence for ever changing background gravity (space tension)..
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 elastic tension of space will continue to be released in 1000 billion years. (with the speed of light) ..
Notice parallel with loss of space-tension, the strong force and gravity is “reborn” (relative short time after so soon matter again cools. )
So parallel with the gradual loss of space-tension, a new wave of re-born tension is also spreading all over the universe.
It is the race between these 2 opposite “space-tension-waves” that have led to the discovery of the so called accelerating universe.
Space tension is not only contracting or extending time, but everything, also the ruler and the process whereas the EM Spectra is created. .
When space tension is released, time and the ruler “shrinks”.. Compared to yesterday. Therefore today the EM Spectre is created blueshifted compared to yesterday..
There are no mysterious inflation, but only always changing gravitational background (space tension)..
Now why will a universe explode ?
Well the ONLY LOGICAL RATIONEL reason is because of a Big Crunch.
And why will it NOT happen from a singularity or from a central direction?
FACT (WMAP) shows is must have happen from everywhere.
Whole clusters must blown up due to critical mass / density.
Goodbye to the inflation theory dear Hans and dear RC, and dear anybody else.
Welcome to the elastic Universe.
But there is a big BUT, - I am very very very sorry for that BUT….. Reprogramming is necessary
I recommend to watch this video between 50 to 100 times the next 25 year, This is the first necessary step to take.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eavab9siYg
Sorry I tried to warn you years ago, but you would not listen and still we have the same problem..
Last edited:
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,306
as a trained plasma astrophysicist, i doubt that
and why can't those people not just write a regular paper? it's always youtoobs and books.
Last edited:
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,075
It doesn't change the fact that we are back to ground zero
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,075
Because of the intolerance.
You are not allowed to speak load about something you can prove
Or you could listen to the full interview for some context; relevant section, with explanation, starts around 4:40.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcdrdybMbyU
If you can prove it's true, scientists will accept it.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,075
Yes yes yes. I saw all these images too
But if you really will allow you to see a case from 2 sites, take a Watch at this video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kJ8gTdOsek
Daylightstar
Philosopher
You are, but you would also be expected to show the evidence. This latter part is usually a problem.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
No. That is not what it says. There might be modifications to the inflation theory, but it still stands.
No, this is not a fact.
No, this is not a fact.
Yes, there might be something "before" BB. Nobody ever denied that.
We cannot conclude that, but it is a possibility. Nobody ever claimed it started from nothing. We just don't know what it was, and we still don't know.
We did, and you never presented evidence. And you never will.
Bjarne, come off it. You don't even understand what you are saying yourself.
Total gibberish. Bjarne you are just making white noise.
Hans
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,075
Edward speak at a Electric Universe conference, this doesn't mean he agree to all that.
Notice he is retired. Most of the time you will first see professional criticizing the orthodox system after retiring, - then there is nothing to lose.
The same you can see in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUwytm8K0jI
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Bjarne: A delusion that evidence that inflation is invalid is announced in a video
2 August 2016 Bjarne: A delusion that evidence that the inflationary model is invalid would be announced in a YouTube video.
2 August 2016 Bjarne: A lie by quote mining Professor George Etstahiou - cutting out a word he knows was spoken.
!
2 August 2016 Bjarne: Ignorance abut inflation which is not "that the universe started with a singularity".
Inflation is that the universe started in a hot dense state and then expanded rapidly (this is the inflation!).
2 August 2016 Bjarne: What does "The first results from Planck actually agree spectacularly well with this idea" mean?
The RR fantasy appearing on 15 October 2009 here, continued ignorance of high school level science and digging a pit of fantasies from Bjarne (82 items of ignorance, fantasy and delusion in this thread alone!).
Insults do not work to hide the real world, Bjarne, where
- A video including the inflationary model being valid is not about the inflationary model being invalid.
- Evidence that the inflationary model is invalid is not announced in YouTube videos.
- The word "If" is not the word "As"
! - And we have the Full interview of George Efstathiou, Professor of Astrophysics, University of Cambridge
He starts with a description of the inflationary phases (a patch of spacetime expanding rapidly). Then "The first results from Planck actually agree spectacularly well with this idea" at just before 2:00.
At 3:09 he states that Planck data confirms inflation and that the data is good enough to look at what drove inflation.
At 3:39 he starts on the puzzles in the data.
At 5:20 He is asked a question and his reply starts with the difficulty of statistics.
At 5:42 he states "But if we see..."
The video you linked to mistakenly cut the word "But".
2 August 2016 Bjarne: A delusion that evidence that the inflationary model is invalid would be announced in a YouTube video.
2 August 2016 Bjarne: A lie by quote mining Professor George Etstahiou - cutting out a word he knows was spoken.
is not "We see these strange patterns that are not expected in inflationary theory, the simplest inflationary theories. It may be that we've been fooled, that inflation didn't happen"
!2 August 2016 Bjarne: Ignorance abut inflation which is not "that the universe started with a singularity".
Inflation is that the universe started in a hot dense state and then expanded rapidly (this is the inflation!).
2 August 2016 Bjarne: What does "The first results from Planck actually agree spectacularly well with this idea" mean?
The RR fantasy appearing on 15 October 2009 here, continued ignorance of high school level science and digging a pit of fantasies from Bjarne (82 items of ignorance, fantasy and delusion in this thread alone!).
- 1 August 2016 Bjarne: A fantasy or delusion about a radar altimeter being flowing flown to ISS?
- 1 August 2016 Bjarne: An irrelevant letter about a proposed in 2009 ABYSS radar altimeter that seems to never have been launched.
- 1 August 2016 Bjarne: Thinks that the ignorant and wrong opinion of a retired electrical engineer is science.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
No, inflationary theory simply refers to the rapid expansion of the early universe. As such it has no requirement for a starting singularity. Similarly a big bounce does not, in and of itself, preclude an inflationary period.
So the only "matter of fact" is that your "interpretation" mentioned above is simply incorrect.
ETA:
Ninja'd by Reality Check.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Bjarne: A link to a invalid YouTube video in the Big Bang
!
Notice the inanity of linking to another invalid video as evidence that Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr. is not deluded!
2 August 2016 Bjarne: A link to an invalid YouTube video on the Big Bang.
The description alone should tell any rational person that the uploader at least is deluded: "This series destroys the lame academic theory created by the catholic priest Lematrie, called the BIg Bang. The idiocy of this impossible quackademic scenario is revealed in great detail." Interviews from the usual suspects, e.g. Geoffrey Burbidge who gives a good description of the history of the establishing of an expanding universe.
The video ends with many lies.
It means that he is not intelligent enough to know that he is speaking at a conference of people who deny basic science, e.g. SR and GR. But that is because he also denies the same science - so he does agree with them
!Notice the inanity of linking to another invalid video as evidence that Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr. is not deluded!
2 August 2016 Bjarne: A link to an invalid YouTube video on the Big Bang.
The description alone should tell any rational person that the uploader at least is deluded: "This series destroys the lame academic theory created by the catholic priest Lematrie, called the BIg Bang. The idiocy of this impossible quackademic scenario is revealed in great detail." Interviews from the usual suspects, e.g. Geoffrey Burbidge who gives a good description of the history of the establishing of an expanding universe.
The video ends with many lies.
- The apparent brightness of galaxies being linear with distance is not the Hubble law (which is redshifts with distance).
What the spread of apparent brightness of quasars with distance shows is that their brightness varies a great deal which is evidence for them being galaxies with active galactic nuclei. - "quasars are small compact objects" is a lie.
We have known for decades that quasar are galaxies because we have images of some host galaxies. - A fantasy that untestable "almost metaphysical" mechanisms have to power quasars.
Quasars are thought to be one end of a spectrum of active galactic nuclei (AGN) galaxies powered by lack holes. This is quite well established physics. - A lie of "observed distances" of quasars being "in the neighborhood of nearby galaxies".
- A lies of "many" astronomers abandoning cosmological redshift because of the above lie.
Of the thousands of astronomers, a handful still stick with the idea that quasars are associated with foreground galaxies which was Halton C. Arp's idea. - The lie (Galileo gambit) that Halton C. Arp paid a "heavy price" for his invalid quasars ejected from galaxies idea.
Arp was granted valuable telescope time for many years and could not produce credible evidence for his idea. Eventually his requests for telescope times were denied because there were better proposals to use that time. Arp chose to resign his position and went to another just as good position. - Arp tells the story that a well respected astronomer Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar editor of the Astrophysical Journal rejected his first paper about companion galaxies at the end of spiral arms.
But gets a bit paranoid (next video) about the paper going back to the director of the Carnegie institute Observatories. The implication is rather that the paper was so obviously invalid or unsupported that Arp and his colleagues should discuss it.
Last edited:
You are wrong. And you are clearly free to speak (write) here. BUT only IFF you break science by proving old ideas wrong, do you win Nobel prizes and professorships, rather than the scorn and ridicule you draw mostly now. Which at this point you are clearly "winning". BUT to properly break science in the field you are poking at here you need tools you do not have access to and the smarts to get the access to them . The Gentleman's amateur science thing is an almost forgotten thing and is not what is needed to do now!!!. And you are clearly free to speak a load - as you do so often here taking a dump in the threads.!!!!!
By the by, it is not our intolerance, it is your lack of truly knowing what you are doing and refusing to actually learn the field. This problem leads to your misinterpretation of individual facts and fact strings and your frequent misinterpretation of things you have read or heard on line in non-science sites or ones that are not covering the top levels of actual professional scientific research. You need multiple courses and actual experience in cosmological physics + to do what you want to do and/or be taken seriously here.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Hilite by Daylightstar
Yeah, I'm not in agreement with that, I propose that knitting classes would be much more suitable for this particular gentleman
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
Oops - meant to respond to this, but then got tied up with other things.
I don't know of any that would need that kind of accuracy. Bear in mind that the vast majority of spacecraft don't need to know their position to within a few cm. Or a few km, for that matter.
GPS is specifically the US satnav system. According to wikipedia, the generic term is the unpronouncable "GNSS" (I don't remember anyone actually using that) or just "satnav system. "
I don't have numbers handy, but as I recall, instantaneous ranging measurements with lasers (for retroreflector-equipped spacecraft) are excellent. To do high-quality orbit determination, you need to take a lot of measurements and do them from geographically diverse locations, and that's expensive to do with lasers, but it's certainly possible.
The thing that makes GPS different from most science missions is that GPS needs to predict its orbit and broadcast its position (well, sort of) for a long time without ground contact. That's what drives GPS to carry an atomic clock.
AFAIK, no, but my knowledge is not exhaustive. I'm not sure of any non-Nav spacecraft that carried atomic clocks. (Okay, a quick googling showed one on an interplanetary probe)
I don't know of any that would need that kind of accuracy. Bear in mind that the vast majority of spacecraft don't need to know their position to within a few cm. Or a few km, for that matter.
GPS is specifically the US satnav system. According to wikipedia, the generic term is the unpronouncable "GNSS" (I don't remember anyone actually using that) or just "satnav system. "
I don't have numbers handy, but as I recall, instantaneous ranging measurements with lasers (for retroreflector-equipped spacecraft) are excellent. To do high-quality orbit determination, you need to take a lot of measurements and do them from geographically diverse locations, and that's expensive to do with lasers, but it's certainly possible.
The thing that makes GPS different from most science missions is that GPS needs to predict its orbit and broadcast its position (well, sort of) for a long time without ground contact. That's what drives GPS to carry an atomic clock.
slyjoe
Illuminator
TOPEX carried a GPS receiver; altitude accuracy was around 2 cm. That was needed to measure ocean topography with the radar altimeters on board.
ETA: the funny thing about this GPS argument is that altitude isn't something calculated as a matter of course as some posters imply. The coordinate system is NOT Lat/Lon/Alt. I think dasmiller knows what I'm talking about.
ETA: the funny thing about this GPS argument is that altitude isn't something calculated as a matter of course as some posters imply. The coordinate system is NOT Lat/Lon/Alt. I think dasmiller knows what I'm talking about.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,075
Insults do not work to hide the real world, Bjarne, where
So:
- A video including the inflationary model being valid is not about the inflationary model being invalid.
- Evidence that the inflationary model is invalid is not announced in YouTube videos.
- The word "If" is not the word "As"
- And we have the Full interview of George Efstathiou, Professor of Astrophysics, University of Cambridge
He starts with a description of the inflationary phases (a patch of spacetime expanding rapidly). Then "The first results from Planck actually agree spectacularly well with this idea" at just before 2:00.
At 3:09 he states that Planck data confirms inflation and that the data is good enough to look at what drove inflation.
At 3:39 he starts on the puzzles in the data.
At 5:20 He is asked a question and his reply starts with the difficulty of statistics.
At 5:42 he states "But if we see..."
The video you linked to mistakenly cut the word "But".
2 August 2016 Bjarne: A delusion that evidence that the inflationary model is invalid would be announced in a YouTube video.
2 August 2016 Bjarne: A lie by quote mining Professor George Etstahiou - cutting out a word he knows was spoken.
is not "We see these strange patterns that are not expected in inflationary theory, the simplest inflationary theories. It may be that we've been fooled, that inflation didn't happen"
2 August 2016 Bjarne: Ignorance abut inflation which is not "that the universe started with a singularity".
Inflation is that the universe started in a hot dense state and then expanded rapidly (this is the inflation!).
2 August 2016 Bjarne: What does "The first results from Planck actually agree spectacularly well with this idea" mean?
The RR fantasy appearing on 15 October 2009 here, continued ignorance of high school level science and digging a pit of fantasies from Bjarne (82 items of ignorance, fantasy and delusion in this thread alone!).
- 1 August 2016 Bjarne: A fantasy or delusion about a radar altimeter being flowing flown to ISS?
- 1 August 2016 Bjarne: An irrelevant letter about a proposed in 2009 ABYSS radar altimeter that seems to never have been launched.
- 1 August 2016 Bjarne: Thinks that the ignorant and wrong opinion of a retired electrical engineer is science.
It’s a fact that we today have such alarming holes in our paradigm, that we really are back at ground zero, - People should be open to whether cosmological redshift is completely misunderstood..
- Status