The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017

[Bjarne]

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.

If the big bang started from something else at a singularity, true scientist must theoretical at least ask;

• what could that “something” have been ?
• what caused it to explode ?
• did the explosion happen from a central direction or..
• did the explosion happen many places (almost) at the same time.
• could that be triggered by a big crunch?
• etc...

Science is about cause and effect; - everything less looks like adventure stories

 

[JeanTate]

Oops - meant to respond to this, but then got tied up with other things.

No worries. It's not like it will make any difference to the OP anyway.

And many thanks for taking the time to write your response.

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'm pretty sure atomic clocks have been on more than just GNNS craft, and also more than one interplanetary mission; which ones though?

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.

Yeah. It's only those silly scientists who are interested in such accuracy.

Odd that they've been interested for many decades now, and yet Bjarne seems completely unaware of them (or maybe he is, but doesn't mention them because he knows a quantitative analysis of the published results would show his idea is quite inconsistent ... and that whatever the ISS will fly, it won't be as accurate as results long since published, from other missions).

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. "

Right.

So the only GNSS currently fully operational are the US GPS and the Russian GLONASS; Galileo and BeiDou will be soon enough. And there are some regional "NASS" (e.g. IRNSS), but I'm not sure if the satellites carry atomic clocks.

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 two biggies, according to WP, are LAGEOS and LARES.

An important scientific goal is (was) to measure the speed and direction of various continental plates (continental drift), and for that you need a network of ground stations. Apparently there are just such networks, and a great deal of data has been recorded (and published). Looks like the proposed ISS experiment will have considerably lower accuracy than many of the SLR ones. And far lower than many of the LLRs.

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.

And it's also what makes them such superb tests of Bjarne's ideas!

Odd, or not, that he has not taken the trouble to get some relevant data, analyze it, and show how consistent it is with his ideas.

Nature has a bazillion 'clocks in the sky', some of which are at least as good as atomic clocks, in terms of 'keeping time'. Astronomers have been recording the 'ticks' from these clocks for decades, and there is a network of observatories which devote a great deal of time to keeping up with such.

Bjarne, no doubt, has not downloaded the GB (or more) of high quality data on these clocks' ticking, much less analyzed any of it.

What's that? You want to know what these celestial clocks are?

Pulsars. Keeping an eye on them (well, a radio eye) are the PTAs (there's more than one), Pulsar Timing Array^WP.

 

[JeanTate]

<snip> People should be open to whether cosmological redshift is completely misunderstood..

News flash! Stop the presses!!

Thousands of scientists - astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists, high energy particle physicists, ... - are extremely open to the idea that "cosmological redshift [might be] completely misunderstood."

Oh, wait. It's not hot news; many of these folks have been open to such a thought for decades, almost a century even.

So maybe the news, such as it is, is that Bjarne was unaware of these folks' work?

 

[The Man]

If the big bang started from something else at a singularity, true scientist must theoretical at least ask;

• what could that “something” have been ?
• what caused it to explode ?
• did the explosion happen from a central direction or..
• did the explosion happen many places (almost) at the same time.
• could that be triggered by a big crunch?
• etc...

So you're just going to simply ignore the fact that inflationary theory has nothing to do with whether "the big bang started from something else at a singularity"? A true scientist (or just honest person) must at least admit when they are wrong or just might be wrong (even just theoretically) and try to learn from that.

Science is about cause and effect; - everything less looks like adventure stories

Technically science is about making quantitative models and testing their predictions against observational evidence, everything else is just conjecture. So, Bjarne, time to stop just telling conjectured "adventure stories" and get down to the science of your elastic space. Once again you have much work to do.

 

[Dancing David]

And what about this fact..


"We have not seen evidence of light bending around massive objects in deep space that do not have plasma around them.""

You know Bjarne that is a really silly response at best. That is like the whole correlation does not equal causation think, do you think ice cream sales cause drowning deaths?

Seriously just try a little harder.

 

[Dancing David]

You misunderstood that point.
Stars should bend light further away from the surface, we have always failed to observe anything like that, also by any star... This is really critical for the lensing postulate.



I am afraid that you easy can be lost in Plasma experiments, take a watch at Edwards work here...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kJ8gTdOsek

You are arguing with an actual scientist on the actual subject...

He told you the measured effect of plasma on optical bending and it is much less than gravitational

 

[Bjarne]

News flash! Stop the presses!!

Thousands of scientists - astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists, high energy particle physicists, ... - are extremely open to the idea that "cosmological redshift [might be] completely misunderstood."

Oh, wait. It's not hot news; many of these folks have been open to such a thought for decades, almost a century even.

So maybe the news, such as it is, is that Bjarne was unaware of these folks' work?

I never hear about anybody daring to suggest replacing the cause of cosmological redshift, - with gravitational redshift..

Doing so can in fact solve the huge holes in the inflation theory.

The only thing to be aware of is that BB not was one BB, but plenty almost at the same time..

Furthermore that there was a universe as well as gravity before these big bangs.

Such new paradigm can certainly be supported by the new WMAP.

But when I see the ESA / Cambridge statements, - on the one hand, - it is obvious that the inflation theory is in big trouble, - on the other hand I also see that it is psychological hard to say goodbye to 50 years old obsessions.

I noticed that George was breathing fast, and not was calm with the situation..

What will the world think if the inflation theory now is driven to the rubbish yard, before there is replacement?
That would be a unacceptable vacuum.
Therefore George ended the interview by encouraging people to come up with possible explanations.

So what we really is facing, (as I see it) is a "silence" before a complete paradigm turn around.

It seems that the biggest problem now is the brainwashed obsessions inside the heads of the majority.

Even here at the forum we see people that still deny to hear what was told from ESA / Cambridge.

I think many are afraid to admit what today is known as facts.
Afraid because we as human has to believe we know more about the universe as we really does... Now we have almost nothing
And therefore many prefer to stick to the old safe obsessions, which mean it is still difficult to really come up with new ideas.


Anyway great honour to Cambridge because they are so honest, and begin to prepare the world for a paradigm shift.

 

[Bjarne]

You are arguing with an actual scientist on the actual subject...

He told you the measured effect of plasma on optical bending and it is much less than gravitational

Its all mentioned in this video , with a previous NASA physicist, why do you not just Watch it, and after that tell us what you believe is wrong.. I am not in this business, but can only repeat what professionel claims to have observed out there, and not observed..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kJ8gTdOsek

 

[Bjarne]

So you're just going to simply ignore the fact that inflationary theory has nothing to do with whether "the big bang started from something else at a singularity"? A true scientist (or just honest person) must at least admit when they are wrong or just might be wrong (even just theoretically) and try to learn from that.

Yes exactly, there are no reason for inventing the inflation .
The cause of cosmological redshift is completely misunderstood.
There are no dark energy..
So pretty simple is that.

The so called cosmological redshift you see from distant starts is caused by gravitational redshift, due to change of space tension. - caused by endless cycle og big crunch and BigBangs, - that repeats over and over again....

 

[JeanTate]

I never hear about anybody daring to suggest replacing the cause of cosmological redshift, - with gravitational redshift..

Oh plenty of people have dared (check out viXra, for example).

However, no one - to my knowledge - has shown, quantitatively, that any "gravitational redshift" explanation is consistent with the relevant experimental and observational results.

Note these words, Bjarne: quantitative, consistent with, relevant, ...

Doing so can in fact solve the huge holes in the inflation theory.

So you say.

Write up such a substitution, and show quantitatively, that such is consistent with the relevant experimental and observational results. In an independently verifiable way.

Then I might start to pay attention.

The only thing to be aware of is that BB not was one BB, but plenty almost at the same time..

Furthermore that there was a universe as well as gravity before these big bangs.

Such new paradigm can certainly be supported by the new WMAP.

So you say.

Write up these ideas, and show quantitatively, that they are consistent with the relevant experimental and observational results. In an independently verifiable way.

Then I might start to pay attention.

But when I see the ESA / Cambridge statements, - on the one hand, - it is obvious that the inflation theory is in big trouble, - on the other hand I also see that it is psychological hard to say goodbye to 50 years old obsessions.

I noticed that George was breathing fast, and not was calm with the situation..

Can you cite any papers - arXiv preprints included - where the same thing is written down? In a quantitative form?

Science by Bjarne's perception of the degree of breathlessness of a speaker in a YT video?

Um, no thanks.

What will the world think if the inflation theory now is driven to the rubbish yard, before there is replacement?
That would be a unacceptable vacuum.
Therefore George ended the interview by encouraging people to come up with possible explanations.

So what we really is facing, (as I see it) is a "silence" before a complete paradigm turn around.

So you say.

(you can fill in the rest for yourself, Bjarne)

It seems that the biggest problem now is the brainwashed obsessions inside the heads of the majority.

Even here at the forum we see people that still deny to hear what was told from ESA / Cambridge.

I think many are afraid to admit what today is known as facts.
Afraid because we as human has to believe we know more about the universe as we really does... Now we have almost nothing
And therefore many prefer to stick to the old safe obsessions, which mean it is still difficult to really come up with new ideas.

<snip>

You know, Bjarne, if you put even half as much time and effort into developing your ideas in quantitative form, as you spend on this kind of conspiracy theory, you might get more respect.

Are you a fan of Alice, as in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass? Do you recall the part where the phrase "I can come up with six impossible things before breakfast" is used?

Ideas are cheap, Bjarne, anyone can have them.

But this is not the "Ideas and Speculations" section of ISF; the name of this section has "Science" in it.

And what is fundamental when considering branches of science like astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology?

You know the answer, no doubt very well.

 

[The Man]

Yes exactly, there are no reason for inventing the inflation .
The cause of cosmological redshift is completely misunderstood.
There are no dark energy..
So pretty simple is that.

Once again conjecture is "simple is that", science actually takes a concerted and quantitative effort.

The so called cosmological redshift you see from distant starts is caused by gravitational redshift, due to change of space tension. - caused by endless cycle og big crunch and BigBangs, - that repeats over and over again....

Fine, then show, quantitatively, how you arrive at the observed cosmological redshift by gravitation, "change of space tension", "endless cycle og big crunch and BigBangs" or whatever. Otherwise it is still just conjecture and apparently just poorly informed and rather internally conflated conjecture. Again you have much work to do.

For your own edification, and as you have already been informed, gravitational redshift happens when the EM radiation is moving from a lower to a higher gravitational potential. When the EM radiation is moving from a higher to a lower gravitational potential it is blue shifted. As also mentioned up thread objects like a baseball also experience such changes in gravitational potential. The move from a higher potential to a lower one is the basis of hydro-electric power. So a gravitational shift (no blue shift) just doesn't work regardless of what you want to claim it is "due to" or "caused by". You've got a lot of work to do.

 

[Peregrinus]

Yes exactly, there are no reason for inventing the inflation .
The cause of cosmological redshift is completely misunderstood.
There are no dark energy..
So pretty simple is that.

The so called cosmological redshift you see from distant starts is caused by gravitational redshift, due to change of space tension. - caused by endless cycle og big crunch and BigBangs, - that repeats over and over again....

The math (ever heard of it?) says you are wrong on every point.

 

[Bjarne]

Note these words, Bjarne: quantitative, consistent with, relevant, ...

.

Its not possible because even though, the space tension transformation is different today compared to yesterday, - its a fact that yesterday is gone.

So boiled down to the content of a nuts shell, its only about witch other option to explain the new WMAP do you really have..
To my opinion only one perfect replacement.

We have to live with the fact that you cannot compare todays and yesterdays differences, - the only exception is how the EM specter was yesterday..

So the EM Spectra is all the quantitative stuff you have, and that's it..

So in the end of the day, its all about interpretation

 

[Reality Check]

It’s a fact that we today have such alarming holes in our paradigm, ...

It is a fact that "such alarming holes in our paradigm" is a delusion, Bjarne, because what you cited and misquoted is an interview Professor George Etstahiou stating that the Planck data supported the inflationary theory.
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".
2 August 2016 Bjarne: What does "The first results from Planck actually agree spectacularly well with this idea" mean?

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: Confirms his ignorance about cosmology again with questions

If the big bang started from something else at a singularity, true scientist must theoretical at least ask;

Anyone who can read Wikipedia will ask one simple question about that list - Why is Bjarne so ignorant about cosmology? Big Bang

3 August 2016 Bjarne: Confirms his ignorance about cosmology again with a list of ignorant questions.

 

[Reality Check]

I am afraid that you easy can be lost in Plasma experiments, ...

Let us see who is lost Bjarne.
On one side we have Edward Dowdye, Jr who is a retired electrical engineer; a creationist; has never worked on plasma experiments; has the delusion that SR and GR can be replaced by classical physics; is stupid enough to speak at a Electric Universe conference and is not brave enough to publish his work in scientific journals.

On the other side we have tusenfem who is a working plasma physicist who has published papers !

Which of these people do you think would be "lost in Plasma experiments"?

 

[Dancing David]

Its all mentioned in this video , with a previous NASA physicist, why do you not just Watch it, and after that tell us what you believe is wrong.. I am not in this business, but can only repeat what professionel claims to have observed out there, and not observed..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kJ8gTdOsek

Your citations are lacking, a youtube video is not a citation... grade school fail Bjarne

What evidence do you have that plasma bends optical waves more than the amount measured in a lab?

 

[Reality Check]

I never hear about anybody daring to suggest replacing the cause of cosmological redshift, - with gravitational redshift..

Because no one who knows physics would be that stupid, Bjarne .
Gravitational redshift is very, very small - there is a division by c².
Cosmological redshift is big.

The thing to be aware of is that a list of fantasies and ignorance is not science.

The better thing to be aware of is not to lie: There are no "ESA / Cambridge" statements that say "the inflation theory is in big trouble".

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: Cannot understand that a video from a deluded person is not science

Its all mentioned in this video...

That is a fantasy, Bjarne, and the stupidity of thinking that any rational person here would look at that video which is part of the deluded Thunderbolts series of videos.

That video is from Edward Dowdye, Jr who is a retired electrical engineer; a creationist; has never worked on plasma experiments; has the delusion that SR and GR can be replaced by classical physics; is stupid enough to speak at a Electric Universe conference and is not brave enough to publish his work in scientific journals.

3 August 2016 Bjarne: Cannot understand that a video from a deluded person is not valid science published in the scientific literature!

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: A lie based on ignorance of the evidence that is the basis for inflation

Yes exactly, there are no reason for inventing the inflation .

3 August 2016 Bjarne: A lie based on ignorance of the evidence that is the basis for inflation and its confirmed prediction.

Followed by the usual delusions.