Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

Yes, Bjarne. People who are able to find the flaws in your ideas are purely the result of a government conspiracy to brainwash students. Now that you've mentioned it I can see it too

Excactly

Everyone in history that have discovered anything regarding gravity was fighting stronger with brainwashed and orthodox creeds as with discovering what they discovered.

Johannes Kepler was shut up, he was “nuts”…according to that time brain wash.

Isaac Newton kept his findings for himself in years; there was too much blab la bla la la blab lap blap… brain wash, so he was tired to talk about it with anyone.
He did not see any possibility that anyone anyway would understand believe anything anyway. A coincident was the reason to it was published.

Albert Einstein did never have any credit for the relativity theories; first 20 years after few begin to accept he could be right, but still he never had any credits..

So even if there were nice mathematical proves, as well as nice objective observation everyone could test, - the concrete between the air and the human Brian was too thick.

The problem was never that something where wrong with the findings, but always that the human brain not was prepared, - to put it mildly.

Either the Church or Scientist was to blame for the intolerance, -------------this will never change.

*********************************************************************

I have based of the fact that bended space = stretched space, predicted that gravity towards the center of a homogeneous mass is stable.

(All the other statements are simple consequences that automatically will follow)

Already the Domus Vista measurement experiment (so far) clearly shows this prediction can be correct.

On the other hand, the prevailing believe is completely impossible to confirm, (except from those that believe they have the right to manipulate the floor height at pleasure)

Much better experiments can be done, (with a gravilog) I am willing to pay / support such measurement with 10.000 USD.

So tell me where to rent a GRAVILOG to a reasonable price. Or tell me if any University has such. ?????

This measurement must be done inside a solid well define solid homogeneous mass e.g; inside a container (500.000 Kg) sand and a 10 cm tube in the middle. – Measurement shall be taken full and empty.

It is easy and relative cheap to do this. ( To rent a gravilog 1 day is 20.000 USD, -) to build a simple container is only 5000 USD. (I hope I can get a cheaper offer)

Maybe universities own such devise, whereby we all in just 1 day could be much wiser. ??

But as you see BRAIN WASH is the cause that no one want to get “dirty hands” and involve them self with crackpots.
NOTHING has change since Johannessen Kepler’s days.

On the other hand due to collective brain wash, there is no problem for science to search for a fantasy higgs that do not exist, and spend 10.000.000.000 USD on such project.
This is off course not “nuts” so long all the involved scientist not thinks different as the authoritarian brain wash system have programmed them to think.

The day (soon) - when everyone can see the result is bluff, scientist will not admit it, instead they will ask for 1000.000.000.000 USD to a new higgs projects, because according to the brain wash programming the higgs MUST exist.

But 20.000 USD to a down to basic earth measurement experiment………
Nooooooo NEVER.

Because THIS is sick, – right ?

You know what happens to people who reveal the existence of the Great and Sooper Seekrit Government Conspiracy to Brainwash Students and Restore the Power of the Old Order by Means of a Placid Underclass...

Tell me honestly the day it is CLEAR that the higgs DO NOT EXSIST and you know it is a fact that properly 99% of all scientist had BELIVE in it, tell me honestly which expression can you find to express what had happen to all these people ? (better than Brain Wash ?)

I am not talking about a Conspiracy,, I am talking about objective completely blind single tracked scientific system, where people are trained to believe in the holy textbox, WITHOUT QUSTION (if you ask too much the teacher will not like you , because you will disrupt “the education” to much) And NEVER doubt the textbox, - THIS is surly not Popular. ( for exsample ask RC )

So long the belive is strong governments are willing to pump billion and billion and billion USD out in pure creeds (without questions) …

And you?

I guess you too believe in higgs too, - right ?.

What would you say; - when it soon is clear the higgs was only silly entertainment?

Do you still want to go on work every day to support such?

I mean what will be the cost of the next half brained turbo project be ? - 100 times that price ? - will you also support this?

My friend no one ask you, the brains wash system will just poison you too, and push you directly (or indirectly by those that already are saved) - and you’ll pay happy.?

 

[Reality Check]

No it is not,- this is already proven.

Yes it is - this is already proven.

FYI:
Since you are so ignorant of physics, let me point out that the energy of light is related to its frequency. Change the frequency and the light's energy changes.

The Pound Rebka Experiment already proves that redshift can be caused due to time dilation.

More ignorance.
The Pound Rebka Experiment proves that

• gravitational fields cause redshift or
• equivalently that clocks run at different rates at different points in a gravitational field.

In this case only time is faster, and hence the number of frequencies possible to count per second are less.
This clearly demonstrates that photons (in this case) not are losing energy.

This clearly demonstrates that photons (in this case) are losing energy. Their frequency has changed and so their energy has changed.

This phenomena (gravitionel redshift) is the the exactly same (principle) as Cosmological Redshift.

A tiny bit right for once, Bjarne !
The same "principle" is used - general relativity.
But he phenomena have different causes:

• gravitational redshift is caused by a gravity field.
• cosmological redshift is caused by an expanding universe.

Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked!
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)​

 

[Reality Check]

What a bunch of ignorance

Johannes Kepler was shut up, he was “nuts”…according to that time brain wash.

Johannes Kepler was not shut up. He was not considered nuts.

Isaac Newton kept his findings for himself in years;
...blah blah blah...

Isaac Newton did not "kept his findings for himself in years", e.g. he discussed Principia Mathematica with many people (it was actually inspired by a question from Halley) and published many papers.
You may be thinking of Method of Fluxions which he kept to himself for some unknown reason and was published posthumously.

Albert Einstein did never have any credit for the relativity theories; first 20 years after few begin to accept he could be right, but still he never had any credits..

Albert Einstein always had and still has credit for the relativity theories. Other contributers such as Lorentz, Poincaré and Minkowski also have credit.
Special relativity was accepted as correct within a few years.
General relativity was published in 1917 and verified in 1919.

Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked!
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)​

 

[Bjarne]

The Pound Rebka Experiment proves that

• gravitational fields cause redshift or
• equivalently that clocks run at different rates at different points in a gravitational field.

More ignorance.
The Pound Rebka Experiment proves that time thick faster above you head, and this affects the EM-Spectra. (Gravitionel redshift) So simple is that.

This clearly demonstrates that photons (in this case) are losing energy.

Haleluja ….Amen

It demonstrates time is ticking slower due to the expanding Universe.

• gravitational redshift is caused by a gravity field.
• cosmological redshift is caused by an expanding universe

Right, but what really happens in both cases, is that time and distances are strecthing.

• This mean that time thick faster at 10th floors than at 1 st floors.
• That time yester day’s was faster than today.
• That people living at 10th floor is a little relative smaller when they are home,and also: >
• That they was really smaller yesterday than today.

Simple because distances and time both are stretching proportional.

But RC I guess you have been so long at the University that it all it is too late, - you’ll never understand this.


What a bunch of lies.

Johannes Kepler was not shut up. He was not considered nuts.

Liar
Galileo was convicted, declared “vehemently suspect of heresy.” Imprisonment was not imposed, instead he was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life. In 1637
Source http://www.eoearth.org/article/Galileo

Isaac Newton did not "kept his findings for himself in years",

Liar
Newton, who hated being bested, then proceeded to work out the mathematics of orbits. Again, he did not publish his calculations. Newton then began devoting his efforts to theological speculation and put the calculations on elliptical motion aside, telling Halley he had lost them (Westfall 1993, p. 403). Halley, who had become interested in orbits, finally convinced Newton to expand and publish his calculations.
Source http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton.html

Albert Einstein always had and still has credit for the relativity theories.

Liar.
Credit in this context OFF COURSE mean the Nobel price.

Since you are so ignorant of physics, let me point out that the energy of light is related to its frequency. Change the frequency and the light's energy changes.

Are you now trying to deny that photons are losing energy?

I mean one more contradiction ?

Your wrote;
So the energy lost in redshift is either converted into gravitational energy or just lost (since GR need not conserve energy).
Source : http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6428653&postcount=1961

I believe all the cows that have read this context have understood that the point is that energy cannot disappear. .( and 210 % of the cows agrees 700 % )

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”
Max Planck

 

[Reality Check]

More ignorance.
The Pound Rebka Experiment proves that time thick faster above you head, and this affects the EM-Spectra. (Gravitionel redshift) So simple is that.

More ignorance.
The Pound Rebka Experiment proves that time runs at a different rate for a clock in a different gravitaional field strength than that at the observer's position.
This time dilation does not "affect" (cause) a redshift. It has the same effect as a redshift (gravitational redshift).
The Pound Rebka Experiment is "a gravitational redshift experiment, which measures the redshift of light moving in a gravitational field, or, equivalently, a test of the general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different rates at different places in a gravitational field." (emphasis added).
The Pound Rebka Experiment is actually measured gravitational blueshift.

Haleluja ….Amen

Science: The energy of a photon is Planck's constant times its frequency. The lower the frequency the lower the energy. A redshifted photon has less energy.

It demonstrates time is ticking slower due to the expanding Universe.

That is idoitic as as to saying that redshift from thre Doppler effect "demonstrates time is ticking slower due to the relative velocity".
Cosmological redshift demonstrates that the universe is expanding.

Right, but what really happens in both cases, is that time and distances are strecthing.
...snipped usual rant...

Wrong. What really happens is different in both cases:

• gravitational redshift is caused by a gravity field.
  This is a relativistic effect from the curvature of spacetime.
• cosmological redshift is caused by an expanding universe.
  This is simply distances getting as time passes.

But RC I guess you have been so long at the University that it all it is too late, - you’ll never understand this.

But Bjarne I know that you have been too long listening to an ignorant and deluded pet cow that it is all too late, - you’ll never understand this.

What a bunch of lies.
Liar
Galileo was convicted, declared “vehemently suspect of heresy.” Imprisonment was not imposed, instead he was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life. In 1637
Source http://www.eoearth.org/article/Galileo

Liar
And ignorant: Johannes Kepler was not Galileo !
Galileo did no work on gravity other than his astronomical observations. He did fight with a "brainwashed and orthodox creeds" - the Catholic Church.

Liar
Newton, who hated being bested, then proceeded to work out the mathematics of orbits. Again, he did not publish his calculations. Newton then began devoting his efforts to theological speculation and put the calculations on elliptical motion aside, telling Halley he had lost them (Westfall 1993, p. 403). Halley, who had become interested in orbits, finally convinced Newton to expand and publish his calculations.
Source http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton.html

Liar
You were talking about Newton's "findings", i.e. all his work. The quote is just about Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.

Newton did delay publishing some of his work until convinced by others. This was his own personal problem (probably connected with his mental breakdown in 1675), not your totally crackpot assertion of "fighting stronger with brainwashed and orthodox creeds". Other scientists such as Halley encouraged Newton to publish.

Liar.
Credit in this context OFF COURSE mean the Nobel price.

Liar
Credit in this context OF COURSE means any credit at all. The Nobel prize was not mentioned at all.

Since you are so ignorant of physics, let me point out that the energy of light is related to its frequency. Change the frequency and the light's energy changes.

Are you now trying to deny that photons are losing energy?

Read what I wrote (emphasis added).

Your wrote;
So the energy lost in redshift is either converted into gravitational energy or just lost (since GR need not conserve energy).
Source : http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6428653&postcount=1961

That is what I wrote.

I believe all the cows that have read this context have understood that the point is that energy cannot disappear. .( and 210 % of the cows agrees 700 % )

You and the cows are obviously ignorant.
Energy need not be not conserved in GR: Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?

Expansion of the universe leading to cosmological redshift
The Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) has red-shifted over billions of years. Each photon gets redder and redder. What happens to this energy? Cosmologists model the expanding universe with Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) spacetimes. (The familiar "expanding balloon speckled with galaxies" belongs to this class of models.) The FRW spacetimes are neither static nor asymptotically flat. Those who harbor no qualms about pseudo-tensors will say that radiant energy becomes gravitational energy. Others will say that the energy is simply lost.

Conservation of energy is an empirical physical law, i.e. not violated in any experiment that we have done.

• In GR, you can use the Landau–Lifshitz pseudotensor as the stress-energy-momentum pseudotensor within Einstein's equations in order to extend the conservation of momentum and energy into GR.
  In that case, cosmological redshift converts light energy into gravitational energy.
• Otherwise there is no conservaiton of energy and it just vanishes.

Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked!

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)​

 

[Reality Check]

The Pound Rebka Experiment proves that time thick faster above you head, and this affects the EM-Spectra. (Gravitionel redshift) So simple is that.

On second thoughts this may be a problem with your English, Bjarne.
What you say is wrong because the Pound Rebka Experiment does not measure anything that "affects the EM-Spectra".
What the experiment does is look at the change in frequency between clocks in different positions in a gravity field. These clocks just happen to be emitting the same light so that change in clock frequency is measured as a blueshift in the frequency of that band of light (not the entire EM spectrum).

 

[Bjarne]

The Pound Rebka Experiment proves that time runs at a different rate for a clock in a different gravitaional field strength than that at the observer's position
Finally the point got through the concrete.

And mu friend it is the exactly the same principle responsible for CR.
Remember 290 % of all the cows in both Andromeda and the Milkyway had already approved this for 70.000 million yeas ago. Don't underestimate this...

Science: The energy of a photon is Planck's constant times its frequency.
The lower the frequency the lower the energy. A redshifted photon has less energy.

Finally "something" got through the concrete.

Cosmological redshift demonstrates that the universe is expanding.

Right, + that times too expands. Otherwise good would be very said.

Wrong. What really happens is different in both cases:

Haleluja, - you have your religion, - I have mine
Amen.
The difference I will prove by measurement and you will definitive lose.

Liar
And ignorant: Johannes Kepler was not Galileo !
Galileo did no work on gravity other than his astronomical observations. He did fight with a "brainwashed and orthodox creeds" - the Catholic Church

What different does it make, brainwash in 1642 have not change much since you spend your time at the university.

Read also this:
Thee two astronomers were Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler. They defied the idea of the geocentric theory and the Church who encouraged everyone to support the new theory. Tycho Brahe made many observations about the stars and tried to oppose the Church but they placed him under house arrest to force him to be quiet. Kepler, Tycho’s assistant, continued Tycho’s work after his death to try to disprove the geocentric theory. However, most people were biased by the Church and supported the geocentric theory, but what caused these two astronomers to defy the Church?
Around the time that Tycho Brahe invented the Tychonic system he had hired an assistant by the name of Johannes Kepler.
Sourse > http://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/36135.html

Liar
You were talking about Newton's "findings", i.e. all his work.

He was tired of; blab la bla and, - and kept all his work back...

The quote is just about Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.

Liar
Read the quote agian and especially the word “again”

Newton did delay publishing some of his work until convinced by others.

Liar
He was tired to discuss it with intolerant fools .
He was ready to forget it all.
Halley persuaded him to publish it.
READ NEWTON - before bla la bla too much lie.

In that case, cosmological redshift converts light energy into gravitational energy

WHAT is “gravity energy” , - except blap la blap bla bla ?.

What you say is wrong because the Pound Rebka Experiment does not measure anything that "affects the EM-Spectra".
What the experiment does is look at the change in frequency between clocks in different positions in a gravity field.

A spectrometer is measuring the absorption wavelength, but the result depends on how fast time is ticking in that moment.

When times strecth , the second gets ...looooongeeer..., hence you will count more EM-frequencies per 1 loooong second as you will per one short second.

Let say times ticks double so fast in NZ nor, - compared to here.
If we both measure the frequencies of 2 identical light beams , you would only measure the half Hz, and you would hence also see that the absorption pattern was redshifted too.

At the same time, you would also shrink 50%. But still you would be 179 cm tall, because the meter stick would shrink too.

And therefore close to the Earth you'll have a bluehift compared to a tower (redshift).

RC this is soooooo simple, and this is exactly what CR is about too, - doesn’t matter if you like it or not, -and doesn’t if you believe or not believe..

 

[Anders Lindman]

The inner Earth would hence not expand proportional with the surface of the Earth, but more near the surface than deeper inside.
This could explain that the Earth really is expanding exactly like Neal Adams has illustrated this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ

I have another theory. The surface area of the continental crust fits neatly the surface area of the Earth's core. Why? Because the continental crust was once covering a mars-sized planet that merged with a larger water planet. The crust from the smaller planet was peeled off, when the two planets slowly merged, and became today's continental crust, and the mars-sized planet itself sunk into the larger water planet forming today's core.

 

[Anders Lindman]

I made a mistake.
There is

1. Redshift caused by the Doppler effect.
2. Redshift caused by the expansion of the universe. This is equivalent to a "doppler effect" for each individual galaxy but there is a relationship called Hubble's law for all galaxies.

And there is:

3. Redshift caused by the vacuum energy.

 

[Bjarne]

Because the continental crust was once covering a mars-sized planet that merged with a larger water planet.

I saw a similar theory at NCH, the problem is that if 2 such planet really had collided ( and also created the Moon) all the water here should have disappeared in space. I guess due to the big heat release. (There was no information why) – This is at least the problem with the moon theory.

 

[Anders Lindman]

I saw a similar theory at NCH, the problem is that if 2 such planet really had collided ( and also created the Moon) all the water here should have disappeared in space. I guess due to the big heat release. (There was no information why) – This is at least the problem with the moon theory.

Yes, for the theory to work it would have to be a very slow merge, maybe taking thousands or even millions of years to complete. One scenario is that from the start there were a double-planet system with a mars-size planet and a larger water planet orbiting each other. Then due to tidal friction the planets moved closer and closer to each other until they started to slowly merge.

 

[Anders Lindman]

The area where the two planets merged is marked by the Ring of Fire around the Pacific Ocean that today has a large number of volcanic eruptions:

 

[phunk]

There's no slow way for planets to merge. Consider your small planet that has managed to reduce its orbit down to just above the surface of the larger one. It is orbiting the larger one at many thousands of mph just above the surface, then what?

 

[Anders Lindman]

There's no slow way for planets to merge. Consider your small planet that has managed to reduce its orbit down to just above the surface of the larger one. It is orbiting the larger one at many thousands of mph just above the surface, then what?

The smaller planet would have locked its rotation around its axis in sync with the larger planet (similar to how the moon today always faces the same side towards Earth). So imagine two balls, one smaller and one slightly larger with a string attached between them. As they move around each other tidal friction causes the distance between the two planets to become shorter and shorter.

 

[Anders Lindman]

It is orbiting the larger one at many thousands of mph just above the surface, then what?

Both planets would have to be locked in a tidal sync with each other. But I guess that would happen when the planets are similar in size and when the distance between them becomes very short. The two planets probably orbited close to each other already from the beginning. Much closer distance than between the Earth and the moon today for example.

 

[phunk]

If they are both tidally locked to each other, there's no more tidal friction to bring them closer together. That requires a difference between the orbital rate of one and the rotation rate of the other.

 

[Anders Lindman]

The genesis of the continental crust is actually still poorly understood even today, meaning that geologists have trouble coming up with clear theories about why the granitic continental crust formed with such different chemical composition and thickness than the more thin and dense basaltic oceanic crust.

 

[Anders Lindman]

If they are both tidally locked to each other, there's no more tidal friction to bring them closer together. That requires a difference between the orbital rate of one and the rotation rate of the other.

There would be a large gravitational friction between the two planets when they became close to each other. I don't know how to do the calculations for that but I guess both planets would become locked to each other like a man and a woman holding each other's hands swirling around in a dance.

 

[Bjarne]

Yes, for the theory to work it would have to be a very slow merge, maybe taking thousands or even millions of years to complete. One scenario is that from the start there were a double-planet system with a mars-size planet and a larger water planet orbiting each other. Then due to tidal friction the planets moved closer and closer to each other until they started to slowly merge.

But still the problem is how the water was brought here.

Here is a different version, you can think about:

Look out in the solar system, and you will see many young stars that have huge planets in orbit, many times larger than Jupiter. This is very natural.

Such huge planets would create much greater tidal attraction to the Sun, and we often see such planets dismissing after relative sort time after a star is born.

Off course such giant planets would have moons too, - more than Jupiter, and several bigger than the moons of Jupiter’s.

Some of these moon could easy survey / escapes, the planets falling down on the sun, - and these would then begin to orbit the Sun.

So far this is no Hokus Pocus, we must assumes this is what happens and had happen many times in different solar systems.

Moons can easy escape such events, because both the pull of the Sun and the Planets will force moons to orbit more and more elliptical and suddenly, vups , - some are free, - and will orbit the Sun / Star instead.


Why should this also not had happen in our Solar system too ?

Let's assume it has, - now the problem is only how would these moon have been able to escape the Sun.?

Well, - the HUGE planet is doomed due to the tidal attraction, but the moons are not, since these create no tidal wave on the Sun.

The big planets will certainly cause the star to rotate MUCH faster, and this rotation is what throws the moons away from the star.

So the small planets close to the Sun; - Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, and the asteroids belts, are in facts old moons that once escaped the fall of a giant planet (with the name “Titanic”.)

The Suns fast rotation hence was throwing these moons further out in space, but without their mother planets.

Mercury have once been closest to the sun, in fact very close, - the Sun have ripped always much of its surface, - this is why mercury’s surface is like it is, and this is why its density is so big (almost double so big like the density of Mars) .

Titanic and it's ice covered moons: The Earth and Venus brought the water here them self, so water did not come from comets (as we know today) and also not asteroids. .

All planet in the solar system have many times the last 4,5 billion years been affected by the Suns rotation speed, and been thrown inwards and outwards of the solar system.

How ?

Well, we are about to discover how:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html


The 4 inner planets are NOT planets, these are moons, and the asteroid belts too.

Ask you self;

• Why are (only) the inner planet so small, - is this natural for planets to be ?
• Or is it more big moon like objects?
• Why should the Sun not also once had have giant planet(s) in orbit
• When a giant planet once has fall, - the inner planet would have been pulled in orbit around the giant planet and dragged towards the Sun, - so where did the inner planets come from, how did thesy surveyed ?
• From where did the asteroid belts come from?
• Where did Jupiter’s atmosphere come from, it must have come from a place much colder, so either the atmosphere must have come to Jupiter or Jupiter must have come closer to the Sun.

I am sure that the creation of solar system is very similar to each other, - here must have been giant planets too.
We are living on one of Titanic old Moon., -- no doubt about it.

Read more >

http://www.science27.com/english/SolarSystems.htm

 

[Anders Lindman]

But still the problem is how the water was brought here.

My theory is that the larger planet was a water planet, meaning a planet with water all around it over a basaltic crust. The other planet had a thicker granitic crust that is lighter than the basaltic crust of the water planet. So the water was already there before the planets started to merge.

Here is a really crude analogy : Picture the mars-sized planet as an iron ball with orange peel around it. And picture the larger water planet as a pumpkin. Then the iron ball is pressed with great force into the pumpkin. The iron ball sinks into the pumpkin while the orange peel becomes fractured and smeared out on the surface of the pumpkin.