Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Paul]

 

[Mister Earl]

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

Nope.

 

[Anders Lindman]

The mars-sized planet was called......ATLANTIS!

Here is how Plato described Atlantis:

The planet Atlantis sunk into the oceanic sister planet. Today Atlantis is the Earth's core.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Mars-sized planet within larger oceanic planet:

 

[Mister Earl]

I think you'd have to be able to prove that two planets could slowly merge before anyone took you serious.

 

[Mister Earl]

Actually, your best bet would be to start your own thread on this... we're getting off-topic. This thread is about dark energy, and for some bizarre reason I can't understand, cows.

 

[phunk]

So many things wrong with that post.

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.

Did you mean galaxy? Because there are no young stars in the solar system. And the reason most of the planets we see are large and close to the star isn't because most planets are large and close to the star, it's because those are the only ones we had the technology to detect until very recently. We are beginning to detect the smaller ones now though.

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.

We've NEVER seen such planets 'dimissing', for any definition of dismissing that I can think of (never even heard that word used in this context).

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

Why? We have no evidence of moons around extrasolar planets yet, so this is completely your imagination.

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

Falling down on the sun? Maybe it's your broken English, but it seems like you know nothing about orbital mechanics.

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

Why must we assume something based on your imagination, assumptions, and misunderstanding of orbital mechanics?

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.

And yet most of the planets in our solar system have moons that are in stable orbits, not escaping.

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

You haven't shown that it must happen anywhere, so why would it happen here?

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

The more assumptions you chain together, the farther you will get from reality.

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.

Big planets tend to migrate AWAY from the star, not towards it. For it to be pulled inward, it's orbit needs to be faster than the rotation of the star.

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

The big planets will cause the star to rotate SLOWER, and this interaction is what throws the big planet away from the star. The same thing is happening with the earth/moon system.

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.

Nonsense.

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.

Outwards yes. Very slowly. Inwards? Nope.

How ?

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

How do you know what we are about to discover when the scientists trying to figure it out have no idea?

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 ?

Why do you consider them small? We don't have accurate statistics for planets yet because we are still designing the tools for finding them. Maybe the planets here are bigger than average, we just don't know yet.

• Or is it more big moon like objects?

Probably not.

• Why should the Sun not also once had have giant planet(s) in orbit

It does. Jupiter and Saturn. Again, we don't know how they compare to average because we haven't had the tools to survey the planets outside our solar system until very recently.

• 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 ?

I think the word you're looking for is 'survived'. Since you haven't shown that any giant planet migrated into the sun, we don't need to know how they survived. That would be like me asking how you survived an accident you never had. It makes no sense. Also, a giant planet migrating inward would not necessarily drag other planets in, or pull them into orbit. It could just as easily fling them outward. Again, you need to learn a little about orbital mechanics.

• From where did the asteroid belts come from?

Most likely it formed the same way the rest of the planets did, except perturbation from Jupiter and the minuscule mass available prevented the belt from fully coalescing into a planet.

• 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.

Why would it have to come from some place cold? It formed from the same nebula that formed the rest of the solar system.

I am sure that the creation of solar system is very similar to each other, - here must have been giant planets too.

We haven't witnessed the creation of another solar system, so I'm not sure what you are assuming it must be similar to.

We are living on one of Titanic old Moon., -- no doubt about it.

Incredibly unlikely.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Actually, your best bet would be to start your own thread on this... we're getting off-topic. This thread is about dark energy, and for some bizarre reason I can't understand, cows.

Yeah, I posted the theory as a response to the video about an expanding Earth.

My other post is more in line with this thread. That redshift can be caused by the vacuum energy. If that is true, then the assumption about dark energy can be wrong. Maybe dark energy is not even needed as an explanation then.

 

[Reality Check]

And mu friend it is the exactly the same principle responsible for CR.

And my friend (and your cows) it is the exactly a different principle responsible for CR.
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.

Finally "something" got through the concrete.

That is idoitic even for you Bjarne.
I have been telling all along that a change in frequency in light means that the light's energy has changed.
You are the one denying it with your delusion that stretching time means no energy loss. The observation of redshift means that the light has lost energy.

The difference I will prove by measurement and you will definitive lose.

The difference is that it has already been prove by better people then me (and much better than you). You have already lost.

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

The difference is that it shows that you cannot even tell the difference between 2 people. Your cows can !

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.
​

Sourse > http://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/36135.html

Once again you cannot tell the difference between two different people. The essay asserts that Tycho Brahe (not Johannes Kepler) was placed under house arrest by a "brainwashed and orthodox creeds" - the Catholic Church. It is wrong - it was Galileo. I can find no mention other than the essay of Tycho Brahe being placed under house arrest.

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

He had personal problems and kept some of his work back until encouraged by other scientists.

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

Liar.
The quote is just about Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
However there are other works that he delayed publishing (the word "again") and indeed one work was published after he died.

Liar
He was tired to discuss it with intolerant fools .
He was ready to forget it all.

Liar (with the delusion that you can read the mind of Newton!).
We know that Newton did not like publishing his work since he had to be encouraged.
My guess is that he liked to go onto other work rather than publishing what to him was obvious stuff. When he did give a presentation (e.g at the Royal Society) or publish his work was well received because everyone recognized him as a genius.

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

Gravitaional energy is the energy of gravity.
What is Bjarne's ignorance, - except blap la blap bla bla ?

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.

Pretty much gibberish but...
That is right. If you measure the frequency of light with a clock that is ticking different than another clock then you get that the light is blue or red shifted. That is what the Pound Rebka Experiment actually measured: gravitational blueshift.
Alternately you can say that the clocks tick at the same rate but the light was blueshifted between the clocks in the experiment.

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]

I think you'd have to be able to prove that two planets could slowly merge before anyone took you serious.

You do realize that Anders Lindman is (hopefully ) making fun of Bjarne?

He made up an inane theory involving colliding planets and the mythical continent of Atlantis to show just how even more inane Bjarne's idea is.

 

[Paul]

You do realize that Anders Lindman is (hopefully ) making fun of Bjarne?

I thought that initially, then I read some of his other posts.

 

[Anders Lindman]

You do realize that Anders Lindman is (hopefully ) making fun of Bjarne?

He made up an inane theory involving colliding planets and the mythical continent of Atlantis to show just how even more inane Bjarne's idea is.

The connection to the story about Atlantis was just a curious similarity I found. The idea about Earth from the beginning being a double-planet system is more of a hard theory.

 

[steenkh]

Galileo did no work on gravity other than his astronomical observations.

Yes he did! He showed that the rate of acceleration due to gravity is equal for all bodies, irrespective of mass.

 

[steenkh]

The connection to the story about Atlantis was just a curious similarity I found. The idea about Earth from the beginning being a double-planet system is more of a hard theory.

Two kooks in one thread? This is going to be fun. :

 

[Anders Lindman]

Two kooks in one thread? This is going to be fun. :

You mean two kooks and the rest mechanical sheeple? Oh man, this is gonna be easy.

 

[Bjarne]

Did you mean galaxy? Because there are no young stars in the solar system.

I mean look at our solar system compared with others.

We've NEVER seen such planets 'dismissing', for any definition of dismissing that I can think of (never even heard that word used in this context).

Wrong many huge planets are due to the tidal effect falling down on their mother stars.

Why must we assume something based on your imagination, assumptions, and misunderstanding of orbital mechanics?

Right now the most interesting giant planets we are wacthing is Wasp-18B, this planet will fall down on it’s mother star Wasp-18.
Such happens every day.

You haven't shown that it must happen anywhere, so why would it happen here?

Why not. The formation of a solar system must follow the same laws.
We know big planets will fall pretty fast, simply because these will drag them self towards the stars (due to tidal wave) - You can be sure some moons will survive.

The big planets will cause the star to rotate SLOWER, and this interaction is what throws the big planet away from the star.

Right we know there is a “friction” due to the tidal wave, - and hence a slower rotation influence due to that.

BUT the fast orbit has the opposite effect, it “drag” the rotation of the star.
When a huge planet is approaching a star this will drag the stars rotation much faster as the friction causing caused by the tidal.
In the same way the rotation of a star can also throw a planet away from the star ( when the tidal attraction is not too strong)

Furthermore “inertia” is also slowing the rotation speed of a star.

Resistance against motion also applies for object moving with constant speed. It is simple creeds to believe it only applies for acceleration.
THIS is the new lessons of science we soon will learn.
We are force to understand this, - since it is all already written in space probes strange behaviors, as well as billion of stars and planet.
So the net result of all this is e.g.; that our star, the sun, - will rotate gradually slower, this will sooner or later drag the planets further to the Sun (due to resistance against motion) , and this will give a temporary faster rotation until Mercury one day is lost,.
The lost of Mercury will cause the Sun to rotate faster, - after Mercury is gone again the Sun will again begin to rotate slower, until Venus is lost ... etc… until all stars are lost.
We have much more to learn.
If you really want to understand this part of the theory, read this ; http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

The same thing is happening with the earth/moon system.

Yes, the same thing happens to the Earth rotation, but remember to add; the Moons pulls the Earth rotation and is responsible for 100% of the rotation speed. The Moon maintenance the rotation of the Earth even though the tidal effect slows it down and even though there is a (weak) resistance against rotation too.

So again you are right, so long there are no moons that approach the Earth, the Earth will rotate gradually slower, and one day stop rotating.

We are speaking about a VERY complex KE transfer systems, - We have used much here in this thread discussion all this before, so I suggest read this.

The more assumptions you chain together, the farther you will get from reality.

It could look like this.
But first at all notice this part of the theory (KE transfer between astronomic objects) is not connected with the first parts (the nature of gravity). These 2 parts of the theory are to a certain degree connected, but do not depend on each other.

The more we ignore reality, the further we get from reality.
For example if you ignore such HUGE evidence written on the sky, like that :
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html

How do you know what we are about to discover when the scientists trying to figure it out have no idea?

It is inevitable. We know there is problem with gravity / speed of space-probes. We have both decelerating and accelerating space-probe problems.
Solution MUST be found (and proven). I am 110 % sure I am right, so simple is that, - take it or leave it.

I think the word you're looking for is 'survived'

Right.
Why would it have to come from some place cold? It formed from the same nebula that formed the rest of the solar system.
This is common knowledge, look it up at the internet.

We haven't witnessed the creation of another solar system, so I'm not sure what you are assuming it must be similar to.

Try to follow the pattern between:;

• The age of a star (solar system)
• The star rotation speed
• How many giant planets seem to be gone after few billion years. (most of the time within the first 1 billion years)
• How far stars in period can be found away from the stars
• How (too) close planets can be found to stars (also gas planet that should not be there).

"Something is wrong" we have known this for long time. We even do not have a good theory how the solar system was created. – It is so obviously something seriously BIG is missing.

It is obviously giant planets are lost when the star are very young. – I am 110% this has happen to our star too.

I will propaly take a decade or 2 before this part of the theory is proven.
But you can be sure many are trying to solve it. - New accurate space navigation equapment is propaly the answer.
For exsample DTU will contribute with a new invented space triangulation device.

 

[dafydd]

The connection to the story about Atlantis was just a curious similarity I found. The idea about Earth from the beginning being a double-planet system is more of a hard theory.

More fool you then.

 

[Bjarne]

And my friend (and your cows) it is the exactly a different principle responsible for CR.
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.

The cause is not important.
The result = Stretched space (and time) is the point / important.

The difference is that it has already been prove by better people then me (and much better than you). You have already lost.

Liar
CENTRAL ADG measurement with the only purpose to confirm or disconfirm whether ADG really is really decreasing towards the center of an object has never been done.

This is completely unacceptable, especially seen in the light that scientist are using billions of $ trying to detect a fantasy gravity particle.

The difference is that it shows that you cannot even tell the difference between 2 people. Your cows can

There are no differences.
People are humans and cows are cows,
So the difference is between cows and human, not between people and humans.
You have also misunderstood this (too).
Anyway

• Tycho Brahe was places in hourse arrest
• Galileo Brahe was places in hourse arrest
• Johannes Kepler was ”nuts” (according to the church and the brain wash system at that time)
• Albert Einstein was (in long time) ignored and did not get any serious credit for his big findings GR/SR

Conclution: Gravity is not (always) a popular business I believe.....
Even though measurement evidence is displayed, it MUST be a “nuts” LIE. ( Year 2010)

We know that Newton did not like publishing his work since he had to be encouraged.My guess is that he liked to go onto other work rather than publishing what to him was obvious stuff. When he did give a presentation (e.g at the Royal Society) or publish his work was well received because everyone recognized him as a genius.

My friend you are guessing too much.
Read some books about Newton. He was tired speaking about his findings.
People would not believe him; instead they demanded him to explain how gravity was working.

Math was not enough.

He was tired of all that and ready to give it all up.

The only mistake he did was discussion with fools.
Hally was a very intelligent person, the only one that could see Newton could be right.
THIS is the naken truth.

Gravitaional energy is the energy of gravity.
What is Bjarne's ignorance, - except blap la blap bla bla ?

Dear RC you don't know what gravity really is (or bended space)
HOW can you talk about "gravity energy ?
Now you are really funny

Pretty much gibberish but...
That is right. If you measure the frequency of light with a clock that is ticking different than another clock then you get that the light is blue or red shifted. That is what the Pound Rebka Experiment actually measured: gravitational blueshift.
Alternately you can say that the clocks tick at the same rate but the light was blueshifted between the clocks in the experiment.

So do you agree that :The frequency of the photon "falling" towards the bottom of the tower is blueshifted. ?
Sourse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment

And therefore frequency climbing upwards is red shifted.

Dear RC, please understand when time is stretching or “shrinking” the EM-absorbation spectre reveals exacts the same.

We know this...

THIS is my point, and I HOPE the last of your post confirms that you now finally agree.

Now you ONLY need to understand that:
Gravitionel Redshift (we hopefully both a now agree is caused by time differences) – is the EXCAT same principle that also applies for Cosmological redshift, - simple because space above you head (as well as time) is ASLO stretching every day.

The principle ARE THE EXCACT SAME

The cause of CR and Gravitional-Redshift are different, BUT it doesn’t matter what the cause of the space-stretch really is .

The POINT is WHAT happens to space AND time due to these phenomena's
--

 

[Paul]

You have also misunderstood this (too).



Anyway

• Tycho Brahe was places in hourse arrest
• Galileo Brahe was places in hourse arrest
• Johannes Kepler was ”nuts” (according to the church and the brain wash system at that time)
• Albert Einstein was (in long time) ignored and did not get any serious credit for his big findings GR/SR

Conclution: Gravity is not (always) a popular business I believe.....
Even though measurement evidence is displayed, it MUST be a “nuts” LIE

Tycho Brahe was feted during his lifetime and was given "the island of Hven and unlimited funds to build an observatory there at Uraniborg" around 1577 by Frederick II of Denmark and then "was made Imperial Mathematician in 1599, given yet another castle at Benatek outside Prague, and, more important, given the young Johannes Kepler as an assistant" by the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolph II.

Galileo Brahe didn't exist.

Johannes Kepler was not thought insane.

Albert Einstein published four papers in 1905 in the journal Annalen der Physik, one of which earned him the Nobel Prize.

"Within a short time Einstein's work on relativity was widely recognized to be original and profound. In 1908 he obtained an academic post at the University of Bern. Over the next three years he held major posts at Zurich (1909), Prague (1911), and the Zurich Federal Institute of Technology (1912) before taking a post in Berlin in 1914"

details from A Dictionary of Scientists. Oxford University Press, 1999. Oxford Reference Online.

Read some books about Newton.

I think you should do the same.

 

[Anders Lindman]

More fool you then.

The comment about the Atlantis story is not a part of the double-planet theory. It was just a reference to an ancient myth. Another such ancient story is how the Egyptian god Osiris was destroyed into separate pieces (the continents) which later were found except his penis (the Earth's core). Very far-fetched stuff without a solid foundation in hard facts.