Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

Take a rubber band, preferably a long one. Now, take a marker and make three spots on it, one near one end, one in the middle, and one near the other end. the firsts one, in one end, represent the Earth and the others, two galaxies at different distance. Now, take both ends of the rubber band, and slowly stretch it. You will observe that the 'galaxy' at the far end of the rubber band is moving away at always twice the speed of the 'galaxy' in the middle of the rubber band, but they are both moving at constant speed.

Doppler effect is due to relative speed / motion . In this case waves are affected due to the moving objects
BUT galaxies are in fact not moving due to the expanding Universe..
BUT space between the galaxies is expanding.

Expanding space is not the same as motion..

You cannot equalize these two phenomena's.

Not with your hand on the bible, and also not with your hand on the (holy) science book.

So soon you in details tries to explain what time exactly the photon is effected by Doppler Effect,- due to the expanding Universe, that “model” you have in mind will collapse completely.

If you don't believe- try it

Try to explain me, when exactly and how much is a photon z10 (partly or fully) affected:

• A-In the moment it is leaving a star
• B-While it is traveling in space
• C-When hitting the Earth // the spetrometer

If you answer; all, tell me how many percent of the effect is due to A, B, C ?

And answer me also; - how much would these proportional be with a z5 photon.

Hans – this is ill-considered nonsense.

You say that a ball-shaped object is best at 'creating gravity' and that different shapes with the same mass create less gravity.

It depend how you difine "gravity"
Yes it creates less ADG because the effect on space is spread out, - cow logic simple.

You say that your gravity model can explain 'dark matter'.

Right

A galaxy is a flat disk with very low density (only slightly above a vacuum), so it should not be able to create much gravity, compared to its mass.

Right, I guess so., This is not important, - if it does have a ball shape, - ADG would be stronger compared to if it is is flat..

Yet, what we observe is that its rotational speed indicates a greater mass than explained by the observable matter.

You have misunderstood that point.
I said fast moving matter towards the center of the Universe will reach HUGE speed ,- and hence HUGE gravity due to that HUGE speed.

I am not sure whether matter (plasma) in a BigChrunch really (at a certain time) will orbit the central area, - this can be calculted later - this too is not important / decisive for the theory.
The speed and the self-perpetuating-gravity-creating-process due to fast motion of matter towards the center of the Universe and hence the huge speed / mass increase that will cause is enough - to get excactly the effect this theory need >> stronger gravity = ´stronger absorbed space >> BAAAANGGG, - because space cannot continue to contract, - but only to that point when the strong force outplays itself = and hence BAAAAANNNNGGGG

(I guess you have understood gravity and the strong force is a unity, exactly like the old man (Albert) believed....)..

(And I guess you also understand too that there is a limit for how much the strong force can allow space to be contracted / absorbed by matter and hence also that the end of that path is BAAAAAANNNNGG)

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Let me give you just one example of how incoherent your fantasies are:

1) You say that a ball-shaped object is best at 'creating gravity' and that different shapes with the same mass create less gravity.

2) You say that your gravity model can explain 'dark matter'.

3) A galaxy is a flat disk with very low density (only slightly above a vacuum), so it should not be able to create much gravity, compared to its mass.

4) Yet, what we observe is that its rotational speed indicates a greater mass than explained by the observable matter.

So YOUR model has even greater problems with dark matter than the accepted law of gravity.

Hans

Right, I guess so., This is not important, - if it does have a ball shape, - ADG would be stronger compared to if it is is flat..

(I have added more to Bjarne's quoted message to give the context that MRC_Hans was using. Bjarne is also specifically responding to point 3, and point 3 only.)

Whoa, full stop. Your ideas are wrong. Try again. Insert coin to continue.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Doppler effect is due to relative speed / motion . In this case waves are affected due to the moving objects
BUT galaxies are in fact not moving due to the expanding Universe..
BUT space between the galaxies is expanding.

Expanding space is not the same as motion..

You cannot equalize these two phenomena's.

When it comes to redshift, I can. The simplified model perfectly answers your question as to why a (relatively) close galaxy has a lower redshift than a more distant one.

To expand the model into 3 dimensions, and into spacetime expansion is far more complex, and, I frankly expect, way over your head.

Bjarne, you propose a simple model and complain it seems wrong. Then I explain things in terms of your simple model, and you complain that it is ... simplified. This is rather silly.

Not with your hand on the bible, and also not with your hand on the (holy) science book.

All your insults only reflect badly on your own character.

So soon you in details tries to explain what time exactly the photon is effected by Doppler Effect,- due to the expanding Universe, that “model” you have in mind will collapse completely.

No, it doesn't.

Try to explain me, when exactly and how much is a photon z10 (partly or fully) affected:

• A-In the moment it is leaving a star
• B-While it is traveling in space
• C-When hitting the Earth // the spetrometer

If you answer; all, tell me how many percent of the effect is due to A, B, C ?

Well, quite frankly, I won't take the trouble, because I don't think you can, or want to, understand it. I have tried to educate you, but you are not listening. If you want to understand cosmological redshift, go to the library and start reading. It is not my duty to educate you, and it is not my problem if you remain ignorant.

It depend how you difine "gravity"
Yes it creates less ADG because the effect on space is spread out, - cow logic simple.

And here, dear readers, we see how Bjarne starts to back-paddle from his claim that a spherical shape 'creates gravity' better than any other shape.

And Bjarne: There is only one definition of gravity.

Right, I guess so., This is not important, - if it does have a ball shape, - ADG would be stronger compared to if it is is flat..

More backpadling. Yes it is important, but I see that you implicitly admit getting the point. A small step.

You have misunderstood that point.
I said fast moving matter towards the center of the Universe will reach HUGE speed ,- and hence HUGE gravity due to that HUGE speed.

No I haven't misunderstood the point, but you are now changing your claim. Unfortunately, your new claim is even more nonsensical than the old one: Huge speed creates huge gravity.

That is total nonsense. There is no connection between speed and gravity.

And, there is no fast moving matter towards the center of the universe or the center of a galaxy. We were talking about galaxies, remember? (This is another bad habit of Bjarne's: Constantly shifting the subject.)

The riddle about matter distribution in galaxies is that there is a larger distributed mass in the disk of the galaxy than we can observe visually, and this is what your model totally fails ot explain.

* Snipped, pure ranting.*

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Well, quite frankly, I won't take the trouble, because I don't think you can, or want to, understand it. I have tried to educate you, but you are not listening. If you want to understand cosmological redshift, go to the library and start reading. It is not my duty to educate you, and it is not my problem if you remain ignorant

Have you considered being a politician?
They are also expert when it comes to avoid answering the questions.

Bjarne
Doppler effect is due to relative speed / motion . In this case waves are affected due to the moving objects
BUT galaxies are in fact not moving due to the expanding Universe..
BUT space between the galaxies is expanding.

Expanding space is not the same as motion..

You cannot equalize these two phenomena's.

Hans
And here, dear readers, we see how Bjarne starts to back-paddle from his claim that a spherical shape 'creates gravity' better than any other shape.

No my statement are unshakable.

When it comes to redshift, I can. The simplified model perfectly answers your question as to why a (relatively) close galaxy has a lower redshift than a more distant one.

To expand the model into 3 dimensions, and into spacetime expansion is far more complex, and, I frankly expect, way over your head.

Bjarne, you propose a simple model and complain it seems wrong. Then I explain things in terms of your simple model, and you complain that it is ... simplified. This is rather silly.

Still you have ignored to explain what "should" happen with the photon in that process, - why, and how, and especially how you know that ?

I also noticed that you were ignoring to answer me where should the redshift occur.

Doppler effect is caused by relative motion.

Expansion is not motion,- exactly the same logic is it that a cow is not a elephant.

Earth “A” < ………………………………herd of photons …………………<<…………….. Star “B”

• It cannot be the star (B) the photons is leaving, because that star would not had have time to move due to the expanding space, - in that split second a herd og photons are leaving the star.
• It cannot be between space A and B because expanding space is also not motion.
• It cannot be the motion of the earth because 2 photons arriving from the same direction, but from different distance should then disagree how fast the Earth is moving away from them. They do not disagree.

Hans, - this idea is nothing but ill-considered incoherent illogical confused desperation..

No I haven't misunderstood the point, but you are now changing your claim. Unfortunately, your new claim is even more nonsensical than the old one: Huge speed creates huge gravity.

That is total nonsense. There is no connection between speed and gravity.

Speed of matter creates gravity ( any cows know that) and this is the equation:

Mass Increase = (y - 1) m - where γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)

And, there is no fast moving matter towards the center of the universe or the center of a galaxy. We were talking about galaxies, remember? (This is another bad habit of Bjarne's: Constantly shifting the subject.)

The riddle about matter distribution in galaxies is that there is a larger distributed mass in the disk of the galaxy than we can observe visually, and this is what your model totally fails ort explain.

There are several reasons to believe that matter will begin to move towards the center of the Universe so soon that Bigbang is out of breath.

This is common knowledge.

So soon that happens matter will speed up to a huge speed, and this will create stronger gravity….

Exactly as when a cow falls to the Earth, it will accelerate and also reach HUGE speed, - especially if there was no atmosphere resistance it would get close to the speed c.

That would mean HUUUUUGE cow-gravity.

And that's it.....

 

[MRC_Hans]

Have you considered being a politician?
They are also expert when it comes to avoid answering the questions.

I don't avoid answering, I refuse. I don't owe you an answer, you must seek your own education.

Still you have ignored to explain what "should" happen with the photon in that process, - why, and how, and especially how you know that ?

I also noticed that you were ignoring to answer me where should the redshift occur.

I don't ignore it. I leave it to yourself to find the answer if you want to know.

Speed of matter creates gravity ( any cows know that) and this is the equation:

Mass Increase = (y - 1) m - where γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)

Irrelevant. There in nothing in a normal galaxy that moves at speeds that will change its mass significantly.

There are several reasons to believe that matter will begin to move towards the center of the Universe so soon that Bigbang is out of breath.

This is common knowledge.

The big crunch is one common model, however, it is not currently in vogue. This may change, but not thanks to you.

Exactly as when a cow falls to the Earth, it will accelerate and also reach HUGE speed, - especially if there was no atmosphere resistance it would get close to the speed c.

Absolutely not. Even if a cow fell to Earth from the Andromeda galaxy, it would not come anywhere near c.

The escape velocity from Earth is about 22km/s, and simple logic will tell you that this is also the maximum speed anything falling towards Earth will achieve, if it is only moved by Earth's gravity.

Hans

 

[Paulhoff]

Exactly as when a cow falls to the Earth, it will accelerate and also reach HUGE speed, - especially if there was no atmosphere resistance it would get close to the speed c.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

If something falls to earth from a dead stop compared to the earth’s speed, the fastest it will hit the earth with no atmosphere is the same as the escape velocity which is about 7 mps.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

Bad news for the hiigs sect
(As predicted)
Google translate > http://ing.dk/artikel/115095-lhc-har-daarlige-nyheder-til-strengteoretikerne

Amen

 

[MRC_Hans]

Bad news for the hiigs sect
(As predicted)
Google translate > http://ing.dk/artikel/115095-lhc-har-daarlige-nyheder-til-strengteoretikerne

Amen

No, you have not predicted anything like that, and you don't have a clue on what that article is about.

Now, Bjarne, don't try to change the subject. Your fantasy has never held up to a logical scrutiny, your own Domus Vista experiment thoroughly debunked it and intead confirmed the real law of gravity. And I have just recently pointed out a glaring logical fault in your model.

How many bricks must be dumped on your head before you realize that you are W.R.O.N.G ?

Bjarne, let me suggest something for you: Drop physics and take up Hi Fi tweaks, instead. In that business, anything goes. If you're good, you can even make money.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

No, you have not predicted anything like that, and you don't have a clue on what that article is about.

I have predicted high is creeds, and it is.

Irrelevant. There in nothing in a normal galaxy that moves at speeds that will change its mass significantly.

I am speaking about matter, - that in a Big Crunch matter will begin to accelerate towards the center of the universe.

I don’t know why you are mixing galaxies into this.

Orbiting a galaxy (a planet or a star) are completely different histories, since such acceleration is always interrupted when reaching the half orbit distance. Therefore orbiting objects are not reaching almost c.

Cows have known this 755 million years before Kepler understood it.

Heading directly towards the center of the galaxy will mean continuous acceleration.

There will be no interruptions.

A stone on that path will certainly to accelerate until reaching almost c.

There is no atmosphere out there to stop it.

Absolutely not. Even if a cow fell to Earth from the Andromeda galaxy, it would not come anywhere near c.
The escape velocity from Earth is about 22km/s, and simple logic will tell you that this is also the maximum speed anything falling towards Earth will achieve, if it is only moved by Earth's gravity.

Completely nonsense
Do you really mean that?
After 2244, 89 second 22 km/h will be reached (when falling near the surface) (9,8 m/s^2)

Anything falling towards the Earth will continue to accelerate to a much faster speed than that.

Do you really believe that 22 km/h is enough to that an object will burn up in the atmosphere?

Hans PLEASE stop to make me shame that i am a Dane.

Again you are only demonstrating how incompetent you are to judge even simple basic gravity…

The only reason to almost "c" isn’t reach near the Earth is that resistance from the atmosphere will prevent it to happen.

Every cow on Jensen's ploughed field knows this.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I have predicted high is creeds, and it is.

No. It is a theory. It may be confirmed, and it may fall. That is the life of theories.

I am speaking about matter, - that in a Big Crunch matter will begin to accelerate towards the center of the universe.

I don’t know why you are mixing galaxies into this.

Because we were talking about galaxies. I know you like to change the subject when you can't answer.

Orbiting a galaxy (a planet or a star) are completely different histories, since such acceleration is always interrupted when reaching the half orbit distance. Therefore orbiting objects are not reaching almost c.

This is nonsense. Perhaps you are trying to say something right, but you have it all garbled up.

Cows have known this 755 million years before Kepler understood it.

Don't you realize how absolutely stupid remarks like that make you appear?

Heading directly towards the center of the galaxy will mean continuous acceleration.

There will be no interruptions.

In fact there will. You see, as you move towards the center, more and more mass will be behind you, and the gravity from that will slow you down.

A stone on that path will certainly to accelerate until reaching almost c.

No.

Completely nonsense
Do you really mean that?
After 2244, 89 second 22 km/h will be reached (when falling near the surface) (9,8 m/s^2)

Anything falling towards the Earth will continue to accelerate to a much faster speed than that.

Considering your arrogance, this is really hilarious, Bjarne. Now tell me, what happened to the square rule? Yes, you have agreed that the square rule applies outside Earth. So if you are double radius away from Earth, what is the gravity acceleration? 1/4 G. Oh, and I didn't say 22 km/h. Do TRY to read, will you? It is 22 km/s .. per second. That is just a little bit faster . But still only a tiny fraction of c.

Do you really believe that 22 km/h is enough to that an object will burn up in the atmosphere?

Hans PLEASE stop to make me shame that i am a Dane.

And it seems some Danes can't read.
22 km/s.

Anyway, I remembered that value wrong. It is 'only' 11.2 km/s.

Again you are only demonstrating how incompetent you are to judge even simple basic gravity…

Hahe, Bjarne. Go out into your bathroom, look in the mirror, and say that to yourself. You are so incompetent it hurts.

The only reason to almost "c" isn’t reach near the Earth is that resistance from the atmosphere will prevent it to happen.

OK, since you can't figure it out for yourself, let me help you:

Disregarding air resistance, if you shoot something upwards, it comes down with the same speed. Now imagine shooting bullets upwards with more and more speed. They fly higher and higher, and some down with the same speed as they went up.

Simple cow knowledge, ehh?

Now, you shoot a bullet upwards with 11km/s. It goes VERY high, but eventually it comes down again with 11km/s (don't stand in its way! )

Now you shoot one up with 11.5 km/s. When will it come down, and how fast?

Answer: It will never come down, it will continue into space.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

And, while we are at it, what do you mean by this:

Do you really mean that?
After 2244, 89 second 22 km/h will be reached (when falling near the surface) (9,8 m/s^2)

These figures don't make sense at all.

22km/h is just over 6 m/s, you reach that in less than a second in Earth gravity.

2245 seconds at 9.8m/s² gives 22km/s. So if the km/h was just your writing error, then what's your problem?

Do you really believe that 22 km/h is enough to that an object will burn up in the atmosphere?

So if you mean 22 km/s, then yes, I believe it is enough to make an object burn up in the atmosphere.

That said, most meteors are much faster, because they don't just fall towards Earth, they are speeding through space at speeds up to 100 km/s.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

No. It is a theory. It may be confirmed, and it may fall. That is the life of theories.

I was predicting that hiigs is rubbish and would not be found.
It is NOT found.

Because we were talking about galaxies. I know you like to change the subject when you can't answer.

We was talking about the Universe and matter (galaxies) in a Big Crunch will fall towards the center of that gravitational field we call the Universe.
In that process HUGE speed will be reached.

This is nonsense. Perhaps you are trying to say something right, but you have it all garbled up.

The Earth is only accelerating the half tour around the Sun, and then again decelerating.
But Hans I do not expect you to get that point either.

In fact there will. You see, as you move towards the centre, more and more mass will be behind you, and the gravity from that will slow you down.

You would still accelerate the whole way to the center of a body both according to your own religion and according to the new theory. According to the new theory the acceleration would be faster.

Considering your arrogance, this is really hilarious, Bjarne. Now tell me, what happened to the square rule? Yes, you have agreed that the square rule applies outside Earth. So if you are double radius away from Earth, what is the gravity acceleration? 1/4 G. Oh, and I didn't say 22 km/h. Do TRY to read, will you? It is 22 km/s .. per second. That is just a little bit faster . But still only a tiny fraction of c.

Because matter is hitting "something" people call the atmosphere, - without that acceleration would continue to accelerate to a HUGE speed.
But just forget it Hans, - I do not expect you ever will got that point either. .

OK, since you can't figure it out for yourself, let me help you:

Disregarding air resistance, if you shoot something upwards, it somes down with the same speed. Now imagine shooting bullets upwards with more and more speed. They fly higher and higher, and some down with the same speed as they went up.

Simple cow knowledge, ehh?

Now, you shoor a bullet upwards with 11km/s. It goes VERY high, but eventually it comes down again with 11km/s (don't stant in its way! )

Now you shoot one up with 11.5 km/s. When will it come down, and how fast?

Answer: It will never come down, it will continue into space.

Disregarding air resistance, if you shoot something upwards, it comes down with the same speed. Now imagine shooting bullets upwards with more and more speed. They fly higher and higher, and some down with the same speed as they went up.

Don't beat about the bush; - any object, - for example a cow, - falling towards the center of the gravitational field we call the Universe would continue to accelerate to a HUGE speed.

If all the matter of the Universe did the same at the same time, - a self-perpetuating would cause stronger gravity and hence; stronger acceleration and hence stronger gravity and hence stronger acceleration, etc. etc..
But hans I think we better stop here, - because even to this point you will not get the point….

 

[MRC_Hans]

I was predicting that hiigs is rubbish and would not be found.
It is NOT found.
[/quite]

No, not so far. That doesn't make it rubbish, however, the Higgs Bozun is a valid thesis, but it may be wrong.

A real scientist doesn't see a failed theory as a defeat, just as new knowledge.

We was talking about the Universe and matter (galaxies) in a Big Crunch will fall towards the center of that gravitational field we call the Universe.
In that process HUGE speed will be reached.

No, we were not talking aobut that. I was pointing out that your model does not fit our observations of galaxies, and instead of answering that, you changed the subject and started babbling about the big crunch.

The Earth is only accelerating the half tour around the Sun, and then again decelerating.
But Hans I do not expect you to get that point either.

And mailboxes are red (at least in Denmark). Do you have other irrelevant trivia you want to share?

You would still accelerate the whole way to the center of a body both according to your own religion and according to the new theory. According to the new theory the acceleration would be faster.

No.

Because matter is hitting "something" people call the atmosphere, - without that acceleration would continue to accelerate to a HUGE speed.
But just forget it Hans, - I do not expect you ever will got that point either. .

It will accelerate to a HUGE speed. 11.2 km/sec is a really really huge speed. Howeven it is still a tiny fraction of c, and you said it would accelerate to near c. You were wrong.

(In case you forgot, c is appr, 300,000 km/sec)


Hans

 

[Bjarne]

And mailboxes are red (at least in Denmark). Do you have other irrelevant trivia you want to share?

It is not irrelevant what trickered the BigBang - for real scientist.
And the fact is I have an idea, you have nothing at all.
((Except that mailboxes (in Denmark) is red and a cow would falls max 11,2 km/s towards the Earth, and other trivial irrelevant points, that really not have a lot with the discussion to do.))

 

[Bjarne]

We "know" that when BigBang toke place there was no time.

So how fast was time really ticking 1 -2 - 3- 4- 5- 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 -etc billion years after BigBang ?

It is pretty naive to believe that time, - "short" time after BB times was ticking “normally” – is someone should do so….

What is "normally ticking time" ?

We simple do not know, and should be more open minded…..

When photons are moving to faster moving time zone we know these are becoming redshift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment

THIS is the reason why light received from slower moving time, billion of years ago, - the EM spectra is redshift.

 

[MRC_Hans]

We "know" that when BigBang toke place there was no time.

So how fast was time really ticking 1 -2 - 3- 4- 5- 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 -etc billion years after BigBang ?

It is pretty naive to believe that time, - "short" time after BB times was ticking “normally” – is someone should do so….

What is "normally ticking time" ?

We simple do not know, and should be more open minded…..

When photons are moving to faster moving time zone we know these are becoming redshift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment

THIS is the reason why light received from slower moving time, billion of years ago, - the EM spectra is redshift.

Bjarne, maybe, just maybe you can trick yourself into believing that you didn't loose this discussion big time, but nobodey else is fooled for a second.

Happy new year!

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, maybe, just maybe you can trick yourself into believing that you didn't loose this discussion big time, but nobodey else is fooled for a second.

Happy new year!

Hans

Belive what...


That there was no time at the moment the BigBang went of ?
Hans this too is common Knowledge.
How could it be time in our Universe when there was no space, no matter, no forces, - NOTHING - ?


That time is "stretching" (time is ticking slower) towards the center of a gravitionel field ?
Hans this too is common knowledge, - we know that we have measured it.
It is proven.


That the speed of time was ticking in the past – and affect the EM specter today ?.
Do you not believe that either ? ?
Light moving in or out of a gravitational field is changing it's EM spectra
This too is proven science..

I am ONLY asking how and why does time ticks today as it does.

How was time ticking 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 etc billion years after the Big bang ?

For you to be able to answer this exactly you must know a lot, - as you do not know....

That's the point..

Gravity could be very much different in the past, must more different as you can imaging.

For example tell me how big is the mass extension in the Universe

a.) less as 15 billion LY ?
b.) more than 100 billion LY ?
c.) more than 1000 billion LY ?
d.) more than 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 billion LY ?

How strong was gravity 1 second after BB - 1 year after and 1 billion years after etc. ect...etc...

And I could continue.

All this will off course effects gravity and time..

Gravitational redshift could very well be the cause of Cosmological redshift.
That's the point too....
You have absolutely no reason for rejecting that…
That's the point too....

Let us now say d is correct
d.) more than 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 billion LY ?

Where are we in that "booble" ?

And how does that effect gravity HERE dear Mr omniscient. ?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Belive what...


That there was no time at the moment the BigBang went of ?
Hans this too is common Knowledge.
How could it be time in our Universe when there was no space, no matter, no forces, - NOTHING - ?

That time is "stretching" (time is ticking slower) towards the center of a gravitionel field ?
Hans this too is common knowledge, - we know that we have measured it.
It is proven.

That the speed of time was ticking in the past – and affect the EM specter today ?.
Do you not believe that either ? ?
Light moving in or out of a gravitational field is changing it's EM spectra
This too is proven science..

Bjarne, do you somehow think that reiterating common knowledge is supporting your case? Have you forgotten that you set out to revolutionize that same common knowledge?

I am ONLY asking how and why does time ticks today as it does.

How was time ticking 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 etc billion years after the Big bang ?

For you to be able to answer this exactly you must know a lot, - as you do not know....

If you want education, read some books, or enroll in a study. I'm not going to waste more of my time trying to educate you.

Gravity could be very much different in the past, must more different as you can imaging.

We have no indication that gravity was different in the past.

For example tell me how big is the mass extension in the Universe

a.) less as 15 billion LY ?
b.) more than 100 billion LY ?
c.) more than 1000 billion LY ?
d.) more than 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 billion LY ?

How strong was gravity 1 second after BB - 1 year after and 1 billion years after etc. ect...etc...

And I could continue.

I'm sure you can continue, but how about you instead start ..... to make some sense?


Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

dear Mr omniscient. ?

Thank you, but you flatter me. It is only in comparison to you that I may appear omniscient.

You know, "in the realm of the blind.." and all that.

Hans

 

[Paul]

In the realm of Bjarne, someone with Folkeskole level 1 natural sciences is king.