Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

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 have nothing against common knowledge, I believe in knowledge, and have only something against creeds, that too many silly person believes can and must be equalized with knowledge.

For example (in this context) why is the EM-spectra redshift.
The true answer is that we don’t know.

Scientist are in conflict with each other as well with the science book too.
Since photon energy cannot just (extremely slowly disappear out in the big blue 21 bright blue dimension).

We can see something happen with the EM-spectra, but we have in fact no idea how and why it is possible...

• We don’t know what caused the BigBang
• We don’t know what expanding space really is.
• We don’t know why gravity seems to “disappear” (out in the 21 th big bright blue dimension)
• We don’t know what gravity really is.
• We don’t what black matter is.
• We don’t know why gravity doesn’t seem to slow the process.
• We don’t know how gravity is involved in all this.

Notice I do not have a theory factory.
All what I claim is in fact only; that bended space is better understood as stretching space.
(My friend this is already proven and I will certainly prove this further. )

All other statements I have done (except the one regarding RAM) are naturally consequences of the basic innocent statement just mentioned, - for example; that elementary particles must consume space.

Since the BigBang theory was created many have certainly asked; what have caused that HUGE explosion.
I believe no one had use much time even on trying solving that / answering that question. --- It simply seems to be “too big”..

We can of course say the reason must be because god wanted a BigBang, - and we have the answer.

I think this is the best answer we so far had have, - or can you imagine any scientist able to compete regarding that question?

Based on the new theory we can say BigBang is the exactly opposite as gravity.

If gravity suddenly not longer would exist space stretching towards a gravitionel field must be released.

And as you easy can see , this is the same main thread I have followed all the time, because this will mean the only possible (rational) force strong enough to create a Bigbang is; - gravity.

And I can add, - I will have nothing against to conclude that the strong force too must be involved. ( like the old man always thought)...

These two huge forces of nature must simply have been outplayed. There are no other (rational) possibilities.

Now you can follow the main thread further, and easy conclude that the only possible “force” that could have caused the whole Universe to be so extremely much contracted, and maybe to a point where distance and time simply did not exist, - is HUGE speed of matter.

And as you can see there are no STOP signs anywhere, because a HUGE self-perpetuating speed/ gravity process is exactly what we can expect when the whole Universe in a BigChrunch would begin to accelerate towards the mass center.
In that process ONLY HUGE speed of matter could cause many hundred times stronger gravity, and therefore also contract the Universe many hundred times.

Therefore there are in fact on more (problem free) candidate to accuse for the cosmological redshift, and this is in fact gravitionel redshift.

I am learning too , the whole time by discussion with so intelligent people different places, and especially because I have learn from mother cow always to be open minded, otherwise I will only cheat myself.

Much of this I have written in these thread is modified, sometimes 180% degree.
For example the Universe is (now) not stretching day by day due to BIgBang but rather released from tension / stretch. This is the completely opposite, - and this has consequences I too must accept...

So the space-tension is in fact released, after a BB, - also even though it is “expanding”.

This mean distances are getting shorter and shorter, as well as the meter stick, and time is ticking faster and faster.

At the same time YES we are losing gravity, BUT not to a unknown dimension.

The contraction of space 13.7 billion years ago was so huge it simply takes billion of years to release it.

It is all a bit more complicated as I thought, and there are not any simple results.

We will certainly take a big step forward, simply because all the knowledge we have can now be united in one overall “picture”, - and this is only because of one missing piece is “found.” > Matter consumes space.

I am only putting the pieces together.

One single piece I have found, - and plenty other pieces, - intelligent people through history have found.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I have nothing against common knowledge, I believe in knowledge, and have only something against creeds, that too many silly person believes can and must be equalized with knowledge.

For example (in this context) why is the EM-spectra redshift.
The true answer is that we don’t know.

Scientist are in conflict with each other as well with the science book too.
Since photon energy cannot just (extremely slowly disappear out in the big blue 21 bright blue dimension).

We can see something happen with the EM-spectra, but we have in fact no idea how and why it is possible...

• We don’t know what caused the BigBang
• We don’t know what expanding space really is.
• We don’t know why gravity seems to “disappear” (out in the 21 th big bright blue dimension)
• We don’t know what gravity really is.
• We don’t what black matter is.
• We don’t know why gravity doesn’t seem to slow the process.
• We don’t know how gravity is involved in all this.

Notice I do not have a theory factory.
All what I claim is in fact only; that bended space is better understood as stretching space.
(My friend this is already proven and I will certainly prove this further. )

All other statements I have done (except the one regarding RAM) are naturally consequences of the basic innocent statement just mentioned, - for example; that elementary particles must consume space.

Since the BigBang theory was created many have certainly asked; what have caused that HUGE explosion.
I believe no one had use much time even on trying solving that / answering that question. --- It simply seems to be “too big”..

We can of course say the reason must be because god wanted a BigBang, - and we have the answer.

I think this is the best answer we so far had have, - or can you imagine any scientist able to compete regarding that question?

Based on the new theory we can say BigBang is the exactly opposite as gravity.

If gravity suddenly not longer would exist space stretching towards a gravitionel field must be released.

And as you easy can see , this is the same main thread I have followed all the time, because this will mean the only possible (rational) force strong enough to create a Bigbang is; - gravity.

And I can add, - I will have nothing against to conclude that the strong force too must be involved. ( like the old man always thought)...

These two huge forces of nature must simply have been outplayed. There are no other (rational) possibilities.

Now you can follow the main thread further, and easy conclude that the only possible “force” that could have caused the whole Universe to be so extremely much contracted, and maybe to a point where distance and time simply did not exist, - is HUGE speed of matter.

And as you can see there are no STOP signs anywhere, because a HUGE self-perpetuating speed/ gravity process is exactly what we can expect when the whole Universe in a BigChrunch would begin to accelerate towards the mass center.
In that process ONLY HUGE speed of matter could cause many hundred times stronger gravity, and therefore also contract the Universe many hundred times.

Therefore there are in fact on more (problem free) candidate to accuse for the cosmological redshift, and this is in fact gravitionel redshift.

I am learning too , the whole time by discussion with so intelligent people different places, and especially because I have learn from mother cow always to be open minded, otherwise I will only cheat myself.

Much of this I have written in these thread is modified, sometimes 180% degree.
For example the Universe is (now) not stretching day by day due to BIgBang but rather released from tension / stretch. This is the completely opposite, - and this has consequences I too must accept...

So the space-tension is in fact released, after a BB, - also even though it is “expanding”.

This mean distances are getting shorter and shorter, as well as the meter stick, and time is ticking faster and faster.

At the same time YES we are losing gravity, BUT not to a unknown dimension.

The contraction of space 13.7 billion years ago was so huge it simply takes billion of years to release it.

It is all a bit more complicated as I thought, and there are not any simple results.

We will certainly take a big step forward, simply because all the knowledge we have can now be united in one overall “picture”, - and this is only because of one missing piece is “found.” > Matter consumes space.

I am only putting the pieces together.

One single piece I have found, - and plenty other pieces, - intelligent people through history have found.

Hans

 

[steenkh]

I have nothing against common knowledge, I believe in knowledge, and have only something against creeds, that too many silly person believes can and must be equalized with knowledge.

Then why do you equal your own creed with knowledge? You have now spent a lot of time here so that you know that your idea is just a creed that you cannot give up, despite overwhelming evidence that it is nonsense. You have managed to fail in every respect, and even your own data have turned against you.

And yet you continue to pass your creed off as knowledge. Silly you.

 

[Bjarne]

Then why do you equal your own creed with knowledge?

I will prove the basic statement; - that matter contracts space.

This will lead to that especially all right brained intelligent people much easier can see a coherent overall picture everywhere where gravity is involved...

This will also give also lead to a more complete understanding of the Universe.

 

[Paul]

I will prove the basic statement; - that matter contracts space.

Do you have a timetable for this?

 

[steenkh]

I will prove the basic statement; - that matter contracts space.

Yes, you have the creed that matters contract space, but that is not knowledge. Quite the contrary, it has been shown that you do not even know what the words mean, and your claim has been shown to be false over and over again. That is knowledge.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I will prove the basic statement; - that matter contracts space.

I have to correct your English, here. You should say "want to". 'Will', in this context, denotes a certainty.

Seriously, how do you feel you are doing? So far, you have not managed one shred of evidence, instead, you have actually provided experimental data which supports the conventional model.

This will lead to that especially all right brained intelligent people much easier can see a coherent overall picture everywhere where gravity is involved...

Bjarne, perhaps you should start using BOTH halves of your brain. That might help you a lot.

This will also give also lead to a more complete understanding of the Universe.

No, quite the opposite; if your idea had any merit, ALL our understanding of the universe so far goes down the drain. Your idea goes against practically all physical laws:

- Thermodynamics
- Conservation of momentum
- Gravity
- Electromagnetics
- Even mathematics, since your way of doing math is ... shall we say, somewhat creative

We would basically be back to square one. .... Fortunately, that is not going to happen.

Hans

 

[Zeuzzz]

Cant we agree to disagree on things like this?

Its not as if there's a scientific consensus. Or proof of either side of the argument. Its cosmology; the most speculative and unprovable scientific area of the lot.

These paper(s) might be interesting to people who are undecided either way.

The Case Against Cosmology
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0009/0009020v1.pdf

It is argued that some of the recent claims for cosmology are grossly
overblown. Cosmology rests on a very small database: it suffers from
many fundamental difficulties as a science (if it is a science at all) whilst
observations of distant phenomena are difficult to make and harder to interpret.
It is suggested that cosmological inferences should be tentatively
made and sceptically received

MODERN COSMOLOGY: SCIENCE OR FOLK TALE?
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/HONR219Q/anticosmology7.pdf

In a survey for non-astrophysicists we compare the number of independent
measurements which support Big Bang Cosmology, with the number of auxiliary
hypotheses such as Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Inflation, and their associated free
parameters, needed to shore it up. We find such parameters still outnumber the relevant
observations, with no real sign of an improving trend over time. Precision, which is
improving, doesn’t necessarily guarantee the soundness of the interpretation. Noncosmologists
are thus entitled to be sceptical of such a weakly supported superstructure,
which is currently composed of 5 separate theories piled on top of one another.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

As you can tell from my post count I'm new here. I've been reading the forums on and off for a couple of years, though, and have read some of Bjarne's theories before (when he started talking about cows I remembered who he was). People are talking about him providing experimental data which supports the classic model and which doesn't support his. I assume that this is an experiment I remember him talking about whereby he was going to hire a device and measure the gravity at different heights in an apartment building near where he lives.

Can anyone point me vaguely to where he reports this data (which thread and maybe a rough estimate of on which page or what date it was on)? I'd be very interested to read it, the reactions from those who read it, and his reactions to those reactions. And, if possible, the reactions of any cows around at the time.

 

[Bjarne]

As you can tell from my post count I'm new here. I've been reading the forums on and off for a couple of years, though, and have read some of Bjarne's theories before (when he started talking about cows I remembered who he was). People are talking about him providing experimental data which supports the classic model and which doesn't support his. I assume that this is an experiment I remember him talking about whereby he was going to hire a device and measure the gravity at different heights in an apartment building near where he lives.

Can anyone point me vaguely to where he reports this data (which thread and maybe a rough estimate of on which page or what date it was on)? I'd be very interested to read it, the reactions from those who read it, and his reactions to those reactions. And, if possible, the reactions of any cows around at the time.

http://www.science27.com/english/Measurement/Index.htm

 

[Reality Check]

Cant we agree to disagree on things like this?

Disagree on what things?
So far Bjarne has produced no evidence that any of his ideas have a basis in reality. We have produced scientific evidence that he is wrong and pointed out the many flaws and errors he has made.

So there is no disagreement on the fact that he has documented an ignorance of basic science in his threads.

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

Its not as if there's a scientific consensus.

You are wrong. There is a scientific consensus that Newtonian gravity works. Like all scientific consensus it is not total - see Modified Newtonian Dynamics.

 

[Reality Check]

As you can tell from my post count I'm new here. I've been reading the forums on and off for a couple of years, though, and have read some of Bjarne's theories before (when he started talking about cows I remembered who he was). People are talking about him providing experimental data which supports the classic model and which doesn't support his. I assume that this is an experiment I remember him talking about whereby he was going to hire a device and measure the gravity at different heights in an apartment building near where he lives.

Can anyone point me vaguely to where he reports this data (which thread and maybe a rough estimate of on which page or what date it was on)? I'd be very interested to read it, the reactions from those who read it, and his reactions to those reactions. And, if possible, the reactions of any cows around at the time.

Bjarne has given you a link to a web page containing the measurements.

As been pointed out to him many times before the measurements disprove his theory since the ADG due to the building varies and he stated that the ADG should be constant.
But we already knew that his theory was wrong because a constant ADG for a body would mean that the ADG inside a body would be zero. For example for the Earth:

• The ADG at the center of the Earth is zero since the gravitational forces balance out.
• That means that the constant in Bjarne's idea must be zero.
• So as soon as anyone (e.g. miners or submariners) goes below the surface of the Earth they should be floating in mid air !

Bjarne's "central gravity" is completely debunked!

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Bjarne has given you a link to a web page containing the measurements.

As been pointed out to him many times before the measurements disprove his theory since the ADG due to the building varies and he stated that the ADG should be constant.
But we already knew that his theory was wrong because a constant ADG for a body would mean that the ADG inside a body would be zero. For example for the Earth:

• The ADG at the center of the Earth is zero since the gravitational forces balance out.
• That means that the constant in Bjarne's idea must be zero.
• So as soon as anyone (e.g. miners or submariners) goes below the surface of the Earth they should be floating in mid air !

Bjarne's "central gravity" is completely debunked!

Thanks.

 

[Bjarne]

So far Bjarne has produced no evidence that any of his ideas have a basis in reality.

Just wait and see my friend..

We have produced scientific evidence that he is wrong and pointed out the many flaws and errors he has made

Liar
WHAT evidence ?.

Bjarne has given you a link to a web page containing the measurements.
As been pointed out to him many times before the measurements disprove his theory since the ADG due to the building varies and he stated that the ADG should be constant.

Of course there are disturbances; "a bumpy path", - but there is also a stable pattern beyond that. Just because RC don’t want to see it doesn’t mean it is not there.

But we already knew that his theory was wrong because a constant ADG for a body would mean that the ADG inside a body would be zero. For example for the Earth:

You know nothing you believe.

The ADG at the center of the Earth is zero since the gravitational forces balance out.

Again you for got ; Amen.

So as soon as anyone (e.g. miners or submariners) goes below the surface of the Earth they should be floating in mid air !

Hiigs "should" (also) be real.
And Santa Claus "should" too

http://translate.google.dk/translat...c-har-daarlige-nyheder-til-strengteoretikerne

Amen..

The ADG at the center of the Earth is zero since the gravitational forces balance out.

Again you for got ; Amen


Before spring is gone, many will be wet ;
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/peeing-wind-decal-sticker-calco.jpg

I think RC should think a little more about what he might be doing
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...5xC1xx7eqLS4b1KsXdgu1ydoZpLmSWDyvvZDt3OSNYBwg

 

[Paul]

Just wait and see my friend.

That seems like an admission that nothing you have presented so far constitutes evidence.

Liar

Ooh get you, Mr Fabulist C Burnypants.

WHAT evidence ?

You remember all that stuff with the calculations and data and scientific rigour that you refuse to believe? That's evidence.

Just because RC don’t want to see it doesn’t mean it is not there.

Just because you can't understand your own data it doesn't mean you are correct.

You know nothing you believe.

Even if that were true, how are you any different?

Again you for got ; Amen.

At least you have grasped something.

The rest of your response, however, demonstrates your dishonesty; you have no response to the obvious implications of your ideas, instead posting completely unrelated material.

Before spring is gone, many will be wet...

I think RC should think a little more about what he might be doing

I'm so glad you are able to maintain an adult discussion.

 

[Bjarne]

You remember all that stuff with the calculations and data and scientific rigour that you refuse to believe? That's evidence

There is no evidence that gravity inside a body "should" cancel out component wise. So simple is that.
This is only and nothing but creeds.
A stupid cow knows that.
You should know that too.

 

[Chodorov]

An illusion? Dark energy is not even that. Dark energy is a "fudge factor." As for Newtonian Gravity there is no Newtonian theory of gravity. There are Newtonian formulas for gravity. But Newton had no theory of what caused gravity. So there is no Newtonian gravity. And Newtons formulas only work within the solar system, and quite roughly even there. As we would expect. Human derived formulas are only going to work within certain bounds, then their usefulness will rapidly fall away. This is exactly what we see with Newtons and Einsteins formulas as soon as we get beyond pluto and out near the limits of the solar system. The galaxies behavior bears scant resemblance to any of this stuff.

 

[Chodorov]

I have nothing against common knowledge, I believe in knowledge, and have only something against creeds, that too many silly person believes can and must be equalized with knowledge.

Big problem alright. Interesting post.

 

[Chodorov]

Hans

Yes. The laughing dog argument.

Quite.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes. The laughing dog argument.

Quite.

I think, if you want to join this discussion at this late point, you have to take the trouble to at least peruse the whole thread. Then you will find that I have patiently tried to make sense to Bjarne. You will also find that the post I awarded a laughing dog is simply a regurgitation of all Bjarne's long defeated arguments ans claims, spiked with some general nonsense. Thus, the laughing dog becomes relevant.

Gans