Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Apart from the fact that we are not dealing with dark energy, but dark matter, I don't think anybody here denies all that, except that you are exaggarating just a little bit in the part I have bolded. Actually, Newtonian gravity has been proven to work in the solar system to within the 9th decimal or so. Most of us would tend to call that a rather fine fit. It also seems to work well beyond the limits of the solar system, as far as we can judge, given our limited knowledge of what is actually out there.

The problem in galaxies is that the mass calculated from visible images does not fit the mass calculated using gravity. Which either means that gravity must be modified on a galactic scale, or that there is quite a bit of stuff out there we cannot see (hence the working title 'dark matter'). Of course, a combination of those two is also possible.

The problem with Bjarne's ideas is that they defy even thermodynamics and they don't provide a better explanation, quite the contrary.

Hans
 
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.

Bjarne, I have shown you that your own Domus Vista data confirms it. Live with it.

And to new participants: Once you do the math with Bjarne's data, including the correct elevation figures from the drawing of the building, it becomes evident that gravity in the building behaves exactly like predicted by Newtonian gravity: At the bottom of the building, the mass of the building subtracts from Earth gravity, and at the top, it adds to it. In between, there is a nice gradual slope that follows the obvious mass distribution in the complex.

I have posted the calculations some pages back in this thread.

Hans
 
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.


You talk as if you have proof, please show us.


Paul

:) :) :)
 
Bjarne, I have shown you that your own Domus Vista data confirms it. Live with it.

And to new participants: Once you do the math with Bjarne's data, including the correct elevation figures from the drawing of the building, it becomes evident that gravity in the building behaves exactly like predicted by Newtonian gravity: At the bottom of the building, the mass of the building subtracts from Earth gravity, and at the top, it adds to it. In between, there is a nice gradual slope that follows the obvious mass distribution in the complex.

I have posted the calculations some pages back in this thread.

Hans

So...is dark energy an illusion or not?
 
So...is dark energy an illusion or not?
How are we supposed to know at this stage, and what is the connection to Bjarne's nonsense? Even if there is something wrong about our theories of physics today, it does not mean that Bjarne's ideas - debunked by his own measurements - become right.
 
So...is dark energy an illusion or not?
It is not an illusion. It is an objective phenomenon, which we are, currently, referring to as 'dark energy', because that label seems to cover what we understand about it right now. At such time as we know more, the name may be confirmed, or changed.

Hans
 
Bjarne, I have shown you that your own Domus Vista data confirms it. Live with it.
The next project will be finishing much sooner, if the weather not suddenly get worse.
All preparation has now begun.
As I have wrote Hans, - next time I will hit with the sledge hammer.

The old thesis is dead; it only left to fall not.
The sledge hammer technique will do that.

Regarding Dark Energy.
Well it is definitive an illusion due to that both time and distances is changing proportional with the expanding Universe. But a bit more complicated as I first thought.

Do you self a favor, - start to ask you self; - what would happen when with matter in a BigChunch?
How high speed would be reached?

Before even trying to understand dark energy, try first to understand what was really a BigBang and why did it happen.

And incomplete picture will most likely give an incomplete answer.

I believe that all the matter of the Universe, - in a BigChunch really can reach close to c, - or even the speed c.

If this is the case, the “structure” of the Universe will reach a “limit” – a “state” beyond our imagination.

A state where space / the Universe really could be a small dot.

We already have the knowledge since we know that both time and distance would disappear in a such "c" speed-scenario.
Exactly how it would look like I think none of us have fantasy to imaging.

What is Dark energy really?
When a ball shaped gravitational field is stretching for example to a factor 2, - acceleration inside that gravitational field is decreasing 4 times.
The same is the case with an extended gravitational field as for example the Universe.
Therefore the ability to slow down the expansion (the space tension release) of the Universe, - is off course decreasing faster as the expansion. This could partly explain the so called dark energy..

Furthermore;
A BigBang is releasing the inward stretch tension of the Universe.
Even though distance between galaxies in this process is increasing, - the meter stick is shrinking proportional with the stretch-factor-release of the Universe.

This happen because the expansion means both;
  1. Release of absorbed space +
  2. Space-tension-release
So in a BigBang space is not stretching but rather released from stretch-tension / , back to its natural stretching free state.

When space is stretching towards a gravitionel field; - matter,- space (the meter stick), - and time - are all “stretching” proportional.
BUT so soon this “stretch” is released (in a BigBang) the exact opposite happens.

This means that we cannot determinate distances in the Universe based on light from for example Supernovas, simply because sizes of such are getting proportional smaller with the expansion Universe.

We can also not based anything on time-observances except if we are aware that time today is ticking proportional faster with the expanding Universe. For example when the Universes were only the half size, time was ticking double so fast.

So the idea that the expansion-speed of the Universe is increasing, - is only based on optical time and distance illusions, simply because of distances and time not are what we believe these are.

One objective example of this is:
that we know that it takes about 4 billion years to create galaxies. So how could the galaxy UDFy-38135539 have been created only 600 million years after the BigBang ?

The answer is that time 13 billion years ago was ticking almost 8 times slower. There was simply more “time per second” 13 billion years ago.

So both size and time is cheating observers today, since these are very much difference from the past.


So how fast is the Universe really expanding?
The most logical would properly be that the Universe is expanding with the speed of light. - But relative to what ?

fg.jpg


Imaging the time just before a BigBang.
The Universe was smaller like an pea.
Imaging 7 observers at that small area. (the 7 small red dots.)


FG2.jpg

When the Universe expands with the speed of light
it will be relative to these small "dots" .
This could be the "principle".

And now just add 10 more dots, or hundred or 1 billion, - so many your like, - we don't know how many, - the overall picture is still the same.
All we know is light able to reach us after 13,7 billion years...
How big the universe really is , we have no idear.....
 
Last edited:
Yet more gibberish from Bjarne so it is hard to extract anything sensible from his post.


Dark energy has nothing to do with the the inverse square nature of gravity. It is a term for whatever causes
  • the observed acceleration in the rate of expansion of the universe and
  • the measurement that most of the energy of the universe is invisible (dark).
The expansion rate of the universe has no limit. The speed of light is only a limit for measurements of vlocities of objects within spacetime. It is not a limt for an expansion of spacetime.

Bjarne makes the unsupported assertion that it takes 4 billion years for galaxies to form. he is wrong.
The first reason is the reason he cites against the big bang :eye-poppi:
The galaxy UDFy-38135539 is the furthest galaxy that we have detected at a redshift of 8.55. This means that it was formed before 600 million years the Big Bang.
​
The science is stated in the above article
Theoretical models and computer simulations suggest the first galaxies could have formed as early as 200 million years after the Big Bang.
(my emphasis added)

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
 
As I have wrote Hans, - next time I will hit with the sledge hammer.

The old thesis is dead; it only left to fall not.
The sledge hammer technique will do that...


Bjarne, I suggest you include in your project budget a pair of steel-toed shoes, because if the results of your past projects are any indication, the most likely thing that sledge hammer will impact are your own toes.

Also, in my opinion if you spent 10% of the time you spend making pretty pictures on reading and absorbing a good basic physics book, all this might come to something.

And lastly, who is this "we" you keep speaking of? Is there a frog (or cow) in your pocket? Because no one here shares these delusions of yours.

ferd
 
The problem in galaxies is that the mass calculated from visible images does not fit the mass calculated using gravity. Which either means that gravity must be modified on a galactic scale, or that there is quite a bit of stuff out there we cannot see (hence the working title 'dark matter'). Of course, a combination of those two is also possible.

The problem with Bjarne's ideas is that they defy even thermodynamics and they don't provide a better explanation, quite the contrary.

Hans

Gravity must be modified? Gravity doesn't need to be modified at all remember. Its only this Pythagoras-on-steroids deal where reality must conform to human-derived formulas ... Thats what has to change.

Lets just reiterate. We don't have a theory of gravity. The mainstream lacks a rational theory of gravity. All they have is formulas. Formulas which do not work. Nor ought they have been expected to work.
 
It is not an illusion. It is an objective phenomenon, which we are, currently, referring to as 'dark energy', because that label seems to cover what we understand about it right now. At such time as we know more, the name may be confirmed, or changed.

Hans

No its not an objective phenomenon. Its a fudge factor. Stop misleading small children.
 
Dark energy has nothing to do with the the inverse square nature of gravity.

Gravity of the Universe is the exact opposite, this “should” slow the expansion but it doesn’t seem to happen.
Therefore to a certain point the change of the strength of the gravity of the Universe also play a role. But in this context it is not decisive.

  • the observed acceleration in the rate of expansion of the universe and
  • the measurement that most of the energy of the universe is invisible (dark).
And this is a illusion simply because sizes, the meter stick and time is also affected by the expanding Universe.
This is where the holy cow is buried.

The key to understand the so called “Dark Energy” is first at all to understand the process how a BigBang was possible.

One of the main key is to understand that is that time did not exist. (or was ticking extremely slow) when the BigBang went off.

So the question is mainly; - How did BigBang happen? - We already have pretty good knowledge to follow.

How is time and the meter stick (and sizes) connected to the Universe (and to the size of the Universe). ?

The key is that BigBang was a crucible for both special and general relativity.
This is where all the answer are buried.

We will be forces to extend general relativity because also the meter stick is not stable.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Imaging all matter inside a cow suddenly would move inwards and reach the speed “c” .
The cow would now have no experiences of time or distances.

We as observers from a different reality would maybe not agree because for us time would still tick.

Now, when the whole Universe suddenly would speed up to c, - the same must happen, time and distances would not exist.

(Also not for us because we would be part of the process).

A second before the BigBang the whole Universe would reach c, - gravity would be unimaginable HUGE.

After the BigBang – gravity would still be huge, because gravity = deformed space.

So what happens after a BigBang is ONLY that “deformed space” is set free.

It is really not so difficult, there are no dark forces involved. But only a naturally stretching property of space, connected to speed, time, and distance deformation.

The problem is once again that we cannot see the wood, because there are too many trees.

The expansion rate of the universe has no limit.
Simply logic tells you this is not correct.
Based on Hubble’s laws the expansion is 22 km/h per 1 MLY.

The speed of light is only a limit for measurements of vlocities of objects within spacetime. It is not a limt for an expansion of spacetime.
We are talking about so-called “gravity waves”.
In decade "we" have try to detect such many places in the world. It “should” have been possible long ago.

I think many long ago have begun to doubt, especially those that have spend their whole live on this.

"We" expect gravity waves to move with the speed of light.
This, - the mathematical part - is probably allright.
BUT what gravity waves really is : = released space tension.
Or stretching space, - set free.
Which mean that when a Supernova goes off somewhere, the Universe would at that local area just expands a little different? And nobody discover anything..

Bjarne makes the unsupported assertion that it takes 4 billion years for galaxies to form. he is wrong.
The first reason is the reason he cites against the big bang :
The galaxy UDFy-38135539 is the furthest galaxy that we have detected at a redshift of 8.55. This means that it was formed before 600 million years the Big Bang.
The science is stated in the above article

It takes 4 billion years to create a galaxy (according to science).
But UDFy-38135539 was there already after 600 million years after the Bigbang.
How was that possible?

This is just one more piece that demonstrate that time have not always been ticking like "we" belive.

One of the reason to the dark energy idea is that cluster of galaxies are split in part much faster today as billions of years ago.
This is an illusion so long we do not accept that it is not the Universe that expands faster, - it is time that tick faster today.

We do not need to extend the general relativity on that point, - BUT only to understand that at the moment Bigbang went of, - the deformation of space was exstreme. - Gravity was exstreme. - Time was exstreme too (zero) .

The other reason to the dark energy illusion is that Supernovas “seems” to confirm that distances are increasing faster as before.
The reason to that is:
In a BigChunch a HUGE gravitational field emerges.
Space is stretching extremely towards that strong field of deformed space.
Inside the little “pea” space is contracted beyond even mother cow’s imagination.
When the Universe is smaller as a pea, gravity is simply unimaginable HUGE.

After a BigBang the stretch of space is set free, this mean HUGE gravity release is set free. - This is one and the same “thing”
The Space tension (the BigChunch was causing) is therefore during billion of years releasing space, but also changing time and the meter stick. .
Hence everything, also Supernovas was billion of years simply much bigger. And this is why a old Supernova will lie to you today, because it today looks bigger like a young one.
It has NOTHING with dark energy to do, - but ONLY that time, - and distance deformation always goes hand in hand.

So all we really need to do is to extend general relativity with the fact that when space is stretching not only time, but also the meter stick is stretching.
When space is releasing its stretch, then also time-stretch is released.

Adding this innocent and logical necessity is not dangerous.
But keeping the Dark Energy religion is properly important due to a good parts of the entertainment industry otherwise will be lost.

Theoretical models and computer simulations suggest the first galaxies could have formed as early as 200 million years after the Big Bang.
At that time the formation was started, yes.
But the process (at least) now a day’s takes 4,5 billion years.
A redshift of 8.55 only shows you how the TIME factor (and the meter stick factor ) was 13,1 billion years ago.
 
Last edited:
Lets just reiterate. We don't have a theory of gravity. The mainstream lacks a rational theory of gravity. All they have is formulas. Formulas which do not work. Nor ought they have been expected to work.

Again, we do have a rational theory of gravity, General Relativity works, and that is why we know there is dark matter and dark energy.

Unlike you and Bjarne, science learns.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Gravity must be modified? Gravity doesn't need to be modified at all remember. Its only this Pythagoras-on-steroids deal where reality must conform to human-derived formulas ... Thats what has to change.

Lets just reiterate. We don't have a theory of gravity. The mainstream lacks a rational theory of gravity. All they have is formulas. Formulas which do not work. Nor ought they have been expected to work.

Why don't you and Bjarne take a good, long talk? You should get along amiably.

Hans
 
The next project will be finishing much sooner, if the weather not suddenly get worse.
All preparation has now begun.

I didn't ask you about your next experiment. I asked about the one you already did. How do you explain that it shows you are wrong?

As I have wrote Hans, - next time I will hit with the sledge hammer.

Try to miss your own head, this time.

The old thesis is dead; it only left to fall not.

How can it be dead when you have no produced ONE BIT of evidence against it?

*Snipped, a whole lot of uninformed nonsense. ****:nope:

But OK, I'll await your next 'experiment'. Do us all a favor and shut up in the meantime. :rolleyes:

And for something useful, you could hone your English a bit.

Hans
 
But OK, I'll await your next 'experiment'. Do us all a favor and shut up in the meantime
You will soon be forced to see how much brainwash creeds can do. .
And that day I guess you and the rest of the sect will accuse me for manipulation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom