Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Paul]

Paul
This kind of research is waste of Money and waste of intelligence.

Be sure to write to these people and let them know that they have been wasting their time: testing the cosmological model with baryon acoustic oscillations at z=0.6, the growth rate of cosmic structure since redshift z=0.9

Dark Matter is no longer matter

I didn't say dark matter.

It was matter (due to ... snipped unsupported nonsense

Where has your paper been accepted?


So, no response to the new dark energy data Bjarne?

 

[Bjarne]

I didn't say dark matter.

As i wrote it is a trinity, the same pipe of tobacco.

So, no response to the new dark energy data Bjarne?

I know what it is; a gravitational wave, - nothing strange about it.
The mystery is only why humans create so much trouble for them self.

Where has your paper been accepted?

I have still not submitted it.
I have showed it to a local University, and was also told what to do.
I need a good educated astrophysical that also is good for programming.
If someone should be interested let me know.
I will come back to what must be done.

Before mathematical "evidence" can be shown I was toll it is almost impossible to get true the needle eye.
I agree to that, so this is what now does have priority.

Anyway I am not completely finishing to analyses it all myself.

For example take a look how Ice ages period have been the last 5 million years.

As you can see 1 million years ago the duration of ice ages was only 41 kyr
And before that almost insignificant 15 kyr.
WHY
Can RR explain that?
Yes no problem.
Bu before doing that let me have yours suggestions

 

[Paul]

As i wrote it is a trinity, the same pipe of tobacco.

There is an invisible dragon living in my garage.

I wrote that, is it now true?

I know what it is; a gravitational wave, - nothing strange about it.

How do you know this?

Where is your research?

Where is your data?

Who has corroborated your findings?

The mystery is only why humans create so much trouble for them self.

We don't create it, it just happens that the universe is difficult to understand.

I have still not submitted it.

Why not?

I have showed it to a local University, and was also told what to do.

I bet you where.

I need a good educated astrophysical that also is good for programming.

Are you claiming that you aren't capable of submitting your own paper?

If someone should be interested let me know.

If you post a link to your paper, I'm sure someone here will be able to advise you.

Before mathematical "evidence" can be shown I was toll it is almost impossible to get true the needle eye.
I agree to that, so this is what now does have priority.

So you have no evidence for your claims then?

Anyway I am not completely finishing to analyses it all myself.

Then you shouldn't be announcing the death of current physics.

As you can see 1 million years ago the duration of ice ages was only 41 kyr

And?

And before that almost insignificant 15 kyr.

So?

WHY

I don't know, something you should say more often.

Can RR explain that?

No, because it doesn't exist.

Yes no problem.

Incorrect.

Bu before doing that let me have yours suggestions

Why would I do that, have you tried asking a climatologist? Or maybe doing a little research for yourself?

 

[Bjarne]

How do you know this?
Where is your research?
Where is your data?
Who has corroborated your findings?

As I wrote all parts in you car must work together otherwise it is only a pice of PVC + metal. It is the same story with the Universe. Everything must be connected. A good place to begin is (at least) to try to understand the matter / space connection.

We don't create it, it just happens that the universe is difficult to understand.

All you need to do, is only to unite the expression > curved space = absorbed space.
Then all mysteries solves itself as chain reactions.

Then you shouldn't be announcing the death of current physics.

I love true science, but hate when believe= science.
I belive that many scientist know that we do have a HUGE contradiction is SR

Ask you self WHY do teachers not tell student the TRUTH ?
And the TRUTH is that something serious obviously seems to be WRONG with SR
But sssssssssss, - people would call you crank, and spit on you, if you not do like everybody else , just keep you month shot and swift of your brain, and all doors are open for you.

Why would I do that, have you tried asking a climatologist?

41 kyr and 15 kyr periods (too) are BIG unsolved mysteries (we creates these mysteries too) ((because we failed (at least) to try to understand the matter / space connection ))

If you post a link to your paper, I'm sure someone here will be able to advise you.

I know exactly what need to be done. I have got the advise allready.

1. Make completely new software able to run models of both perturbations+ RR contribution causing the eccentricity of the Earth + all nearby planets (Venus Saturn and Jupiter) .
2. Make new software able to calculate the exact perigee / apogee distance to the Moon, and compare calculated data with measurement data.
3. Make new software able to calculate how much change of the Earth eccentricity affects the eccentricity of the Moon (this probably allready exists).

I cannot do this.

Any further advise are welcome...

 

[Paul]

As I wrote all parts in you car must work together otherwise it is only a pice of PVC + metal. It is the same story with the Universe. Everything must be connected. A good place to begin is (at least) to try to understand the matter / space connection.

That's not an answer, that's waffle designed to avoid giving an answer.

How do you know this?
Where is your research?
Where is your data?
Who has corroborated your findings?

All you need to do, is only to unite the expression > curved space = absorbed space.

First you need to demonstrate that there is any genuine reason to believe that it is an idea worth considering.

Then all mysteries solves itself as chain reactions.

Patent nonsense.

I love true science, but hate when believe= science.

If that were true, you would have attempted to do some true science.

What you have done instead is make unfounded assertions, wild guesses, false statements, unscientific pontifications, and spectacular amounts of gibberish.

I know exactly what need to be done. I have got the advise allready.

Apparently you were advised by a fool...

Make completely new software able to run models of both perturbations+ RR contribution causing the eccentricity of the Earth + all nearby planets (Venus Saturn and Jupiter)

First you have to demonstrate the existence of RR.

Make new software able to calculate the exact perigee / apogee distance to the Moon, and compare calculated data with measurement data.

Why do you need new software to do this?

Make new software able to calculate how much change of the Earth eccentricity affects the eccentricity of the Moon (this probably allready exists).

If it already exists then you don't need to create it and we await your results.

I cannot do this.

You are nowhere near the stage where you would need to consider it as a possibility.

Any further advise are welcome...

Try demonstrating proof of any of your ideas, that's always good.

 

[Paul]

I belive that many scientist know that we do have a HUGE contradiction is SR

I suppose you can support that assertion.

Ask you self WHY do teachers not tell student the TRUTH ?

I ask myself why you think everyone else is always wrong but you have sooper seekrit insight.

And the TRUTH is that something serious obviously seems to be WRONG with SR

It's so obvious that someone who doesn't understand Special Relativity at all has noticed, but all the professional scientists studying the subject have ignored it for 106 years?

But sssssssssss, - people would call you crank, and spit on you, if you not do like everybody else , just keep you month shot and swift of your brain, and all doors are open for you.

Scientists disagree all the time, it's in the job description.

People call you a crank because you are one.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Bjarne, you have left for never-never land.

I will now put you on ignore.

I pity you and especially your family.

Bye for now.

Hans

 

[Daylightstar]

...
we do have a HUGE contradiction is SR
...

The 'contradiction':

... and therefore the captains (my) beard is both reaching the floor and only 25% reaching the floor at the same time.
...

that you tried to demonstrate with your thought experiment with the planets and the spaceship, doesn't exist Bjarne.

The 'contradiction' that you thought you saw, you saw partly because you made a very basic error with respect to relative motion.
You injudiciously incorporated an in your scenario non existing relative speed of 200,000km/s.

You have a conviction based on errors.

 

[Bjarne]

First you need to demonstrate that there is any genuine reason to believe that it is an idea worth considering.

No, rather ask; is there anything that contradicts the 100% coherent picture of the Universe I represent?
And ask; - are you doing a bad deal when swapping to the new paradigm?
I assume you have noticed; the prevailing understanding of the Universe is conflicting with science itself (lost of photon energy + the distance to the Moon is not expanding) and now SR impossible seems to be able to keep what it promise. I would say; you have NOTHING to lose (except creeds) and everything to win.

I suppose you can support that assertion.

A beard is a beard, you cannot export MY reality to unknown unreal dimension, only you own, and innocent naïve student, the day you become a teacher.

but all the professional scientists studying the subject have ignored it for 106 years?

Exactly, - how is it possible that so many professional people have ignored the red paint on the wall in 106 years?' Simply unbelievable. .

Bjarne, you have left for never-never land.
I will now put you on ignore.
I pity you and especially your family.Bye for now.

Buy buy Hans, if you should leave Earth, please be carefully don’t move opposite the motion direction of the Earth , there would then be too much beard to cut ,,, øhhhhh or maybe to little. – Hmmmmm now I am confused.
Ask the professors, - (if you still love creeds)..

that you tried to demonstrate with your thought experiment with the planets and the spaceship, doesn't exist Bjarne.
The 'contradiction' that you thought you saw, you saw partly because you made a very basic error with respect to relative motion.
You injudiciously incorporated an in your scenario non existing relative speed of 200,000km/s.
You have a conviction based on errors.

It is real that planet Earth is moving
It is real you can leave earth in all directions you want.
It is real, that if you move opposite the moving direction of the Earth different observers would NEVER be able to agree with you, how long you beard would grow. It is impossible.

This is what the thought example CLEARLY and without any doubt has demonstrated.

We are facing a clear LOGICAL CONTRADICTION.
NOTHING can cancel that out.
If this was so PLEASE tell me.

It is so easy to smash true that SR defense , that a child can understand it.
All what you guys have done is to put you head into the bush.
There is not one single valid argument that can explain why RC and Paul impossible could agree how long my beard must be on that spacecraft.
And that's it.

Also when it comes to understand something as simple as ice ages astrophysics have reached the melting point.

This too point to the fact that an absolute reference frame must be true.

5 million years is not much.
Planets could not have been a total different place within such relative insignificant time scale.

EVERYTHING points to the fact that we have MUCH more to learn.

PLEASE let us have yours suggestion WHAT is wrong with these ice ages.
The book and professors DON'T KNOW
Become a freedoms fighter….
Become a crackpot
Begin to THINK....
Don't accept that it is not allowed… also even though you first thought maybe is stupid and ridiculously in the eyes of the arrogant.

 

[Paul]

No, rather ask; is there anything that contradicts the 100% coherent picture of the Universe I represent?

First you would have to demonstrate that you could present a coherent picture of anything.

And ask; - are you doing a bad deal when swapping to the new paradigm?

You don't have a paradigm, that would imply some cohesion of concepts.

I assume you have noticed; the prevailing understanding of the Universe is conflicting with science itself

No it isn't, once again you demonstrate the total inability to understand even the concept of science.

now SR impossible seems to be able to keep what it promise. I would say; you have NOTHING to lose (except creeds) and everything to win.

Blap blap blap moo moo moo.

A beard is a beard, you cannot export MY reality to unknown unreal dimension, only you own, and innocent naïve student, the day you become a teacher.

Some of that almost makes sense so I shall respond.

No one is trying to move your reality, the point is the other observer's reality, from which yours appears to be different.

Exactly, - how is it possible that so many professional people have ignored the red paint on the wall in 106 years?' Simply unbelievable. .

Of course it could be because you don't know what you are talking about; a much more likely scenario given your lack of anything approaching evidence, proof, or even a workable hypothesis.

Hmmmmm now I am confused.

That's not difficult to achieve.

It is real, that if you move opposite the moving direction of the Earth different observers would NEVER be able to agree with you, how long you beard would grow. It is impossible.

It's not a question of agreeing with the bearded observer, it will take 1 year of his local time to grow a beard.

The difference is in when other observers will measure 1 year of beardy's time relative to their own local time.

This is what the thought example CLEARLY and without any doubt has demonstrated.

What has been clearly demonstrated is that you cannot grasp the basics.

We are facing a clear LOGICAL CONTRADICTION.

Not we, just you.

NOTHING can cancel that out.

Certainly not if it doesn't exist.

If this was so PLEASE tell me.

You've been told, you either refuse to listen or you are incapable of understanding.

It is so easy to smash true that SR defense , that a child can understand it.

Go ahead, in language a child could understand.

There is not one single valid argument that can explain why RC and Paul impossible could agree how long my beard must be on that spacecraft.

Except for that inconvenient stuff about time dilation and relativity.

Also when it comes to understand something as simple as ice ages astrophysics have reached the melting point.

Oh, now ice ages are a really simple phenomenon?

This too point to the fact that an absolute reference frame must be true.

Are you referring to some argument you believe you have put forward?

5 million years is not much.
Planets could not have been a total different place within such relative insignificant time scale.

Absolutely: there still isn't a land bridge to South America, you can't move for mammoth and sabre tooth cats, Neanderthals take all the best holiday caves, stone tools don't exist, all our food is raw, there is no ice cap in the arctic, and there are no great lakes in North America.

EVERYTHING points to the fact that we have MUCH more to learn.

You appear to have accidentally stated a truth, well done.

PLEASE let us have yours suggestion WHAT is wrong with these ice ages.

Why should something be wrong with them?

The book and professors DON'T KNOW

How many books and professors did you consult before coming to this conclusion?

Become a freedoms fighter….

You already seem to be fighting a losing battle with reality.

Become a crackpot

You do know that's nothing to be proud of don't you?

Don't accept that it is not allowed… also even though you first thought maybe is stupid and ridiculously in the eyes of the arrogant.

The problem is that your first thoughts tend to be stupid and ridiculous in the eyes of the knowledgeable and the layman alike.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
...
please be carefully don’t move opposite the motion direction of the Earth ,
...

Yes Bjarne, this was also the fatal flaw in your 'opposite directions' and 'SR is wrong' thought experiment in this thread:
+100,000 - 100,000 = 200,000
Creating a non existent relative velocity. If it doesn't exist, the crackpot 'will make it exist'.

Your whole reasoning, if it can be called that, rests on this kind of fundamentally flawed thinking.

 

[Bjarne]

Yes Bjarne, this was also the fatal flaw in your 'opposite directions' and 'SR is wrong' thought experiment in this thread:
+100,000 - 100,000 = 200,000
Creating a non existent relative velocity. If it doesn't exist, the crackpot 'will make it exist'.
Your whole reasoning, if it can be called that, rests on this kind of fundamentally flawed thinking.

Daylighstar

if you have +1 USD in the one pocket and minus one USD in the other , how much do you then have ?

Anyway even though, (I) the captain would move 200,000 km/s towards east, relative to Paul my beard should still grow slower as Paul’s Beard (Planet X)

RC (Planet C) would now see that Paul was moving 100,000 km/s west and I 100,000 km/s east.
RC would be absolutely sure that my and Paul’s beard MUST be the same length.

But Paul would completely disagree and call RC:

Paul to RC; - RC you do agree that time her on Planet X is ticking slower ?
RC to Paul; - Yes I agree your clock I ticking slower than míne.
Paul to RC, - RC I have send a spacecraft towards east moving 200,000 km/s relative to me, According to SR time on that spacecraft MUST tick slower seen from my reference frame, - so dear RC you SHOULD now agree that time in that spacecraft MUST be very very very very slow relative to you because time at that spacecraft must even be slower as here at planet X.

BUT RC would not agree with Paul, - that the spacecraft is moving that fast, he would say to Paul, - both planet X and the spacecraft is moving with the same speed BASTA, don't be stupid...
BOTH the spacecraft captain (and his crew) and Paul (and everybody else living at planet X except the ladies ) MUST have the same beard length after a certain RC time .. BASTA,, don't be stupid Paul.

Can you really not see it Daylighstar?
WHO is correct ?
BOTH ?

This is not only wrong, it is simply too much that innocent student get such HUGE load of rotten incohorent contradictory rubbish into there mind, no less as 106 years.

 

[Paul]

OK Bjarne, try this:

X, I, and C all observe and are observed by each other.

X, I, and C all have a velocity relative to each other.

If any observers are not at relative rest they will observe time dilation in the form of slower clocks for the other observers.

All local time is normal, all non-rest non-local time is slow.

If the relative velocity is different, the observed time dilation is different.



What is your argument?

 

[Daylightstar]

Anyway even though, (I) the captain would move 200,000 km/s towards east, relative to Paul my beard should still grow slower as Paul’s Beard (Planet X)
...

No Bjarne, there is no relative speed of 200,000 km/s in your scenario.

Relative velocity between (planet X + spaceship) and planet C is 100,000 km/s.
When the spaceship is stationary with respect to planet C, it's velocity relative to planet X is 100,000 km/s.

No 200,000 km/s, no 'at the same time' anomaly in your scenario.

 

[Bjarne]

X, I, and C all observe and are observed by each other.

This is already the point. And the result is different realities.
Different observers would in this case wouldd never be able to agree what the speed between the reference frames really are. There would always be serveral realities. And this is not god for a beard.

If any observers are not at relative rest they will observe time dilation in the form of slower clocks for the other observers.

What are you exactly trying to say?

All local time is normal, all non-rest non-local time is slow.

No this is exactly not true, otherwise RC would agree that my clock (the captain's clock) was slower as yours (Paul’s clock), - he don’t, and he can't...

No Bjarne, there is no relative speed of 200,000 km/s in your scenario.

In post 3911 you wrote it was, now you wrote it was not.
My point in the previous post was; even though the spacecraft would move 200,000 km/s east relative to planet X, that would not solve the problem. Still RC and Paul would not be able to agree.

Relative velocity between (planet X + spaceship) and planet C is 100,000 km/s.
When the spaceship is stationary with respect to planet C, it's velocity relative to planet X is 100,000 km/s.

This is what I have claimed all the time, - when I wrote 200,00 km it should be understood as a new example. That would also not solve the problem either , but rather worsen it.

 

[Paul]

This is already the point. And the result is different realities.

No, the result is different observations; the observers' realities are always the same.

Different observers would in this case wouldd never be able to agree what the speed between the reference frames really are.

Why would they disagree on relative velocity?

There would always be serveral realities.

No, there is your reality and your observations of others' reality.

And this is not god for a beard.

The beards don't care.

What are you exactly trying to say?

I thought I had made it simple enough for even you to understand, but I see oversimplification is required.

If one of the other things you are looking at is moving, it's clock will go slowly. Is that simple enough?

No this is exactly not true, otherwise RC would agree that my clock (the captain's clock) was slower as yours (Paul’s clock), - he don’t, and he can't...

Sigh...

The amount of time dilation depends on the relative velocity of the observers; the greater the relative velocity the greater the time dilation.

Obviously, different observers at different relative velocities will observe different time dilation effects.

Why are you refusing to accept this?

Still RC and Paul would not be able to agree.

Observers with different relative velocities will not agree, do you understand yet?

This is what I have claimed all the time, - when I wrote 200,00 km it should be understood as a new example. That would also not solve the problem either , but rather worsen it.

Why not make one non-contradictory example that you are capable of understanding yourself, and try to make your point, whatever it is, using that.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
In post 3911 you wrote it was, now you wrote it was not ...

No Bjarne, I did not.
I showed your failure to understand relative motion and your flawed thinking that there is a relative velocity of 200,000 km/s (your thinking) in your scenario.

...
... - when I wrote 200,00 km it should be understood as a new example. ....

No Bjarne, the 200,000 km/s is the value you plugged into the time dilation formula.
You think that that there actually is a relative velocity of 200,000 km/s in your scenario, for which the dilation outcome can be applied to the same frame of reference as the 100,000 km/s dilation outcome.

Your whole (non existent) 'SR shattering' anomaly is based on thinking there is this (non existent) 200,000 km/s relative velocity.

You have not shown an anomaly in SR.

 

[Daylightstar]

What I might add to the above is, that what's shown in your diagram (that you keep posting) as a westward motion, does not exist in your description of your thought experiment.

 

[TSR]

.
Just FYI: New method 'confirms dark energy'
.

 

[Paul]

.
Just FYI: New method 'confirms dark energy'
.

Interesting news, it's a shame someone didn't post that 2 days ago