Since Bjarne seems to have descended permanently into unadulterated verbal flatulence, I shall now put him on ignore.
Hans
Stop lying, Bjarne: I never said that anyone observed this.Nobody have ever observed that photon energy (apparently lost due to cosmological redshift) .... is converted to gravity.
RC.... stop this crap.
Science:Haleluja halejula
Amen.
More of your ignorance. It is science:Haleluja halejula
Amen.
That is the whole point: According to your ignorant delusion, the expansion of space always dominates. Thus is it impossible for any galaxy to approach any other galaxy.No, The blue shift from Andromeda is not caused due to Cosmological Redshift but simple Doppler effect
Andromeda is approaching us.
This is something very different.
!(my emphasis added)Following renewed interest, the problem of whether the cosmological expansion affects the dynamics of local systems is reconsidered. The cosmological correction to the equations of motion in the locally inertial Fermi normal frame (the relevant frame for astronomical observations) is computed. The evolution equations for the cosmological perturbation of the two--body problem are solved in this frame. The effect on the orbit is insignificant as are the effects on the galactic and galactic--cluster scales.
The point that you are demonstrating is just that you are dumber than your grandmother. We have explained things in simple enough terms that your grandmother could understand it (unless she was a dumb as the cows in your cow fetishThis is excactly the point
Grandmother will not understand it.
Stop lying, Bjarne: I never said that anyone observed this.
What people have observed is the redshift. That means that either
- the energy is going somewhere (GR suggests that this is is into gravitational potential energy).
- the energy is just vanishing (that is Ok because it is not certain that energy is conserved globally in GR)
NO EVIDENCE that such CAN happen.
- if energy is conserved globally then the energy lost by cosmologically red-shifted photons goes into the gravitational field.
Energy CANNOT be lost, - this is basic physic.
- if energy is not conserved globally then there is no problem - - the photons just lose energy!.
Rubbish....More of your ignorance. It is science:
The objective scientific method is
We do not measure an expanding universe locally (within the Local Group). The reason that we do not is that gravity dominates, .
That is the whole point: According to your ignorant delusion, the expansion of space always dominates. Thus is it impossible for any galaxy to approach any other galaxy.
The fact that blue shift from Andromeda is simple Doppler effect is because gravity dominates, i.e. is pulling Andromeda toward us (and us toward Andromeda).
...
P.S. Daylightstar's question is still unanswered:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7236431#post7236431
5.6 * 603 = 1,209,600 ...
Could you walk us through your calculation and explain what the numbers mean?
There is no speculation but the third option would beI think you forgot; - 3.) - OR that the whole speculation is WRONG.
Wrong: Gravitational redshift has been measured and is EVIDENCE that such CAN happen.NO EVIDENCE that such CAN happen.
Wrong: We observe that energy is conserved, e.g. light redshifts in a gravitational field and its energy is converted into gravitational potential energy.Energy CANNOT be lost, - this is basic physic.
In special cases, yes. In general — it depends on what you mean by "energy", and what you mean by "conserved".
The point is: only a truly ignorant person would think that the universe was not expanding when the evidence is that it is.Rubbish....
...snipped cow fetish...
The point is; the Universe DO NOT expand.
...snipped gibberish...
The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:
The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:
- The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
- The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
- Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
- Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
- Time dilation in supernova light curves.
Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.
- Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
- Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
- Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
- Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.
Wrong: Gravitational redshift has been measured and is EVIDENCE that such CAN happen.
Crap from A to Z, - Photon Energy cannot be converted to gravity, the whole idea that photons gains mass due to "speed" is wrong. Photons do not interact with space, in the same way as particle; - you cannot equ8alize these 2 phenomena. - I know this is what many believe, but is misunderstood. Photons are always massless.Wrong: We observe that energy is conserved, e.g. light redshifts in a gravitational field and its energy is converted into gravitational potential energy.
This is an observation. We have not detected any exceptions to this yet and so we have the law of conservation of energy.
General Relativity though is an exception.
There is no evidence that energy is always conserved in GR.
The idea that the Universe really expands is simply based on wrong interpretation of “signals” .The point is: only a truly ignorant person would think that the universe was not expanding when the evidence is that it is.
It is not just redshift, Bjarne: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
Another bit of evidence for an evolving universe is the Lyman-alpha forest. This shows that as you look further away (and so into the past) the percentage of neutral hydrogen in the universe increases. This is evidence that galaxies have not always existed since it is light from their stars that ionizes neutral hydrogen.
And then there are the usual questions about a non-expanding and thus eternal universe:
- Where are the infinitely old stars?
- For that matter where are the stars that are > 13.7 billion years old?
- Where are the infinitely heavy stars?
- Galaxies collide and get bigger - where the infinitely large galaxies?
- Why is there any neutral hydrogen in the universe when there has radiation ionizing it for infinity.
You cannot equalize redshift and relativity, - also not redshift and the idea that the Universe expands.
Ignorance from A to Z: Photon energy is measured to be converted to gravitational potential energy.Crap from A to Z, - Photon Energy cannot be converted to gravity
Then your verioion is idiotic because the universe has been measured to be expanding...gibberish snipped.. .
I do NOT deny a BigBang had happen 13,7 billion years ago.
My version says; - the size of the Universe is always RELATIVE the same.
The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:
The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:
- The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
- The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
- Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
- Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
- Time dilation in supernova light curves.
Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.
- Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
- Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
- Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
- Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.
Wrong - gravity was the same as it is now.When the BB took place gravity was extreme,
An actual lie (or abysmal ignorance): The Big Bang was the whole Universe exploding.The explosion did not happen from a central place, BUT a whole Universe was exploding.
THAT’S the difference between you NOTHING version, and my EVERYTHING version.
Answer: You and the author of that video are totally ignorant.you can also learn (3th part) that if BB is like you believe it to be we MUST be able to detect a HUGE gravity wave.
Answer; We have already detected that gravity wave, - the name for this is; Dark Energy.
Crap, General relativity was invented before someone claimed that Universe (apparently) was expanding.How idiotic:
Gravitaional redshift is a measured consequence of relativity.
Crap, - so-called cosmological redshift can be explained as (caused by); simply gravitionel redshift.The measured redshift of galaxies and that it varies liearly with distance (the Hubble law) is evidenc ethat the universe is expanding.
Crap, - you cannot measure such.Ignorance from A to Z: Photon energy is measured to be converted to gravitational potential energy.
No... Cosmological redshift do NOT prove the expanding fantasy perspective of the Universe.Bjarne
I do NOT deny a BigBang had happen 13,7 billion years ago.
My version says; - the size of the Universe is always RELATIVE the same.
RC
Then your verioion is idiotic because the universe has been measured to be expanding.
This is only evidence for how derailed the human race can get.
I don’t deny that BigBang have happened as well as it will happen again.The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang…snipped
An actual lie (or abysmal ignorance): The Big Bang was the whole Universe exploding.
AdviseThe BB is predicted to have generated gravitational waves. Like all gravitational waves they are VERY VERY WEAK. But we have instruments that have the chance of detecting them.
You don't know much about GR do you.Crap, General relativity was invented before someone claimed that Universe (apparently) was expanding.
You don't know anything about redshifts.Crap, - so-called cosmological redshift can be explained as (caused by); simply gravitionel redshift.
Your inability to think is not the problem of real scientists.This idea is impossible and hence naive to accept.
Nice technical explanation there, I don't suppose you have anything even remotely resembling evidence?Gravity will slowly and after billion years go mad...
Ah, that's sweet of you, stupidly arrogant crap, but sweet.I honestly feel sorry for all the million of peoples that are brainwashed with such creeds, billion of light-years from common sense.
Not that you will take any notice, but you should do exactly what you have suggested for others.Advise...
Crap, you are right.Crap, General relativity was invented before someone claimed that Universe (apparently) was expanding.
Crap - you have gone back be being ignorant again.Crap, - so-called cosmological redshift can be explained as (caused by); simply gravitionel redshift.
Crap, - you cannot measure such.
[/qupote]
Crap - it has been measured: Gravitational redshift.
Firstly you make the ignorant claim that cosmological redshift is gravitational redshift, now you seem to think that gravitational redshift does not exist!
Yes: Cosmological redshift DOES prove the expanding perspective of the Universe.No... Cosmological redshift do NOT prove the expanding fantasy perspective of the Universe.
The fact that you are ignorant dabout the physics does not make the physics false.
That is more gibberish but....You believe that the apparently change of the photons frequency = expansion. – In fact the photon do NOT change it’s frequency, - change of time and distance over time will have exactly that influence.
The deformation of space according to the properties of general relativity is ENOUGH to explain that.
THIS is how to understand what really happens.
In fact the photon does change its frequency. That is what redshift means. This is what is actually measured.
The change of time and distance over time has exactly that effect.
The expansion of space according to the properties of general relativity is ENOUGH to explain that.
You are still wrong: The evidence is that the size of teh uniervrse was almost nothing and that it expanded.YES BigBang happens, - but it do not mean it size was (almost) nothing and also not that space expands.
...usual gibberish rant and ignorance snipped....
NOTHING can wipe oput all of the ignorance and delustions that YOU have demonstrated.THIS can wipe out all the gravity mysteries WE have created.
There are few mysteries about gravity, if someone can bother to try to understand it rather than stick with delusions pulled out from their stance of ignorance.
Why doesn't the Solar System expand if the whole Universe is expanding - Answered
On 11 July 2011 and still not understood by Bjarne
The influence of the cosmological expansion on local systems, 1998, F. I. Cooperstock, V. Faraoni, D. N. Vollick (Astrophysical Journal)
This is not surprising since Bjarne has displayed an inability to understand the simplist sceience, e.g. from
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked) :
Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no!
Two years, 9 months and counting!
Crap, you are right.
Crap, so what has this to do with the discovery that the universes is expand ind (Hubble's law etc).?
Crap, what has this to to with the fact GR original static universe was instable and that GR describes an expanding universe?
My friend the Universe is losing gravity, a lot since BigBang, and it continues. Hence time is also changing (ticking faster and faster & distances are getting relative / proportional longer and longer, doesn’t matter where in the Universe you are) – This is what is causing the so called cosmological redshift.Crap - you have gone back be being ignorant again.
Cosmological redshift is called cosmological redshift because the only feasible mechanism for creating it is a cosmological expansion of the universe.
Gravitational redshift would require that matter in the unverse was arranged in a specific manner
- We are at the center of the universe.
This is a rather dumb assumption given that there is nothing special about the Mlky Way. That we are not in a special place in the universe is known as the Copernican principle.
Interesting bit of science: Microwave study bursts Hubble bubble- The density of matter decreases with distance from us.
The actual measured density of matter in the universe is homogeneous (the same on large scales)
No they do not, -it is a sick idea, nothing else.In fact the photon does change its frequency.
That is what redshift means. This is what is actually measured.
Exactly, finally you understood,- which mean that you now seems to have understood that; distances, gravity and time is changing proportional (since the BigBang) after (and due to) the release of absorbed space (so called dark energy)…The change of time and distance over time has exactly that effect.
The expansion of space according to the properties of general relativity is ENOUGH to explain that.
You should try to think a little serious about that silly idea.You are still wrong: The evidence is that the size of teh uniervrse was almost nothing and that it expanded.
Or, in order words, show us how you did not arbitrarily construct the 1,209,600 value as shown below.1,209,600 s. * 5,6 * 10-12 m/s = 0.000003387 m/s
I think this piece of comedy gold deserves highlighting.Observation is not something you can use to confirm what really happen
I think this piece of comedy gold deserves highlighting.
Einstein added the cosmological constant because prevailing theory was that the universe was static. This was (as he put it) his 'greatest blunder' because he did not realize that led to an unstable universe in which any small change leads to a collapsing or expanding uniiverse.Einstein invented the cosmological constant, because otherwise gravity would pull all matter together, he believed.
Any mention of your delusion of 'RR' makes this gibberish....
- The Universe could have the same shape as a huge galaxy; - we would then be orbiting that mass. – To a certain extend that would prevent the Universe to collapse (RR would cause matter slowly to spin inwards).
I see you mention Hubble’s laws, this law is based on cosmological redshift, which in fact is gravity redshift.
So-called dark matter is converted to s-called dark energy. That’s all.
[/qiouote]
That is all idiotic: Dark matter is matter. Dark energy is energy.
My friend you are ignorant: There is no evidence that universe is 'losing gravity'. It acts the same whereever we look at it.My friend the Universe is losing gravity, a lot since BigBang, and it continues.
Yes they do - your ignorance is very sick.No they do not, -it is a sick idea, nothing else.
When you measure the "old " photon spectra today,...
We measure the actual phoron spectra today and see that it is redshifted.
Gibberish.Exactly, finally you understood,- which mean that you now seems to have understood that; distances, gravity and time is changing proportional (since the BigBang) after (and due to) the release of absorbed space (so called dark energy)…
GR means that space time has expanded.
GR means that gravity has not 'changing proportional'. The source of gravity is everything in the universe. That has not chnaged.
You are just being dumber than usual: The entire universe being within a dot is science. Adult people have been critical and have accepted this valid science.The idea that all energy of the Universe possible can be forced inside a dot, billion times smaller like an ant, - is simply naïve, sick, mad and total impossible. Adult people should be more critical before accepting such load of rubbish.
Childish, ignorant people ignore the science and demonstrate their brains are a load of rubbish.
Gravity - your ignorance is showing again.Nothing , - no force in the Universe can bring so much energy to such a point.
ETA
You mentioned your fantasies again so I need to point out your abysmal ignorance of science yet again:
Why doesn't the Solar System expand if the whole Universe is expanding - Answered
On 11 July 2011 and still not understood by Bjarne
The influence of the cosmological expansion on local systems, 1998, F. I. Cooperstock, V. Faraoni, D. N. Vollick (Astrophysical Journal)
This is not surprising since Bjarne has displayed an inability to understand the simplist sceience, e.g. from
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked) :
Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no!
Two years, 9 months and counting!
That is idiotic. Hubble’s law is based on 2 measurements
The redshift has to be cosmologigical because of the relationship between these 2 measurements.
- The distance of galaxies from us.
- Their redshift.
You have no proves that so called dark matter is matter, - all you know is that gravity some places are stronger as you expect. – That’s all.Bjarne
So-called dark matter is converted to s-called dark energy. That’s all.
RC
That is all idiotic: Dark matter is matter.
Try to define ; why you believe it is “energy” and which kind.Dark energy is energy.
Puuuhh, here smells from boasting,...Adult people have been critical and have accepted this valid science.
Ohh a little step forward...Bjarne;
Nothing , - no force in the Universe can bring so much energy to such a point.
RC;
Gravity - your ignorance is showing again.
Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no !
How idiotic: You can measure distances between galaxies. You can measure their redshift. Hubble's law then means that the universe expands.You can see distances between galaxies, there is also distance between cows, but none of these observations proves that the universe expands.
Gibberish.The second point “cosmological redshift” only shows that “something happens” to the photon spektra – that "something" is; TIME that is changing during the history of the Universe.
More ignorance.You have no proves that so called dark matter is matter, - all you know is that gravity some places are stronger as you expect. – That’s all.
If this were just a cluster of 1,000 stars bound together under their own gravity, you'd expect the difference between the fastest and slowest-moving stars to be less than 1 km/s. But astronomers found that the slowest stars were moving at 194 km/s, while the fastest move at 224 km/s, meaning there is a tremendous amount of dark matter!
For just 1,000 stars, there is a total mass in this mini-galaxy of 600,000 Solar Masses, meaning that nearly all of the matter in there is dark! With a total mass hovering right around the minimum-sized structure the Universe can form, this is absolutely amazing! It's also one of the oldest objects in the Universe, as pretty much all of the stars are very old, metal poor, Population II stars.
Are you really unable of doing the simple act of clicking on a link or reading?Try to define ; why you believe it is “energy” and which kind.
...sniped cow fetish...
But RC even extreme gravity cannot force all energy of the Universe into a small dot.
[/quotge]
Wrong: Adult peoiple know know that the expansion of the universe is nothing to do with gravity.
Adult people knoe that there was no forcing - the universe was just observed to have have been in a hot dense state
Adult people know that no one knows what happened before the universe was in this hot dense state.
- Hubbles law
- CMBR
- etc.
Adult people know that there are several theories as hat happened before the Big Bang.
Adult people know that gravity can overcone all of the known forces if it is extreme enough.Adult people should for example THINK what happen all the time stars collapses. It is not possible to compress matter that much you believe….
Adult people know that we have observed stars that have been conmpressed enough to create black holes.
Adult people know that we are close to observing the event horizon of a black hole. We're going to see a black hole!!!
The idea of black holes has gone from a curious thought experiment to a theoretical likelihood to a near-certainty -- with thousands of known candidates -- in a very short time.
But never before have we been able to image a black hole directly; all we have are artists' renditions of what they might look like.
And for the first time ever, all of that may be about to change.
The result is you dispaying your ignorance yet again.KE = (y - 1) mc² - where γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
The result is a factor , the way we normally use this equation (in this context) - that factor is unit less.
The unit less factor is γ.
Your KE is the relativistic kinetic energy of a particle with mass m with respect to its rest state. It has units.
RESISTANCE AGIANST MOTION. (RR) = (y – 1m/s) - where γ = 1m/s /√(1 - v²/c²)Yes - you display your ignorance once again by getting the defintion of γ wrong: γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)Are you now happy?
And even more ignorant to arbitarily pick a value of 1 m/s. Why is it not 2 m/s? Why not 300,000 m/s? Why not 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s?
If you had any idea about sceince you would devise an experiment to measure RR and so find the multiplier. But the experiments say that RR does not exist:
- Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
First posted 2 November 2009- Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).
So we are back where we startedHow idiotic: You can measure distances between galaxies. You can measure their redshift. Hubble's law then means that the universe expands.
It is the combination of the measurements that shows that the universe is expanding.
MuuuhhhGibberish.
Of course TIME changes during the history of the universe. It changes by 1 second per second.
In no way.... dreamer.The measured spectra shows that the galaxies are moving away from us ...snipped
HEEELLPand thus the Doppler effect shifts the spectra to the red.
This is the dummest statement I ever have hear.We know that dark matter is matter because if acts like matter.
Nothing but pure gravity (deformation of space) left from a previously Universe.It affects the motions of galaxies. It affects the motions of stars in galaxies.
How can they know when they even don’t knowWrong: Adult peoiple know know that the expansion of the universe is nothing to do with gravity.
But fools know that you or gravity cannot force the Universe into the stomach of an ant. - RC WAKE UP....Adult people know that gravity can overcone all of the known forces if it is extreme enough.
Rather ask what ”1” is doing in that equation in the first place.And even more ignorant to arbitarily pick a value of 1 m/s. Why is it not 2 m/s? Why not 300,000 m/s? Why not 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s?