Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Paul]

This is in fact a bad sign

No it isn't, it's a sign that if you produce a competent paper it may get accepted for publication.

since that too reveals "we" in fact not are sure how to relate to that phenomenon

Have you read the paper?

What is your opinion of their argument?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

You're wrong Bjarne - although it's not uncommon to hold such a position and there's understandable reasons you might - I've said it's not a Doppler shift myself in the past. It's not right to verified RC's standpoint, least of all in the manner you have.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1081
The kinematic origin of the cosmological redshift, Bunn and Hogg.



Agree, this is what the maoity belives.

but must be viewed in terms of the stretching of space. We argue that, contrary to this view, ..... snipped
As you can read not all agree how to interpret cosmological redshift, - that RC believe is evidence for the so called expansion.

This is in fact a bad sign, since that too reveals "we" in fact not are sure how to relate to that phenomenon

You shouldn't only be a farmer with cows Bjarne, but you should be a cherry farmer with what you have picked.

Full quote with what you quoted bolded.

A common belief about big-bang cosmology is that the cosmological redshift cannot be properly viewed as a Doppler shift (that is, as evidence for a recession velocity), but must be viewed in terms of the stretching of space. We argue that, contrary to this view, the most natural interpretation of the redshift is as a Doppler shift, or rather as the accumulation of many infinitesimal Doppler shifts. The stretching-of-space interpretation obscures a central idea of relativity, namely that it is always valid to choose a coordinate system that is locally Minkowskian. We show that an observed frequency shift in any spacetime can be interpreted either as a kinematic (Doppler) shift or a gravitational shift by imagining a suitable family of observers along the photon's path. In the context of the expanding universe the kinematic interpretation corresponds to a family of comoving observers and hence is more natural.

 

[Bjarne]

Full quote with what you quoted bolded.

The point here is that RC seems to believe that we are living exactly in the center of the Universe. - This is the inevitable consequence of claiming that cosmological redshift = double effect. Simply because then everything (the rest of the Universe except Andromeda) must move away from us.

 

[Paul]

The point here is that RC seems to believe that we are living exactly in the center of the Universe.

That is wrong and demonstrates you lack of understanding.

This is the inevitable consequence of claiming that cosmological redshift = double effect. Simply because then everything (the rest of the Universe except Andromeda) must move away from us.

Wrong again, if you actually read, and tried to understand, the other posts you may begin to acquire a grasp of the most basic concepts of kindergarten science.

 

[Bjarne]

Wrong again, if you actually read, and tried to understand, the other posts you may begin to acquire a grasp of the most basic concepts of kindergarten science.

There is not much to acquire, except that load of contradictory ideas (to put it mildly) a random herd of "scientist” believe in.

 

[Paul]

There is not much to acquire

Perhaps you could ask a small child to explain it, just make sure they speak slowly so as not to confuse you.

except that load of contradictory ideas

None of which you appear to have the capacity to understand.

a random herd of "scientist” believe in.

I know, pesky scientists eh?

All that learning stuff and having to prove their ideas and not relying on crap they just made up because they couldn't understand real science.

 

[Bjarne]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7236431&postcount=3972

1,209,600 ???

This is the (roughly) amount of second during a period of 14 days.
RR affects the orbit of the moon differently, - every 14 days.
The first half of the orbit of the Moon RR will "resist the motion of the moon" –( imaging the moon moves towards the suns motion direction round the Milky Way) but the result is in fact more speed, because the moon in that process is losing potential gravity, and this is causing speed of the moon to increase, - even though the process is resistance against motion (RR).
The process is a decelerating process.
The second 14 days period the moon is moving opposite following the RR direction.
This mean the Moon moves opposite the motion direction round the MilkyWay.
In that period the moon is affected by less RR as it would have been following the Sun with the same speed as the sun.
Hence in that period the Moon gains back the lost of potential gravitational energy, but the orbit eccentricity is increasing in that process.
It take 4½ year to reach maximum eccentricity anomaly and 4½ year to cancel it out. - Because 9 years is the orbital precession period of the moon.
To figure out how much the eccentricity is changing per ½ orbit motion, you must first know the average speed caused by RR by each ½ orbit.
This is what the calculation you ask for shows;
http://www.science27.com/english/IrregularMoonsNew.html

 

[Reality Check]

What a BIG load of crap (agian).
Nobody (except apparently RC) believe the universe is MOVING away from each other. Many naive fools believe that space itself is expanding.

What a couple of big lies.
I know enough about cosmoloogy to know that the universe is not MOVING away from anything.
Sceintists believe that space is expanding because the evidence states that space-time is expanding.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

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 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.

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:

• 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.

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.

P.S.
This seems to answer another one of your unsupported assertions:
Is the Universe expanding or is it just that our definitions of length and time are changing?

The definitions of length and time are not changing in the standard model. The second is still 9192631770 cycles of a Cesium atomic clock and the meter is still the distance light travels in 9192631770/299792458 cycles of a Cesium atomic clock.

If MOTION should be the cause of cosmological redshift , we would be exactly in the center of the Universe,
...

Total ignorance once again: The expansion means that every point in the universe is the center of expansion.

Ask you self what “1” is doing in that equation in the first place..

How idiotic - I know what the 1 is doing in the Lorentz factor in the first palce. It is the number 1.

Why is your multiplier 1 m/s^2? Why is X not 2 m/s^2? Why not 300,000 m/s^2? Why not 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s^2?

You mentioned your RR fantasy 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!
​

 

[Bjarne]

Sceintists believe that space is expanding because the evidence states that space-time is expanding.

Then don’t bal blap blap about doppler effect.
Doppler Effect is a result of motion.
Cosmological redshift is a result of the assumption that the Universe / space expands.

There is a difference.

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:

I agree Bigbang had happen, BUT not that the Universe at that time was so small that there could be billion of these inside the stomach of an ant.
Such nuts suggestions can only happen when heads are deeply buried in the bush.
I mean when people have no idea of what the possible talk about.
For example how did the Universe got into the ant ? - before it exploded.

How idiotic - I know what the 1 is doing in the Lorentz factor in the first palce. It is the number 1.

You know nothing about why the equation looks like it does.
If you did you would also know how to calculate that resistance against motion we are talking about.

Why is your multiplier 1 m/s^2? Why is X not 2 m/s^2? Why not 300,000 m/s^2? Why not 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s^2?

Because the result of the equation must relate / refer / to “something", - and that something is already chosen, - it is “1”
γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)

You can use the Lorentz transformation, in serveral different modified versions, to calculate all the transformation that takes place, when shifting from one to another reality.
For example: time, distance deformation, M or KE .

Nothing prevent us from adding a modified version of the equation (by adding m/s after 1) to calculate the relative resistance RR.

The fact that RR never have got any (mathematical) attention doesn’t mean that it is not real.

The fact that you (RC) seem not to be able to calculate it, or whether you deny that RR is real, - is not important.

Reality, - doesn’t care that you have taken a misleading name; “Reality Check” .

A concrete cow know that the more it will approach the speed c, the stronger “something” will prevent it to happen.

We are speaking about 897% certain resistance against motion that MUST be mathematically treated “Reality Check” - if you really want to understand its nature.

But well close your eyes, “Reality Check” and the problem is solved.

 

[MRC_Hans]

OK; I confess: I cant resist switching Bjarne's threads back on after a while. I simply don't want to miss gems like the one below:

I agree Bigbang had happen, BUT not that the Universe at that time was so small that there could be billion of these inside the stomach of an ant.
Such nuts suggestions can only happen when heads are deeply buried in the bush.
I mean when people have no idea of what the possible talk about.
For example how did the Universe got into the ant ? - before it exploded.

It's no problem, Bjarne: If you wanna think it was inside a cow instead, then by all means .......

You know nothing about why the equation looks like it does.
If you did you would also know how to calculate that resistance against motion we are talking about.

We can calculate the resistance against motion.

Here it is:

...... wait for it ....


0

Because the result of the equation must relate / refer / to “something", - and that something is already chosen, - it is “1”
γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)

Bjarne's revised answer to the question about the universe and everything: 1

..... 42 is a bit out of your scope when you use your fingers for calculating stuff.

Nothing prevent us from adding a modified version of the equation (by adding m/s after 1) to calculate the relative resistance RR.

Nothing prevents us from adding arbitrary stuff to equations. ..... If we don't care what results we get.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

The point here is that RC seems to believe that we are living exactly in the center of the Universe. - This is the inevitable consequence of claiming that cosmological redshift = double effect. Simply because then everything (the rest of the Universe except Andromeda) must move away from us.

The point here is that Bjarne is deluded into thinking that he can read my mind.
The inevitable consequence of claiming that cosmological redshift = a Doppler effect is simply that every point in the universe is moving away from every other point in the universe. That causes galaxies to have different speeds thus a Doppler effect that causes redshift.

Simply because then everything (the rest of the Universe except Andromeda) must move away from us.

Simply - that is ignorant. There are about 100 galaxies that are blue shifted.
The Andromeda galaxy is just the best known of these.

The expansion of the universe menaing that there is no center to the universe is something high school students learn about through the balloon analogy, e.g. Balloon Analogy in Cosmology

 

[Reality Check]

Then don’t bal blap blap about doppler effect.
Doppler Effect is a result of motion.
Cosmological redshift is a result of the assumption that the Universe / space expands.

There is a difference.

I blap blap about the doppler effect because (to put it simply for simple minds like yours)

1. the expansion of the universe causes the galaxies to move at different speeds
2. that causes a doppler effect
3. that causes a redshift.

This is really a flat universe statement. In GR for a general situation, the treatment is a lot more complex.

I agree Bigbang had happen, BUT not that the Universe at that time was so small that there could be billion of these inside the stomach of an ant.
Such nuts suggestions can only happen when heads are deeply buried in the bush.

I agree that that is a totally insane statement of your ignorance.
The simple fact is that your lack of knowlde

I agree Bigbang had happen, BUT not that the For example how did the Universe got into the ant ? - before it exploded.

No one knows what happen before the Big Bang. The fact remains that there is no physics that prevenbts the universe from being very small.

You know nothing about why the equation looks like it does.
If you did you would also know how to calculate that resistance against motion we are talking about.

How idiiotic. I know exactly where the Lorentz factor comes from. It's derivation is in all of the elementary pshysc textbooks that your are ignorant of. It is so simple that I can quote it in its entirety:

Derivation
One of the fundamental postulates of Einstein's special theory of relativity is that all inertial observers will measure the same speed of light in vacuum regardless of their relative motion with respect to each other or the source. Imagine two observers: the first, observer A, traveling at a constant speed v with respect to a second inertial reference frame in which observer B is stationary. A points a laser “upward” (perpendicular to the direction of travel). From B's perspective, the light is traveling at an angle. After a period of time tB, A has traveled (from B's perspective) a distance d = vtB; the light had traveled (also from B perspective) a distance d = ctB at an angle. The upward component of the path dt of the light can be solved by the Pythagorean theorem.

Factoring out ctB gives,

The distance that A sees the light travel is dt = ctA and equating this with dt calculated from B reference frame gives,

which simplifies to

Because the result of the equation must relate / refer / to “something", - and that something is already chosen, - it is “1”
γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
...sniped simple stuff that even Bjarne pet cow, dead ant and grandmother know....

Wrong: It is derived from the postulates of special relativity.

Nothing prevent us from adding a modified version of the equation (by adding m/s after 1) to calculate the relative resistance RR.

More idiocy: γ multiplied by 1 m/s is the speed of an object moving at 1 m/s multiplied by γ.

Nothing to do with acceleration or your fanatasy of RR
The question is: Why is your multiplier 1 m/s^2? Why is X not 2 m/s^2? Why not 300,000 m/s^2? Why not 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s^2?

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)

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!
• Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
  First posted 2 November 2009
  Almost 2 years of total ignorance from Bjarne!
• Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).

 

[jibal]

Are you folks still at it? Fact: Bjarne is too stupid to be reached, and it's nearly as stupid to try. Go do something productive.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You are so right. Although there is the occasional gem, like Bjarne asking how the immediate post BB universe got into an ant.

Unfortunately, this is becoming more and more of a pathology study.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

We can calculate the resistance against motion.
Here it is:
...... wait for it ....
0
Hans

Hans You forgot the evidence.
I guess I found it, - here it is
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yJUwIWidU...hing-with-good-eye-closed_blindfolded-man.jpg

Nothing prevents us from adding arbitrary stuff to equations. ..... If we don't care what results we get.

The equation can not only be used to calculate; ”reality deformation” such as M and KE change.

You MUST also at least try to understand the process that makes M increase possible.
Here is what you know about that process where speed is converted to gravity (M):
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/9918/zero2ncgg6.jpg

Concrete cows are always asking them self and each other, - again and again and again; how can gravity possible be created (increased) due to speed of matter ?
How is this process possible working ?
How can space deformation be the result of speed ?
And 1000 such related questions?
Concrete cows does it this way to keep their own brain, imagination, intuition, and intellect alert.

Here is how humans solve such huge scientifically challenges:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZBsyjMpwqXA/S2S3XUXM3ZI/AAAAAAAAE6c/ZSto440Wa28/s320/IMG_3018.JPG

Resistance against motion is the basic of the process.
You can turn the known equation on the head, and say that the way we normally use the equation – the unit “m/s” has been removed from it, - because it is not necessary to calculate consequences of reality transformation - process.

But when you return to the original basic of the equation, - it is and must always be an expression of RESISTANCE AGAINST MOTION.

 

[Bjarne]

I blap blap about the doppler effect because (to put it simply for simple minds like yours)

1. the expansion of the universe causes the galaxies to move at different speeds
2. that causes a doppler effect
3. that causes a redshift.

This is really a flat universe statement. In GR for a general situation, the treatment is a lot more complex.

No , RC Cosmological redshift is not causing Doppler effect.
This is a statement taken out of the blue air.
Doopler effect is an effect that happens due to a wave-source either moves towards or away from you. Or / and you moves towards or away from that sourse.

If all galaxies would MOVE away from us, we must be in the center of the Universe.

Do you REALLY belive we are ?

It is exactly 13, 4672535677856 billion years since all cows in all Universes stopped to believe that would be possible.

I agree that that is a totally insane statement of your ignorance.

The truth is that a whole world has been insane or naïve enough to let them brainwashed to believe that once the Universe was so small that billion of them could be inside the stomach of a ant.
Cows have NEVER had such insane ideas.

No one knows what happen before the Big Bang.

Of course not, no law of nature supports the insane idea that the Universe once was inside the stomach of an ant.

How idiiotic. I know exactly where the Lorentz factor comes from. It's derivation is in all of the elementary pshysc textbooks that your are ignorant of. It is so simple that I can quote it in its entirety

The point is not that the equation is in the text book, but rather whether you have the slightest idea of what goes on in the process, for example how speed of matter can create mass.
If you take your bike to buy breakfast, the speed of you and the bike affect the whole universe, - since speed creates more M, and M affects the whole Universe.
To better understand this process is a challenge , - but of course only if you have any intention to reach the cow level og astrophysics and relality.

 

[Bjarne]

The point here is that Bjarne is deluded into thinking that he can read my mind.
The inevitable consequence of claiming that cosmological redshift = a Doppler effect is simply that every point in the universe is moving away from every other point in the universe. That causes galaxies to have different speeds thus a Doppler effect that causes redshift.

My daughter 7 years old, will soon learn this is not possible
Why ?
Let me answer by few questions….
RC, - After 17 years at a University, - You know or should know the Hubble Law = 22km/s per MLY or 22,000 m/s / per MLY.
Which mean; you should know that a galaxy let us say 1000 MLY away from us then must “”move”” away from us with the ""speed"" 22.000,000 m/s ?

Now let us imaging a galaxy not "only" is 1000 MLY from us, but at the edge of the visible Universe 13700 MLY away (13,7 billion light years).
That galaxy MUST then MOVE 300,000,000 m/s away from us? – Right RC ?.
Is that what you believe RC ?

Do you REALLY believes that galaxies MOVES away from us that fast (with the speed of light) ?

You know I am just wondering?

When mother cow read yours new idiotic statement she again expressed deeply compassion and told that the offer of 1000 free cow logic lessons still is valid. .
She will love to teach you simple logic.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Bjarne, when your daughter becomes 9 years old, she will learn all the things in school that you don't understand. Unfortunately, she will then discover that her dear father is an uneducated fool, who prefers to call other people idiots, rather than bother to read up on what he missed in primary school.

So yes:

- The universe was very very small at the beginning (but there were no ants around back then ).

- The cosmological red-shift is a Doppler shift.

- That everything (on average) is receding from us does not mean we must be at the centre of the universe (I also thought that when I was 7).

- The most distant objects we can observe are indeed receding at the speed of light. And the most distant objects they can see are also receding at the speed of light, in all directions.

- And we know exactly why an object becomes heavier when accelerated.

- And there is no such thing as resistance to motion.

And all this has been shown with good solid science. All your bluster only serves to demonstrate just how uneducated and foolish you are.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

So yes:

- The universe was very very small at the beginning (but there were no ants around back then ).

Haleluja Haleluja

- The cosmological red-shift is a Doppler shift.

Haleluja Haleluja

- That everything (on average) is receding from us does not mean we must be at the centre of the universe (I also thought that when I was 7).

Doppler Effect = speed
Cosmological Redshift shall NOT be understood as caused by speed.

- The most distant objects we can observe are indeed receding at the speed of light. And the most distant objects they can see are also receding at the speed of light, in all directions.

Make you self clear
Do you believe in huge speed differences between galaxies? (some near the speed c)

- And we know exactly why an object becomes heavier when accelerated.

Why then ?
Tell me also about how the process is working?

- And there is no such thing as resistance to motion.

Haleluja Haleluja

And all this has been shown with good solid science. All your bluster only serves to demonstrate just how uneducated and foolish you are.

Haleluja Haleluja
Amen..

 

[edd]

Bjarne - you're making understandable (in some of these cases) but very common and very basic errors. I think you need to find a good basic text on cosmology.

Have a look at http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/10/06/does-space-expand/ again - it's pretty clear why it's ok for those galaxies to be moving 'faster than light'. At no time does any galaxy overtake any ray of light - so how can they be moving faster than light? Just because a certain distance increases at a rate faster than light travels doesn't mean the laws of physics are being broken.

Lots of things in cosmology - in particular many things that RC and others are describing - are counterintuitive. This does not mean they defy logic or physics, only that they take some thought to get to grips with.