Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

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.

If the universe is bigger than the visible 13,7 billion LY, - and hubbles law must be understood as MOTION, then galaxies relative to us MUST move faster as c. Which of course is insane nonsense.

 

[MRC_Hans]

If the universe is bigger than the visible 13,7 billion LY, - and hubbles law must be understood as MOTION, then galaxies relative to us MUST move faster as c. Which of course is insane nonsense.

No they must not. This is the central part of relativity. That is indeed somewhat difficult to understand; most people under 12 have real problems with this, but if it is over your head you must simply accept that smart people have found out that the universe works like that.

You could try to read these:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/einsteins-special-relativity.html

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/einsteins-general-relativity-theory-gravity-as-geo.html

Simplified, of course, but understanding those would be your first step in catching up with the rest of the world.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

Sorry, but you are wrong.

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

We know this is true.

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

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

e=mc²
In other words, the closer you go to C, the more energy you must expend. And to keep the explanation simple, the extra energy is turned into mass (not into matter, but mass). You have already acknowledged this because your 'big crunch' model builds on that. You are missing a couple of things, but that is another matter.

This is NOT, however, resistance to motion, it is resistance to acceleration.

And I have stopped counting how many times I have tried to explain this to you.

Hans

 

[edd]

If the universe is bigger than the visible 13,7 billion LY, - and hubbles law must be understood as MOTION, then galaxies relative to us MUST move faster as c. Which of course is insane nonsense.

Locally nothing goes faster than light. At no point does a galaxy go past a photon.

On large scales you can't so easily talk about the speed of objects relative to one another. You can't even talk completely straightforwardly about distance. It's totally ok though. It might be superficially insane, but it really isn't, and it certainly isn't nonsense.

Remember - the reason you think you can't go faster than light is the special theory of relativity. The reason I'm saying both that distant objects don't go faster than light, and why the distance between us and them increases at a greater rate than the distance between me and a photon on my doorstep is the general theory of relativity. Which is widely recognised as the better, more comprehensive theory.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne
If the universe is bigger than the visible 13,7 billion LY, - and hubbles law must be understood as MOTION, then galaxies relative to us MUST move faster as c. Which of course is insane nonsense.
Hans
No they must not. This is the central part of relativity. That is indeed somewhat difficult to understand; most people under 12 have real problems with this, but if it is over your head you must simply accept that smart people have found out that the universe works like that.

You could try to read these:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/einsteins-special-relativity.html

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/einsteins-general-relativity-theory-gravity-as-geo.html

Simplified, of course, but understanding those would be your first step in catching up with the rest of the world.

Hans

Hans, this is the most stupid statement I have hear from you mounth, the last 3 years.
If the universe is bigger than the visible 13,7 billion LY, - and hubbles law must be understood as MOTION, then galaxies (Edith ; at the edge at visible the Universe) MUST move faster as c – relative to us. Which of course is insane nonsense.

It have NOTHING to do with relativity. – BUT > either cosmological redshift is caused by = motion ** OR ** it is NOT.

Mother cow have extended here offer, after reading your last post (and she nearly was demised by laughter) ..
Now you too have been offer 2000 free cow logic lessons free.
:

 

[Bjarne]

e=mc²
In other words, the closer you go to C, the more energy you must expend.
And to keep the explanation simple, the extra energy is turned into mass (not into matter, but mass).

Hans I believe we all have seen and know the equation, as well as we all know the knowledge you just mentioned.
I did not ask you to repeat what we and all cows know, but to try to explain how speed of matter creates mass.

What exactly is going on in the process do you think?.

I am pretty sure you still haven't got the question, - so let us try this analogy;
You know a cow can give 15 liter milk per day.
Now you want to know how it is possible that grass and water can convert into milk, butter, yogurt and crème cheese etc….

And here is the foolish answer you get;
This is very simple mathematic Hans,
First the cow muuuuuh a lot, it does because the cowgirl is too late,
Then you see in a cow girl walking into the cow house, - she pumps the cows teats into a bucket.
After that a truck will come and take it to the dairywork and after working it up you have the entire product.

This explanation demonstrate a very superficial explanation / understanding (I hope you agree to) (?) (!)
Exactly like yours scientific explanations most of the time does ( to be honest always does) ..
Sometimes it is more wise only to say muuuuh, - because the real content often is almost the same.

This is NOT, however, resistance to motion, it is resistance to acceleration.

How can you mathematical or objective define / express that resistance?
How can you objective, without any doubt, know beyond any doubt that the resistance ONLY applies by acceleration Hans?

 

[Reality Check]

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

Do you REALLY belive we are ?
...insane cow rant snipped...

One more time - No.
Simple enough for you, Bjarne?

Every point in the universe is moving away from every other point in the universe.
Every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy.
Every observer in every galaxy measures that every other galaxy is moving away from then.
Any observer anywhere in the uiverse measures a redshift that they can attribute to a doppler effect caused by the speed of the galaxies. Alternately they can think of this as an effect of the expanding space during the time that the light takes to get from the galaxy to them.

Another thing to add to your list of basic physics that you cannot understand:
The derivation of the Lorentz factor puts the number 1 in the factor.

 

[Reality Check]

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

Can objects move away from us faster than the speed of light?

Again, this is a question that depends on which of the many distance definitions one uses. However, if we assume that the distance of an object at time t is the distance from our position at time t to the object's position at time t measured by a set of observers moving with the expansion of the Universe, and all making their observations when they see the Universe as having age t, then the velocity (change in D per change in t) can definitely be larger than the speed of light. This is not a contradiction of special relativity because this distance is not the same as the spatial distance used in SR, and the age of the Universe is not the same as the time used in SR. In the special case of the empty Universe, where one can show the model in both special relativistic and cosmological coordinates, the velocity defined by change in cosmological distance per unit cosmic time is given by v = c ln(1+z), where z is the redshift, which clearly goes to infinity as the redshift goes to infinity, and is larger than c for z > 1.718. For the critical density Universe, this velocity is given by v = 2c[1-(1+z)-0.5] which is larger than c for z > 3 .
For the concordance model based on CMB data and the acceleration of the expansion measured using supernovae, a flat Universe with OmegaM = 0.27, the velocity is greater than c for z > 1.407.

(my emphasis added)

 

[Bjarne]

One more time - No.
Simple enough for you, Bjarne?

Every point in the universe is moving away from every other point in the universe.
Every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy.
Every observer in every galaxy measures that every other galaxy is moving away from then.
Any observer anywhere in the uiverse measures a redshift that they can attribute to a doppler effect caused by the speed of the galaxies. Alternately they can think of this as an effect of the expanding space during the time that the light takes to get from the galaxy to them.

Redshift in this context do not mean motion.
Redshift do not prove motion.
You are not allowed to ignore other options.

Change of gravity during billion of years, will also cause a gradually stronger redshifted spectra, the further light have travels. - Simply because extreme gravity will cause extreme slow time. The clock would therefore tick extreme slow in the early days of the Universe, when we assume that gravity these days was MUCH stronger.

• Why invent new expanding space properties, when these not are necessary?
• Why invent an expanding property of space even though it conflict with local measurements, - It doesn’t happen locally.
• Why invent the idea that photons converts energy into not proven fantasies.
• WHY ?

Another thing to add to your list of basic physics that you cannot understand:
The derivation of the Lorentz factor puts the number 1 in the factor.

I have not added "1" , - it was there in the first place.

 

[Reality Check]

Redshift in this context do not mean motion.
Redshift do not prove motion.
You are not allowed to ignore other options.

I am allowed to ignore physically impossibnle options.

Change of gravity during billion of years,

That is idiocy unless you can state hoe gravity "changing" will cause redshift.

• Why invent new expanding space properties, when these not are necessary?
• Why invent an expanding property of space even though it conflict with local measurements, - It doesn’t happen locally.
• Why invent the idea that photons converts energy into not proven fantasies.
• WHY ?

Because you are ignorant?

• The ability of space to expand was not invented - it is a solution of GR that was found before the physical evidence that the universe is expanding.
• It does not conflict with local measurement:
  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 fact is that photons are measured to lose energy. That is what redshift is.

I have not added "1" , - it was there in the first place.

More idoiocy - I never stated that you added a "1".
The Lorentz factor has the number 1 in it (in fact it has 2 )

The idiocy of RR comes in your delusion that you can arbitrarily multipy the Lorentz factor by a speed of 1 m/s to get an acceleration.

1. m/s is not an acceleration.
2. 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?

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, 10 months and counting!​

 

[Bjarne]

That is idiocy unless you can state hoe gravity "changing" will cause redshift.

Gravitional redshift is a fact, we know this happen and why it happen.
This is enough to understand so called cosmological redshift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment

The ability of space to expand was not invented - it is a solution of GR that was found before the physical evidence that the universe is expanding.

No evidence, only fantasy

It does not conflict with local measurement:
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)

No evidence, only fantasy

The fact is that photons are measured to lose energy. That is what redshift is.

This is what fantasy is.
Lose of energy is impossible.
It is a major conflict with science itself.

m/s is not an acceleration

It don’t need to be.
We only need to know the lost of speed "deceleration" the first second.
After that you must deduct that "deceleration" and calculate it all again.
Yes this sound a little strange but only when you haven’t understood the point.
We are NOT speaking about a linear deceleration, but something a bit more complicated, - hence adding m/s is enough.

RC, admit it, even ½ cow concrete brain know that NOTHING can force the Universe into a sack.
So when no force in the universe can get the universe into the sack it can also not get out of that sack.

Consider again, - have you and a world of naive fools misunderstood something ?

I know there is a lot of turbo "science" our there, for example that a vacuum bomb one day will destroy the whole universe etc. .. etc.. etc..
RC such is FANTASY, - NOT science.

 

[MRC_Hans]

If the universe is bigger than the visible 13,7 billion LY, - and hubbles law must be understood as MOTION, then galaxies (Edith ; at the edge at visible the Universe) MUST move faster as c – relative to us. Which of course is insane nonsense.

No, none of them move faster than light. Even a schoolboy knows that at high velocities, speed does not add linearly.

It have NOTHING to do with relativity. – BUT > either cosmological redshift is caused by = motion ** OR ** it is NOT

It has everything to do with relativity, and as long as you refuse to try to understand this simple, empirically proved fact, you are simply being wilfully stupid. The whole of the relativity theory is quite a mouthful for the average person to understand, but this part is not really difficult.

We have been trough this before: If you sit in a spaceship, moving at half the speed of light away from Earth (wishful thinking on my part, admittedly ) and you beam a laser first forwards (beam A) and then backwards (beam B), How fast will:

Beam A move from your POV?
Beam B move from your POV?
Beam A move from Earth's POV?
Beam B move from Earth's POV?

Now, if you can't answer these questions, in terms of the theory of relativity, you are in no position to discuss anything here, and you are certainly in no position to call anybody here silly.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans I believe we all have seen and know the equation, as well as we all know the knowledge you just mentioned.
I did not ask you to repeat what we and all cows know, but to try to explain how speed of matter creates mass.

Bjarne, try to actually read my posts. Speed does not create mass. Acceleration does.

What exactly is going on in the process do you think?.

How many times do I have to repeat this?

The kinetic energy manifests as mass. Close to zero speed, nearly all applied acceleration energy converts to velocity, but close to c, nearly all the applied acceleration energy converts to mass. This means that there is a limit to the speed an object can reach, but there is no limit to its kinetic energy.

This is not a discussion, or opinion, this is tested and verified FACT. The universe does not care if you understand this or not, it is hard, cold fact.

How can you mathematical or objective define / express that resistance?
How can you objective, without any doubt, know beyond any doubt that the resistance ONLY applies by acceleration Hans?

The calculations show it, the experiments show it, logic shows it. If there is no friction (e.g. air resistance) there is no energy transfer at constant speed. There is nothing to transfer energy, there is nowhere the energy can go.

Another of your problems is that you also refuse to try to understand thermodynamics.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

No evidence, only fantasy

No intellegence, only ignorance.

No evidence, only fantasy

No intellegence, only ignorance.

This is what fantasy is.
Lose of energy is impossible.
It is a major conflict with science itself.

No intellegence, only ignorance.

Loss of energy is possible. It happens all of the time. Turn the engine off on a moving car and it loses energy.

There is no confilict about the energy that photons lose through redshift, it either becomes gravitational energy or is simplly lost.
Try learning the actual sceince which has been cited to you many times before:
Expansion of the universe leading to cosmological redshift

The Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) has red-shifted over billions of years. Each photon gets redder and redder. What happens to this energy? Cosmologists model the expanding universe with Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) spacetimes. (The familiar "expanding balloon speckled with galaxies" belongs to this class of models.) The FRW spacetimes are neither static nor asymptotically flat. Those who harbor no qualms about pseudo-tensors will say that radiant energy becomes gravitational energy. Others will say that the energy is simply lost.

It don’t need to be.
...Gibeberish snipped...

The simple fact is that acceleration never has units of m/s as you think that it does.

It
RC, admit it, even ½ cow concrete brain know that NOTHING can force the Universe into a sack.

B, admit it you are totally ignorant about cosmology.
The universe was never forced into a hot dense state - it started in a hot dense state.

Will the Universe expand forever or recollapse?

This depends on the ratio of the density of the Universe to the critical density. If the density is higher than the critical density the Universe will recollapse in a Big Crunch. But current data suggest that the density is less than or equal to the critical density so the Universe will expand forever. See Part 3 of the tutorial for more information.

If the universe does collapse then gravity will force it into a hot dense state and then into an even even smaller, hotter, denser, state and then ... we do not know what will happen as the mathematics breaks down.

B, admit it, even ½ cow concrete brain know that GRAVITY can force the Universe into a sack.

And since you ignored this part of my post:

The idiocy of RR comes in your delusion that you can arbitrarily multiply the Lorentz factor by a speed of 1 m/s to get an acceleration.

1. m/s is not an acceleration.
2. 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?

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, 10 months and counting!
​

 

[MRC_Hans]

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, 10 months and counting!
​

Ahh, he recently answered it: He does think that you can arbitrarily assign a unit:

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.

So yes, Bjarne thinks you can arbitrarily assign a unit to a number in an equation.

And no, Bjarne has no idea of basic physics.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

No, none of them move faster than light. Even a schoolboy knows that at high velocities, speed does not add linearly.

It has everything to do with relativity, and as long as you refuse to try to understand this simple, empirically proved fact, you are simply being wilfully stupid. The whole of the relativity theory is quite a mouthful for the average person to understand, but this part is not really difficult.

We have been trough this before: If you sit in a spaceship, moving at half the speed of light away from Earth (wishful thinking on my part, admittedly ) and you beam a laser first forwards (beam A) and then backwards (beam B), How fast will:

Beam A move from your POV?
Beam B move from your POV?
Beam A move from Earth's POV?
Beam B move from Earth's POV?

Now, if you can't answer these questions, in terms of the theory of relativity, you are in no position to discuss anything here, and you are certainly in no position to call anybody here silly.

Hans

Only one big load of rubbish
Cosmological redshift is NOT motion
Doppler Effect is NOT Cosmological redshift
Stars at the edge of the visible Universe MUST reach "c"- if you really belive Huubles law is a expresion of true motion.
Now add to that that the Universe could be thousand, million or billion times larger as the visible part, which then also mean that the speed of the reel edge of the Universe - fantasy-galaxies-MOTION would increase these factor.

There is NO intermediate station, NO mitigate circumstances, and hence NO "discount" to that insane speed.

Everybody…. welcome to an insane idiotic impossible Universe invented by Hans and RC.
Hans you are living in a fantasy wolrd where the BigBANG MUST happens ALL THE TIME.

 

[MRC_Hans]

We have been trough this before: If you sit in a spaceship, moving at half the speed of light away from Earth (wishful thinking on my part, admittedly ) and you beam a laser first forwards (beam A) and then backwards (beam B), How fast will:

Beam A move from your POV?
Beam B move from your POV?
Beam A move from Earth's POV?
Beam B move from Earth's POV?

Now, if you can't answer these questions, in terms of the theory of relativity, you are in no position to discuss anything here, and you are certainly in no position to call anybody here silly.

Answer the questions, and we may talk.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Everybody…. welcome to an insane idiotic impossible Universe invented by Hans and RC.

I'm afraid you flatter us. We didn't invent it. Einstein, Hubble, and such people did.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, try to actually read my posts. Speed does not create mass. Acceleration does

So you believe that when a body accelerates M is increasing, good, so fare we agree.
Let say the speed increase is about 200,000 km/s – and hence M increase = 1kg .
Add the M increase (1 Kg) that the basic M (1 Kg ) = 2Kg.
So long the speed increase is + 200,000 km/s the M increase = +1Kg, and hence the total M = 2 kg.
Do you agree ?

Bjarne
What exactly is going on in the process do you think?.
Hans
The kinetic energy manifests as mass.
Close to zero speed, nearly all applied acceleration energy converts to velocity

As expected , you still have got the point.
How can grass convert to Milk, explain the PROCESS
Now ; how can speed convert to Mass / deformed space, Explain the PROCESS
Hans, I change my mind, I give up, you will never understand the meaning or the quation anyway.

Bjarne
How can you mathematical or objective define / express that resistance?
How can you objective, without any doubt, know beyond any doubt that the resistance ONLY applies by acceleration Hans?
Hans
The calculations show it,

WHAT calculations

the experiments show it,

WHAT experiments
CERN ?
What about the lost of magnetic field due to motion ?
WHO will pay for that?
Will reduced speed be the result ?
Mother cow have refused to pay 117 times

logic shows it.

Maybe your logic, but NOT cow logic.
This tells A LOT

If there is no friction (e.g. air resistance) there is no energy transfer at constant speed.

It depend on what you mean with “friction” ?
Where is the "border" between space and matter.
There are no matter as such………etc…………Max Planch.

There is nothing to transfer energy, there is nowhere the energy can go.
Right

Just keep your head in the bush, and reality doesn’t exist.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724221049.htm

So yes, Bjarne thinks you can arbitrarily assign a unit to a number in an equation.

Why not
This is what science is about.
The question whether it reflect reality is left to test.

 

[Bjarne]

Loss of energy is possible. It happens all of the time.
Turn the engine off on a moving car and it loses energy.

This only demonstrate how lost you are.
Energy can and MUST convert to different energy.
Energy is NEVER lost.

There is no confilict about the energy that photons lose through redshift, it either becomes gravitational energy or is simplly lost.

Which evidence do you have ? - except Hallelujah ?`

The simple fact is that acceleration never has units of m/s as you think that it does.

One second motion forward or backwards can be described as acceleration or deceleration (depending on whether speed is increasing or decreasing) what happens in that second can be expressed as = +/- m/s.

Expansion of the universe leading to cosmological redshift

This is religion, not science.
Science is what we KNOW.
Religion is what people belives.
You don't know whether the Universe expands or not.