Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

He has changed slightly to the worse. More cows, more paranoia, even less sense.

If it was not for the occasional hilarity, I'd have him permanently on ignore.

Hans

http://allischalmers.com/new/forum/uploads/1307/laubenstein-cow.jpg

 

[Toke]

So, the cow collection have expanded, but no more sense than usual.

 

[Bjarne]

So, the cow collection have expanded, but no more sense than usual.

No cows does not expand, the Universe also not.

 

[Reality Check]

No cows does not expand, the Universe also not.

Cows do not expand
Why doesn't the Solar System expand if the whole Universe is expanding - Answered
On 11 July 2011 and still not understood by Bjarne

But the scientific evidence is that the Universe does:
Observation evidence for the metirc expansion of space
Cited 11 October 2010 and still not understood by Bjarne.

And from 28th July 2011
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.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Let me again suggest we leave this lead air plane alone.

There was a time when Bjarne at least tried to provide references. Irrelevant and misinterpreted references, sure, but at least he tried.

There was even a time when Bjarne actually conducted experiments, to prove his claim (how many other crackpot scientists do we see do that?). Poorly designed experiments, and he misinterpreted the resultant date, sure, but at least he tried.

But lately, all we get is insults, unsubstantiated claims, cow nonsense, and pure gibberish.

This puppy is not worth anybody's time. Leave him to play with himself.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

http://allischalmers.com/new/forum/uploads/1307/laubenstein-cow.jpg

Bjarne, I appreciate your attempt at least providing entertainment. I did chuckle at the first two, even three, cow-in-car pictures, but .... five is more than enough, thank you.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Let me again suggest we leave this lead air plane alone.

There was a time when Bjarne at least tried to provide references. Irrelevant and misinterpreted references, sure, but at least he tried.

There was even a time when Bjarne actually conducted experiments, to prove his claim (how many other crackpot scientists do we see do that?). Poorly designed experiments, and he misinterpreted the resultant date, sure, but at least he tried.

But lately, all we get is insults, unsubstantiated claims, cow nonsense, and pure gibberish.

This puppy is not worth anybody's time. Leave him to play with himself.

Hans

Oohhh really
I thought that was exactly the words that describes yours "religion"....... a universe that pop of from nothing,....... nothing brought it into nothing because nothing can….
+ the idiotic contradiction that disprove the whole idea, since we KNOW (local) space does NOT expand as well as we KNOW (photon) energy cannot be lost.

So first at all where are yours EVIDENCE proving that that a point of nothing can content a Universe and how it got there ?
And which force law of nature has made all that possibly?
I mean how are the laws of nature in NOTHING? ..... off course nothing right ? - not existing right ?... or WHAT ?
How could NOTHING keep that HUUUGGGE energy before BigBang. – I mean NOTHING cannot keep it, so WHAT ?
Hans face it, you have come to an insane dead end.
And all you have the that dead end is NOTHING, - also NO EVIDENCE what so ever..

Why invent such fantasy load, when all you need really ONLY is to understand that gravity of the Universe always is changing during time, sometimes decreasing and sometimes increasing

Right now the universe is NOT expanding, it is in fact the opposite that happens, RELATIVE to yesterday the Universe and EVERTHING in it is a little bit smaller relative to yesterday...
The strenght of gravity makes the diffference...

We have no way to prove that. ...

We have no evidence....

BUT we have general relativity.

All you need is to UNDERSTAND, - the full range of that theory..... and all gravity mysteries are gone + cosmological redshift understood + no longer obviously contradictory conflicts with science it self.

So better skip you huugee laod of NOTHING...you really don't need it.

But you prefer to keep hopeless insane contradictory inventions without any ground connection... what so ever.... and even though there are no needs for any of these..

Where are yours EVIDENCE for the invention necessary to explain self made mysteries, and a incoherent and contradictionary Universe. ?

I am not asking for balp blap blap bla bla Haleluja Amen
I am asking for yours EVIDENCE.
I am ask for yours defend?
All you have is NOTHING absolutely NOTHING except what you believe.
NOTING have past the scientific methods.
Cosmological redshift is NO EVIDENCE for the insane idea that the Universe once was NOTHING.

 

[Daylightstar]

This is the ...

Oh well, if you don't know what your little calculation actually does....

 

[Daylightstar]

...
All you have is NOTHING absolutely NOTHING ...

It mostly appears that you have NOTHING absolutely NOTHING, since:

...
We I have no way to prove that. ...

We I have no evidence....
...

^{Context clarifiers by Daylightstar}

 

[Paul]

BUT we have general relativity.

All you need is to UNDERSTAND, - the full range of that theory.....

Oh, I'm sorry, I have been labouring under the misapprehension that you were an idiot with a head full of nonsense.

It appears that, instead, you have been working on General Relativity with a view to solving some of the problems with current theory.

This is excellent news and I'm sure we will all be very excited to see the work you have done.


You can produce it any time you like...


We won't mind if it is long or complicated. After all, it will revolutionise our understanding of the universe.


Whenever you are ready...


I'm quite confident you will have done the work before making a claim to fully understand GR and it's implications.


So, fire away..

 

[Daylightstar]

If the treatise is tl;dr or takes too long to arrive, there's already a movie:

 

[Bjarne]

Oh, I'm sorry, I have been labouring under the misapprehension that you were an idiot with a head full of nonsense.

It appears that, instead, you have been working on General Relativity with a view to solving some of the problems with current theory.

This is excellent news and I'm sure we will all be very excited to see the work you have done.


You can produce it any time you like...


We won't mind if it is long or complicated. After all, it will revolutionise our understanding of the universe.


Whenever you are ready...


I'm quite confident you will have done the work before making a claim to fully understand GR and it's implications.


So, fire away..

The idea that general relativity can explain the so called cosmological redshift as well as comprehend the cause of it, is not strange.

1. It is the only (down to earth) option we have.
2. The prevailing rap–duck universe is so insane, - so much in conflict with science itself, - and so unnecessary that the idea certainly will die out.
3. We will in the future get more broad hints that will lead to understanding the nature of space ( the Universe) just mentioned, - for example also when it soon it is proven that motion in space is not resistance free.
   Gravity caused due to speed must be understood in a absolute reference frame, - such understanding will also point to a better coherent understanding of how matter and space interacts with each other and hence also the true nature of space/matter, - and therefore also how and why a Universe possible can collapse in a Big Crunch.

 

[Paul]

The idea that general relativity can explain the so called cosmological redshift as well as comprehend the cause of it, is not strange.

Perhaps you misunderstood me.

You said:

All you need is to UNDERSTAND, - the full range of that theory..... and all gravity mysteries are gone + cosmological redshift understood + no longer obviously contradictory conflicts with science it self.

So, obviously, you must fully understand GR, otherwise you would be a dishonest troll.

Therefore, given your superior knowledge, I requested you post your work for us to read.

What you posted was a list of baseless, ignorant assertions.

If you were, in fact, lying and have nothing to show us, just admit it and go away.

 

[Reality Check]

Cosmological redshift is NO EVIDENCE for the insane idea that the Universe once was NOTHING.

More gibberish: Cosmological redshift is EVIDENCE for the scientific theory that the Universe once was and still is was SOMETHING.
That SOMETHING was just smaller in the past as confirmed by the evidence listed in What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
Cited 28th July 2011 and still not understood by Bjarne.

 

[Reality Check]

The idea that general relativity can explain the so called cosmological redshift as well as comprehend the cause of it, is not strange.

1. It is the only (down to earth) option we have.
2. ...snipped inane gibberish...

You seem to be getting the point (before descending into you usual rant of ignorance): General relativity does explain the cosmological redshift and comprehend the cause of it.

The universe is 'rap–duck ' (whatever that means) because you have the delusion that it is ''rap–duck'.

The idiocy of thinking that the current cosmological theories conflict with science is obvious: They are science and they fit the observed universe !
In the future we will get more specific data (not your dumb idea of hints) that will lead to better understanding the nature of space and time.

It is already proved that motion in space is not 'resistance free' - this is inertia. Special relativity also states that you need more force to accelerate an object as that object gains velocity relative to an observer.

This has nothing to do with your delusons about one version of your RR:

• Do you really think that acceleration is a speed?
• 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?

Or the version that shows your other delusion: RR= (y - 1)?
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
​

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).

 

[MRC_Hans]

Oohhh really
*snip*

We have no way to prove that. ...

We have no evidence....

Assuming the 'royal we', this is the parts of the post that make sense.

I am asking for yours EVIDENCE.
I am ask for yours defend?

There must be a slight misunderstanding here, Bjarne. I don't need to present evidence to you:

First of all, I'm not making a claim. I'm referring to accepted theories. There is, of course, evidence for that, but it is not my task to teach you. You see, I don't give a hoot whether you understand or accept it or not, that is entirely your own loss.

Secondly ,YOU are the one making a claim here. So you provide evidence for YOUR claim. Constructive evidence; I don't care if you think the accepted theory is crazy or not, I don't care what your daughter, your grandmother, or your pet cow think about it, I want your evidence.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

If the treatise is tl;dr or takes too long to arrive, there's already a movie:

If we are to wait for Bjarne's evidence we could use a movie to pass time.
And popcorn.

Hans

 

[Daylightstar]

If we are to wait for Bjarne's evidence we could use a movie to pass time.
And popcorn.

Hans

The movie depicts almost the same non response Bjarne provides.
All that's missing is the cow 'relieving' itself.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The movie depicts almost the same non response Bjarne provides.
All that's missing is the cow 'relieving' itself.

Well, plenty of bovine manure here.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

The idea that general relativity can explain the so called cosmological redshift as well as comprehend the cause of it, is not strange.

Not strange at all, but we already know this.

It is the only (down to earth) option we have.

No, but it may well be the best option.

The prevailing rap–duck universe is so insane, - so much in conflict with science itself, - and so unnecessary that the idea certainly will die out.

A "prevailing rap-duck universe" certainly sounds silly. I doubt it will prevail.

We will in the future get more broad hints that will lead to understanding the nature of space ( the Universe) just mentioned,

We may do. We may even get good details, if we conduct good research.

- for example also when it soon it is proven that motion in space is not resistance free.

Now, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that one. You see, currently all evidence consistently shows that this is NOT the case.

Gravity caused due to speed must be understood in a absolute reference frame,

Ooh, that's a shame! Because the GR that you claim to understand specifically states that there is no general reference frame. .... Perhaps you need to read up on it again?

Hans