Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.
- Thread starter Bjarne
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dark energy
- Status
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
NO, RC
You have no evidence, all you have is the usual load of contradictions.
I have several times repeated a long list of huge problems the Big Bang thesis is facing.
Let me just add one more:
We have discussed it before: a 1 billion LY (HUGE) big empty whole is found in the Universe.
Many scienctist know this is a huge problem to the existing big bang thesis.
Let me for example quote this;
Also read this:
To be able to (desperate) keep the insane prevailing picture of the so called expanding Universe going, - it is clearly to see that science is like a herd of cows on a frozen lake; -Turbo fantasies seems to take no ends. The empty hole is the reason for serveral thesis, to literally "fill a huge hole of the big bang speculation" .
Let me for example quote this too;
Not a single cow in the Universe have any problems to see that the BigBang speculation have huge problems with that hole.
There are a LOT of speculations what possible could be causing it.
BUT dear RC again we see NO EVIDENCE.
Add to that; - similar turbo fantasy factories that tries to explain how photon can lost energy or why local distances NOT expands, , or HOW can you get the Universe into a dot.
The whole bigbang speculation is sick.
So sick that it in fact is dying.
The new theory I represent can (also) easy solve why the huge hole is there.
Above in the thread we was some time ago discussed what would happen when all the energy of the Sun was released.
We have to start here to make you understand.
What would happen is; that space absorbed by the Sun would be released. – Right now space is stretching towards the Sun.
When elementary particles of the Sun would dissolve there would be “thicker” space density between us and where the Sun once was.
Or in other words the stretch of space (and matter) towards the Sun would be released.
Therefore the meter stick would shrink, (as well as time would be proportional faster).
I was calculating the distance increase some time ago to 1482 meter (distance extension to the Sun).
But seen from an observer we assume do have a meter stick that not is affected, he would not see any distance difference after the Sun was gone.
To makes it simple, - let us say that the radius of the Universe would be 100cm now and the meter stik was measuring that radius.
Let us say Hans live 10 cm near the centre and you RC exactly at the center.
Now gravity would suddenly (over night) increase dramatically, this would cause distances to stretch, (and also the meter stick) and therefore radius today of the Universe would only be 90 cm.
This mean you RC would no longer exist, - RC would be in a so called black hole, (a geometric point of zero).
Hans would now be exactly in the center.
Not only RC, but all matter in a radius of 10 cm from the center, both space and matter have disappeared "into" the geometric point of zero
In reality matter (galaxies) have absorbed that space, but the influence is stretching space towards matter and hence towards the center of the Universe.
(This is how to understand the nature of a black holes). Space is stretching towards the center, because of the consumption of space in that direction.
All distances in the Universe would now (due to gravity increase) be be a tiny bit larger and time thick a little slower. But the local time/distances proportionals would be the same...(because time always follows distance deformation).
The next day the opposite happen, gravity would decrease and distances again shrink due to less gravity pull/stretch,... and time would now thick faster.
Hans would now live 10 cm from the center, - BUT you RC would be gone, because you is "exported" to a place of no existence, - where desistance and time do not exist, - There are NO RETURN from that place.
Therefore the next day there would be a relative “big empty hole” in our Universe (radius 10 cm).
But as usually, even though we now (again) have big EVIDENCE on the sky, actually proving that something serious is wrong with the Big Bang thesis, instead of facing the fact, “we” ( not me and certainly also now any cow) are instead supporting all kind of insane turbo science factories, - so long they just literally can fill up the hole (with the usual load of insane incoherent incomplete rubbish).
As you easy see the new theory (in fact general relativity) can easy explain the cause of that big empty hole too, - all you & Co (not cow) can do is to support insane turbo “science” factories, and off course (as usual) close your eyes for facts.
You MUST mean; accepted extreme incoherent speculation (without any reference to reality and without any ground connection) .
The new theory explian the real cause of the huge hole, - illustrated by a 20 s. Video , we have completely to rethink how the universe deforms....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0u6wjN_gZc
Last edited:
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
I just did, - coherent logic, based on certain knowledge, without unnecessary man-made mysteries, - and without conflict with certain knowledge, - (just in case you should not have discovered)..
Last edited:
If you think that proof-less mess of inarticulate baseless nonsense qualifies as posting your work, you are even more scientifically illiterate than what you think is your work implies.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Bjarne, using the word 'thesis' as you did in your 'work', only draws attention to the low quality of the rest of your post.
Perhaps you shouldn't be using such words.
On the other hand, it does support your job of presenting the mind of a deluded ignorant crackpot in it's intricate detail.
Never mind, please carry on doing your job.
Perhaps you shouldn't be using such words.
On the other hand, it does support your job of presenting the mind of a deluded ignorant crackpot in it's intricate detail.
Never mind, please carry on doing your job.
DeathDart
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2011
- Messages
- 1,251
Time decreases as an objects velocity increases.
Time decreases as an objects mass increases.
Mass increases as an object approaches the speed of light. The rate of time flow for the mass has decreased. This has been proven by the measured increase of the half-life of particles traveling at relativistic speeds.
If we arbitrarily set the time that we experience on Earth as .9992. Is there a lower gravity region in space where time goes twice as fast?
What if the passage of time is nearly infinite in perfectly empty space?
Relating this information to Inflation and the “Big Bang”. I suggest that rapidly flowing time was/is the normal condition for EMPTY time_space. Inflation was the normal condition of time_space without matter. The laws of the universe have not changed since the Big Bang.
Another phenomena that could support this argument is supernova brightening. As the radioactive isotopes generated by the supernova, enter into weak gravitational regions of space, they could experience a faster flow of time.
If time does speed up, then the half-lifes of the isotope's will decrease. More energy will then be released as the half-life of the isotopes continues to decrease, the Supernova gets brighter. Isotopes with intermediate life spans (2-100) years could be more rapidly consumed than would be possible if space had an upper time limit of only ONE.
Time decreases as an objects mass increases.
Mass increases as an object approaches the speed of light. The rate of time flow for the mass has decreased. This has been proven by the measured increase of the half-life of particles traveling at relativistic speeds.
If we arbitrarily set the time that we experience on Earth as .9992. Is there a lower gravity region in space where time goes twice as fast?
What if the passage of time is nearly infinite in perfectly empty space?
Relating this information to Inflation and the “Big Bang”. I suggest that rapidly flowing time was/is the normal condition for EMPTY time_space. Inflation was the normal condition of time_space without matter. The laws of the universe have not changed since the Big Bang.
Another phenomena that could support this argument is supernova brightening. As the radioactive isotopes generated by the supernova, enter into weak gravitational regions of space, they could experience a faster flow of time.
If time does speed up, then the half-lifes of the isotope's will decrease. More energy will then be released as the half-life of the isotopes continues to decrease, the Supernova gets brighter. Isotopes with intermediate life spans (2-100) years could be more rapidly consumed than would be possible if space had an upper time limit of only ONE.
Last edited:
yog_sothoth
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 433
The terms "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" are placeholders until they figure out what is making the universe behave the way it does. We can see the footprint but we can only guess at what is wearing the boot for now.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
NO, B: Sceince has losts of evidenc ethat the cosnologicial redshift is caused by an expanding universe.
Reather idoitic quote mining from you B.
Biggest void in space is 1 billion light years across (24 August 2007)
More recent work suggests that the cold spot does not exist:
Disks in the sky: A reassessment of the WMAP "cold spot" (2009)
Oh dear - you need to learn that you are not the only crank out there
!The cited article in the Journal of Cosmology is a (now defunct) online 'journal' well lknown for
You have an delusion not a theory.
Show your mathematics predicting the size of the super-void. You have none
.Ignorance: Right now the mass of the Sun is curving space-time.
We have gone through this delusion of yours before. Stretching or Contracting space-timecannot produce gravity,.
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked) :
"Bended space is Contracted Space"
Curved space is not contracted space
First posted 11 November 2009
But now you have another delustion: The space-time is absorbed by mass!(original full list to which more points have been linked) :
"Bended space is Contracted Space"
Curved space is not contracted space
First posted 11 November 2009
Gibberish
We have to start here to make you understand: Posting gibberish just makes you look ridiculous.
You need to learn some physics and mathematics and post coherent thoughts rather then whatever fantasies exist in your head.
citizenzen
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,454
Imagine some space, it's a very small area of space and it's now entirely full of junk. That's what it's like in Bjarne's head.Matter "absorbs" space?
Somebody please help me out with that concept.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
Space is not a big nothing, but rather a big something.
We know this since space "curves", - near matter..
Trying understanding that property better, - is where the understanding of everything begins.
Ignoring understanding that property /connection better, - and still trying to understand nature can easy result in incoherent fantasies, not possible to adapt to reality.
Everything ---is --- connected, - - for example matter --- is --- connected to space.
We MUST at least try to understand how.
Our understanding MUST be without plenty contradictions and hence MUST be as streamlined as possible.
The first step is to reach a cohorent picture of the Universe as simple as possible; - if this is possible without violating physical laws (as the prevailing speculations does again and again and again) – it is a good sign.
10,000 scientist hunting the same fantasy and at the same time denying other possibilities (e.g; higgs fantasy, dark matter fantasy and plenty more),. is like 10,000 cows at the same place at a frozen lake..... (things can easy go VERY wrong) ( Therefore you never see 10,000 cows at the same place / lake) --- (only 10,000 orthodox scientist )
It is better to allow multifarious suggestions, - but unfortunately this is not always like orthodox mass brainwashed extreme fanatic religion works.
If a very simple claim such as; the curvature of space = absorbed space, - both can remove all gravity mysteries (such as; the cause of gravity, dark matter, dark energy, the 1 billion LY big hole etc…) and even implement these, so that these forms a synthesis, - this is also a good sign.
If the simple claim also and explain how we really can reach a deeper understanding of the very abstract expression “curvature of space” – it is also a good sign.
If the same simple claim can explain what really happens with space in the process where gravity is created due to speed of matter, - why and how this happen, - it is also a good sign, - especially if this (the secondary part of the theory) - easy can be proven ( the predicted orbital eccentricity of the Moon).
To pull out all this thread of the confusion “scientist” have mixed these into, can off course sometimes lead to wrong conclusion, - but my opinion is ; any mistake will almost correct them self, the more complete the achieved picture of the Universe we can reach, - simply because things MUST be coherent connected.
If our overall perspective is completely lost in the bush and if we even have no intension to reach an overall coherent framework, nothing will adapt to anything, and every understanding what can go wrong will most likely go wrong.
Last edited:
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Yet another rant, Bjarne.
You should not project your ignorance of science on scientists.
For example: The space we are talking about is a 'big nothing'. The something is those things that exist in space. Space is a way of labeling the positions of those things. It is a mathematical model that is chosen to fit out observations of the universe.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
This only demonstrates that the chain never went off, - but rather it really never was on.
Space can curve, - nothing cannot curve, - hence space cannot be nothing.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
How stupid: Here is an example of flat space-time: (x, y, z, it)
See it is nothing but symbols! It is nothing physical.
When you get to curved space-time, it is even more nothing: GR has space-time expressed as pseudo-Riemannian manifolds. Just math and math is 'nothing', i.e. not a physical something. We use this math to model physical objects.
One more time for the ignorant:
- Space-time is a mathematical construct.
- Physical things exist within space-time.
Last edited:
No, of course not there are excellent works on the subject.
Here is one of the more easily assessable.
- Status