Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

That's funny because I did answer your question:

ZERO.

First, I have no idea how you could be proven right since you have no actual theory.

Second , one way or another you refuse to provide the evidence necessary to explain your hypothesis or prove your point. Therefore you are either a coward (because you refuse to prove your theory) or a liar (because you have no point), either way.

Or you have misunderstood the basic of the nature of space, > that the curvature of space = stretching space, - and hence the exactly the same space property responsible for the expanding Universe..

PS!
So you would not feel you self stupid if I was right (?) This is exactly what I thought.

 

[Paulhoff]

Coward ?
Right this is what you are, since you "forgot" to answer the question:
How stupid + rotten would you feel you self, on a scale from 1 to 10 when central measurement proves I am right.

Show me the math.

Paul

 

[Belz...]

Or you have misunderstood the basic of the nature of space, > that the curvature of space = stretching space, - and hence the exactly the same space property responsible for the expanding Universe..

Blah, blah, blah. Are you planning to provide evidence, or are you simply going to proclaim victory, like so many other Gallileo wannabes ?

So you would not feel you self stupid if I was right (?) This is exactly what I thought.

Of course I wouldn't, because so far it does seem that, if you ARE right, it would be by random chance.

Unless, of course, you'd care to actually, you know, prove what you're saying.

 

[Reality Check]

"Bended space is Contracted Space"
Curved space is not contracted space
First Asked 11 November 2009

 

[Bjarne]

"Bended space is Contracted Space"
Curved space is not contracted space
First Asked 11 November 2009

The Curvature of space = Stretching Space
Matter = Contracted space.

 

[Bjarne]

Higgs…

Dark Matter…

Parallel Universes

Gravity disappears into unknown dimensions !!

Up to 11 or was it 21 dimension exists “properly”

Resistances against motion (that applies to acceleration) does suddenly disappear (out in the blue) when constant speed is reached.

Distances between astronomic bodies are not affected by the expanding space “because” gravity is stronger that the expansive space force..

 

[erlando]

And yet you have not brought forward one iota of evidence against any of those scientific claims.

I'm still waiting for you to show us the flaw you so obviously have found in the standard model. But I guess your cow math is not up to it?

Actually I think you're probably the most arrogant person I've ever had the displeasure of becoming aware of.

 

[Reality Check]

The Curvature of space = Stretching Space
Matter = Contracted space.

The Curvature of space = Curving Space and Curved space is not contracted space.
Matter = Matter. Contracted space has no mass.

 

[Belz...]

Bjarne, laughing at something does not make that thing false.

But good luck with that.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped...

That is quite a display of your usual ignorance of science, Bjarne.

Science:

• Higgs boson
• Dark Matter
• Parallel Universes (Many-worlds_interpretation of QM).
• Gravity disappears into unknown dimensions.
• Up to 11 or was it 21 dimension are the basis of string theory.
• Special relativity.
  Maybe this is what you mean by your "Resistances against motion (that applies to acceleration)" gibberish.
• Distances between astronomic bodies are affected by the expanding space. It is not measurable because gravity is stronger locally than the expansive space force.

​

But then what else can we expect from a person who thinks that physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement? E.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass. He ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units or acceleration.​

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009

(from The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads)​

 

[Bjarne]

That is quite a display of your usual ignorance of science, Bjarne.

Science:

• Higgs boson
• Dark Matter
• Parallel Universes (Many-worlds_interpretation of QM).
• Gravity disappears into unknown dimensions.
• Up to 11 or was it 21 dimension are the basis of string theory.
• Special relativity.
  Maybe this is what you mean by your "Resistances against motion (that applies to acceleration)" gibberish.
• Distances between astronomic bodies are affected by the expanding space. It is not measurable because gravity is stronger locally than the expansive space force.

And is someone do not belive, call 112
Ask for the blue car.
Amen

 

[Reality Check]

And is someone do not belive, call 112
Ask for the blue car.
Amen

And is someone do is ignorant, call 999
Ask for the red car.
Amen.

(I can spout gibberish as well !)

 

[Bjarne]

Light (photons) that are reaching Earth after travelling billion of years, - the EM-spectre have become redshift.

This means that photons must be losing energy due to cosmological redshift (!)

But energy can’t be lost, - so where is that “lost of photon-energy”?

Just one more broad hint pointing to the same direction> Distances too are relative; this will solve this old problem too.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Light (photons) that are reaching Earth after travelling billion of years, - the EM-spectre have become redshift.

This means that photons must be losing energy due to cosmological redshift (!)

But energy can’t be lost, - so where is that “lost of photon-energy”?

No. They are just not able to couple all their energy to the receptor because the spot they were emitted from is receeding from the receptor. Same is happening if you listen to the horn of a car as it passes you. When it approaches, you need to add the energy of the closing speed, hence higher frequency. When it has passed, you have to subtract it, hence lower frequency.

It is called the Doppler effect.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

Light (photons) that are reaching Earth after travelling billion of years, - the EM-spectre have become redshift.

This means that photons must be losing energy due to cosmological redshift (!)

But energy can’t be lost, - so where is that “lost of photon-energy”?

General Relativity is the theory that describes cosmological redshift. Energy is not known to be conserved in GR except in the limit where it becomes Special Relativity (and then further limits to classical mechanics).

As to where the energy goes, there are a couple of options

• It appears as gravitational energy.
• It simply vanishes (after all if energy is not conserved it can vanish!).

See:
Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity? (warning - contains real mathematics!)

Energy is Not Conserved

Sci.astro (1988)

I.17 Since energy is conserved, where does the energy of redshifted
photons go? [1998-12-03
The energy of a photon is given by E = hc/lambda, where h is Planck's
constant, c is the speed of light, and lambda is its wavelength. The
cosmological redshift indicates that the wavelength of a photon
increases as it travels over cosmological distances in the Universe.
Thus, its energy decreases.

One of the basic conservation laws is that energy is conserved. The
decrease in the energy of redshifted photons seems to violate that
law. However, this argument is flawed. Specifically, there is a flaw
in assuming Newtonian conservation laws in general relativistic
situations. To quote Peebles (_Principles of Physical Cosmology_,
1995, p. 139):

Where does the lost energy go? ... The resolution of this
apparent paradox is that while energy conservation is a good
local concept ... and can be defined more generally in the
special case of an isolated system in asymptotically flat space,
there is not a general global energy conservation law in general
relativity theory.

In other words, on small scales, say the size of a cluster of
galaxies, the notion of energy conservation is a good one. However,
on the size scales of the Universe, one can no longer define a
quantity E_total, much less a quantity that is conserved.

 

[Paulhoff]

Light (photons) that are reaching Earth after travelling billion of years, - the EM-spectre have become redshift.

This means that photons must be losing energy due to cosmological redshift (!)

But energy can’t be lost, - so where is that “lost of photon-energy”?

Just one more broad hint pointing to the same direction> Distances too are relative; this will solve this old problem too.

If blue and red shift didn't happen, radar guns wouldn't work.

Now go and read some real science books.

Paul

 

[dafydd]

Light (photons) that are reaching Earth after travelling billion of years, - the EM-spectre have become redshift.

This means that photons must be losing energy due to cosmological redshift (!)

But energy can’t be lost, - so where is that “lost of photon-energy”?

Just one more broad hint pointing to the same direction> Distances too are relative; this will solve this old problem too.

Please go away come back when you have learned some basic physics,this is a waste of time and bandwidth.

 

[Bjarne]

No. They are just not able to couple all their energy to the receptor because the spot they were emitted from is receeding from the receptor. Same is happening if you listen to the horn of a car……….etc…

It is called the Doppler effect.

Wrong, doppler effectis a different phenomena, - I am talking about Cosmological Redshift, and it is mainly due to that we know that the universe is expanding and how much.

Energy is not known to be conserved in GR except in the limit where it becomes Special Relativity (and then further limits to classical mechanics).

And that’s in fact a problem, because this then “should” mean that the law of nature are different at your head than at your feed.

Accepting that distances (everywhere) are changing proportional to time dilation, will solve that problem too,- hence all the law of nature will always be the same.

As to where the energy goes, there are a couple of options

• It appears as gravitational energy.
• It simply vanishes (after all if energy is not conserved it can vanish!).

Nothing but unacceptable speculation, I know that, - you know that too.

The fact is that you believe the wavelength have change in the spectre of light that have existed in billion of years.
You don’t see that distances (the yardstick) have changed too, therefore the wavelength is always still the same, - also even though that distance (the yardstick) have “expanded”.

What I mean, we believe that once the size of the universe was only a fragment of a millimetre.
This could be VERY wrong and "right". Yes the Universe was once "smaller" BUT the yardstick would still be a yardstick, to any time, and doesn’t matter where. (also "theoretically" when the Universe only would only be 1 mm big)

Distances are relative and equal-proportional to the size of the Universe, - to all time.

Of the same reason the Mercury orbit anomaly is NOT solved.
Simply because of distances (the yardstick) by Mercury is simply a bit longer than here, - so even though time is a bit slower by Mercury, everything would look exactly "normally" from here.

The Mercury orbit anomaly is caused by resistance against motion.
Mercury is about 3 km closer to the Sun than we believe.
This is how Mercury gain kinetic energy to overcome that kinetic lost it have due to resistance against motion.
Resistance against motion do not: “just disappear “ - “out in the blue” - when constant speed is reached.

 

[erlando]

And just as you think a thread has been laid to rest here comes another load of nonsense.

 

[dafydd]

And just as you think a thread has been laid to rest here comes another load of nonsense.

It was funny,now it's just boring.