Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

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.

That is also the doppler effect.

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.

I doubt you can muster that much speed difference between your head and your feet.

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.

You don't even understand your own explanations. If distances changed proportionally to time dilation, the net result would be unobservable. It is exacly because only one paramter changes that we observe these phenomena.

The fact is that you believe the wavelength have change in the spectre of light that have existed in billion of years.

It has nothing to do with the age. It has to do with the velocity difference. The redshift can also be observed from a nearby object speeding away from the observer.

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”.

But Bjarne, the wavelenght ISN'T the same. That is what we are observing.

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)

Then we wouldn't OBSERVE it. But we do.

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

Resistance against motion do not: “just disappear “ - “out in the blue” - when constant speed is reached.

No, it doesn't, because it never exists, constant motion or not. There is no resistance against motion. (We're coming full circle, now )

Hans

 

[Paulhoff]

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”.

Only space is expanding, not the matter in it. The earth is the same size that it has been for the last 4 billion years, and the atoms are the same size since they where first made, if not how would we know space has expanded.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

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

No not a load of anything, but just one more small piece that perfectly fits there where science is”cracking” or stumble over its own feeds. . I mean science in one and the same mouthful claims that energy can not disappear and at the same time contrary to that that this is possible, - when GR goes bla… bla …bla.. or bla bla… bla or if bla…bla … bla..
In the new theory there are not 127 possible bla bla bla contrary possibilities, but just one more piece that perfectly fits to a coherent picture....

That is also the doppler effect.

That cosmological redshift is the same as doppler effect, just demonstrate that you are totally lost regarding that question.
Doppler effect is caused by the motion and speed of the light-source and the receiver.
Cosmological redshift have nothing to do with the speed of the light sourse or the reciever, but only how long time the photons have existed and hence in that period been affected by the expanding universe.
Claiming “ it’s the same” is the same load of nonsense if claiming that horserace is the same as a quite comfortable cow party.

I doubt you can muster that much speed difference between your head and your feet.

More nonsense……
We are here talking about GR and how space at your head-level not bends as much as at your feed-level, due to the curvature of space.

You don't even understand your own explanations. If distances changed proportionally to time dilation, the net result would be unobservable. It is exactly because only one parameter changes that we observe these phenomena.

Right it is not directly observable and this is exactly why is NOT causing the Mercury orbit anomaly.

Denying fact gives you the option that you can accuse time dilation for Mercury’s orbit anomaly and for satellites orbit deviation, ignorant about that resistance against motion is the real cause..

Since you not at all know (or have the slightest idea) why there is resistance against motion, - for example in vacuum, - to accelerate a spacecraft, - how can you then possible take a step further and determinate that the resistance (you not at all have understood the basic / cause of) , - then suddenly “should” disappear, when constant speed is reached ? (!)

It is almost the same hopeless attempts that if you don’t know the cause / basic of why the cow gives milk, - you still try to predict why and when it suddenly should stops. - I mean even a cow would know the result can not surprisingly only be nonsense.

But well, - you already know that matter and space is connected, - hence you also “should know” that motion in space also means motion of space connected with that matter and that THIS of course not resistance free.
If you do not agree, give me one single reason to why it should be resistance free to set space in motion.

Only space is expanding, not the matter in it. The earth is the same size that it has been for the last 4 billion years, and the atoms are the same size since they where first made, if not how would we know space has expanded.

This is only a result of comfortable wishful lazy thinking to avoid facing the fact that the Universe is far more strange that you like to believe.

Everything expands proportional with the Universe, - or more exact expressed, - proportional with the space-stretch factor of space, - this is the case for the meter stick, - cows, - the farmers field, - and the Earth too.

If you do not agree, give me just one piece of evident that proves that distances inside matter is an exception, or that some forces are stronger that the expansion force of the Universe.

And this is what....

• the light spectre “expansion“ (cosmological redshift) shows.
• this is why there never is lost of energy, simple because the meter stick expands too.
• this is why Mars have a 28 km deep strange canyon
• this is why the Earth is cracking and expanding.
• this explain that the universe so-called dark energy acceleration is a nothing but a optical illusion.
• this explain that the Mercury orbit anomaly is not solved. The real cause is resistance against motion.
• that sooner or later the Earth must contract when a BigChrunch begins.
• this explain properly a lot more,- this is only a beginning.

 

[Paulhoff]

This is only a result of comfortable wishful lazy thinking to avoid facing the fact that the Universe is far more strange that you like to believe.

Everything expands proportional with the Universe, - or more exact expressed, - proportional with the space-stretch factor of space, - this is the case for the meter stick, - cows, - the farmers field, - and the Earth too.

Nope, this doesn't happen, word it anyway you want, still doesn't happen.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

Nope, this doesn't happen, word it anyway you want, still doesn't happen.

Paul

Try to ask you self, what are distances, compared to infinity.
Always (almost) nothing right?
Hard to imaging that billion of years cows was much relative “smaller”.
Better get use to it.

There are several broad hints that point to that direction….
You can deny believing, but the alternative is you have even greater mysteries to deal with for example the so called dark energy, - Where do you think that “energy” comes from? – Just out of the blue, exactly so like resistance disappear into the big blue. ????????

Furthermore the alternative is a fragmented incoherent picture of everything.

Be carefully not to make GR to a scientifically junkyard, where it is allowed to export all kind of poison and rubbish. –Øhhh, - too late it is already done.

 

[edd]

That cosmological redshift is the same as doppler effect, just demonstrate that you are totally lost regarding that question.
Doppler effect is caused by the motion and speed of the light-source and the receiver.
Cosmological redshift have nothing to do with the speed of the light sourse or the reciever, but only how long time the photons have existed and hence in that period been affected by the expanding universe.
Claiming “ it’s the same” is the same load of nonsense if claiming that horserace is the same as a quite comfortable cow party.

No, he's quite right. Now, I've at times myself said it's not quite like a doppler shift, and there are some differences between cosmological redshift and a classical doppler shift, but that's not to say it's not at some level fundamentally the same thing. The cosmological redshift can be seen as a continuously applied doppler shift, or it can be pictured as a result of an expansion of space. Both perspectives have their good and bad points, but both represent exactly the same physics (perhaps in an analogous way to different interpretations of quantum mechanics representing the same physics?).

See for example
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.4573v1

When you say

Cosmological redshift have nothing to do with the speed of the light sourse or the reciever, but only how long time the photons have existed and hence in that period been affected by the expanding universe.

I think you miss the fact that the speed of the source relative to the receiver is a function of the expansion of the universe. The time it takes the photons to get from there to here is similarly a function of this. The redshift itself is also not a function of just how long the photons have existed but when. What I'm trying to say is that you're saying it has nothing to do with one thing, and everything to do with another, when in fact it's a little bit more complicated than that.

 

[phunk]

Since you not at all know (or have the slightest idea) why there is resistance against motion, - for example in vacuum, - to accelerate a spacecraft, - how can you then possible take a step further and determinate that the resistance (you not at all have understood the basic / cause of) , - then suddenly “should” disappear, when constant speed is reached ? (!)

It is almost the same hopeless attempts that if you don’t know the cause / basic of why the cow gives milk, - you still try to predict why and when it suddenly should stops. - I mean even a cow would know the result can not surprisingly only be nonsense.

But well, - you already know that matter and space is connected, - hence you also “should know” that motion in space also means motion of space connected with that matter and that THIS of course not resistance free.
If you do not agree, give me one single reason to why it should be resistance free to set space in motion.

There is no resistance to motion in a vacuum. There is resistant to acceleration, it's called inertia.

If there was resistance to motion, all orbits would decay, planets would collapse into their stars, galaxies would fall into their central black holes, and we wouldn't be here discussing this.

 

[Paulhoff]

Try to ask you self, what are distances, compared to infinity.
Always (almost) nothing right?
Hard to imaging that billion of years cows was much relative “smaller”.
Better get use to it.

There are several broad hints that point to that direction….
You can deny believing, but the alternative is you have even greater mysteries to deal with for example the so called dark energy, - Where do you think that “energy” comes from? – Just out of the blue, exactly so like resistance disappear into the big blue. ????????

Furthermore the alternative is a fragmented incoherent picture of everything.

Be carefully not to make GR to a scientifically junkyard, where it is allowed to export all kind of poison and rubbish. –Øhhh, - too late it is already done.

What part of "word it anyway you want, still doesn't happen." don't you understand.

Read and learn........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Paul

 

[Mister Earl]

Didn't read the whole thread. I'm just stopping in to ask, is this another one of those "I don't understand <item>, therefore it is impossible, so listen to my baseless opinion." threads? Or does the OP have something concrete to share?

 

[Reality Check]

Didn't read the whole thread. I'm just stopping in to ask, is this another one of those "I don't understand <item>, therefore it is impossible, so listen to my baseless opinion." threads? Or does the OP have something concrete to share?

The OP has nothing to contribute.
Bjarne has so little knowledge of physics that he thinks that quantities can be assigned any units he wants, e.g. the Lorentz factor (a number) is an acceleration according to him .

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
  So far the answer is no !

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

 

[Bjarne]

Edd

Shortly..
The expanding of the Universe can’t be a “speed”, - since it happens everywhere. And this is what affects light too. – Off course you have also relative motion in the Universe, but this is a different story.

There is no resistance to motion in a vacuum. There is resistant to acceleration, it's called inertia.

If there was resistance to motion, all orbits would decay, planets would collapse into their stars, galaxies would fall into their central black holes, and we wouldn't be here discussing this.

Phunk
I can see is new in this thread.
To understand why I claim as I do, - and to understand that a opposite kinetic energy counteracts the resistance against motion, you’ll need to read this chapter and all the link too.

http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

 

[edd]

Bjarne, at any given distance the expansion is directly translatable to a recession velocity.

Why not read the article I posted above?

 

[wollery]

Bjarne, let me see if I can explain this in a way that an 8 year old could understand.

According to you it isn't just the Universe that's expanding, but the atoms themselves and the distances between them as well. You claim that this is happening at the same relative rate. In order to stop this from being blatantly obvious requires that the mass also be increasing by a proportional amount.

So let's take a concrete example. Light leaves a galaxy 1 billion light years away and travels towards Earth. As the light is emitted it has a wavelength of 1 metre, as measured by a standard ruler with a length of 1 metre. During its journey of 1 billion years the Universe between that galaxy and the Earth expands by 10%, so that by the time the light reaches the Earth it's actually travelled 1.1 billion light years. Now, the expansion of the Universe has also stretched that light by 10%, and it is now 1.1 metre in length. So let's measure it and see if that's right.

Well, in your model our standard 1 metre ruler has also expanded by 10% in the 1 billion years since the light left its galaxy, so when we take it to measure the wavelength of the light it measures the length as 1 metre, despite the fact that the expansion of the Universe has stretched the light! This is because the ruler has also been stretched by the same proportion.

The result is that, although the light has been stretched, we can't actually measure that stretching because our ruler has been affected to the same degree by the same stretching effect!

The end result is that by using your model, although the Universe is expanding, we can't measure it! In your model we would observe a static Universe. Of course, that would be an illusion, because the Universe is expanding, but we would be completely unaware of it.

The only way to correct this and have an observably expanding Universe is to have the expansion of the matter be slower than the expansion of the distances between galaxies. But this then leaves us with another problem - why is one expansion slower than the other?


Okay, I'm not sure that an 8 year old would understand that, but any sane, reasonably intelligent adult should.

 

[sol invictus]

The end result is that by using your model, although the Universe is expanding, we can't measure it!

Which means it's actually not expanding - it's just that Bjarne picked idiotically complicated coordinates to describe it with.

Okay, I'm not sure that an 8 year old would understand that, but any sane, reasonably intelligent adult should.

How about a sane, reasonably intelligent adult cow?

 

[wollery]

How about a sane, reasonably intelligent adult cow?

Holstein or Angus?

 

[erlando]

How about a sane, reasonably intelligent adult cow?

Moooo. MOOoo moo MOO mOooO moomoo MOOOO mooooo MOOO mmmoooOOO MOOO mooooooooo MoooMOOO. MOO. MooooMOOMOO mooooo MOOOOOooOOO mMooo.

There. I tried.

 

[Bjarne]

According to you it isn't just the Universe that's expanding, but the atoms themselves and the distances between them as well. You claim that this is happening at the same relative rate. In order to stop this from being blatantly obvious requires that the mass also be increasing by a proportional amount.

So let's take a concrete example. Light leaves a galaxy 1 billion light years away and travels towards Earth. As the light is emitted it has a wavelength of 1 metre, as measured by a standard ruler with a length of 1 metre. During its journey of 1 billion years the Universe between that galaxy and the Earth expands by 10%, so that by the time the light reaches the Earth it's actually travelled 1.1 billion light years. Now, the expansion of the Universe has also stretched that light by 10%, and it is now 1.1 metre in length. So let's measure it and see if that's right.

Well, in your model our standard 1 metre ruler has also expanded by 10% in the 1 billion years since the light left its galaxy, so when we take it to measure the wavelength of the light it measures the length as 1 metre, despite the fact that the expansion of the Universe has stretched the light! This is because the ruler has also been stretched by the same proportion.

The result is that, although the light has been stretched, we can't actually measure that stretching because our ruler has been affected to the same degree by the same stretching effect!

The only way to correct this and have an observably expanding Universe is to have the expansion of the matter be slower than the expansion of the distances between galaxies. But this then leaves us with another problem - why is one expansion slower than the other?

So far we both agree, yes this is what I claim.

You can not see by looking at the galaxies that the Universe expands. The main-trace is the EM-spectre ( I guess you know that).

But you have several more. - First at all logical thinking:

• Why should space between elementary particles not expand too? – There are no laws, and no evidence proving that not happens.
• What would happen with the Earth or a atom when a Big crunch would begin and the universe is smaller than a atom.
• How can you accept the possibility that photon energy slowly disappear out in the blue. HOW should that possible could happen?
• Etc...

You must feel that you are on thin ice.
And you must be carefully to accept anything as; - certain knowledge.
So far I understand you (only) point (question) is the 2 below:

The end result is that by using your model, although the Universe is expanding, we can't measure it! In your model we would observe a static Universe. Of course, that would be an illusion, because the Universe is expanding, but we would be completely unaware of it.

We are "unaware" of it.
If we did not know Cosmological Redshift, we would properly never had discover anything.

The only way to correct this and have an observably expanding Universe is to have the expansion of the matter be slower than the expansion of the distances between galaxies. But this then leaves us with another problem - why is one expansion slower than the other?

I also once thought that the expansion of matter should be slower.
But try to see Neal Adams very nice illustration. (There is a lot more wrong with science), these video can take you understanding further.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQSrsy9xg70
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOp8j6eOBlI&feature=channel
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8tsuZde7rU&feature=related
• And last, the most important. Take a look at the canyon on Mars. – Notice it is HUGE > HERE

I am sure that Adams is right that the Earth expands, (but I do not agree to all his assumptions)
Only the expanding Universe is strong enough to this possible can happen. I fully agree there is not force enough in convection.

And yes you question is good. Because WHY does then the Earth (and Mars) crack.
The answer is simple;
The universe is expanding proportional with its space-stretch-factor.

You are new at this thread, so let me first repeat:

The cause of gravity:
We know that space is expanding, and hence also that space have some kind of density (or a stretching property). This already known stretching property of space is enough to understand the nature of gravity. It’s not necessary to “invent” more unnecessary properties or expressions.
Consider that matter consumes / contract space. This would cause matter gradually to “thinning out” (or stretch) towards matter. And this is exactly what the old expression: “The curvature of space” - really mean.

So you can see that the expanding space and gravity affects one and the same property.
This means that space-time mean different stretch factor and comprehend both the expanding space and gravity. (For example when the universe was only the half size, times was double so fast than now) etc....

To understand the stretch factor inside the Earth, you must understand:

Matter will consume / contract space from both an inwards and an outwards direction. But because space towards an inwards direction (of a body) is gradually limited / “trapped” / encircled by matter, the inner space must be affected gradually stronger. This (combined with a deeper understanding of how mass attraction works “point 2 above”) leads to the conclusion that acceleration due to gravity (ADG) in a homogeneous mass must be stable (not decreasing) towards a central direction of a body. This should be easy to confirm by measuring-experiments of ADG towards the centre of (for example) a 200 ton homogeneous well define mass. (Central measurements with a borehole gravimeter ).

In the centre of the Earth space is stretching a tiny bit more than at the surface.
Therefore will that space stretch proportional more, due to the Universe expansion.
Mars is much smaller and will relative to the Earth only crack a fragment of that what applies for the Earth.

----

 

[Mister Earl]

Sounds to me like you're mistaking plate tectonics with something else, then mixing it all together in a big greasy vat of word salad.

If space expanding were causing the Earth to "crack", then why isn't the sun, a much, much larger object, showing any effects? Why aren't Jupiter and Saturn having any trouble holding together?

Lastly, how do you plan to test this hypothesis?

 

[dafydd]

Sounds to me like you're mistaking plate tectonics with something else, then mixing it all together in a big greasy vat of word salad.

If space expanding were causing the Earth to "crack", then why isn't the sun, a much, much larger object, showing any effects? Why aren't Jupiter and Saturn having any trouble holding together?

Lastly, how do you plan to test this hypothesis?

You can bet that the test will involve cows.

 

[Bjarne]

If space expanding were causing the Earth to "crack", then why isn't the sun, a much, much larger object, showing any effects?

Why aren't Jupiter and Saturn having any trouble holding together?

The Sun’s surface is plasma, such can’t crash, and the Sun is B I G
Jupiter and Saturn are Gasplanet, you can’t see the inner solid body. Gas can off course not crack.

Lastly, how do you plan to test this hypothesis?

Hmmmmm.
Good question.
Any suggestion ??
At least…
I think more and more people begin to doubt the subduction theory. This idea is a disparate conclusion. Gravity probe B, “should” now have proven this idea, - there are still no evidence.