Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Daylightstar]

...
Try instead to tell me where the theory I represent contradict observations.
I don’t mean contradict interpretations,
but where it contradict observation.

Please notice the difference.

It's rather about; your 'interpretations' contradicting observations.
But this has been explained to you extensively, in great detail.

 

[Bjarne]

It's rather about; your 'interpretations' contradicting observations.
But this has been explained to you extensively, in great detail.

Not at all

 

[Daylightstar]

Not at all

Actually, it's the central theme of this thread .......

 

[MRC_Hans]

Try instead to tell me where the theory I represent contradict observations.
I don’t mean contradict interpretations,
but where it contradict observation.

Even your own experiments, crappy as they are contradict your model.

Even your own model contradicts itself.

Try to actually learn some real science, and you will see.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Even your own experiments, crappy as they are contradict your model.

Even your own model contradicts itself.

Try to actually learn some real science, and you will see.

Hans

Crap not one single part…. If you believe so prove it…
I have not done "experiments" only measurements
The idea that dark matter is NOT matter, but misunderstood law of nature is still the "same"
And my friend this statement will be proven within few years..
It is so easy to do, and I am confident that there must be few percent normal (not higgs, dark matter or BB brian washed) humans here on Earth that maybe can see the light - one day.


You should start to ask yourself;
Which differences (except time rate) would there be if you could jump between 2 different space time realities?
If you can’t answer that, how can you pretend you understand relativity?

Next you should ask;
What in hell can possible justify that; cosmological redshift “should” be the exact same as Doppler Effect?
Every cow on Jens Peter Jensen's ploughed field knows that Doppler is caused by relative motion; - The so-called expanding Universe (which is not proven) is NOT understood as motion. So what make us believe we can make such “connection” – between motion and expansion, - simply just taken out of the total blue air ?

Every cow in any Universe knows that it is NEVER proven that ; cosmological redshift “should” cause the exact same influence as Doppler Effect , - NOT confirmed by any scientific method, - or what so ever, - but ONLY by some “scientists” desperate fantasy.

So this is where it all begins, - one man got the strange idea based on 100% pure speculation, - and suddenly the invention that the Universe started from NOTHING – is almost “proven”..

Finally ask yourself, how the Universe can expand when it is infinity ?
Every cow knows the Universe is infinity, how can infinity expand?
Many cows are shamed to live on the same planet as humans.

And one last thing, imaging how it would be if you could jump backwards in time, to a time 13 billion years ago, - and let us say gravity was 100 times stronger as today.
WHICH difference would there be between relativistic space deformation caused by gravity difference, and this you believe is cause by the so called expanding Universe ?
None right?
General relativity can cause the exact same phenomena..!
So why invent more

 

[Paul]

Crap not one single part…. If you believe so prove it…

As proof I offer all your own work.

I have not done "experiments" only measurements

'They may be crap, but don't you dare call them experiments.'

The idea that dark matter is NOT matter, but misunderstood law of nature is still the "same"

The idea that you think that makes any sense is laughable.

And my friend this statement will be proven within few years..

elephant banana compost heap toucan

It is so easy to do,

Go on then.

and I am confident that there must be few percent normal (not higgs, dark matter or BB brian washed) humans here on Earth that maybe can see the light - one day

So the type of scientist that you call normal is one that does not believe in observational evidence?

You should start to ask yourself;

Really, why is that then?

If you can’t answer that, how can you pretend you understand relativity?

You're funny.

Finally ask yourself, how the Universe can expand when it is infinity ?

Ask yourself why it can't.

Every cow knows the Universe is infinity,

How do they know this?

how can infinity expand?

By getting bigger.

Many cows are shamed to live on the same planet as humans.

Well they're quite welcome to get in their mighty cowships and leave our puny planet behind.

Whenever they're not part of a delicious chilli con bovino señor supremo galáctico, that is.

General relativity can cause the exact same phenomena..!

I'd be very interested in you ideas about how a theory causes anything.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Crap not one single part…. If you believe so prove it…

That your model is inconsistent with reality? Sure! One word: Thermodynamics.

All the other crap aside, your model assumes that a universal reference frame exists. It has been proved it doesn't.

And your model assumes some impossible energy transfers.

I have not done "experiments" only measurements

I would call your sand silo an experiment, but call it what you will, I don't give a damn.

You should start to ask yourself;
Which differences (except time rate) would there be if you could jump between 2 different space time realities?
If you can’t answer that, how can you pretend you understand relativity?

I have a better idea: Since you claim to understand relativity better than everybody else, why don't YOU answer those questions? What is your OWN answer?

Next you should ask;
What in hell can possible justify that; cosmological redshift “should” be the exact same as Doppler Effect?
Every cow on Jens Peter Jensen's ploughed field knows that Doppler is caused by relative motion; - The so-called expanding Universe (which is not proven) is NOT understood as motion. So what make us believe we can make such “connection” – between motion and expansion, - simply just taken out of the total blue air ?

Well, I suggest you actually read about it. It has been explained quite comprehensively in literature. .... You can read, can't you?

Every cow in any Universe knows that it is NEVER proven that ; cosmological redshift “should” cause the exact same influence as Doppler Effect , - NOT confirmed by any scientific method, - or what so ever, - but ONLY by some “scientists” desperate fantasy.

Well, I suggest you actually read about it. It has been explained quite comprehensively in literature. .... You can read, can't you? That should give you at least one advantage over cows.

Finally ask yourself, how the Universe can expand when it is infinity ?
Every cow knows the Universe is infinity, how can infinity expand?

I already explained that to you. .... You can read, can't you? That should give you at least one advantage over cows.

And one last thing, imaging how it would be if you could jump backwards in time, to a time 13 billion years ago, - and let us say gravity was 100 times stronger as today.

How should it be a 100 times stronger?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Einstein is reported to have said that the cosmological constant was his greatest blunder. He was wrong - the cosmological constant may turn out to be his one of his greatest success since it could explain the observation of dark energy.
All what we know and what Einstein knew is that “something” must counteract gravity of the Universe otherwise we would right know be in a process of a BigChunch. This is why the Cosmological Constant was invented.

But we DON’T KNOW what that “something” (that counteract) is.
Matter of the Universe could very well be limit.
That must mean that there is a COG / (center of gravity.)
We could be orbiting that COG exactly like stars in galaxies, - galaxies in clusters etc..
THAT (the centripetal force) could pretty beautiful describe why a BigChunch not happens now, and why the cosmological constant is Einstein's greatest blunder, simply because it not is necessary.

Regarding the question of dark energy

First at all;
cosmological redshift = gravitionel redshift.

Secondly:
How can you know that the ruler always is exact the same relative comparable size?
What do you know about how; “matter and space is woven together” - and how these affect each other ?
Does change (deformation) of space ALSO change the size of ruler? –..... ( let me answer you don’t know anything, - just admit it. )

Science is not religion with a set of dogma that never changes.

So why you are then so single tracked?
Is single tracked opinions not exactly what religion and dogma is about?

There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.
-- J. Robert Oppenheimer

 

[Daylightstar]

...
There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.
-- J. Robert Oppenheimer

^{Bolding by Daylightstar}
Your conduct in this thread would suggest that you disagree with this.

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang

A BigChunch (caused due to extreme speed & gravity) could cause the exact same phenomena's as described above.

You are deluded or just unable to read simple English (Big Bang is not "BigChunch").
The evidence shows that the universe is expanding not contracting.
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.

P.S. Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang
First asked 21 October 2011
I do hope that you have 'loads' of them otherwise you will seem to be lying.

 

[Reality Check]

Every cow knows the Universe is infinity, how can infinity expand?
Many cows are shamed to live on the same planet as humans.

Danish cows must be especially stupid because they have no idea what infinity is.
Infinity is the concept of having no bounds.
Hilbert's Hotel is a good way to understand infintty.
This hotel has an infinite number of rooms. It starts with every room occupied.
So what happens if a new guest arrives? The hotel clerk does not tell the guest that the hotel is full because this is impossible (the number of rooms has no bounds). The clerk merely asks every guest to move to the next room. This frees up a room for the new guest.

What happens if an infinite number of guests arrives?
The clerk can still accommodate then all.

What happens if an infinite number of buses arrive each containing an infinite number of guests?
The clerk can still accommodate then all.

As I explained before - there is no problem with an infinite expanding universe (except your ignorance).

You displaying abysmal ignorance will not change the scientific evidence.
The ignorance in this case is your delusion that a finite universe means a finite number of points in it. You are a couple of thousand of years out of date. Euclid's Elements (~300 BC) was the primary book that described the geometry we now call Euclidean geometry upon which all science (including GR) is based..
In Euclidean geometry any pair of points have an infinite number of points in between them. To be more exact: you can place a point between any 2 points, a point between each of the resulting 2 pairs and continue forever.

 

[Reality Check]

First at all;
cosmological redshift = gravitionel redshift.

First at all;
cosmological redshift is not gravitational redshift.

Secondly:
How can you know that the ruler always is exact the same relative comparable size?

Secondly:
How can you write such nonsense other than from a wish to demonstrate your ignorance?
What ruler?
The same size relative to what?

This makes it look like you have the fantasy that astronomers use giant rulers to measure the distance to objects such as stars or galaxies !
They do not. One of the many techniques they use (there are over 20 in the cosmic distance ladder) is Type Ia light curves. This is easy to understand

• Luminosity of objects falls off as 1/r^2. If you can determine the actual luminosity of an object and compare it to the observed luminosity then you can determine the distance to the object.
• We observe Type Ia supernovae that happen at known distances (obtained by one of the other 20 methods). The light from them varies in a way that tells us their actual luminosity. We can then use the Type Ia light curves from further away supernovae to measure the distance to them.

 

[MRC_Hans]

First at all;
cosmological redshift = gravitionel redshift.

No. Gravitational red shift occurs when light is moving a light wave is moving from a high gravitational field to a lower. In other words, when light moves 'upwards'. We receive light from different stars with different red shifts, depending on their distance from us, not depending on their gravitational field. Of course, for very massive stars, we need to factor in the gravitational red shift when calculating the cosmological red shift, but that is no big deal.

Secondly:
How can you know that the ruler always is exact the same relative comparable size?
What do you know about how; “matter and space is woven together” - and how these affect each other ?

How do YOU know all the stuff you claim? If you want to know why science claims what it does, educate yourself. Read about how we know.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Matter of the Universe could very well be limit.

It could be limited, but there is no reason to think it is.

That must mean that there is a COG / (center of gravity.)

If the universe is not infinite, then it will have a centre.

We could be orbiting that COG exactly like stars in galaxies, - galaxies in clusters etc..

We could be, but we don't. Matter in the universe is receding in all directions. Even if you claim that cosmological red shift is caused by something different, the conclusion is that the different parts of the universe are moving in random directions. We do NOT observe any kind of circling motion.

And here is the crunch, Bjarne: IF the universe is not infinite, and if it is not expanding, then we should be able to observe it all.

- If you reject cosmological red shift, it follows that we must be able to see to the borders of the universe.

- This also means we must be able to see the centre of the universe.

- Even if you reject cosmological red shift, Doppler shift remains a fact, so the parts circling the centre would show various red and blue shifts, depending on where they are in their orbit. Just like the planets of the solar system seem to sometimes recede from Earth, and sometimes to approach us.

However, all this is NOT what can be observed. Therefore you model is wrong.

Bjarne, I have now (yet again) taken on me to explain, in simple and easy to understand terms, why you are wrong. You can ignore this, but you can't claim that I didn't explain it.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into a point at the Big Bang?

The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big Bang. But the observable Universe was concentrated into a point. The distinction between the whole Universe and the part of it that we can see is important. In the figure below, two views of the Universe are shown: on the left for 1 Gyr after the Big Bang, and on the right the current Universe 13 Gyr after the Big Bang (assuming that the Hubble constant is Ho = 50 km/sec/Mpc and the Universe has the critical density.)
(see web page for images)
The size of the box in each view is 78 billion light years. The green circle on the the right is the part of the Universe that we can currently see. In the view on the left, this same part of the Universe is shown by the green circle, but now the green circle is a tiny fraction of the 78 billion light year box, and the box is an infinitesimal fraction of the whole Universe. If we go to smaller and smaller times since the Big Bang, the green circle shrinks to a point, but the 78 billion light year box is always full, and it is always an infinitesimal fraction of the infinite Universe.

Note that the black dots represent galaxies, and the galaxies do not expand even though the separation between galaxies grows with time.

 

[Bjarne]

Danish cows must be especially stupid because they have no idea what infinity is.
Infinity is the concept of having no bounds.
Hilbert's Hotel is a good way to understand infintty.
This hotel has an infinite number of rooms. It starts with every room occupied.
So what happens if a new guest arrives? The hotel clerk does not tell the guest that the hotel is full because this is impossible (the number of rooms has no bounds). The clerk merely asks every guest to move to the next room. This frees up a room for the new guest.

What happens if an infinite number of guests arrives?
The clerk can still accommodate then all.

What happens if an infinite number of buses arrive each containing an infinite number of guests?
The clerk can still accommodate then all.

As I explained before - there is no problem with an infinite expanding universe (except your ignorance).

In Denmark intelligent people & cows call such; snik snak.
Try also to translate; en sludder for en sladder.
I think you will find such is not science.

 

[Bjarne]

You are deluded or just unable to read simple English (Big Bang is not "BigChunch").

A BigChunch was the cause of the BigBang
I am not alone, - many believe so
But not many have understood how these phenomena possible could be connected.
How differcult can it be ?, - ONLY > exstreme speed > exstreme gravity can cause it to happen.
But well the world wants to be cheated, and believe that it all popped up from NOTHING. - 1 single cow brain cell, even if it has been dead in 2648954 billion years, know this is rubbish. NOTHING comes from NOTHING

First at all;
The same size relative to what?

The size relative to the size in a different time-space
Is 2 rulers (from the same factory) the exact same "comparable size, when one is deep inside a gravitionel field and another not?

Relative comparable size (due to extreme gravity change) is the cause of the illusion that the Universe expands.

This makes it look like you have the fantasy that astronomers use giant rulers to measure the distance to objects such as stars or galaxies

Why do you belive time is ticking slower deeper inside a gravitional field?

One again try to imaging the difference you would see if you could jump between 2 different space-time realities (caused by gravity)..
You would discover that sizes never are comparable the same, - this is how the influence of gravity (general relativity) can fool you to believe the Universe is expanding
Gravity (and size of matter) is changing,(sometime contracting and sometimes stretching) and that's it.

 

[Bjarne]

No. Gravitational red shift occurs when light is moving a light wave is moving from a high gravitational field to a lower. In other words, when light moves 'upwards'. Hans

Exactamente, and notice time is ticking fatser on the way out of the Gravitional field. – Now imaging I , deep inside a gravitional field will send you this meassage - . - . -
On my clock it will take 1 second.
Your (further away “up”) recive it but it took 2 second at your clock.
If you ´will send the “same” meassage to me, it will be -.-.- , because the same process in yours relatity take less time.
This is why you will be a victim for the illustion that something strange have happen to MY signal, - the fact is that something is different in yours relaity, and this is time, as well as the same process in yours relatity take less time compared to my reality.
Once agian, try to imaging how realitiy diffrencies would look like, if could jump betwenn them.

We receive light from different stars with different red shifts, depending on their distance from us, not depending on their gravitational field. Of course, for very massive stars, we need to factor in the gravitational red shift when calculating the cosmological red shift, but that is no big deal.

Imaging that gravity of the Universe was 10 times larger 10 billion years ago.
A photon (and the EMM specter of it) “ a time stamp from the past” started its journey, but when it finally reached your, - your clock and any process was now 10 times faster. – Failing to get the time-factor (and thereby GR) included in the “expanding Universe” madness, - is the rood to all evil.

How do YOU know all the stuff you claim?

Cow logic + Coherence.

If you want to know why science claims what it does, educate yourself. Read about how we know.

Ohhh Yeehh maaaan, or be a sect member of the new Russian reborn Jesus in Sirbira right ?

My advise to you Hans ...

• Never accept what the majority BELIVE is the holy truth.
• ONLY accept hard evidence.
• Don’t be naïve.
• Give coherence a change.
• Use your OWN brain.
• Or , - get lost in the completely incoherent fragmented “science” watering down with plenty of speculation.

 

[Bjarne]

And here is the crunch, Bjarne: IF the universe is not infinite, and if it is not expanding, then we should be able to observe it all.

Make yourself clear..

- If you reject cosmological red shift,

I do not.
Extreme speed = Extreme gravity.
Extreme gravity = extreme absorbed space.
Or if you prefer = a Extreme deep space vacuum.
Next is BAAAAAAAANG
When space consuming matter is released from the strong nuclear force, a “gravitionel wave” will spread in billions of years.
In that process “absorbed space-density” is released.
This is causing both space and matter to SHRINK.
And at the same time it is causing Gravity from a previous Universe to disappear.
Here is the whole key to understand WHAT the expanding Universe REALLY is about.

it follows that we must be able to see to the borders of the universe.

Well tell me how many billion years does it take to speed the Sun up to almost c, (extreme speed) and what would happen to it?
Would it always be a shining stars in that process?
Anyway I think a BigChunch is beyond our imagination....
For example, how many time would gravity increase 10 times ? - 100 times ? 3000 times ? or 30.000 times ?
What about black holes?
Would the stars be ripped apart? - when ?
How long time would it take before the strong neclear force was outplayed ?

This also means we must be able to see the centre of the universe.

I too believe this could be possible, (if the size not is too big)
Notice we can only see 13,7 billion years backwards.
In a BigChunch we shall also expect extreme heat, exactly as predicted in the prevailing theory. So the Universe was probably not transparent the first period after the BigBang (the previous Universe was exploding)
What about this; http://www.newscientist.com/article...in-space-is-1-billion-light-years-across.html

Even if you reject cosmological red shift…

I don’t – but the cause is misunderstood, - it is the exact same as gravitionel redshift..

Doppler shift remains a fact, so the parts circling the centre would show various red and blue shifts, depending on where they are in their orbit. Just like the planets of the solar system seem to sometimes recede from Earth, and sometimes to approach us.

Right, but stil; - how big is the Universe?
Furthermore can we see the “opposite side” (one day) where the motion must be opposite ?

However, all this is NOT what can be observed. Therefore you model is wrong.

Size matter…

Bjarne, I have now (yet again) taken on me to explain, in simple and easy to understand terms, why you are wrong. You can ignore this, but you can't claim that I didn't explain it.

You have done NOTHING, except protected your own little Universe full of contradictions, silly / nuts ideas (without any earth connection) and without any coherent at all. Impossible to be supported by any laws of nature, for example because no laws can get the Universe into a dot, or get it about from the dot.

 

[Reality Check]

A BigChunch was the cause of the BigBang
I am not alone, - many believe so
...snipped gibberish...

Wrong. No thinks that the Big Crunch came before the BIg Bang.
There are theories about a cyclic universe but they do not involve a Big Crunch (the actual crunch is avoided in them).

We are currently in an universe expanding after a Big Bang: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

The size relative to the size in a different time-space
Is 2 rulers (from the same factory) the exact same "comparable size, when one is deep inside a gravitionel field and another not?
....

Total gibberish.
No rulers are used to measure cosmological distances.

Why do you belive time is ticking slower deeper inside a gravitional field?

Because it is measured!
You seem determined to display your ignorance yet again but maybe you will read and understand this:
Gravitational time dilation

The existence of gravitational time dilation was first confirmed directly by the Pound–Rebka experiment.

One again try to imaging the difference you would see if you could jump between 2 different space-time realities (caused by gravity)..

and more gibberish.