Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Reality Check]

I think you will find such is not science.

I think you will find such is your ignorance of what infinity is and how it acts.
Infinity is the concept of having no bounds.
Hilbert's Hotel is a good way to understand infinity.

 

[Reality Check]

What about this; http://www.newscientist.com/article...in-space-is-1-billion-light-years-across.html

What about that display of your continuing ignorance:

Don''t forget your ignorance that the "big huge empty hole (1 Billion LY)" has nothing to do with existence of the Big Bang. It is a possible feature of the evolution of the universe after the Big Bang.

It is interesting because it may be a cause of the CMB cold spot but the Rudnick et al.[7] paper has yet to be confirmed and further analysis has case doubts on the voids existence

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang
First asked 21st October 2011 (6 days and counting)

 

[Daylightstar]

...

• 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.

Hmm interesting. Hard evidence, not being naive and coherence.

You have identified these problems in all your ramblings beautifully.
Well done!

 

[Daylightstar]

...imaging ... imaging ...
Imaging ...

Imagine, imagine, imagine.

It's tragically funny if you have to resort to imagination so often.

Imagine you were a fairy and you could fly, fly away ......

 

[steenkh]

In Denmark intelligent people & cows call such; snik snak.

Intelligent people do not regard Hilbert's Hotel as "snik snak", so what does this tell about cow's and your intelligence?

 

[MRC_Hans]

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, kindly keep other Danes out of this. You have no right to embarrass us all.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

The Big Crunch is one thesis. You are certainly not among those who understand it.

How differcult can it be ?,

I don't know, Bjarne. How difficult can it be for you to use a spell-checker?

- ONLY > exstreme speed > exstreme gravity can cause it to happen.

No, that is in fact complete nonsense. The problem to understand is why a Big Crunch does NOT happen. This is why we have this Dark Energy theory: There must be something that holds the universe apart. If it was only momentum form the Big Bang, the universe would have started to collapse long ago. (Even faster if your silly RR was true).

And, as I have told you many times, there is not energy in the universe to accelerate everything to relativistic speeds.

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

Gibberish.

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?

Irrelevant.

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

What causes this extreme gravity change?

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.

Gibberish.

Hans

 

[Daylightstar]

...
How do YOU know all the stuff you claim? ...

...
Cow logic + Coherence.
...

No Bjarne, the correct answer is that you do not actually know all the stuff you claim.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Bjarne, use a spell-checker, for crying out loud. One thing is that your English is what it is, but all these silly typos make you look even more foolish. I recommend you to use the Mozilla Firefox Browser; it comes with a spell checker.

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.

I hope you realize that you need a very extreme field of gravity to have a perceptible dime dilation. Your doubling of time would require you to sit at the centre of a super-massive star.

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.

No, I will not be the victim of any illusion. I will simply be able to observe the fact that there is gravitational time dilation.

Once agian, try to imaging how realitiy diffrencies would look like, if could jump betwenn them.

EHr...? If you talk about jumping to a reality where time was dilated 100% by gravity as you mention above, I suspect I would feel very flat.

Imaging that gravity of the Universe was 10 times larger 10 billion years ago.

Why should I imagine that? How should the gravity have been 10 times larger?

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.

No, no, no. First of all, what on Earth makes you think the time factor has NOT been included? Secondly, for that model to work, for gravity to have been that much higher, things must have been moving faitly close to the speed of light back then and must, in the meantime, have slowed down to a near halt. What could have stopped it? Where did that enormous amount of energy come from.

Your idea is completely bizarre.

Cow logic + Coherence.

Well, cow logic might explain a lot.

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.

Instead I should accept what an uneducated fool claims as the holy truth, right?

ONLY accept hard evidence.

Ahh right. So I can safely ignore all you say, since you have not presented one shred of evidence. Right, no worries, I'm already doing that.

Don’t be naïve.

Don't worry, I won't. I can see how badly that works for you.

Give coherence a change.

That is one for you to follow yourself.

Use your OWN brain.

That I can't recommend for you, I'm afraid.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

Imaging that gravity of the Universe was 10 times larger 10 billion years ago.

No one has to imagine this. Scientists have already thought about the gravitational constant G changing with time (gravity of the Universe changing). They have already looked for signs that this happened, e.g. the dynamics of galaxies in galactic clusters changing.
They have found no sign of G changing by 10 times.
So forget about your fantasies and return to the real universe, Bjarne !

 

[Bjarne]

The Big Crunch is one thesis. You are certainly not among those who understand it.

Off course I do not accept the current version, since RR is ignored.

What causes this extreme gravity change?

Extreme speed, when matter is collapsing in a BigChunch.

I don't know, Bjarne. How difficult can it be for you to use a spell-checker?

Exactamente is Spanish, - it means exactly.

Bjarne
ONLY > extreme speed > extreme gravity can cause it to happen
Hans
No, that is in fact complete nonsense.
The problem to understand is why a Big Crunch does NOT happen.
This is why we have this Dark Energy theory: There must be something that holds the universe apart. If it was only momentum form the Big Bang, the universe would have started to collapse long ago. (Even faster if your silly RR was true).

In this theory the universe is a limit size of matter in orbit.
You know how the centripetal force works I believe.
So you don’t need the invention; dark energy or the cosmological constant.

Furthermore the Universe is already in a process that;

1. Resists motion (RR), whereby a BigChunch is in SLOW process all the time
2. Wherebe matter speed up
3. Whereby the centripetal get stronger, and throw matter further outwards.
4. whereby gravity get stronger and pull matter further inwards.

We must start all over again to get it right.

And, as I have told you many times, there is not energy in the universe to accelerate everything to relativistic speeds.

Speed can go mad when gravity goes mad, and when gravity goes mad speed goes mad.
This is a self-perpetuating process.
The process is already in (slowly) process also right now.

Furthermore when gravity goes mad also the strong force will increase (we have been trough how gravity and the strong force is connected, - month ago) .

Furthermore heat will also go mad.. And finally BAAANGGG exactly why also Supernovas explodes.

I hope you realize that you need a very extreme field of gravity to have a perceptible dime dilation. Your doubling of time would require you to sit at the centre of a super-massive star.

I am fully aware of that, - NOTHING can stop the process I just describe above, whereby gravity in the end MUTS challenge the strong force, and the result is billion of supernovas at almost the same time.

No, I will not be the victim of any illusion. I will simply be able to observe the fact that there is gravitational time dilation.

Right, but not only time is comparable different.
Different time-rate is the only way we can measure that something is different, but this doesn’t mean yours ruler is the “same” everywhere.
It MUST stretch and shrink when space does.

Why should I imagine that?

Why not ?

How should the gravity have been 10 times larger?

Speed increase = gravity increase, - and gravity increase = speed increase = speed increase = gravity increase etc....etc.....etc....

No, no, no. First of all, what on Earth makes you think the time factor has NOT been included?

Because of the “expanding space” speculation is “a half wind” – Time-rate is part of the game in the theory I represent, but NOT in the prevailing incoherent speculation.. ( the so called expanding Universe)..

Secondly, for that model to work, for gravity to have been that much higher,

things must have been moving faitly close to the speed of light back then and must, in the meantime, have slowed down to a near halt.

"Halt" is German and means; - STOP or I shut you.
Mozilla have a good spell checker.

But to the track - YES.

What could have stopped it?

I too believe BigBang (the exploding previous Universe, was so extreme that matter simply (perhaps) dissolved.
At least the strong force (interaction) was outplayed by gravity, thereby could absorbed space not be held together, and lost of gravity happen relative quickly.
If matter, - (plasma) - have surveyed it would orbit slower and slower due to the lost of gravity) and off course also be blown in all directions.

Where did that enormous amount of energy come from?

Energy of the Universe is NOT stable since speed is NOT stable.
The strong force is MUCH stronger right before a Bigbang.

The stronger / strong force should mean that supernovas from the earlier Universe are more powerful, - Hence I tried to Google bright supernovas, and again BINGO, - for example check out this;

Why the early universe had more of the brighter type Ia supernovae remains a mystery. Source
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12745-brighter-supernovae-make-dark-energy-even-murkier.html

 

[Paul]

Off course I do not accept the current version, since RR is ignored.

No-one asked if you accepted it, but do you understand it?

Extreme speed, when matter is collapsing in a BigChunch.

What causes the extreme speed?

Exactamente is Spanish, - it means exactly.

Bien hecho. Ahora trate de usar un corrector ortográfico para producir una frase coherente en Inglés.

In this theory the universe is a limit size of matter in orbit.

What theory?

You know how the centripetal force works I believe.

Grow up.

So you don’t need the invention; dark energy or the cosmological constant.

You do know that one is a version of the other, don't you?

Resists motion (RR), whereby a BigChunch is in SLOW process all the time

I don't suppose there's any evidence for your nonsense yet?

Wherebe matter speed up

Whereby the centripetal get stronger, and throw matter further outwards.

whereby gravity get stronger and pull matter further inwards.

Those all appear to be meaningless, context-free, scienceless poppycock.

We must start all over again to get it right.

You most certainly must.

Speed can go mad when gravity goes mad, and when gravity goes mad speed goes mad.

Circular nonsense.

This is a self-perpetuating process.

It's also complete cobblers.

Furthermore when gravity goes mad also the strong force will increase (we have been trough how gravity and the strong force is connected, - month ago) .

I think you mean that you failed to understand anything about fundamental interactions.

Furthermore heat will also go mad.. And finally BAAANGGG exactly why also Supernovas explodes.

Well I'm certainly glad you've simplified all that.

Right, but not only time is comparable different

Do you actually have a point, or are you obsessed with rulers?

Why not ?

Because it's pointless?

Speed increase = gravity increase, - and gravity increase = speed increase = speed increase = gravity increase

= balderdash = hogwash = mumbo jumbo

Because of the “expanding space” speculation is “a half wind” – Time-rate is part of the game in the theory I represent

In other words, you don't understand anything about current theories and would rather pretend your fatuous bovine drivel has merit.

"Halt" is German and means; - STOP or I shut you.

Trying to be clever only makes you appear stupid.

Halt in German can mean stop, it can also, for example, mean hold, in neither case is there any implied threat.

On the other hand, as Hans was speaking English, halt means stop. He could have meant walk with a limp, but that would have made less sense than you.

Mozilla have a good spell checker.

Pity you never use it, or check context.

 

[Reality Check]

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

Off course I do not accept the current version, since RR is ignored.

RR is ignored because

1. no one knows about it (it only exists in your head).
2. the only person delusional enough to think that it exists is you

The only thing RR is causing is a permanant record of a continuing display of ignorance of basic science

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

And you displaying a persistent delusion that RR exists when it does not match reality:

• Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance"
  11th December 2009
• The Pioneer anomaly proves that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!
• Spiral galaxies prove that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!

P.S.
Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang
First asked 21st October 2011 (7 days and counting)

 

[Bjarne]

RR is ignored because

• no one knows about it (it only exists in your head).
• the only person delusional enough to think that it exists is you

The only thing RR is causing is a permanant record of a continuing display of ignorance of basic science

No I am not the only one that believe RR is real.
9893765 % of all cows in all Universes and also those at Jens Peter Jensen’s Ploughed fields knows that; It requires more and more energy to reach diminishing speed increment

Not one single cow has ever seen any evidence (from the naive stupid mass brainwashed human race) that proves that the FACT describe above not should apply by constant speed.

So no RC, I am not alone. Cow logic is always on my side.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Off course I do not accept the current version, since RR is ignored.

"Off course" indeed. Unintended, but fun. RR is not ignored; it is non-existent.

Extreme speed, when matter is collapsing in a BigChunch.

Extreme speed requires extreme energy. Where does the energy come from.

Exactamente is Spanish, - it means exactly.

Si, se. Tengo Espaniol. Pero tu no tienes Ingles.

The rest of your post was full of silly typing errors.

In this theory the universe is a limit size of matter in orbit.
You know how the centripetal force works I believe.
So you don’t need the invention; dark energy or the cosmological constant.

Orbits are elliptical. We do not observe elliptical movement of the universe.

Furthermore the Universe is already in a process that;

1. Resists motion (RR), whereby a BigChunch is in SLOW process all the time
2. Wherebe matter speed up
3. Whereby the centripetal get stronger, and throw matter further outwards.
4. whereby gravity get stronger and pull matter further inwards.

That is not even wrong. It is total nonsense.

We must start all over again to get it right.

Not we. You.

Speed can go mad when gravity goes mad, and when gravity goes mad speed goes mad.
This is a self-perpetuating process.

No. You forgot energy. Where does the energy come from?

Speed increase = gravity increase, - and gravity increase = speed increase = speed increase = gravity increase etc....etc.....etc....

Energy?

"Halt" is German and means; - STOP or I shut you.

Is there no end to your foolishness?

Mozilla have a good spell checker.

SO use it. It won't improve your grammar, but at least it will find some of your typos.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

It requires more and more energy to reach diminishing speed increment

http://www.science27.com/forum/cowstamp.jpg

What has that to do with RR?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Orbits are elliptical. We do not observe elliptical movement of the universe.

The only way you possible could know this is due to change of the EM spectra.

Let’s say that some of the light you receive from here and there is 10% affected due to Doppler, - caused by orbit og clusters round the gravitional center of the Universe.

How could you know, or know it did not happen ?.

There would be no way you could separate / distinguish such doppler from “cosmological redshift” (gravitionel redshift).

So the correct to say is that we don’t know, we have no way of knowing, no way of separating Doppler and gravitionel redshift, in this case..
Which mean; you don't know whether we are in orbot or not.

Even you would have no way of knowing whether light from the distance is from a previous Universe that long ago exploded.
You are used to that Z = distance. - This is so WRONG it possible can be.
Z is ONLY = the level of gravity. ( and just a very little due to orbital motion of stars and galaxies)

No. You forgot energy. Where does the energy come from?

Gravity of the Universe is very weak, and distance huge.
We are slowly accelerating, - and hence speed is increasing.
Due to speed increment gravity is increased and due to that speed.
This is a self-perpetuating process......
Hans I have wrote that at least 117 times.
THIS = where energy increase comes from.

What has that to do with RR?

Ohh Hans I think I now will find a couple of cows to discuss further this evening, I mean the level here begin to boring me.
So Muhhh from here.

 

[Paul]

The only way you possible could know this is due to change of the EM spectra.

Where are these extra electromagnetic spectra you refer to?

Let’s say that some of the light you receive from here and there is 10% affected due to Doppler

You appear to have no idea what you are talking about; some light, here and there, 10% affected mean nothing.

caused by orbit og clusters round the gravitional center of the Universe.

What gravitational centre?

How could you know, or know it did not happen ?.

If you mean the light, how about checking for red or blue shift?

There would be no way you could separate / distinguish such doppler from “cosmological redshift” (gravitionel redshift).

Again you appear to have a lack of understanding; the doppler effect causes shifts, but cosmological and gravitational shifts are not the same.

Which mean; you don't know whether we are in orbot or not.

I think you mean that you don't know and argument from ignorance is all you have at the moment.

Even you would have no way of knowing whether light from the distance is from a previous Universe that long ago exploded.

Why would you say that?

Hans I have wrote that at least 117 times.
THIS = where energy increase comes from.

That just means you have been wrong at least 117 times.

I mean the level here begin to boring me.

I'm sure you will find the demands of bovine conversation better suited to your intellectual level.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Ohh Hans I think I now will find a couple of cows to discuss further this evening, I mean the level here begin to boring me.
So Muhhh from here.

Suit yourself. Bye.

Hans