Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bjarne said:
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.


Hmmmmm.
Good question.
Any suggestion ??
At least…
I think more and more people begin to doubt the . This idea is a disparate conclusion. Gravity probe B, “should” now have proven this idea, - there are still no evidence.
Click to expand...
Not well read are you.

Now, what do you mean by "subduction theory".

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Not well read are you.

Now, what do you mean by "subduction theory".

Paul
Click to expand...

Once I thought that the EM spectre (cosmological redshift) was expanding while it was travelling, through space.
This is completely wrong.
The right way to see it is rather that it is a relative “timestamp” and “distance” stamp from the exact moment the photon was created..

Let me make it a bit clearer.

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.

Hence, - whether stretching space is caused due to gravity, - or (and) due to the expanding Universe really doesn’t matter. It’s the same piece of cake, and it must be understood like the same property.

Hence we can based on a general relativistic understanding easy conclude that when the universe was half the “”relative size”” as today, - time was ticking double so fast.

This mean that the photon-energy (as you know is measured per second) was only the half compared to today (were time now is comparable double so much per second).
Hence off course our EM-spectre (in our time) has the double amount of energy, simply because our “second” is now much slower.

There is more (relative) time today…….and it will get more of it “per second” in the future, proportional to the expanding Universe.

And to make the confusion complete, there is more space today, but only more delusion-space. One day a cow will be “bigger” than the earth is today. .

Did that made it easier?

Back to your question, how to prove it?
Click to expand...
Hmmmm - maybe atomic clocks ??
 
Last edited:
No it does not make it clearer. It is gibberish and wrong:
  • Matter curves space.
  • The curvature of space by matter causes gravity, not cosmological redshift.
The cow is ignorant and confused.
 
Bjarne said:
Once I thought that the EM spectre (cosmological redshift) was expanding while it was travelling, through space.
This is completely wrong.
The right way to see it is rather that it is a relative “timestamp” and “distance” stamp from the exact moment the photon was created..

Let me make it a bit clearer.

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.

Hence, - whether stretching space is caused due to gravity, - or (and) due to the expanding Universe really doesn’t matter. It’s the same piece of cake, and it must be understood like the same property.

Hence we can based on a general relativistic understanding easy conclude that when the universe was half the “”relative size”” as today, - time was ticking double so fast.

This mean that the photon-energy (as you know is measured per second) was only the half compared to today (were time now is comparable double so much per second).
Hence off course our EM-spectre (in our time) has the double amount of energy, simply because our “second” is now much slower.

There is more (relative) time today…….and it will get more of it “per second” in the future, proportional to the expanding Universe.

And to make the confusion complete, there is more space today, but only more delusion-space. One day a cow will be “bigger” than the earth is today. .

Did that made it easier?


Hmmmm - maybe atomic clocks ??
Click to expand...

Moo.
 
What I wrote above (post 444) was not completely clear..

Let us say that the photon have shape of a solid meter stick
When it was created 1 billion years ago its size was only the half relative to a meter stick today.

When travelling to the Earth the meter sticks expands, but in facts “nothing” happens because when we received it today, 1 billion years after its creation, - it is still a meter stick, - and therefore "only" 1 meter long...

What “mainly” have happen is that the frequency of the meter stick has change, because time here where it arrives today is double so slow.

Hence the “frequency-stamp” of the meter stick was created at a time where 1 second compared to our 1 second, - (1 billion years ago) - was 2 second. – Which mean the frequency of the meter stick is only the half compared to ours EM-frequency per second today.

This is why the energy is only the half, and so simple that every cow can see no energy have been lost.
 
So soon central gravity measurement confirms that ADG not is decreasing towards the centre, but is stable, we will be forced to accept that the so called “curvature of space” must be understood as “stretching space” - and as a naturally consequence that it is the exact same property of space as “the expanding / stretching Universe” .

This mean we also are forced to accept that (GR) time dilation also must apply for the expanding Universe. – Or concrete; that the second here on Earth must be dragged longer proportional with the expansion of the Universe.

This would be a mathematical indisputable fact.

But now we are facing a dilemma……..
Earlier in this thread I think we all agreed that the distance to the Moon (based on the Hubble constant) is increasing about 1 cm per year.
According to the prevailing understanding, “we” believe gravity compensates for that and that this “should” be the reason to that we can not measure it.
But understanding that gravity in fact is the same property as the expanding space, it will no longer make sense to claim that the same property can counteract it self. We will mathematically be forced to give up that idea.

Hence it must also be a mathematical fact that when the second is dragged longer and longer her on Earth, then distances MUST be dragged longer too, - otherwise we would fast discover that the for example the time it takes to orbit the Sun would change. – It doesn’t.

This means it also must be a mathematical fact that distances (the meter stick) also must expand proportional with everything else.
Notice this will be based on “observation” since as mentioned we will know and can see that the distance of the earth orbit (etc) is unaffected.

The expansion of the meter stick can roughly (based on the Hubble constant) be calculated to about +7.33E-11 meter per year. (Extra 70 “relative meters” of the Earth orbit per year, much more for Neptune etc…)…

So I think you have guessed it is in fact easy to prove both mathematically, and also objective, since a meter always appear to be a meter.

Is that not enough, to through away the old creeds ?
 
Bjarne said:
So soon central gravity measurement confirms that ADG not is decreasing towards the centre, but is stable, we will be forced to accept that the so called “curvature of space” must be understood as “stretching space” - and as a naturally consequence that it is the exact same property of space as “the expanding / stretching Universe” .

This mean we also are forced to accept that (GR) time dilation also must apply for the expanding Universe. – Or concrete; that the second here on Earth must be dragged longer proportional with the expansion of the Universe.

This would be a mathematical indisputable fact.

But now we are facing a dilemma……..
Earlier in this thread I think we all agreed that the distance to the Moon (based on the Hubble constant) is increasing about 1 cm per year.
According to the prevailing understanding, “we” believe gravity compensates for that and that this “should” be the reason to that we can not measure it.
But understanding that gravity in fact is the same property as the expanding space, it will no longer make sense to claim that the same property can counteract it self. We will mathematically be forced to give up that idea.

Hence it must also be a mathematical fact that when the second is dragged longer and longer her on Earth, then distances MUST be dragged longer too, - otherwise we would fast discover that the for example the time it takes to orbit the Sun would change. – It doesn’t.

This means it also must be a mathematical fact that distances (the meter stick) also must expand proportional with everything else.
Notice this will be based on “observation” since as mentioned we will know and can see that the distance of the earth orbit (etc) is unaffected.

The expansion of the meter stick can roughly (based on the Hubble constant) be calculated to about +7.33E-11 meter per year. (Extra 70 “relative meters” of the Earth orbit per year, much more for Neptune etc…)…

So I think you have guessed it is in fact easy to prove both mathematically, and also objective, since a meter always appear to be a meter.

Is that not enough, to through away the old creeds ?
Click to expand...

Moo.
 
Bjarne said:
This is allready done.
Read GR
Click to expand...

I haven't just read it, I've studied it and used it. You have probably read some popular science book or Wikipedia. It's not the same.

I want you to show, mathematically, that it follows that if ADG is constant inside an object, curvature and expansion are the same (or vice versa).

It has no already been done, so far as I'm aware. If it has been, give me a reference. Where did you read that?

Otherwise, don't go saying it's an indisputable mathematical fact.
 
I want you to show, mathematically, that it follows that if ADG is constant inside an object, curvature and expansion are the same (or vice versa).
Click to expand...

I can not definitive prove mathematical it is the same, because what you then ask me about is mathematically to prove that space inside for example the Earth is stretching.

Remember that the basic claim of GR is that space “bends”.
This is off course not 100 % proven, but still we all understand that this is
a "indisputable mathematical fact".
Also even though we even do not understand what "bends" really mean.
The reason for this is that several consequences fit with the predicted model.

I to can (indirectly) predict several consequences, and have already done so.
Indirectly I can predict that ADG 1 mm from the centre of a body will be the same at the surface inside a (homogenous) mass.
If this is correct it first at all force you to accept that this prediction only was possible based on the understanding and as a consequence of that that “the of curvature of space” means = stretching space.

In this context, remember that math is already available to demonstrate exactly that fact, all what is left is to understand the deeper meaning of that math.
For example it is known that when radius away from a body doubles, ADG is decreasing 75%.
This is proportional to that also the square increase is 75 %, - which logical shows that ADG depend of the “access to space”, - and hence this a mathematical language that already shows that space is consumed / affected proportional with the “access” to open space..
In no other way gravity can in fact reach infinity.
But off course I must admit that there will always be people that do not want to accept even overwhelming logic and coherent facts.

It has no already been done, so far as I'm aware. If it has been, give me a reference. Where did you read that?
Click to expand...

I mean it is already known how time and curved space is related (space-time).
It’s just to continue on that track, because this also comprehends the expanding space, in the exact same way.
If a distance (the meter stick) expands with factor 2, time too stretch with the same factor, and ticks slower.

It is inevitable that a deeper understanding of gravity mustunite gravity and the expanding space. I am imaging that I will assemble the first 10 pieces to that puzzle and prove that these fits, then plenty others will show that there is 100 more pieces that also fits.

The “curvature of space” and the “expanding space” can’t be opposite “forces” that counteracts each other; - This idea is in no way proven or even logic. .

The first place the new acknowledgment must strike is that the expanding universe not can be ignored of gravity forces.
This off course means that the (relative) distances for example between the Sun and the planets must change over time
This is the time the prevailing foundation automatically cracks and indisputable forces us to rethink the whole mathematical foundation and understanding as well.
 
Bjarne said:
Remember that the basic claim of GR is that space “bends”.
This is off course not 100 % proven, but still we all understand that this is
a "indisputable mathematical fact".
Click to expand...
Oh really, show me something that proves it doesn't, because every test so far shows that it does.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Bjarne said:
But off course I must admit that there will always be people that do not want to accept even overwhelming logic and coherent facts.
Click to expand...
So, you have looked into the mirror than.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Bjarne said:
The first place the new acknowledgment must strike is that the expanding universe not can be ignored of gravity forces.
This off course means that the (relative) distances for example between the Sun and the planets must change over time
This is the time the prevailing foundation automatically cracks and indisputable forces us to rethink the whole mathematical foundation and understanding as well.
Click to expand...
No, space is expanding between the galaxies, where there is almost no matter, not in the galaxies where there is matter.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom