MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.
- Thread starter Bjarne
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dark energy
- Status
What type of gas clouds do you think supernovae leave?
It would depend on their composition and density.
It would depend on their composition and density.
From millions of Kelvin to local background.
Perhaps you should look harder.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Transparency of the Universe after Reionization
Nothing to do with supernovae (your "When all stars explode at almost the same time, the Universe would not be 100 % transparent").
What happens is that neutral hydrogen is ionized by light from stars.
This forms the basis for one bit of evidence for the Big Bang - the Lyman-alpha forest.
Astronomers look at the spectra of light from distant galaxies. There are absorption bands corresponding to the ionization of neural hydrogen. These allow astronomers to calculate the density of neutral hydrogen between us and the galaxy. Looking at galaxies that are further and further away gives the densities of neutral hydrogen in the past. We find that the amount of neutral hydrogen increases as we look further in the past. Extrapolating backward there is a point where there was no ionized hydrogen. But if galaxies and stars exist this is impossible. Thus there is a point in the past when galaxies and stars did not exist.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
The Big Bang was an 'explosion' of space-time', not the explosion of an object in space-time. That is the big basic difference
.Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
The point is, how it would look from Earth today, if you could see all stars of a galaxy exploding at the same time.
It would take 100,000 years to see it all happen + the time to travel to you.
Let us be large and say that from Earth we could see the first 100,000 stars exploding in one galaxy far away..... but the light and the gamma would be more and more disturbed by the gas clouds left and at the end of the day it could not penetrate anymore.
Try to read this http://videnskab.dk/miljo-naturvidenskab/verdens-voldsomste-gammaglimt
Do you know that the most powerful gamma ray burst happens at the edge at the Universe for example 12 to 13 billion LY away.
Why do you think?
Would it help if you would know that gravity was extreme by "BigBang" (when all stars of a previous exploded) …
And since gravity was extreme 13,7 billion years ago the energy was too (E=m*c^2)
This explains the cause of the very powerful long distance explosion / gamma-ray burst.
The whole idea that the Universe had a beginning is rubbish.
12 billion years ago there were heavy metals, - it is not created AFTER the BigBang, because there was a Universe BEFORE the BigBang, and hence all the stuff we have today was already there when BB took off..
Read this
When we studied the light from this gamma-ray burst, we didn’t know what we might find. It was a surprise that the cool gas in these two galaxies in the early universe proved to have such an unexpected chemical make-up. These galaxies have more heavy elements than have ever been seen in a galaxy so early in the evolution of the universe. We didn’t expect the universe to be so mature, so chemically evolved, so early on.
Source; http://earthsky.org/space/gamma-ray-burst-illuminates-new-mystery-in-early-galaxies
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Quite some fireworks.
The nearest large galaxy is Andromeda, over 2 million LY away.
So what?
There can be many reasons. They may have been more frequent in the past, or it can be the simple fact that there are more stars far from us than close to us (simple perspective).
No, that is your personal speculation.
No.
Bjarne, you keep referencing scientific papers, and then discard scientific ideas as rubbish. Which is it:
- Should we trust the scientific articles?
- Or are they brainwashed rubbish?
Make up your mind, because you can't have both.
No.
So, are those scientists wrong or are they right? Take a pick.
Hans
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
I have modified my view on how to understand SW and RR several times.
This is really confusing.
But I am making progress.
I have now tried to calculate SW based on the fact that the AU is extending 15 cm each year.
It is a great help to have such data.
Now it is all more clear >> update is going on at www.science27.com
Today I read this
There is only one holy good, and this is the tidal force
So soon a moon or even a satellite anomaly is discovered, the tidal force is almost always 100% the only god.
This is why we can't see that other anomalies are all around us
SW and RR affects everything on its patth.
So there are a couple more gods that have been overlooked
halleluja.
Amen.
This is really confusing.
But I am making progress.
I have now tried to calculate SW based on the fact that the AU is extending 15 cm each year.
It is a great help to have such data.
Now it is all more clear >> update is going on at www.science27.com
Today I read this
There is only one holy good, and this is the tidal force
So soon a moon or even a satellite anomaly is discovered, the tidal force is almost always 100% the only god.
This is why we can't see that other anomalies are all around us
SW and RR affects everything on its patth.
So there are a couple more gods that have been overlooked
halleluja.
Amen.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Persistence [in ignorance] does not equal progress.
Why don't you show us your data and your attempt at calculations!
The AU is not extending, but then again, that is not really what you mean. Tell us what you really mean.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
It is confusing because your ignorance of science has lead to basic mistakes:
- 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?
- 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!
- RR is useless:
Bjarne: Show your calculations that RR is the cause of Sedna's orbit
Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang
First asked 21st October 2011 (40 days and counting!)
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
This is because you are wrong. Neither exist in reality.
The day you get zero for both factors, you will be enlightened.
I'm afraid the gods you worship don't exist.
Hans
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
Ohhh the AU god is extending the distance between the sun and the Earth 15 cm every year.
And still I have (hopefully) (so far) not hear a single fool that claims that also this is due to the only true god - the; tidal force god .
The AU extention god is proven by the objective scientific method.
So the AU extention god must exist.
This makes a GREAT difference.
So now you can easy calculate that the force that seems to push the Earth outwards must be about 3E-8m/s
Try to call that AU-force-god for SW and see what happen with the rest of the Universe, for example with the space probe NEAR.
Based on this you can calculate that 5mm of the Moons orbital extension is due to SW (from the Earth)
So the tidal god must lose 15% of its territory. - I guess this easy could start a holy war, when it happens.
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
To be perfectly clear, the AU is an established unit of measure, and it is 149,597,870.7km. This does not change. However, the physical reference, which is the approximate mean Sun/Earth distance, is increasing slightly. Till such time as the discrepancy becomes annoying, we are not likely to change the AU, because that means that a lot of astronomical books and papers would need to be revised.
So the correct statement would be that the Earth/Sun distance is increasing, not the AU.
I have not investigated what the theories are as to the reason for this, but it is obviously a very tiny change.
Bjarne, I think you should go back to the cow references. You sound even sillier when you talk about gods.
Do you call 15 mm in 149,597,870.7 km a great difference? I call it a very small difference.
Bjarne, only an idiot would indicate a force in meters per second. This is the sign of a person who still doesn't understand even the most basic things.
You can? Show me that calculation, please.
Of course, your logic is deeply flawed, but I don't expect you to understand that.
Hans
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Oh btw, the newest estimates of this increase in the Earth orbit indicates that it is really only 7cm per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit
Hans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit
Hans
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
It makes no difference we have only reach a food of a mountain and is even not aware it is just in front of us.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
I am only fighting against that much “science” has become brainwashed fanatic religion NOT proven by the scientific methods.Notice how Bjarne has earlier claimed that Scientists didn't really know the right distance between the Earth and the Sun, but now he suddenly trusts them to find a change at the 13th decimal!
Hans
We are in this context talking about measuring the orbital extension
If there was any objective scientific method to prove the eccentricity change at the 13th decimal I would trust that too.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
How do you, who indicated a force in meters per second, pretend to know which science is good science?
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Hans
- Status