Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Paul]

You haven’t watched the Video have you,

Yes, how many parts do I have to watch before I find out about the evil persecution of astronomers?

how many astronomers are flattened, ignored

I don't know, is it some?

threatened not to tell the truth, what they saw in the sky

None?

have you ?

The answer's still yes.

This only proves how intolerant fanatic and desperate that religion is.

The fact that you think a video from a couple of notorious big bang deniers, which distorts the truth and ignores inconvenient evidence, is worth taking seriously only proves how intolerant fanatic and desperate that Bjarne is.

Just close your eyes and single tracked mass brainwash doesn’t exist

Then open them again and voilà!, it still doesn't exist.

 

[Daylightstar]

That video reminds me of an absorption spectrum with the absorption lines as wide as the Cassini division and the spectrum colors are not being quite right.

Typically a video Bjarne would psychologically jerk off on.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Consider that the meter stick is expanding too, and hence you can’t see that space here around us also expands. (why shouldn’t it)

But isn't gravity counteracting the expansion of the dark energy? So that here on Earth gravity causes the planet and the objects on it to contract at the same rate as space is expanding due to the dark energy.

Another theory I read about is that the redshift from distant stars is caused by photons losing energy so that no expansion at all is needed. This is called a 'tired light' theory. And the background radiation is then light that has lost a lot of energy so that it becomes microwave radiation. What causes the photons to lose energy? The answer is that the vacuum energy causes friction making photons to lose energy and therefore a drop in frequency (redshift).

 

[Anders Lindman]

As an example, if we take a stick made of wood 1 meter in length and put it in empty space without any other gravity affecting it than the mass of the stick itself, would then dark energy cause the stick to expand? Because atoms are made of 99.9999% space, so there must be dark energy operating even INSIDE the stick itself making that space expand as well.

 

[Anders Lindman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0

Wow. Amazing stuff. Here is part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kePDAAEZ_s

Check out the image from about 3:57 with the two bright objects. One is a galaxy and the other a quasar. It certainly looks obvious to me that they are connected. And the interesting thing is that the two objects show different redshift! For the standard model to be correct the objects would have to be separate from each other an be located at different distances from Earth.

More investigation is perhaps needed to see if what they claim in the video really is true, but it looks very interesting.

ETA: Another example is described in the beginning of the video with two galaxies connected together and each galaxy has a different redshift. EDIT again: Or it's the same objects as in the first example, I only looked briefly at it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wow. Amazing stuff. Here is part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kePDAAEZ_s

Check out the image from about 3:57 with the two bright objects. One is a galaxy and the other a quasar. It certainly looks obvious to me that they are connected.

Why is it obvious? Seriously, how can you tell the difference between them being connected and the galaxy being in front of the quasar? Is it just because that seems like too much of a coincidence? Well, that's rather the whole issue, isn't it? If you have a very large random sample of just about anything, you can find examples which look like they're not random.

And the interesting thing is that the two objects show different redshift! For the standard model to be correct the objects would have to be separate from each other an be located at different distances from Earth.

So? Why is that a problem? Because they're at very small angular separation from each other? That tells you nothing about the distance between them. Hell, that problem isn't even unique to astronomy. OMG, this dude is holding the sun! Because that, really, is the exact equivalent of your "It certainly looks obvious to me that they are connected." If you want to know whether or not they're connected, or even nearby, you need to look at more than just whether or not they coincidentally fall at small angular separations. The fact that they have different red shifts isn't a problem, all it means is that they are NOT near each other, that it's nothing more than a trick of perspective, like that dude "holding" the sun.

More investigation is perhaps needed to see if what they claim in the video really is true, but it looks very interesting.

The whole quasar-galaxy thing has already been beaten to death with a sharp stick. There's no reason to think that it's anything more than the expected coincidences that you get from cherry-picking from a large random sample.

 

[Ziggurat]

As an example, if we take a stick made of wood 1 meter in length and put it in empty space without any other gravity affecting it than the mass of the stick itself, would then dark energy cause the stick to expand? Because atoms are made of 99.9999% space, so there must be dark energy operating even INSIDE the stick itself making that space expand as well.

If space is expanding, then there would indeed be a stretching force exerted on the stick that would try to make it expand with space. But if you actually calculate what that force is for something as small as a stick, you'll get something so trivially small that there would be no chance in hell of ever detecting this force. The chemical bonds within the stick will thus have a very easy time keeping the stick bound together, and the stick will not expand over time.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne wrote
Consider that the meter stick is expanding too, and hence you can’t see that space here around us also expands. (why shouldn’t it)

I too was brainwshed to belive in the expanding universe, but I gave it up.

But isn't gravity counteracting the expansion of the dark energy? So that here on Earth gravity causes the planet and the objects on it to contract at the same rate as space is expanding due to the dark energy.

Dark energy (a force opposite gravity) was invented to prevent the Universe to collapse due to gravity. But the Universe is collapsing from time to time. Dark Energy is only an optical illusion.

Another theory I read about is that the redshift from distant stars is caused by photons losing energy so that no expansion at all is needed. This is called a 'tired light' theory.

I can only agree such is a thesis / speculation.

 

[Anders Lindman]

If space is expanding, then there would indeed be a stretching force exerted on the stick that would try to make it expand with space. But if you actually calculate what that force is for something as small as a stick, you'll get something so trivially small that there would be no chance in hell of ever detecting this force. The chemical bonds within the stick will thus have a very easy time keeping the stick bound together, and the stick will not expand over time.

Yeah, that's what I thought in my first post in this thread. And even gravity when strong enough will hold matter together without having the dark energy expand it from within so to speak.

 

[Anders Lindman]

I can only agree such is a thesis / speculation.

Yes, I read several articles about how the tired light theories have been debunked and only one article saying that they haven't been debunked. I think there still may be a possibility for some similar theory but I'm no physics expert. I thought I needed some alternative theories for the idea about dark matter in another thread, but I came to think that I can let the standard model be as it is which makes my theory much easier to develop.

 

[Ziggurat]

I can only agree such is a thesis / speculation.

"tired light" theories are already ruled out by experiment. The only possible way for photons to lose energy is if they somehow scatter. If they just redshift without scattering, they'll interfere with themselves and simply vanish (violating energy and momentum conservation in the process, I might add), which rather obviously doesn't happen. And they don't scatter either, because if they did, distant images would become blurred, but they aren't. So you can agree all you want to, but it's quite plainly wrong.

 

[Bjarne]

Yes, I read several articles about how the tired light theories have been debunked and only one article saying that they haven't been debunked. I think there still may be a possibility for some similar theory but I'm no physics expert. I thought I needed some alternative theories for the idea about dark matter in another thread, but I came to think that I can let the standard model be as it is which makes my theory much easier to develop.

The difference between photons and elementary particles can be compared to the diffrfence between whirlpools and waves on an ocean.

Only particles that interact with space, which mean convert speed to gravity, are causing "friction" / resistance against motion (RR) due to motion / speed.

Another theory I read about is that the redshift from distant stars is caused by photons losing energy so that no expansion at all is needed. This is called a 'tired light' theory. And the background radiation is then light that has lost a lot of energy so that it becomes microwave radiation. What causes the photons to lose energy? The answer is that the vacuum energy causes friction making photons to lose energy and therefore a drop in frequency (redshift).

Intensity is spread, in the same way as when you drop a stone in the pacific, the wave reaching Scotland wouldn’t be large.

Correction
It is not dark energy that is an optical illusion, but the idea that the expansion accelerate.
Dark energy itself is a wrong conclusion, based misunderstood redshift.


The Cause of Redshift;

1. Doppler Effect
this mean only redshift caused due to motion of a wave sourse relative to an observer or oppesite.
This is a scientific fact.
Of course there are difference motion of system in the Universe, understood as well as not understood.
But it is in no way evidence that proves any expansion consistence with the Hubble Constant.

2. Gravitionel Redshift
this is too is a scientific fact, confirmed by the scientific method.

3. Cosmologic redshift
this is ONLY build on speculation, - that redshift “must” happen caused due to that space itself expands.
This is NOT a scientific fact, and NOT confirmed by the scientific method.
It is NOT enough to based science on that oxygen is blue because this is proven by observation of the sky, and the sky is blue we can all see it.

Before “we” (naïve fools) invented (and supported) such fantasy-property of space, - that it certainly is, - we should at least have tried all possibilities.

Also possibility number 2 mentions above, and at least ask questions as;

• Is it possible that redshift from stars reaching us is caused due to gravity difference?
• Could gravity have been extreme much stronger billion of years ago?
• Do we know any method whereby gravity possible could go mad?

All the 3 answers CAN be answered with YES, and we are NOT on any thin ice so far.
A BigChunch CAN certainly be the answer , so WHY invent fantasy-redshift-properties – NEVER proven by any scientific ,methods, - and next introduces such speculation (which it’s rod in religion) as SCIENCE, - for innocent naive students ?

This is just too much.

 

[Daylightstar]

...

This is just too much.

That about sums it up.

 

[Ziggurat]

3. Cosmologic redshift
this is ONLY build on speculation, - that redshift “must” happen caused due to that space itself expands.
This is NOT a scientific fact, and NOT confirmed by the scientific method.

It's true that we don't have direct measurements of cosmological redshift. But there's lots of things we don't have direct measurements of but which we're still very certain about. We DO have indirect measurements, and we have considerable confidence in our inferences. That's not proof, but then, very little in science ever actually is.

The fact is that if GR is correct, then cosmological redshift MUST happen. There is no ambiguity here: it's an unavoidable consequence of the theory. Now, it is possible that GR is wrong. But first, we have no evidence that it is wrong. And second, and even more importantly, we have considerable evidence that it's very accurate, which means even if it is wrong, it's unlikely to be wrong in ways which eliminate cosmological redshift. Just like Newtonian mechanics is wrong, but you'll get very close to the right answer much of the time you use it.

• Is it possible that redshift from stars reaching us is caused due to gravity difference?
• Could gravity have been extreme much stronger billion of years ago?
• Do we know any method whereby gravity possible could go mad?

All the 3 answers CAN be answered with YES, and we are NOT on any thin ice so far.

No. The answer to #3 is quite definitely NO, not yes. Whether or not any mechanism exists for gravity to "go mad", we don't know of any. Furthermore, your question #1 can only be "yes" if your #2 is also yes. That might be possible, but 1) I'm not sure why you find the laws of physics varying with place/time to be better than current cosmology, and 2) if we allow for that, well, we basically have to give up on making any sort of prediction about what's happening elsewhere.

This is just too much.

Argument from incredulity will get you nowhere here.

 

[Paul]

The difference between photons and elementary particles can be compared to the diffrfence between whirlpools and waves on an ocean.

It's more like he difference between waves and other waves.

Honestly Bjarne, seeing you try to explain physics, even to someone as confused as Anders, is like watching a chocolate King Canute turning back Kilauea.

Only particles that interact with space, which mean convert speed to gravity, is causing "friction" / r esistance against motion (RR) due to motion / speed.

Which would be true if it wasn't totally wrong.

Intensity is spread, in the same way as when you drop a stone in the pacific, the wave reaching Scotland wouldn’t be large.

Intensity of what, and how?

Dark energy itself is a wrong conclusion, based misunderstood redshift.

From a video you posted, I will again relay what we know about dark energy-

Dark energy is invisible, makes the universe expand, becomes stronger with distance and dominates the universe.
​

3. Cosmologic redshift
this is ONLY build on speculation, - that redshift “must” happen caused due to that space itself expands.

"The second, and much better, way to think of redshift is as due to the stretching of space as the Universe expands. Since light travels at a finite speed (close to 300 000 km/s), the Universe will have expanded by a certain amount in the time it takes light to travel from a distant object to us, the observer. The wavelength of light expands at the same rate as the Universe, and so by the time the light has reached us, it will have increased its wavelength by this amount."
"redshift" The Oxford Companion to Cosmology. Andrew Liddle and Jon Loveday. Oxford University Press 2008. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 3 December 2011

​

 

[Bjarne]

It's true that we don't have direct measurements of cosmological redshift.
But there's lots of things we don't have direct measurements of but which we're still very certain about.
We DO have indirect measurements, and we have considerable confidence in our inferences. That's not proof, but then, very little in science ever actually is.

Look at the image http://www.puicet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/scientific_method_2.gif
As you very fast can conclude; the BigBang theory is not a theory it is only a thesis, - only speculation. It is first SCIENCE when it has pass the scientific method.
It is called a theory and that alone is unrestrained dishonesty.

The fact is that if GR is correct,

But this doesn’t mean the range of GR or even the already known part of SR is fully understood. GR is a theory beyond imagination and beyond direct observation. WHAT is for example the curvature of space really?
Try to IMAGING it and tell me about the inner images you saw. - You cannot, because you (and no one else) can even not fully imaging what this theory is really about.

then cosmological redshift MUST happen.

Explain why you think so, - which process ? - how does a photon interact with space ? - how does space “expansion” interact with a photon? - I believe you have several missing evidence “links” here ?
Again which inner images do you see?
Which evidence do you see ?

If you cannot explain what you just wrote to you grandmother, because you have not understood it, - and if nobody else can nobody have understood what you just wrote – how can say such is a CERTAIN TRUTH?

Furthermore Einstein calculations (not GR) did show that either the Universe would either expand or it would contract.
These calculation we here talk about is in its cow logic essence only that because the universe is a field of gravity either it should be in a process of collapsing, - if not then it should expand (due to a “unknown opposite force”).
To “solve” the problem Einstein invented the cosmologies constant.
There was NO prediction that the Universe should expand.
I don’t understand how you can claim there was such prediction in his theory. ?

There is no ambiguity here: it's an unavoidable consequence of the theory. Now, it is possible that GR is wrong. But first, we have no evidence that it is wrong.

Much have a deeper "level" of understanding, - for example a magnetic field, - WHAT is a such. - We can bal bla bla abuot empty words and expression but we cannot tell grandmother about the inner images we get when really trying understanding its nature.
GR is the exact same principle - so even though GR is correct, we have maybe only really understood 10% of what this theory really is about.

Finally I do of course not agree that GR have predicted the expanding universe, and that the evidence should be cosmological redshift, - this is what just wrote right ?
If this was true he should also answer where the dark energy comes from, when it will end, and why it seems to accelerate, - right ?

You cannot predict that tomorrow will be born a 17% cow , - can you ? - Hence also not a ""17% expanding Universe"", can you. - Where is the full story then ?

And second, and even more importantly, we have considerable evidence that it's very accurate, which means even if it is wrong, it's unlikely to be wrong in ways which eliminate cosmological redshift. Just like Newtonian mechanics is wrong, but you'll get very close to the right answer much of the time you use it.

I didn’t got the point

Bjarne
1.Is it possible that redshift from stars reaching us is caused due to gravity difference?
Ziggurat
No. The answer to #3 is quite definitely NO, not yes. Whether or not any mechanism exists for gravity to "go mad", we don't know of any.

I don’t understand how you can claim so, extreme speed do cause extreme gravity.
Kinetic Energy is conserved as M, - and amount of M is responsible for “g” - this is simple and common knowledge.
We are talking about extreme speed.
And this is what we certainly must expect in a BigChrunch

Bjarne
2. Could gravity have been extreme much stronger billion of years ago?
3. Do we know any method whereby gravity possible could go mad?
Ziggurat
Furthermore, your question #1 can only be "yes" if your #2 is also yes. That might be possible, but 1) I'm not sure why you find the laws of physics varying with place/time to be better than current cosmology and 2) if we allow for that, well, we basically have to give up on making any sort of prediction about what's happening elsewhere.

It is all right to have some kind of hypothetical framework, but then it must also all the time be remembered to test; - is the framework really true.

Unfortunately a speculative framework too often becomes a theory (without objective reason, except that a lot of people believe in it) and then (almost) certain science, and then religion and then suddenly the concrete is too hard to change anything, instead is fanatic religion makes the rules, what is true or not.

We MUST always be ready to give up a thesis, - but you just revealed that we need “something” (doesn’t matter how thin the ice is).
The existing thesis is and has never been anything else as speculation – don’t be brainwashed naive to believe something different. Be prepared it can fall every day.

Argument from incredulity will get you nowhere here.

I know how much fanaticism am up against.
But don’t worry maybe tomorrow maybe after 1 million year the old speculation will fall.
Based on a pure GR framework, (which mean gravity difference from time to time is the cause of redshift) it is possible to predict several phenomena we shall see in the Universe.

For example the way we believe how the process of starts and galaxy formation took place long ago, is wrong, and how the right understanding is.

We already know that something is wrong to BB - here is for example a list problems top 30 list http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
Add to that a lot more for example dark flow, a dark hole 1 billion LY across and a lot more.

As you saw in the film link form yesterday, the speculation will fall because of its own weight of assumption.

Skepticism is growing, and that will continue.

 

[Paulhoff]

As you very fast can conclude; the BigBang theory is not a theory it is only a thesis, - only speculation.

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


Now a big man in the sky, that is speculation, and not a good one at that.


Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

GR is a theory beyond imagination and beyond direct observation. WHAT is for example the curvature of space really?

You're right, I just go and throw away my GPS right now, I don't care how much it uses GR to show me where I am, it can't be right, says you.


Paul



Using the bible on the other hand, I've learned how to do Brain surgery, come over to my house, don't use GPS and I'll show you.

 

[Bjarne]

You're right, I just go and throw away my GPS right now, I don't care how much it uses GR to show me where I am, it can't be right, says you.


Paul

Instead you should tell us why time dilation happens as it does.

 

[Paulhoff]

Instead you should tell us why time dilation happens as it does.

Why does Blue looks like it does to you, and may look different to me.

Because one does not know why it should be, one can show how things work, and my GPS does.

I love how people talk as if Science has been around for millions of years and can't answer all the questions.

Show me how a three letter name does, "GOD" answers nothing.

Paul