Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Paulhoff]

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

By the way, I can and have. If I can find my writtings on it, I will post it. It is a simple thing to understand.

Paul

 

[MRC_Hans]

Bjarne and Anders ....

Pass the popcorn.

Hans

 

[Paul]

As you very fast can conclude;

You could, if you didn't know what you were talking about.

the BigBang theory is not a theory it is only a thesis, - only speculation.

As my esteemed namesake points out, you are wrong again.

In case you have trouble with the article, here is a helpful quotation:

The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because it is the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe.

It is first SCIENCE when it has pass the scientific method.

Check.

It is called a theory and that alone is unrestrained dishonesty.

That you try to play silly word games and deny science to promote untested speculative nonsense is unrestrained dishonesty.

GR is a theory beyond imagination

Quite obviously it isn't.

WHAT is for example the curvature of space really?

"General relativity generalises special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the four-momentum (mass-energy and linear momentum) of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
​

Explain why you think so, - which process ? - how does a photon interact with space ? ....

"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.
​

If you cannot explain what you just wrote to you grandmother,

Stop trotting out old quotes as if you understand their meaning.

I didn’t got the point

You will get no argument on that score.

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.

Yes, yes, you've been ranting about that for ages now.

Unfortunately you have shown no hint that you properly understand any of the concepts you decry, let alone the random speculations you advance.

I know how much fanaticism am up against.

Apparently not, the answer is none.

But don’t worry maybe tomorrow maybe after 1 million year the old speculation will fall.

Maybe, but it will be replaced by something that explains the universe better, not unproven fantasies.

Based on a pure GR framework,

Just seeing you write that seriously is amusing.

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.

Of course, it's just that no one ever noticed before.

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

When you say we, why is that you always mean just you, or you and some nutter off the internet who you refuse to question.

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

Who did you pich that phrase from?

Skepticism is growing, and that will continue.

You seem to misunderstand skepticism.

 

[Paul]

here you go Hans, I think you'll need the large tub...

 

[Anders Lindman]

Bjarne and Anders ....

Pass the popcorn.

Hans

I only made a few comments in this thread. I'm mostly posting in the origin of dark matter thread. Sci-fi:ish stuff, yet still within the parameters of real science. And the dark matter theory described there is independent of dark energy, which is good since I don't need to have any pro or con belief about dark energy. At the moment I'm about 50/50 in my belief in dark energy. It could be real I think, at least in some form.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is called a theory and that alone is unrestrained dishonesty.

Nope. It makes testable predictions. It's falsifiable. It's a scientific theory, much as you'd like to deny it.

But this doesn’t mean the range of GR or even the already known part of SR is fully understood.

So what? That's true of basically any non-trivial scientific theory.

GR is a theory beyond imagination and beyond direct observation.

Beyond YOUR imagination, perhaps. You don't speak for the rest of us. And it's not beyond direct observation. Perhaps the simplest direct observation is gravitational time dilation. That's curvature of space-time.

Explain why you think so, - which process ?

It's trivially simple, actually. A photon is not a point particle. It's got some extended spatial extent. There's some distance between one "crest" and the next. If space expands everywhere, then that distance increases a bit. Presto: the wavelength just increased.

Again which inner images do you see?

Draw a squiggly line on a deflated balloon. Now blow up the balloon. What happens to your squiggly line?

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?

I can't say anything in science is CERTAIN TRUTH. But I can tell you with absolute certainty that GR requires cosmological redshifts for an expanding universe. If you understood GR better, maybe you'd understand why. But I don't really care about your ignorance.

Furthermore Einstein calculations (not GR) did show that either the Universe would either expand or it would contract.

Um... what? Those calculations were GR. Prior to GR, nobody had ANY model for what the universe as a whole should do.

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 ?

Silly me. I forgot how bat-**** crazy you are.

Goodbye.

 

[Bjarne]

Nope. It makes testable predictions. It's falsifiable. It's a scientific theory, much as you'd like to deny it.

Crap

And it's not beyond direct observation. Perhaps the simplest direct observation is gravitational time dilation. That's curvature of space-time.

This tells nothing of the process, but only a result of the process.

It's got some extended spatial extent. There's some distance between one "crest" and the next. If space expands everywhere, then that distance increases a bit. Presto: the wavelength just increased.

Space does not expand, there is no "if" - Hallelujah

Draw a squiggly line on a deflated balloon. Now blow up the balloon. What happens to your squiggly line?

If you draw a line on a cow and blow the cow up, it doesn’t mean it also happens naturally does it ?

I can't say anything in science is CERTAIN TRUTH. But I can tell you with absolute certainty that GR requires cosmological redshifts for an expanding universe. If you understood GR better, maybe you'd understand why. But I don't really care about your ignorance.

OK then expect a 17 % cow to be born tomorrow.

Silly me. I forgot how bat-**** crazy you are.

I am happy to be crazy when all the naïve brainwashed even consider them self as normal.

 

[Reality Check]

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

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.

Bjarne, I see that you are persisting in your ignorance of science.

The Big Bang theory is first SCIENCE because it has follows the scientific method.

1. Create a hypothesis to explain the data (e.g. Hubble),
2. make predictions (e.g. the CMB exists),
3. make further observations to test the predictions (the CMB is measured and matches the predictions).
4. We now have a scientific theory that explains many things about the universe.

What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang
First asked 21st October 2011 (45 days and counting!)

 

[Reality Check]

You cannot know ...insane cow fetish rant...

I can know the laws of physics and that they (Newtonian gravity and General Relativity) state that a body that is massive enough will stop light escaping from it.
Simple physics - light passing by a body like a star will be bent. Make the star more massive and the light will bend more. Make the star massive enough and the light will go in a circle (more massive and it will spiral the star!).

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1997/01/text/

How stupid:

1. This is a 1997 news article.
2. The news article lists reasons that the mass of super-massive black holes will be porportional to the mass of the galaxy.

Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang
First asked 21st October 2011 (45 days and counting!)

 

[Reality Check]

It is also a mystery WHY stars keep falling into the black hole, these should NOT – do you also deny that?
http://www.dr.dk/Videnskab/Videnskab/2006/06/27105328.htm

And what does the article (translated by Google):

After three decades of speculation has astrophysicists confirmed a theory of how black holes grow. It has long been established that the extreme gravity centers suck food for themselves and in the process of crushing material that lights up the universe. But it has been unclear how the black holes can continue to eat and eat. Now researchers have found conclusive evidence for a 30 year old theory.

(my emphasis added)
The only mystery is your inability to read and understand that it is no longer a mystery !

And here it is in English: Chandra solves black hole mystery

P.S. Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang
First asked 21st October 2011 (45 days and counting!)

 

[Reality Check]

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.

Hi Anders Lindman - this (in the context of the expansion of the universe) has been explained to Bjarne many times before.
He still goes on about his fantasy that astronomers use physical rulers to measure the distance to stars and galaxies .

 

[Anders Lindman]

Hi Anders Lindman - this (in the context of the expansion of the universe) has been explained to Bjarne many times before.
He still goes on about his fantasy that astronomers use physical rulers to measure the distance to stars and galaxies .

When it comes to dark energy I think it may exist. And that gravity pulls matter together while dark energy is the counteracting force. And even, if scientists find a single unifying force, then dark energy may be what counteracts that as a polar opposite. Just speculating but something like that.

 

[Reality Check]

When it comes to dark energy I think it may exist. And that gravity pulls matter together while dark energy is the counteracting force. And even, if scientists find a single unifying force, then dark energy may be what counteracts that as a polar opposite. Just speculating but something like that.

Definitely just a speculation because it is nothing to do with the science !

 

[Bjarne]

Hi Anders Lindman - this (in the context of the expansion of the universe) has been explained to Bjarne many times before.
He still goes on about his fantasy that astronomers use physical rulers to measure the distance to stars and galaxies .

Yeehh mann, and it probably also have been explained between 117 and 2018 times to innocent student where after they begun to believe it was; CETAIN KNOGLEDE - THE HOLY TRUTH.
But could also it also not have been caused due to dark elephants ? or dark ufo,s' ? - or the 29 th dark dimension ? , etc etc etc or other dark turbo fantasies not confirmed by the bright scientific method ?

The universe do not expand.
Extremely stretched / deformed space, - begun to “release” the deformation / tension of space due to a BigChrunch 13 to 15 billion years ago,, - because matter in a previous universe exploded.
It was possible because extreme gravity was a result of exstreme speed, and this is excactly what we shall expect in a BigChrunch..
The Universe did not come from NOTHING; - this is ONLY turbo speculation as well as all the other necessary assumption, build on that speculative foundation.

Extreme stretched / deformed space begun to release when space from billion of stars begun to explode; - this process is still going on, because of huge distance it takes time for the "gravitational waves" (from billion of stars) to reach the edge of the physical universe. - This is what dark energy really is , - it takes time to "complete" ..

The result is the opposite as expanding space.
Space is released whereby distances in the EM specter are getting SHORTER and SHORTER during time, - whereby light (waves) from the past comparing to today looks LONGER.
"We" have turn it 180 degree on its head, -it was possible because the scientific method was ignored and only turbo fantasy allowed.

General Relativity alone can handle Redshift, - light from distant stars .
The misunderstood expression; Cosmological redshift, is nothing but gravitational redshift.

Understanding this leads to that now we don’t need to insane ideas; - that all energy of the universe was into a point of nothing and “something” (probably God or Allah) got it out from there, or the nuts turbo fantasy that gravity counteract dark energy (that don’t exist) - and plenty more of such turbo fantasy assumption, - is also not necessary anymore .

A lot counteract the BB speculation; the list gets longer and longer every year.
For example stars and galaxies do NOT shows the elementary particle contents predicted by BB, you can read about this many places at the internet
What is this big hole in the Universe doing – NOT predicted by BB http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1548/hole-a-billion-light-years-across-discovered
What is the dark flow doing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow - BB do not predict it
Read this top 30 problem with BigBang http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

And as i wrote every year the list is getting longer.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, I see that you are persisting in your ignorance of science.

The Big Bang theory is first SCIENCE because it has follows the scientific method.

1. Create a hypothesis to explain the data (e.g. Hubble),

No it is no longer a hypothesis, now it is a religion, or at least part of many religions.
PS, - so was it also before this part of the religion was invented - confused ? - you should be .

[*]make predictions (e.g. the CMB exists),

Many model predict this, also the one I just desibed above.
Have you seen the video I linked few days ago, - a lot of model can explain CMB, so stop taking patent on it , my dear.

[*]make further observations to test the predictions (the CMB is measured and matches the predictions).

The world is like the eyes (in the brainwashed heads) see it.

[*]We now have a scientific theory that explains many things about the universe.

You have still a religion and nothing more than this.
Amen.

 

[Bjarne]

I can know the laws of physics and that they (Newtonian gravity and General Relativity) state that a body that is massive enough will stop light escaping from it.
Simple physics - light passing by a body like a star will be bent. Make the star more massive and the light will bend more. Make the star massive enough and the light will go in a circle (more massive and it will spiral the star!).

Tell me which images do you get inside your head when I say "curvature of space"
No not the images of the light bending or how cows following the curvature of the Earth, We are talking about SPACE itself.
Ok let me change the experiment
Now I ask you tell us exactly what is the curvature of space?
What does space really do when it curves ?
Tell us now about you inner images you now get ?
How does these look ?
Are there any ?
No ?
Yes this is what I thought.
So how can you explain grandmother now?
RC you have a problem
Grandmother will not understand you because in fact you have nothing in your inner cinema grandmother can understand.
Øhhh - How can you then understand what you are talking about ?

 

[Paulhoff]

GPS's work because GR works, they wouldn't work if GR was wrong.

END OF LINE.

A Scientific theory stays a one until a better one comes along to replace it.

END OF LINE.

Paul

 

[MRC_Hans]

Tell me which images do you get inside your head when I say "curvature of space"

You wouldn't understand.

No not the images of the light bending or how cows following the curvature of the Earth, We are talking about SPACE itself.

I hardly ever think about cows. I like a good steak, though .....

Ok let me change the experiment

What experiment?

Now I ask you tell us exactly what is the curvature of space?
What does space really do when it curves ?

It behaves non-linear. It is not just space, it is space-time.

Tell us now about you inner images you now get ?
How does these look ?
Are there any ?
No ?

I can show you the inner image I get when I read your posts:

So how can you explain grandmother now?

Grandmother will not understand you because in fact you have nothing in your inner cinema grandmother can understand.

What makes you think astrophysics can be explained to your grandmother?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

It behaves non-linear. It is not just space, it is space-time.

Hans

Yehh and a cow walking at the earth also does so, when it walk a long distance, but this does not explain what space does, does it `?

 

[Paulhoff]

Bjarne, you in no way, like others like you, care about the truth. You just care to hear yourself talk, I feel sorry for you.

Paul



But not very sorry.