Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bjarne said:
I mean the scientific methods rather than omniscience brainwash
Click to expand...

That's right, before there was any real science. Then you'd have a chance to pass anything for the 'scientific method'.
Then you might look a little less ignorant and childish.

But alas, it's too late for that.
 
Daylightstar said:
That's right, before there was any real science. Then you'd have a chance to pass anything for the 'scientific method'.
Then you might look a little less ignorant and childish.

But alas, it's too late for that.
Click to expand...

Don't you understand that omniscience brainwash is indeed what prevents any progress?
Simply in many cases because there is only one true god + it is not popular to have other gods.
See the film; - open your eyes for reality.
 
Bjarne, you are very far from sophisticated enough to even sound remotely plausible.

Science is not your thing Bjarne, you haven't got what it takes.
 
Daylightstar said:
Bjarne, you are very far from sophisticated enough to even sound remotely plausible.

Science is not your thing Bjarne, you haven't got what it takes.
Click to expand...

Remember a cow can always look at everything with fresh eyes don’t under estimate this.
Cows are 100% impossible to brainwash.
It is very good to be able to communicate with cows
 
Bjarne said:
Remember a cow can always look at everything with fresh eyes don’t under estimate this.
Cows are 100% impossible to brainwash.
It is very good to be able to communicate with cows
Click to expand...


Have fun with your cow fetish based opinions.

Science doesn't need you, has no use for you.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne, a degree in asstrophysics from the University of What Some Guy Posted on Youtube is as much use as the doctorate in the Philosophy of Being My Best Mate you can get from that bloke in the pub who can't dress himself.
 
Bjarne said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L01PU3r6fmA
Click to expand...
Lerner's debunked ideas presented in a multi-part video: Errors in Eric Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened"
Originally Posted by Bjarne
Why did you not saw the video ?

I am not going to waste my time on Lerner's debunked ideas presented in a multi-part video.
Errors in Eric Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened"

Actual science: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:
The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:
  • Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
  • Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
  • Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
  • Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.
Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.
Click to expand...

Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang
First asked 21st October 2011 (47 days and counting!)
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Lerner's debunked ideas presented in a multi-part video: Errors in Eric Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened"
Originally Posted by Bjarne [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
Why did you not saw the video ?

I am not going to waste my time on Lerner's debunked ideas presented in a multi-part video.
Errors in Eric Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened"

Actual science: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?


Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang
First asked 21st October 2011 (47 days and counting!)
Click to expand...


Yes I know you have no reason to listen to other people as those that are "saved".
But PLEASE watch ONLY 1 minute and 20 second of this video
From the 3rd minute, - and ONLY 1 minute and 20 second forward - PLEASE
Me and mother cow have compassion with you RC, we belelive we can save you from a fanatic omniscient sect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L01PU3r6fmA
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
Try to use 3 minutes of your live and watch this video from 9' minute and 3 minutes forwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kePDAAEZ_s

You understand what I mean with RR, - and opposite in the opposite direction (look at the green arrow) ...

http://www.science27.com/images/agal.jpg
Click to expand...

No, I don't see any connection with your RR model. These observations connect some objects with vastly different red-shifts together and speculate that the objects are part of the same system. The simple fact is that we cannot conclude anything from this observation, since they could also happen to be on the same visual axis. True, the probability for this is low, but it is still quite possible. As long as there is no more evidence than this, the accepted theory stands.

Holy fanatic omniscience arrogant intolerant mass brain washed orthodox scientists say it is not possible that galaxies can come apart,
Click to expand...

Bjarne, this is not only idiotic blabbering, it is factually wrong. We have several examples of galaxies coming apart, splitting up, colliding, etc. NOBODY claims this is not the case.

All you are demonstrating is your own abysmal ignorance on the subject.

RR is a fact.
RR is the cause of galaxies can break apart >
Click to expand...

RR is fiction. If RR existed, it would sappy to all galaxies, and they would all be breaking apart.

The alternative thesis you have found on YouTube has nothing to do with your ideas.

Hans
 
Bjarne said:
Yes I know you have no reason to listen to other people as those that are "saved".
But PLEASE watch ONLY 1 minute and 20 second of this video
From the 3rd minute, - and ONLY 1 minute and 20 second forward - PLEASE
Me and mother cow have compassion with you RC, we belelive we can save you from a fanatic omniscient sect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L01PU3r6fmA
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you can't make sense, shout louder. :rolleyes:

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
No, I don't see any connection with your RR model. These observations connect some objects with vastly different red-shifts together and speculate that the objects are part of the same system. The simple fact is that we cannot conclude anything from this observation, since they could also happen to be on the same visual axis. True, the probability for this is low, but it is still quite possible. As long as there is no more evidence than this, the accepted theory stands.

Hans
Click to expand...
Exactly and this is why we should be carefully with single tracked omniscient interpretations, - and those that not agree kicked from their job.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
Exactly and this is why we should be carefully with single tracked omniscient interpretation, - and those that not agree kicked from their job.
Click to expand...
Ahh, so you agree that the video you linked to does not support your RR idea?

Good, we may be making progress.

You don't know why this researcher was kicked from his job.

Hans
 
Bjarne said:
But PLEASE watch ONLY 1 minute and 20 second of this video
From the 3rd minute, - and ONLY 1 minute and 20 second forward - PLEASE
Click to expand...

From the 3rd minute, - and ONLY 1 minute and 20 second forward is a bunch of idoicy
  • The predictions of the temperature of space were not "well hidden".
    They were published!
  • The narrator is stupid - of course there were predictions of the temperature of space in a non-expanding universe before it was discovered the the universe was expanding.
    One example: Eddington did not predict the CMB
  • The narrator is stupidly concentrating on just the temperature of the CMB.
    It is that the CMB is a perfect black body spectrum the shows that the universe was once in a hot dense state.
  • As for the previous estimates being better -wrong!
Timeline of cosmic microwave background astronomy

Thermal (non-microwave background) temperature predictions
  • 1896 - Charles Edouard Guillaume estimates the "radiation of the stars" to be 5.6K.[1]
  • 1926 - Sir Arthur Eddington estimates the non-thermal radiation of starlight in the galaxy ".. by the formula E = σT4 the effective temperature corresponding to this density is 3.18º absolute .. black body"[2]
  • 1930s - Cosmologist Erich Regener calculates that the non-thermal spectrum of cosmic rays in the galaxy has an effective temperature of 2.8K
  • 1931 - Term microwave first used in print: "When trials with wavelengths as low as 18 cm. were made known, there was undisguised surprise+that the problem of the micro-wave had been solved so soon." Telegraph & Telephone Journal XVII. 179/1
  • 1934 - Richard Tolman shows that black-body radiation in an expanding universe cools but remains thermal
  • 1938 - Nobel Prize winner (1920) Walther Nernst reestimates the cosmic ray temperature as 0.75K
  • 1941 - Andrew McKellar uses the excitation of CN doublet lines to measure that the "effective temperature of space" is about 2.3 K
  • 1946 - Robert Dicke predicts ".. radiation from cosmic matter" at <20 K, but did not refer to background radiation [3]
  • 1946 - George Gamow calculates a temperature of 50 K (assuming a 3-billion year old Universe),[4] commenting it ".. is in reasonable agreement with the actual temperature of interstellar space", but does not mention background radiation.
  • 1953 - Erwin Finlay-Freundlich in support of his tired light theory, derives a blackbody temperature for intergalactic space of 2.3K [5] with comment from Max Born suggesting radio astronomy as the arbitrator between expanding and infinite cosmologies.
Click to expand...
N.B. To be honest the microwave background radiation predictions from an exanding universe were just as varied, mostly due to the large uncertainty in the Hubble constant.

But PLEASE read the science: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

Me and my education have compassion with you Bjarne but we no longer believe we can save you from a fanatic obsession with confirming your state of ignorance by linking to crackpot videos.

The problems with some alternatives
Errors in Irving Segal's Chronometric Cosmology
Errors in Eric Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened"
Errors in tired light models
Errors in the Steady State and QSSC Models

Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang
First asked 21st October 2011 (47 days and counting!)
 
Last edited:
I doubt that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. I think the expansion is slowing down. So a Big Bang, yes, but no acceleration.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I doubt that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. I think the expansion is slowing down. So a Big Bang, yes, but no acceleration.
Click to expand...

In a way, you make more sense than Bjarne. At least you don't pretend to have any evidence for your claims. More honest, really.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
In a way, you make more sense than Bjarne. At least you don't pretend to have any evidence for your claims. More honest, really.

Hans
Click to expand...

I have no evidence, correct. The idea is that photons interact with the vacuum energy which causes the redshift scientists today believe is an acceleration of the expansion of the universe. I also believe photons have a rest mass and that the bending of light is simply a result of gravity pulling on the photons, not that space itself is bending.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I have no evidence, correct. The idea is that photons interact with the vacuum energy which causes the redshift scientists today believe is an acceleration of the expansion of the universe. I also believe photons have a rest mass and that the bending of light is simply a result of gravity pulling on the photons, not that space itself is bending.
Click to expand...

The first part is speculative, the last part is provably wrong, but I don't suppose you are interested in evidence, either way, right?

Hans
 
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