Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

You seem to have a fantasy that "plasma" somehow hides gamma ray bursts. That is idiotic because we actually see GRB from them.

We have seen Gamma from a star 12,8 billion LY away, not more.
I am not sure (right now) how long time it will take before hot plasma from an exploding supernova to cool down, to a point where matter again can be created.

So several hundred thousand LY (probably several million LY, and maybe up to 500 to 700 million LY) away from the edge of the visible universe and towards us, - plenty of galactic size plasma clouds exist.

In that area off exploded galaxies we shall expect the Universe not is transparent.

At the edge of the visible universe (13,7 billion LY) we shall expect that galaxies are exploding, - and each have several hundred stars exploding every day.

I believe we will never see either light or direct gamma from a distance of 13,7 billion years ago, when new galaxies appears, (and begins to explode) - because this area is not transparent. (I change my mind).

All what gets through from such deep area is diffuse gamma.

The CRM can be explained due to that theory as well.

So from this area (closest to us where the plasma density gets thinner) ( not much more than 12,8 billion LY away) gamma does sometimes escape, but light is reflected by plasma. This is what the 600 mysteries on the sky are about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEnpOMYdLgE

We also know those supernovas here are more frequently
Gravity was stronger (and probably also the strong force) for exsample 1 billion years after all galaxies exploded, - this could explain why supernova explosion here are so energetic.
This fits with that gravity is stronger.

When a new galaxy appears at the edge at the universe 13,7 billion LY way, we should see hundred of stars exploding every day from one galaxy. But I am not sure we ever will, because we shall expect plenty of plasma clouds (from galaxies exploding “before”) – (between the visible edge at the Universe and us) covering everything what happens “on the other size”.

Diffuse gamma will escape, and this explains that we cannot account for 70% of the gamma we are actually measuring.

As light from the gamma-ray burst passed through the galaxies, the gas there acted like a filter and absorbed some of the light from the gamma-ray burst at certain wavelengths
http://earthsky.org/space/gamma-ray-burst-illuminates-new-mystery-in-early-galaxies

In the future we will see many examples that show that gamma comming from 12 billion LY and deeper gets "disturbed" by plasma. This should be enough to turn over the BB thesis, - but because we are dealing with a religion, it will probably not be enough.

 

[Bjarne]

 

[Anders Lindman]

[qimg]http://www.science27.com/forum/13-7.jpg[/qimg]

Ah, less energetic supernovas. That's only because of the vacuum friction making photons lose energy over vast distances. So it's only the measured energy here on Earth that is less, not the actual supernovas themselves.

 

[Bjarne]

Ah, less energetic supernovas. That's only because of the vacuum friction making photons lose energy over vast distances. So it's only the measured energy here on Earth that is less, not the actual supernovas themselves.

The thought is; when gravity just before and right after a "bigBang" is stronger , most likely the strong force is also stronger. - Hence the energy releases of supernovas are also larger.
I am writing this because of: 1.) this is a consequence of the theory 2.) Large energy releases of many supernovas (gamma ray burst) are mysteries.
I mean imaging gravity today was 10 or 100 times stronger , this would effect everything, - so the “environment” is impotent too, when we want to understand certain phenomena’s, from a different period.

 

[Anders Lindman]

The thought is; when gravity just before and right after a "bigBang" is stronger , most likely the strong force is also stronger. - Hence the energy releases of supernovas are also larger.
I am writing this because of: 1.) this is a consequence of the theory 2.) Large energy releases of many supernovas (gamma ray burst) are mysteries.
I mean imaging gravity today was 10 or 100 times stronger , this would effect everything, - so the “environment” is impotent too, when we want to understand certain phenomena’s, from a different period.

Ok, so you mean a supernova say 12 billion lightyears away has more energy relative to a close supernova in a real sense. Then what about the energy from a galaxy 12 billion lightyears away compared to a galaxy of equal size close to Earth? Maybe that will also show a big difference. And if so, can that really be explained by higher gravity? The expansion of the universe was very fast after the Big Bang I think, so the gravity would very quickly become pretty much the same as today since the effect of gravity diminishes rapidly when the distances between astronomical objects increase.

 

[Bjarne]

Ok, so you mean a supernova say 12 billion lightyears away has more energy relative to a close supernova in a real sense. Then what about the energy from a galaxy 12 billion lightyears away compared to a galaxy of equal size close to Earth? Maybe that will also show a big difference. And if so, can that really be explained by higher gravity? The expansion of the universe was very fast after the Big Bang I think, so the gravity would very quickly become pretty much the same as today since the effect of gravity diminishes rapidly when the distances between astronomical objects increase.

I am talking about a Big Crunch that caused extreme speed / gravity, - This mean the energy of a star is not always the same ( E=mc^2)

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

In that area off exploded galaxies we shall expect the Universe not is transparent.

The fatal flaw in your fantasy - galaxies do not explode !

 

[MRC_Hans]

I am talking about a Big Crunch that caused extreme speed / gravity, - This mean the energy of a star is not always the same ( E=mc^2)

Where does the extra energy come from?

It takes a huge amount of energy to accelerate an object to relativistic speeds. CERN uses enough energy to power a small city to accelerate a few hundred protons to near c. What amount of energy do you think is needed to accelerate a star? A million stars? A galaxy? A million galaxies?

Where does the energy come from, Bjarne? You can't just claim that "gravity was much higher because everything moved fast", because for every increase in gravity, you need to bind tremendous amounts of energy, and there is only a constant supply of energy in the universe.

Hans

 

[Toke]

Are there any pictures of higgs bossum yet?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Oh, by the way:

Bjarne, in your gravity model, you claim that gravity is generated by matter 'pulling in' space. Under that model, please explain why gravity is increased at relativistic speeds?

Hans

 

[Anders Lindman]

Are there any pictures of higgs bossum yet?

You mean Higg's wife's bosom? It's so large that not even the NRO spy satellites have been able to catch it on film.

 

[Bjarne]

Where does the extra energy come from?
It takes a huge amount of energy to accelerate an object to relativistic speeds. CERN uses enough energy to power a small city to accelerate a few hundred protons to near c. What amount of energy do you think is needed to accelerate a star? A million stars? A galaxy? A million galaxies?

Where does the energy come from, Bjarne? You can't just claim that "gravity was much higher because everything moved fast", because for every increase in gravity, you need to bind tremendous amounts of energy, and there is only a constant supply of energy in the universe.
Hans

Right now we (the Earth) is on its way towards perihelion, so we are losing potential gravity, and the result is speed. - But the result is also increasing gravity due to speed. - But also increasing RR due to speed.

If we assume that the increase of gravity and RR would counteract each other there would be no limits for accelerating to c. It is then only a question of time .

The speed of the Earth is 0,1 % of c
The speed of the Milkyway is 2% of c (Astronomers believe the Milky Way is moving at approximately 630 km per second relative to the local co-moving frame of reference that moves with the Hubble flow.)
Dark flow also = 2 % of c
( But according to this theory we shall consider that gravity was about 10 times stronger 12 billion years ago, and hence time 10 times slower) The Dark flow - speed - is therefore in real time about 20% of c.

But all this is relative speed.

How fast are ALL the galaxies moving today, seen from an “outsider” – We don’t know, but it could be pretty fast.

I believe clusters of galaxies are orbiting a central point, we also see orbits in all other system.

Because of RR the motion direction could be (almost) direct towards the gravitionel center of the Universe.

Anyway, doesn’t matter how a collapse (Big Crunch) really is, the universe will lose potential gravity, this will convert to speed.

The different between the solar system and the universe, is that the acceleration period in a universal perspective not only is ½ year (like planet earth) but who knows maybe 50 billion years, maybe more maybe less.

Now imaging; that the Universe was a limit size with a limit amount of galaxies. This is quite possible. What would be around “us” ?
A unlimited space of NOTHING towards infinity?
Or would there “out there” be 10 universe more, - or maybe 100 – or 1 billion more universes, - or a UNLIMITED amount of universes AND matter?

I ask Mother Cow, she said; both cows and honest humans must come to a point where we must admit that the universe(s?) is completely beyond our wildest imagination.
You know the cow was Danish so it also said: ”Verden er så stor så stor Lasse Lasse lille. Meget store end du tror Lasse Lasse lille. ”

In principle our Universe could now be heading towards a gigantic black hole, with a gigantic sped. This IS POSSIBLE.

Hans all we can say for certain is that extreme speed in the unknown environment / surroundings we live is certainly possible, and it is also possible that gravity (on several levels) can become so strong that it pulls matter (the strong force) to its braking point.- and hence BAAAAAAAAAANGGGGGG, - - not nothing that explode and become everything, - but everything that explodes and still is everything, but just in smaller parts.

Furthermore we can for certain say, - that we don’t need to invent more turbo properties. We have general relativity, this can bring us a lot further, - understand RR can to.

Bjarne, in your gravity model, you claim that gravity is generated by matter 'pulling in' space. Under that model, please explain why gravity is increased at relativistic speeds?

Matter is in the end of the day NOTHING, but space.
It is compressed space density.
Speed of matter is like speed of water http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JleLbAkEt3c
You will have whirlpools.
The faster these whirlpools moves, the deeper they will twist them self into water (or space).
So speed of matter certainly reinforces the process of creating compressed space = matter.
So even though you are losing speed due to RR, you get proportional gravity increase.

So don’t you think these two sizes can equalize each other?

 

[Bjarne]

Hans

do you like her

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=631AClELq60

 

[Bjarne]

Disaster

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snb0rzDQbPE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeVuQXrK4Ww&feature=related

 

[Reality Check]

Disaster

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snb0rzDQbPE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeVuQXrK4Ww&feature=related

YouTube Videos telling lies!

Try reading the science from people who know what they ar etalking about, e.g.

• Physicists weigh up Higgs signals
• First Glimpse of the Higgs Boson: Guest post from Jack Gunion

The results fron the LHC are evidence that the Higgs boson exists. Specifically one experiment (CMS) found that the Higgs boson exists at a 94% confidence level, the other experiment (ATLAS) sees it at about 98%.
These confidence levels are not enough to declare that the Higgs boson exists. Particle physicists like a 5 sigma confidence level (99.9999426697%) before the existence of a particle is announced. So they will gather more data. That data will either show that the Higgs boson exists or that the current results were a statistical fluke. That is expected by the end of the 2012 run.

 

[Reality Check]

If we assume that the increase of gravity and RR would counteract each other there would be no limits for accelerating to c.

So many things wriog in one sentence!
This "increase of gravity" is an assumption without any evidence.
There are limits for accelerating to c - it takes an infinte amount of energy to do that. Neither gravity nor your RR delusion affect this.
Your 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?

RR does not exist:

• 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

P.S.
Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang
First asked 21st October 2011 (59 days and counting!)

 

[Bjarne]

So many things wriog in one sentence!
This "increase of gravity" is an assumption without any evidence.
There are limits for accelerating to c - it takes an infinte amount of energy to do that. Neither gravity nor your RR delusion affect this.

The only reasonable explanation of redshift of the EM-spectre receives from light from distance galaxies is; gravitational redshift. There are no other possibilities. ( except fantasy science).
Furthermore we know that ´gravity increase is exactly what we should expect in a Big Crunch
Only naive fools can fully believe that all the energy of the Universe, galaxies, gravity, cows, Lamborghinis can come out of NOTHING. That too is cow-logical evidence.

 

[Bjarne]

YouTube Videos telling lies!

Try reading the science from people who know what they ar etalking about, e.g.

• Physicists weigh up Higgs signals
• First Glimpse of the Higgs Boson: Guest post from Jack Gunion

The results fron the LHC are evidence that the Higgs boson exists. Specifically one experiment (CMS) found that the Higgs boson exists at a 94% confidence level, the other experiment (ATLAS) sees it at about 98%.
These confidence levels are not enough to declare that the Higgs boson exists. Particle physicists like a 5 sigma confidence level (99.9999426697%) before the existence of a particle is announced. So they will gather more data. That data will either show that the Higgs boson exists or that the current results were a statistical fluke. That is expected by the end of the 2012 run.

Yeah Yeah Yeah
We have hear it all before
All those that not believe, are idiotic ignorant cranks that lies and bla bla bla

Try to Google translate from Danish;

»Det er meget spændende resultater, men vi bliver nødt til at tage dem med et gran salt. I det seneste årti har jeg set tilsvarende opdagelser der er gjort med samme eller højere sandsynligheder for, at fundet er reelt, men hvor efterfølgende forsøg siden hen har aflivet dem. Derfor skal vi være varsomme. Jeg forventer, at vi har et endegyldigt svar i 2012, som vi dermed meget passende kan kalde for Higgs-året,« siger han.

Der var også nye resultater, men ikke så sikre, at forskerne turde sige, at Higgs var fundet. Der var foretaget målinger af henfald, som kunne tyde på at Higgs har eksisteret et kort øjeblik, men det statistiske materiale var alt for lille til at man turde tale om en opdagelse. Der er stadig en sandsynlighed på noget under 5 % for at målingerne skyldes tilfældigheder. Før man kan tale om en opdagelse, skal denne sandsynlighed bringes ned på 0,0006 %, og det kræver mange flere målinger, end vi har i dag. Disse målinger forventer CERN dog at have foretaget inden udgangen af 2012.

Source http://videnskab.dk/miljo-naturvidenskab/cern-offentliggor-spaendende-resultater-om-higgs-partiklen

So what you can read and conclude is that the two experiments both see signals that exceed 2 sigma so that there is less than a 5% chance that they are simply statistical fluctuations

The Danish articles add that; the probability of statistical fluctuations MUST be brought down to 0,0006 %,, before we have EVIDENCE, - NOT 5%
Every cow knows that scientific experiments must be replicated.
This means that the 5% probability proves NOTHING

The conclusion (for a 10 years old boy) is ; that the proportions / for acceptable evidences that higgs NOT is found is factor 8333 times larger than acceptable.
The uncertainty that a higgs is discovered is therefore only factor 1 and a factor 8333 against.
RC – This is cow logic, - you are lying.
FACE it.

Do you like this girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=631AClELq60

 

[sol invictus]

The latest results from ATLAS find an excess peaked at a mass of 126GeV, with 3.6 sigma significance http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1406358 .

A 3.6 sigma excess corresponds to a probability of about 1-0.99984=0.00016.

By the usual standards of particle physics that's still not considered a discovery, but it's certainly quite significant.