Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Reality Check]

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

That is what I said.

The Danish articles add that; the probability of statistical fluctuations MUST be brought down to 0,0006 %,, before we have EVIDENCE, - NOT 5%
...snipped insane cow fetish stuff...

That is a lie or bad translation.
There is EVIDENCE now. This EVIDENCE is that there is a better than 94% probablilty that the Higgs boson exists. Thus you cited YouTube videos that lied about the results (they did not rule out a Higgs boson).

The criteria is that the probability of statistical fluctuations causing the same results MUST be brought down to 0,0006 % before the EVIDENCE is strong enough to be the discovery of a Higgs boson.

N.B. This is the simplest Higgs boson to complete the Standard Model. There are other possibilities for the Higgs boson (even multiple Higgs bosons) in various theories. So even if new data is collected and shows that the current results were statistical flukes then this just rules out the usual Higgs boson.

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne, Why are you still ignoring the evidence for the Big Bang

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).

You are lying.
The only reasonable explanation of redshift of the EM-spectre receives from light from distance galaxies is cosmological redshift: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
This link was first posted on 29th July 2011.

Bjarne, Why are you still ignoring the evidence for the Big Bang that you have known about since 29th July 2011?

The fantasy science is in imagining that the redshift could be gravitational redshift. If you knew anything about gravity then you would know that a very special arrangement of matter in the universe that is needed to do this.
Since you are so smart rolleyes, you can tell us about that arrangement and point out the observational evidence for it.
P.S. The observational evidence is that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales.
This means what, Bjarne?

As for the universe being in a Big Crunch, that is insane given that the evidence is that the universe is expanding.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You did not answer my question. I asked you to explain, according to your model of gravity, how speed can increase gravity.

Right now we (the Earth) is on its way towards perihelion, so we are losing potential gravity, and the result is speed.

No, we are loosing positional energy, which is converted to increased speed.

- But the result is also increasing gravity due to speed. - But also increasing RR due to speed.

The mass of Earth is slightly increased due to the acceleration. There is no such thing as RR.

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 .

There is no RR, so there is no counteraction. When Earth moves away from perihelion, some of its speed is converted back to positional energy, and its mass is reduced accordingly.

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.

No, we shall not consider that, at least not before you have explained where the energy to change gravity has come from.

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.

There is only relative speed. This is a fact. It has been proved experimentally.

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

Your belief is contradicted by observation.

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

There is no such thing as RR.

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

Nonsense.

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?

We don't know for sure.

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

No it is not possible. Speed is relative. If speed was not relative, and we were moving at some absolute speed, we would be able to detect it.

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.

Then how does speed generate gravity? Your whirlpool does not get deeper by moving with the current.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Try to Google translate from Danish;

I don't have to.

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%

It is 5% against. This means the likelihood of this is 95%. Of course we will want it better.

scientific experiments must be replicated.
This means that the 5% probability proves NOTHING

That is wrong. It is not 5% probability, it is 95% probability. And it certainly proves more than 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.

First of all, although you often act as one, we all know you are more than 10 years old. And you have just shown that statistics is another subject you don't understand.

The article you link to says that the probability of having found the Higgs particle is now better than 95%, and that research is continuing.

RC – This is cow logic, - you are lying.
FACE it.

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

Bjarne, watch it! You are leaning hard on getting reported.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

do you like her

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

No, Bjarne, I'm afraid my tastes are a bit different, .... but to each his own.
I want you to know that I would never discriminate against you because of your attraction to cows.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

You are lying.
The only reasonable explanation of redshift of the EM-spectra receives from light from distance galaxies is cosmological redshift:
Cosmological redshift is accurate the same load of rubbish as if I would claim that oxygen is blue.

The Cosmological redshift idea, - has NEVER passed any scientific experiment. It is NOT proven that the EM specter is changing due to the expanding space and that the EM spectra must reveal such. - It is 1475% guessing and nothing else.
It is an 885 % load of mass brainwashed turbo fantasy.
It is a sick idea even compare such with SCIENCE

The fantasy science is in imagining that the redshift could be gravitational redshift.

We KNOW redshift CAN be caused by gravitational redshift.
This is approved by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

A Big crunch is possible.
A Big crunch must increase speed and hence gravity.
Gravitational redshift is evidently causing redshift, - the fantasy idea that this same is caused due to expanding space, has NOTHING with science to do, but rather with fanatic religion.

THIS IS A FACT

RC after 17 years at a University I expected you would know just a little about the scientific methods. But I am chocked you seems to know anything about what this is about.

Oxygen is NOT blue, simply because there are no evidence for that.
Redshift do NOT prove the insane idea that space expands.
Both because there is no evidence that space expands, and even if it did there is NO evidence that the expanding space is causing EM-spectra to change, - as well that there is also no evidence that expanding space is the cause of that oxygen gets bluer and bluer every day or that more white and black cows are born because of that.
You are dealing with fantasy, - not with science

FACE IT

 

[Bjarne]

That is what I said.


That is a lie or bad translation.
There is EVIDENCE now. This EVIDENCE is that there is a better than 94% probablilty that the Higgs boson exists. Thus you cited YouTube videos that lied about the results (they did not rule out a Higgs boson).

The criteria is that the probability of statistical fluctuations causing the same results MUST be brought down to 0,0006 % before the EVIDENCE is strong enough to be the discovery of a Higgs boson.

N.B. This is the simplest Higgs boson to complete the Standard Model. There are other possibilities for the Higgs boson (even multiple Higgs bosons) in various theories. So even if new data is collected and shows that the current results were statistical flukes then this just rules out the usual Higgs boson.

Wake up RC & Co
There is NOTHING new under the sky

PLEASE translate this ( google can do it for you)

»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.

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

FACE IT

Have you ever thought about how many thousand peoples ( pretty large ) income depend on the higgs , - is real ?'
Money Money Money make the world go round.

This higgs MUST be there.
If not; disaster (and unemployment)
The cold shower is ready.

 

[Bjarne]

That is wrong. It is not 5% probability, it is 95% probability. And it certainly proves more than nothing.
Hans

The devil would read the bible like that.
The probability MUST be brought down to 0,0006% before there are any scientific evidence. It is now 8333 larger than that.

No, we shall not consider that, at least not before you have explained where the energy to change gravity has come from.

I did answer that allready.
The energy comes from potential gravity.
Like planet Earth repeats cycles where potential gravity is converted to speed and brought back to potential gravity.

No it is not possible. Speed is relative. If speed was not relative, and we were moving at some absolute speed, we would be able to detect it.

The Universe is probaly so huge that the overview is lost.
Anyway, have you hear about dark flow ?
This could be a main thread.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The probability MUST be brought down to 0,0006% before there are any scientific evidence. It is now 8333 larger than that.

Congratulations on succeeding with simple arithmetic.

There is no specific limit for scientific evidence, it is a continuous scale of increasing probability. At 5% (95% confidence) it is considered very likely. At 0.0006% it is so much better that all argument usually stops.

I did answer that allready.
The energy comes from potential gravity.
Like planet Earth repeats cycles where potential gravity is converted to speed and brought back to potential gravity.

There is no such thing as potential gravity. It is called potential, or positional energy.

But it does not answer my question. You claim that gravity is caused by objects contracting space. Why should a fast object contract more space than a slow object?

Anyway, have you hear about dark flow ?

This is so funny, Bjarne! You claim that cosmological redshift does not exist, and that there is a universal speed frame. If that was to be the case, there would be no expansion, no visible horizon, and hence no dark flow.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

The Cosmological redshift idea, - has NEVER passed any scientific experiment.

Wrong.

It is NOT proven that the EM specter is changing due to the expanding space and that the EM spectra must reveal such.

Wrong.

We KNOW redshift CAN be caused by gravitational redshift.

Not as much redshift as we observe.

A Big crunch is possible.
A Big crunch must increase speed and hence gravity.

Not enough to account for the observed redshift.

Hans

 

[sol invictus]

That is a lie or bad translation.
There is EVIDENCE now. This EVIDENCE is that there is a better than 94% probablilty that the Higgs boson exists.

That's not accurate. The probability of the upward fluctuation ATLAS observed being due to chance (i.e. if there is no Higgs or other new particle) is 0.00016, or 0.016%. The probability that such an upward fluctuation would occur anywhere in the parameter space (not just where they saw it) is still less than 1%.

CMS's results were less significant, but still above threshold. Combining them (which hasn't been done yet) will make the results even more significant than ATLAS is alone.

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1406358

 

[Bjarne]

Congratulations on succeeding with simple arithmetic.

There is no specific limit for scientific evidence, it is a continuous scale of increasing probability. At 5% (95% confidence) it is considered very likely. At 0.0006% it is so much better that all argument usually stops.

Learn some Danish Hans, and you would know how ridicules your ideas are;

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

There is no such thing as potential gravity. It is called potential, or positional energy.

quibbling, - call it what you want, - it make no difference.

But it does not answer my question. You claim that gravity is caused by objects contracting space. Why should a fast object contract more space than a slow object?

Because the faster an object is, the deeper it is twisted into space.
Hence the energy is larger.
There are no matter as such.........only energy and space. (and the result - compressed space, you call matter).
More speed = stronger compressed space = more gravity

This is so funny, Bjarne! You claim that cosmological redshift does not exist, and that there is a universal speed frame. If that was to be the case, there would be no expansion

There is no expansion, but only fanatic religion.

, no visible horizon,

In principle you should be able to see the whole universe.
And even also stars from a previous Universe further away as 13,7 billion LY.
BUT the problem is that the present universe is "too old".
What I mean is; that it is not possible to see normal star light 13 billion LY away.
You can ONLY measure gamma from that distance and see gamma ray burst.
We should also be able to see/ measure gamma + gamma ray burst, from a distance of 13,7 billion LY, - the problem here is that when a galaxy appears at the edge of the Univers and stars begins to explode soon after the galaxy will no longer be transparent.

I still believe it is a good chance that we one day will see a large number of gamma rays burst from a galaxy that just have appeared at the edge of the Universe. I am talking about hundred or maybe several thousand gamma rays burst each day.
Relative soon after we will only be able to measure "diffuse" gamma because it's no longer transparent.

and hence no dark flow.

Dark flow is very interesting and will one day open our eyes for a completely different universe.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne
We KNOW redshift CAN be caused by gravitational redshift.
Hans
Not as much redshift as we observe.

Hans this is the problem you shares with many.
Off course gravity of the universe can go mad, - simply because the universe(s) can be INFÍNITY HUGE.
Lasse Lasse Lille.
It is because the human brain is concrete heavy. This also make the imagination concrete heavy.
Cows does not have such heavy brain problems.

 

[Reality Check]

Wake up RC & Co
There is NOTHING new under the sky
...

Wake up Bjarne
There is SOMETHING new under the sky

The SOMETHING NEW is that the Higgs boson has possibly been found.

FACE IT

 

[Reality Check]

The Cosmological redshift idea, - has NEVER passed any scientific experiment.
...insane rant snipped...

That is insane -you expect sceintists to create universes to test Cosmological redshift !
That is as ignorant as expecting scientists to create stars in the laboratory to verify the observations that stars exist.

Science does not depend only on experiments. Observations are also important. For example life has never been created in an experiment. Does that mean that life does not exist? No - we observe that life exists and so must have come into being sometime.

We KNOW redshift CAN be caused by gravitational redshift.
This is approved by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

We KNOW redshift CAN be caused by cosmological redshift.
This is approved by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Bjarne, Why are you still ignoring the evidence for the Big Bang as cited on 29th July 2011

A Big crunch is possible.

A Big Crunch is improbable because we have measured that the required conditions for it are not there. The universe is flat (to ~2%). The expansion of the universe is expanding.

A Big crunch must increase speed and hence gravity.
....

Gibberish

 

[Reality Check]

In principle you should be able to see the whole universe.

Wrong again !
In principle and practice you can only see the observable universe which is about 46.6 billion light years in radius (about 45.7 billion light years for the visible universe).

Also see Future of an expanding universe about the most probable scenario, i.e. an expanding universe where galaxies outside of the Local Cluster become unobservable at ~2 trillion years.

 

[Bjarne]

wake up bjarne
there is something new under the sky

the something new is that the higgs boson has possibly been found.

face it

religion

 

[Bjarne]

That is insane -you expect sceintists to create universes to test Cosmological redshift !
That is as ignorant as expecting scientists to create stars in the laboratory to verify the observations that stars exist.

Science does not depend only on experiments. Observations are also important. For example life has never been created in an experiment. Does that mean that life does not exist? No - we observe that life exists and so must have come into being sometime.

[/B]
We KNOW redshift CAN be caused by cosmological redshift.
This is approved by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Bjarne, Why are you still ignoring the evidence for the Big Bang as cited on 29th July 2011


A Big Crunch is improbable because we have measured that the required conditions for it are not there. The universe is flat (to ~2%). The expansion of the universe is expanding.


Gibberish

Observation of the sky do not prove oxygen is blue, NO observation is evidently proving the universe expands, this insane idea is fanatic desperate RELIGION

 

[MRC_Hans]

Learn some Danish Hans, and you would know how ridicules your ideas are;

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

Yes. Exactly as I say. Unlike your claims about religious creeds, scientists are actually very cautious and will only declare something true based on very solid evidence.

- Unlike some I know, who think their wild fantasies are true.

quibbling, - call it what you want, - it make no difference.

Yes, it makes a difference, because if you use the wrong term, nobody can know what you are talking about.

Because the faster an object is, the deeper it is twisted into space.
Hence the energy is larger.

Gibberish. There is absolutely no sense in that paragraph.

There are no matter as such.........only energy and space. (and the result - compressed space, you call matter).
More speed = stronger compressed space = more gravity

More gibberish.

In principle you should be able to see the whole universe.
And even also stars from a previous Universe further away as 13,7 billion LY.
BUT the problem is that the present universe is "too old".
What I mean is; that it is not possible to see normal star light 13 billion LY away.

If the universe is not expanding, why should we not be able to see objects farther away?

You can ONLY measure gamma from that distance and see gamma ray burst.

No, we can see light all the way out to the horizon.

We should also be able to see/ measure gamma + gamma ray burst, from a distance of 13,7 billion LY, - the problem here is that when a galaxy appears at the edge of the Univers and stars begins to explode soon after the galaxy will no longer be transparent.

We would still be able to see the galaxy. And why should all the galaxies at 13 billion LY be exploding?

I still believe it is a good chance that we one day will see a large number of gamma rays burst from a galaxy that just have appeared at the edge of the Universe. I am talking about hundred or maybe several thousand gamma rays burst each day.

Which edge of the universe? Can you make your mind up? Is your universe expanding or not? If it is not expanding, why should it have an edge?

You are just picking little bits and pieces, but you loose the big picture.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Observation of the sky do not prove oxygen is blue,

I think you are the only one here saying that oxygen is blue.

NO observation is evidently proving the universe expands, this insane idea is fanatic desperate RELIGION

False. Observation very clearly indicates that the universe is expanding. There is some small chance that this conclusion is actually false, but but it is by far the most plausible explanation for what we observe.

Every time you say "there is no evidence", you are only exposing your own ignorance.

Hans