Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

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

Bjarne, excessive use of large fonts is a breach of rule 6, please stop it.

Also, you only make a fool of yourself by such raving. It is very stupid to declare something insane just because you don't understand it. Do try to act your age.

Hans

 

[steenkh]

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

Bjarne lives in a world where narrativium is a potent force. You know how heroes in stories always make it when have all the odds against them. The worse odds Bjarne has against Higgs, the more certain he is that a particle of narrativium will change the odds to absolute certainty and save his day.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Bjarne lives in a world where narrativium is a potent force. You know how heroes in stories always make it when have all the odds against them. The worse odds Bjarne has against Higgs, the more certain he is that a particle of narrativium will change the odds to absolute certainty and save his day.

Well, for that, I liked Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy much better.


Hans

 

[Bjarne]

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.

Sometimes.
But there are also insane idiotic ignorant desperate brainwashed people that believe that the higgs MUST exist. And it will always be, also even though it NEVER will be found.

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

It has nothing with expansion to do but with transparency, exploding stars will also reduce the transparency.

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

If plasma blocks the view you can’t.

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

I assume the “age”, with mean the time since “something” BIG did happen is about 13,7 billion years ago. - ( but I am not sure this is true)
Anyway I do not believe that the Universe came from NOTHING rather that the explosion that probably did happen, was instead billions of exploding stars .

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?

I mean off course the edge of the visible universe.
It should not be necessary to repeat that again and again, But I can see it is.

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

No I have the big picture but not the details.

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.

Rubbish, we can in no way observe see that SPACE expands, but only conclude such.
It's a huge difference.
To claim such statement is based on observation, - is really crap / a lie.
Can you and RC really not see this ?
You and RC should shame yourself to call such naive speculation for science.

 

[Reality Check]

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

Total gibberish and ignorance.
Oxygen is not blue.
The sky is not blue because it contains oxygen.
Many observations is evidently proving the universe expands.
Bjarne, Why are you still ignoring the evidence for the Big Bang as cited on 29th July 2011

 

[Bjarne]

Don't be. The evidence for this from the High-z Supernova Search Team came as a real shock. Just write down a series of numbers like this: 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 to represent an expanding universe. Note that the increase between successive terms gets bigger and bigger. Then look at the increase as a percentage of the preceding term. It's getting smaller and smaller.

.

Very Very interesting
In the weekend I will get time to exactly illustrate and explain WHY
Hang on.

 

[Bjarne]

Many observations is evidently proving the universe expands.

This Total gibberish and ignorance
You do not have one single observation that confirm that nuts idea.
You can in no way OBSERVE that the universe expands.
The way you equalize redshift with the idea that space expands, - and justify that idea; “ just like that” - is exactly as ridiculous as claiming that oxygen is blue because the sky is blue and the sky is full of oxygen.
It is ONLY speculation that oxygen is blue as well as it is that the universe expands.
It has absolutely NOTHING with science to do.

Also when you follow that idiotic idea to its dead end, - the so called Big Bang, you will come to that there doesn’t seems to be any cause of the BigBang - but there was NOTHING.
There is no KNOWN law of nature or explanation how a hell lot of energy could end up in NOTHING or how it could pop up from nothing.
What in hell does that have with science to do ?

This too just underlines how idiotic the whole concept is, and how unbelievable fare out on Jens Peter Jensen ploughed a whole world of naive fools has come.
I could have understood if this only was a good night history for children between 4 and 6 years old, - but it make no sense for children older than that, - and it should not make any sense for adults humans at all.
Completely insane turbo fantasy crap from A to Z.
I am often shamed to be a human, and happy that most of my friends are intelligent cows.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Sometimes.
But there are also insane idiotic ignorant desperate brainwashed people that believe that the higgs MUST exist. And it will always be, also even though it NEVER will be found.

So you know these scientists?

It has nothing with expansion to do but with transparency, exploding stars will also reduce the transparency.

You can still see the galaxy.

If plasma blocks the view you can’t.

You can see the plasma. Also, the plasma is inside the explosion.

I assume the “age”, with mean the time since “something” BIG did happen is about 13,7 billion years ago. - ( but I am not sure this is true)

In other words: You know nothing.

Anyway I do not believe that the Universe came from NOTHING

Nobody claims the universe came from nothing.

rather that the explosion that probably did happen, was instead billions of exploding stars .

Yeh, and those stars came from where?

I mean off course the edge of the visible universe.
It should not be necessary to repeat that again and again, But I can see it is.

It should not be necessary to repeat that the visible edge exists because the universe is expanding. If the universe is not expanding, as you claim, then there is no reason to expect a visible horizon.

No I have the big picture but not the details.

No. You haven't got a clue.

Rubbish, we can in no way observe see that SPACE expands, but only conclude such. To claim such statement is based on observation, - is really crap / a lie.

Bjarne, does Jupiter exist? How do you know? Have you touched it? Measured it? ... We conclude from our observations that Jupiter exists.

- Same with expansion of space: All our observations fit the model of expanding space, so we conclude that space expands.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

So you know these scientists?

Which scientist ?

Bjarne, does Jupiter exist? How do you know? Have you touched it? Measured it? ... We conclude from our observations that Jupiter exists.

Jupiter and cows exsist, but you have never seen jupiter with 4 legs have you ?
So Jupiter with 4 legs do not exsist, only Jupiter without 4 legs.

- Same with expansion of space: All our observations fit the model of expanding space, so we conclude that space expands.

It is not only an question of observing that the sky is blue. - You must also KNOW why it is blue.
You cannot conclude it is because oxygen is blue.
And if you do so, it is no longer science.

 

[Paulhoff]

It is not only an question of observing that the sky is blue.

http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html

Paul

 

[MRC_Hans]

It is not only an question of observing that the sky is blue. - You must also KNOW why it is blue.
You cannot conclude it is because oxygen is blue.
And if you do so, it is no longer science.

Sometimes you are exceedingly silly. Who here is the ONLY one who says that oxygen makes the sky blue?

Bjarne.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Sometimes you are exceedingly silly. Who here is the ONLY one who says that oxygen makes the sky blue?

Bjarne.

Hans

Even that simple anology was too differcult for you to understand.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Even that simple anology was too differcult for you to understand.

Yeah, analogies need to make at least some sense.
Cool that you can have two spelling errors in one sentence where you try to mock the intellect of somebody else.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Yeah, analogies need to make at least some sense.
Hans

And so must a scientific theory
I didn’t write religion or speculation, did I ? - but; a scientific theory.
Notice the difference, please
http://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio372/class/behavior/sciproc.htm

 

[steenkh]

I didn’t write religion or speculation, did I ?

Yes, you did.

You are ignoring evidence contrary to your pet theory: that makes it a religion. You are developing your theory out of the blue with no understanding of physics, that makes it speculation.

 

[Bjarne]

Yes, you did.

You are ignoring evidence contrary to your pet theory: that makes it a religion. You are developing your theory out of the blue with no understanding of physics, that makes it speculation.
Steenkh

Let me mention just 3 (of many) insane points by the prevailing speculation.

1.) Redshift MUST according to the prevailing religion be caused due to expanding space (there is NO evidence at all).
2.) The Universe MUST according to the prevailing religion be poping out of NOTHING (how did it got into NOTHING ?) (there is NO evidence at all).
3.) Dark Energy, - MUST according to the prevailing religion be just be poping up from NOWHERE. (there is NO evidence at all).

And I could continue with higgs (that never will be found), as well as more and more evidence shows galaxies and stars NOT is formed as predicted by BB, a Big hole in the universe that not should be there. Gamma that not should be there, dark flow that not should be there) etc...

All these point are huge red warning lamps, - that especially together long ago should have stopped such insane religion.
But what really happen is that the train full of fools and innocent student continues for full speed, ignoring all the warning signals.

The theory I represent is only; a big crunch and the naturally consequences; such as we KNOW must be results, - e.g; speed and gravity to increase. It can't surprise that stars in such process will explode.
So called; Dark Energy and the acceleration of that "energy" is then no longer mysteries, but ONLY the law for how (and hos fast) gravity is lost. - Soon I will go further into details to explain this.

The theory I represent do not have any red signals on its path. .
NOT ONE SINGLE.
IT IS ALL BASED ON KNOWN LAWS OF NATURE.
IT REMOVES ALL MYSTERIES ON ITS PATH.
SO NATUALLY…
NO HOKUS POKUS.

 

[DazzaD]

All these point are huge red warning lamps, - that especially together long ago should have stopped such insane religion.
But what really happen is that the train full of fools and innocent student continues for full speed, ignoring all the warning signals.

The theory I represent is only; a big crunch and the naturally consequences; such as we KNOW must be results, - e.g; speed and gravity to increase.

When I was at university, especially while working on my PhD, I had to spend much time in the library there.

Let me outline some 'evidence' for you.

I looked at a paper that my supervisor and his team had been working on. 2 solid years of work for a team of 4. That is all day, every day, solid work. Condensed and summarised into perhaps 6 pages in the Astrophysical Journal.

I spent a great deal of time looking at papers in the ApJ. Our library had a fair collection of 'back issues'. Published monthly, each month may have, say, 20 papers in. Each one of those papers could represent several years work of some of the top scientists/teams in their field. The library had volumes of this journal dating back at least 30 odd years. And that was just one journal out of many associated with this field.

In terms of evidence then, pretty much every 'wild' idea considered today has been carefully looked at, weighed, revisited, analysed, tested and then either modified, laid to one side, taken on board or discarded.

While I was at uni the main principle I was looking at was the possibility of MACHOs contributing a fair proportion towards the missing 'dark matter' in galaxies. Things moved on quickly since then and it turns out that wasnt quite so promising a 'solution' as it might have seemed when I first attended cosmology lectures as an undergraduate. They tested, they spent millions of hours debating, working, analysing, modelling, testing, discussing and arguing each and every point, in fine detail, with incredible levels of computation and mathematics to back it up, before they decided perhaps there was something else knocking about.

This 'big crunch' idea, if it was so obviously useful, would have formed the mainstay of theories or alternatives over the last 50 years or so, had it seemed to have any real merit.

It doesnt appear to have even a tiny percentage of the evidence that the current 'standard model' has, not through lack of trying, oh no, but simply because we have been there, done that, and not been able to buy the t shirt.

 

[MRC_Hans]

And so must a scientific theory
I didn’t write religion or speculation, did I ? - but; a scientific theory.
Notice the difference, please
http://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio372/class/behavior/sciproc.htm

You wrote speculation, and up-kept it with religious fervour.

Otherwise, please indicate how you followed the scientific method.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Let me mention just 3 (of many) insane points by the prevailing speculation.

1.) Redshift MUST according to the prevailing religion be caused due to expanding space (there is NO evidence at all).
2.) The Universe MUST according to the prevailing religion be poping out of NOTHING (how did it got into NOTHING ?) (there is NO evidence at all).
3.) Dark Energy, - MUST according to the prevailing religion be just be poping up from NOWHERE. (there is NO evidence at all).

And I could continue with higgs (that never will be found), as well as more and more evidence shows galaxies and stars NOT is formed as predicted by BB, a Big hole in the universe that not should be there. Gamma that not should be there, dark flow that not should be there) etc...

All these point are huge red warning lamps, - that especially together long ago should have stopped such insane religion.
But what really happen is that the train full of fools and innocent student continues for full speed, ignoring all the warning signals.

The theory I represent is only; a big crunch and the naturally consequences; such as we KNOW must be results, - e.g; speed and gravity to increase. It can't surprise that stars in such process will explode.
So called; Dark Energy and the acceleration of that "energy" is then no longer mysteries, but ONLY the law for how (and hos fast) gravity is lost. - Soon I will go further into details to explain this.

The theory I represent do not have any red signals on its path. .
NOT ONE SINGLE.
IT IS ALL BASED ON KNOWN LAWS OF NATURE.
IT REMOVES ALL MYSTERIES ON ITS PATH.
SO NATUALLY…
NO HOKUS POKUS.

Bjarne, forget trying to discredit conventional science; you don't understand it anyway.

Instead, present your own evidence. List your evidence and explain how it points to your model.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

When I was at university, especially while working on my PhD, I had to spend much time in the library there.

Let me outline some 'evidence' for you.

I looked at a paper that my supervisor and his team had been working on. 2 solid years of work for a team of 4. That is all day, every day, solid work. Condensed and summarised into perhaps 6 pages in the Astrophysical Journal.

I spent a great deal of time looking at papers in the ApJ. Our library had a fair collection of 'back issues'. Published monthly, each month may have, say, 20 papers in. Each one of those papers could represent several years work of some of the top scientists/teams in their field. The library had volumes of this journal dating back at least 30 odd years. And that was just one journal out of many associated with this field.

In terms of evidence then, pretty much every 'wild' idea considered today has been carefully looked at, weighed, revisited, analysed, tested and then either modified, laid to one side, taken on board or discarded.

While I was at uni the main principle I was looking at was the possibility of MACHOs contributing a fair proportion towards the missing 'dark matter' in galaxies. Things moved on quickly since then and it turns out that wasnt quite so promising a 'solution' as it might have seemed when I first attended cosmology lectures as an undergraduate. They tested, they spent millions of hours debating, working, analysing, modelling, testing, discussing and arguing each and every point, in fine detail, with incredible levels of computation and mathematics to back it up, before they decided perhaps there was something else knocking about.

This 'big crunch' idea, if it was so obviously useful, would have formed the mainstay of theories or alternatives over the last 50 years or so, had it seemed to have any real merit.

It doesn’t appear to have even a tiny percentage of the evidence that the current 'standard model' has, not through lack of trying, oh no, but simply because we have been there, done that, and not been able to buy the t shirt.

First at all there are no way to test the basic of the BB religion.
You can't test whether redshift can be caused due to expansion, and this is where the holy religions have its "main evidence".
So stop such rubbish. Test have never happen and it never will.

There have been no basic “analyzing” but only acceptance of the holy idea; that redshift = expansion. – and that’s it. - So stop this analyzing crap.

There have been no basic “modeling” but only acceptance of the holy idea; that redshift = expansion. – and that’s it. - So stop this "modeling" crap.

You cannot prove oxygen is blue by modeling or analyzing. This is not evidence.

You are repeating the "holy book" like all others holy BB believers does.

But holy believe do not have something with real science to do.

You did just mention the standard model , this is the first place you too will understand that the BigBang model must go down. The standard model will go down next year. The higgs will NOT be found.

Don't mix dark matter into the BigBang concept, in any way, doing so this idea too will fall within short time.
I will prove that Dark Matter is nothing but a misunderstood law of relativistic resistance. (RR)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgAFUjfnSGg

The reason to that the BigBang is the "winner" so far, - it is only because a world (without any evidence) have decided that cosmological redshift really is caused due to expanding space.
Even professional educated people have been forbidden and threatened not to think different as the "holy book" - and even kicked from their jobs. Amen.

Nobody and especially professional have ever had the courage to suggest that gravity and speed could go mad, really mad, and a previous universe explode. Such idea would certainly KICK people from their job.
For example read this thread and notice how many time my ideas is characterized as idiotic, insane, crank etc.
There are certainly NO JOB for such as me anywhere? - So better SHOOT UP and follow”the mainstream" (to the bitter end).
This is how the morals have become.

Piece for piece the Big Bang idea will fall, the first piece is next year when higgs NOT is found. The next piece is when I soon prove what dark matter really is.

Try this; - Assume only 5 minutes of your live that the Universe NOT expands, and redshift is MAINLY caused due to gravity increase long ago.

Now there is NOTHING to prevent a Big Crunch to happen.

So ?

• The Universe MUST collapse (again)
• Gravity MUST increase in a process where it can be differcult to see any limits.
• Stars ( a whole universe) MUST explode (in huge numbers) due to gravity increase.
• After that Gravity MUST decrease
• New stars and galaxies MUST re-created
• Redshift billion years after MUST be a consequense.
• A new Big Crunch MUST happen again and again and again.

So correct understanding of redshift is ALL YOU NEED, - you could have save yourself to have read 357484 ton rubbish, and instead started to get redshift right in the first place. (This is how cows do)

There are NOT use for any HOKUS POKUS at all, - but only to understand what redshift REALLY is about and what it NOT is about.

So, - te ONLY problem is that Big Bang NOT is build on a Scientific fundation (in the first place) , - but rather rather on a fanatic religious fundation.

So from the very first beginning everything that could go wrong did go wrong, and this is why “we” all now are so far out in Jens peter Jensen ploughed field, and all have forgot the way home.

Almost everybody has become holy believers of the holy book, and therefore there is no return to where it all went wrong.

Trying to escape is almost the same as suicide, and certainly a KICK especially in cases when that insane religion is the basic for where people earn their money.

So better SHOOT UP and repeat after me;

Cosmological redshift = expanding space (the basic evidence = hallelujah hallelujah)
There is ONLY one true religion and this is BB (evidence = hallelujah hallelujah)
BigBang and all its HUGE HUGE HUGE amount of energy suddenly popped up from NOTHING (evidence = hallelujah hallelujah)
Something UNKNOW brought the energy into NOTHING (evidence = hallelujah hallelujah)
So it all started from NOTHING (evidence = hallelujah hallelujah)
Dark Energy suddenly popped from NOTHING & NOWHERE(evidence = hallelujah hallelujah)
Acceleration of Dark Energy suddenly popped up from NOTHING & NOWHERE (evidence = hallelujah hallelujah)

And this is how it goes etc...ect...etc...

Amen