Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

Otherwise, please indicate how you followed the scientific method.

Hans

Redshift is EVIDENTLY caused due to gravity.

There are NO EVIDENCE that the holy expanding space / universe concept is causing that too..

To understand the universe you do not need to add any speculation at all, - also not mine.

All you need (certain knowledge) is all already there.

 

[Paul]

You can't test whether redshift can be caused due to expansion,

Of course you can.

Test have never happen and it never will.

Why would you imagine that?

There have been no basic “analyzing” but only acceptance of the holy idea

Wrong again.

that redshift = expansion. – and that’s it.

Redshift is partly expansion; do try to keep up with the remedial class.

So stop this analyzing crap.

That would be a silly thing to do.

There have been no basic “modeling”

Still wrong.

So stop this "modeling" crap.

See analysis answer above.

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

A lot of people would be very surprised if you could; unless, of course, you mean liquid or solid oxygen.

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

Good, now if only you could apply that to your own thinking.

I will prove that Dark Matter is nothing but a misunderstood law of relativistic resistance. (RR)

Do you intend to use evidence, logical fallacy, lies or youtube videos?

There are certainly NO JOB for such as me anywhere?

I think there might be a number of reasons before crank theories that would prevent you from getting anywhere near a job in real science.

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.

And when you are possibly proved wrong about the first and definitely proved wrong about the second, will you admit it?

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

So the only way your ideas are acceptable is if we completely ignore the best current knowledge and models?

So correct understanding... ranty ranty ranty ...And this is how it goes etc...ect...etc...

Having less than nothing to add will not change anything.

 

[Paulhoff]

Yep, my GSP still works.

Paul

 

[MRC_Hans]

First at all there are no way to test the basic of the BB religion.

And you know this, how?

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.

And you know this, how?

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.

And you know this ,how?

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.

And you know this, how?

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

We can prove it is not blue.


Bjarne, all you are disclosing is your own ignorance.

YOU don't know how cosmological redshift is proven.

YOU don't know how to model these things.

YOU don't know how we find out why the sky is blue.

The rest of the worlds knows all this, of if they happen not to know, they can find out.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

YOU don't know how cosmological redshift is proven.

Hans

I geuss something like that ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPS_Nkz2Tmk

 

[DazzaD]

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.

That is a strong response to a polite outline by me.

Bjarne.. read what I said again. It was a way of summarising how millions of hours have been spent analysing, modelling, testing. Taking every conceivable idea (and plenty of inconceivable ones too), bashing them to bits with the evidence and seeing what is left.

Vast amounts of time have been spent on this. I did this. Are you saying I was indoctrinated? That there was a conspiracy to guide my research? That I did not actually do any independent work but was somehow brainwashed to come up with my conclusions?

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.

Without evidence? Without evidence? See above please.

And please note, scientists have considered much much wilder ideas than you even propose here.. .yes they have.. many of them...

guess what? they dream up these ideas all the time...

but they test them, analyse them, stack them up against the evidence, model them, compare results. If they dont stick they discard the idea (or put it in a box marked to open at a later date).

But please dont think they dismiss ideas that they consider 'crazy' out of hand...

 

[Bjarne]

Without evidence? Without evidence? See above please.

And please note, scientists have considered much much wilder ideas than you even propose here.. .yes they have.. many of them...

guess what? they dream up these ideas all the time...

but they test them, analyse them, stack them up against the evidence, model them, compare results. If they dont stick they discard the idea (or put it in a box marked to open at a later date).

But please dont think they dismiss ideas that they consider 'crazy' out of hand...

You should start to make one thing clear, and this is that the basic we here are discussing is so called cosmological redshift.
The next you should make clear (and at least be honest to yourself) - there are no scientific way of testing whether expanding space can affect the EM spectra or not.
Furthermore, you have no evidence at all that shows that the universe is expanding.

The observation of the sky doesn’t prove that oxygen is blue.
We are also NOT observing that galaxies have moved billion of LY away from each other. How should we?
We have chosen to believe so.

The whole expanding idea is ONLY based on misunderstanding how redshift possible can be caused.
We can observe CMB but that too is not evidence for a certian framework. The cause of CMB could instead have been huge amount of exploding stars long ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L01PU3r6fmA

We can also observe that the universe is losing gravity that too can be understood based on the fact that exactly in that moment you remove the repulsive fantasy force Dark Energy, - the universe MUST collapse due to its own gravity.
Hence the Universe MUST accelerate and hence gravity MUST increase.

You have chosen to believe that the universe really expands. In such case we do NOT speak about science but pure unsupported speculation. That believe have prevented you (and plenty naive fools) from even considering what MUST happen when yours repulsive fantasy force; Dark Energy not is real.
So a whole world of naïve and brainwashed fools have even not considered what MUST happen if the repulsive fantasy force; Dark Energy only is a fantasy monster., and worse - what can then replace the speculation.
And as I wrote in such a case the universe MUST collapse. Speed MUST increase Gravity MUST increase and stars MUST explode when extreme speed is reached.

The ONLY alternative fools and beast “serious” have considered is Doppler effect can explained the redshift.
This idea is even more insane since we then must be in the middle of the universe, since all the mass (more than 99,999999999999999999999999999999% is moving away from us) and even more insane that the speed at the edge of the universe is light speed, and on the other side of the edge the speed of galaxies relative to us is then more as c.

Redshift can ONLY be caused either due to Doppler Effect or Gravity.
The third version; so called cosmological redshift IS NOT SCINECE – BUT 200%fantasy.
Doppler effect have been analyzed, also by Mother Cow, - it only took mother cow 0,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000003634 second to reject that idea as total mad.

The only alternative left is ONLY that we are dealing with different gravity from time to time. Such framework is 964523 % consistence with all we know about;

1. WHAT REALLY IS POSSIBLE IN THE REAL WORLD
2. BASED ON REAL KNOWN LAW OF NATURE.

It was a way of summarising how millions of hours have been spent analysing, modelling, testing

Carefully if Hans see this is will say you are the record holder
3 spelling mistake in one sentence.
Never mind, even if billion of hours have been use it doesn’t change the fact that the whole model is based on pure believe / speculation.
Try to build a house in a sump. This is a good analogy of the picture we have today.

Why in hell do you believe a gravitionel frameworks even not have been considered?

Let me answer you, - because “science” in that area is not and have never been science, - but religion, - it is forbidden even to suggest that the speculation is a sump-thesis, and that we are living in a universe that from time to time collapses, and the consequences this MUST have.

Vast amounts of time have been spent on this. I did this. Are you saying I was indoctrinated? That there was a conspiracy to guide my research? That I did not actually do any independent work but was somehow brainwashed to come up with my conclusions?

I hate to be personally.
But let me turn your question 180 degree
How would you feel when the BigBang speculation would be disproven and fall?
How would you feel about the education system all the universities the professors, the creeds etc., ?
And finally why have you not considered both possible alternatives to how we KNOW redshift evidently CAN be caused, which also mean gravitionel redshift, and that this is the basic understanding for our universe?

Let us say you (and everybody else) just forgot to consider both alternatives, - let us say you would do it today, and after 77 years and 108 million hours you would show the result to all the holy universities and holy brainwashed professors.
How would their reaction be, would you think?

Would the holly professors and there supporters now say, ohhh this is a brilliant idea, - why could a whole world of blinded brainwashed naïve fools possible could come so far out on Jens Peter Jensen Ploughed field, - even though everybody (should) knew the previous speculation only was based on basic speculation. ?

Or would they say, - you is an insane idiotic ignorant crank, - and if that not was enough, then begin to attach you personally, for example that you cannot spell and bla bla blab la bla ?

I mean in the end of the day it is not only a question whether the concept is good or bad, - is it ?

Do you believe a whole world of fools and beast ever possible can come so much down to earth that they are willing to admit; yes we were all a naive bunch of fools, that fully believe in the holy dark energy, the holy bigbang, the holy higgs etc…

I mean don’t you think they better keep there lies, ego’s and higgs etc… unharmed?

Anything else would be too humiliating for many, especially for those that are responsible for the brainwash programs.

To make a long history short we are only dealing with single tracked mass brianwashed speculation, and NOT basic science.

It is all warm air, impossible to come further away from the truth as now.

 

[Paul]

I still can't work out if you believe oxygen is blue or the the sky is made of oxygen.

 

[DazzaD]

Furthermore, you have no evidence at all that shows that the universe is expanding.

Of course I do in the sense that the hypothesis I propose is incredibly successful at explaining real, empirical data.

The cause of CMB could instead have been huge amount of exploding stars long ago.

Except it couldnt have. Not if they explode in the way we have observed or think we understand.

And as I wrote in such a case the universe MUST collapse. Speed MUST increase Gravity MUST increase and stars MUST explode when extreme speed is reached.

And what evidence do you have that when stars reach an extreme speed they must explode? How can you possibly test that? Surely you merely 'believe' this to be true?

hate to be personally.
But let me turn your question 180 degree
How would you feel when the BigBang speculation would be disproven and fall?
How would you feel about the education system all the universities the professors, the creeds etc., ?

As a teacher and as a scientist I would be amazed, astounded, interested, excited and proud.

If such a beautiful theory, along with sound evidence, can overturn such a long held 'truism' then it would be a shining example of the scientific method!

Many things have changed since I was at university. The observation of the 'accelerating' universe was not an option in my comoslogy classes and has caused many a scientist to turn their ideas on their head and have a rethink.

As it should.


I have declined to respond to the rest of your reply as it seems clear to me you dont have any access to how science is really done and dont appear to have any inkling of what really goes on in science. Or am I being completely unfair here?

 

[Daylightstar]

...

Let us say you (and everybody else) just forgot to consider both alternatives, - let us say you would do it today, and after 77 years and 108 million hours you would show the result to all the holy universities and holy brainwashed professors.
How would their reaction be, would you think?

Would the holly professors and there supporters now say, ohhh this is a brilliant idea, - why could a whole world of blinded brainwashed naïve fools possible could come so far out on Jens Peter Jensen Ploughed field, - even though everybody (should) knew the previous speculation only was based on basic speculation. ?
...

^{Bolding by Daylightstar}
Which result?
The result of a volatile intellectually dysfunctional thought process which you have presented here and elsewhere?

You have presented no other result, and no brilliant idea either.

 

[Daylightstar]

...

I have declined to respond to the rest of your reply as it seems clear to me you dont have any access to how science is really done and dont appear to have any inkling of what really goes on in science. Or am I being completely unfair here?

No, you are being entirely fair as it hits the nail squarely on the head.

 

[Paulhoff]

I have declined to respond to the rest of your reply as it seems clear to me you dont have any access to how science is really done and dont appear to have any inkling of what really goes on in science. Or am I being completely unfair here?

He is only using us as a sounding board for his poor ideas. But please respond for us and tell us about how he is wrong.


Paul

 

[Bjarne]

Of course I do in the sense that the hypothesis I propose is incredibly successful at explaining real, empirical data.

There is nothing beautiful by this speculation.

Instead of scientific evidence speculation after speculation is build on the top of each other.

Here is like its goes.

Speculation 1.
Redshift MUST also be possible due to expanding space (even though there are NO OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE)

Speculation 2
On the top of speculation 1, is speculation 2 - so now a repulsive force is INVENTED.
Now the universe MUST expand (even though there are NO OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE)

Speculation 3
On the top of speculation 1 and 2 is speculation 3
Dark Energy MUST pop up from NOWHERE (even though there are NO OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for such FANTASY Force)

Speculation4
On the top of speculation 1, 2 and 3
Dark Energy MUST and all the energy of the universe MUST somehow have got into a point of NOTHING (even though there are NO OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for such FANTASY Force or law of nature.

Speculation5
On the top of speculation 1, 2 ,3 and 4
Dark Energy MUST and all the energy of the universe MUST somehow have got out a point of NOTHING (even though there are NO OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for such FANTASY Force or law of nature able to keep all that into a point of NOTHING.

Speculation6
On the top of speculation 1, 2 ,3, 4, and 5
Dark Energy MUST accelerate (even though there are NO OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE what FANTASY Dark Energy really is and hence also for how or why it should accelerate.

Speculation7
On the top of speculation 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5 and 6
Higgs MUST exsist, even though the change that that really is true is shrinking.

Speculation8
On the top of speculation 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
Photon energy MUST be lost or convert to gravity or bla bla bla bla even though there is NO OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

Speculation10
On the top of speculation 1, 2 ,3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, 8 and 9
The distance between for example the earth and the moon etc..is NOT expanding due to the expanding universe concept, it disprove the speculation, there is NO OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that shows why this is so.

Speculation 10
More and more galaxies and stars are found, that NOT have the metallic content predicted by BB also here OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is against the hole thesis.

Speculation11, 12, 13, 14 ,15 etc.......
Plenty of gamma is found, a big whole (1 billion LY across) , - dark flow, and a lot lot more evidence that DO NOT FIT with the BB speculation.

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

Please watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0

Except it couldnt have. Not if they explode in the way we have observed or think we understand.

At the edge at the Universe "at the visible horizon" we shall expect galaxies (stars) from a previous universe to appear rarely.

I have not calculated how many years it will take between each galaxies to be "visible" here.

When a new galaxy appears we will "in the same moment" see large amount stars that begins to explode.-
After "some years" maybe tomorrow , maybe after 1000 years - maybe 10,000 years etc ( I don't know exactly how many) we shall expect to see less light from exploding stars, and "soon" after no light at all. Only more or less diffuse gamma will reach us.
The reason is, when a galaxy begin to explode, after a certain period it will no longer be transparent.
This could contribute to explain these 600 mysteries > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQHuF3BGZzw

It will due to the distance of the galaxies diameter, seen from us takes about 100,000 years for all stars of one galaxy to explode, (even though it all happens at the same moment).
But long before all stars are exploded a galaxyis no longer transparant.

If such a beautiful theory, along with sound evidence, can overturn such a long held 'truism' then it would be a shining example of the scientific method!

And also a shining example how serious the scientific method could be ignored and religion take over.
One day humans on this planet will look back and shame them self, to be part of a human race, that collective could be so unforgivable naïve, and believe in such a huge load of desperate speculation as just mentioned above.

And what evidence do you have that when stars reach an extreme speed they must explode? How can you possibly test that? Surely you merely 'believe' this to be true?

We cannot know the collapse-speed exactly, whether there are multi universes, gigantic black holes maybe billion times greater as understood so fare an a lot more question related to such question..
But what we can say for certain is that extreme speed is possible based on certain known laws of nature, and so is extreme gravity
So why INVENT a huge load of speculation, and a large number of purely speculative laws and properties of the Univers?

 

[Daylightstar]

...
So why INVENT a huge load of speculation, and a large number of purely speculative laws and properties of the Univers?

Like 'RR'.

 

[DazzaD]

So if by speculation you mean hypothesis... how many hypothesis are required for your pet theory then?

Just the short piece you mentioned above about looking at galaxies exploding at the edge of the observable universe in just the right way carries a whole raft of "what ifs" along with it...

 

[Bjarne]

So if by speculation you mean hypothesis... how many hypotheses are required for your pet theory then?

Just the short piece you mentioned above about looking at galaxies exploding at the edge of the observable universe in just the right way carries a whole raft of "what ifs" along with it...

The basic parts of my speculations are that space must have some kind of density or aether if you prefer. Otherwise space cannot curve.
This is not a new concept but something that have been considered in centuries. I have taken a step further and claims that that density is absorbed by matter. - It is really simple, but not possible to prove.

It is the basic concept that make it possible to follow a main thread into all gravity mysteries, and on that basis discover much more.

The next part is the misunderstood "range" of relativistic resistance, - and hence also what so called dark matter really is about. It is relative easy to prove. I will prove this, don't worry.

The third part , is the nature of so called dark energy.
The prevailing understanding is the biggest and most idiotic blunder ever made.
I believe we will discover much more strange things is going on at the edge at the universe. I hope BigBang will fall. Nothing is better than this load of rubbish.

It is so logical what possible can replace it. I mean it is obviously if we have a sound "Muuhhh" it can ONLY come from a cow. - So why invent a new fantasy animal for that sound?
This is an analogy for what cosmological redshift shortly spoken is about.

Simplicity coherence and earth connection is my trade mark. If you don't like it, it is your own problem. What goes up must come down.

 

[DazzaD]

The basic parts of my speculations is that space must have some kind of density or aether if you prefer. Otherwise space cannot curve.
This is not a new concept but something that have been considered in centuries.

Indeed it isnt. Do you mean aether as in Michelson-Morley experiment?

I have taken a step further and claims that that density is absorbed by matter.

Eh? What do you mean by this?

It is really simple, but not possible to prove.

So by your very own contention, nonscientific and religious 'belief'.

It is more coherence concept that make it possible to follow a main thread into all gravity mysteries, and on that basis discover much more.

I am sorry. I do not understand this sentence.

The next part is the misunderstood "range" of relativistic resistance, - and hence also what so called dark matter really is about. It is relative easy to prove. I will prove this, don't worry.

When will you prove it? How?

The third part that the nature of so called dark energy.
The prevailing understanding is the biggest and most idiotic blunder ever made.
I believe we will discover much more strange things is going on at the edge at the universe. I hope BigBang will fall. Nothing is better than this load of rubbish.

So you contend that dark energy is poppycock and then add that even weirder things occur in your own pet theory? That is interesting.

'Edge' of the universe? Finite universe? Finite existence in time?

Simplicity cohorence and earth connection is my trade mark. If you don't like it, it is your own problem. What goes up must come down.

Earth connection? Why on Earth (pun intended) does a cosmological model need to invoke the Earth?

Voyager went up... not sure it will be coming back down any time soon.

 

[Daylightstar]

... So why invent a new fantasy animal for that sound?
...

You should know the answer to that question. You invented that new fantasy for a sound you can not properly hear.

...
Simplicity coherence and earth connection is my trade mark. ...

Not by the looks of it.

 

[Bjarne]

Indeed it isnt. Do you mean aether as in Michelson-Morley experiment?

There have been different versions of Aether.
Not all has been rejected.

 

[DazzaD]

There have been different versions of Aether.
Not all has been rejected.

So which 'version' are you aspiring to?

Can you measure the velocity of light relative to your aether?