Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

The shifting of burden of proof again.
No Bjarne, we have to tell you no such thing, you have to provide evidence for your claims.

Ohh....I thought you already know the differences of different space time realities.

Wrong. Imagination is very important, but without knowledge it is useless. Fantasy without knowledge is just idle speculation

The quote “Imagination is more important than knowledge”, originates from Albert Einstein.
I want to change it a little, - “Coherent imagination is more important than knowledge”
Or what about this, ; don’t be a sucker use your own coherent imagination. – This version is a combination between Einstein’s, Farsight’s and my version.

 

[Daylightstar]

Ohh....I thought you already know the differences of different space time realities.


The quote “Imagination is more important than knowledge”, originates from Albert Einstein.
I want to change it a little, - “Coherent imagination is more important than knowledge”
Or what about this, ; don’t be a sucker use your own coherent imagination. – This version is a combination between Einstein’s, Farsight’s and my version.

None of that gives you any credibilty, or us any evidence.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
“Coherent imagination ...

Does not apply to you. Your imagination is about as incoherent as it gets.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The quote “Imagination is more important than knowledge”, originates from Albert Einstein.

Bjarne, Albert Einstein is an excellent authority on the theories of relativity, a few related fields, and very little else.

I want to change it a little, - “Coherent imagination is more important than knowledge”

You should not do that, since your fantasies are very far from coherent.

Or what about this, ; don’t be a sucker use your own coherent imagination. – This version is a combination between Einstein’s, Farsight’s and my version.

How about this: "Combine your fantasy with actual knowledge to understand reality."

The Lord of the Rings is very nice and coherent fantasy, but it has nothing what so ever to do with reality.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

The Lord of the Rings is very nice and coherent fantasy, but it has nothing what so ever to do with reality.

The same principle also applies to cow logic and cow imagination.

And by the way, when you hear the sound muuuoohhhh what happens inside your head?
Do you imaging this come from a cow, or do you begin to fantasize about an animal that not exist ??
Or maybe you fantasize about an expanding cow held together by higgs ?

At least I can tell you with 200 % certainty, - that when you show a redshifted EM-spectra pattern to a cow,- the cow guaranteed do not begin to fantasize about a expanding universe (that is a big fantasy lie) and higgs ( that is the world’s most expensive joke) and dark energy (that is a misunderstood concept) or cosmological redshift (that NOT exist) or Big Bang (that NEVER happened) - tell me did you honestly knew that ?

If you really knew that cows NOT are like that , and their brains not works like that, then you also know that cows have 4 legs, - and all is on the ground, - right ?
This is not so bad in science - right?
So the conclusion must be, - that cow are better scientist, - than humans, - right ?
I mean cows do not sucks incohorent turbo fantasies, and they also do not manufacture such, right ?

And now, what about you ?

 

[Daylightstar]

The same principle also applies to cow logic and cow imagination.

And by the way, when you hear the sound muuuoohhhh what happens inside your head?
Do you imaging this come from a cow, or do you begin to fantasize about an animal that not exist ??
Or maybe you fantasize about and expanding cow held together by higgs ?

At least I can tell you with 200 % certainty, - that when you show a redshifted EM-spectra pattern to a cow,- the cow guaranteed do not begin to fantasy about a expanding universe and higgs and dark energy - tell me did you honestly knew that ?

If so then you also know that the cow have all 4 legs on the ground right ?
This is not so bad in science right?

Clearly, you are not willing to end the obnoxious cow humping loudmouth act.

 

[Daylightstar]

The same principle also applies to cow logic and cow imagination.

And by the way, when you hear the sound muuuoohhhh what happens inside your head?
Do you imaging this come from a cow, or do you begin to fantasize about an animal that not exist ??
Or maybe you fantasize about and expanding cow held together by higgs ?

At least I can tell you with 200 % certainty, - that when you show a redshifted EM-spectra pattern to a cow,- the cow guaranteed do not begin to fantasize about a expanding universe (that is a big fantasy lie) and higgs ( that is the world’s most expensive joke) and dark energy (that is a misunderstood concept) or cosmological redshift (that NOT exist) or Big Bang (that NEVER happened) - tell me did you honestly knew that ?

If you really knew that cows NOT are like that , and their brains not works like that, then you also know that cows have 4 legs, - and all is on the ground, - right ?
This is not so bad in science - right?
So the conclusion must be, - that cow are better scientist, - than humans, - right ?
I mean cows do not sucks incohorent turbo fantasies, and they also do not manufacture such, right ?

And know, what about you ?

Will you be making many more edits, Bjarne?

 

[Daylightstar]

The same principle also applies to cow logic and cow imagination.

And by the way, when you hear the sound muuuoohhhh what happens inside your head?
Do you imaging this come from a cow, or do you begin to fantasize about an animal that not exist ??
Or maybe you fantasize about an expanding cow held together by higgs ?

At least I can tell you with 200 % certainty, - that when you show a redshifted EM-spectra pattern to a cow,- the cow guaranteed do not begin to fantasize about a expanding universe (that is a big fantasy lie) and higgs ( that is the world’s most expensive joke) and dark energy (that is a misunderstood concept) or cosmological redshift (that NOT exist) or Big Bang (that NEVER happened) - tell me did you honestly knew that ?

If you really knew that cows NOT are like that , and their brains not works like that, then you also know that cows have 4 legs, - and all is on the ground, - right ?
This is not so bad in science - right?
So the conclusion must be, - that cow are better scientist, - than humans, - right ?
I mean cows do not sucks incohorent turbo fantasies, and they also do not manufacture such, right ?

And now, what about you ?

Ah, you are not done yet. I suppose when you are done you will enter a reason for editing?

 

[Daylightstar]

Five minutes between your last two edits, we're now past that interval. You're slacking, Bjarne!

 

[Bjarne]

Ah, you are not done yet. I suppose when you are done you will enter a reason for editing?

I edith this and the last post several times only so that you not should be unemployed.

 

[Daylightstar]

I edith this and the last post several times only so that you not should be unemployed.

Sure Bjarne, whatever you say.

 

[Daylightstar]

I edith this ...

Okay, let's see if you can learn very, very basic things.

edith (Edith) is a woman's or girl's name. Got that?
You've made this ridiculous mistake several times before.

The 'h' needs to go. It's 'edit' .... without the 'h' at the end.

Let's see how you will pick up on this.

 

[mike3]

At least I can tell you with 200 % certainty, - that when you show a redshifted EM-spectra pattern to a cow,- the cow guaranteed do not begin to fantasize about a expanding universe (that is a big fantasy lie) and higgs ( that is the world’s most expensive joke) and dark energy (that is a misunderstood concept) or cosmological redshift (that NOT exist) or Big Bang (that NEVER happened) - tell me did you honestly knew that ?

Yeah, because cows don't have the brains for that. Anyway, most of those items you mention are PROVEN FACTS.

 

[Vorpal]

If you really knew that cows NOT are like that , and their brains not works like that, then you also know that cows have 4 legs, - and all is on the ground, - right ?
This is not so bad in science - right?

Wrong. Cows have 6 legs: two legs in the back, and fore-legs in the front. 2+4=6.
Not knowing your cow anatomy is the your whole problem right here.

 

[Bjarne]

Okay, let's see if you can learn very, very basic things.

edith (Edith) is a woman's or girl's name. Got that?
You've made this ridiculous mistake several times before.

The 'h' needs to go. It's 'edit' .... without the 'h' at the end.

Let's see how you will pick up on this.

Also this edith was also to be sure you not would be unemployed.

 

[Bjarne]

Wrong. Cows have 6 legs: two legs in the back, and fore-legs in the front. 2+4=6.
Not knowing your cow anatomy is the your whole problem right here.

No no no
This is only valid for cows that live in the 27 th dimension and some of these that have eat to many higgs.

Edith (with h) and those that live in the parallel universes.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Bjarne, do you imagine that you appear smart and witty?

You don't. You appear a complete clown. And not even a funny one.

Hans

 

[Daylightstar]

Okay, let's see if you can learn very, very basic things.

edith (Edith) is a woman's or girl's name. Got that?
You've made this ridiculous mistake several times before.

The 'h' needs to go. It's 'edit' .... without the 'h' at the end.

Let's see how you will pick up on this.

Also this edith was also to be sure you not would be unemployed.

No no no
This is only valid for cows that live in the 27 th dimension and some of these that have eat to many higgs.

Edith (with h) and those that live in the parallel universes.

Valid data will only come in after the intitial recalcitrant and emotional responses by you have subsided.

 

[Reality Check]

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

Fact 1.
Cosmolgical redshift MUST also be possible due to expanding space since there is OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for it.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang (and Dark Energy)?

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)

Fact 2.
We MEASURE that the redsift shows that expansion of the universe is accelerating so a mechanism for that accelerartion is REQUIRED.
Now the universe MUST expand since there is OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for it.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang (and Dark Energy)?

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)

Fact 3.
The cause of the measured acceleration of the expansion of the universe has been named dark energy for simple physical reasons:

1. We have no seen it directly (it is dark !)
2. It acts like an energy.

Dark Energy MUST pop up from SOMWHERE because there is OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for such SCIENTIFIC effect.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang (and Dark Energy)?

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.

Fact 4.
Bjarne writes gibberish.

There is OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for the universe once being in a hot dense state.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang (and Dark Energy)?

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.

Fact 5.
Bjarne writes gibberish.

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.

Fact 6.
Bjarne writes gibberish again and displays his ignorance of the OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for the universe once being in a hot dense state. It is insane to thinhk that it is still in that state (just looks around!). So it must have expanded.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang (and Dark Energy)?

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.

Fact 7.
Bjarne writes gibberish again.
The Higgs boson does not need to exist. If it does not exist then we either look for evidence for other explanations for mass.
However the latest LHC results are prossible evidence ofr the Higgs boson (or bosons!) existing.

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.

Fact 8.
Bjarne displays his ignorance yet again.
Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?
If energy is conserved in GR than redshift must cause photon energy to convert something else. That is what energy conservation means ! That something else is not gravity. It is gravatational energy.
If energy is not conseved then the energy can just be lost.

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.

Fact 10.
Bjarne displays his ignorance yet again.
Only a truly ignorant person would expect the distance between for example the earth and the moon to be increasing due to the expanding universe. There is a little thing called gravity keeping them together .
The science is that the expansion of the universe does not become stringer than gravity until scales of millions of light years. For example the Andromeda Galaxy is being pulled into ours despite the expansion.
Why doesn't the Solar System expand if the whole Universe is expanding?

There is OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for the universe once being in a hot dense state. It is insane to thinhk that it is still in that state (just looks around!). So it must have expanded.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang (and Dark Energy)?

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.

Fact 10.
Bjarne displays his ignorance yet again.

The OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is that galaxies and stars have the metallic content predicted by BB, i.e. galaxies decrease in metallic content the further away that they are. The surprise is that there are indications of relatively high-metal galaxies early on in the universe.

Population III stars have not been observed directly yet but there is one indirect observation ( "Massive Star Formation in a Gravitationally Lensed H II Galaxy at z = 3.357".)

Speculation11, 12, 13, 14 ,15 etc.......
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
...

Facts 11 , 12, 13, 14 ,15 etc.......
Bjarne still does not understand that citing a crank website and YouTube will just get him laughed at in a science forum.
Especially whan that crank web site starts off with a lie. The truth is that expanding universe models fit observational data better than static universe models.

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

A total fantasy followed by delusions about exploding galaxies.

 

[Reality Check]

How can you say that "aether" doesn’t exist when “aether” is the basic for everything, even for space, and also THAT what is changing when reality is "deformed". ?

How can you say that "pixy dust" doesn’t exist when “pixy dust” is the basic for everything, even for space, and also THAT what is changing when reality is "deformed". ?

It is stupid to state the "aether" is the basis for anything without stating the evidence that "aether" exists.
It is ignorant to assert that "aether" exists without stating what "aether" is.

The simple fact is that luminiferous aether (the usual "aether") was shown not to exist by the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887), the Trouton-Noble experiment (1903), the experiments of Rayleigh and Brace (1902, 1904), the Hammar experiment (1935), the Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment, etc.