Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bjarne said:
But it i is sucker "Science"
No let me be honest, it is sucker religion.
Click to expand...
But you are remaining ignorant.
  1. It is valid sceince.
  2. You are lying, it is not any kind of religion. It is science :jaw-dropp!
What is the evidence for the Big Bang (and Dark Energy)?

The "sucker religion" is someone making basic mistakes:
The "sucker religion" is someone unable to understand that RR does not exist:
The "sucker religion" is someone unable to answer:
Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang
First asked 21st October 2011 (91 days and counting!)
 
Bjarne said:
Ohhh Yeeehh Man
cosmological redshift really exists
But it i is sucker "Science"
No let me be honest, it is sucker religion.
Click to expand...

Ohhh Yeeehh Man
But 'RR' and 'space density' and ... are crackpot 'science'.
No let me be honest, they are a religion for uneducated crackpots whose imagination shall not be bound by .... anything.
 
Bjarne said:
Hans you have still not understood first at all that the higgs religion is dead, - and next, - that the strong nuclear interaction (particle spin) is the (main) cause of gravity.
Click to expand...

Repeating your fault won't make it right. Whatever gravity is (and you have no idea what it is), it is bound to matter. As long as the matter remains, gravity remains.

Rubbish, a big crunch MUST be the destiny also of our universe
Click to expand...

You have no idea.

A big crunch will cause lose of gravity, and hence also speed differences. This mean global gravity NEVER is stable.
Click to expand...

You have no idea.

Black Energy sound very homemade.
Please use the expression Dark Energy.
Click to expand...

I like black energy better, but I'll make deal with you: When you start using all the right expressions, so will I.

Mmmm, Black Energy, Black matter; I love it. :D

I don’t believe in that religion at all.
Yes when gravity is lost billions of years after a big crunch, - orbits of clusters (as well as motion round the COG of the universe) can no longer be maintained, whereby these will enlarge.
GR can handle it all, you don't need any hokus pokus properties.
Click to expand...

Gibberish. Black gibberish.:p

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Whatever gravity is (and you have no idea what it is), it is bound to matter. As long as the matter remains, gravity remains.
Click to expand...
No you cannot conclude that, simply because you have no way of tracing the cause of gravity to its source, except to the fantasy higgs religion source.
The higgs religion is already dead; all we are waiting for is only that the most stubborn will be ready to admit this.
Billion of naive and brainwashed fools are now + sooner or later forced to a find new fantasy concept, and a new fantasy standard model.
Don't be so stupid naive to believe that the existing fantasy framework is better than the one I represent.
No fantasy particle exists, if so we would have detected such now. Yeh Yeh I know it is very painful (sooner or later) (and most likely later) finally to admit this.
So all what we get now is bla bla bla and maybe 2012 bla bla bla,. - The only thing you can be sure about is that Santa Claus will come in 2012.

It is not enough to say that the sky is blue and therefore the "air" will always be blue.
To make a long history short, - invisible fantasy particles was not found so WHAT ?
I tell you mannn...
Now we have ONLY the already known particles left to blame for causing gravity, - and exactly at this point of truth, - I and mother cow can only kindly ask you at least to consider that also the particle spin is important.

But probably not only important, - but what causes gravity, - you know like small tornadoes pulling / absorbing space density.

You cannot say "matter" is to blame, - this is not enough - matters in the sense you understand it is first a reality when particle spin is included, - so is the the "full range" of mass.

Many serious scientist and cows believes that the strong force and gravity is connected / united. - This mean there is only one basic force, and 2 consequences of that force.
So soon that the "basic force" no longer exists, - both the cause of nuclear interaction and gravity, - will be lost.
So both “sub-forces” will be lost instantly, - but it will take time for gravity to cancel out, because it affect huge distances.

Gravity can be understood in 2 different ways and both are true.
On the one hand it is caused by the mass of matter, and on the other hand it is caused due to mass/gravity increase due to speed.

The mass/gravity increase or decrease due to speed differences is variable and the results therefore different space-time realities.
An outsider would maybe right now see you moving with extreme speed, compared to his space-time reality.
Yours space-time reality would therefore also be extreme different compared to his.

So seen from the reality of an outsider he could based on valid laws of physic, claim that is only a matter of time and total speed, before your reality have reach a braking point for how much the law of nature can tolerate. And what then do you think ?

Hans there is a lot more to learn, - look up to cows, - these creatures are so amazing open minded, - I am sure humans have a lot to learn from these great scientists. Believe me it is not good to be arrogant narrow minded, single tracked, perfect, - omniscient, - mass brainwashed.

Did you know that multitasking was invented by 2 cows?
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
The higgs religion is already dead; all we are waiting for is only that the most stubborn will be ready to admit this.
...followed by the usual rant containing gibberish...
Click to expand...
You need to stop displaying your ignorance, Bjarne.

The LHC results are evidence that the Higgs boson exists.
Try reading some of the science that has been reported about the result rather than writing gibberish about your delusion that the LHC results show that the Higgs boson does not exist. The probability is that this will be confirmed in 2012.
From an actual particle physicst, Sleeping with the Higgs
All my life the Higgs was sort of a legend. Something like a unicorn: you know well how it's supposed to look like but you don't seriously expect to see it. Since last week it feels different. Of course, everybody from the CERN DG to common bloggers justly calls for caution and not jumping to conclusions. Of course, we've seen much larger excesses go away. Of course, there is statistics, likelihoods, look-elsewhere effects, and other attributes of civilization. But there's also the good old hunch. The latter, after digesting the totality of ATLAS and CMS findings, tells me there's about a 90% chance that the Higgs exists in the mass range 124-126 GeV. This high estimate follows from the remarkable consistency of the signal between ATLAS and CMS, and between different search channels. Moreover, that mass neatly fits into the ballpark suggested by electroweak precision fits. Last not least, most of the remaining Higgs mass range is either excluded or disfavored, except maybe around 119 GeV. In other words, I don't care much about the look-elsewhere correction because there isn't any elsewhere to speak of.
Click to expand...

The ignorance is compounded by a simple fact: We do not need a Higgs boson to explain mass. Mass is measured. It exists :jaw-dropp!
If we find that the Higgs boson has not been detected at the LHC then mass still exists and is observed to be a source of gravity.
 
Last edited:
Daylightstar said:
Ofcourse, no mathematics was shown in between.
Click to expand...

Yes.
Bjarne...

my question was quite deliberate...

thinking of say SR and GR as purely mathematical theories (stay with me here)...what is the requirement (as you stated) for density in order to define[/B curvature? mathematically that is.. what is the requirement in mathematics or the relationship in mathematics whereby curvature of a given 'space' or 'spacetime' is inherently reliant upon density?

I suppose I am asking what a lot of others have already.. where is your rigorous formulation in mathematics in order that the theory can be tested and compared to existing ones... so that instead of 'handwaving' ideas it can be formally and clearly matched against observations?

Generally speaking, in modern physics, without that sound background anybody would be free to say almost anything and get away with any old rubbish.

It is not a conspiracy against those poor at maths, merely a way of defining clearly your theories predications so that they can be tested against observation.



So...


Please show me, in your favourite theory, the mathematical link between density and curvature...

(it may help to define curvature first, and indeed density).
 
Bjarne said:
Now we have ONLY the already known particles left to blame for causing gravity, - and exactly at this point of truth, - I and mother cow can only kindly ask you at least to consider that also the particle spin is important.
Click to expand...

Just so that I do not misunderstand you, can you define what you understand by "spin" of a particle?

As a related question, do you have any background in quantum mechanics? perhaps an introductory course at university (it would help to know so that we can use the right terms and equations in a discussion).
 
DazzaD said:
Yes.
Bjarne...

my question was quite deliberate...

thinking of say SR and GR as purely mathematical theories (stay with me here)...what is the requirement (as you stated) for density in order to define[/B curvature? mathematically that is.. what is the requirement in mathematics or the relationship in mathematics whereby curvature of a given 'space' or 'spacetime' is inherently reliant upon density?

I suppose I am asking what a lot of others have already.. where is your rigorous formulation in mathematics in order that the theory can be tested and compared to existing ones... so that instead of 'handwaving' ideas it can be formally and clearly matched against observations?

Generally speaking, in modern physics, without that sound background anybody would be free to say almost anything and get away with any old rubbish.

It is not a conspiracy against those poor at maths, merely a way of defining clearly your theories predications so that they can be tested against observation.



So...


Please show me, in your favourite theory, the mathematical link between density and curvature...

(it may help to define curvature first, and indeed density).
Click to expand...


Seriously, my friend, I'd be surprised if Bjarne understands half the sentences in your post. There is a good reason he so looks up to the intellects of cows.

Hans
 
DazzaD said:
...
As a related question, do you have any background in quantum mechanics? perhaps an introductory course at university (it would help to know so that we can use the right terms and equations in a discussion).
Click to expand...

Besides Bjarne's imagination:
Bjarne said:
Imagination is more important than knowledge. ...
Click to expand...

his reference consists of Bjarne's mother the cow. No university involved.
As an aside, secondary- and tertiary education are very difficult terms for Bjarne.
 
DazzaD said:
...
As a related question, do you have any background in quantum mechanics? perhaps an introductory course at university (it would help to know so that we can use the right terms and equations in a discussion).
Click to expand...
Bjarne said:
erlando said:
Bjarne, I'm curious.. What are your scientific credentials?
Click to expand...
...
My IQ is 0,002 % below the average cow IQ level. ...
Click to expand...

This should clarify things.

As far as using the right terms is concerned,
Bjarne said:
... muuuuohhhhh ...
Click to expand...
is a term Bjarne knows quite well and uses a lot. When you say muuuuohhhhh, Bjarne instantly knows that it must be a cow or ...... a tape recorder.
Bjarne said:
... we know that the sound ; muuuuohhhhh ONLY can come from a cow or a tape recorder, ...
Click to expand...
:boggled:
 
Last edited:
I hasten to add: Newcomers may think that Bjarne is just a troll, yanking our chains, but, and I have to say, unfortunately, this is not the case. He actually considers himself the messiah of science. Despite his occasional flippant discourses, he is deadly serious.

Hans
 
Reality Check said:
You need to stop displaying your ignorance, Bjarne.

The LHC results are evidence that the Higgs boson exists.
Try reading some of the science that has been reported about the result rather than writing gibberish about your delusion that the LHC results show that the Higgs boson does not exist. The probability is that this will be confirmed in 2012.
From an actual particle physicst, Sleeping with the Higgs
Click to expand...

You can find plenty of professional scientists with the exact opposite opinion. Here is a opinion from a lector from Niels Bohr institute.

Try to Google translate this from Danish

Han understreger, at han ikke selv tilhører flokken af fysikere, der håber på at finde en Higgs, for der er også fordele ved teorier, der klarer sig uden. Men han er spændt på at se udfaldet, hvad end det bliver.
»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
Click to expand...

So dear RC as you should could see, what you wrote smells, did you know that ?
Of WHAT ? – of boasting what else.

The ignorance is compounded by a simple fact: We do not need a Higgs boson to explain mass. Mass is measured. It exists :jaw-dropp!
If we find that the Higgs boson has not been detected at the LHC then mass still exists and is observed to be a source of gravity.
Click to expand...
And you know why you don't find the higgs, - because it in incoherent speculation. - It splits science instead of uniting science.
 
Bjarne said:
You can find plenty of professional scientists with the exact opposite opinion. Here is a opinion...
Click to expand...
Yes, it's an opinion. It's also a dishonest cherry-picked representation of a profesional scientist.




what you wrote smells, did you know that ?
Of WHAT ? - of the back end of a cow what else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom