Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[PixyMisa]

The universe we actually live in isn't like that at all. Not on small scales anyway. There's a chair under you, but you're not surrounded by an equal amount of chair in all directions.

You haven't seen my living room.

 

[Bjarne]

I would be very pleased to know how.

What is "re-curving" of the crust?

Have you seen these video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe-Rs...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8tsu...eature=related

However I suggest that you do not derail your own thread

I don’t.
It have something to do with the ability to see things from a bigger perspective, but also to read what is written, - again and again you reveal not to read what is written, this is the real problem.

For example this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5695323&postcount=48

Below, - repeated specially for RC (only because he is my best friend)
Right now and right here the universe could (in theory) expand much faster as we believe, all what we would discover is when something not expands proportional, for example if space between galaxies would expand a little (or much) faster, or if the superficial levels of the Earth would expand faster than the inner area.
These would be the only places where we could see that something is "wrong" with our understanding.
So Neal Adams could in fact be a hero, not a crank.

In that case the "BIG and important" answer is NO, the curvature of space is not the same thing as the expansion of space.

I will prove this.
When this is done what will you then say?

1.) Could it be because larger galaxies have more matter with which to form larger black holes?

Off course it “could” and I do not believe it is so, but I am sure. But you tell me how, I can tell you, but you first ..

2.) I thought it had something to do with vast amounts of matter coalescing into a relatively small space.

Doesn’t matter what you or others believes, - why this proportionality with size ? – Unless solving this “the believe” is a half wind.

3+4+5

The answer is we have misunderstood how central gravity works.
If you like read the answer here http://www.science27.com

While we're at it, we may as well say that PI = 3 and that light is made up of electrons. Then you'd be forced to change your opinion on other matters of physics, right?

Didn’t got the point..

You may not be able to measure it with your hypothetical yardstick because that too would have grown. But if distances are greater, then you would be able to measure it by observing the apparent diminishing of gravity and electromagnetic forces due to the inverse square law.

Remember when distances expand, - 1 meter is still one meter.
To my opinion that means all the laws of nature should still be the same.
We have no (direct) experiences with that and can only guess if the properties of the elementary particles will remain unchanged.

I think this is all too much for our understanding and hence we tries to desperate to "catch something", because something "must be stable"

I think all what is stable is the laws of nature, which mean the Universe as a whole could be 1000 times smaller or bigger, but still one meter would be 1 meter, and still everything would be normal.
A such universe is possible. From a overall perspective its seems like this is the universe we live in.

If you do not agree try to put the Earth into a space not bigger than a atom, - not easy right ?

This is a problem we would have in a BigChrunch..
Unless we “believe” that matter too shrinks/expands.

The growing Earth seems too reveal that space here also expands and relative fast. So does space between galaxies, but just a little faster than here.
The key to understand that point (if someone not have understood) is that gravity is changing the density of space. - Space is not homogeneous.

You can compared it to speed, you can sometime not determinate if you moves or the train next to you.
In the same way it can be a problem to determinate if space expands or not.
Its a much bigger problem if we systematically ignores fact, - for example the fact that Earth is expanding.

We have not one reference point (expanding space) we have in fact 2, and hence the math should comprehend these 2 reference point, which mean also the expanding Earth.
This would completely change our understanding of the universe we live in.
It’s much more psychedelic than we think.

Gravity. It tends to hold draw together, but angular momentum tends to prevent everything from collapsing into the center. Where's the problem?
We don’t know at all. It’s a big mystery, but the answer is the same as point 1.

Also, light & radio waves would be red-shifted proportional to distance from the source, so you could measure the rate of expansion of the earth with carefully calibrated radio transmitters and receivers placed in different locations.

This is already a know fact, which mean it is time to wake up don’t you think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka-Snider_experiment

Funny... for a superstition it has an awful lot of empirical evidence to support it.
This speculation will fall.

This might help.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#SS

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104349

We will always try to explain things.
This is the biggest problem in science because it also prevents us to reach a bigger and more coherent picture.
When first a certain believe is accepted, it is almost so fanatic as hardcore religions.
And the result is a universe full of science fiction, plenty dimensions, dark matter dark, acceleration energy, higgs and plenty of speculation in one billion fragmented direction.
Nothing of this is necessary, but only fully to understand the simple nature of space, only 50% better.

We see the same thing happening in our 4D space-time. All of space-time is expanding. There is no "border" between expanding and non-expanding parts.
Agree.

And we also both agree this statement do not fit with what we observe.

The reason that we do not notice this expansion locally is that gravity dominates on scales smaller than galaxies, EM forces dominate on atomic scales and nuclear forces dominate on nuclear scales.

RC.
You MUST understand how is gravity and the expanding space connected.
If you claim that the stretching expanding universe nothing have to do with the curvature of space you are off the track.

You are so good educated that knowspaces is stretching due to the expanding universe.
You also know (or should know) that space is stretching towards a objects due to gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka-Snider_experiment
There are no different between these “two” properties, these are one and the same.
Expanding space causes the light spectrum to change – gravity does EXCACTLY the same. - Its the exactly same that happens.
The limitation is inside the human brain. – It is here everything what could go wrong also went wrong.

Get that point, and the universe you live in will change completely.
Follow that track and you MUST also realize that MATTER CONTRACT SPACE – and therefore space MUST stretch.

It is a fact that space have "density", hence also a fact that space can stretch.
Why invent more curved bended deformed properties when these are not necessary . ?

I honestly can't see why this simple point is so hard to get...

 

[MRC_Hans]

No everything would look the same.
Acceleration due to gravity would also be the same; a meter would just be relative “longer” than now but still a meter. A kilo weight would just be the double the size but still one kilo.

Are you really this ignorant or are you just pretending? If you have a box that is one liter, and weights one kg, and double it, it will now be an 8 liter box. If it still only weighs one kg, its density will have been reduced to 1/8.

Don't you think that will be noticeable? Bjarne, what would you prefer to have dropped on your head, one kg of lead (bly) or one kg of feathers?

Why would you prefer the feathers? What is the difference? DENSITY!

A kilo weight would just be the double the size but still one kilo.

No, 8 times the size.

The distance to the centre of the Earth would still be 6354 km. Nothing would seem to have “change” also not weight since weight depend on distance, and distance are still the same, just "blown up a bit"

Complete nonsense. Weight depends on mass and density.

You could say the same about the must of that what you call science and what in the end of the day only are believes.

The difference is that science can and has provided proof. You haven't.

I am not satisfied only to believe, what I am saying is possible to prove.

No, it is possible to test. You won't be able to prove it because you are wrong.

Shortly it is possible to prove whether the curvature of space is the exact same property than expanding spaced.

If so this will change a lot;

Bjarne, I'm tired of your "soon". Put up or shut up.

In or near Denmark there are no subduction zones, but we have earthquakes too.
Why do you think ?

Oh, there are. Just old and nearly inactive ones. Why do you think we have cliffs on one side of øresund, and not on the other side? Right, there is an ancient fault zone running through it.

I believe this is why the crust is all the time re-curving, - simply because this makes sense.

No.

Subduction is superstition, this is a desperate invention,

No, it is a proved fact.

happens we can not accept the simply and painful truth - that we don't know....

How about YOU accept the simple and no doubt painful truth that you don't know a thing?

Hans

 

[Belz...]

We know that space between galaxies expand.
But inside galaxies or solar systems it does not seems to happen.

Yes it does. Gravity simply compensates.

Thread over.

 

[Belz...]

Anyway it doesn’t happen

Ah... another one with the Gallileo syndrome.

 

[Brian-M]

In that case the "BIG and important" answer is NO, the curvature of space is not the same thing as the expansion of space.

I will prove this.
When this is done what will you then say?

I, and others, will probably respond by pointing out exactly why your proof is wrong. But of course, you'd actually have to get around to providing proof of some kind first.

1.) Could it be because larger galaxies have more matter with which to form larger black holes?

Off course it “could” and I do not believe it is so, but I am sure. But you tell me how, I can tell you, but you first ..

I don't see why this confuses you. Larger galaxies have more matter, which means more matter ends up in black holes, which results in more massive (and consequently larger) black holes. But that's just my uneducated assumption... feel free to enlighten me with your explanation.

3+4+5

The answer is we have misunderstood how central gravity works.
If you like read the answer here http://www.science27.com

Nice. You replace my statement with numbers, make a cryptic claim of misunderstanding on my part, provide a link to your own website as a reference source, but don't bother to link to a page on your site relevant to the discussion, and just expect me to be willing to read through numerous pages of your gibberish to seek out information you can't be bothered providing here.

How can I not be convinced by reasoning like that?

While we're at it, we may as well say that PI = 3 and that light is made up of electrons. Then you'd be forced to change your opinion on other matters of physics, right?

Didn’t got the point..

The point is that in making your claim, and trying to change our opinion on physics, you're asking us to accept a proposition that we know to be false simply because your theory is based on the assumption that it is true.

You may not be able to measure it with your hypothetical yardstick because that too would have grown. But if distances are greater, then you would be able to measure it by observing the apparent diminishing of gravity and electromagnetic forces due to the inverse square law.

Remember when distances expand, - 1 meter is still one meter.
To my opinion that means all the laws of nature should still be the same.
We have no (direct) experiences with that and can only guess if the properties of the elementary particles will remain unchanged.

You're making no sense. If something one meter long is still one meter then distance, by definition, hasn't grown or expanded. If something still has the same height, length and width as it had before, then in what possible sense has it grown?

You seem to thing that distance is defined by the length of the meter-stick or yardstick, it isn't. The length of the meter-stick is defined by distance. If everything gets bigger, then the meter stick is now longer than a meter. From the viewpoint of someone who doesn't realize that they've grown, and still mistakenly using the meter stick to define the meter, it will look as if the properties of physical forces have changed.

Perhaps your confusion is the result of assuming that because space is expanding then this means atoms/particles inside space are getting bigger too? They aren't. Everything remains the same size, there's just more space.

Also, light & radio waves would be red-shifted proportional to distance from the source, so you could measure the rate of expansion of the earth with carefully calibrated radio transmitters and receivers placed in different locations.

This is already a know fact, which mean it is time to wake up don’t you think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka-Snider_experiment

Actually, if the earth is expanding then higher points would have to be accelerating outwards at a faster rate to remain proportional, which means that the radio signal would be red-shifted in both directions, up and down. Also, if the surface of the earth is expanding, it should be red-shifted horizontally too.

But the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment shows that radio waves blue-shift when coming down, and no red shift when traveling horizontally. The actual results of this experiment supports relativity and disproves your hypothesis.

Time to wake up, don't you think?

 

[Brian-M]

Don't you think that will be noticeable? Bjarne, what would you prefer to have dropped on your head, one kg of lead (bly) or one kg of feathers?

Why would you prefer the feathers? What is the difference? DENSITY!

Are the feathers in a perfectly rigid container? If so, then it wouldn't really make a difference either way... the force on the head would be the same.

(Unless they're dropped from high enough that wind resistance on the surface area of the two objects makes a difference to the velocity with which they strike your head.)

 

[MRC_Hans]

Are the feathers in a perfectly rigid container? If so, then it wouldn't really make a difference either way... the force on the head would be the same.

(Unless they're dropped from high enough that wind resistance on the surface area of the two objects makes a difference to the velocity with which they strike your head.)

That is, of course, right, but I'm trying to communicate with a person who thinks cows are more intelligent than humans, so that complication is probably way over his head.

Note that Bjarne really, really thinks that:

a meter would just be relative “longer” than now but still a meter. A kilo weight would just be the double the size but still one kilo.

Bjarne doesn't even realize that volume=lenght^3


THAT is the league Bjarne is in .....


Hans

 

[PixyMisa]

That is, of course, right, but I'm trying to communicate with a person who thinks cows are more intelligent than humans

Isn't that kind of a self-fulfilling belief?

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne, proof that the curvature of space is the same thing as the expansion of space

First asked 10 March 2010
Bjarne, you state:

In that case the "BIG and important" answer is NO, the curvature of space is not the same thing as the expansion of space.

I will prove this.
When this is done what will you then say?

When can we expect your mathematical or physical proof that the curvature of space is the same thing as the expansion of space?

Mathematics is definitely not your strong point (Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) ).
So it is possible that you have a set of mesurements of the curvature of space and another set of measurements of the expansion of space and can show that they are the same .

RC.
You MUST understand how is gravity and the expanding space connected.

Bjarne, I DO understand how is gravity and the expanding space connected. Gravity does not cause expanding space. Expanding space does not cause gravity. Gravity can slow down or even reverse the expansion of space (but that does not seen to be our universe).

As first demonstrated to you on 11 November 2009 - Curved space is not contracted space and neither is expanding space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka-Snider_experiment
There are no different between these “two” properties, these are one and the same.

The Pound, Rebka, Snider experiment was an experimental test of the gravitational redshift predicted by GR. It was done in 1959 and confirmed GR.
GR states that gravity is caused by the curvature of space.
GR states that light can be redshifted by gravity.
GR states that light can be redshifted by expanding space.
Light is redshifted by the velocity of its source with respect to the velocity of the detector.
These redshifts have different causes, the causes are not the same.

It is a fact that space have "density", hence also a fact that space can stretch.

It is a fact that space does not have "density". Density is defined by a quantity divided by a volume. Space has have no quantity, e.g. mass, to divide by a volume. Space is the volume.

Why invent more curved bended deformed properties when these are not necessary . ?

I honestly can't see why this simple point is so hard to get...

Because GR predictions match the the actual observed universe. That is what scientific theories are supposed to so.

I honestly can't see why this simple point is so hard to get...

 

[dafydd]

Time to give up.He is beyond salavation.

 

[Cosmic Roy]

Have you seen these video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe-Rs...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8tsu...eature=related

Bjarne, neither of those videos work for me. I did, however, watch the previous two videos you linked to. They were wrong and I criticised them in one of my posts, but you are yet to respond.

If you truly think that flexural readjustment of continental crust on the surface of an expanding Earth can cause the subduction of lithospheric slabs hundreds of kilometres in length, please, please explain it to me without reference to a Neal Adams video.

If, as I suspect is the case, you've never looked into plate tectonics and were not aware of the evidence I mentioned, then take this opportunity to learn something and realise that, if your theory relies on the Earth expanding as Neal Adams claims it has, then your theory is incorrect. If Neal Adams's misguided idea is not integral to your theory, then my advice to you is to stop bringing it up. The idea is profoundly wrong, and referencing it just makes you look foolish.

 

[Bjarne]

If you have a box that is one litre, and weights one kg, and double it, it will now be an 8 litre box.

No you would not
Since 1 meter is still one meter.
I see it is difficult for you to understand relativity.
If you have 1 hour you can run 15 km - if this one hour is relative 2 hours on Mercury it doesn't mean you can reach the double distances on Mercury.
This is a old mistake.
Still you can only run 15 km per hour but in this case one km is relative "longer" - and that's why times is relative shorter.
All the law of nature are still the same...

Why would you prefer the feathers? What is the difference? DENSITY!

The density would properly still be the same too.
I believe that particles too will expand.
We can't know this, because we have no (direct) observation.

The difference is that science can and has provided proof. You haven't.

No, you have no proof for what would happens to a atom or a kilo when space around expands to the double size.
There do not exist a "border" here either. Space is space, and do only respect the law of space. You must understand that before saying something for sure.

Space could expand right here and right now, everyday, - there would be no way of knowing except looking for references points that expands differently.

Bjarne, I'm tired of your "soon".

In science you must be patient.
Measurements are already done
First time on each fifth floors now on each single floor. The rapport will come "soon"
You will not be the first to know, sorry.

Bjarne
We know that space between galaxies expand.
But inside galaxies or solar systems it does not seems to happen.
Belz
Yes it does. Gravity simply compensates.

I agree it does.
But explain how exactly. You can't
Unless you know or understand how gravity and expanding space is connected, what you "know" is a only a shot in the mist. Reality shows everywhere you look that there is a lot (too much) wrong with our overall understanding.

I, and others, will probably respond by pointing out exactly why your proof is wrong. But of course, you'd actually have to get around to providing proof of some kind first.

Ohh no
You can't, instead you will be "forces" to open you eyes for a "new" and much more simple and coherent universe.

I don't see why this confuses you. Larger galaxies have more matter, which means more matter ends up in black holes, which results in more massive (and consequently larger) black holes. But that's just my uneducated assumption... feel free to enlighten me with your explanation.

This is not the way the prevailing understanding is. - The proportionality is not understood. A lot is done to get closer ..But my friend it is simple, The simple answer of the nature of space is only understood 50% - Understand the last 50 % and all mysteries disappears, like mist under the Sun.

Nice. You replace my statement with numbers, make a cryptic claim of misunderstanding on my part, provide a link to your own website as a reference source, but don't bother to link to a page on your site relevant to the discussion, and just expect me to be willing to read through numerous pages of your gibberish to seek out information you can't be bothered providing here.

I have already given the answer.
Gravity is stretching space. This will explain E V E R Y T H I N G
Just follow that track, - it will even lead you directly into even the cause of gravity, the cause of black holes etc...

You're making no sense. If something one meter long is still one meter then distance, by definition, hasn't grown or expanded. If something still has the same height, length and width as it had before, then in what possible sense has it grown?

All new thought are difficult
For example also that times is relative.
Distances are too, - and this is why times is relative.
Even by Venus and Mercury not only times is slower, distances are also relative "longer" - than here.
I can not convince you (in short time), but time will come, and you will all be "forces" to accept this.
It will take you long time to get a deep understanding of all this, you can't expect to understand this in short time.

Perhaps your confusion is the result of assuming that because space is expanding then this means atoms/particles inside space are getting bigger too? They aren't. Everything remains the same size, there's just more space.

I am not confused, it have taken me years to come to that conclusion. Today I am sure.
My technique is simple. Things are connected. I have given you the main thread, follow it, it can only lead you to the exact same conclusion, - distances too are relative, - no doubt.

Actually, if the earth is expanding then higher points would have to be accelerating outwards at a faster rate to remain proportional, which means that the radio signal would be red-shifted in both directions, up and down. Also, if the surface of the earth is expanding, it should be red-shifted horizontally too.

The "density" of space is thicker at the surface of the Earth than at the centre. Hence the expansion here is is also a little stronger. Therefore the crust must crack.

This is in fact a main hint for understanding the true nature of space / the universe. It's one of the only and closest references we have. I know it is crazy difficult to except, but right now everything also you body expands. There are no borders, no limits. - It would be impossible.

But the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment shows that radio waves blue-shift when coming down, and no red shift when travelling horizontally. The actual results of this experiment supports relativity and disproves your hypothesis.

Time to wake up, don't you think?

I am awake.
Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment shows red shift away from a gravitational field, and hence that space in that direction gets "thicker" whic mean distances get relative ""shorter"" (and time therefore faster).

Are the feathers in a perfectly rigid container?

Notice the feather would according to your guys believe be much too big (billion + billion + billion) times too big to get into the Universe just before big bang.
According to my understanding it would not "be too big" but just A LOT relative smaller, (and still 3 centimetre) It too MUST shrink when the Universe does so.

When can we expect your mathematical or physical proof that the curvature of space is the same thing as the expansion of space?

Systematicall Measurement was done exactly 1 week ago, The report can come any moment..
I have to sent that to a scientific magazine, and not publish other places before.
It takes time.
But I can say that the first measurements was promising and supported the theory.

Mathematics is definitely not your strong point

Do you use you left brain, I am happy for my right.
Here are the "drawings" - use it.

Because GR predictions match the the actual observed universe.....

GR was only the first step, there are more ...

Bjarne, neither of those videos work for me. I did, however, watch the previous two videos you linked to.
They were wrong and I criticised them in one of my posts, but you are yet to respond.

OK
Try from here
http://www.science27.com/english/background_gravity.html
From here you can find link to all Neals important Videos.

If you truly think that flexural readjustment of continental crust on the surface of an expanding Earth can cause the subduction of lithospheric slabs hundreds of kilometres in length, please, please explain it to me without reference to a Neal Adams video.

Try to see the videos, these will explain.
Think about it, see it from not one angle, but from 100 angles. Then you will begin to understand.

If, as I suspect is the case, you've never looked into plate tectonics and were not aware of the evidence I mentioned, then take this opportunity to learn something and realise that, if your theory relies on the Earth expanding as Neal Adams claims it has, then your theory is incorrect.

First time I saw Neals Video I though - How crazy you are wasting you time.
BUT on the other hand I also could not except that mountain is build by the force of convection. - This idea was more crazy....
Today I have no doubt Neal is simply right
YES the Universe is VERY strange. But there is nothing to do about it.
Only try to see it from a coherent perspective.
Just follow the simple main thread and really try to understand the only little point ->>> Curvature of space (gravity) and expanding space, is two side of the excact same coin . - This is a key - to a lot...

If Neal Adams's misguided idea is not integral to your theory, then my advice to you is to stop bringing it up.
The idea is profoundly wrong, and referencing it just makes you look foolish.

I did also thought so long after seeing these videos
Yes it was simply too much.
But you too must admit the Earth are too big for the very early universe.
In a BigChrunch the Earth must contract.

 

[Brian-M]

Notice the feather would according to your guys believe be much too big (billion + billion + billion) times too big to get into the Universe just before big bang.
According to my understanding it would not "be too big" but just A LOT relative smaller, (and still 3 centimetre) It too MUST shrink when the Universe does so.

Ignoring the fact that there is probably no such thing as "just before the big bang", and assuming you meant "at the start of the big bang"...

According to current theories, the universe was smaller than an electron until 10^-23 seconds into the big bang. Does this mean that electrons were just a lot smaller than they are now? No. It means that electrons didn't exist.

Your assertion that the feather "MUST shrink when the Universe does so" is nonsensical. If the universe were to collapse (shrink), the conditions of the universe would no longer allow a feather to exist... it would be crushed into a microscopic point in a black hole. The feather need not shrink at all, just be crushed into something smaller, which means your claim that the feather MUST shrink is false. Your argument that objects which now exist would be too big to fit in a smaller universe misses the point that these bigger objects are only able to exist because of the larger size of the universe.

You're starting from the false assumption that the expansion of space makes objects get bigger, and then working backwards. It doesn't work that way. The expansion of space allows room for larger objects to form, it doesn't make those objects larger.

Imagine a cluster of pebbles floating in space, held together by gravity. Space expands, but the pebbles don't move outwards, the just fall back towards the center of gravity, so the cluster of pebbles is no bigger than before. Someone living on the cluster of pebbles knows that space has expanded because they are now further away from other clusters of pebbles in all directions, but the cluster of pebbles hasn't changed size.

(Each pebble itself can be thought of as being similar to the whole cluster of pebbles, but a cluster of atoms and subatomic particles held together by electromagnetic and nuclear forces instead of gravity, but the same situation applies. Space expands, but the pebbles don't get any larger because the electromagnetic forces chemically binding the atoms together counteract the expansion of space the same way that gravity counteracts the expansion of space for the whole cluster of pebbles.)

A planet is pretty much the same thing as a cluster of pebbles for the purpose of this example. Please explain to us why, and how, you think that expanding space would make the planet expand. Your arguments make no sense to us at all.

 

[Cosmic Roy]

OK
Try from here
http://www.science27.com/english/background_gravity.html
From here you can find link to all Neals important Videos.

Try to see the videos, these will explain.
Think about it, see it from not one angle, but from 100 angles. Then you will begin to understand.

Thanks for the link, Bjarne. Though I note that two of the videos you've pointed me towards are the very same ones I have already criticised - criticism you have not yet responded to. And since I've already posted about those, there's not really much more I can say on the matter. One of the videos was new though, so I'll make some remarks about that.

First of all, in fairness to Neal Adams, he does make a couple of correct points. These are: the approximate age of the oldest crust in the Earth's ocean basins; and the fact that marine fossils are found in sediments now on land. But his interpretation of these pieces of information is wrong.

Oceanic lithosphere is recycled into the mantle because as it ages it cools and becomes denser. Oceanic lithosphere which is very old is denser than the underlying upper mantle. At that point, a collision with the margin of a less dense plate will initiate subduction. That is why the lithosphere in the ocean basins has a maximum age of around 200 million years.

That you and Neal Adams blindly deny the existence of subduction zones is a bizarre defect in your thinking that I cannot get around. The existence of subducting slabs is not a controversial claim; one doesn't need to make wild inferences or speculations; you can see them in seismic tomographic images. Subduction is also indicated by plots of earthquake depth against distance from the plate margin. If that direct evidence is not enough for you, how about the arc volcanism that occurs on the down-dip side of subduction zones due to the introduction of water into the mantle? Or the actual, measured motion of the plates? Or accretionary prisms scraped from subducting oceanic lithosphere onto overriding plates?

Now, please don't say again that there is no evidence for subduction without at least trying to address these points.

I said above that the maximum age of the lithosphere in the ocean basins is around 200 million years. But that's not to say that no oceanic lithosphere older than 200 million years exists on the planet. It does, and the reason it has escaped recycling is because in relatively rare circumstances fragments of oceanic lithosphere can be obducted onto the continental crust. Such fragments are called ophiolites, and the Lizard ophiolite in Cornwall, UK, is more than 350 million years old. So Neal Adams is wrong again in his claim that the Earth's surface before 200 million years ago consisted entirely of continental crust.

As for the point about marine fossils in sediments now on land, it's important to understand that all oceans are not underlain entirely by oceanic crust. Study a bathymetric map and you will see that the continents have margins that extend under the sea in some places, before giving way to the ocean basins. There are also inland seas which encroach upon continental crust. No doubt, there are fossils currently being created in the sediments now laid down on oceanic lithosphere. These fossils will never be revealed because the sediment in which they lie will be either subducted into the mantle or incorporated into an accretionary wedge somewhere. The fossils that we can see are those that were formed in sediments on the continents, those continents being too buoyant to sink into the mantle. Neal Adams seems to have a problem with that, though he doesn't justify himself. What do you think?

First time I saw Neals Video I though - How crazy you are wasting you time.
BUT on the other hand I also could not except that mountain is build by the force of convection. - This idea was more crazy....
Today I have no doubt Neal is simply right

Could you be specific about your problem with convection as a driver for plate tectonics? Remember that the lithosphere constitutes a relatively insignificant layer, being no thicker than a couple of hundred kilometres, and averaging much less than that. Compare that to the mantle, whose convecting cells may go right down to the core-mantle bounday. Do you think that the mantle cannot muster the force necessary to build mountains at the rate of a few millimetres per year? Please give justification.

YES the Universe is VERY strange. But there is nothing to do about it.
Only try to see it from a coherent perspective.
Just follow the simple main thread and really try to understand the only little point ->>> Curvature of space (gravity) and expanding space, is two side of the excact same coin . - This is a key - to a lot...

I did also thought so long after seeing these videos
Yes it was simply too much.
But you too must admit the Earth are too big for the very early universe.
In a BigChrunch the Earth must contract.

I don't know what you mean by that, but I'm not going to press you on it because I don't expect a coherent answer. I'm not talking about cosmology; I'm just pointing out the absurdity of denying subduction, and of the Expanding Earth Hypothesis in general. You ought to stop mentioning this debunked idea in defence of your theories on cosmology.

 

[Brian-M]

I have already given the answer.
Gravity is stretching space. This will explain E V E R Y T H I N G
Just follow that track, - it will even lead you directly into even the cause of gravity, the cause of black holes etc...

How does it explain E V E R Y T H I N G ? It can't even explain itself. Gravity pulls things together, stretching space pulls things apart. Wouldn't that make stretching space the opposite of gravity?

Unless you're bringing up the notion it's not space that is expanding, but matter, and that accelerated expansion of the planet creates the illusion of gravity because of the inertia of the objects on the surface? But that old idea has many, many flaws. Orbits would be impossible, for example. Planets would either directly into the sun or drift away forever. The moon would crash into the earth.

I am awake.
Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment shows red shift away from a gravitational field, and hence that space in that direction gets "thicker" whic mean distances get relative ""shorter"" (and time therefore faster).

You're not even awake enough to realize that if the earth was expanding then red-shift would occur in transmissions sent horizontally as well. It doesn't, which means that redshift experiments disprove your hypothesis.

BUT on the other hand I also could not except that mountain is build by the force of convection. - This idea was more crazy....

Of course, a molten viscous flowing fluid forming a hardened cooler crust on the surface which sometimes cracks and shifts. The idea that this crust may actually have lumps that stick out by up to 0.14% ... crazy, just crazy.

In a BigChrunch the Earth must contract.

Or get squished. You keep forgetting that possibility.

 

[Reality Check]

I said above that the maximum age of the lithosphere in the ocean basins is around 200 million years. But that's not to say that no oceanic lithosphere older than 200 million years exists on the planet. It does, and the reason it has escaped recycling is because in relatively rare circumstances fragments of oceanic lithosphere can be obducted onto the continental crust. Such fragments are called ophiolites, and the Lizard ophiolite in Cornwall, UK, is more than 350 million years old. So Neal Adams is wrong again in his claim that the Earth's surface before 200 million years ago consisted entirely of continental crust.

What a coincidence: just yesterday I watched a slide show on a graduate student who is studying the Samail Ophiolite (Turning Carbon Dioxide Gas into Rock).

 

[Bjarne]

Could you be specific about your problem with convection as a driver for plate tectonics?

1. I don't not believe that convection is like such stable conveyer areas. For example I don't believe there is a flow under India (or Italy) towards north. - What about the earth's rotation would that not interrupts a such flow (!). My friend this idea is all based on naive believes.
2. Convection is much more randomly
3. The force is much to weak to rise mountains.
4. Much stronger force MUST be involved.
5. This idea is invented of people that never had have a hammer in their hands.

That you and Neal Adams blindly deny the existence of subduction zones is .....

I agree you can have something that "looks like subduction zones"
This must be a result (some places) when the crust is re-curving,

How does it explain E V E R Y T H I N G ? It can't even explain itself.

I think we have been it all through
The point is simple.

Does the curvature of space mean that space is stretching, and hence the exact same property as stretching/expanding space ( "dark energy") ?

If so this have several logical indisputable consequences.

For exsample these:

1. We have taken a big step forward better to understand gravity as a coherent whole, and especially what "curvature of space" really is.
2. The "density" of space must be inhomogeneous. Gravity/Matter is tinning out the density of space. (and that's it, gravity can do no more, also not locally stop the expanding universe )
3. Since gravity and expanding space is two side of the exact same coin, space here (arround us) must stretch together with the rest of the Universe. Gravity can not stop (only limit) this since gravity only mean mean thinner density nothing else.)
4. Space between galaxies must expand a little faster because the density between galaxies are "thicker" .
5. Space inside matter must expand too since space is space doesn't matter if it is inside or outside matter,
6. Space inside the central areas of the Earth must expand a little less because central space-density inside the Earth is "thinner" - which mean at the surface is expanding more - therefore the crust must crack.
7. A kilo must always be a kilo, otherwise we would have discover it was changing proportional with the expanding earth and universe, it doesn't seem to happen. (observation is the scientific method)
8. Galaxies forms because matter also must contracts space from a inwards central direction, which mean huge extended masses have common gravity from the first moment. - Central space-density will be under enormous "vacuum pressure" - this is excactly what dark matter and black holes is about..
9. Black holes is naturally because matter must sucks space from all direction, when a central area is encircled by matter, the effect on space will be greater, the result is black holes proportional with the mass of a galaxy, and of the same reason dark matter is only a naturally property of space, - and hence not matter.
10. The Cause of gravity must be the spin of elementary particles. (spinning / contracting space together) ((what else))
11. The accelerating expanding of the universe is only a "illusion" because observation shows that distances must change proportional with time and the expanding universe.
12. Gravity and the strong force is united, - this is now easy to "trace".

 

[Belz...]

The density would properly still be the same too.
I believe that particles too will expand.

Bjarne, you do know that all of this is just a matter of acceleration, right ? If the acceleration resulting from gravitation, electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force is enough to compensate for inflation, then you won't see things expanding. Only when this accelerating inflation reaches much higher levels will things start breaking apart.

This is stuff that's readily available on the net for you to read. I don't understand how come you don't know this.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, you do know that all of this is just a matter of acceleration, right ? If the acceleration resulting from gravitation, electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force is enough to compensate for inflation, then you won't see things expanding. Only when this accelerating inflation reaches much higher levels will things start breaking apart.

This is stuff that's readily available on the net for you to read. I don't understand how come you don't know this.

This is conclusion based on too little and incoherent knowledge.
It already happens.