Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[phunk]

You had better measure with only one silo full. Otherwise your experiment is invalid and you will have to start over again.

Having more than one full is one of the 2 obvious fatal flows I mention in
Bjarne's silo experiment - fatal flaws?, i.e. that you have not taking in account the ADG from the other silos. It would be like haveing 4 Domus Vista buildings side by side. One reason you picked the Domus Vista building should have been its isolation.

Once you have wasted your money (again!) with measuring the ADG at the top of the one filled silo, I may tell you about the really fatal flaw in the experiment.

It could be done with 2 silos, if they were both filled (and not the others), by measuring between them before and after. This would also certainly be easier than measuring in the center of a full silo. How's he plan on doing that?

 

[Reality Check]

It could be done with 2 silos, if they were both filled (and not the others), by measuring between them before and after. This would also certainly be easier than measuring in the center of a full silo. How's he plan on doing that?

As far as I can see he is not. All he mentions is bottom and top of the silo.

But he as a new crackpot idea (not the other crackpot idea you are thinking of): The ADG of the silo as measured at the top and bottom will agree with a number he got by multiplying a value he calculated somehow by another number he made up.
(Bjarne - Please cite the equations you used for the silo calculations)


The crackpottery speaks loudly in Bjarne:

1. He cannot tell us how he got the first number ("Based on the prevailing thesis we should be able to measure 267μGal at the roof so soon one container is full ( I believe).").
2. He first stated that the number he expects is 67 μGal, i.e. 25% of 267 μGal.
3. He seems to have changed his mind and now mentions 50% (133.5 μGal).
4. There is a good chance that he will pull another number out of thin air before the experiment.
5. There is a small chance that as soon as he has the results he will pull another number out of thin air to make the experiment fit his delusion.

Then there is the ignorrance of basic physics that he has already displays and continues to display:

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads​

One bit of ignorance that is perhaps excusable for Bjarne:

He does not know that this experiment has basically already been done!

Scientists have been measuring the gravitational force between objects for centuries, starting with the Cavendish experiment in 1797. The Eot-Wash Group is one of many modern groups investigating gravity.​

 

[MRC_Hans]

Seems Bjarne is heading off into never-never land even faster than before.

I'm not going to waste more time till there is some concrete data.

Hans

 

[Aitch]

Don't you mean cow data?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Don't you mean cow data?

Hoping for something better, but not holding my breath.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Black = nothing comes out.

Energy comes out of the jet, and you don’t know if this also affects the ”black” hole, since you can’t see it..

Another bit of ignorance: Black holes have masses of stars!

Amen...

Once you have wasted your money (again!) with measuring the ADG at the top of the one filled silo, I may tell you about the really fatal flaw in the experiment.

We cannot use measurements at the top due to too much noise; we are measuring in the bottom.

Your new idea that it increases towards the center is of course really dumb. To put it simply: As you go towards the center there is less mass below you and more mass above you.

This is an old fashion way of thinking.
Yes is easy to believe in that but the nature of space is beyond this logic.
Space must “give” – hence there is 2 options, either that the space vacuum is fetching, - only from a outwards direction.
This will give a stable ADG towards the center.

It is pretty simple to understand that space can be fetched from an outwards direction , because in the direction of infinity there is enough of it. We can see it. This make this possible more logic.

Therefore in this case we shall expect; a stable ADG towards the center of a homogeneous mass” . This is the most logical.

BUT
What if space also can be “fetched” from an inwards direction, exactly like from an outwards direction, (with the use of the same pull/force) – in this case ADG will continue to increase towards; "inwards infinity", because of space also is pulled from that direction,- in the same way as it is pulled from a outwards direction. In this case the inner ADG will increase (not be stable)

Punk wrote
It could be done with 2 silos, if they were both filled (and not the others), by measuring between them before and after. This would also certainly be easier than measuring in the center of a full silo. How's he plan on doing that?

Yes, I also see it that way, if 2 silos are full we should between these (according to the prevailing creeds) expect to get the double upwards pull, and if 4 silos are full and we are measurement in the middle / between these, we should expect a 4 times so strong upwards pull.

I believe RC have not got the angle right.
It could be cracks in the anti crackpot glasses that look like deformed measurements angles.
Nothing can counteract the expected upwards pull, except off course when the thesis is wrong.

1. He cannot tell us how he got the first number ("Based on the prevailing thesis we should be able to measure 267μGal at the roof so soon one container is full ( I believe).").
2. He first stated that the number he expects is 67 μGal, i.e. 25% of 267 μGal.
3. He seems to have changed his mind and now mentions 50% (133.5 μGal).
4. There is a good chance that he will pull another number out of thin air before the experiment.
5. There is a small chance that as soon as he has the results he will pull another number out of thin air to make the experiment fit his delusion.

RC
Just forget all this for a while; it is not possible to use measurements at the top because of noise. – Therefore this part is irrelevant now.

We will ONLY use measurements from the bottom, first when the container all was empty and again when 1 some or all is full.

Finally capito.......?

The cow logic here are so simple that I am pretty sure you already understand what this is about.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The top of such containers is not stable enough to get useful gravity measurements. Too much vibration.

However, there should be a decrease in gravity measured at the bottom, once the containers are filled. Unless Bjarne manages to mess this up, too.

And, of course, since he refuses to publish his baseline measurements up front, We will have to take his word for it.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, I also see it that way, if 2 silos are full we should between these (according to the prevailing creeds) expect to get the double upwards pull,

Assuming you measure exactly between them that would be more or less correct, yes.

and if 4 silos are full and we are measurement in the middle / between these, we should expect a 4 times so strong upwards pull.

No, because the silos are placed in a row. So the two outer ones will have a different angle and due to the higher distance, less effect. This is so elementary that I should not have needed to tell you.

Hans

 

[steenkh]

Energy comes out of the jet, and you don’t know if this also affects the ”black” hole, since you can’t see it..

The jet is not coming from the black hole.

 

[Bjarne]

Assuming you measure exactly between them that would be more or less correct, yes.

Done

No, because the silos are placed in a row. So the two outer ones will have a different angle and due to the higher distance, less effect. This is so elementary that I should not have needed to tell you.

Yes this is correct, we shall probably not expect more than minus 3 times, compared to 1 full container when measuring between 4 on a row.

The jet is not coming from the black hole

It can be inside as well
I believe it is.
Think about what can cause such a fast moving jet.

 

[Bjarne]

--

The Mystery of the Photons Energy Stability, - in Spacetime.​

According to the prevailing understanding we accept that photons moving inwards or outwards of a gravitational field are gaining and losing energy.

This is of course a consequence of the way we calculate the photons energy based on; frequencies per second multiplied with Planck constant.

But “the second” is variable in space time. And this is in fact a problem.

( Pound-Rebka experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment )

• What happens to the lost of photon energy when a photons moves away from e.g.; the Sun?
• How can a photon gain energy, for example when it is approaching the Earth?
• Where does gained energy comes from?

These questions can’t be answered in a logical or satisfied way, - , and is in fact a serious logical problem.

It is almost the exact same problem, when a photon travels through the expanding Universe.
When we long time after a photon have left a distant star, maybe billion of years ago, and until we receive it, the photon have lost frequencies/energy, - because this is what the redshift in the absorption specter (according to our believes) tells us.

Also in this case photon energy “seems” to had disappear out in nowhere.

This shows that something is fundamentally wrong with our understanding, - but what.?

We have often heard that energy cannot disappear. But this is (according to the prevailing understanding) what must happen to photons traveling through the expanding universe, or in space-time (away from a gravitational field).

The only way to solve both these problems is to understand that distances also are relative.
This mean that if time in a gravitational field is stretching then distances between each of the photon frequencies does the same, proportional with time, and is therefore also always the relative "same" distances .
This would allow photons in space-time always to have the same energy.

According to the new theory , - time is also stretching / extending proportional with the stretching / expanding universe.

The absorption of photons energy / freqeuncies is not stable, because of when time stretch photons energy will be too slow. (too slow frequencies to the "new" "longer" time) .

The photons absorption patterns (seen in the light specters) we receives billion of years after these were created, are therefore compounded by much lower photons frequencies, than what happens today. And this reveals a different time in the younger Universe .

This is simply because time in the younger universe was ticking faster than now. It is the time extension / (stretch of time) that is causing a blue shift, rather than it is the expanding Universe that is causing a redshift.

The expanding Universe cannot cause a redshift, because everything expands proportional.

We have reversed this understanding.

This is one more consequence of the new theory, - like explained here. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5893652&postcount=483

And this solves 2 big mysteries, - according to photon energy.

Photon-Energy does NEVER disappears, and NEVER gains more energy, - it would be impossible since it would require a quantum theory to explain the quantum theory, and is really a bigger problem as we are used to think about..

Distances are relative too, this explains everything.
--

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Bjarne reinvents Lorentz contraction

( Pound-Rebka experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment )

• What happens to the lost of photon energy when a photons moves away from e.g.; the Sun?
• How can a photon gain energy, for example when it is approaching the Earth?
• Where does gained energy comes from?

These questions can’t be answered in a logical or satisfied way, - , and is in fact a serious logical problem.

Correction: Bjarne can't answer those questions in a logical or satisfying way, and is once again projecting the limitations of his understanding upon others.

This shows that something is fundamentally wrong with our understanding, - but what.?

Correction: it shows that something is fundamentally wrong with Bjarne's understanding.

The only way to solve both these problems is to understand that distances also are relative.

Which was discovered over a hundred years ago.

Distances are relative too, this explains everything.

It explains some things, but not everything.

Now that Bjarne has rediscovered the relativity of length, the next step is for him to formulate a quantitative law for what the rest of us know as Lorentz contraction^WP. Then he'll be only a little over a century behind.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne
Distances are relative too, this explains everything.
WDL
Which was discovered over a hundred years ago.

I do not only mean "distance" but also the meter stick etc..…
For example let us say you live in a spacetime, where time is ticking double so fast than by me.
The size of yours meter stick, steps, body, car etc would then be half the size, compared to when you was living in my space-time..
If we both was moving a distance of 100 km, and 100 km/h (basen on 100 kilometer related to my spacetime) , - we would both reach the same point at the same “time”. But you watch would show it has taken 2 hours. – and you km-counter would show a distance of 200 km.

If everything expands proportional also the meter-stick the general relativity theory is no longer the same.

This also must affect the photon..

So no, this is not “discovered over a hundred years ago”.

 

[steenkh]

It can be inside as well
I believe it is.

It cannot be from inside the black hole. Think about why they are called black holes. It is because you need speed faster than light to escape from them, and nothing can go faster than light. The jets are not going as fast as light, by the way.

Think about what can cause such a fast moving jet.

Yes, I am thinking. Electro-magnetic forces? Yes, that will do it!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I do not only mean "distance" but also the meter stick etc..…
For example let us say you live in a spacetime, where time is ticking double so fast than by me.
The size of yours meter stick, steps, body, car etc would then be half the size, compared to when you was living in my space-time..
If we both was moving a distance of 100 km, and 100 km/h (basen on 100 kilometer related to my spacetime) , - we would both reach the same point at the same “time”. But you watch would show it has taken 2 hours. – and you km-counter would show a distance of 200 km.

Had I never seen your cow logic in action, I'd have guessed that you're confusing arbitrary choices of units with relativistic effects.

So no, this is not “discovered over a hundred years ago”.

Nor has it been discovered to this day.

 

[Bjarne]

How cute

Had I never seen your cow logic in action, I'd have guessed that you're confusing arbitrary choices of units with relativistic effects.

I am not sure what you mean that GR also deforms distances?

Let us now say that time and distances in space-time you live is only the half of my space-time.

We would both doing the same experiment and both would we see that a certain photon, let say 1000 frequencies per second, and 1 meter length (to keep it simple) would be absorbed..

Now let’s imaging I could take my spectrometer and look into yours reality, - what I was seeing is that you in one (of my second) only would obverse a frequency of 500 Hz, (not 1000 Hz) and that the distance between these only where ½ meter (not 1 meter).

This mean seen from my perspective, 500 hz photons are absorbed.

But this is not true; all that have happen is that our time is difference.

This is also a simple picture of cosmological redshift.
My spectrometer is lying, when looking into yours reality, - because it is in a different time.

Such a framework really gives no problems.

I do not know enough about other “suggestions” how this problem else be solved.

It is because you need speed faster than light to escape from them, and nothing can go faster than light.

Space can escape; this is what matter really is >> contracted space, - which mean if the Milkyway would expand a tiny little bit, it is just because the lunch of its black hole is over, for today...

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I am not sure what you mean that GR also deforms distances?

Suggestion: Try to understand the special case of special relativity (SR) before attempting to understand general relativity (GR). The special relativistic Doppler effect^WP can be explained using high school mathematics. Before you could understand general relativity (GR), you'd have to accept a notion of curvature in manifolds along with some other graduate-level mathematics.

Space can escape; this is what matter really is >> contracted space, - which mean if the Milkyway would expand a tiny little bit, it is just because the lunch of its black hole is over, for today...

 

[Bjarne]

Suggestion: Try to understand the special case of special relativity (SR) before attempting to understand general relativity (GR). The special relativistic Doppler effect^WP can be explained using high school mathematics. Before you could understand general relativity (GR), you'd have to accept a notion of curvature in manifolds along with some other graduate-level mathematics.

I am talking about Cosmological and Gravitational redshift

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I am talking about Cosmological and Gravitational redshift

With regard to cosmological redshift, I think you can get by fairly well using special relativity, up until the large scale structure of spacetime becomes important.

With regard to gravitational redshift, you're going to need some general relativity. That means you're going to have to deal with differentiable 4-manifolds with Lorentz metrics, and you're going to have to learn about the notion of intrinsic curvature on those manifolds. Until then, you literally would not know what you're talking about.

 

[steenkh]

Space can escape; this is what matter really is >> contracted space, - which mean if the Milkyway would expand a tiny little bit, it is just because the lunch of its black hole is over, for today...

You are babbling ...

You claim that matter is contracted space, but when you have a lot of matter which is the essence of a black hole, then space does not contract, but "escapes" (whatever that means)