Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

Earth, plate tectonics for the mountains, simple.

No it is not simple, convection do not have the power to rise 8000 m mountains or subduct a continent. ONLY Gravity have that much power.

Mars, the cooling of Mars billions of years ago causing the shinkage of the crust and the great canyon, again simple. .

If Mars have only shrunk it would have created small mountains, and maybe small subduction zones.

This is not the cause of the canyon of Mars….

The orbit of Mars is very elliptical; hence there is a relative large gravity difference between aphelion and perihelion.

For those that really want to know the real cause plate tectonic subduction on earth and the cause of the big canyon on mars, read this > http://www.science27.com/english/background_gravity.html

Relative speed is the only kind of speed. There is no such thing as "true speed".

The definition of true speed is :

1. Motion through space.
2. Speed compared to the speed of light.

The expanding Universe has NOTHING to do with true speed / motion. – The mix of DE and CR is disgrace of the intelligence of the human race. – That it is possible to sink so deep is beyond every possible ugly expression.

 

[phunk]

No it is not simple, convection do not have the power to rise 8000 km mountains or subduct a continent. ONLY Gravity have that much power.

And what force drives convection? Gravity!

Relative speed is the only kind of speed. There is no such thing as "true speed".
The definition of real speed is :

1. Motion through space.
2. Speed compared to the speed of light.

The expanding Universe has NOTHING to do with true speed / motion. – The mix of DE and CR is disgrace of the intelligence of the human race. – That it is possible to sink so deep is beyond every possible ugly expression.

Speed is NOT defined as motion through space. And "speed compared to speed of light" makes no sense, you can't define speed as being compared to speed.

 

[Paul]

speed The ratio of a distance covered by a body to the time taken. Speed is a scalar quantity, i.e. no direction is given. Velocity is a vector quantity, i.e. both the rate of travel and the direction are specified.

"speed" A Dictionary of Physics. Ed. John Daintith. Oxford University Press, 2009. Oxford Reference Online.

 

[Paul]

fold mountain An upland area, such as the Alps or Andes, formed by the buckling of the earth's crust. Many fold mountains are associated with destructive or collision margins of plates . Young fold mountains, such as the Caucasus and Alps, were formed by the Alpine orogeny of 65 million years BP, and reach elevations of 10 000 m. Old fold mountains, such as the Grampian mountains of Scotland, were created by earth movements pre-dating the Alpine orogeny but have been extensively eroded. Some old fold mountains have been uplifted and re-eroded.

"fold mountain" A Dictionary of Geography. Susan Mayhew. Oxford University Press 2009 Oxford Reference Online.

 

[Paulhoff]

No it is not simple, convection do not have the power to rise 8000 m mountains or subduct a continent. ONLY Gravity have that much power.

If Mars have only shrunk it would have created small mountains, and maybe small subduction zones.

No and No.

Try again.

Paul

 

[ferd burfle]

No it is not simple, convection do not have the power to rise 8000 m mountains or subduct a continent.

And we're supposed to believe this because...wait for it...because Bjarne says so!

No analysis, no math, no references to analysis or math.

Underwhelming as ever, Bjarne.


ferd

 

[Reality Check]

Doppler Effect (DE) is a result of relative speed-difference, - and hence not due to true speed.
...

The doppler effect is well understood. The doppler effect tells us that galaxies are moving away fromn us at a relative velocity that increases with their distance from us (Hubble's law).

BUT Cosmological Redshift (CR) is different, and can’t be compared to DE since expanding space is not the same as motion.

It is the same as motion - more space between galaxies as time goes by = motion.

...snipped usual gibberish...
I have predicted that ADG inside a homogenous mass is NOT decreasing, but stable, ...

And you are wrong:

Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked!​

Finally

, - When we speak about DE I assume we both agree we speak about relative speed differences.
[/quoutre]
Finally - yes we agree.

...
Now imaging; galaxy A and B there are 28 Billon LY between and tell me now; - do you belive that these two galaxies moves away from each other with a speed faster than light ?.

Yes. That is because special relativity applies to physical objects. It does not apply to spacetime. Spacetime can expand faster than the speed of light.

...snipped more giberish...
My friend, - I have a better religion for you, all the cows in the world and me are already full members, - come and join us, every new human will get a layer cake.

I see that you are trying to replace your cow fetish with a bakery goods fetish !

Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked!
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)​

 

[Bjarne]

Speed is NOT defined as motion through space.

It should be, to avoid nuts misk mask with Cosmological redshift

And "speed compared to speed of light" makes no sense, you can't define speed as being compared to speed.

Yes I can because the mass and KE increases proportional with speed, - compared to the speed of light.

And what force drives convection? Gravity!

For those that really want to know the real cause plate tectonic subduction on earth and the cause of the big canyon on mars, read this >http://www.science27.com/english/background_gravity.html

speed The ratio of a distance covered by a body to the time taken

And this requires that a object MOVES.
The earth does NOT move due to the expanding space.

Speed is a scalar quantity, i.e. no direction is given.

The fact that the mass and KE increase depend on how close to “c” a object or particle moves. This is a very clear definition, as well as very clear consequences to expect.

fold mountain An upland area, such as the Alps or Andes, formed by the buckling of the earth's crust. Many fold mountains are associated with destructive or collision margins of plates . Young fold mountains, such as the Caucasus and Alps, were formed by the Alpine orogeny of 65 million years BP, and reach elevations of 10 000 m. Old fold mountains, such as the Grampian mountains of Scotland, were created by earth movements pre-dating the Alpine orogeny but have been extensively eroded. Some old fold mountains have been uplifted and re-eroded.

I do not deny this.
I am completely convinced that convection is NOT the cause.
The only force strong enough is gravity.
For those that really want to know the real cause plate tectonic subduction on earth and the cause of the big canyon on mars, read this > http://www.science27.com/english/background_gravity.html

No and No.
Try again

The canyon on Mars can in no way be explained due to contraction / inner cooling, - and no one else as you does so.
Where is your source, ?
How should that be possible?
Try again...

Bjarne
No it is not simple, convection do not have the power to rise 8000 m mountains or subduct a continent
Phunk
And we're supposed to believe this because...wait for it...because Bjarne says so!

No analysis, no math, no references to analysis or math.
Underwhelming as ever, Bjarne.

The idea that plate tectonic subduction is cause by inner convection is NOT proven, - no math, no references to analysis or math
It is only speculation that assumes that huge flow of inner materiel circulates in certian patterns we have invented. This has never and in no way been objective confirmed.

Look at this >
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-photos-Red-Planets-mountain-ranges-time.html

Mechanisms that carved canyons have been a longstanding mystery.
Sourse: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32555303/ns/technology_and_science-space

"How did these gigantic canyons really form? Were they all formed by floods, or were other things going on?" asks John Adams of the University of Washington in Seattle and lead author of a new study that seeks to answer the questions. "These have been controversial questions going back to the very first Mariner pictures of Mars. And they're still controversial questions, which means we don't really fully understand what's going on yet."
Source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090825-st-mars-brine.html

It is the same as motion - more space between galaxies as time goes by = motion.

Ha le lu ja
Amen

Spacetime can expand faster than the speed of light.

And this is not the same as motion.
Every cow and chicken in both in the whole Milkyway and the whole of Andromeda galaxy fully agrees to that.
I mean: if the cow is sleeping at the farmer field and wakes up the exactly same place the days after, the cow know it have not moved in the night.

The fact that the universe and the Cow expand in the night does not change the fact that the cow did not move that night...

Learn some cow logic RC, - the expanding space is not the same as motion.

It is 2 different phenomena's, so silly simple is that...

 

[Bjarne]

Imaging you would receive a EM valve from a supernova explosion 10 billion Years ago, - short after the explosion the star was not there anymore.

Now imaging a space craft 10 billion years after would come a across the path of that photon after the photon had travelling 10 billion years.
(The spacecraft was first invented last year).

When the photon hit the spacecraft it would be exactly the same redshift as when it hits the earth. (Adjusted for true motion) (True DE).

So in these 10 billion years the star (exploding supernova) or the space craft have NOT EXSISTED (more than together 1 year).

How on earth can we talk about SPEED between 2 bodies that do not exist?

I mean we can also NOT compare the speed (due to cosmological redshift) between 2 cows floating in space, the last 1o billion years, when the cows in reality only have existed in both together in 1 year.

EM waves = Oscillation of the space density
When an object movers towards or away from such wave, - we speak about Doppler Effect.
BUT - when space expands (included the oscillating EM-waves in space), - we don’t speak about speed of anything, - as well as we do not speak about Doppler Effect.

 

[Bjarne]

I have a better example

Imaging 2 supernova

• One 10 billion years ago (emitting A –photons)
• and 1 billion years ago (emitting B –photons)

Let’s assume we would receive these 2 photos on earth at the exactly same time.

Both the stars that was causing the supernova are gone in the same moment the photos was leaving and did not existed in that time the photos was travelling.

Now, - when we receive the photons from these 2 stars the redshift is very much different.

Try to explain why.


1.
Do you expect that because “photon A” – after it have travelled much longer time, - knows that the speed of earth (due to the expanding universe) must have been let us say the 50% of “c” ?

2.
And do you expect that photon-B did not agree, because since photon-A had left its mother star (much later), the speed of the earth (due to the expanding universe) should only be 5% of the speed of light ?

3.
OR WHAT DO YOU EXPECT ?

4.
Why do the 2 photons not agree, what the speed of the earth really is?

5.
Why exactly are the z- redshift so very much different?

6.
Does it have anything to do with the speed of the earth to do?


Don’t be cowards, - please answer the questions?

PLEASE do not use the crap; “relative speed” – due to the expanding universe in this case , - both stars ARE DEAD and have been in so in since the photo have left.

Hence there are no relative speeds to anything, - except to the speed of the earth right?

And now WHAT is that speed? (Except CRAP)

REPEAT
PLEASE DO NOT BE A COWARD
PLEASE DO NOT USE THE EXPRESSION “RELATIVE SPEED” - YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO SO, because if cow-1+2 is dead and buried there are no relative speed compared to cow number 3, - furtehrmore a photon ***DON'T CARE*** whether cow 1+2 is still alive or dead, IT MAKE NO DIFFERENCE ***BECASE""" "cow 1+2 did ***NOT MOVE*** when the photon was leaving cow ("star") 1 + 2.

There are no relative true speed due to cosmological redshift, and hence no DE that can be explained that way - FACE IT - the idea is SICK

 

[Reality Check]

And this is not the same as motion....

It is 2 different phenomena's, so silly simple is that...

What idoicy,Bjarne: motion is the distance between two objects getting bigger. That means more space between them.

Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked!
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)​

 

[Paul]

It should be, to avoid nuts misk mask with Cosmological redshift

You seem to be the only one that doesn't understand the difference between reality and what you want.

And this requires that a object MOVES.

Unless you're going to start playing with the definition of movement.

The earth does NOT move due to the expanding space.

Neither of the interpretations of that sentence make much sense.

This is a very clear definition, as well as very clear consequences to expect.

Nothing you say lately is very clear.

I am completely convinced that convection is NOT the cause.

Argument from incredulity is not very scientific.

Than canyon on Mars can in no way be explained due to contraction / inner cooling, - and no one else as you does so.

According to the ESA:

The origin of Hebes Chasma is thought to be connected to the nearby Tharsis Region, which was uplifted in the course of intense volcanism. The uplift created tremendous amounts of stress in the crust forming a series of faults oriented radially.

And this is not the same as motion.

Considering that motion is "the action or process of moving or being moved" then it very much is.

Every cow and chicken in both in the whole Milkyway and the whole of Andromeda galaxy fully agrees to that.
I mean: if the cow is sleeping at the farmer field and wakes up the exactly same place the days after, the cow now it have not moved in the night.

The only way in which the cow has not moved is locally, in relation to the surface of the planet; the earth has rotated, moving the cow, the earth has orbited, moving the cow, the solar system has rotated, moving the cow, etc, etc, etc.

To make it simple, if your cow goes to sleep in the back of a lorry in Rotterdam and wakes up in the back of a lorry in Hull, has the cow moved?

The fact that the universe and the Cow expand in the night...

Have you ever heard of density?

 

[Reality Check]

Imaging you would receive a EM valve from a supernova explosion 10 billion Years ago, - short after the explosion the star was not there anymore.

We can and do that all the time

Now imaging a space craft 10 billion years after would come a across the path of that photon after the photon had travelling 10 billion years.
(The spacecraft was first invented last year).

When the photon hit the spacecraft it would be exactly the same redshift as when it hits the earth. (Adjusted for true motion) (True DE).

Gibberish.
But I guess what you mean is the the photon has been travelling for 10 billion years to the spacescaft which was 10 billion lightyears away.

So in these 10 billion years the star (exploding supernova) or the space craft have NOT EXSISTED (more than together 1 year).

Correct. The exploding supernova and spaceship did not exist 10 billion years ago. So what?

How on earth can we talk about SPEED between 2 bodies that do not exist?

That is idiotic. The exploding supernova existed. The spacecraft exists.
We can measure the VELOCITY between their positions.

Another example: We can measure the VELOCITY of a star that is 1000 lightyears away relative to us. 1 year later the star expodes. That means that for 999 years it did not exist (light takes 1000 years to travel 1000 lightyears)!
Only an idiot would think that we did not measure the star's VELOCITY.

Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked!
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)​

 

[Reality Check]

Imaging 2 supernova

• One 10 billion years ago (emitting A –photons)
• and 1 billion years ago (emitting B –photons)

Let’s assume we would receive these 2 photos on earth at the exactly same time.

Both the stars that was causing the supernova are gone in the same moment the photos was leaving and did not existed in that time the photos was travelling.

Now, - when we receive the photons from these 2 stars the redshift is very much different.

Try to explain why.

And the ignorance of basic physics continues:
For star A: The photon took 10 billion years to get here during which the universe expanded a certain amount and it was redshifted.
For star B: The photon took 1 billion years to get here during which the universe expanded a lesser amount and this photon was redshifted a lesser amount.

REPEAT
PLEASE DO NOT BE A COWARD
PLEASE DO NOT USE THE EXPRESSION “RELATIVE SPEED” - YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO SO, ..,snipped insane cow rant...

There are no relative true speed due to cosmological redshift, and hence no DE that can be explained that way - FACE IT - the idea is SICK

RELATIVE SPEED !
In fact true RELATIVE SPEED !

PLEASE DO NOT BE A COWARD. UNDERSTAND THAT
Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked!
FACE IT - the idea is SICK​

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)​

 

[Bjarne]

What idoicy,Bjarne: motion is the distance between two objects getting bigger. That means more space between them.

Distances due to the expanding universe do not get bigger, since every gets relative bigger too.

When the Universe expands, there are NO MOTION towards or away from EM waves. – Because the waves are parts of space. – To get Doppler Effect you therefore must move through space and through the waves. .

According to the ESA:

Quote from ESA
Hebes Chasma is an enclosed trough, almost 8000 m deep, in Valles Marineris, the Grand Canyon of Mars, where water is believed to have flowed.EAS could with the same naivety have written; where herds of cows and elephants have trampled so much that the lava comes up, and the ground have sunk. Ha le lu ja Amen

And the ignorance of basic physics continues:
For star A: The photon took 10 billion years to get here during which the universe expanded a certain amount and it was redshifted.
For star B: The photon took 1 billion years to get here during which the universe expanded a lesser amount and this photon was redshifted a lesser amount.

My friend it sound that you do not know what we are discussion here.
Now it seems like you claims that the TIME it took to travel was causing the REDSHIFT.

The expansion of sapdce itself, can NOT explain that the wavelength expands none proportional.

Listen now; - if ALL the wave length expands PROPOTIONAL the extension of the photon would ONLY get proportional bigger.

In the same way if a cow expends proportional EVERYTHING on the cow would grow bigger, the eyes, the teats, the legs, the stomach and especially the intelligent cow brains.
Do you understand what EVERYTHING and PROPOTIONAL means ?

So the Expanding universe cannot explain the REDSHIFT, - with mean the pattern is “pulled” NONE-proportional.

Did you got that point ?

Therefore let us continue to step 2:

a.) A Photon leaves star A ( it takes a split second)
b.) This photons travel now 10 billion years
c.) After 10 billion years it hit a spectrometer on the Earth.

NOW

PLEASE answer the following questions;

When was the photon significant REDSHIFT effected due to the expanding Universe / space.

• Was it a point a ?
• Was it a point b ?
• Was it a point c ?

WHAT did happen with the photon in that excact MOMENT (or what so ever) it was REDSHIFT effected.

d). Was the REDSHIFT affected because of the SPEED of the star (the split-second) it was leaving the star 10 billion years ago. ?
e.) Was the REDSHIFT affected by the expanding space, the 10 billion years it was traveling in space?
f.) Was the REDSHIFT affected due to speed of the Earth the split second it was hitting the spectrometer on the Earth.
g.) WHAT time did the REDSHIFT affect the photon.

IF you believe that the speed of the star (due to the expanding universe) or/ and the speed of the Earth/spectrometer, (due to the expanding universe) has affected the wave length of the photon PLEASE roughly indicate HOW FAST DID THE EARTH or THE STAR THEN MOVE (due to the expanding universe) in these moment the photons was effected due to relative SPEED of these two objects.. We can assume z = 10

Can you REALLY still not see it. ?

You are dealing and defending with a disgrace of the intelligent of the Human race.

Don’t be a coward, - and answer the questions.

 

[Paulhoff]

Distances due to the expanding universe do not get bigger, since every gets relative bigger too.

Wrong, atoms, planets, stars, galaxies don't get bigger, so everything does not get bigger.

Why don't you just start believing in a so-called god and make up stories for it too.

Paul

 

[nvidiot]

This seems to be progressively getting rantier and rantier. (Is that the right spelling for rantier? Rantyer... no that's not right...)

Bjarne, if your maths holds up in any way shape or form you'd be up for a nobel prize. Why would everyone who has looked at these things over the last thousand odd years of scientific enquiry not noticed whatever the heck it is you're on about?

Oh and insulting those who are in a position to educate you is not usually a good move, in terms of actually learning anything anyway. Which I suspect you are unwilling to even begin to do.

 

[Reality Check]

My friend it sound that you do not know what we are discussion here.
Now it seems like you claims that the TIME it took to travel was causing the REDSHIFT.

My friend it sound it sound that you do not know what we are discussion here.
The fact is that it takes TIME for a photon to travel 1 or 10 billion lightyears. Duriung that TIME the universe expands and the photon redshifts. The expansion of space itself CAN explain that the wavelength expands proportional to the distance travelled.

Listen now; - if ALL the wave length expands PROPOTIONAL the extension of the photon would ONLY get proportional bigger.

Listen now; - if ALL the wave length expands PROPOTIONAL the extension of the photon would ONLY get proportional bigger and that is what is observed.

Did you got that point ?
Don’t be a coward, - and answer the questions.

Did you got that point ?
Don’t be a coward, - and understand the answers.

P.S. The answer to your latest question from your pet cow is: none of the above. Cosmological redshift happens at all points during the photons travel from its emitter to us. That is why it is observed to get proportional bigger.

Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked!
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)​

 

[Bjarne]

STATEMENT 1

The doppler effect is well understood. The doppler effect tells us that galaxies are moving away fromn us at a relative velocity that increases with their distance from us (Hubble's law).

STATEMENT 2

Cosmological redshift happens at all points during the photons travel from its emitter to us. That is why it is observed to get proportional bigger.

RC you should have been a cowboy, - because it seems you are good to ride two horses.
And it seems you also can jump from the one horseback to the another.
You are gooooood…. I mean you could surly also becomes a politician

Anyway, please tell me; - If you can explain the cosmological redshift ONLY based on the expanding Universe / Space , - WHY did you then mix Doppler Effect into it , when you above was trying to explain the cause of Cosmological redshift ? (STATEMENT 1 )

STATEMENT 2

Cosmological redshift happens at all points during the photons travel from its emitter to us.

So what you are saying now is that it ALL (the redshift) happens while the photon travels, - and I then suppose (nothing) due to DopplerEffekt, which was you first STAEMENT 1. ( or will you later jump back to horse 1 again ?)

Off cause galaxies are moving in space and such true motion is affected by DE, we both agree to that.

But the point in this part of the discussion is that DE has NOTHING to do the CR, - it is 2 independent phenomena’s.

That is why it is observed to get proportional bigger.

Right the wavelength gets larger due to CR

The problem with CR is that when the (extension of a) photon can stretch (due to the stretching universe).
Hence the photon must lose energy.
We do not observe any kind of emitting / converting energy, - whereby we should know something could be wrong.

This problem along with many other problems disappears; at the same moment we assume that time and space always are stretching proportional.

So long we do NOT mix DE and CR we are on the right track....

 

[wollery]

We've covered this before Bjarne. If everything is stretching proportionately then the yardstick that you use to measure CR would also have stretched by the same proportionate amount as the light wave has in the time the light wave has been travelling, and would measure no redshift.

You can't have it both ways. Either everything is expanding proportionately, OR we can measure CR, but not both.