Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Given The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads we expect more non-science from Bjarne.

Thank you Bjarne. I will add these flaws and more basic ignorance of physics to the list sometime.

Bjarne said:
1. The Cause of Gravity.
We know that space is expanding, and hence also that space have some kind of density (or a stretching property).
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Bjarne said:
This already known stretching property of space is enough to understand the nature of gravity. It’s not necessary to “invent” more unnecessary properties or expressions.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Bjarne said:
Consider that matter consumes / contract space.
Wrong.
Click to expand...

Bjarne said:
This would cause space gradually to “thinning out” (or stretch) towards matter. And this is exactly what the old expression: “The curvature of space” - really mean.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
Curved space is not contracted space
First Asked 11 November 2009
So far Bjarne canot understand this simple math :eye-poppi!

Bjarne said:
2. Mass Attraction.
Such simple, basic, deeper and coherent understanding of the nature of space has several consequences. ...
Click to expand...
That you are completely wrong yet again :jaw-dropp?

Bjarne said:
3. The Proof
...
Click to expand...
The Proof that you are Wrong:
Bjarne's idea (acceleration due to gravity is constant inside a sphere) is proven wrong.
First asked 2 November 2009

Bjarne said:
4. The Math
The necessary math is already available; all what is left is to understand the deeper meaning of it...
Click to expand...
The mathematics of Newtonian physics means that you are wrong.
The mathematics of General Relativity means that you are wrong.

Bjarne said:
5. Dark Matter and Black holes
Another consequence is that that dark matter probably only is an area in space “trapped” (encircled) by space-consuming matter and hence naturally a stronger affected / deformed area.
Click to expand...
Another consequence is that you are talking gibberish.

Bjarne said:
The same “track” also seams to be able to bring light to the mystery of the cause of black holes, and also solving the mystery why the size (strength) of these are proportional with the size / mass of a galaxy.
Click to expand...
The same “track” also shows your ignorance of black holes (the cause is mass, there is little mystery about the correlation between the mass of black holes and the mass of galaxy )

Bjarne said:
6. Where we went wrong
Click to expand...
Where you went wrong is in not learning any physics.

Bjarne said:
7. Quantum physics.
...
Click to expand...
Even more gibberish that displays your ignorance of Quantum physics.

Bjarne said:
8. Dark Energy
Based on the Hubble Constant we should expect that also distances (here) inside a gravitational field expands. But because this is not what are observed the conclusion (so fare) is that the force of mass attraction “is stronger” as the expanding Universe. This conclusion seems to be doomed to overturn.
Click to expand...
More gibberish.
Based on the observations that lead to Hubble's Law we expect the redshifts of galaxies to vary in a specific way with their distance. They have been observed to deviate from this (the rate of expansion has accelerated). The cause of this has not been seen - it is "dark". General relativity tells us that an acceleration of rate of expansion would be caused by an energy, e.g. the "vacuum energy" or cosmological constant.
We thus call this cause of the acceleration rate of expansion "dark energy".

Bjarne said:
The real cause of the Mercury Anomaly is much more complicated.
Click to expand...
The real cause of the anomoly in the perihelion precession of Mercury is much more complicated and totally explained.
The fact that you cannot understand the explanation does not make it wrong.
The depth of your ignorance starts with the fact there is no such thing as a "Mercury Anomaly".
 
RC
Where you went wrong is in not learning any physics.
Click to expand...

This is not important.
I have to say there was a serious mistake
The theory is now approved by the finist possible association, see the blue stamp

I have now written a "short" abstract, I like to share with you.


The Cause of Gravity

A Space Vacuum theory.​

1. The Cause of Gravity.
We know that space is expanding, and hence also that space have some kind of density (or a stretching property). This already known stretching property of space is enough to understand the nature of gravity. It’s not necessary to “invent” more unnecessary properties or expressions.
Consider that matter consumes / contract space. This would cause space gradually to “thinning out” (or stretch) towards matter. And this is exactly what the old expression: “The curvature of space” - really mean.

2. Mass Attraction.
Such simple, basic, deeper and coherent understanding of the nature of space has several consequences. One of these is; that space vacuum between two bodies becomes stronger affected, simply because 2 bodies both affects the same area between. Hence a stronger space vacuum (between the bodies) is a result, - The space consuming “competition” between two or several bodies is the cause of mass attraction.

3. The Proof
Another consequence (of the same simple thought) is that matter will consume / contract space from both an inwards and an outwards direction. But because space towards an inwards direction (of a body) is gradually limited / “trapped” / encircled by matter, the inner space must be affected gradually stronger. This (combined with a deeper understanding of how mass attraction works “point 2 above”) leads to the conclusion that acceleration due to gravity (ADG) in a homogeneous mass must be stable (not decreasing) towards a central direction of a body. This should be easy to confirm by measuring-experiments of ADG towards the centre of (for example) a 200 ton homogeneous well define mass. (Central measurements with a borehole gravimeter ).

4. The Math
The necessary math is already available; all what is left is to understand the deeper meaning of it.
For example it is known that when radius away from a body doubles, ADG is decreasing 75%.
This is proportional to that also the square increase is 75 %, - which logical shows that ADG depend of the “access to space”, - and hence this a mathematical language that already shows that space is consumed / affected proportional with the “access” to open space..
Inside a (homogenous) body (and the whole way to the centre) ADG will always be the same as at the surface. This reflects that the inner total gravitational potential always is the same. (For example if the Earth was double so big ADG would be 2.5 m/s^2 the whole way to the centre).

5. Dark Matter and Black holes
Another consequence is that that dark matter probably only is an area in space “trapped” (encircled) by space-consuming matter and hence naturally a stronger affected / deformed area.
The same “track” also seams to be able to bring light to the mystery of the cause of black holes, and also solving the mystery why the size (strength) of these are proportional with the size / mass of a galaxy.

6. Where we went wrong
Two or several gravitational field is opposing each other in a known way. In this case we can easy conclude that ADG counteract component wise. But this experience can’t be used directly to understand how a single homogeneous gravitational field works, because a such do not oppose it self.

7. Quantum physics.
The spin of the elementary particles consume / contract spaces. A consequence must be; a culmination point at which space absorbs the entire energy of the particle. The absorbed energy (contracted space) must be released, this force a particle to (unwind). As the result, the particle release 'twisting' space around it until a new culmination point is reached at the opposite end. This shows that a particle constantly oscillates between two states: a 'hard compressed space' (when it is perceived as a "hard particle" matter) and opposite, - a wave.
If one particle of a nucleus releases space, another particle immediately uses such released space for the opposite action (to contract space) because such cooperation saves energy.

Naturally the strong force seems to be an inevitable result of what once probably only was chaotic spinning particle, and hence the strong force is: collective coherent osculation frequencies due to opposite spin of space whirls. However the force of gravity is caused by the total amount of contracted space that the strong interaction always keeps together, which mean that the strong force and gravity must be united.

The expected result of central gravity measurement can force us to such considerations, since we can very easy be ‘forced’ to understand how matter contracts space.

8. Dark Energy
Based on the Hubble Constant we should expect that also distances (here) inside a gravitational field expands. But because this is not what are observed the conclusion (so fare) is that the force of mass attraction “is stronger” as the expanding Universe. This conclusion seems to be doomed to overturn.

When the mentioned expected central gravity measurement confirms that ADG not is decreasing towards the centre of an object, but stable, this should be enough to determinate that the expression; “curvature of space” rather must be understood as “stretching space”, and hence is the exact same property of space responsible for the “the expanding / stretching Universe”. Which hence mean; that gravity and the expanding space are united, as it is caused by one and the same property.

The first place such unification "strikes” is that the property responsible for both gravity and the expanding universe can in no way counteract / oppose it self. This off course must mean that space between astronomic bodies must expand too. But since this is not what we observe, the conclusion must be that also space inside matter must expand proportional with the expanding universe. Even the meter-stick also expands proportional with the rest of the Universe; we have no way to prove that everything is expanding with the same rate. (Or in other words; everything expands proportional with its already existing “stretch” factor”).

One more consequence of the unification of gravity and the expanding Universe is that time dilation that applies for gravity (GR) also must comprehend the expanding Universe.

This means that when the universe (and everything in it) was only half the size as now, time was ticking double so fast. Both time (the second) and distances (the meter stick) has since both been “stretching” proportional, without any direct observable possibility to discover it.

Hence the Cosmologic redshift we see in the EM-spectre is not caused due to the distance-expansion, because 1 meter today, - (is even though it is relative double so big today compared to the example), it is still (only) one meter.

td.jpg
However time would tick half so fast today (compared to the example), because our time (one second) is lasting double so long time, - hence we can now (in our time) also count double so many photon-frequencies per second compared to when the Universe was only the half the size, and time (the second) lasted only half the time, compared to now.

According to the prevailing understanding, it is believed that photon loses energy when travelling through space. It is believed that the energy either disappears or converts to gravity. But as we can easy see there is no such energy lost, but only time differences. When we look at light reaching us from distance stars we are not looking back on previous distances,- but rather we are only looking back in time.

It is also believed that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, - the so called Dark Energy. This is a wrong conclusion based on a “optical illusion”, - due to that we not are aware that the meter-stick too is expanding proportional with the expanding Universe. Seen in such perspective (the universe is of course expanding) but not accelerating.

From General Relativity we know that time and distances both are “stretching” towards an object. But because also the meter-stick is stretching proportional, it means that the Mercury orbit anomaly can’t be solved.
The real cause of the Mercury Anomaly is much more complicated. Inertia is completely misunderstood. We don’t know why there are resistances against motion (against acceleration) in vacuum. According to this theory it is because matter and space is connected. Motion of matter is also motion of space connected to an object. Hence motion disturbs space, and this is the cause of resistance against motion (inertia). That resistance doesn’t disappear just because constant speed is reached. Now we may ask; - why does planets then not fall down on the Sun. ?
The answer is; the same connection between matter and space responsible for inertia, also affects bodies around a rotating astronomic body. This is a completely new discovery. Read what NASA discovered here. Inertia and the rotating force of a body counteracts each other..This issue will be further covered at www.science27.com in the chapter; The Pioneer Anomaly.

-------------------

------------------[
CowStamp.jpg

----------------
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
This is not important.
I have to say there was a serious mistake
The theory is now approved by the finist possible association, see the blue stamp

I have now written a "short" abstract, I like to share with you.


The Cause of Gravity

A Space Vacuum theory.​

1. The Cause of Gravity.
We know that space is expanding, and hence also that space have some kind of density (or a stretching property). This already known stretching property of space is enough to understand the nature of gravity. It’s not necessary to “invent” more unnecessary properties or expressions.
Consider that matter consumes / contract space. This would cause space gradually to “thinning out” (or stretch) towards matter. And this is exactly what the old expression: “The curvature of space” - really mean.

2. Mass Attraction.
Such simple, basic, deeper and coherent understanding of the nature of space has several consequences. One of these is; that space vacuum between two bodies becomes stronger affected, simply because 2 bodies both affects the same area between. Hence a stronger space vacuum (between the bodies) is a result, - The space consuming “competition” between two or several bodies is the cause of mass attraction.

3. The Proof
Another consequence (of the same simple thought) is that matter will consume / contract space from both an inwards and an outwards direction. But because space towards an inwards direction (of a body) is gradually limited / “trapped” / encircled by matter, the inner space must be affected gradually stronger. This (combined with a deeper understanding of how mass attraction works “point 2 above”) leads to the conclusion that acceleration due to gravity (ADG) in a homogeneous mass must be stable (not decreasing) towards a central direction of a body. This should be easy to confirm by measuring-experiments of ADG towards the centre of (for example) a 200 ton homogeneous well define mass. (Central measurements with a borehole gravimeter ).

4. The Math
The necessary math is already available; all what is left is to understand the deeper meaning of it.
For example it is known that when radius away from a body doubles, ADG is decreasing 75%.
This is proportional to that also the square increase is 75 %, - which logical shows that ADG depend of the “access to space”, - and hence this a mathematical language that already shows that space is consumed / affected proportional with the “access” to open space..
Inside a (homogenous) body (and the whole way to the centre) ADG will always be the same as at the surface. This reflects that the inner total gravitational potential always is the same. (For example if the Earth was double so big ADG would be 2.5 m/s^2 the whole way to the centre).

5. Dark Matter and Black holes
Another consequence is that that dark matter probably only is an area in space “trapped” (encircled) by space-consuming matter and hence naturally a stronger affected / deformed area.
The same “track” also seams to be able to bring light to the mystery of the cause of black holes, and also solving the mystery why the size (strength) of these are proportional with the size / mass of a galaxy.

6. Where we went wrong
Two or several gravitational field is opposing each other in a known way. In this case we can easy conclude that ADG counteract component wise. But this experience can’t be used directly to understand how a single homogeneous gravitational field works, because a such do not oppose it self.

7. Quantum physics.
The spin of the elementary particles consume / contract spaces. A consequence must be; a culmination point at which space absorbs the entire energy of the particle. The absorbed energy (contracted space) must be released, this force a particle to (unwind). As the result, the particle release 'twisting' space around it until a new culmination point is reached at the opposite end. This shows that a particle constantly oscillates between two states: a 'hard compressed space' (when it is perceived as a "hard particle" matter) and opposite, - a wave.
If one particle of a nucleus releases space, another particle immediately uses such released space for the opposite action (to contract space) because such cooperation saves energy.

Naturally the strong force seems to be an inevitable result of what once probably only was chaotic spinning particle, and hence the strong force is: collective coherent osculation frequencies due to opposite spin of space whirls. However the force of gravity is caused by the total amount of contracted space that the strong interaction always keeps together, which mean that the strong force and gravity must be united.

The expected result of central gravity measurement can force us to such considerations, since we can very easy be ‘forced’ to understand how matter contracts space.

8. Dark Energy
Based on the Hubble Constant we should expect that also distances (here) inside a gravitational field expands. But because this is not what are observed the conclusion (so fare) is that the force of mass attraction “is stronger” as the expanding Universe. This conclusion seems to be doomed to overturn.

When the mentioned expected central gravity measurement confirms that ADG not is decreasing towards the centre of an object, but stable, this should be enough to determinate that the expression; “curvature of space” rather must be understood as “stretching space”, and hence is the exact same property of space responsible for the “the expanding / stretching Universe”. Which hence mean; that gravity and the expanding space are united, as it is caused by one and the same property.

The first place such unification "strikes” is that the property responsible for both gravity and the expanding universe can in no way counteract / oppose it self. This off course must mean that space between astronomic bodies must expand too. But since this is not what we observe, the conclusion must be that also space inside matter must expand proportional with the expanding universe. Even the meter-stick also expands proportional with the rest of the Universe; we have no way to prove that everything is expanding with the same rate. (Or in other words; everything expands proportional with its already existing “stretch” factor”).

One more consequence of the unification of gravity and the expanding Universe is that time dilation that applies for gravity (GR) also must comprehend the expanding Universe.

This means that when the universe (and everything in it) was only half the size as now, time was ticking double so fast. Both time (the second) and distances (the meter stick) has since both been “stretching” proportional, without any direct observable possibility to discover it.

Hence the Cosmologic redshift we see in the EM-spectre is not caused due to the distance-expansion, because 1 meter today, - (is even though it is relative double so big today compared to the example), it is still (only) one meter.

[qimg]http://www.science27.com/forum/td.jpg[/qimg]​
However time would tick half so fast today (compared to the example), because our time (one second) is lasting double so long time, - hence we can now (in our time) also count double so many photon-frequencies per second compared to when the Universe was only the half the size, and time (the second) lasted only half the time, compared to now.

According to the prevailing understanding, it is believed that photon loses energy when travelling through space. It is believed that the energy either disappears or converts to gravity. But as we can easy see there is no such energy lost, but only time differences. When we look at light reaching us from distance stars we are not looking back on previous distances,- but rather we are only looking back in time.

It is also believed that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, - the so called Dark Energy. This is a wrong conclusion based on a “optical illusion”, - due to that we not are aware that the meter-stick too is expanding proportional with the expanding Universe. Seen in such perspective (the universe is of course expanding) but not accelerating.

From General Relativity we know that time and distances both are “stretching” towards an object. But because also the meter-stick is stretching proportional, it means that the Mercury orbit anomaly can’t be solved.
The real cause of the Mercury Anomaly is much more complicated. Inertia is completely misunderstood. We don’t know why there are resistances against motion (against acceleration) in vacuum. According to this theory it is because matter and space is connected. Motion of matter is also motion of space connected to an object. Hence motion disturbs space, and this is the cause of resistance against motion (inertia). That resistance doesn’t disappear just because constant speed is reached. Now we may ask; - why does planets then not fall down on the Sun. ?
The answer is; the same connection between matter and space responsible for inertia, also affects bodies around a rotating astronomic body. This is a completely new discovery. Read what NASA discovered here. Inertia and the rotating force of a body counteracts each other..This issue will be further covered at www.science27.com in the chapter; The Pioneer Anomaly.

-------------------

------------------[[qimg]http://www.science27.com/forum/CowStamp.jpg[/qimg]
----------------
Click to expand...

He's just trolling now.Give it up lads,this thread needs to be put to sleep.
 
Bjarne said:
This is not important.
----------------
Click to expand...
Moo, cow :rolleyes:!

Gibberish from somone who is ignorant of basic physics: The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads

dafydd: I do not think that he is strictly an internet troll.
Bjarne is just yet another internet crank who thinks that his ignorance of science and mathematics (and so his inability to understand either science or mathematics) makes him a genius.

He does not realize that the ignorance that he has displayed in this forum (and possibly others) is a permanent record. Google is a real reputation killer :D !
 
Reality Check said:
Moo, cow :rolleyes:!

Gibberish from somone who is ignorant of basic physics: The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads

dafydd: I do not think that he is strictly an internet troll.
Bjarne is just yet another internet crank who thinks that his ignorance of science and mathematics (and so his inability to understand either science or mathematics) makes him a genius.

He does not realize that the ignorance that he has displayed in this forum (and possibly others) is a permanent record. Google is a real reputation killer :D !
Click to expand...

You have a very good point there,I never thought of this as being a permanent record and an eternal demonstration of pig-ignorance.I do admire your patience with him,you have tried everything bar shocking it into him with a cattle prod.
 
I really think the rules should allow a MC game at this point.

Hans
 
Update.......

Rotation.jpg


The cause of the retrograde rotation of Venus is due to angular momentum, but in this cause not due to orbiting moons, but instead due to orbiting planets.

Seen from Venus, it will look like the orbit of the outer planets are retrograde, and this is also how the angular momentum from the outer planets affects Venus.

It is mainly the angular momentum from the Earth and Jupiter that is responsible for Venus retrograde rotation. .

The rotation of the other planets (except Mercury) is due to the angular momentum of the moons of the planets.
 
So...

Venus is orbiting Earth now? Or maybe the other way round? That's news..
 
ArcturusA said:
Then what is?

"The angular momentum of Venus is due to the angular momentum of the other planets" communicates no useful information at all.
Click to expand...

Excactly
If you were living on Venus, it would look like the orbit of Earth and Jupiter was retrograde.
This gives you a "picture" showing how the outer planets (Earth & Jupiter) pulls a rotational angular momentum on Venus.
In fact it is Venus own orbit speed that is causing the retograd rotation, when passing by mainly the Earth and Jupiter.
The same would happen if Venus stood still and the Earth and Jupiter were orbiting retrograde around the Sun.
 
Bjarne said:
Excactly
If you were living on Venus, it would look like the orbit of Earth and Jupiter was retrograde.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't.

To any Venusian astronomers, it would be very, very obvious that Venus is in retrograde rotation. It has nothing to do with where you are in the solar system, only the directions of the angular momentum vectors for orbit and rotation. For Earth and Jupiter, they point in the same direction. For Venus, they're opposite.

This gives you a "picture" showing how the outer planets (Earth & Jupiter) pulls a rotational angular momentum on Venus.
In fact it is Venus own orbit speed that is causing the retograd rotation, when passing by mainly the Earth and Jupiter.
The same would happen if Venus stood still and the Earth and Jupiter were orbiting retrograde around the Sun.
Click to expand...

I still have no idea what you're talking about.

How are you proposing angular momentum transferred?
And why aren't Mercury, Earth and Mars similarly affected?
 
Bjarne said:
The rotation of the other planets (except Mercury) is due to the angular momentum of the moons of the planets.
Click to expand...
Mars moons are a joke for moons, they don't have mass anyway near the mass of our moon.

Have you checked them out for size.

Geezzzzzzzzz

Paul

:) :) :)
 
ArcturusA said:
No it wouldn't.
Click to expand...

To any Venusian astronomers, it would be very, very obvious that Venus is in retrograde rotation. [/QUOTE]
Off course this is not the point..

It has nothing to do with where you are in the solar system,
Click to expand...
Of course not.

I still have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
I can see that.

Imaging you was living on Venus.
When passing by the earth or Jupiter it would look like the Earth was retrograde. BUT the fact is that Venus is faster.

Now imaging that

  • o = Venus
  • O = Earth or Jupiter.
  • ------ is a wire between o and O

Here we go:

o--------------------------------------O

When "O" moves downwards (Seen from Venus), it will pull the rotation of "o" clockwise.
The exact same would happen if "o" moves upwards (Seen from the Earth).

How are you proposing angular momentum transferred?
Click to expand...
Mass attraction, like that > ------------

And why aren't Mercury, Earth and Mars similarly affected?
Click to expand...

Earth has a moon that gives a stronger opposite angular momentum.
Mars has also (a fast) moon that counteracts the retrograde momentum from for example Jupiter.

Mercury
Quote:
Simulations indicate that the orbital eccentricity of Mercury varies chaotically from nearly zero (circular) to more than 0.45 over millions of years due to perturbations from the other planets.[14][73] This is thought to explain Mercury’s 3:2 spin-orbit resonance (rather than the more usual 1:1), since this state is more likely to arise during a period of high eccentricity.[74] Numerical simulations show that a resonant orbital interaction with Jupiter may cause the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit to increase to the point where the planet may collide with Venus within the next five billion years.[75]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)
 
Last edited:
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