Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Better add basic comprehension to Bjarne's list of problems after that link.
 
Bjarne said:
Dark Matter and Dark Energy Disproven

http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/natu...rkt_stof_findes_ikke?action=basicview#Comment

Google Translate it
Click to expand...
It looks like you cannot even understand Danish :jaw-dropp!
One Piece of Evidence (WMAP data) for Dark Matter and Dark Energy Has Doubt Cast on It by 1 Scientist. Another Scientist Says That It Would be Shocking If He Was Right.

Astrophysicist : Dark energy and dark matter are not
"The results I would like to ask questions of WMAP mapping of the cosmic background radiation is one of the most verified . It has made many independent measurements, which says the same , so it will come as a shock if Tom Shanks really right , " says Associate Professor Anja C. Andersen.
Click to expand...
 
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation)
Click to expand...

Well well, as you zee not all scientist do belive in this crap.

"Direct proof"
HA HA HA
 
Bjarne said:
Well well, as you zee not all scientist do belive in this crap.

"Direct proof"
HA HA HA
Click to expand...
Well well, I know that all scientists do not think that dark matter and dark energy exist. I know that the majority of scientists accept that the evidence for dark matter and dark energy is overwhelming.

Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)

SCIENCE SCIENCE SCIENCE
Though the first link is a NASA news article. A scientist would have said "Direct Evidence".

ETA:
Outstanding questions for Bjarne
First asked 20th July 2010.
Since Bjarne cannot tell us how lhe got these numbers, it looks more and more likely that Bjarne just pulled out the numbers from his pet cow's bottom.
 
Last edited:
Does Bjarne think that matter falling into a SMBH reappears as jets

First asked 27 July 2010
Bjarne,
What exactly do you mean by
Originally Posted by Bjarne
Stars falling into a black hole are ripped apart and disappear as energy, - properly together with the jet.
Click to expand...

Astronomers have evidence that
  • Stars do get torn apart, merge with the accretion disk and fall past the event horizon ("into a black hole").
  • Jets are not emitted from inside the the black hole. They are emitted from the accretion disk.
But this sounds like you believe that stars fall into super massive black holes and then come out again as their jets.
P.S. the major infalling matter into super massive black holes is gas. Stellar black holes rarely collide with stars.

There is strong evidence that event horizons exist around black holes.
  • It is a prediction from General Relativity. If event horizons do not exist then GR is fatally flawed. That should be a cause of failures of GR tests but it has passed all of them so far.
  • It is measured that light is bent by mass, e.g by the Sun. The more mass the greater the bending. There is no reason why a sufficient mass should make light go in a circle and even more mass would make it spiral into the center.
  • The light emitted from around black holes matches what we expect from accretion disks (lots of X-rays from heated matter). We have not detected any star-like light from stellar sized black holes.
  • On the Physical Reality of Black Holes cites that strongest evidence - the lack of the same X-ray flares that we see from the surface of neutron stars.
 
Bjarne said:
Well well, as you zee not all scientist do belive in this crap.

"Direct proof"
HA HA HA
Click to expand...
Not all scientists THINK that all things scientific are correct, and that is not how science works anyway, it is not majority rule that wins, it is the evidence that wins. The sooner you learn that the sooner we can move on with this thread.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Stars do get torn apart, merge with the accretion disk and fall past the event horizon ("into a black hole").
And why torn apart, resistance against motion, - matters connection to space, - certainly play a role.
Jets are not emitted from inside the the black hole. They are emitted from the accretion disk.
Click to expand...
You don’t know what happens further inside the black holes since it is black.

But this sounds like you believe that stars fall into super massive black holes and then come out again as their jets.
P.S. the major infalling matter into super massive black holes is gas. Stellar black holes rarely collide with stars.
Click to expand...
There is a lot of energy ion the Jet whereby it is possible that all the energy from matter is converted and blown out by the jet.
Furthermore matter is in the end only contracted space, if matter is ripped completely apart space would just expand a little bit faster the day a star should be completely ripped apart.

It is a prediction from General Relativity. If event horizons do not exist then GR is fatally flawed. That should be a cause of failures of GR tests but it has passed all of them so far.
Click to expand...
But still you do not know:
  • The cause of black hole
  • How matter deforms space.
  • Why the magnitude of black holes are proportional with the surrounding mass.
It is measured that light is bent by mass, e.g by the Sun. The more mass the greater the bending. There is no reason why a sufficient mass should make light go in a circle and even more mass would make it spiral into the center.
Click to expand...
Right, - but bending light do not necessary means bending / curved space. And especially not so long you do not have any understanding or even imagination of; WHAT BENDED SPACE REALLY IS.
  • Why Does space “BENDS”
  • HOW does is BENDS, - I mean to the right, to the left, upwards, downwards HOW ?
The fact that space in a gravitational field instead stretchs, can easy explain that distances can deform so much that a straight light bends the same way as a mass, - BUT space itself is then stretching - – “bending” or “curvature” is simply both clumsy and misleading.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6183632&postcount=1518


The light emitted from around black holes matches what we expect from accretion disks (lots of X-rays from heated matter). We have not detected any star-like light from stellar sized black holes.
On the Physical Reality of Black Holes cites that strongest evidence - the lack of the same X-ray flares that we see from the surface of neutron stars.
Click to expand...
I do not deny that, the point is only there is a LOT more to learn, basic is better to understand what is really “bended space”.
And also especially when it comes to how surrounding mass affects its own center.
In the space vacuum theory it is simple to understand that the center must be the “point” where space is affected strongest. This is the point we really can research MUCH better, by measuring ADG inside different well define objects.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
And especially not so long you do not have any understanding or even imagination of; WHAT BENDED SPACE REALLY IS.
Click to expand...
Correction: You, Bjarne, do not have any understanding of bent or curved space. Please do not project your limitations onto us.

Bjarne said:
The fact that space in a gravitational field instead stretchs, can easy explain that distances can deform so much that a straight light bends the same way as a mass, - BUT space itself is then stretching - – “bending” or “curvature” is simply both clumsy and misleading.
Click to expand...
No, curvatureWP is the correct word, although intrinsic curvature or curvature of Riemannian manifoldsWP (or pseudo-Riemannian manifolds) would be even more precise. This has been explained to you repeatedly, e.g.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6107551&postcount=1230
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6115976&postcount=1262
 
Correction: You, Bjarne, do not have any understanding of bent or curved space. Please do not project your limitations onto us.
Click to expand...
I have told WHAT the property of space really is = stretched space.

You cannot in a understandable way way explian what you really mean with "bended space"...
Hence you do also not know if there exsist a better expression.
HOW does space "bend" ? - In which direction ?
Answer: SPACE DO NOT "BEND" IN ANY DIRECTION

If I would claim that the cause of a cow is that flesh is bending around itself, I am pretty sure people would feel this is a clumsy expression.
I am sure nobody would understand, but also sure that many would think this expression is wrong because this is not what the flesh of the cow does.
At last I should explain that further, (which every cow would know would be impossible), simple because it is a wrong and stupid idea, - also even though it highly geometric /mathematical is completely correct to use such clumsy expression.

In the same way if someone claims that space “bends” – I am sure they cannot explain further WHAT bended space really is, except a mathematic idea, completely without any reference to what is up and down or left or right.
The fact that many agreee to use a clumsy expression does not mae it more right.

Your question (What is curvatureWP?) is a mathematical question. In this context, you are asking about the intrinsic curvature of Riemannian manifoldsWP, and your question was answered by mathematicians of the nineteenth century, notably Riemann and Christoffel, whose answer was developed further during the twentieth century.
Their answer to your question is, of course, highly mathematical. Although the notion of curvature in Euclidean space is taught to undergraduate math majors, curvature of Riemannian manifolds is studied primarily at the PhD level and beyond by mathematicians and physicists who have a particular interest in differential geometry and/or general relativity.
Click to expand...
Protest
A new and more precise expression is possible = stretching space.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
A new and more precise expression is possible = stretching space.
Click to expand...
There is nothing new in a guy thinking he he can come up something that is more clever than a scientific concept he unable to comprehend. You are even unable to formulate your own concept in a scientific way!
 
steenkh said:
There is nothing new in a guy thinking he he can come up something that is more clever than a scientific concept he unable to comprehend. You are even unable to formulate your own concept in a scientific way!
Click to expand...

It is rare for an adult to do it.
 
Bjarne said:
It is simple
Imaging you would measure 31 places (altitude) the same place where DOMUS VISTAS now are built, and pretend the building not where there.
Now you would measure the Earth’s ADG at the 31 altitude spots.
Hence ADG is expected to decrease; - minus the 0.3048 m/s^2 per upwards/meter. (FAG)
Click to expand...

That is what we could call the free air column. That is, the gravity we would measure in the space where the building is, if it wasn't there.

If there should be a 100 gold cows in the underground, (let say + 50 microgal af ground floor) you would measure the Earth ADG + off course a anomaly due to the gold-cows in the underground. .
Click to expand...

Ahh, no. The gravity on the surface of Earth varies quite a bit from place to place. We don't have to call on a very local concentration of mass for that. How deep is the grainite bedrock under that spot? You don't know. How high is the ground over sea level? You don't know. How much water is in the underground? You don't know.

The cow-anomaly is expected fast to decrease based on /r2 , and should therefore few floors up be insignificant.
Click to expand...

We are not looking at that local an anomaly.

So without the building you really should not expect big surprised, - so long you not are measurement above a gold mine, a cellar or something even much more strange than that.
Click to expand...

You are just showing your ignorance. Read up on variations in the surface gravity.

In other words everything it is without the present of the building pretty (roughly) predicable.
Click to expand...

Roughly, in this case, means +- far more than the contribution of the building.

But due to the building you’ll now get a different ADG pattern, which simply just means that you must calculate how much more (or less) ADG you get at each spot, compared to the FAG.

The difference is = your ADG pattern , showing the buildings ADG.
Click to expand...

Which is what I have done, and I get a pattern compatible with the current gravity law.

But off course we also must take the cellar and in fact other relative small factors into consideration.
Click to expand...

No, it is not important. We can't get a baseline anyhow.

But now wait until Christian finish the floor height check, It will be done Wednesday, - then we are much wiser. (he was too busy this week)
Click to expand...

Yes, then I can refine my calculations.

You know we are talking Newton here; – Action = Reaction.
If it is fair to call me a crazy crank, + invent looong crazy nuts lists, (to show how stupid I am) repeat this nonsence again and again and again etc... (just because I do not agree to loooong list of creeds, - I can be exactly so cow-silly, - be aware I am educated by the artillery.
Click to expand...

Yes, that makes sense. Army people tend to be.... oh, well ....

Bjarne, you can be as silly as you will, but expect to be treated accordingly.


Hans
 
Bjarne said:
HOW does space "bend" ? - In which direction ?
Answer: SPACE DO NOT "BEND" IN ANY DIRECTION
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. It bends in the direction of the center of gravity.

However, whne something bends in a 3 dimentional realm, there IS some stretching taking place, so you could say space is tretching. It is not the word that is wrong, it is the implications you claim.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Ahh, no. The gravity on the surface of Earth varies quite a bit from place to place. We don't have to call on a very local concentration of mass for that. How deep is the grainite bedrock under that spot? You don't know. How high is the ground over sea level? You don't know. How much water is in the underground? You don't know.
.
.
.
You are just showing your ignorance. Read up on variations in the surface gravity.
Click to expand...

This might help get you started, Bjarne - a short article on the ESA GOCE project (click on the pretty picture - you'll then find a link to a higher resolution version.
 
That is what we could call the free air column. That is, the gravity we would measure in the space where the building is, if it wasn't there.
Click to expand...
Right
Ahh, no. The gravity on the surface of Earth varies quite a bit from place to place. We don't have to call on a very local concentration of mass for that. How deep is the grainite bedrock under that spot? You don't know. How high is the ground over sea level? You don't know. How much water is in the underground? You don't know.
Click to expand...
But not so much that it complete steel the picture, and in no way in a way that it “should” prevent you from re-create the buildings own ADG pattern, e.g; - theoretical.

You are just showing your ignorance. Read up on variations in the surface gravity.
Click to expand...
No I am talking about a pattern that does not exist, also not “behind any possible scene”…Even not behind a possible theoretical scence.

Which is what I have done, and I get a pattern compatible with the current gravity law.
Click to expand...
You cannot have done that since I am waiting for the exact height, without that these the pattern is not completely clear.
You have shown that a deviation = +/- 2 meter not should make any difference, - actually 20 cm is enough to give a completely different pattern.

Bjarne, you can be as silly as you will, but expect to be treated accordingly.
Click to expand...
The same to you.

Yes, it does. It bends in the direction of the center of gravity.

However, whne something bends in a 3 dimentional realm, there IS some stretching taking place, so you could say space is tretching. It is not the word that is wrong, it is the implications you claim.
Click to expand...

This would not be correct, since then space should bend outwards.
Can you not see such is a silly expression, ? - like if you would say; I am getting taller because I am bending outwards. ?

Regarding my implications, now wait and see, measurement will point to the fact that gravity is a space vacuum, the central "point" will be the place that is strongest effected, exactly as predicted.

Furthermore we shall be prepared that gravity is a bit more complicated, I would not be surprise the day it also is proven that spaces continues to stretch ("deforms") towards a central direction also long after matter have been left behind.

A little difficult to explain logical, why, - but the thing properly is that in the same way that space is "fetched" towards the outwards direction, - space will also be fetches from a inwards direction. This is possible when space continues to deform, (and hence to give) from an inwards direction, - also after matter have been left behind, - like you see it in a outwards direction.

BUT the result towards the center will then be opposite, which mean increasing ADG towards the center.

This is really easy to test here on Earth, by quite simple measurement experiments.
 
Bjarne said:
Right

But not so much that it complete steel the picture, and in no way in a way that it “should” prevent you from re-create the buildings own ADG pattern, e.g; - theoretical.
Click to expand...

You can re-create the picture, but you cannot place the center of gravity.

You cannot have done that since I am waiting for the exact height, without that these the pattern is not completely clear.
You have shown that a deviation = +/- 2 meter not should make any difference, - actually 20 cm is enough to give a completely different pattern.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you also don't read posts. I used an estimated elevation. This will offset the curve, but since we cannot place it anyway, it is not a big problem. However, the differing hights created an anomaly. I'm sure that will vainish when we get the right elevations.

The thickness of the floor separations is only relevant for the mass.

This would not be correct, since then space should bend outwards.
Can you not see such is a silly expression, ? - like if you would say; I am getting taller because I am bending outwards. ?
Click to expand...

Why should it bend outwards?

Furthermore we shall be prepared that gravity is a bit more complicated, I would not be surprise the day it also is proven that spaces continues to stretch ("deforms") towards a central direction also long after matter have been left behind.
Click to expand...

Bjarne, your thesis is plenty silly as it is, better not make it worse.

Hans
 
You can re-create the picture,
Click to expand...
Not this you belive in, and not without cheating..

but you cannot place the center of gravity
Click to expand...
You mean you cannot., I have no problem doing so.

Obviously, you also don't read posts. I used an estimated elevation. This will offset the curve, but since we cannot place it anyway, it is not a big problem. However, the differing hights created an anomaly. I'm sure that will vainish when we get the right elevations.
Click to expand...
I do not know what you talk about, - you did not understand that the FAG and the total ADG is inseparable connected.

The thickness of the floor separations is only relevant for the mass.
Click to expand...
No not at all, when the floor height is only 2 cm of it means 0.6 * 0.3048 mgal, that’s a lot.

Why should it bend outwards?
Click to expand...
In fact it is bending towards the object, but how can I explain you that by stretching towards a object a both space and meter stick expands, I guess you-ll not get the point, therefore I thought I could cheat you to understand by simplifying to mention the results seems to be “outwards” extention, but the pull/stretch is in reality inwards.

Bjarne, your thesis is plenty silly as it is, better not make it worse.
Click to expand...
It is not silly but an important measurement experiment for the future.
Container.jpg

It can easy be done, for example to execute the container measurement experiment as shown (and describe) above, and then repeat it but this time with “a bobble” without matter around the COG (gravity center).
As I wrote, it would not surprise me if ADG values in both cases are the same. We must probably understand gravity as a UNITY. Probably the effect on the central “point” (COG) must always be the same. – This effect on that point is so far I see it the basic for that a gravitational field at all can exist. – This is the “anker” of gravity that make it possible to pull space (and matter) from an outwards direction.

Ahh, no. The gravity on the surface of Earth varies quite a bit from place to place. We don't have to call on a very local concentration of mass for that. How deep is the grainite bedrock under that spot? You don't know. How high is the ground over sea level? You don't know. How much water is in the underground? You don't know.
Click to expand...

First at all the underground here in this country is very predictable.
Of course there are anomalies, but notice these are fast decreasing, based on /r2 .
For example a anomaly 2 meter inside of the underground give you only 25% effect, 4 meter above it is only 6.25%
And remember to add the fact that only the density difference really matter, - So the effects from the underground do fast become insignificant at floors just few meters above the ground floor.
Hence still you should easy could re etabelish what you belive should be the real pattern, - but you can't (without cheating)...

The FAG reflects the Earths ADG and distances to its COG (6254000 meter) therefore this one is pretty stable and predictable. .
 
Bjarne said:
The FAG reflects the Earths ADG and distances to its COG (6254000 meter) therefore this one is pretty stable and predictable. .
Click to expand...
Again and again, how do you explain GPS working so well.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
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