Please justify that claim. I know of no reason to think that space inside of galaxies and solar systems does not expand, and there's no reason to consider the rest of your comment until you have demonstrated this critical assertion.
Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.
- Thread starter Bjarne
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dark energy
- Status
Please justify that claim. I know of no reason to think that space inside of galaxies and solar systems does not expand, and there's no reason to consider the rest of your comment until you have demonstrated this critical assertion.
It's his score on the crackpot scale.
He is fighting for the right of ignorant, stupid, arrogant crackpots to be taken seriously.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Just popping in to say: It is a waste of time. Not only is Bjarne ignorant and incoherent, but he has slowly and steadily become worse over the time he has been here. I know some here hope to educate him, but in fact he is being de-educated. Even his English is deteriorating.
I strongly suggest you do as I have done: Put him on ignore, and get on with your lives.
Hopefully, this will also induce Bjarne to get on with HIS life, instead of using time to become dumber, here.
Hans
Hubble expansion By obtaining the spectra of a number of nearby galaxies, Edwin Hubble was able to measure their redshifts and hence recession velocities. He found that nearly all galaxies showed a positive recession velocity, that is they are moving away from us, and thus inferred that the Universe is expanding. This expansion is named after its discoverer, and is referred to as Hubble expansion or Hubble flow.
By also measuring distances to the same galaxies, by observing Cepheid variable stars within them, Hubble was able to demonstrate that recession velocity is proportional to distance, a relation known as the Hubble law.
It is important to note, however, that each galaxy has a peculiar velocity relative to the Hubble flow, and so when one uses redshift as an estimate of distance, this estimate will be biased by the line-of-sight component of the peculiar velocity. Also, systems bound by gravity, such as stars and individual galaxies, do not grow with the Hubble expansion, but remain of fixed size in proper coordinates.
"Hubble expansion" The Oxford Companion to Cosmology. Andrew Liddle and Jon Loveday. Oxford University Press 2008. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.By also measuring distances to the same galaxies, by observing Cepheid variable stars within them, Hubble was able to demonstrate that recession velocity is proportional to distance, a relation known as the Hubble law.
It is important to note, however, that each galaxy has a peculiar velocity relative to the Hubble flow, and so when one uses redshift as an estimate of distance, this estimate will be biased by the line-of-sight component of the peculiar velocity. Also, systems bound by gravity, such as stars and individual galaxies, do not grow with the Hubble expansion, but remain of fixed size in proper coordinates.
You should listen to yourself more often.
You really seem to have spectacularly failed to grasp the simple concept; there's something we can't see that has the same measurable effects as matter, a convenient placeholder for this invisible matter-like stuff is dark matter.
Nothing but pure unsupported invention.
RC was referring to rational adult humans, not cow obsessed idiots.
I refer my dishonourable acquaintance to my previous statement.
Rather ask why you refuse to pay any attention to all the information on science with which you have been generously provided.
edd
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,120
It doesn't. Talking about this is the sort of thing that will rapidly get me sidetracked into minor details but
http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/GR/expanding_universe.html
explains a bit. It's the sort of context where I lean towards the opinion that expanding space isn't going to be a terribly useful concept though.
This in no way makes Bjarne in the slightest bit right in any other respect.
edd
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,120
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.0709v1 is an interesting article that appeared today on astro-ph - about who was involved in that very early work on the redshift-distance relation (redshifts themselves were noted earlier by Vesto Slipher).
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
So we are back to your abysnal ignorance of sceince.
Hubble made the observations that lead to his law. He was unaware that Hubble's law was "first derived from the General Relativity equations by Georges Lemaître in 1927".
Muuuhhh
Gibberish.
Space-time is expanding.
Gravity is constant.
HEEELLP
PLEASE don't expose your ignorance again.
Cosmological redshift is the Doppler effect! It is caused by the velocity of the galaxies. That velocity varies as predicted by an expanding universe.
...snipped insance cow fetish...
So other than your obsession with cows, you agree that dark matter acts like matter.
Nothing but gibberish.
You are projecting your ignorance on the world, yet again.
- we know what dark energy really is.
- we have several possible causes for dark energy.
- we know ehat gravity REALLY is.
But you are the fool that is ignorant of the fact that or gravity can force the Universe into the stomach of an ant. - Bjarne WAKE UP....
How idiotic:
In: γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²), "1" is the number 1!
It is a result of deriving the equation. But this is of course something else that you are ignorant of.
It is totally ignorant (and fairly insane) to arbitarily pick a value of 1 m/s. Why is it not 2 m/s? Why not 300,000 m/s? Why not 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s?
I will fix your idiotic RR equation since you are too lazy to do it:
RESISTANCE AGIANST MOTION. (RR) = (y – 1) * X
where γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
and X is some unknown velocity (m/s according to Bjarne).
Whoops: It looks like Bjarne is so ignorant that he has no idea what his own delusion of RR is - it is an acceleration!
So lets really fix it:
RESISTANCE AGIANST MOTION. (RR) = (y – 1) * X
where γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
and X is some unknown acceleration.
If you had any idea about science you would devise an experiment to measure RR and so find the X. But the experiments say that RR does not exist:
- Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
First posted 2 November 2009- Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
This is just another one of Bjarne's bit of ignorance.
GR states that all of space-time is expanding, including locally, e.g. in the Solar System. But there is this little thing called gravity that keeps things together. Thus you do not measure the expansion until you get to scales outside of the Local Group. Even then there is considerable scatter in redshift vs distance graphs until you get beyond the Virgo Cluster (~15 Mpc) whose galaxies have high peculiar velocities.
Why doesn't the Solar System expand if the whole Universe is expanding - Answered
On 11 July 2011 and still not understood by Bjarne
The influence of the cosmological expansion on local systems, 1998, F. I. Cooperstock, V. Faraoni, D. N. Vollick (Astrophysical Journal)
edd
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,120
I don't think I agree with this (and I'm increasingly on side with Peacock - http://www.roe.ac.uk/~jap/book/expandspace.pdf ).
The 'expanding space' you get from the FRW metric is a particular exact solution which our universe appears to approximate very well on large scales. This does not mean it is accurate on small scales - it obviously isn't.
edit to add another useful link: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.0380v1
Last edited:
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
We have (earlier in this thread) calculated that if space for example between the Moon and the Earth was expanding that alone should cause 5 cm increase per year.
It doesn’t happen; - a bell SHOULD ring of that simple reason.
There are no such clutch between cosmological redshift and velocity in the real world, only in the fantasy of the majority.
And this is how people think; - the more that support a lie, the bigger a truth “must” it be.
Doppler effect is ALWAY caused due to MOTION.
This is not what is discussed here.
We are discussion cosmological redshift, it is something very different.
It smells (again) of something between boasting, rubbish, concrete and mass brainwash.
Haleluja Halueluja
Amen
I told you “1” is already part of the Lorentz equation.
- I think the very first step you need to take is to realize that yes there is increasing resistance to accelerate a body in space (RR).
- Step 2. An unknown process is due to resistance against motion (RR) converting speed to real M and real energy increase. You know it is real since you can continue to convert that energy for example to heat.
- Step 3 is to understand that RR increase, - MUST be proportional to M and KE increase.
- Step 4, is to understand that exactly as the result (of the eqaution) is a factor (to find M and KE increase) in the same way the (almost) same equation must be able to show an identical resistance factor relative to motion. .
- Since the unit of v²/c² already are m/s, - what would be more naturally as adding m/s as I did.
But well if you was serious I would certainly listen to you.
I mean RC, - if you don’t agree you could show the correct equation,.
But off course ( I almost forgot) it is much easier to export the whole problem to the 21 th bright blue dimension, - lie for yourself, - and believe that motion, (even by acceleration) is resistance free. – And the whole problem is solved. Smart right?
After that you do not need to relate to reality, and can continue just to bla bla bla bla , and put you head in the bush, (like everybody else are doing)…
Last edited:
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Why is your multiplier 1 m/s^2
Why doesn't the Solar System expand if the whole Universe is expanding - Answered
On 11 July 2011 and still not understood by Bjarne
The influence of the cosmological expansion on local systems, 1998, F. I. Cooperstock, V. Faraoni, D. N. Vollick (Astrophysical Journal)
Cosmological redshift is the Doppler effect that is ALWAY caused due to MOTION. The MOTIONis caused in this case by the expansion of the universe.
Just to emphasis this:
We have redshift due to the Doppler effect.
The Doppler effect is due to the velocity of the galaxy.
We measure that this velocity varies as expected for an expanding universe. Thus the velocity is cosmological.
Thus: Cosmological redshift
The only 'increasing resistance to accelerate a body in space' that is supported by theory and experiment is that within special relativity.
Can you answer the simple question:
Bjarne
First asked 5 August 2011
You want you imaginary RR to be something like RESISTANCE AGIANST MOTION. (RR) = (y – 1) * X
where γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
and X is some unknown acceleration.
It is totally ignorant to arbitarily pick a value of X= 1 m/s^2. Why is X not 2 m/s^2? Why not 300,000 m/s^2? Why not 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s^2?
If you had any idea about science you would devise an experiment to measure RR and so find the X. But the experiments say that RR does not exist:
Obviously it has not rung for you. We know why a gravitationally bound system such the Earth and Moon will not have a measurable increase.
Why doesn't the Solar System expand if the whole Universe is expanding - Answered
On 11 July 2011 and still not understood by Bjarne
The influence of the cosmological expansion on local systems, 1998, F. I. Cooperstock, V. Faraoni, D. N. Vollick (Astrophysical Journal)
You are still ignorant.
Cosmological redshift is the Doppler effect that is ALWAY caused due to MOTION. The MOTIONis caused in this case by the expansion of the universe.
Just to emphasis this:
We have redshift due to the Doppler effect.
The Doppler effect is due to the velocity of the galaxy.
We measure that this velocity varies as expected for an expanding universe. Thus the velocity is cosmological.
Thus: Cosmological redshift
That was dumb of you then - anyone who can read can see that 1 is part of the Lorentz factor.
I realize that you have this delustion. This makes the rest of your steps more delustions.
The only 'increasing resistance to accelerate a body in space' that is supported by theory and experiment is that within special relativity.
Can you answer the simple question:
Bjarne
First asked 5 August 2011
You want you imaginary RR to be something like RESISTANCE AGIANST MOTION. (RR) = (y – 1) * X
where γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
and X is some unknown acceleration.
It is totally ignorant to arbitarily pick a value of X= 1 m/s^2. Why is X not 2 m/s^2? Why not 300,000 m/s^2? Why not 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s^2?
If you had any idea about science you would devise an experiment to measure RR and so find the X. But the experiments say that RR does not exist:
- Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
First posted 2 November 2009 - Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).
Last edited:
Colossal stupidity and astoundingly unjustified arrogance in one sentence.
No, how people think is that the more sound evidence produced to support a position, the more confidence in the position.
Which is caused by expanding space.
Whereas your post smells of ********, plain and simple.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
That's the only correct part of the whole post, apart from the part about you telling anyone anything.
I claim you are an idiot with no understanding of basic science and the inability to modify your own fantasies.
That must make me correct, after all I claimed it so I make the rules.
No you wouldn't, you would continue lying and insulting and flaunting your ridiculous ignorance.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
What a BIG load of crap (agian).
Nobody (except apparently RC) believe the universe is MOVING away from each other. Many naive fools believe that space itself is expanding.
If MOTION should be the cause of cosmological redshift , we would be exactly in the center of the Universe, since everything (except Andromeda is according to RC )MOVING away from us.
So RC do not believe that we are exactly in the center of the Universe. This is similar to naïve science anno 1135
Many other as RC believe cosmological redshift NOT is caused by MOTION , but due to that space is stretching / expanding.
RC, this is Cosmology for 10 years old schoolboys.
Until recently I believe you was at a different level after 17 years at the University.
Also cows knows that the cause of so-called ; cosmological redshift is different from Doppler effect.
Ask you self what “1” is doing in that equation in the first place..
Last edited:
The universe isn't moving away from anything.
Yes, all those poor naive fools, with their education and knowledge and experiments and calculations and observations and evidence.
Or there's you, with your tiny barely sentient brain and no education and no knowledge and no experiments and no accurate calculations and absolutely no evidence.
Everything is moving and since there is also acceleration, the further things have moved the further they are from everyhting else on a cosmological scale.
There is no reason, except foolishness or dishonesty, to make the assumption that we should be in the centre of the universe.
Again, because it is. What other number do you think should be there?
Last edited:
edd
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 2,120
You're wrong Bjarne - although it's not uncommon to hold such a position and there's understandable reasons you might - I've said it's not a Doppler shift myself in the past. It's not right to verified RC's standpoint, least of all in the manner you have.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1081
The kinematic origin of the cosmological redshift, Bunn and Hogg.
A common belief about big-bang cosmology is that the cosmological redshift cannot be properly viewed as a Doppler shift (that is, as evidence for a recession velocity), but must be viewed in terms of the stretching of space. We argue that, contrary to this view, the most natural interpretation of the redshift is as a Doppler shift, or rather as the accumulation of many infinitesimal Doppler shifts. The stretching-of-space interpretation obscures a central idea of relativity, namely that it is always valid to choose a coordinate system that is locally Minkowskian. We show that an observed frequency shift in any spacetime can be interpreted either as a kinematic (Doppler) shift or a gravitational shift by imagining a suitable family of observers along the photon's path. In the context of the expanding universe the kinematic interpretation corresponds to a family of comoving observers and hence is more natural.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1081
The kinematic origin of the cosmological redshift, Bunn and Hogg.
A common belief about big-bang cosmology is that the cosmological redshift cannot be properly viewed as a Doppler shift (that is, as evidence for a recession velocity), but must be viewed in terms of the stretching of space. We argue that, contrary to this view, the most natural interpretation of the redshift is as a Doppler shift, or rather as the accumulation of many infinitesimal Doppler shifts. The stretching-of-space interpretation obscures a central idea of relativity, namely that it is always valid to choose a coordinate system that is locally Minkowskian. We show that an observed frequency shift in any spacetime can be interpreted either as a kinematic (Doppler) shift or a gravitational shift by imagining a suitable family of observers along the photon's path. In the context of the expanding universe the kinematic interpretation corresponds to a family of comoving observers and hence is more natural.
Last edited:
- Status