Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why don't you check into the Hotel Hilbert for a nice rest Bjarne, their infinite number of rooms are all occupied, but they can always find more.
 
Reality Check said:
The universe is not "infinity". Infinity is a concept not a size.
The universe may have no bounds. Another way to say this is that the size of the universe is infinite.

You are wrong.
An infinite universe can expand. The expansion is every point in the universe (not matter how big the universe is) getting further away from each other.
Click to expand...

This is nothing but a ridiculous joke. A cow that is infinite big cannot get bigger
Excact like a muuuuuu where the uuuuuuuuuu never stop get not get larger. (more uuu like there already are. ) all space is already occupied by >> uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
So where do you want to put the new uuu ? - when infinity allready is full of uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

The expansion of the universe is a set of evidence .
Click to expand...

Don't forget the loooooooooong list you at forgot (ignore) for example the missing higgs and the big crack in the standard model, a big huge empty hole (1 Billion LY) and a long long list of contradictions mention several times.

You have absolutely nothing to have these speculations in

Amen.
 
Last edited:
I guess there's no point trying to be helpful to an arrogant fool.
 
Bjarne said:
...Amen.
Click to expand...
The evidence is that the universe is expanding: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

You going off on rants will not change the scientific evidence.

You displaying abysmal ignorance will not change the scientific evidence.
The ignorance in this case is your delusion that a finite universe means a finite number of points in it. You are a couple of thousand of years out of date. Euclid's Elements (~300 BC) was the primary book that described the geometry we now call Euclidean geometry upon which all science (including GR) is based..
In Euclidean geometry any pair of points have an infinite number of points in between them. To be more exact: you can place a point between any 2 points, a point between each of the resulting 2 pairs and continue forever.


Don''t forget your ignorance that the missing Higgs boson is
  1. Just not detected yet.
  2. Nothing to do with the expansion of the universe.
Don''t forget your ignorance that the "big huge empty hole (1 Billion LY)" has nothing to do with existence of the Big Bang. It is a possible feature of the evolution of the universe after the Big Bang.
It is interesting because it may be a cause of the CMB cold spot but the Rudnick et al.[7] paper has yet to be confirmed and further analysis has case doubts on the voids existence:

The correlation between the NVSS dip and the Cold Spot was found to be marginal using a more conservative statistical analysis.[8] Also, a direct survey for galaxies in several one-degree-square fields within the Cold Spot found no evidence for a supervoid.[9] However, the supervoid explanation has not been ruled out entirely; it remains intriguing, since supervoids do seem capable of affecting the CMB measurably.[5][10]
Click to expand...

Don't forget your ignorance that there is no "long long list of contradictions" about the Big Bang that has been mentioned at all (otherwise you would have cited it).
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
HA HA HA HA, the best joke this year.
Click to expand...
HA HA HA HA, the best display of inorance from you this year.
The Higgs boson has not been detected. That is a fact.

Bjarne said:
It is necessary for the BigBang speculation
Click to expand...
Repeating your ignorance is just dumb.
The Big Bang is a set of observations: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

The Higgs boson is a possible explanation for the mass of particles. Whether or not the Higgs boson exists, we still have the mass that we measure and that appears in theories such as General Relativity.

I will repeat this for the ignorant:
Mass exists!
If the Higgs boson does not exist then - mass still exists :jaw-dropp !
 
Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang

Bjarne said:
How can you seriously sell such loads of contradictions (on all levels) ?
Click to expand...
How can you seriously lie about this "loads of contradictions (on all levels)" when you have not cited any such contradictions?

The Big Bang bang has evidence supporting it: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

On the other hand we have the word of an ignorant and incompetant crank:
The Pioneer anomaly proves that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009

Why is your multiplier 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?

Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance"
11th December 2009

Spiral galaxies prove that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!
 
Bjarne said:
There are no "if" - it has never existed anywhere else as in fantasy worlds.
Click to expand...
The only fantasy world is yours.
The Higgs boson is a physically realistic possibility for the cause of mass.
It has not been detected.
Experiments are ongoing to see if it does exist.
It might exist.
It might not exist.

You are still ignoring the fact that the existence (or not) or the Higgs boson has no impact on the fact that mass exists.

P.S. Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang
First asked 21 October 2011
I do hope that you have 'loads' of them otherwise you will seem to be lying.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Actually, I disagree. That was when he got the Coriolis effect all wrong. :p
Click to expand...
Was that from this year?

I also think that his claim that water droplets must be lighter than air in order to form clouds was a memorable one :)
 
steenkh said:
Was that from this year?

I also think that his claim that water droplets must be lighter than air in order to form clouds was a memorable one :)
Click to expand...

I guess you're right, all that was last year. Yes, weather systems is another thing Bjarne hasn't grasped.

I can't help but wonder ..... what HAS he grasped?

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Actually, I disagree. That was when he got the Coriolis effect all wrong. :p

Hans
Click to expand...

Hurricanes are not fully understood, - but so long I not is the reason that a world of naive tax payer have lost 50 billion USD, - the bill for detecting a fantasy particle that not exist, - my sleep is not disturbed. '

And what about all he hundred million naive humans, that believe that higgs was real. How silly pitiful.

Notice I predicted already 1 year ago it was nothing but fantasy. Now the majority (finally) agree…

And it is worse, the standard model is cracking, - What shall replace it ?
More fantasy?
and more 50 billion bills to naive tax payers ?

Or what will be next ?
A 500 USD bill for more fantasy ?
Or maybe 5000 billion USD ?

Maybe the next LHC must go the whole way round the planet, (so that 10,000 "scientist" not will be unemployed VERY soon.)

Ohh yehh they will shut the parrot again and again, - there is BIG ,money in higgs fantasy, - and tax naive tax payers will happy pay again.

Money money money make the world turn round. Cows never would accepts such stupid things.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
Hurricanes are not fully understood, - but so long I not is the reason that a world of naive tax payer have lost 50 billion USD, - the bill for detecting a fantasy particle that not exist, - my sleep is not disturbed. '

And what about all he hundred million naive humans, that believe that higgs was real. How silly pitiful.

Notice I predicted already 1 year ago it was nothing but fantasy. Now the majority (finally) agree…

And it is worse, the standard model is cracking, - What shall replace it ?
More fantasy?
and more 50 billion bills to naive tax payers ?

Or what will be next ?
A 500 USD bill for more fantasy ?
Or maybe 5000 billion USD ?

Maybe the next LHC must go the whole way round the planet, (so that 10,000 "scientist" not will be unemployed VERY soon.)

Ohh yehh they will shut the parrot again and again, - there is BIG ,money in higgs fantasy, - and tax naive tax payers will happy pay again.

Money money money make the world turn round. Cows never would accepts such stupid things.
Click to expand...

Hilarious.
 
The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:
The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
Time dilation in supernova light curves.
The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:
Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.
Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.
Click to expand...

A BigChunch (caused due to extreme speed & gravity) could cause the exact same phenomena's as described above.

The difference would only be that the Universe did not come out from NOTHING, but a previous Universe was simply exploding due to extreme speed / gravity.

Assume we would know that gravity would go mad and that this must have challenged the strong nuclear force, - our understanding would be completely different.

We would then know that we do not need to invent unnecessary expanding proberties of space, simply because general relativity is enough to understand everything what was happen, and what still is going on.

Try instead to tell me where the theory I represent contradict observations.
I don’t mean contradict interpretations,
but where it contradict observation.

Please notice the difference.
 
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