Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Paulhoff]

Bjarne, stop lying to yourself and everyone else. Please stop posting garbage.

Paul

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Bjanre, please retract your statement that Brahe was placed under house arrest.

 

[wollery]

Small earths like planets are difficult to detect, not giant planets.
It is the pattern that include the giant planets that is my point.

Nope, large planets in long orbits are also hard to detect. That's because the doppler shift of the parent star is smaller, and the pattern takes a lot longer to observe. In order to confirm a planet in a 5 year orbit you need to observe the star for at least 6 years, but preferably longer. You have to see the pattern at least start to repeat itself before you can be certain.

I've been working with some of the people who find extrasolar planets for the last 12 years.

It is only rare that Wasp-18b is so close a star, - and still alive.
It is normal that very young stars have giant planets in orbit as well as these relative fast falls to their mother stars.

Really? How do you know that it's normal? We only have a very small number of known planets, and we're observing huge numbers of young stars that appear to have no close planets. You can not possibly know that it is "normal"

It means that the ocean of the earth is dragged towards the moon, (not much) and at the same time the Earth rotate.
This friction (between the ocean bottom and the ocean) is one of the reason to the Earth’s rotation slows down. - This is common knowledge.

By a fraction of a second a year. What was your point?

I am sure we will have to rethink all this> KE transfer again.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html

Did you actually read that article? This is a very small effect that depends on the ratio between angle of approach and angle of escape relatyive to the equatorial plane. Tell me, what are the angles of approach and escape of the Earth relative to the Sun's equatorial plane?

According to the prevailing understanding the answer is no.
BUT there are no reasons to claim that resistance against motion only applies to acceleration. This is one of the silliest ideas ever invented.
NOTHING in reality supports this, only old orthodox creeds.
And it is exactly here the chain went off for long ago, - and here the reason to many unnecessary mysteries are to be found.

Really? Then how do you explain all the experiments that show that as friction is reduced resistance to motion drops towards zero?

It requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed; it is completely silly to believe that the resistance to increase speed suddenly should disappear by constant speed.

WOW! No really, just WOW! Try reading a basic physics text sometime, because you really need to understand the underlying principles.

I am sure we have much more to learn.

Me too, but I doubt we'll learn anything from your ideas.

Basic is to understand WHY space resist motion. So far we have not even come close

It doesn't. That's why.

Also why “M” is increasing due to increasing speed is completely unknown.

And finally we also MUST understand WHY this “process” suddenly "should" stop when constant speed have been reach, - again we have no idea why this strange resistance "inertia" only should apply for acceleration, simple because we don’t understand anything of this in the first place.

Acceleration requires an input of energy. Constant motion (in the absence of friction) doesn't. That's it.

The fact is; also by constant speed of an object, - it still require energy to maintain the motion / to overcome resistance agianst motion (intertia).

No, it doesn't. Inertia only applies to acceleration. Resistance to constant speed is friction, not inertia.

You can believe in the prevailing completely blind science, OR you can try to understand WHAT happens really with the cocktail: Mass / Speed / Space / KE

My opinion is simple;

• The nature of elementary particles is to “twist space around them” This is what consumes space.
• And hence this is what is stretching space near matter.
• And hence this is what gravity really is.
• And hence this is what “bended space" really means.

• Now, - when elementary particles moves in space, these are twisted deeper into space, the result is more contracted space = more mass,
• and hence gradually more resistance due to gradually speed increase,
• and therefore gradually more energy requirement to overcome the gradually increasing resistance.

It is all so cow -logic simple, when you really begin to understand the basic of the nature of gravity, and not just by heard have learn some empty expression and can calculate how much a cow and light bends

• Matter = Contracted Space
• Due to that space around matter = is Stretching ( because of matter “consumed” space).

But this part is not possible directly to prove, to heavy concrete brains.

So either you prefer the prevailing blind “half wind”, or you have the possibility to understand the basic nature of gravity, - it is yours choose.

Take it or leave it.


This is more than enough to understand the pattern I have described.
All it requires is only to open your eyes.

That's mostly gibberish, and all completely made up off the top of your head.

Furthermore: Solar system must be created in a similar way.
Understand the law and that's it.
Off course there can be difference in mass / density etc... but still it is easy to conclude that right after a solar system are created, - there are several giant planets in orbit, - few billion year after, these giant are gone....

These will fall of 2 reason

1. The tidal wave
2. Resistance against motion.

In the end of the day it is the Sun’s rotation that pays the bill for all the resistance against motion in the solar system, - both the Sun’s own rotation, as well as the planet orbits.

This mean when one or several giant planet is orbit a Star it will “pull” a lot KE from the stars rotation, to be able to maintenance its speed.

The resistance of planet motion is Mv^2/2, so you can easy conclude that the huge Mass of a planet drags much KE from the stars rotation, whereby the stars rotation fast decreases, and a domino effect takes place, because then the star can transfer less “rotation KE back to the planet orbit ( resistance against motion speed) etc…etc…etc… and the giant planet is doomed.

When there are several giant planets in a solar system, the star will speed up and slow down until all are gone.
This takes longer time , and this is the reason to that it is a mystery that for example Wasp-18b still is alive.
Remember it is the combination between resistance against motion + the tidal wave that pulls a giant planet down.
But this also speed up the rotation of the star and extend the time other planets have left, because when a giant planet fall, the increase of the stars rotation will throw other planets further out in the solar system...-

Complete rubbish.

The day you fully understand that resistance against motion also apply by constant speed, you are force to understand that the KE transfer to a planet due to the Suns rotation is VERY much underestimated.

And yet, we can measure it and show that it is exactly what it is predicted to be. Funny that.

We have to rethink all this again, - time has come.

Space probes will guide those that have open eyes and open minds.

There is unfortunately no hope for those that have spent years in the education system. Because they are trained to believe that priest, popes, bishop and especially professors are perfect and omniscient, and that anybody else must be considered in collusion with the devil or just completely nuts crackpots. Amen.

You clearly haven't met that many professors.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html

Again, I ask, have you actually read that article? Because I don't think it says what you think it says.

 

[Reality Check]

Liar
CENTRAL ADG measurement with the only purpose to confirm or disconfirm whether ADG really is decreasing towards the center of an object has never been done.

Liar
From Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked!

Experimentally Debunked 1
Your "central gravity" idea lead to you asserting that the ADG inside a sphere is constant. That is a delusion rather than an prediction because you have ignored the experimental evidence that the prediction is wrong since 2 November 2009 !
Real, tested science (Newtons law of gravity) predicts a varying ADG inside a sphere. The actual measured ADG inside a sphere varies as predicted

Test of Newton's inverse-square law in the Greenland ice cap

The ADG inside the Earth (an object!) obeys Newton's Law, i.e. varies.
This debunks your fantasy that the ADG is constant inside an object.
What make this totally stupid is that you were told about this experiment in November 2009 !

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]

Really? How do you know that it's normal? We only have a very small number of known planets, and we're observing huge numbers of young stars that appear to have no close planets. You cannot possibly know that it is "normal"

It is well known that giant planets are expected to fall relative fast after a star is created.

Yes there is not a lot of observations, - but as I wrote the law is the same, of cause the amount of mass and density can vary, - this is insignificant, - already you have enough to be able to see that simple pattern I have described.

I know that resistance against motion is a fact, everything, - in fact the whole universe, and every law of nature is nothing but space density.

Even EM-waves are nothing but space oscillations.

Matter = Consumed Space / Thicker space density.

Hence nothing can exist without being a part of space, and nothing can move without to affect space.

To make a long history short, >

Resistance against motion is a fact.

• All young solar systems have giant planets, much bigger as Jupiter.
• The Stars rotation transfer “centrifugal-KE” to keep the planets in orbit, and hence stars rotation pay the KE bill.
• The amount of rotation-KE of stars can only keep giant in orbit in few billion years.

This is laws of nature.
It is also a law of nature that the total planet-mass of a new created solar system is MUCH larger than in our solar system, when a star is young.

This MUST have applied for our star too, hence our solar system MUST have lost giants too, -and this mean the very small inner "planets" of our solar system can ONLY have been created as moons, - not as planets.

Bjarne
It means that the ocean of the earth is dragged towards the moon, (not much) and at the same time the Earth rotate.
This friction (between the ocean bottom and the ocean) is one of the reason to the Earth’s rotation slows down. - This is common knowledge.
Wollery:
By a fraction of a second a year. What was your point?

The point is that this is not the full story; parts of the lost of the Earth rotation KE must be due to resistance against motion.

Did you actually read that article? This is a very small effect that depends on the ratio between angle of approach and angle of escape relative to the equatorial plane. Tell me, what are the angles of approach and escape of the Earth relative to the Sun's equatorial plane?

The cause of the acceleration of space probes are partly; resistance against motion, and hence faster approach to the Earth as expected.

But this is not the whole explanation. The Earth also transfer rotation KE to the space probes (and the Moon) .

As I wrote this seems to be very complicated to figure out exactly.
We need much more different data. – But you can be sure that space connects everything, in a way “we” have ignored especially the last 100 years.

http://www.science27.com/english/Pioneer1011.htm

Understanding that everything is “Space-density” is the key to understand everything.
Around the Earth space vacuum is rotating, - connected and inside this space-vacuum , - are the Moon and (sometimes) space-probes. - Off course we have lot more to learn so soon we understand that space and matter really are connected.

Already we know that matter affect space, - it is completely silly to ignore that there are any connection, and so stupid do it really seems that "we" are.

Here is challenge for everyone with a good left brain to brake through matematically, - just remember to give 50 % of the Nobel Prize for the theoretical contribution.

Really? Then how do you explain all the experiments that show that as friction is reduced resistance to motion drops towards zero?

This is not true
No experiments show this.
Also not the accelerator in CERN.
Particles that moves with huge speed drags a magnetic field behind.
This mean (off course) "lost" of energy.

There is one to pay, - that "lost of energy" and this is the particle-speed / motion. - I mean the pope do not pay, also not the professors in Cern and also not the 21 bright blue dimention. Mother cow have also refused. - So the particle-speed are in fact left alone to PAY FOR THE RESISTANCE AGAINST MOTION

877 % of all the cows in both the Milky Way and Andromeda agree that.

Also Every star in the Universe tries to show us this too.

This is why stars one after one falls towards the black hole of the galaxies. –

BUT if you prefer to close eyes you will off course only see what the system have put into your brain.

That's mostly gibberish, and all completely made up off the top of your head.

I will prove that I could predict how inner central gravity (ADG) would behave as a consequences of the basic of the theory : That Matter consumes space. > And Hence that the silly clumsy expression "bended space" in fact is a space-vacuum. – A space density vacuum - if you better prefer....

Put it that simple; matter is small space whirlpools, made of space, - energy woven into space. This simple key will open every mystery, but only for those not afraid to think self.

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such.
All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
Max Planck

 

[Reality Check]

Resistance against motion is a fact.

That is right: resistance against motion is a fact - but it is called inertia.

Your fantasy though is not a fact. It is a delusion that is easily debunked.
From the list of your ignorance and debunked ideas:

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
  So far the answer is no !
• Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
  First asked 2 November 2009
• Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).

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]

That is right: resistance against motion is a fact - but it is called inertia.

Yeehhh and mother cow is called Coroline, but it is still a cow.
(also by constant speed)

 

[Paul]

I miss kittens and chilli recipes.

 

[Reality Check]

Yeehhh and mother cow is called Coroline, but it is still a cow.
(also by constant speed)

So you have a mother cow called Coroline?
That is interesting but nothing to do with what I stated.
Inertia is the proper term for resistance to motion. It is stupid to use any other term when there is already have a standard definition.

But your fantasy is not about the concept inertia that has been known for centuries (or resistance to motion).
It is about your debunked idea of "kinetic resistance" which is a resistance to acceleration. More specifically to the acceleration of bodies on orbit
since you seem to ignore the fact that there is also linear acceleration.

From the list of your ignorance and debunked ideas:

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
  So far the answer is no !
• Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
  First asked 2 November 2009
• Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).

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)​

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Second time:

Bjanre, please retract your statement that Brahe was placed under house arrest.

 

[Paul]

Second time:

He won't even admit why Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize, you've got no chance.

 

[Bjarne]

It is about your debunked idea of "kinetic resistance" which is a resistance to acceleration.

1.
The cause of that Pioneer 10 and 11 had lost about 500.000 km is that resistance against motion (RAM) also applies by constant speed.

2.
This is also the main cause to that stars rotation slows down and giant planet one by one get lost.

3.
Think about; we do not know how solar system in created, - we don’t know why gas/matter begins to seeks towards the center of a gas cloud.

The answer is that RAM also replies to object with constant speed.

So the causes of the creation of solar systems are:

• ADG (towards the center) inside a homogeneous extended mass (cloud of gas) is stable (not decreasing towards the center) – This is what I will prove by measurement.
• RAM also applies by constant speed, - this mean that gas slowly will circle inwards due to RAM.
• At a certain point the rotation of the central mass (the new star) will due to the centrifugal force prevent / slow down more mass to approach the central area.
• The surplus of matter, - that cannot approach the inner area (due to the new stars rotation) will repeats the process and planets are created.
• Again the surplus of matter (around the planets) that can’t approach the planets due to the (gradually faster planet-rotation) is the reason to that the process again repeats itself and the moons are created.
• Now after some few hundred million years the star rotates gradually get slower, because it pays for the resistance against motion (RAM) of the whole solar system, also of the planets orbit. Therefore one by one the planets are sacrificed. Huge planets require more KE and therefore these are relative fast sacrificed.

4.
And if all this really should be true, then stars should then also slowly circle towards the center of the galaxies, and end up in the black holes simply due to RAM , ---- and my friends, they does.

5.
Furthermore you can make experiments and see YES a magnetic field is dragged after particles in motion >> A magnetic field = Energy
WHO will pay for this, if it is not RAM / lost of speed.

6
And the circle is closed, - again we see how beautiful this simple innocent theory can explain EVERYTHING you san can see, - just if you are willing to open your eyes, and admit; - YES. - RAM also applies for constant speed too.

7.
WHY should RAM not apply to constant speed? There are NO REASON, - except creeds.

8.
How is possible to be so BLIND ?
It is a disgrace, of the intelligence of the human race, - that despite the fact that even though the sky above our heads is full of crystal clear evidence that RAM also applies by constant speed, - "we" still in the 21th century deny that.

The basic of this theory is; - that matter consumes space.
We know already space and matter is connected.

It can really not be so strange.
Hence we also know if matter moves space around a body also is affected by this motion too.

WHY should that motion of deformed space (due to object-motion) BE FREE OF CHARGE?

This is against chicken logic to believe so.

How much more half brained blind is it possible to get for the pitifully silly human race?

 

[steenkh]

1.
The cause of that Pioneer 10 and 11 had lost about 500.000 km is that resistance against motion (RAM) also applies by constant speed.

Just a claim with nothing to back it up.

2.
This is also the main cause to that stars rotation slows down and giant planet one by one get lost.

Name one.

3.
Think about; we do not know how solar system in created, - we don’t know why gas/matter begins to seeks towards the center of a gas cloud.
[/quote]
Yes, we do. Any disturbance in a gas cloud can make it collapse into stars, and we see it happen all over. We have some difficulty in explaining the first stars, but there is no reason to think that we need to call in cow-physics in order to explain it eventually. Particularly not cow-physics that is at odds with practically every other observation.

 

[phunk]

1.
The cause of that Pioneer 10 and 11 had lost about 500.000 km is that resistance against motion (RAM) also applies by constant speed.

Wrong, the acceleration of the Pioneer anomaly is not in the opposite direction of its motion, so it is not drag or resistance to motion.

 

[Bjarne]

Just a claim with nothing to back it up.

Everything that moves in the whole Universe confirms this.
All it requires is ONLY to open your eyes.

Name one.

The Sun, -the fact that this is not easy to discover is not important, - the truth is still a truth. .
Ask why; all stars rotates so fast
Ask why; old stars does not

Bjarne
Think about; we do not know how solar system in created, - we don’t know why gas/matter begins to seeks towards the center of a gas cloud.
Steenkh
Yes, we do. Any disturbance in a gas cloud can make it collapse into stars, and we see it happen all over.

We have NEVER **SEEN*** that a supernova PULLS TOGETHER the mass of a gas cloud.

We have some difficulty in explaining the first stars

And this tells everything...... because the only “disturbing” you can mention / imaging are; supernova's

It is easy to determinate that these are innocent.

We know the age of stars around us, as well as the age off the Universe.

We also know how MANY billion years it takes before a stars explode as a supernova.

If (really) billion of stars “should” have been caused by supernovas, - there MUST have been billion of OLD stars before that, - and same amount before that, - and same amount before that, - and same amount before that etc………..

I guess you can easy calculate that this is goodbye to the BigBang and almost everything we know about the Universe.

Exactly at this point the chain went off at least for cows societies , and this is why this silly speculation in cow societies not have been popular in more that 577.000 million years.

You see, (anyway) such can impossible cause gas to circle inwards towards the center of the gas clouds.
Cows feels that fact intuitive in less as 1E-77 second, - this idea is NUTS – FACE IT.

WHY DOES THE HUMAN RACE ALWAYS CHOOSE THE NUTS IDEA's. ?

The idea is only desperate nonsense, - because we MUST explain everything, also even though billion of cows and chicken is laughing at us.

Last year more than 179000 billion chickens died of laugher (only in the Milkyway) when they first time hear that many humans down on the Earth believe such nonsense.

So please feel just a little compassion so that not more innocent chicken will die.

Wrong, the acceleration of the Pioneer anomaly is not in the opposite direction of its motion, so it is not drag or resistance to motion.

The Pioneer space probes were slowing down, all together about 4-500.000 km each.
And I can guarantee you these still does so.

 

[Paul]

Really Bjarne, you shouldn't be taking advice from creatures who wander aimlessly around a field until someone decides to eat them.

 

[Paulhoff]

Everything that moves in the whole Universe confirms this.

There is nothing that confirms this, the earth is still orbiting the sun.

Paul

 

[steenkh]

Everything that moves in the whole Universe confirms this.
All it requires is ONLY to open your eyes.

Why not just point to the measurements, if it is as easy as that?

Ask why; all stars rotates so fast
Ask why; old stars does not

What is the problem here? Compact stars rotate fast, bloated stars rotating slowly: that is only as expected. Why do you think that ice skaters rotate faster when they pull in their arms, and more slowly if they spread out?

We have NEVER **SEEN*** that a supernova PULLS TOGETHER the mass of a gas cloud.

No because it does not happen. What is your problem?

And this tells everything...... because the only “disturbing” you can mention / imaging are; supernova's

You should not assume that others have the same limited imagination as you have. Light pressure from other stars do the trick nicely. A supernova explosion is not necessary.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne
Everything that moves in the whole Universe confirms this.
All it requires is ONLY to open your eyes.
Stenkh
Why not just point to the measurements, if it is as easy as that?

It is plenty of objects to point to all around you.-
I don’t know where to begin and where end.
Just open you own eyes, - it is everywhere.

What is the problem here? Compact stars rotate fast, bloated stars rotating slowly: that is only as expected.

Crap

HD 164922
Radius 1 :0,90
Rotation 58.7 days

HD HD 74156
Radius 1 :1,58
Rotation 19,95 days

HD 11506
Radius 1 : 1.38
Rotation 26.3 days

WASP-18b
Radius 1 : 1.216
Rotation 5,6

Formalhaut
Radius 1 : 1.832
Rotation 1 days

HR 8799
Radius 1 : 1,34
Rotation 1,8 days

http://www.science27.com/english/SolarSystems.htm

Why do you think that ice skaters rotate faster when they pull in their arms, and more slowly if they spread out?

Big fat stars rotate slower.
Right these has also lost rotation speed due to the increasing size, but the process where stars grow fat is much later, in the life of a star.

This phenomenon has nothing to do with fact that stars, - e.g; ours sun, - already rotate relative much slower, compared to new born stars. ( e.g; 30 times slower than Formalhaut )

Again you have a problem because where do the young stars KE go the 0 to 7 billion years the rotation decreases.

Energy cannot disappear right?

This is not a problem; all matter in motion drags vucuumized space in its wake. You know that.

THIS IS THE REASON TO THE RAM
THIS IS OFF COURSE NOT FREE OF CHARGE .

It is the same as magnetism, (but just much “weaker” speed)
It is in both cases; - motion of vacuumized space.

Elementary particles in FAST motion does the same, the difference is ONLY larger speed.

So the KE lose by any motion in space “disappear” like magnetic fields, - and continues to “disturb” the Universe forever.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped a list of Bjarne's delustions...
How much more half brained blind is it possible to get for the pitifully silly human race?

There is only one half brained blind member of the pitifully silly human race in this thread that is consistantly displaying their ignoranc eof basic physics and supporting a debunked idea. So I guess we will have to see how much more half brained blind it is possible for you to get !

From the list of your ignorance and debunked ideas:

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
  So far the answer is no !
• Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
  First asked 2 November 2009
• Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).

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)​