Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Reality Check]

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

Actually that is only true in general.
The rate of spin of a main sequence star depends on the initial conditions of stellar formation, e.g. the angular momentum of the original gas cloud. It is generally true that the smaller the star, the faster it rotates.
Stars also change their rotation during their life time, e.g. slow down if they bloat into giants, speed up (a lot) if they shrink to white dwarfs.

 

[Bjarne]

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.

Don’t be so sure

http://www.4tnz.com/files/cow_poop_0.jpg

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Morality/Speciesism/doglaugh1.jpg

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...=170&w=164&usg=__lGMR0K9nP16UGmimfirl4WMWlC4=

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...FzdCOQ&t=1&usg=__d9k4vfEB4LbP5RRnMxfTXaFwIHs=

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...1fcaLk&t=1&usg=__h-2hcs-G7kWmKBQabGxPrIX-BrU=

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...nny Laughing Animals/funny-animals-01.jpg&t=1

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...ljSaOQ&t=1&usg=__VHkYwmEPCHRNIy5pLFA-4XXahSs=

 

[Reality Check]

Don’t be so sure

I am sure.
Anyone who who is so ignorant that they give a physical quantity that is a number (no units!) the units of acceleration (Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) ), cannot be trusted to get anything right.

Your idea has been shown to be wrong in 1000's of experiemnts throughout the world

• 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).

That makes me sure that you are wrong.

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)​

 

[Reality Check]

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

Actually you have the problem with understanding what conservation of energy means.
(hint: it is not conservation of KE)

Energy cannot disappear right?

Wrong. KE can "disappear". It can be converted into other forms of energy, e.g. heat or gravitational potential energy.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Not to mention that when I post here, you can't even counter the things I bring up.

 

[wollery]

I love the way Bjarne blithely ignores the post that points out that the Pioneer anomaly is actually the opposite of the effect he claims it to be.

Bjarne, you're wrong. Any comment?

 

[steenkh]

Actually that is only true in general.
The rate of spin of a main sequence star depends on the initial conditions of stellar formation, e.g. the angular momentum of the original gas cloud. It is generally true that the smaller the star, the faster it rotates.
Stars also change their rotation during their life time, e.g. slow down if they bloat into giants, speed up (a lot) if they shrink to white dwarfs.

Correct. But the angular momentum of different gas clouds does not vary more than it is possible to calculate the age of a star by measuring its rotation, in a discipline called Gyrochronology. Actually, the time it takes to gather material from the initial clouds has a greater influence, because the protostar speeds up the more material it attracts.

At later stages, the angular momentum drops when the star expands, and radiation and ejected material also slows down the star, which is why they go much slower with age.

In binary systems tidal effects also plays a role.

But I am convinced that all these complications only confuse Bjarne, because he can only deal with one effect at a time ...

 

[Bjarne]

I love the way Bjarne blithely ignores the post that points out that the Pioneer anomaly is actually the opposite of the effect he claims it to be.

These are decelerating as I wrote....

Bjarne, you're wrong. Any comment?

Try to ask muuuhh cow, she also know this, - you'll get the same answer..

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Interesting. You know that your cow knows you're wrong, but you still continue being wrong. Perhaps you need to talk to your cow.

PS: you're still wrong about Brahe

 

[dafydd]

Interesting. You know that your cow knows you're wrong, but you still continue being wrong. Perhaps you need to talk to your cow.

PS: you're still wrong about Brahe

Be a man Bjarne,admit that you were wrong.Any news about your Nobel prize?

 

[phunk]

These are decelerating as I wrote....

Wrong. Resistance to motion would be acceleration exactly opposite the direction of motion. The pioneer anomaly is not in the right direction to be resistance to motion.

 

[Reality Check]

Wrong. Resistance to motion would be acceleration exactly opposite the direction of motion. The pioneer anomaly is not in the right direction to be resistance to motion.

Bjarne,
The point that phunk is making is that the Pioneer spacecraft are not heading directly away from the the Sun. But there is a deceleration toward the Sun. That deceleration is not in the direction of the motion. It cannot be caused by your mythical "kinetic resistance" or resistance to motion.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne,
The point that phunk is making is that the Pioneer spacecraft are not heading directly away from the the Sun. But there is a deceleration toward the Sun. That deceleration is not in the direction of the motion. It cannot be caused by your mythical "kinetic resistance" or resistance to motion.

What is this for completely nonsense?
The pioneer space probes are 500.000 Km closer to the Sun (and the Earth) as we had expected these to be.
These probes will "soon" lose all the speed caused by the launch and begin to orbit the galaxy instead.

PS
This equation can only be used from the surface of the Earth (or Sun) etc...

Inside a (homogeneous) mass we must add the result with “2” (and it can be used from the center and to the surface)
The stretch factor for time is the same as for distances.
So this is math change due to this theory.
Not as simple as before but now reflecting reality.

 

[Reality Check]

What is this for completely nonsense?
The pioneer space probes are 500.000 Km closer to the Sun (and the Earth) as we had expected these to be.
These probes will "soon" lose all the speed caused by the launch and begin to orbit the galaxy instead.
...snipped random equation...

Whats that for complete nonsense?
You own image shows that Pioneer 10 is not heading directly away from the Sun !
It supports the point that phunk is making: That the Pioneer spacecraft are not heading directly away from the the Sun. But there is a deceleration toward the Sun. That deceleration is not in the direction of the motion. It cannot be caused by your mythical "kinetic resistance" or resistance to motion.

But we already know this because "kinetic resistance" has been totally debunked in 1000's of experiemnts throughout the world:

• 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).

The last above post is a bit mangled so I may repost it here in a clearer format (and spell checked!).

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)​

 

[MRC_Hans]

Guys, I just reviewed the old thread in the Danish forum. All this was explained, in considerable detail, to Bjarne already ONE YEAR ago. He is just droning around in circles. Give it up. He is both unwilling to and incabable of learning. He still doesn't even understand the difference between friction and inertia.

Hans

 

[dafydd]

Guys, I just reviewed the old thread in the Danish forum. All this was explained, in considerable detail, to Bjarne already ONE YEAR ago. He is just droning around in circles. Give it up. He is both unwilling to and incabable of learning. He still doesn't even understand the difference between friction and inertia.

Hans

Or a joist and a girder.

Joyce wrote Ulysses and Goethe wrote Faust.

 

[Bjarne]

That the Pioneer spacecraft are not heading directly away from the the Sun. But there is a deceleration toward the Sun. That deceleration is not in the direction of the motion. It cannot be caused by your mythical "kinetic resistance" or resistance to motion

Off course it can, let say the space probes moves in an angle 5 - 10% away for a straight line directly to the Sun, this just would mean an almost insignificant deviation compared to the calculated RAM.

Another almost insignificant factor is that even though there still was huge distance (to the Sun) there are reason to believe, that there still is weak “space wind” (Rotation centrifugal energy), - in this case the effect is weak accelerating.

When travelling 12240 m/s (as pioneer 10 space probe did):

• (y - 1) = 8.33 E-10 m/s²

Compared with this, (we know) the Pioneer probes were decelerating:

• 8.74 E-10 m/s²

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Hey Bjarne, have any proof that Brahe was under house arrest?

Thought not. Perhaps you should ask your cow.

 

[Bjarne]

Hey Bjarne, have any proof that Brahe was under house arrest?

Thought not. Perhaps you should ask your cow.

http://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/36135.html

 

[Little 10 Toes]

And you were told that the only website that google found mentioning "Brahe's house arrest" is www.exampleessays.com. And there is no cite to the original proof.

Edit: cool. I think my post is the sixth link when you search for "Brahe house arrest"
Edit part the second: Nope. It's someone else's.
3rd edit: and your link, isn't even a article. That too was already pointed out to you.