Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

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.

You shall not expect to be able to find everything on the Internet.
For example you can't find any reason to why Sir Isaac Newton hesitated to publish his findings. - I have read it in one book about Newton, and have no reason to believe it is a lie, that the reason was he was tired of critic from all around him.

Here are some interesting quotes from scientist;

"It is through science that we prove, but through intuition that we discover."
Henri Poincare

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use."
Galileo Galilei

"You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself."
Galileo Galilei

"...it would be better for the true physics if there were no mathematicians on earth."
Daniel Bernoulli ( I think he would had say left-half-brianed people)

"Your theory is crazy...but it′s not crazy enough to be true."
Niels Bohr

"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field."
Niels Bohr

"It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well."
René Descartes


"The difference between the impossible and the possible lies in not giving up."
Tommy Lasorda

"Relativity teaches us the connection between the different descriptions of one and the same reality."
Albert Einstein


"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts."
Albert Einstein


"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."
Albert Einstein

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
Albert Einstein

"The physicist′s greatest tool is his wastebasket."
Albert Einstein

"Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I′m not certain about the universe."
Albert Einstein


"We should make things as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Albert Einstein

"I don't believe in mathematics."
Albert Einstein


"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Albert Einstein

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."
Albert Einstein

 

[Paul]

You shall not expect to be able to find everything on the Internet.

Nobody here has said that is the case.

For example you can't find any reason to why Sir Isaac Newton hesitated to publish his findings

On the contrary, there are various reasons.

I have read it in one book about Newton, and have no reason to believe it is a lie, that the reason was he was tired of critic from all around him.

It's not on the internet, but in one unnamed book you claim to have read once.

Why is your special book infallible?

Here are some interesting quotes from scientist...

Here are some quotes from comedians:

I can't prove it, but I can say it.
Stephen Colbert

In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant.
Stephen Colbert

All ideas come about through some sort of observation. It sparks an attitude; some object or emotion causes a reaction in the other person.
Graham Chapman

I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it.
George Carlin

People who say they don't care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don't care what people think.
George Carlin

I think we have all experienced passion that is not in any sense reasonable.
Stephen Fry

We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution.
Bill Hicks

How many people here have telekenetic powers? Raise my hand.
Emo Philips

People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs.
Alexei Sayle

 

[phunk]

I didn't realize Tommy Lasorda was a scientist.

 

[Paul]

I didn't realize Tommy Lasorda was a scientist.

He's Emeritus Professor of You Can't Find Everything on the Internet at the University of Baseball is Just Like Physics.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

Off course it can, let say the space probes moves in an angle 80-90% away for a straight line directly to the Sun, this would mean a most significant 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.

Quite a bit of gibberish there.

• (y - 1) = 8.33 E-10 m/s²

At a speed of 12240 m/s, (y - 1) = 8.33 E-10. That is it. There is no "m/s^2".

• y is a number.
• 1 is a number.
• y-1 is a number.

I do not expect you to understand this simple bit of high school physics since you have been told about it for almost a year now in this forum alone and have just repeated your ignorance.

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
The answer continues to be no !
​

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]

You shall not expect to be able to find everything on the Internet.
For example you can't find any reason to why Sir Isaac Newton hesitated to publish his findings. - I have read it in one book about Newton, and have no reason to believe it is a lie, that the reason was he was tired of critic from all around him.

The rest of your post is deleted since it has no use in the current topic between you and I.

You're right. I'm not expecting to find everything. But I expect you to provide proof of your claim. Which you haven't.

If I find one website that has one undocumented/cited sentence about one thing, it must be true?

 

[Bjarne]

Off course it can, let say the space probes moves in an angle 80-90% away for a straight line directly to the Sun, this would mean a most significant deviation compared to the calculated RAM.

This is not the case, and you too know this.

At a speed of 12240 m/s, (y - 1) = 8.33 E-10. That is it. There is no "m/s^2".

• y is a number.
• 1 is a number.
• y-1 is a number.

I do not expect you to understand this simple bit of high school physics since you have been told about it for almost a year now in this forum alone and have just repeated your ignorance.

Dear RC.
I have told you 117 time, if this way to calculate it like I have done is wrong, - please shows us the right way to do it.

Let say you must always use the 4 double Joule each time you double the speed of your car.
I think we both would agree that the used joule directly reflect the “negative speed”

If you should only use double Joule, and get proportional with double speed, this as well would tell you that the factor joules in all cases MUST reflect the factor (negative) speed, - that you do not reach, due to resistance.

The result of the equation we discuss is also a factor, (that apply for the increase of : “M” +”KE” + off course “RAM” - it is obviously that the same factor also at least applies for negative speed / deceleration.

Show us the right result.
Show us all what a man like you can do after 17 years at the university.

For example imaging that RAM also apply for constant speed.

• Now show us all that you can calculate the RAM when a cow moves with 10.000 m/s²
• And now imaging the RAM would only be the half, - how much less would the cow now decelerate ?
  
  SHOW US THE CORRECT ANSWER RC – Just bla blab lap blap is soooo easy to do.

I guess:

A.) you will never calculate the right result
B.) you will ignore the question
C.) you answer will beat about the bush, - like a smart politician


QUESTION
When Albert Einstein published the general theory of relativity he predicted that light would bend.

But before the measurement experiment was executed he changes that prediction. The last prediction was a factor 2 larger.

So far I remember he claimed that this was because also the whole Universe also bends (which I find hard to believe).

What was really the reason to that he changed his prediction, (he could not know that the whole Universe would cause exactly the double effects) – there must have been mathematical reason that had force him to change his prediction, - but which?

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne, Once again: What are the units of measurement for "kinetic resistance"

Dear RC.
I have told you 117 time, if this way to calculate it like I have done please shows us the right way to do it.
...snipped gibberish...

Dear Bjarne
I have told you 118 times: Dimensional analysis
It is a simple physical fact: An equation that returns a physical quantity must return the correct units of measurement for the physical quantity.

As an example look at Newtons law: F = ma.
What units of measurement would you expect any value of m or a to return?
As any 14 year old science student willl tell you:

F must have units of measurement that is a mass times an acceleration!
E.g. if m is measured in kg and a is measured in m/s^2 then F must have units of measurement of kg * m/s^2.
​

In very, very small steps that even your pet cow would understand:
Look at the equation β = v/c (v = speed, c = speed of ligh)
That 14 year old science student would tell you that v has units length/time, c has units of length/time thus β must have no units.

Look at the equation d = 1 - β (β is defined as above)
That 14 year old science student would tell you that b has no units of measurement and so d has no units.

Look at the equation e = the square root of d (d is defined as above)
That 14 year old science student would tell you that d has no units of measurement and so e has no units.

Look at the equation f = 1/e (e is defined as above)
That 14 year old science student would tell you that e has no units of measurement and so f has no units.

But f is the Lorentz factor γ, i.e. the Lorentz factor γ has no units of measurement.

So a really, really, really simple question for you, Bjarne
Here is your equation for "kinetic resistance": k = (1 - γ)

What are the units of k?​

Lurkers can draw their own conclusions as to whether Bjarne is capable of learning this simple aspect of physics:

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
  The answer continues to be no !
• Does Bjarne know that the Lorentz factor does not have any units of measurement?
  First asked 22 November 2009
• Does Bjarne think that the Lorentz factor is measured in kilograms?
  First asked 23 November 2009
• Why does relativistic mass have the units of mass
  First asked 23 November 2009
• I stopped there because there an infinite number of equations and so questions that Bjarne could not answer.

 

[wollery]

Let say you must always use the 4 double Joule each time you double the speed of your car.
I think we both would agree that the used joule directly reflect the “negative speed”

That's due to frictional forces, whereas what you suggest is due to fictional forces.

 

[Aitch]

As an example look at Newtons law: F = ma.
What units of measurement would you expect any value of m or a to return?
As any 14 year old science student willl tell you:

F must have units of measurement that is a mass times an acceleration!
E.g. if m is measured in kg and a is measured in m/s^2 then F must have units of measurement of kg * m/s^2.
​

Oh dear, I'm getting old - I got the answer foot-pounds per second squared. ​

 

[Reality Check]

When Albert Einstein published the general theory of relativity he predicted that light would bend.

But before the measurement experiment was executed he changes that prediction. The last prediction was a factor 2 larger.

The timeline is wrong.
The bending of light by mass by Newtonian gravity was first though about by Newton but he could not calculate it since the speed of light had not been clearly established.
Bending Light

Around 1784 Cavendish reached the same result by a more rigorous calculation, analyzing the actual hyperbolic path with varying speed, and in 1804 Soldner published the details of such an analysis.

Before (in 1911) Albert Einstein published the general theory of relativity, he predicted that light would bend in a paper discussing the development of GR, i.e. based on a partial theory of general relativity.
In fact, GR was developed in many publications

• 1907: "On the Relativity Principle and the Conclusions Drawn from It"
• 1911: "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light"
• 1912: "The Speed of Light and the Statics of the Gravitational Field"
• 1912: "On the Theory of the Static Gravitational Field"
• 1912: "Relativity and Gravitation. Reply to a Comment by M. Abraham"
• 1912: "Comment on Abraham's Preceding Discussion 'Once Again, Relativity and Gravitation"
• 1912: "Is There a Gravitational Effect Which Is Analogous to Electrodynamic Induction?"
• 1913: "Outline of a Generalized Theory of Relativity and of a Theory of Gravitation. I. Physical Part by A. Einstein II. Mathematical Part by M. Grossmann"
• 1914: "Nordstöm's Theory of Gravitation from the Point of View of the Absolute Differential Calculus"
• 1914: "Physical Foundations of a Theory of Gravitation"
• 1914: "On the Theory of Gravitation"
• 1914: "Supplementary Response to a Question by Mr. Reißner"
• 1914: "On the Foundations of the Generalized Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Gravitation"
• 1914: "Formal Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity 1914
  Gravitational Theory"
• 1914: "Covariance Properties of the Field Equations of the Theory of Gravitation Based on the Generalized Theory of Relativity"
• 1915: "Fundamental Ideas of the General Theory of Relativity and the Application of this Theory in Astronomy"
• 1915: "Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from the General Theory of Relativity"
• 1915: "The Field Equations of Gravitation" - the defining paper of GR.

In 1915 Albert Einstein published the general theory of relativity, he predicted that light would bend twice as much as in the previous paper.
Doubling the Deflection

The reason for this doubling of the deflection is that the full theory takes into account not just the variation of the time-time component of the metric, as in equation (1), but also the variation of the spatial components.

So far I remember he claimed that this was because also the whole Universe also bends (which I find hard to believe).

You remember wrongly in a couple of aspects.
Firstly:
He calculated the result twice - once with a partial, still being developed version of GR and once with the full, more completely understood version of GR. The approximations used in the partial theory halved the prediction from that partial theory when compared to the partial theory.
Secondly:
Light is bent when it passes by a mass. There is no light outside of the universe since the universe is everything.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Mildly fascinating....

We are watching a man with a broken bamboo stick pretending to fence with a skilled and well-armed swordsman.

Had it been a real fight, we would have seen a replay of Monty Python's Black Night.

Since this is the internet, Bjarne can go on and make believe he is not being sliced to shreds in every exchange, and try to ignore the wooshing sound of arguments going over his head.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

That's due to frictional forces, whereas what you suggest is due to fictional forces.

It is a simple physical fact: An equation that returns a physical quantity must return the correct units of measurement for the physical quantity.

I am so sure; this equation is not so innocent.
Y is a result of v²/c² (etc.)
But c² (in this case) is not a speed, but rather a limit.

Not surprisingly the result must still be = v² (and at the same time a factor for M and KE also well as for RAM increase)

Anyway, both of you try to stop arguing for a moment.

I think we all here agrees that a cow cannot reach the speed of light.

I also believe that we all agrees that the more the cows tries, the greater the RAM (resistance against that motion would be) .

Furthermore I am sure we all agree that the RAM always have the proportional’s 4:2, which mean always 4 times the KE "consumption" to reach the double speed.

The expression (inertia or RAM) for this is not important.

Off course people and fools can always discuss whether this (objective) RAM / intertia is “real resistance” or only “theoretical” or it happens only in the 21th bright blue dimension etc. etc.. – But this is also not important either.

• Mathematical it MUST be real, also doesn’t matter if it is something that happens in the (unreal) 127 th dimension.
• Mathematical RAM - MUST be true.
• Mathematical it MUST mean we get gradually less and less speed for 1 USD.
• Mathematical gradually less speed MUST be able to be calculated as speed we do not get for 1 USD due to RAM.
• Mathematical it MUST therefore Cow-logic-all-right to speak about USD that disappears out in the big blue AS WELL as we can speak about the gradually less speed we get for 1 USD.

To make this so cow stupid simple to calculate as possible, let us assume that RAM also apply for constant speed, and that the cow decelerate when there are no force to maintain the RAM

Let still assume the cow moves with 10.000 m/s

After 17 years at a university I expect RC should be able to answer how much the deceleration - then should be. - to prove I am wrong.

But as predicted RC cannot do this.....

And if he seriously tried, he would find the same result as I did.

This is the reason to that all what RC now can do is blap blap blab la bla., and NOT showing us the calculated deceleration, when the force stops to maintain the achieved speed.

The fact that we assume that RAM also apply for constant speed, should mathematical not be a problem. - BUT it is certainly a problem for RC to show the result of this.

Assumptions is always the first step, to how science is made.

So the assumption, dear RC, - this is NOT the problem for you not to show us what you have learn at the University.

 

[MRC_Hans]

This is simply too fun to stay out of .

I am so sure; this equation is not so innocent.
Y is a result of v²/c² (etc.)
But c² is not a speed, but rather a limit.

A limit must always have a unit.

I think we all here agrees that a cow cannot reach the speed of light.

No, Bjarne, you are certainly right. A cow can't reach the speed of light.

I also believe that we all agrees that the more the cows tries, the greater the RAM (resistance against that motion would be) .

No we don't agrees. There is no such thing as resistance agains motion.

Furthermore I am sure we all agree that the RAM always have the proportional’s 4:2, which mean always 4 times the KE "consumption" to reach the double speed.

No we don't agrees. There is no resistance against motion. It IS true that the energy needed for acceleration is proportional to the speed², in fractions of c. For speeds attainable by cows or any other objects on Earth, the fraction of c is so small that we can ignore it. For all practical purposes, the energy needed to accelerate an object from 0-100 km/h is the same as the energy needed to accelerate it from 100-200 km/h. The difference will be so small that it is only measurable by advanced methods.

The expression (inertia or RAM) for this is not important.

Yes, it is very important.

Mathematical RAM - MUST be true.

No. Resistance against motion does not exist.

Mathematical it MUST mean we get gradually less and less speed for 1 USD.

As we appproach the speed of light (c), but we rarely do.

Mathematical gradually less speed MUST be able to be calculated as speed we do not get for 1 USD due to RAM.

There is no resistance against motion.

Mathematical it MUST therefore Cow-logic-all-right to speak about USD that disappears out in the big blue

The extra energy applied to accelerate a very fast object does not disappear, it is converted to KE.

To make this so cow stupid simple to calculate as possible, let us assume that RAM also apply for constant speed, and that the cow decelerate when there are no force to maintain the RAM

There is no such thing as RAM. When no forces act on a moving object it maintains constant speed.

Let still assume the cow moves with 10.000 m/s

That' one fast cow, but fine, let's.

After 17 years at a university I expect RC should be able to answer how much the deceleration - then should be. - to prove I am wrong.

The number is zero. If no forces act on it, it will continue at 10.000 m/s to the end of the universe.

The fact that we assume that RAM also apply for constant speed, should mathematical not be a problem. - BUT it is certainly a problem for RC to show the result of this.

No we don't assume that. In fact we know that there is no such thing as RAM.

There is no resistance against motion. Zero, zilch, nada.

...

Did I mention that there is no resistance against motion?

Hans

PS: Did I tell you there is no resistance against motion?

 

[Bjarne]

A limit must always have a unit.

No because you cannot reach the limit, but only compare the speed of the cow to that limit.
This is what that equation does.

I can also say you are minus 40 meter compared to the rundertårn http://www.rundetaarn.dk/
But this does not mean you are the rundetårn, - and also not that you ever would be so tall like the rundetårn, and also not that the distance minus 40 meter do not exist, it certainly exist and it is included the unit meter as well included minus. .

Or I can calculate you height as a factor compared to the rundetårn.
I can give you factor 1:20
A factor is without units, mother cow will know it is cm, but it an also be bricks.

No. Resistance against motion does not exist.

Mathematical there is prove for such
Mathematical RAM is a reality.
Mathematical RAM do exsist.
Try to Disprove that, - how would you possible do that ?

You only demonstrate that you too cannot calculate it, so like RC have done 117 times.

So all I got was only one more load of beat about the bush.

 

[MRC_Hans]

No because you cannot reach the limit, but only compare the speed of the cow to that limit.
This is what that equation does.

A limit must be expressed in a unit. Speed, hight, whatever.

I can also say you are minus 40 meter compared to the rundertårn http://www.rundetaarn.dk/
But this does not mean you are the rundetårn, - and also not that you ever would be so tall like the rundetårn, and also not that the distance minus 40 meter do not exist, it certainly exist and it is included the unit meter as well included minus. .

Meter is a unit.

Or I can calculate you height as a factor compared to the rundetårn.
I can give you factor 1:20

In that case the hight of the tower is the unit.

A factor is without units,

We were taking about a limit. A factor is not a limit.

Mathematical there is prove for such
Mathematical RAM is a reality.
Mathematical RAM do exsist.

No, no, and no. There is no such thing as resistance against motion.

Try to Disprove that, - how would you possible do that ?

You cant prove a negative. There is no resistance against motion. It is not in math or anywhere else.

You only demonstrate that you too cannot calculate it, so like RC have done 117 times.

Of course I can't calculate it, since it does not exist.

Prove your claim: Assume a rock, weighing 1kg, moving through outer space at 1000 m/s. Show the math for the resistance against motion it meets. Show us YOU can calculate it. Show us YOU have the math.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

There is no resistance against motion. It is not in math or anywhere else.

Hence, - this also must mean that a cow that runs against the wind-direction from a hurricane, - from a mathematical perspective, - the cow "should" not feel any resistance?
Who do you expect to believe this ?

Seen from a mathematical perspective it doesn’t matter if we talk about RAM in space or RAM against a cow in a hurricane, it is the same. RAM is RAM. the reason doesn’t matter.

Mathematics is blind, math do not know any difference.
Only in your brain the difference between these 2 kinds of RAM exists.
And I can see that you have chosen to believe that the RAM in space takes place in a unknown dimension or something rubbish like that.

At least the explanation what ever it may be can't be from this planet.

OK my friend, this is your religion. I cannot do more than wish you a good haleluja and Amen.


So, - you have only dilivered one huge overload rubbish / BAD excuse for not calculating the RAM I ask you to.

And hence the third attempt to: beat about the bush.

But make no mistake my friends you are not a good bush hider.

Honestly my friend, - do you not think you are a presentable for coward science. ?

I mean I could also just escape 117 times to different unknown dimension instead of fighting for what I believe in, right ?

But I am not any mothers darling.

Will you and RC promise me that you both this weekend will try to explain to your grandmother’s; - why RAM in space “should” be a mathematical exception. ?

You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."
Albert Einstein

The factor as a result of (y-1) can be used to calculate KE (Joule) or Mass (M) by , you can also get (RAM) and of course allso calculate deceleration based on the assumption that RAM also applies by constant speed, and off course by using the same factor.

The factor represent all the mentioned units.

I have already clearly shown, there are no reason, - what so ever, - to believe that RAM only should apply by acceleration.

Therefore you do in fact even not need to assume anything, but just forget the brainwashed creeds that RAM only applies by acceleration.

Now you can therefore ask, (you self) how much faster a cow would accelerate if the RAM in space only was the half, - or only 10 % etc…
As well as you can calculate how fast it would decelerate if there was no force to maintain the speed.

But this discussion have already make it crystal clear that none of you can calculate this .

All you can do is blap lap nlap blap nlap mbla nbla la bla , and hide in the bush

This is so said...

 

[Mister Earl]

A cow running into the wind in a hurricane would feel resistance. There is a medium it has to move through, the atmosphere, which is moving in a direction counter to the cow. That's air resistance.

There is no air in space. There is no medium in space to move through other than space itself. Space itself does not resist movement.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hence, - this also must mean that a cow that runs against the wind-direction from a hurricane, - from a mathematical perspective not feel any resistance?

Seen from a mathematical perspective it doesn’t matter if we talk about RAM in space or RAM against a cow in a hurricane, it is the same. RAM is RAM. the reason doesn’t matter.

That is excessively silly, even for you and you know that. Of course there is a fundamental difference between a friction against a medium, like air, and the concept of resistance against movement in frictionless space.

Friction against a medium exists, of course, but in frictionless space, there is none.

Mathematics is blind, math do not know any difference.

Quite wrong. Math can handle air resistance, although it is quite complex.

Only in your brain the difference between these 2 kinds of RAM exists.

Only someone with the brain of a cow could think that they are the same.

And I can see that you have chosen to believe that the RAM in space takes place in a unknown dimension or something rubbish like that.

It does not take place in any dimension. It does not exist.

So, - you have only delivered one huge overload rubbish / BAD excuse for not calculating the RAM I ask you to.

It cannot be calculated, because it does not exist.

And hence the third attempt to: beat about the bush.

But make no mistake my friends you are not a good bush hider.

Honestly my friend, - do you not think you are a presentable for coward science. ?

YOU are beating around the bush. Calculate it yourself, why don't you?
You are a total coward trying to claim that we should support your dreams. Can you calculate your RAM in space or can you not? Come on!

I have already clearly shown, there are no reason, - what so ever, - to believe that RAM only should apply by acceleration.

Bjarne, there is NO resistance against motion. Not by acceleration, not by deceleration, not by constant speed.

There is friction in water, air and other media, but no general resistance against motion.

The 'resistance' you feel when accelerating an object is the force you need to apply to transfer KE to the object. Once the KE is transferred to the object, it stays there till some other force acts on it.

Therefore you do in fact even not need to assume anything, but just forget the brainwashed creeds that RAM only applies by acceleration.

It does not apply only to acceleration, it doesn't apply at all.

Now you can therefore ask, (you self) how much faster a cow would accelerate if the RAM in space only was the half, - or only 10 % etc…
As well as you can calculate how fast it would decelerate if there was no force to maintain the speed.

Yes I can easily calculate that: It would decelerate at 0 m/s²

This is so said...

It is so sad that you think you can revolutionize science when you can't even write proper English.

It is also very sad that you try to hide the fact that you cannot calculate anything yourself by demanding that I calculate it for you.

Hans

 

[steenkh]

No, Bjarne, you are certainly right. A cow can't reach the speed of light.

Erm, perhaps a light cow?