Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

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.

WHY do you believe the motion of matter in space it is frictionless?
You have no objective reason to believe so.

Bjarne
Mathematics is blind, math do not know any difference.
Hans
Quite wrong. Math can handle air resistance, although it is quite complex

This answers seems to had come from the 516 th dimension
Read what I wrote.
Math does not know any difference between wind resistance and space resistance, and that’s it.

RAM is RAM from at mathematical perspective, and that's it.

You cannot choose by pleasure; such is religion not mathematical based science.

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

It doesn’t matter what you think in you brain, prove that RAM in space not is RAM.

I have the mathematical evidence, RAM in space is a objective mathematical fact.

Prove the opposite,- you have no evidence, what so ever. So stop mixing religion into science , there is ENOUHTG overload already.

WHY do you believe it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed.

It is NOT enough just to put a name on this. (Inertia or RAM), - the expression doesn’t matter.

I assume you are man enough to at least assume how the resistance would be (by a certain speed) if I was right and RAM is RAM on all circumstances.

How would that resistance hence by the half RAM or 10 %

Calculated it man SHOW us you can, no more blap la bla bal , -

And then SHOW ME where I calculate it all wrong.

No more bush hidding....

WHERE did I use the wrong math. Show me ?

This the smallest thing you can do.

I mean any fool can bal bla bal bal bllal bal, but SHOW me now the correct way to calculate it....

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

To make this a mathematical exception is not science, it is religion, only taking place in your head. NOT in reality.

YOU are beating around the bush. Calculate it yourself, why don't you?

I have done so for years, you know that, so now show me how to calculate it right, .- just try to take a mathematical fact for what it objective is.....

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

This statement is based on totally ignorance of the fact that we both know that space is NOT a big empty nothing, - if it really was space could in no possible ay bend, and matter could not affect space.
You DON’T KNOW how matter is connected to space.
Hence you ALSO DON’T KNOW excactly what happens to matter or space if matter moves in space.
But you know when matter moves, - deformed space - (a space vacuum)- is also in motion.

Hans get off out of the Bush, matter is CONNECTED to space, and you KNOW tha.
Furthermore particles in motion drags a magnetic field, this also emphasize something is wrong with your religion, - because who pay that bill, if it not is RAM ?

When matter moves it disturbs space.. This is NOT free of charge.

What you does is basing you understanding only on the fact that you believe that the matter/space connection not is important, and that you hence have the right also to ignore that RAM in space is a mathematical fact

 

[Mister Earl]

Bjarne. I'm an amrchair scientist. I know less than a tenth than what any actual scientist does. Probably far less. Even so, Bjarne, I know that an object in motion will stay in motion if no external force is applied.

What your idea lacks is a mechanism. What force is there that applies a braking force on an object in motion in space? What frame of reference does that force use?

 

[Bjarne]

I know that an object in motion will stay in motion if no external force is applied.

WHAT make you “know” that ?

Is it because the Earth not will fall down on the Sun ?
One day it will.

Is it because the Sun not will fall into the black hole in the Milky way,?
One day it will.

Is it because the pioneer space probes not will decelerate?
They do.

Is it because the Moon does not fall down on the earth?
It would if it did not have so stronger special tidal force forcing it outwards.
(When the Earth is losing a certain amount of rotation, the Moon will come back)

Is it because stars not re losing their rotation speed, - the does?

In the 21 th century this believe “knowledge” will be history.
See the signs on the sky, - these are EVERYWHERE

What your idea lacks is a mechanism.
What force is there that applies a braking force on an object in motion in space?

The short answer; - The motion itself and the connection to space.....

Matter is connected to space, you know that too, - matter is woven into space.

If you moves matter you put (deformed) space in motion, - you know that too, -
Space resists being disturbed like this.
It requires energy to do so.
Disturbed space = a weak a strong Magnetic field, all depending on the speed whereby you disturbs space.

 

[phunk]

Bjarne, what about all the space probes that aren't showing any anomaly?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Now be careful, Bjarne, you are on your way to a new session of being ignored,

WHY do you believe the motion of matter in space it is frictionless?
You have no objective reason to believe so.

I have objective evidence. Objects in space meet no resistance.

Read what I wrote.
Math does not know any difference between wind resistance and space resistance, and that’s it.

I read it. You are wrong.

RAM is RAM from at mathematical perspective, and that's it.

And it is zero.

You cannot choose by pleasure; such is religion not mathematical based science.

Bjarne, you can't distinguish math from a cow's ass.

It doesn’t matter what you think in you brain, prove that RAM in space not is RAM.

You prove that it exists.

I have the mathematical evidence, RAM in space is a objective mathematical fact.

OK. Show the evidence. Don't be shy.

Prove the opposite,- you have no evidence, what so ever. So stop mixing religion into science , there is ENOUHTG overload already.

WHY do you believe it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed.

Because mass increases as you get closer to the speed of light.

I assume you are man enough to at least assume how the resistance would be (by a certain speed) if I was right and RAM is RAM on all circumstances.

We can assume anything, but that does not make it true.

How would that resistance hence by the half RAM or 10 %

Which language is this?

Calculated it man SHOW us you can, no more blap la bla bal , -

And then SHOW ME where I calculate it all wrong.

You haven't calculated anything.

No more bush hidding....

WHERE did I use the wrong math. Show me ?

You haven't used any math. You just repeat fantasies.

This the smallest thing you can do.

I mean any fool can bal bla bal bal bllal bal,

Well, YOU are certainly good at it.

but SHOW me now the correct way to calculate it....

Ahh, no problem: RAM=0

Hans

 

[Paul]

As you instructed us to read some Newton, try this Bjarne:

Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.

 

[dafydd]

As you instructed us to read some Newton, try this Bjarne:

Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.

What did Newton know? Bjarne will lead us to the truth!!!!

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, what about all the space probes that aren't showing any anomaly?

Only the 2 Pioneer Space Probes have been followed on a long distance out of the solar system.

Inside the solar system there are space-wind / centrifugal force from many planets and the Sun, that gives the opposite effect (accelerating effect).

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

The best place to test whether RAM also applies by constant speed is far from all astronomic bodies; - therefore the pioneer probes were the best possible experiment.

Now be careful, Bjarne, you are on your way to a new session of being ignored

,
This is normally from time to time, so long you don’t shut me in, I am happy.

You prove that it exists.

The mathematical proves for RAM in space are just in front of you eyes.
You have chosen to ignore it, - only because you are not able to understand that empty space is “something” - and not nothing.
Space has properties, and is connected to matter.
Deformed space can and does move.
Even if you bend you little findger this effect / disturb space in the whole Universe.
The nature of space is too much for our brains, - but it is simple to be understood mathematical just if you allow you self to accept the mathematical reality.

OK. Show the evidence. Don't be shy.

The mathematical evidence for RAM in space you already know: “It requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. “

The fact that you don’t accept it, - it not important.

We can assume anything, but that does not make it true.

You don’t need too, but only to keep your subjective religion out of true objective science.
There are no objective reasons to believe that RAM in space also not applies for constant speed, except creeds and fantasy.

Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.

The fact that the first bible was written in Latin does not mean that this religion is the ultimate truth.

Translated:
Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.

Our perspective of the Universe is much different today compared to how it was 300 years ago. If you want to get stuck in the narrow outdated picture of the past, you are free to do so.

A limit must always have a unit.

No it must not…

The impression “the speed of light” is never “a speed” also not for a photon.

Seen from the perspective from a photon distances and time do not exist.

Therefore the photon seen from its own reality does not move, it is rather a not moving phenomena, whereby the unit (meter) in not deserved. - simply because from the perspective of a photon “meter” does not exist.

Off course we can say that seen from our perspective “meter” and the speed "c" exist for a photon, and that the photon according to our reality really does move with the speed of light.

So what is really the truth?

I belive nobody know..

Anyway, - at least when we speak about matter, we know that the speed of light is NOT a speed. It is a limit.
A limit that cannot be reached and therefore certainly not a motion, and therefore also certainly not meter/pr second.

Matter / particles cannot move by the speed of light, - so speed “c” (in this case) does certainly not exist, - hence the speed “c” is not speed, - but rather a fictive unit less value.

The only thing we therefore can use “c” for, - is to compared with something impossible to reach.

It is therefore also wrong to call it a “limit” because in this case the limit cannot be reach.

It is a “fictive” value without any units, and therefore without the units “meter” since there are no motion.

I cannot buy 100 USD if USD not longer exist or there is only 90 USD left.

So the equation is : v²/c² must be understood as: v(meter/second)² / c(no unit)²

Not surprisingly the result is still (meter/second)² - But also a factor, because even though Hans is 2 meter tall it can also mean that 2 meter = 10.000 bricks, - as mentioned before.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Only the 2 Pioneer Space Probes have been followed on a long distance out of the solar system.

Place a dunce cap on for two reasons.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_program
• Your post

  

  http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/pioneervoyagerss.gif Notice the label of the top and bottom curves on the right?

The fact that the first bible was written in Latin does not mean that this religion is the ultimate truth.

The first bible was translated from Greek and Hebrew.

Anything else you would like to be proven wrong about? [sarcasm][/sarcasm]

How's that house arrest proof coming along?

 

[ArcturusA]

So the equation is : v²/c² must be understood as: v(meter/second)² / c(no unit)²

Not surprisingly the result is still (meter/second)² - But also a factor, because even though Hans is 2 meter tall it can also mean that 2 meter = 10.000 bricks, - as mentioned before.

Well I think that about sums up this entire thread.

Bjarne, the speed of light is 3x10⁸ ms^-1.

"ms^-1" is the unit, right in front of your eyes to see.

If I'm travelling at half the speed of light, v^{2[/sup/c2 = 0.52 = 1/4. That's 1/4. With no units. Not 1/4 ms-1, just 1/4.}

 

[Paul]

The fact that the first bible was written in Latin does not mean that this religion is the ultimate truth.

That's not from the bible, try reading about Newton.

 

[Mister Earl]

WHAT make you “know” that ?

Is it because the Earth not will fall down on the Sun ?
One day it will.

Is it because the Sun not will fall into the black hole in the Milky way,?
One day it will.

Is it because the pioneer space probes not will decelerate?
They do.

Is it because the Moon does not fall down on the earth?
It would if it did not have so stronger special tidal force forcing it outwards.
(When the Earth is losing a certain amount of rotation, the Moon will come back)

Is it because stars not re losing their rotation speed, - the does?

In the 21 th century this believe “knowledge” will be history.
See the signs on the sky, - these are EVERYWHERE

You're referring to tidal forces and gravity. Not space mysteriously causing some unknown kind of friction. If scientists didn't understand both as well as they do, then our probes with decades-long travel would miss by millions of miles. Look at Nasa's recent pics of Saturn. They're as pretty a proof as you're going to get that you are wrong.

The short answer; - The motion itself and the connection to space.....

Matter is connected to space, you know that too, - matter is woven into space.

If you moves matter you put (deformed) space in motion, - you know that too, -
Space resists being disturbed like this.
It requires energy to do so.
Disturbed space = a weak a strong Magnetic field, all depending on the speed whereby you disturbs space.

Space resists nothing in the manner of which you speak. Mass deforming space does not create magnetic fields. It's apparent your clue-ometer, while showing a nonzero value, is not registering a positive integer.

 

[Bjarne]

If scientists didn't understand both as well as they do, then our probes with decades-long travel would miss by millions of miles. Look at Nasa's recent pics of Saturn.

No the pioneer space probes perfectly confirms that RAM is exactly you can expect. .

Mass deforming space does not create magnetic fields.

Right
But when that “deformed space” moves, you have a magnetic field, so simple is that.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

No the pioneer space probes perfectly confirms that RAM is exactly you can expect. .


Right
But when that “deformed space” moves, you have a magnetic field, so simple is that.

No it doesn't. Take a battery, some copper wire, and a nail. Wrap the wire around the nail so that the nail looks like barber pole or a peppermint stick. Connect each end of the wire to the battery. You can now pick up metal paper clips with your home made electromagnet.

 

[Mister Earl]

No the pioneer space probes perfectly confirms that RAM is exactly you can expect.

*lone ranger voice* Got the math to back that up, pardner?

Right
But when that “deformed space” moves, you have a magnetic field, so simple is that.

Deformed space doesn't move. The deformation of space moves. Quite a distinction, that. And that does not generate a magnetic field.

 

[Bjarne]

No it doesn't. Take a battery, some copper wire, and a nail. Wrap the wire around the nail so that the nail looks like barber pole or a peppermint stick. Connect each end of the wire to the battery. You can now pick up metal paper clips with your home made electromagnet.

Particle spin can also set space into motion (as well as “consume / contract space).

You know a magnetic flied can move through space, - when there is nothing there, except space, what else as space can then "carry" a magnetic field.

Think about .... WHAT

 

[Paul]

You know a magnetic flied can move through space, - when there is nothing there, except space, what else as space can then "carry" a magnetic field.

Think about .... WHAT

 

[Paulhoff]

You know a magnetic flied can move through space, - when there is nothing there, except space, what else as space can then "carry" a magnetic field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Read some real stuff.

Paul

 

[Paul]

Read some real stuff.

Then go to the Scientific American article linked at the bottom of the page and despair at some of the comments.

 

[Bjarne]

Correction
A magnetic field = a sapce vacuum in motion, - not spacein motion.