Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Paulhoff]

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

In one word "NOT"

Paul

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

No.

But do try to define your space vacuum. A space vacuum is the absense of ...... what?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

No.

But do try to define your space vacuum. A space vacuum is the absence of ...... what?
Hans

Space vacuum is:

• that much space-density that is left after matter have consume that much density it want.
• the absence of a certain amount of space-density.
• space stretching towards matter.
• a depression in the space density.

It is not bended space, - the only suitable of the old expression is ; deformed space.

What else as "THIS" > in motion can a MF possible be?
There is simply nothing else to accuse?

First understand the cause of mass attraction, then understand what space really does, and does not, - and what space is, - and is not.

How can you believe that we understand gravity (GR) so long we haven’t understood the cause of mass attraction.
We have completely idiotic mysophobia against space.

A MF is the absorbed space connected to matter, - that moves, - the result is that a space vacuum will move........

RAM and MF is two side of the same count....

Á magnetic field is made of the same "fine stuff" that space is made of, and that everything else is made of.


Cern; - we can used it to determinate how fast we are moving, due to all the astronomic motion the Earth is part of.
The total speeds concern motion of matter (or particles) relative to "c"
It could be funny to know, - it’s really simple to calculated, but math is borrowing me, and no one would listen anyway...

My freind you know you can create almost all the particles you want, - How do you think ? - Well >> Energy + space-density = matter

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

 

[MRC_Hans]

Space vacuum is:

• that much space-density that is left after matter have consume that much density it want.
• the absence of a certain amount of space-density.
• space stretching towards matter.
• a depression in the space density.

It is not bended space, - the only suitable of the old expression is ; deformed space.

Bended or deformed, that's just words, you can call it deformed if you will.

Deformed space (really spacetime) is gravity.

What else as "THIS" > in motion can a MF possible be?
There is simply nothing else to accuse?

The deformation of space does not imply motion; it is a static condition around a mass.

However, it is gravity, not a magnet field. A magnet field is something entirely different.

First understand the cause of mass attraction, then understand what space really does, and does not, - and what space is, - and is not.

I think I already understand it far better than you do.

How can you believe that we understand gravity (GR) so long we haven’t understood the cause of mass attraction.

Mass attraction = gravity. It is the same thing.

A MF is the absorbed space connected to matter, - that moves, - the result is that a space vacuum will move........

Bjarne, make up your mind: Are you talking about gravity, or magnet fields? Those are two different things.

RAM and MF is two side of the same count....

Nonsense. Especially since your version of resistance against motion does not exist.

Á magnetic field is made of the same "fine stuff" that space is made of, and that everything else is made of.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Cern; - we can used it to determinate how fast we are moving, due to all the astronomic motion the Earth is part of.
The total speeds concern motion of matter (or particles) relative to "c"
It could be funny to know, - it’s really simple to calculated, but math is borrowing me, and no one would listen anyway...

No. That is the tricky part of relativity. c is the same in all directions for any observer, no matter how fast you move.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

The deformation of space does not imply motion; it is a static condition around a mass.

Unbelievable that you still haven’t got the point.

A gravitionel field is:

• a Space vacuum
• that much space-density that is left after matter have consume that much density it want.
• the absence of a certain amount of space-density.
• space stretching towards matter.
• a depression in the space density

All different expression explains the same phenomena.

However, it is gravity, not a magnet field. A magnet field is something entirely different.

A Magnetic Field is the absorbed space connected to matter, (space vacuum) - that moves, (due to different reasons) - the result is magnetic field....

Bjarne, make up your mind: Are you talking about gravity, or magnet fields? Those are two different things.

Hans wake up a cow can read I am talking about both…

No. That is the tricky part of relativity. c is the same in all directions for any observer, no matter how fast you move.

This is misunderstood crap.

The thing is that the speed of the Earth doesn’t accelerate a photon. Yes this is correct. But this is also not what i deny.

And it is also correct that the speed of the Earth doesn’t make “c” faster.
Hence “c” is the same (for a photon) in all direction.
But this is also not what i deny.

But we are not speaking about photons or whether something is faster as “c” ..

We are speaking about that the earth already have a certain speed in space compared to the speed of light.

For example imaging you 10.000 atoms bombs would explode every second from one direction and accelerate the Earth up to 200.000 km/ s compared to light.

Off course this speed would count .

And off course something would happen will the Earth due to this speed.

You don’t need to measure the speed relative to other astronomic bodies, but you certainly can and must measure it relative to the speed of light.

For example: imaging that a photon would compete with the Earth to reach the other side of the Milkyway's orbit.

Off course the speed of the Earth counts.

 

[Paulhoff]

You don’t need to measure the speed relative to other astronomic bodies, but you certainly can and must measure it relative to the speed of light.

Which you can't do, since that is the whole thing about relativity.

Paul

 

[MRC_Hans]

Unbelievable that you still haven’t got the point.

You don't have a point. You are simply wrong.

A gravitionel field is:

• a Space vacuum
• that much space-density that is left after matter have consume that much density it want.
• the absence of a certain amount of space-density.
• space stretching towards matter.
• a depression in the space density

And you know this how?

All different expression explains the same phenomena.

The phenomenon is conventional gravity, and your expressions are, at best, poor approximations.

A Magnetic Field is the absorbed space connected to matter, (space vacuum) - that moves, (due to different reasons) - the result is magnetic field....

No.

This is misunderstood crap.

It is the theory of relativity.

We are speaking about that the earth already have a certain speed in space compared to the speed of light.

For example imaging you 10.000 atoms bombs would explode every second from one direction and accelerate the Earth up to 200.000 km/ s compared to light.

Off course this speed would count .

In terms of relativity, no.

And off course something would happen will the Earth due to this speed.

You don’t need to measure the speed relative to other astronomic bodies, but you certainly can and must measure it relative to the speed of light.

Bjarne, you are wrong.


What is silly is not that you don't get all this. Lots of people don't. What is silly is that you pretend to know - and are getting it all wrong. You are acting like a petulant child, refusing to understand or learn and demanding that reality and everybody comply with its whims.

You are ridiculous, and you have made a total fool of yourself in practically every single one of your posts here.

You are like the emperor in The Emperor's New Clothes, except that everybody else can see that you have nothing on.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

And you know this how?

Jep

Thanks to J.L.Hafele and R.E.Keating, who did a series of experiments in 1971, we have no need to find the equipment to do the above experiment ourselves. They took four Cesium atomic beam clocks and placed them on commercial jet flights around the world, first eastward, then westward. They used clocks at the U.S Naval Observatory as their ground reference clocks.
Using the planes flight plans and the Theory of Relativity, Hafele and Keating predicted that the clocks on the planes should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip. In actual fact when the clocks were checked they had lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds on the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanoseconds on the westward trip.
Sourse
http://www.articlesbase.com/science...nes-and-the-theory-of-relativity-3089776.html

Why do you think ?

Bjarne, you are wrong.

Hans you are wrong

You can measure an objects (or particle's) total speed compared to the speed of a photon, exactly as you can measure the speed of a slow car compared to a fast one.

A photon doesn’t care whether it stars its journeys from a “position” in motion or not. The total speed of a photon will always be the same, and in any direction. Basic speed is not added and does not affect the photon.

A particle really cares; - it will feel all the speed that affects it.

And as an inevitable result its mass and KE will increase due to all the speed that affects it. Each time you add speed to an already moving object, a particle (object) will MOVE FASTER.

KE and Mass will increase doesn’t matter if you ride a horse, a UFO, or a combination between all these 3. – so long you total speed gets faster, - compared to "c" it counts. - For you and a particle total speed always matters.

 

[Bjarne]

Hans

Here is some cow logic training for your brain

Imaging you were flying a Speedfire with 500 Km/h

Now you would fire a bullet with 2500 km/h

Exactly in that moment you was fire the bullet a F16 was overtaking you,
The speed of the F16 is compared to your Speedfire + 2500 km/h

Which object would reach the target first (100 meter ahead) ?

The F16 or the bullet?

Now let say that F16 would also fire a bullet also in the same moment as you >> the speed of that bullet would also be 2500 km/h

How fast would that bullet be relative to the speed of your Speedfire?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Jep

I asked you how do you know?

Why do you think ?

Because you add the speed of Earth's rotation.

You can measure an objects (or particle's) total speed compared to the speed of a photon, exactly as you can measure the speed of a slow car compared to a fast one.

Correct.

A photon doesn’t care whether it stars its journeys from a “position” in motion or not. The total speed of a photon will always be the same, and in any direction. Basic speed is not added and does not affect the photon.

Yes and no. You have understood part of it.

A particle really cares; - it will feel all the speed that affects it.

A particle doesn't give a damn, but its speed is the sum of all forces affecting it .... for non-relativistic speeds.

And as an inevitable result its mass and KE will increase due to all the speed that affects it. Each time you add speed to an already moving object, a particle (object) will MOVE FASTER.

That is right, for non-relativistic speeds.

KE and Mass will increase doesn’t matter if you ride a horse, a UFO, or a combination between all these 3. – so long you total speed gets faster, - compared to "c" it counts. - For you and a particle total speed always matters.

Nah, you don't quite get it, but keep trying.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Imaging you were flying a Speedfire with 500 Km/h

Spitfire, it's Spitfire.

Now you would fire a bullet with 2500 km/h

Now the bullet will go 3,000 km/h. (at least for a short distance)

Now let say that F16 would also fire a bullet also in the same moment as you >> the speed of that bullet would also be 2500 km/h

Yeah, yeah, everyone knows that. But if you fire a laser beam in front of the F16, in the direction of Mars, then how fast will it go,

a) Seen from the F16?
b) Seen from Earth?
c) Seen from Mars?

And if you fire a laser beam backwards from the F16, in the direction of the Andromeda Galaxy, then how fast will it go,

d) Seen from the F16?
e) Seen from Earth?
f) Seen from the Andromeda Galaxy?

Think carefully.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

I asked you how do you know?

Logic and coherent thinking, + you know I socialize with very intelligent animals.

http://tytempletonart.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/space-cow-statue-1.jpg

Because you add the speed of Earth's rotation.

Ahhh you see, you add the speed, - goood Hans, - that’s the point.

Correct

And that was my point.

A particle doesn't give a damn, but its speed is the sum of all forces affecting it ....

Right and the limit will always be “c”

Bjarne
And as an inevitable result its mass and KE will increase due to all the speed that affects it. Each time you add speed to an already moving object, a particle (object) will MOVE FASTER.
Hans
That is right, for non-relativistic speeds.

Good Hans

Nah, you don't quite get it, but keep trying.

You haven’t got it, but you will understand

Spitfire, it's Spitfire.

Spitfire, it's Spitfire, but it should have been speedfire.

Now the bullet will go 3,000 km/h. (at least for a short distance)

Yeah Yeah Yeahh, that right…

But if you fire a laser beam in front of the F16, in the direction of Mars, then how fast will it go,,-

This is not the point, we speak about speed of particle not speed og photons.
(I have answered you regarding photons.)

Yeah, yeah, everyone knows that. But if you fire a laser beam in front of the F16, in the direction of Mars, then how fast will it go,

Still c, and still this is not the point.

a) Seen from the F16?
b) Seen from Earth?
c) Seen from Mars?

And if you fire a laser beam backwards from the F16, in the direction of the Andromeda Galaxy, then how fast will it go,

d) Seen from the F16?
e) Seen from Earth?
f) Seen from the Andromeda Galaxy?

Think carefully.

Read what i wrote, - I wrote YOU, and you was flying the spitfire, not the speedfire.

Now a new question
You are a captain on a UFO, - the speed is 200.000 km/s
Now you will fire a bullet with the speed 150.000 km/s

In the same moment you fire the bullet, a photon (300,000 km/h) is overtaking your UFO.

Now, - how fast will the bullet fly relative to the photon ?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Answer my questions, and we may continue:

But if you fire a laser beam in front of the F16, in the direction of Mars, then how fast will it go,

a) Seen from the F16?
b) Seen from Earth?
c) Seen from Mars?

And if you fire a laser beam backwards from the F16, in the direction of the Andromeda Galaxy, then how fast will it go,

d) Seen from the F16?
e) Seen from Earth?
f) Seen from the Andromeda Galaxy?

a:
b:
c:
d:
e:
f:

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Answer my questions, and we may continue:

I was asking first

 

[Bjarne]

Can someone help Hans

You are a captain on a UFO, - the speed is 200.000 km/s
Now you will fire a bullet with the speed 150.000 km/s

In the same moment you fire the bullet, a photon (300,000 km/h) is overtaking your UFO.

Now, - how fast will the bullet fly relative to the photon ?

 

[MRC_Hans]

I was asking first

I make the rules for my participation. Live with it.

Seriously, we are investigating your claim that it should be possible to detect absolute motion in the CERN accelerators, and my questions are relevant for that. Yours are not.

So answer my questions or we stop here.

Hans

 

[Paulhoff]

Now, - how fast will the bullet fly relative to the photon ?

As far as the bullet sees it, the photo will pass the bullet at the speed of light, or 300,000 km/s.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

I make the rules for my participation. Live with it.

Seriously, we are investigating your claim that it should be possible to detect absolute motion in the CERN accelerators, and my questions are relevant for that. Yours are not.
So answer my questions or we stop here.
Hans

We are discussion the motion of particles in a accelerator, - not motion of laser beams.

And exactly like the speed of both yours UFO (200.000 km/s) + (PLUS) the speed of the bullet (150.000 km/s) both counts and shall be added. - so does the speed of the Earth + (PLUS) the speed of the particle (CERN).

If the purpose with the experiment is the reach almost "c" - all the speed a particle have (except opposite speed) shall be added.
Doesn’t matter of you agree or like it or not...

 

[steenkh]

We are discussion the motion of particles in a accelerator, - not motion of laser beams.

Does a laser beam not consist of particles? I can understand if you want to limit the discussion to particles with mass, but you have not said so.

And exactly like the speed of both yours UFO (200.000 km/s) + (PLUS) the speed of the bullet (150.000 km/s) both counts and shall be added. - so does the speed of the Earth + (PLUS) the speed of the particle (CERN).

No. Why should they all be added. That is not what can be observed, and it is not what is predicted by science.

Doesn’t matter of you agree or like it or not...

But our agreement is supported by reality, whether you like it or not.

 

[MRC_Hans]

We are discussion the motion of particles in a accelerator, - not motion of laser beams.

And exactly like the speed of both yours UFO (200.000 km/s) + (PLUS) the speed of the bullet (150.000 km/s) both counts and shall be added. - so does the speed of the Earth + (PLUS) the speed of the particle (CERN).

If the purpose with the experiment is the reach almost "c" - all the speed a particle have (except opposite speed) shall be added.
Doesn’t matter of you agree or like it or not...

No. In the realm of relativistic velocities, you can no longer just add speeds. That is what I'm trying to explain to you.

So:

But if you fire a laser beam in front of the F16, in the direction of Mars, then how fast will it go,

a) Seen from the F16?
b) Seen from Earth?
c) Seen from Mars?

And if you fire a laser beam backwards from the F16, in the direction of the Andromeda Galaxy, then how fast will it go,

d) Seen from the F16?
e) Seen from Earth?
f) Seen from the Andromeda Galaxy?

a:
b:
c:
d:
e:
f:

AND, to save time, the next set set of questions (you may skip to these, if you think you can manage the transition):

Replace the F16 with a spaceship travelling at 0.99c (99% of the speed of light) and answer the questions again.

Hans