Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bjarne said:
It is a “fictive” value without any units, and therefore without the units “meter” since there is no motion at that speed.

It is rather: a point ZERO, - a point without any motion, and therefore without unit. .

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.
So who is the stupid my friend ?
Click to expand...

You are, obviously. It has been pointed out to you several times that c has units, specifically distance/time, yet you can't seem to remember that simple fact.
 
Bjarne said:
[It is rather: a point ZERO, - a point without any motion, and therefore without unit.
Click to expand...
That is just so wrong in so many ways.

So, not a deep thinker, how do they get CERN to work if they are so clueless.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
You are, obviously. It has been pointed out to you several times that c has units, specifically distance/time, yet you can't seem to remember that simple fact.
Click to expand...
Matter is NOT moving with “c”
Also the football goal in Barcelona is only a goal, not a goal m/s.
So it is NOT the speed of the goal that is the reason that Barcelona always win.

It is mathematical impossible for matter to move at that speed.
In this case it is mathematical rubbish so claim that “c” must have unit.

Hence "c" (matter) - IS NOT MOTION, - in this case, - but rather ZERO motion.

A cow is also not always mentioned cow m/s- also NOT even if it is possible that a cow REALLY can move 0,2 m/s and SOMETIMES does so.

So the expression cow m/s is rubbish, except when it really moves.
The goal m/s, - in Barcelona is also rubbish

And “c” m/s - with regards to matter is also rubbish.

The equation we are discussion is about the motion of MATTER, relative to a “speed” impossible to reach, and therefore relative to a """speed""" that NOT IS REAL AND DOES NOT EXSIST.

All what is real, in this equation is that MATTER moves, and that there are a limit of zero motion impossible to reach

Or 100 % RAM if you prefer..

You can not demand that the expression for 100 % resistance (c), >> ZERO MOTION > must have unit > MOTION
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
Matter is NOT moving with “c”
Also the football goal in Barcelona is only a goal, not a goal m/s.
So it is NOT the speed of the goal that is the reason that Barcelona always win.
Matter cannot move with the speed; “c” – it is impossible
Hence "c" (matter) - IS NOT MOTION, - in this case, - but rather ZERO motion.
Click to expand...
That is so silly.

CERN can get protons go up to 99.999999% the speed of light, which will make the protons weight how many times their rest mass Bjarne.

7,000 times, and of course their time is 7,000 times slower too


Paul

:) :) :)
 
Bjarne:

If I'm travelling at 2e8 m/s, are you trying to say that the following is true?

v = 2e8 m/s
c = 3e8 m/s

Then the fraction v2/c2 = (2e8 m/s)2 / (3e8 m/s)2 = 4/9 m2s-2 ?

If not, what is the correct answer, according to Mother Cow?
 
Bjarne said:
This is so stupid as it would be to claim that there is no difference between a flying cow without any mass;
...usual Bjarne gibberish...
Click to expand...
Lets do a Bjarne but with actual physics instead of ignorance, gibberiah and delusions:
This is so stupid as it would be to claim that there is no difference between a flying Bjarne without any mass and a Bjarne with mass

Because a Bjarne is a Bjarne.

Good Bjarne, I just wanted to puut you attention to that point...

According to the equation you refer to you are fooling you self, Bjarne.
c is a speed. We can use it as a speed :jaw-dropp! It has units of length/time :eye-poppi!
v is also a speed. We can use it as a speed :jaw-dropp! It has units of length/time :eye-poppi!

That speed can be a limit, just like any speed.

It is a real value with the units of length/time, and therefore with the units length/time since there is motion at that speed, e.g. photons.

It is rather: a speed , - a speede with motion, and therefore with units. .

It is like asking you the question how fast can you run compared to a wall of concrete.
Dont tell me the wall must have the unit meter because that is the dumbest thing to say ever.
Rather tell me that the speed you have is measured in lengh per time.

So the equation is : v²/c² must be understood as: v(length/time)² / c(length/time)²

Not surprisingly the result is no units.

So who is the stupid my friend?
 
Bjarne debunks "kinetic resistance"

Bjarne said:
So the equation is : v²/c² must be understood as: v(meter/second)² / c(no unit)²
...
So who is the stupid my friend ?
Click to expand...
Well my friend, let us find out who is the stupid:

You think that v²/c² has units of (length/time)².


That means
  • 1 - v²/c² has units of (length/time)².
  • Take the square root and Bjarne has units of length/time.
  • Invert the result (divide 1 by it) and Bjarne has units of time/length.
  • Thus (according to you, Bjarne) the Lorentz factor, γ, has units of time/length.
Thus "kinetic resistance" , i.e. (1 - γ), has units of time/length.
You want "kinetic resistance" to be an acceleration.

As you Bjarne must know acceleration has units of length/time², e.g. meters/second², feet/year², etc. If you do not then ask your pet cow to explain this to you.

Thank you Bjarne for debunking "kinetic resistance". This deserves a
:dl:​
 
c is a speed
Click to expand...

A photon would not agree, because according to a photon distance and time does not exist, and also speed does not exist.

Matter can also not agree, because matter cannot move with that speed.

So WHAT is moving with that “speed”?

We have first at all a short circuit between 2 different realities.
How can you be sure yours reality is the only truth?

Try to think about what he equation really express.

KE = (y - 1) mc² - where γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)

Ask now what is the primary / basic substance of that equation?

Well it is resistance aginst motion RAM, and the only way this can be written is with the unit m/s.

The fact that it requires more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed, (or increase of KE + mass) are both secondary aspects - these are units for Energy and for Gravity, not for resistance.. .

This equation MUST fundamentally first at all express the law for RESISTANCE , - with mean and only can mean; Negative motion, - and hence m/s.

This is the BASIC, this is where it all starts.

NOW you can "build" on the basic and calculate the (KE or M increase) but as I wrote, these are secondary aspects .

The basic expression is ; RESISTANCE AGAINST MOTION (RAM), and hence first at all negative motion. There are not other option. . .

And this is exactly what the basic of this equation is about.

You see, - Hans just deny that RAM is a fact, - this is really stupid, because it is a mathematical fact.

RC don’t shows us how to calculate that increasing negative motion (RAM) correct, - IF the why I have done it REALLY should be wrong, > such is nothing less as coward-science.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
A photon would not agree, because according to a photon distance and time does not exist, and also speed does not exist.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
Distance and time do exist for a photon.
Distance and time do exist for us and we measure that photons move at the speed of light (c)

Bjarne said:
KE = (y - 1) mc² - where γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)

Ask now what is the primary / basic substance of that equation?
Click to expand...
The primary / basic substance of that equation is that it is the relativistic kinetic energy.
As the velocity of an object relative to an observer gets larger, KE increases. That is quite basic. Special relativity adds in the observed fact that objects cannot be accelerated to go faster than the speed of light.

You have already debunked RAM yourself: Bjarne debunks "kinetic resistance" (or RAM)

But it has been shown to be nonsense for over a year now:
Of course "kinetic resistance" is not your only bit of crackpottery or ignorance:


Bjarne don’t show us how to calculate that increasing negative motion (RAM) correctly, the way he has done have done it is REALLY is wrong, such is nothing less than coward-science.
 
Last edited:
Wrong.
Distance and time do exist for a photon.
Click to expand...
No
Seen from the perspective of a photon (moving with c) time and distance does no longer exist.
Distance and time do exist for us and we measure that photons move at the speed of light (c)
Click to expand...

This is only the truth seen form your reality.

It only demonstrates that you have not completely get SR under your skin.

For your own sake, stop denying that, this will only made you a bigger fool.

Try to get this simple point beneath the concrete; >

Imaging that tonight you was kidnap by a UFO..
The UFO and you were leaving the solar system and the UFO was speeding up.
You would now because of the speed, see that the reality you know from the time you was living down on the Earth will now be a bigger and bigger lie, because you are on your way to a reality where time and distances does no longer exist.

Now c is reach, hence you could no longer see anything also not your watch, because distances had disappeared (as well as the time before ticking on your watch).

Now the UFO would bring YOU back to earth.
What would you now tell us all about the “c” reality?
Would you lie and tell us all and tell us that there was both time and distances in the “c” reality.
I mean YOU have been there YOU KNOW THE TRUTH.

Back on Earth you would now compare the speed of your car with the speed it would have if it could reach c.
BUT how would YOUR CAR ***FEEL*** distance, - if it really could reach c, - do you think. ?

I mean down on earth YOU would see that the car really have reach the speed of a photon, but how would the atoms in your car feel that “speed” – do you think ?

Now , --- the equation we speak about, ---- is NOT about what happens inside our brain / in YOUR reality down on earth when you would see your car moving with that speed.
BUT it is about what really happens seen from the perspective of the atom, - when your car when moving with c?

I mean you know the atoms “M” and ”KE” would increase,
BUT I hope it is not “M” and “KE” inside your head, - in YOUR reality these would increase,- but RATHER the KE and M in reality of YOUR CAR.
(You are on the Earth and you car moves with "c" without you)

Don’t you think we should agree that the equation and “c” is about what the car would experience, as well what would happen to you when you was onboard the UFO.
IF and I repeat IF your car really could reach “c” it would be HUGE - KE + M, increase, - not because YOU (down on Earth) moves BUT because of what you car experiences.

TIME AND DISTANCES WOULD NOT EXSIST. (for your car)
Hence “c” would (seen from the perspective of your car) - NOT have any speed anymore.

KE = (y - 1) mc² - where γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)

The (par of the) equation we discuss is how YOUR CAR would experience the journey towards c.

The thing is; that seen from down on Earth “c” is really a big speed.
BUT this is not what the equation is about.
The eqaution is about really fast motion.

The faster you car moves the more unreal does time and distances get. (seen from the perspective of your car) .
When the car reach “c”, - time and distances does no longer exist.
So for the one moving gradually faster and reaching “c”, - for him it is a journey towards;

  • zero distances and
  • zero time.
Don’t deny that, we have known that for 100 years now.

The equation we discussion is about exact such a journey as well as what would happen on that journey.
It is NOT about how you down on Earth would experience the journey.

Therefore “c” can only be mathematically be understood as a value where meter and second = 0, and therefore without units.
(Simply because time and distances really are zero when you car would reach that value of the equation)

“c” is therefore (in this case) the completely opposite for one “being there” as it is for you down on Earth.

You cannot mix 2 different realities, and this is what you does and have done the last years you have foolish yourself to believe that “c” is a speed, also for the one that has reach c. .

It doesn’t matter if “c” really is reach (as for example for a photon) or if it only is a mathematically reality, - the result is the same, = reaching the “speed” “c” means: = a completely unit less reality.

Reaching “c” is reaching beyond reality, and beyond units as; meter and seconds
Or someone would maybe say it is reaching the ultimate reality, or reaching beyond the existing of everything.

FACE IT RC - this is a mathematical FACT.

To put it very short:
Yes the speed "c" is a fact seen from your reality.
BUT it is completely different when moving with that speed.
In this case “C” would still be motion for you, - but not for the one that "moves" - he would be beyond the reality that is true for you., - he would be beyond time and beyond distances.
Therefore if you want to know what happens in this different reality, you must forget the unit - m/s, - because these does not exist anymore.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
Matter is NOT moving with “c”
Also the football goal in Barcelona is only a goal, not a goal m/s.
So it is NOT the speed of the goal that is the reason that Barcelona always win.

It is mathematical impossible for matter to move at that speed.
In this case it is mathematical rubbish so claim that “c” must have unit.

Hence "c" (matter) - IS NOT MOTION, - in this case, - but rather ZERO motion.

A cow is also not always mentioned cow m/s- also NOT even if it is possible that a cow REALLY can move 0,2 m/s and SOMETIMES does so.

So the expression cow m/s is rubbish, except when it really moves.
The goal m/s, - in Barcelona is also rubbish

And “c” m/s - with regards to matter is also rubbish.

The equation we are discussion is about the motion of MATTER, relative to a “speed” impossible to reach, and therefore relative to a """speed""" that NOT IS REAL AND DOES NOT EXSIST.

All what is real, in this equation is that MATTER moves, and that there are a limit of zero motion impossible to reach

Or 100 % RAM if you prefer..

You can not demand that the expression for 100 % resistance (c), >> ZERO MOTION > must have unit > MOTION
Click to expand...

I recognize the words, but the way you string them together is complete nonsense. What the hell are you talking about?
 
I recognize the words, but the way you string them together is complete nonsense. What the hell are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I am talking about that down on Earth is easy to understand "c", for us this is really a speed, and hence really m/s.

BUT a photon would not agree a particle with that speed also not.

Seen from the perspective of a photon (or particle with that speed) none of the units "m" or "s" exist.

So how sure can you be that “c” always must be with unit m/s ?

How sure can you be that it is yours reality that counts, - in the equation and not the photons reality ?


The increasing energy "absorbed" by moving object, of course MUST be equal proportional with the increasing RAM.

RAM is the reason to that it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed.

Hence the transformation factor also applies for RAM (not only for KE or M) .

I am talking about the basic way to express RAM is m/s.
 
Last edited:
If something is moving with the speed””c” in your reality, you can measure its distance and time and conclude this is “c”.

But a person (or a Myon) moving with a different speed would not agree.

A photon would not agree at all, but would experience that there were no time, no distance and no motion (by “c”.)

KE = (y - 1) mc² - where γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)

Now look at the equation

It is easy to determinate that v could be the distance that concerns yours reality, because you could be moving from A to B in your own reality.

BUT “c” in this equation has nothing to do with motion. Because WHAT is moving in your reality. The answer is NOTHING with that speed, relavant to that equation.

If NOTING really are moving there are no A and no B, and hence no distance you can refer to in YOUR REALITY.

Hence there are no time consumption and therefore no units: m/s

Ask you self to which reality does “c” in this case belong to?

It doesn’t seem it is to yours unless you have a distance from A to B.

Which emphasize that "c" in this case in without unit, exactly as it is from the perspective of a photon....
 
Bjarne said:
If something is moving with the speed””c” in your reality, you can measure its distance and time and conclude this is “c”.
Click to expand...
Yes: If something is moving with the speed””c” in your reality, you can measure its distance and time and conclude this is “c”.

Bjarne said:
But a person (or a Myon) moving with a different speed would not agree.
Click to expand...
Thenb that person is a Myron: the speed of light has been measured to be constant regardless of the speed of the observer.

Bjarne said:
KE = (y - 1) mc² - where γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)

Now look at the equation
Click to expand...
Now look at the equation

Bjarne said:
It is easy to determinate that v could be the distance that concerns yours reality, because you could be moving from A to B in your own reality.
Click to expand...
v is speed not distance.

Bjarne said:
BUT “c” in this equation has nothing to do with motion. Because WHAT is moving in your reality. The answer is NOTHING with that speed, relavant to that equation.
Click to expand...
BUT “c” in this equation has everything to do with motion. Because WHAT is moving in the reality that everyone except Bjarne lives. The answer is LIGHT with that speed, relavant to that equation.
Obviously Bjarne is ignorant that c is defined as the speed of light :jaw-dropp.
​
Even if we allow you your delusion then you have just debunked yourself: Bjarne debunks "kinetic resistance" (or RAM)

Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
2 November 2009

Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).

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

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


The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)
 
BUT “c” in this equation has everything to do with motion. Because WHAT is moving in the reality that everyone except Bjarne lives. The answer is LIGHT with that speed, relevant to that equation.
Click to expand...

Now imaging that you are you are moving in total darkness with the speed 10 000 m/s

There IS NO LIGHT, - NO MOVING PHOTONS.

  • Would the eqaution not still be valid in darkness ?
  • WHAT difference does it make whether photons are moving beside you or not. ?
  • HOW does the motion of a photon affect your speed / reality?
  • HOW does the motion of a photon affect the equation?
  • WHAT have the motion of photons to do with the equation?
  • WHAT has motion of photons to do with the motion of matter?

THERE ARE NO REAL MOTION > “c” in that equation you can refer to seen from the perspective of your reality, and hence “c” is in this case without unit.So simple is that.

“c” + unit is ONLY relevant if there are a REAL motion from A to B in your reality, - and there are in this case NONE.

You can not assign any units, by pleasure, - so long you have no idea which reality we are dealing with....So simple is that my friend...And in this case "C" is NOT something going on in yours reality, because THERE ARE NO MOTION with THAT speed, and hence a mathematical impossibility to assign any units. .
 
Bjarne said:
A photon would not agree, because according to a photon distance and time does not exist, and also speed does not exist.

Matter can also not agree, because matter cannot move with that speed.
Click to expand...

Could you (or anyone), explain to me how a photon "agrees" or matter "agrees"? I haven't talked to a photon in quite some time, but maybe Bjarne has?

Bjarne: Scientists often do funny things with units (they use "rad" as radians, when "radians" is a unit-less quantity ... as a simple example). But, it is always used as a tool to explain something. What are the consequences of your ideas? How does having a speed without units help us explain the world better?

(apologies if this has been discussed before ... this is my first post in this thread)
 
Bjarne: Scientists often do funny things with units (they use "rad" as radians, when "radians" is a unit-less quantity ... as a simple example). But, it is always used as a tool to explain something. What are the consequences of your ideas? How does having a speed without units help us explain the world better?
Click to expand...

It requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed, we are discussion if the same transformation factor to calculate the increase energy consumption can be used to calculate the resistance against motion measured as; "deceleration" (minus m/s) so soon the force no longer is maintained.

The question; Is the “transformation-factor” (of a known equation) already with that unit > m/s.. I believe it is..

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

RC

The equation has nothing with motion of photons to do.

The equation is a comparison of: motion of matter and a hypnotically impossible speed MATTER cannot reach.

This means; THERE ARE NO MOTION with that speed.

NOWHERE

You can based on the equation say you have A, - but no B .

Hence
  • no distance,
  • no meter,
  • no time to complete that distance
  • and then no m/s.

Did you got the point;

  • It cannot happen.
  • It is impossible for matter to reach “c”.
  • It does NOT happen. “c”
  • It is UNREAL .

A speed that is unreal is no speed.

And hence THERE IS NO METER PER SECOND, - No m/s

Exactly like a cow that do not exist CAN NOT MOVE and hence THAT COW do not move with the unit m/s

Finally CAPITO?

And once again:
The equation has NOTHINGto do with motion of photons, - Repeat NOTHING.

The purpose of the equation is:
a comparison of: motion of matter and a hypnotically impossible speed MATTER cannot reach.

Tell me have you EVER seen a cow that does not exsist moving 1 single meter
We can off course imaging a such cow but still it does not move in our REALITY
Do you understand

R E A L I T Y
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
It requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed,
Click to expand...
Because as one makes an object go faster, some of the energy used becomes part of the mass of that object. At 86.6% of the speed of light, an object will be double its rest mass, so of course it now takes more energy to make it move faster. DAAAAAAAAAA

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:
At 86.6% of the speed of light, an object will be double its rest mass, so of course it now takes more energy to make it move faster. DAAAAAAAAAA
Click to expand...
Well there you go then...

Obviously somewhere between .999999 c and c all of the energy decides that it is just too much like hard work and vanishes in a massive silent, invisible, cold explosion. At which point the object has no energy and simply stops dead, happily existing outside of spacetime forever.

It's all so simple that I don't see why no one has ever noticed before.
 
Bjarne said:
You can not assign any units, by pleasure,
Click to expand...

[start of Bjarne shouting]
Agreed - that is why Bjarne debunks "kinetic resistance" (or RAM) debunks RAM by showing that it has the wrong units and so Bjarne assigned units at his pleasure (or that of his pet cow).
​
[/end of Bjarne shouting]

The reality we are dealing with is this universe, not the imaginary one that you live in :D.
In the real universe
the speed of light is measured in lengths per time, e.g. meters per second.

Thus RAM does not exist:
Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
The answer continues to be no :eye-poppi !

Bjarne, once again: What are the units of measurement for "kinetic resistance"?
​
In the Bjarne universe
the speed of light is not a speed. It is a number.

Thus RAM does not exist:
Bjarne debunks "kinetic resistance" (or RAM)
​
And then there is the fact that RAM has been experimently sown not to exist:
Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
2 November 2009

Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom