Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

Oooohhh now I understand you haven't got it.
Here we go > A cow moving so fast as a muon can measure its speed relative to a photon ("c") and its reality would not be the same as a human, down in NZ (with concrete in his head) .

What do you mean, "not the same reality"? It IS the same reality. It is all described in special relativity.

What exactly are you trying to say? We all know that reality looks different from different viewpoints, but it is still the same reality.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Oooohhh now I understand you haven't got it.
Here we go > A cow moving so fast as a muon can measure its speed relative to a photon ("c") and its reality would not be the same as a human, down in NZ (with concrete in his head) .

Actually, if you were to say: "For a cow moving at the speed of a muon, reality would look different."

- Then you would be right. And you would be stating the obvious. ....

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Actually, if you were to say: "For a cow moving at the speed of a muon, reality would look different."

Crap
You should shame yourself ....

For you “c” is 300.000 km/s
If the speed is something between yours reality and “c” the realities for a such moving object is not the same as yours, the further a cow or something else approach “c” the more time is “stretching”
For anything moving with the ultimate speed, - >> "c" there is no time.

Approaching "c" means time gradually "disappears, - NOT for you but for the cow moving so fast.
Do you self a favor GET IT UNDER THE CONCRETE, for peters sake, get that cow simple point.

From a photon perspective there are NO MOTION, NO TIME, NO SPEED, and NO UNITS
So now stop all this rubbish, - you guys only demonstrate you have not understood SR, and make BIG fools out of yourself. I will not reply to that anymore, this is common knowledge, and so silly to deny this fact.

I have now finished the way to calculate the Space wind SW of rotating astronomic bodies.
Shortly spoken: the SW near the Earth is pretty strong, - first at all it is proportional to the mass of the atomic body, - and also the rotation of such bodies.

My first equation was correct.
The SW of the Earth is only 15% of the tidal force. So the Tidal force is only 15% misunderstood.
Tidal Force > http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/astronomy/moon/tides3.jpg

This mean- for exsample:
If a orbiting body is faster as the angular speed of that objects it orbit, then the rotating object can no longer support a such orbiting object with enough SW, and therefore such object is doomed due to RAM.
The relative fast rotation speed of the Earth therefore shows that “recently” the Earth must had had 2 moons.
One moon must have crashed with the Earth.
Maybe this was what wiped out most of the life on Earth 100 million years ago.

Mars have a fast moon > Phobos.
Many believe this moon one day will crash with Mars.
Now ask you self why should it?

Well the answer is RAM due to orbit speed, and because it moves double so fast as the angular speed of Mars, - hence there is no SW from Mars to counteract the strong RAM due to orbit motion.
Furthermore Phoebes is losing KE due to the fact that it pulls the rotation of Mars.

There is only one possibility > and this is crash.
By using the in fact pretty simple equation mentioned in the link above, we can exactly calculate when Phones is lost.

Updates

http://www.science27.com/english/Culcu3.htm
http://www.science27.com/english/Pioneer1011.htm

 

[Reality Check]

Crap
You should shame yourself ....

For you “c” is 300.000 km/s
...snipped cow fetish and gibberish...

Crap
You should shame yourself ....

For everyone: c = 299,792,458 metres per second

 

[Reality Check]

Well the answer is RAM due to orbit speed, and because it moves double so fast as the angular speed of Mars, - hence there is no SW from Mars to counteract the strong RAM due to orbit motion.

The idiocy of RAM raises its ugly head yet again so:
Your notion of RAM is a delusion:

• 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, once again: What are the units of measurement for "kinetic resistance"?
• Bjarne debunks "kinetic resistance" (or RAM)

Experimental evidence shows that "kinetic resistence" (RAM) does not 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).

And I may as well throw in: Your "central gravity is a debunked fantasy:

Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked!
​

The ignorance of science that you have shown in this forum is well documented:

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]

Crap
You should shame yourself ....

For you “c” is 300.000 km/s
If the speed is something between yours reality and “c” the realities for a such moving object is not the same as yours, the further a cow or something else approach “c” the more time is “stretching”
For anything moving with the ultimate speed, - >> "c" there is no time.

It is strange and pathetic to see you keep trying to explain something you have not understood at all.

I will give you one more chance: For your cow moving at the speed of a muon, c is still the same as for me. In all directions. If your cow shines a flashlight ahead of itself, it will see light racing ahead at c, and if it shines the flashlignt bacowards, the light will also move away at c.

This is fact. Live with it.

Approaching "c" means time gradually "disappears, - NOT for you but for the cow moving so fast.

It does not disappear, it moves slower. There is a big difference.

Do you self a favor GET IT UNDER THE CONCRETE, for peters sake, get that cow simple point.

Bjarne stop that. You are in no position to talk like that to anybody.

From a photon perspective there are NO MOTION, NO TIME, NO SPEED, and NO UNITS

Wrong. No matter how you twist and rave, c eithe has a unit ot is a unit. Live with it.

I have now finished the way to calculate the Space wind SW of rotating astronomic bodies.
Shortly spoken: the SW near the Earth is pretty strong, - first at all it is proportional to the mass of the atomic body, - and also the rotation of such bodies.

Idiocy. However, let your next calculation be one that explains the thermodynamics of your "space wind".

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

It is strange and pathetic to see you keep trying to explain something you have not understood at all.

I will give you one more chance: For your cow moving at the speed of a muon, c is still the same as for me. In all directions. If your cow shines a flashlight ahead of itself, it will see light racing ahead at c, and if it shines the flashlignt bacowards, the light will also move away at c.

This is fact. Live with it.

Time for a muon ticks slower, and distances are much shorter so why not.

This is still not the point.

So long the cow or the muon moves below c, meter and seconds exist.

These are very much different compared to your reality but these are still existing, and real.

The point is how the reality would be for that muon when it actually would reach c. (also even though it is impossible, - and hence only a mathematical necessity)
- > There would be no time anymore, also no distances, and hence no meter and no second and hence no units > (no m/s).

The equation have build in a factor of the impossible, and therefore a factor without units.

Still > so cow logic simple is that.

WHY do you think you are dividing v with c - ??

WHAT do you think should be the purpose when I divide you with superman ?

 

[Reality Check]

The point is how the reality would be for that muon when it actually would reach c. (also even though it is impossible, - and hence only a mathematical necessity)
- > There would be no time anymore, also no distances, and hence no meter and no second and hence no units > (no m/s).
...snipped Bjarne cow fetish rant...

The point is that you are still wrong and ignorant of the physics involved.
The reality would be for that muon if it actually could reach c is the same reality for that muon when it was less than c.

Time always exist.
Distances always exist.

The point of relativity is that if you measure the intervals between spacetime events for an object as it approaches c (e.g. its length or the ticking of a clock) then the interval between the spacetime events changes with increasing speed.
For example

• The interval between the the ticks of a clock gets longer.
  This is time dilation.
• The interval between the front and end of the object gets shorter.
  This is length contraction.

If you could measure the interval between the ticks of a clock traveling at the speed of light then you would measure it to be zero with the appropriate units, e.g. seconds.

If you were traveling with that clock then you would measure it to be ticking away at a rate of one second per second.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Time for a muon ticks slower, and distances are much shorter so why not.

Yes, we all know that.

This is still not the point.

Well get to the point, then.

So long the cow or the muon moves below c, meter and seconds exist.

Yes we all know that. Get to the point.

These are very much different compared to your reality but these are still existing, and real.

It is the same reality, but seen from different viewpoints.

The point is how the reality would be for that muon when it actually would reach c. (also even though it is impossible, - and hence only a mathematical necessity)
- > There would be no time anymore, also no distances, and hence no meter and no second and hence no units > (no m/s).

No matter how often you claim this, it remains WRONG. For something moving at c, time and distance still exists, it is just perceived in an entirely different way. Like if you look at a paper from the front or from the edge. Assuming something that can perceive could move at the speed c, it can still perceive the surrounding world, and perceive that something is happening there, and from this observation it can deduce both speed and distance.

The equation have build in a factor of the impossible, and therefore a factor without units.

No. I'm sorre Bjarne, but you can't make your own rules. c is a speed or a constant, depending on how you insert it in your formular, but in any rate it has a unit. As a speed it is measured in distance/time, as a constant it becomes the unit itself.

WHY do you think you are dividing v with c - ??

What has this to do with your argument? You can divide a speed with a speed. (you get a ratio)

WHAT do you think should be the purpose when I divide you with superman ?

Gibberish.

Let say superman is factor 1.000.000N and you factor 3N

The strenght of supermandivided with you = 0,000003

That is a ratio.

WHAT do you think the result 0,000003 really mean?

Stil Newton, - right ?

No, the unit would be Superman, because you use Superman as a constant.

According to MOTHER COW the result = Newton.

I suggest you turn to more competent sources than Mother Cow for advice on math. Any high-school kid should suffice.

We call it; proportional calculations.

Which mean you in fact for a moment can scrap all units.

No. A ratio needs a constant as a unit. Otherwise it is meaningless.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Time always exist.
Distances always exist.

This is where the chain went off

 

[Reality Check]

This is where the chain went off

That is where the science begins.
(and your ignorance starts )

 

[Bjarne]

That is where the science begins

This is where science, “reality", units, and our understanding ends.

 

[Reality Check]

This is where science, “reality", units, and our understanding ends.

This is where the science, reality and our understanding (not you Bjarne) starts.

This forum is where the permanent record of your ignorance of basic science for the world to view, continues:
Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
The answer continues to be no !

And continues:

Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked!
​

And continues:

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]

This is where the chain went off

Your chain, yes.

Better put it back on.

Frankly, Bjarne, you are free to make up your own reality, if you will, complete with its own mathematical rules. Just don't expect the rest of us to comply with it, or take it seriously.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Frankly, Bjarne, you are free to make up your own reality, if you will, complete with its own mathematical rules. Just don't expect the rest of us to comply with it, or take it seriously.

One day you'll ask you self how you could be so blind....

 

[Bjarne]

At the speed of light, time stands still on whatever is going v = c as seen by an outside observer on the rest reference frame. So time exists, but time passage on that photon does not.

The implication is that the photon does not age, it is eternal from the moment of its birth.

Sourse;
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090909084917AAOKwxb

 

[Bjarne]

Just a little more poison for the concrete here>>

http://quantumweird.wordpress.com/2007/06/23/does-time-exist/

 

[Reality Check]

At the speed of light, time stands still on whatever is going v = c as seen by an outside observer on the rest reference frame. So time exists, but time passage on that photon does not.

The implication is that the photon does not age, it is eternal from the moment of its birth.

Sourse;
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090909084917AAOKwxb

Way to shoot yourself in the foot, Bjarne!
You provide a link to an opinion that time and distance exist for a photon.
The opinion is wrong. Photons are not observers. They do not measure time. They have no clocks.

An observer measures c. c is a speed. A speed has units. These units are length / time.

But this does not matter because your own fantasy that c is not a speed and does not have units, debunks "kinetic resistence":

Bjarne debunks "kinetic resistance" (or RAM)
​

and real science debunks "kinetic resistence":

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
  The answer continues to be no !
• Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
  2 November 2009
• Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).

 

[MRC_Hans]

At the speed of light, time stands still on whatever is going v = c as seen by an outside observer on the rest reference frame. So time exists, but time passage on that photon does not.

The implication is that the photon does not age, it is eternal from the moment of its birth.

Sourse;
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090909084917AAOKwxb

Bjarne, we all know this. What we don't know is what the photon 'perceives'. From an outside observer, it's time has stopped, but we know that at c x 0.999999... the time from the viewpoint of the moving observer is still ticking at its normal speed. There is really no reason to think it suddenly stops at c. So quite possibly, the photon 'observes' time to go as normal.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Just a little more poison for the concrete here>>

http://quantumweird.wordpress.com/2007/06/23/does-time-exist/

Ehr, Bjarne, sanity check: You are trying to demolish estabished science, and for this purpose you quote ..... established science.

Think again.

Hans