Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

All attempts to prove neutrinos (etc.) should be the cause is dark matter have failed.

Almost incomprehensible, and irrelevant.

And while it falls its kinetic energy will increase, the KE increase would cause larger mass, the mass would cause larger gravity towards that body. – So as you can see, the gravity force is last in line, not first.

Non sequiteur.

I have not heard about any official thesis approved from the authorities.

Authorities? Scientific theories do not get approved by authorities.
.

And still I have not hear about any thesis..

That you haven't heard does not mean it doesn't exist.

Liar, particles moving (with almost c), pulls a strong magnetic field in its wake.

No. A charged particle in motion has a magent field, but it is a wave.

A magnetic field = energy, - that must come from the particles that “pull” that magnetic field.

This magnetic energy cannot just come from nowhere, and hence must mean lost of kinetic energy.

A particle only looses energy when the magent field is coupled to something.

Lost of kinetic energy = resistance against motion.
So cow logic simple is that.

And so wrong. You have claimed that there is a general resistance against motion of objects moving through space. This has nothing to do with charged particles and specific friction.

Have you forgot I told you that at least 5 times ?
--

Things don't become right because you tell them 5 times. Or 5000 times.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Everywhere in the Universe we see; orbits around extended masses.

This means that matter (cluster of galaxies) must also orbit the Universe,- since the Universe is also an extended mass.

Wrong concusion. Matter MUST not orbit a mass. It often does, because of conservation of momentum.

The maximum speed matter can reach in a orbit, - depends first at all of the acceleration due to gravity (ADG) but also of how long the "accelleration lane" is
For exsample; the time matter can continue to accelerate before reaching perihelion (the closest point to the Sun).

Wrong. The distance and the gravity strenght do determine the orbital speed, but the speed falls with distance.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/orbital.htm

This is, of course, due to the fact that the strength of gravity decreases with the square of the distance.

An orbiting body will speed up when approacing perihelion, but will slow down again when moving away from it.

Even though the ADG affecting us from the MilkyWay is much weaker than the ADG affecting us from the Sun, - the Sun (and us) are orbiting the Milkyway 10 times faster as the Earth (and we) are orbiting the Sun.

The gravity field of the galaxy is stronger than that of the sun.

But what about orbits on much larger scale.

They will be slower.

Matter must orbit the Universe too, due to the gravity of the Universe.

Not necessarily.

Imaging an “acceleration lane” not only 100.00 LY but billion of Light Years (LY).

An object in orbit keeps a constant average speed. You can say that it is constantly acclerated towards the center, but that is the reason the orbit is round.

We could have been constant accelerating, - round the Universe, the last 13,7 billion years, and right now be moving with almost the speed of light.

No. You have misunderstood this.

Because the size of the Universe very well could be billion of times larger than the 13,7 LY we can see, - we would not be able to discover our huge speed, - if everything around us would be moving with almost “c”

No, that would require a huge gravity field. Which could then only be explained with even MORE dark matter.

This would mean that the cause of all the gravity in universe could be due to huge speed, so fast (relative to the speed of light) that it could chock us the day it would be (mathematical) proven.

This would mean it could be totally wrong to understand the strength of gravity of difference systems in motion, based on the amount of matter.
But rather it should be understood based on the total speed,- relative to the speed of light, + the amount of matter..
This could explain the so called dark matter.

No, you fail to understand releativity. If the solar system was speeding along at almost c, we would experience the same masses as if it was not moving at all. The same is true of the whole galaxy.

This could also explain that so soon the so called “dark Energy” is out of breath, nothing would prevent all matter of the Universe to reach “c” .
In the process of reaching “c” distances would get shorter, and gravity would go mad (according to special relativity)..

No, wrong. The amount of energy needed to accelerate all mass to near c would be more than the universe contains. In fact one thesis on the creation of the universe is that for some reason the universe does not hold enough energy to stay in the 'energy mode' so some of the energy converted to matter.

The gradually shortening of distances, and the huge gravity increase, -

No, you don't just get a huge gravity increase. You have to feed energy into a moving object to increase its speed and mass. LOTS of energy (e=mc²). Where should all that energy come from? Dark energy?

would mean dramatically absorption of space.

No, that is your private belief.

*gibberish snipped *

All this is based on knowledge we already have,

And all of which you have thoroughly misunderstood.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

And all of which you have thoroughly misunderstood.

Prove it

 

[Bjarne]

Matter MUST not orbit a mass.

Off course it must
Gravity = Gravity
In space it would even orbit a cow.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Prove it

I did, in the rest of my post, which you convinently ignored.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Off course it must
Gravity = Gravity
In space it would even orbit a cow.

Take a stone. Hold it out in one arm. Let it go. Does it orbit anything?

Sheesh, what a maroon.

Hans

 

[Paul]

Prove it

All of your posts.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Didn't notice this.

This is the most silly you have wrote
You can force a dog to sit
But not when you did not have energy.
No energy = no force.
Energy is the cause of a force
Not opposite.

You are right on one account: To create a force, you must invest some energy. However, you need no energy to maintain the force. Examples:

- Permanent magnet.
- And ... gravity.

Which then mean you believe gravity is a phenomena that can happen without energy?

Gravity can exist without expenditure of energy.

Energy was there in the first place.

That is generally agreed, yes.

Gravity and the strong force = a unity.

Perhaps. Nobody really knows.

Energy is the cause of gravity.
Not opposite.

Nothing 'causes' energy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only be transferred and/or converted.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

A particle only looses energy when the magent field is coupled to something.

What are you blap blap bla bla about ?
Elementary particles in the LHC creates/pulls a magnetic field, hence there is a energy lost, denying this is exactly so silly as all the other of yours reply..

And so wrong. You have claimed that there is a general resistance against motion of objects moving through space. This has nothing to do with charged particles and specific friction.

This is exactly what it have to do with...
Elementary Particles are due to speed twisted stronger into space.
This is what the resistance RAM is about.
This is what creates magnetism, - in this case.
And this will certainly mean lost of energy, and hence lost of speed.

Bjarne
The maximum speed matter can reach in a orbit, - depends first at all of the acceleration due to gravity (ADG) but also of how long the "acceleration lane" is
For example; the time matter can continue to accelerate before reaching perihelion (the closest point to the Sun).
Hans
Wrong. The distance and the gravity strenght do determine the orbital speed, but the speed falls with distance.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/orbital.htm

This is, of course, due to the fact that the strength of gravity decreases with the square of the distance.
An orbiting body will speed up when approacing perihelion, but will slow down again when moving away from it.

More Blap blap blap blap
This phenomena can be spitted into important 2 factors (as I did) in order to understand / extract what really happens in the process.

1. The strength of Acceleration Due to Gravity ADG
2. The distance from Aphelion to Perihelion that tells you how long time the object can accelerate before it is interrupted by deceleration.

A short orbit will mean less "acceleration lane" towards Perihelion
This factors are so simple and easy to understand.
For example the speed of the Mercury is less as double speed of the Earth
BUT ADG of the Sun is many times stronger in Mercury’s orbit.
This is because the orbit of the Earth is larger.
Hence there is a longer "acceleration lane"
The point is what would happen if the "acceleration lane" is 100.000 LY , or billion of light years.
Hans you begin to be much too silly to discuss with.

Bjarne
Even though the ADG affecting us from the MilkyWay is much weaker than the ADG affecting us from the Sun, - the Sun (and us) are orbiting the Milkyway 10 times faster as the Earth (and we) are orbiting the Sun.
Hans
The gravity field of the galaxy is stronger than that of the sun.

Again you are only demonstrating silly argumentation.
I am talking not talking about “gravity” but about ADG, - you should be able to read this.

You can easy calculate ADG of a galaxy based on the known mass = 3,43 * 10 -13 m/s²
Based on the so called Dark Metter = 3,43 * 10 -12 m/s²
Both values at the periphery.

The Suns ADG by Neptune i= 0,0000067 m/s²
Which mean that the ADG of a galaxy is about 2.000.000 times weaker than the Suns ADG in Neptune’s Orbit .

Hans honestly I begin to consider whether it is more fruitful to discuss these issues with my 6 years old daughter. I am not sure you will understand why.
But I guess some will.

Bjarne
Everywhere in the Universe we see; orbits around extended masses.
This means that matter (cluster of galaxies) must also orbit the Universe,- since the Universe is also an extended mass.
Hans
Wrong concusion.
Matter MUST not orbit a mass. It often does, because of conservation of momentum.
Bjarne
Off course it must
Gravity = Gravity
In space it would even orbit a cow.
Hans
Take a stone. Hold it out in one arm. Let it go. Does it orbit anything?

I think it would be impossible to find a example 1 % more stupid / silly / irrelevant than this.
My 6 years old daughter seems to be higher educated and less childlike.

Good Bye Hans.

 

[phunk]

All attempts to prove neutrinos (etc.) should be the cause is dark matter have failed.

I didn't say that neutrinos were dark matter. I asked if you believed they exist. Because they share most of the properties of dark matter that you don't believe exists, so I'm wondering what's so fundamentally impossible about the one and not the other.

 

[Bjarne]

I didn't say that neutrinos were dark matter. I asked if you believed they exist. Because they share most of the properties of dark matter that you don't believe exists, so I'm wondering what's so fundamentally impossible about the one and not the other.

It is difficult to say if these exist and how the density is..
If these could be the cause of dark matter, we would have known it yet.
The silly thing is why these neutrinos (or other kind of dark matter) should be like Carl Smart?
How can Dark Matter always know where is "must be"- e.g.; always gradually increasing towards the periphery of a galaxy etc. Like it had some kind of Carl Smart intelligence.
There are too much we don't know about gravity, - for example the nature of gravity.
I think we should finish this before fantasying too much about what dark matter possible could be.
Well it is OK to believe and research etc… but the stupid thing is when such believe suddenly become almost certain knowledge, and “we” more or less suddenly are sure that it really is matter.

 

[Paul]

Elementary particles in the LHC creates/pulls a magnetic field, hence there is a energy lost, denying this is exactly so silly as all the other of yours reply..

Protons in the LHC are steered by electromagnets, they're not accelerating elementary particles.

What are you blap blap bla bla about ?

Elementary Particles are due to speed twisted stronger into space.

What?

This is what the resistance RAM is about.

There is no RAM, there certainly isn't resistance RAM.

This is what creates magnetism, - in this case.

You don't mean magnetism, at least I hope you don't.

And this will certainly mean lost of energy, and hence lost of speed.

In your world, what speed do protons in the LHC reach, bearing in mind all that RAM and lost energy?

A short orbit will mean less "acceleration lane" towards Perihelion
This factors are so simple and easy to understand.

Then why are you having such a hard time?

For example the speed of the Mercury is less as double speed of the Earth

And?

This is because the orbit of the Earth is larger.
Hence there is a longer "acceleration lane"

And yet it still orbits more slowly.

The point is what would happen if the "acceleration lane" is 100.000 LY , or billion of light years.

The orbit would be vast and the orbital velocity much, much lower.

Using your 100000 light years gives an approximate orbit of 12647934330.67286 AU which would make the orbital velocity very approximately 0.00000889181 that of earth.

Again you are only demonstrating silly argumentation.
I am talking not talking about “gravity” but about ADG, - you should be able to read this.

Are you trying to make yourself look foolish?

You can easy calculate ADG of a galaxy

Which galaxy?

based on the known mass = 3,43 * 10 -13 m/s²

How do you know the mass so precisely that it is easy to calculate the strength of the gravitational field?

Both values at the periphery.

What does that mean for a galaxy?

Hans honestly I begin to consider whether it is more fruitful to discuss these issues with my 6 years old daughter.

That may be helpful for you, children have a way of being very blunt with their questioning.

I am not sure you will understand why.
But I guess some will..

Is it because you can't convince educated adults that you know anything and children are much easier to fool?

I think it would be impossible to find a example 1 % more stupid / silly / irrelevant than this.

The fact that you think that, and are arrogant enough to insult someone for saying it, shows that you have learnt nothing.

My 6 years old daughter seems to be higher educated and less childlike.

Compared to you, I am sure she is.

 

[MRC_Hans]

What are you blap blap bla bla about ?
Elementary particles in the LHC creates/pulls a magnetic field, hence there is a energy lost, denying this is exactly so silly as all the other of yours reply..

I'll pause a second on this because it is so hilarious. For those who have forgotten, the fact about magnetic drag in the Hadron Collider (LHC) was painfully explained to Bjarne, and he basically called it crap, because he wanted to talk about his resistance against motion (RAM). However, it now seems that the idea has fermented in his brain and has become part of his dreams...

So why is magnetic drag not equal to RAM?

Well, first of all, of course it only applies to charged particles, whereas Bjarne's RAM should also apply to not only non-charged particles, but to macro objects like cows and planets also.

Secondly, magnetic drag only applies when particles are moving in close proximity to some kind of conductor, to which the magnet field is coupled and results in a loss. In empty space, an electron can fly all across the universe without loosing energy.

This is exactly what it have to do with...
Elementary Particles are due to speed twisted stronger into space.
This is what the resistance RAM is about.
This is what creates magnetism, - in this case.
And this will certainly mean lost of energy, and hence lost of speed.

One word: No.

More Blap blap blap blap

This phenomena can be spitted into important 2 factors (as I did) in order to understand / extract what really happens in the process.

1. The strength of Acceleration Due to Gravity ADG
2. The distance from Aphelion to Perihelion that tells you how long time the object can accelerate before it is interrupted by deceleration.

Yes, it accelerates for half an orbit, then decelerates during the other half. Net speed change = 0.

A short orbit will mean less "acceleration lane" towards Perihelion

And less "deceleration lane" towards aphelion.

This factors are so simple and easy to understand.

Yes, very simple. Still, they seem to cause you some problems.

For example the speed of the Mercury is less as double speed of the Earth
BUT ADG of the Sun is many times stronger in Mercury’s orbit.
This is because the orbit of the Earth is larger.

It is because although the Sun's gravitaional pull on mercury is larger, it also has to pull it around a much tighter curve, so the centripetal force is correspondingly greater.

The point is what would happen if the "acceleration lane" is 100.000 LY , or billion of light years.

As you have already agreed that a larger orbit results in a slower orbital speed, you will surely realize that a very large orbit results in a very low orbital speed.

The Suns ADG by Neptune i= 0,0000067 m/s²
Which mean that the ADG of a galaxy is about 2.000.000 times weaker than the Suns ADG in Neptune’s Orbit .

However, that was not what we were discussing.

Hans honestly I begin to consider whether it is more fruitful to discuss these issues with my 6 years old daughter. I am not sure you will understand why.

Oh, I do understand. I can see how great difficulties you have discussing with adults, so a 6 year old will be much easier, and you will be on more or less equal terms. Better do it now, before she gets older.

In fact I can only recommend you spend more time with your family, instead of making up silly theories and devising silly experiments.

Good Bye Hans.

Ahh, sorry, but I think I'll stick around a while still. There is this primitive satisfaction of shooting fish in a barrel. But you can put me on ignore, so you don't see my posts. Since you never really read them anyway, the difference will be small. I will keep shooting your silly notions down, but you don't have to watch.


Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Using your 100000 light years gives an approximate orbit of 12647934330.67286 AU which would make the orbital velocity very approximately 0.00000889181 that of earth.

Any cow reading what I wrote certainly would have understood we are also talking about RAM.

This mean matter would not only circle the Universe in a Keplerian orbit but due to RAM circle inwards towards the center of the Universe. Hence the acceleration would be much fatster..

The exact same thing happens in galaxies and cluster of galaxies. This is how matter continues to end up in the inner black hole (whereby the reason to this “big mystery” solves itself).

Resistance against motion (RAM) will cause matter to follow much more strange center seeking orbits. We already see this in some galaxies. In that process you can forget Keplerian Orbits, or orbit speed, - the speed /acceleration will be much faster.

Why?
Because when matter continue to circle inwards there is first at all larger speed and no interruption by deceleration periods.
Open your eyes, - look at a galaxy and this is what you will see (Doppler Effect> orbit blue & redshift).
Increasing speed = increasing gravity = increasing speed = increasing gravity, - a self self-perpetuating process.

This mean matter circling the Universe will continue to increase its energy, gravity and speed of the Universe.

According to Special relativity we know that; “distances will shorten” by huge speed.
When reaching the speed “c” distances would be gone, - time too, gravity / energy would be extreme, and BAAAAAAAANNNGGG – this is how a BigBang could happen.

There are no objective reason to deny that the RAM (we know is a fact by acceleration) suddenly should be gone when reaching constant speed.
Concrete creeds is to blame for the incoherent understanding of the Universe.

 

[Bjarne]

So why is magnetic drag not equal to RAM?

Well, first of all, of course it only applies to charged particles, whereas Bjarne's RAM should also apply to not only non-charged particles, but to macro objects like cows and planets also.

Crap
There are no other ways where particles can absorb KE.
And this fits exactly with what happens when that such particles is twisted deeper into space.
THIS means stronger gravity and energy.
These particles simply consumes more space due to speed.
Space “don’t like” / resist to be contracted , - and the result is RAM
So pretty simple, - but first the day you begin to take the nature of space serious.

Secondly, magnetic drag only applies when particles are moving in close proximity to some kind of conductor, to which the magnet field is coupled and results in a loss. In empty space, an electron can fly all across the universe without losing energy.

Electron doesn’t fly accords the Universe, exactly like ducks also doesn’t,. Electrons cannot fly anywhere unless something pulls (or push) them.
If this really was the case, Hans would have invented perpetual motion machine.
Hans please stop these manipulation attempts, you only make a bigger fool out of yourself.
RAM is always a fact - get used to it.

Yes, it accelerates for half an orbit, then decelerates during the other half. Net speed change = 0.

Hurra, Finally.

As you have already agreed that a larger orbit results in a slower orbital speed, you will surely realize that a very large orbit results in a very low orbital speed.

Now read my previous post, what will happen when you add RAM to these orbits?
Well - MUCH larger orbit speed.
The first place to learn is from Galaxies, it is so obviously that there never have been reasons to believe that RAM suddenly should disappear when constant speed is reached.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Any cow reading what I wrote certainly would have understood we are also talking about RAM.

"We" are not talking about RAM, you are. The rest of us know there is no such thing as RAM.

This mean matter would not only circle the Universe in a Keplerian orbit but due to RAM circle inwards towards the center of the Universe. Hence the acceleration would be much fatster..

The matter in the universe is not circling a single point.
The universe does not have a center.
There is no such thing as RAM.

The exact same thing happens in galaxies and cluster of galaxies. This is how matter continues to end up in the inner black hole (whereby the reason to this “big mystery” solves itself).

Which mystery?

Resistance against motion (RAM) will cause matter to follow much more strange center seeking orbits.

There is no RAM, and matter does not follow strange center seeking orbits.

We already see this in some galaxies. In that process you can forget Keplerian Orbits, or orbit speed, - the speed /acceleration will be much faster.

No, we don't se this.

Why?
Because when matter continue to circle inwards there is first at all larger speed and no interruption by deceleration periods.
Open your eyes, - look at a galaxy and this is what you will see (Doppler Effect> orbit blue & redshift).
Increasing speed = increasing gravity = increasing speed = increasing gravity, - a self self-perpetuating process.

So you are now claiming that RAM, resistance against motion, causes objects to move .... faster?

Frankly I think you may have difficulty selling that notion, even to a 6 year old. Perhaps you should try a 4 year old, or so.

This mean matter circling the Universe will continue to increase its energy, gravity and speed of the Universe.

No. The amount of energy in the universe is constant.

According to Special relativity we know that; “distances will shorten” by huge speed.

Ehr, no, that is not what SR tells us.

When reaching the speed “c” distances would be gone, - time too, gravity / energy would be extreme, and BAAAAAAAANNNGGG – this is how a BigBang could happen.

I especially think these "BAAAAAAAANNNGGG" things will make you popular with 4 year olds. Might frighten the cows, though.

There are no objective reason to deny that the RAM (we know is a fact by acceleration) suddenly should be gone when reaching constant speed.

RAM does not exist. Not during acceleration, not during constant speed, not during deceleration, not during Christmas, ... it simply does not exist. It is not suddenly gone, because it does not exist.

Did I mention that RAM does not exist?

Hans

 

[Paul]

Any cow reading what I wrote certainly would have understood we are also talking about RAM.

You were talking about orbits. RAM doesn't exist.

This mean matter circling the Universe will continue to increase its energy, gravity and speed of the Universe

What do you mean by circling the Universe?

According to Special relativity we know that; “distances will shorten” by huge speed.

Did you notice the word relativity?

this is how a BigBang could happen.

So in order to create the universe, first take a universe?

There are no objective reason to deny that the RAM (we know is a fact by acceleration) suddenly should be gone when reaching constant speed.

It's your silly idea, don't drag me into it.

Apart from the fact that it doesn't exist in the first place, what objective reason do you have to believe that RAM should suddenly vanish because speed is constant?

Concrete creeds is to blame for the incoherent understanding of the Universe.

Then try to forget them and educate yourself.

 

[Paul]

This is actually quite encouraging, the more I post on this the more I seem to be getting sort of right.

Edumacation is fun.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Crap
There are no other ways where particles can absorb KE.
And this fits exactly with what happens when that such particles is twisted deeper into space.

Could you translate that into English?

THIS means stronger gravity and energy.
These particles simply consumes more space due to speed.

It does? And where do we observe this?

Space “don’t like” / resist to be contracted , - and the result is RAM
So pretty simple, - but first the day you begin to take the nature of space serious.

RAM still doesn't exist.

Electrons cannot fly anywhere unless something pulls (or push) them.

Damn, we should have known this earlier. So all our CRT screens didn't really work? Well good think nobody noticed it.

RAM is always a fact - get used to it.

Must be one of your unobservable facts, like the particle spin yo-yo.

Now read my previous post, what will happen when you add RAM to these orbits?
Well - MUCH larger orbit speed.

Why, of course! Why didn't I think of that?! Resistance=Speed. So simple!

So next time I'll drive faster, I'll step on the brakes, instead of the accelerator. Will save gas too! Bjarne, you are a genious!

..... Wait .....

Mmmm, try again.

it is so obviously that there never have been reasons to believe that RAM suddenly should disappear when constant speed is reached.

It doesn't disapear. .... You see, it doesn't exist. You know, things that don't exist, can't disappear. To disappear, it must first be there. ... Drat! getting it to a 6 year old level is hard.

Hans

 

[Paul]

There are no objective reason to deny that the RAM (we know is a fact by acceleration) suddenly should be gone when reaching constant speed.
Concrete creeds is to blame for the incoherent understanding of the Universe.

The first place to learn is from Galaxies, it is so obviously that there never have been reasons to believe that RAM suddenly should disappear when constant speed is reached.

Anything to say Bjarne?