Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

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

Edumacation is fun.

Yes, you might give Bjarne that credit: He functions as a catalyst. He drives a process of education, ... without taking part in it.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

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.

Imaging a herd of plasma travelling in empty space with almost c.
It drags a magnetic field.
The magnetic field travels faster as the plasma, - with the speed c.
A magnetic field is hence energy escaping from the motion of plasma.

Energy cannot pop up from nowhere
So where does that energy come from ?

Well there is only one to pay, and this is the KE of the particles.
Less KE means = less speed.
Less speed = deceleration
Deceleration = RAM

RAM is a FACT.

There is only one thing left to say;
Muuuuuuuuuhhhhhhh Muuuuuuuuuhhhhhhh Muuuuuuuuuhhhhhhh Muuuuuuuuuhhhhhhh
This means ; cows have fully understood this since the first cow was created.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Imaging a herd of plasma travelling in empty space with almost c.
It drags a magnetic field.
The magnetic field travels faster as the plasma, - with the speed c.
A magnetic field is hence energy escaping from the motion of plasma.

Energy cannot pop up from nowhere
So where does that energy come from ?

Well there is only one to pay, and this is the KE of the particles.
Less KE means = less speed.
Less speed = deceleration
Deceleration = RAM

RAM is a FACT.

There is only one thing left to say;
Muuuuuuuuuhhhhhhh Muuuuuuuuuhhhhhhh Muuuuuuuuuhhhhhhh Muuuuuuuuuhhhhhhh
This means ; cows have fully understood this since the first cow was created.
http://www.science27.com/forum/cowstamp.jpg

6 year olds also think that if they keep repeating something, it will become true.

OK; Bjarne, the behavior of speeding charged particles is a bit complex, because of the wave/particle duality. I'm not sure I can explain it in a way you might understand. I can try, though:

A charged particle only emits an EM wave when it changes speed (or direction). When it moves with constant speed, the magnet field is similar to that of a permanent magnet, and it does not consume energy. So when you accelerate, decelerate, or deflect a charged particle, there will be an energy loss, emitted as an EM wave. This is what is being exploited in the LHC, both to accelerate and control the particles, but also to detect what happens when they collide.

However, particles can travel unhindered trough space, at constant speed. This is the reason we can detect high-energy particles from outer space reaching Earth. It is also the reason that solar wind can travel through the solar system.

Anyway, your idea requires RAM to apply to all objects, particles, cows, planetes, etc.

It doesn't.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

RAM is a figment of your imagination, and you have not been able to show a single coherent argument for it.

In science it is the one that want to change something that also must prove it.
The idea that RAM not “should” occurs by constant speed was not proven at the time it was accepted.
It is also not proven by CERN.

Particles in motion does always require energy to overcome the constant lose of a magnetic field.

It is simply rubbish to claim that RAM not emerges by constant speed of plasma.

The Space-density will always resist being absorbed by matter (or increasing gravity / energy/matter).

Increasing Speed of matter = increasing absorption of space, and hence increasing resistance..

Since speed is the "sinner" to the absorption of space and hence also to the resistance from space, - speed is also the only one to pay the bill…
This is the true meaning of RAM...

Since energy cannot disappear it converts to something else.
This “something else = “magnetic field”

A magnetic field is ONLY an expression of that space simply just pulls back its own belonging, which mean: > That space resists to be absorbed by matter.

RAM doesn’t care with acceleration or constant speed.
This is ONLY something that happens inside yours and many others heads.
This is nothing but concrete creeds.

Off course the “amount” of speed lose = proportional with the gain of magnetic strength.
If you prevent the speed lost, the force / energy you will use to that must pay the RAM-bill instead.

This too is so cow logic simple

This is the true cause of a magnetic field that occurs due to speed.

A magnetic field is only; released space, - nothing else.

You call it a magnetic field, it sounds good, but you don’t know what this really is.

To be blindfolded is always a big problem that leads to wrong conclusion, confusions, or just complete darkness.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Even the most sick cow know that even Plasma from the Sun (Sun wind) always carries a magnetic field, NOT only when it change direction (which never happens)

Discussion with you would be so much more efficient is you actually read my posts. I clearly wrote that there is a magnet field. A magnet field does not tap energy, unless it changes. An EM wave costs energy.

Does the sun wind change speed ? - YES due to RAM, - in that process is emitting energy > magnetic field.

No. solar wind doesn't just loose speed due to any kind of RAM, but it is deflected when it enters the magnet field of planets.

It is not opposite; - that the magnetic field is result AFTER speed is lost or because of speed is lost.

Translate, please.

This is impossible, because WHY should the sun wind then slow down?

It doesn't, except due to gravity.

The energy transfer happens at the same time as the energy slows down.
The lost of speed is instantly the cause of a magnetic field.

Hans you answer is rather an expression of desperation, - to avoid to face fact and fool stupid readers.

Why do you not just admit you have lost the RAM-discussion?

There isn't even a discussion. A discussion requires that both sides participate, instead of one side saying MUUUUHH.

RAM is a figment of your imagination, and you have not been able to show a single coherent argument for it.

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.

Even the most sick cow know that even Plasma from the Sun (Sun wind) always carries a magnetic field

Does the sun wind change speed ? - YES due to RAM, - in that process energy (KE) is emitting as a> magnetic field.

Don't you even notice that you contradict yourself constantly?

 

[Paul]

NOT only when it change direction (which never happens)

Look up magnetosphere.

 

[Bjarne]

RAM is a figment of your imagination, and you have not been able to show a single coherent argument for it.

In science it is the one that want to change something that also must prove it.
The idea that RAM not “should” occurs by constant speed was not proven at the time it was accepted.
It is also not proven by CERN.

Particles in motion does always require energy to overcome the constant lose of a magnetic field.

It is simply rubbish to claim that RAM not emerges by constant speed of plasma.

The Space-density will always resist being absorbed by matter (or increasing gravity / energy/matter).

Increasing Speed of matter = increasing absorption of space, and hence increasing resistance..

Since speed is the "sinner" to the absorption of space and hence also to the resistance from space, - speed is also the only one to pay the bill…
This is the true meaning of RAM...

Since energy cannot disappear it converts to something else.
This “something else = “magnetic field”

A magnetic field is ONLY an expression of that space simply just pulls back its own belonging, which mean: > That space resists to be absorbed by matter.

RAM doesn’t care with acceleration or constant speed.
This is ONLY something that happens inside yours and many others heads.
This is nothing but concrete creeds.

Off course the “amount” of speed lose = proportional with the gain of magnetic strength.
If you prevent the speed lost, the force / energy you will use to that must pay the RAM-bill instead.

This too is so cow logic simple

This is the true cause of a magnetic field that occurs due to speed.

A magnetic field is only; released space, - nothing else.

You call it a magnetic field, it sounds good, but you don’t know what this really is.

To be blindfolded is always a big problem, that leads to wrong conclution, confusions, or just complete darkness.

 

[MRC_Hans]

In science it is the one that want to change something that also must prove it.

Exactly. So you have to prove your ideas.

The idea that RAM not “should” occurs by constant speed was not proven at the time it was accepted.

Wrong. Read up on physics.

Particles in motion does always require energy to overcome the constant lose of a magnetic field.

No.

It is simply rubbish to claim that RAM not emerges by constant speed of plasma.

No.

The Space-density will always resist being absorbed by matter (or increasing gravity / energy/matter).

No.

Increasing Speed of matter = increasing absorption of space, and hence increasing resistance..

Prove it.

Since speed is the "sinner" to the absorption of space and hence also to the resistance from space, - speed is also the only one to pay the bill…
This is the true meaning of RAM...

Prove it.

Since energy cannot disappear it converts to something else.
This “something else = “magnetic field”

A magnetic field is ONLY an expression of that space simply just pulls back its own belonging, which mean: > That space resists to be absorbed by matter.

Prove it.

RAM doesn’t care with acceleration or constant speed.

That is right. It doesn't exist either way.

Off course the “amount” of speed lose = proportional with the gain of magnetic strength.

No.

If you want to prevent the speed lost, the force /energy you will use to that must pay the bill instead.

If you want to compensate for lost speed you must provide energy, but there is no RAM.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Exactly. So you have to prove your ideas.

Dear...I think you misunderstood something
It is not me that claims that inertia only applies by acceleration.
This is total concrete without any evidence at all.
If that stupid idea never would have been accepted the Universe would look totally different.
(and I guess 100,000 orthodox "scientist" would had been unemployed)

If you want to compensate for lost speed you must provide energy, but there is no RAM.

I agree with you exactly 50%

 

[Paul]

Dear...I think you misunderstood something

You're confusing know what you're saying and completely disagree with misunderstand.

It is not me that claims that inertia only applies by acceleration.

That requires correct use of terms, something in which you consistently demonstrate a spectacular inability.

"The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line." Isaac Newton, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica

Who is misusing inertia?

If that stupid idea never would have been accepted the Universe would look totally different.

You mean Newton's stupid idea about inertia, or your stupid garbled assertion that "the idea that RAM not “should” occurs by constant speed was not proven at the time it was accepted".

I agree with you exactly 50%

Which makes you exactly 100% wrong.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Imaging a herd of plasma travelling in empty space with almost c.
It drags a magnetic field.
The magnetic field travels faster as the plasma, - with the speed c.
A magnetic field is hence energy escaping from the motion of plasma.

Energy cannot pop up from nowhere
So where does that energy come from ?

Well there is only one to pay, and this is the KE of the particles.
Less KE means = less speed.
Less speed = deceleration
Deceleration = RAM

RAM is a FACT.

There is only one thing left to say;
Muuuuuuuuuhhhhhhh Muuuuuuuuuhhhhhhh Muuuuuuuuuhhhhhhh Muuuuuuuuuhhhhhhh
This means ; cows have fully understood this since the first cow was created.
[qimg]http://www.science27.com/forum/cowstamp.jpg[/qimg]

Hmmm.

The situation Bjarne describes looks simpler when you look at it from the plasma herd's point of view. So far as the plasma herd can tell, it's just sitting still while other stuff rushes by. Its charge (if any) is constant, so its electric field is constant. Its current as measured within its own inertial frame is zero, so Maxwell's equations tell us its magnetic field is also zero.

The magnetic field becomes non-zero only when you transform to some other frame of reference. In short, any magnetic field seen by Bjarne (and the rest of the universe) is just the static electric field of the plasma herd as transformed into Bjarne's coordinate system. The magnetic field is an artifact of Bjarne's motion relative to the plasma herd. The combined electromagnetic field is an invariant, but its decomposition into electric and magnetic fields depends upon your frame of reference.

With that in mind, there is no "energy escaping from the motion of plasma" in Bjarne's scenario. So much for his proof of RAM.

Particles in motion does always require energy to overcome the constant lose of a magnetic field.

Wrong. See above.

It is simply rubbish to claim that RAM not emerges by constant speed of plasma.

Rubbish.

Et cetera.

 

[Bjarne]

Who is misusing inertia?

Newton and the rest of the world, - so long it was, and is, believed that the ”inertia” (which in this context just mean resistance by moving through space), only “should”- apply by acceleration.

So far as the plasma herd can tell, it's just sitting still while other stuff rushes by.

And that story is never told by any plasma herd.
Relative to the “speed” c the plasma herd must decelerate, - must.

Its charge (if any) is constant, so its electric field is constant.

Motion always means “charge” , - also even though that is almost insignificant, - and almost zero.
And still matter must decelerate, - relative to c, - also even by pretty low speed. .

Its current as measured within its own inertial frame is zero, so Maxwell's equations tell us its magnetic field is also zero.

And this is only true if there really was no resistance / deceleration, - relative to c.

The combined electromagnetic field is an invariant, but its decomposition into electric and magnetic fields depends upon your frame of reference.

RAM is definite by speed of matter relative to c.

In that context I believe it is possible to calculate how much our speed is, relative to the speed c.

Nobody knows that speed.

It could be huge.

It should be possible to calculate, - it could be funny.

If you could tell me the amount of energy (Joule) a certain amount of elementary particles that moves with a certain speed, (e.g.; c-3m) would emit as magnetic field, - I can try to calculate our speed.

Knowing our total speed, relative to c, - is important, - if we want to know how much mass-increase , the speed difference (for example the speed of galaxies and galaxy clusters) relative to our speed, - is causing.

If matter of the Universe (included us) orbit the Universe with huge speed, then relative small speed differences between us and other astronomic objects (stars, galaxies and clusters) could cause pretty larger mass difference, - much more as we ever have imaging. .

This could be the end of the dark matter religion.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Newton and the rest of the world, - so long it was, and is, believed that the ”inertia” (which in this context just mean resistance by moving through space), only “should”- apply by acceleration.

That's not what the word "inertia" means.

Relative to the “speed” c the plasma herd must decelerate, - must.

I don't think you know what the word "decelerate" means, either.

 

[Paul]

Newton and the rest of the world

Of course, silly me, everyone but you is wrong.

so long it was, and is, believed that the ”inertia” (which in this context just mean resistance by moving through space), only “should”- apply by acceleration

Inertia already has a meaning - the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion.

The state of motion is it's velocity which is the measurement of the rate and direction of change in the position of an object.

Because acceleration is the rate of change of velocity over time, inertia is resistance to acceleration.

And that story is never told by any plasma herd.
Relative to the “speed” c the plasma herd must decelerate, - must.

You seem to be very confused on a basic level.

RAM is definite by speed of matter relative to c.

RAM still doesn't exist.

Why relative to c?

If matter of the Universe (included us) orbit the Universe with huge speed

It doesn't do either.


Do you have any reply to your contradictory assertions yet?

 

[Bjarne]

Inertia already has a meaning - the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion.

The state of motion is it's velocity which is the measurement of the rate and direction of change in the position of an object.

Because acceleration is the rate of change of velocity over time, inertia is resistance to acceleration.

We are dealing with a half truth and a half lie

 

[Reality Check]

We are dealing with a half truth and a half lie

No we are dealing with the complete truth that inertia has a meaning that has been the same for over 300 years:
Inertia

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest

We are dealing with the comnplets lie from you that inertia is the resistance of any physical object to motion.

The only saving grace would be if your low knowledge of English lead you to think that motion was a "change in motion", i.e. acceleration.
However I am sure that this has been pointed out to you before. You just cannot understand this simple definition for some reason.

Bjarne's completely debunked "central gravity"
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]

Newton and the rest of the world, - so long it was, and is, believed that the ”inertia” (which in this context just mean resistance by moving through space), only “should”- apply by acceleration.

Inertia is not resistance against motion.
Inertia is resistance against change of speed.
Therefore it only applies when speed is changing.

RAM is definite by speed of matter relative to c.

Yes. The number is zero.

In that context I believe it is possible to calculate how much our speed is, relative to the speed c.

Your belief is wrong.

Nobody knows that speed.

It could be huge.

Wrong.

It should be possible to calculate, - it could be funny.

You can't calculate even simple things.

If you could tell me the amount of energy (Joule) a certain amount of elementary particles that moves with a certain speed, (e.g.; c-3m) would emit as magnetic field, - I can try to calculate our speed.

The value is zero. .... Actually, your question doesn't even make sense. Obviously, it would not be a value in J, but perhaps J/m, or something, but that just shows us all how ignorant you are. And what does c-3m mean?


Hans

 

[Bjarne]

No we are dealing with the complete truth that inertia has a meaning that has been the same for over 300 years:

Inertia is about resistance against change of direction or speed.
Hence it comprehend acceleration, - but not constant speed.
Therefore it is a half wind.
And therefore I am not using that misunderstood confused expression
Instead I use the expression RAM that comprehend any kind of speed.

 

[Bjarne]

perhaps J/m,

So you are not stupid then?

And what does c-3m mean?

It is up to you
So fast as possible
Almost c, - e.g; c minus 3 m/s