Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

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.

No, you misunderstand something. You have the burden of proof.
I don't have the duty to educate you on common knowledge.

Let me put it in a way you can maybe understand:

I don't give a damn if you don't understand or accept physics.
I don't give a damn if you think you have made a great discovery.
I don't give a damn if the world ignores you.

It is all YOUR problem, not mine.

Capisco?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

And therefore you act like an idiot.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

So you are not stupid then?

Son, I've been called a lot of things in my life. Stupid is not amoung them.

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

Why didn't you write that, then?

So what do you wanna know about that speed?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Oh, and Bjarne, do you want me to explain inertia to you? Again?

Hans

 

[RattyCat]

The difference between the nature of space between galaxies (where the universe expands) and the space inside galaxies and solar systems (where space apparently does not expand), is only that gravity is greater near mass.
---------

I was given to understand from what I've read on this subject that dark matter was more to do with why galaxies don't fly apart given their rate of spin and apparent mass.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Inertia is about resistance against change of direction or speed.

Yes.

Hence it comprehend acceleration, - but not constant speed.

This sentence doesn't make any sense. I don't think you know what the word "comprehend" means. However, there is no word you could replace "comprehend" with which would make the sentence make sense.

Therefore it is a half wind.

There is no such thing as "a half wind" and, even if there was, it would have nothing to do with inertia. Inertia is inertia.

And therefore I am not using that misunderstood confused expression

Nobody else in this thread appears to be confused about the meaning of the word "inertia".

Instead I use the expression RAM that comprehend any kind of speed.

Again, I don't think you know what the word "comprehend" means.

And, again, even if we replace the word with another, this statement still doesn't make sense, as you seem to be implying that there are limits beyond which inertia does not apply. This is not true.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I was given to understand from what I've read on this subject that dark matter was more to do with why galaxies don't fly apart given their rate of spin and apparent mass.

You've read things on the subject of dark matter? Then you're not qualified to understand Bjarne's theory, I'm afraid. Instead of reading about a subject, you should just make things up and talk about cows a lot. That way you could overturn all known physics by misinterpreting data from badly-designed and executed home-made experiments, too.

 

[Paul]

Inertia is about resistance against change of direction or speed.

We know.

Hence it comprehend acceleration, - but not constant speed.

Wrong, and certainly not hence.

A change of the state of motion does not rule out any states of motion.
Constant velocity is a state of motion.
What exactly is so difficult for you to understand about that?

Therefore it is a half wind.

Nope. You, however, are all wind.

And therefore I am not using that misunderstood confused expression

It's you who misunderstands and appears confused.

Instead I use the expression RAM that comprehend any kind of speed.

RAM does not exist.

 

[Paul]

I was given to understand from what I've read on this subject that dark matter was more to do with why galaxies don't fly apart given their rate of spin and apparent mass.

Welcome, you picked an 'interesting' thread to start in.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

You are getting there: Acceleration is a change in direction or speed.
Inertia is resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest, i.e. acceleration.

But inertia does not have a brain. It does not "comprehend" acceleration.

Your RAM (resistance against motion) does not exist.

• Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
  First asked 2 November 2009
• Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).
• Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
  First asked 26 November 2009

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)

 

[Bjarne]

Nobody else in this thread appears to be confused about the meaning of the word "inertia".

The half wind is the confusion, - not me.

A change of the state of motion does not rule out any states of motion.

And this is why a half wind also not rules out the other half wind.
You know the half wind is real and also the other half wind is also real.
BUT there is no connection øøøhh or is it ?.
THATs the problem, but only for the one half brain not for the other half brain. And because there is no connection (or maybe there is) between the two brains these do not rules out each other, but they do also not understand each other. half, this is also where the half wind comes in or only sometimes comes out.
I hope this is about 50% coherent, to the one half of the brain, at least sometimes, but sometimes 0% .
Science seem to have the same brain damage problem.
Do you now begin to understand at least the half truth.
Not,- Ok… but then the half of the half truth ?

No, you misunderstand something. You have the burden of proof.

Not at all.
If science has invented an ogre that suddenly disappears by constant speed, it is science that one day must get rid of that nonsense.
All I can do is tell it is wrong and no evidence for that nuts idea.

Before something can get the status as scientific knowledge, it must be objective observed or evidently proved.
The foolish idea that there are no resistances by constant speed is nothing but fantasy.
I cannot take that fantasy away from yours head or other idiots head.
Only you self and the rest of the idiots in the world can do it themselves.

So what do you wanna know about that speed?

How much energy, by a certain speed, and a certain amount of particles is converted from speed to a speed related magnetic field?

RAM does not exist.

A half wind exists + the other half wind, together this is full wind øøøøhhh
Now I am confused again, because it depend of the half brain , - you know two half brain do not (always) rules out each other, but it can happen. (and often does)…. Hans is a example of that.
You told me the other half wind does not exist, but what if it did? What if the problem also is that a half brains half can understand the half truth?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If science has invented an ogre that suddenly disappears by constant speed, it is science that one day must get rid of that nonsense.

Science has invented no ogres.

All I can do is tell it is wrong and no evidence for that nuts idea.

Actually, what you could do is provide evidence which refutes this "ogre", whatever you think it is. But I'll tell you this for free - if it's an established scientific theory, then there is evidence for it. You not understanding or knowing of that evidence doesn't make it non-existent.

Before something can get the status as scientific knowledge, it must be objective observed or evidently proved.
The foolish idea that there are no resistances by constant speed is nothing but fantasy.

Actually, there's tonnes of evidence for it. Try reading a high-school physics book.

 

[Paul]

The half wind is the confusion, - not me.

You're an idiot, but what's worse, your a mumpsimus.

And this is why a half wind also not rules out the other half wind.

You can't have half a wind. What hare-brained analogy are you trying to make?

I hope this is about 50% coherent, to the one half of the brain, at least sometimes, but sometimes 0%

It is entirely incoherent.

If, by some miracle, you are actually trying to make a point, please try your usual approximation of intelligible English.

If science has invented an ogre that suddenly disappears by constant speed, it is science that one day must get rid of that nonsense.

Ah, I see, it's something to do with you completely failing to grasp inertia.

All I can do is tell it is wrong and no evidence for that nuts idea.

Ignoring the evidence like a child won't make it go away.

Before something can get the status as scientific knowledge, it must be objective observed or evidently proved.

Two things you have singularly failed to do with any of your ideas.

 

[Bjarne]

if it's an established scientific theory, then there is evidence for it

WHAT evidense are you blap blap blap about ?

 

[MRC_Hans]

OK, let's clear up a couple of things. Bjarne's posts are too incoherent to answer paragraph per paragraph, so I will do some summing up.

The expression "half wind" is a Danish expression that Bjarne has translated verbatim (Bjarne, most of such expressions are language-specific and can't just be translated).

The real expression is "løbe med en halv vind" ~ "run at a half wind", and is maritime, denoting the condition where a sailboat has the wind from the side, which provides for fast and easy sailing.

Later, the expression was used for journalists, who sometimes run off with half a story and make up the rest themselves (oddly appropriate of Bjarne's MO). The correct English expression in the case would be 'half-baked'.

Now, Inertia. Reading Bjarne, I can only conclude that he HAS understood it by now, but is unwilling to let go of his dream, so he is being willfully obtuse. Still, I'll go above and explain it again, just for Bjarne:

The key to understand inertia is kinetic energy. All objects have kinetic energy. If an object is at rest, the KE is zero, if it moves, the KE is a product of its mass and its speed. (For now, we operate with moderate speeds, and thus ignore relativity.)

So we start with an object at rest. The KE is zero. How do we transfer some KR to the object?

We need to apply a force. A force is not energy as long as it acts on a stationary object: Think of a compressed spring, it can stay compressed forever without spending energy. However, the moment the object starts to move, the spring unwinds, and releases its stored energy. That energy becomes KE in the object, because the object pushes back on the spring (Newton, action and reaction). So now we have an energy transferred to the object, by applying a force over a distance.

This means that the object is accelerating. As long as the force is applied, the object gains KE and accelerates. When we stop pushing, the acceleration also stops, and provided no other forces act on it, the object continues at constant speed, retaining the KE that was transferred to it.

This is inertia. Inertia is the counter-force from an object when KE is transferred to it. And this is the reason it disappears when the force disappears.

This natural law was discovered by sir Isaac Newton, and it has been confirmed by observation countless times. When we reach considerable fractions of c, we need to make some modifications, in that the transfer between KE and speed is no longer linear.

Now, Bjarne, you can believe this or not, I don't really care, but stop saying that it is not supported by facts. I have now given you the facts, and you can seek confirmation in literature. You will be a liar if you keep claiming that is is unsupported.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Now I am confused again, because it depend of the half brain , - you know two half brain do not (always) rules out each other, but it can happen.

Well, I frankly don't think you will gain anything, even if you team up with another half-brain. You might gain something if you were to listen to us with a full deck.

Hans

 

[Paul]

Thanks for clearing løbe med en halv vind up.

Of course it still isn't an appropriate expression the way Bjarne mangles the analogy based on the mis-translation.

 

[Bjarne]

This means that the object is accelerating. As long as the force is applied, the object gains KE and accelerates.
This is inertia.

All what you wrote is truth, except this;

When we stop pushing, the acceleration also stops, and provided no other forces act on it, the object continues at constant speed, retaining the KE that was transferred to it.

Again you ignore that it require energy to emit a magnetic field.

Elementary Particle in motion emits a MF.
The fast rotation of magnetars creates a strong magnetic field ( 6 x 10¹⁶ nT) – (we do not know why, but off course we suspect the rotation).
A rotating galaxy emits a magnetic field.
Even the atmosphere of the rotating Earth seems to create a MF.
At least we still don’t understand the cause of the MF of the ionosphere.

It is obviously that everywhere where matter moves a MF is the waste product.
This proves the lost of energy RAM, and hence that motion never is resistance free.

 

[MRC_Hans]

All what you wrote is truth,

Right.

except this;


Again you ignore that it require energy to emit a magnetic field.

Wrong.

First of all, I'm talking about any object. Most objects don't have a magnet field.

Secondly, a magnet field does not require energy to maintain (where do you think a permanent magnet could get energy from?).

A steady magnet field requires energy to start, and it will retain that as potential energy till you somehow collapse it.

Elementary Particle in motion emits a MF.

Bjarne, you are severely outclassed here: I am really just a lay-person on gravity; the difference between you and me is that I am willing to study, but when it comes to magnetism, I'm an educated specialist. So don't try to teach me about magnetics.

The fast rotation of magnetars creates a strong magnetic field ( 6 x 10¹⁶ nT) – (we do not know why, but off course we suspect the rotation).

True, and irrelevant.

A rotating galaxy emits a magnetic field.
Even the atmosphere of the rotating Earth seems to create a MF.
At least we still don’t understand the cause of the MF of the ionosphere.

True, and irrelevant.

It is obviously that everywhere where matter moves a MF is the waste product.

Relevant, but wrong. Moving matter does NOT create a magnet field, in itself. If it did, we would understand the magnet field of the ionosphere.

This proves the lost of energy RAM, and hence that motion never is resistance free.

Double fault. Moving matter does not create a magnet field, and even IF it did, it would not mean a loss of energy. It does not cost energy to move a magnet field, it costs energy to emit an electromagentic wave.

I can design a fairly simple experiment you can do yourself that will prove this, if you are interested.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

First of all, I'm talking about any object. Most objects don't have a magnet field.

Which ?

Notice;

1. The interaction with other MF can hide a weaker MF, e.g. if you spin a football , the Earth’s MF will overshadow the very small MF the football will emit and hence the possibility to measure it.
2. We are speaking about special relativity, and hence weak energy that can be difficult to discover unless the mass or/and speed is pretty large.
3. If the rotating body is large enough and spinning / moving fast enough you certainly can measure a MF, - that always is emitted due to motion..
   

Bjarne, you are severely outclassed here: I am really just a lay-person on gravity; the difference between you and me is that I am willing to study, but when it comes to magnetism, I'm an educated specialist. So don't try to teach me about magnetics.

Only blap blap blap as usually.
I am asking for EVIDENCE.
Mother cow is also an great expert, she have just shown you the EVIDENCE that proves RAM is a FACT…

"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school.
Albert Einstein. "

Moving matter does NOT create a magnet field, in itself. If it did, we would understand the magnet field of the ionosphere.

And I guess so soon people from your generation all are gone, - people will begin to understand the simple coherent cow logic fact; - when matter moves it pulls that space we and mother cow know it is connected to. THIS = RAM, - simply because space resist to be absorbed.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein.

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Max Planck..