Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

Your basic claim is that the established science about basic physics is mistaken, and that the thousands of educated scientists working with it are blinded by convention, whereas YOU alone have seen the light and solved the problems that have puzzled the world for a century.

Now, unfortunately, you are not the only one. There are thousands of your kind on the internet, and this forum alone has several such claimants to eternal fame currently posting.

So please tell me: In which way is YOUR "theory" better than for example the ones these guys have:

First at all the basic of my theory; “that matter consumes space” is simple logical, and most at all it is coherent.

• You cannot deny that this can explain for example mass attraction, (two bodies that pulls the same space between them).
• It also can bring light to what’s going on in the interaction process.
• It can unite the expanding space (dark energy) and gravity.
• It can connect dark matter as the source to dark energy.

And all this even though the theory in fact not are fare from what you already know is true.

The expression: "Stretching Space" seems to be close to the well-known: "Curvature of Space" that it can be hard to know what is really the difference, - if any?

So the theory is therefore almost nothing, all what it really does is only to bring one single word into the almost empty framework, - and this is coherence.

And the result is almost amazing, the theory can without any effort unite;

• The cause of Gravity
• The cause of Dark Matter
• The cause of Dark Energy
• The cause of a BigBang,

- and + Predict a BigChrunch.

And it can unite Gravity and the strong force.

It is almost like there are no more one could wish.

You have probably no idea at all what dark energy is or where it comes from. You have no idea of what caused a Bigbang.
You have no idea whether a BigChrunch one day will start or not.

Dark matter and dark energy is the main parts of the Universe.
You have no idea what this is.

Do you self a favour; admit that we need at least some kind of coherent suggestions to what this is about and how all this possible can be connected / understood….

The simple basic claim I have introduced is so much down to earth as it possible can get, -it is so close to the understanding we already have as it possible can be, and it follows the laws we both agree are facts.

Honestly I think we also both agree that space really don’t like that to be curved/ deformed (or if you prefer stretched/absorbed) – You must agree to that, otherwise a gravity wave would not move at all.

So when you honestly know that deformation of space is exactly what speed (of matter) does (since it creates gravity) , how can it be a surprise, or so difficult for you to understand that Space don’t like to be deformed, - space will resist…..Call that RAM, - in the sense that when it is speed that is causing space to deform, it is also speed that must pay the resistance bill.

If you believe RAM is wrong you must prove it, –because you cannot make something you believe to a scientific fact, and this is what a world of naïve people have done, - Just because Sir Isaac Newton believed it.

We know there are resistances against motion.
We don’t know that it suddenly should disappear when constant speed is reach.
So you, - you created all the many unnecessary problem / mysteries that follows, - yourself, - can you really not see it.

Don’t support such rubbish invention and you would have several mysteries less.

RAM is a cow-logic consequences exactly like all the other aspect that follows.

So regarding RAM, it is no new theory, also not my theory, - we have already all we need.
Well we have to agree how to calculate RAM, -
BUT is in not proven that it suddenly should disappear by constant speed.
All I do is just to tell you – you don't bring rubbish into science, - this is what you do, exactly in the moment you deny it's existence.

Short, "my theory" - is almost nothing but; coherence between phenomena’s you already know are facts.

I am only a scientific refuse collector.
After rubbish is removed you will have a beautiful coherent picture left.
I do only take away what you do not need, it is not much rubbish I throw out, but the result is huge.

 

[Paul]

I'll leave the science to the qualified.

First at all the basic of my theory; “that matter consumes space” is simple logical, and most at all it is coherent.

Most of all it is speculative nonsense.

And all this even though the theory in fact not are fare from what you already know is true.

For a truly enormous value of far.

The expression: "Stretching Space" seems to be close to the well-known: "Curvature of Space" that it can be hard to know what is really the difference, - if any?

Ever considered properly defining the first or understanding the second?

So the theory is therefore almost nothing,

You don't have a theory, but at least you've still got almost nothing.

all what it really does is only to bring one single word into the almost empty framework, - and this is

incompetence.

It is almost like there are no more one could wish.

How about a proper description of this alleged theory, in comprehensible language, along with the data you feel support it?

You have probably no idea at all what dark energy is or where it comes from.

Why don't you read up on why it's called dark energy.

You have no idea of what caused a Bigbang

Please, enlighten us.

Do you self a favour admit that we need at least some suggestions what this is about and how all this possible can be connected / understood….

Suggestion, speculation and wild thinking, yes.

Argument from incredulity, ignorance and incompetence, no.

If you believe RAM is wrong you must prove it, –because you cannot make something you believe to a scientific fact, and this is what a world of naïve people have done,

You have that exactly back-wards; you make the claim, you want to introduce your pointless concoction, you demonstrate it's existence.

I am only a scientific refuse collector.

That is certainly true.

After rubbish is removed you will have a beautiful cohorent picture left.

That's what we have now, you want to spread the discarded carcases of diseased ramblings and the rotting scraps of uneducated guesswork everywhere.

 

[Reality Check]

You don’t know what dark matter is either what dark energy is.
You also don’t know what a gravity wave really is or even what gravity really is.
How can you lie so much to yourself?

I know what dark matter does: dark matter.
I know what dark energy does: dark energy.
No body (including you) knows exactly what either of them are made of.

I know that a "gravity wave" does not exist.
I know what a gravitational wave really is.
I know what gravitation really is.
I know that in science what gravitation (or anything else) really is can change, e.g. from a force exerted by mass to the result of curvature of spacetime by mass.
What you remain ignorant of is that the fantasies of someone who cannot make his ideas do the simplest things (like have the correct units of measurement ) is not science.

I know that you are just spouting gibberish and fantasizing that this means anything ("matter consumes space" as an explanation for dark matter is as idiotic "elves eat jam" as an explanation).

I know that you show a complete inability to understand that experiments show that RAM does not exist.
Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance"

I know that you cannot understand that RAM violates conservation of energy: Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
First asked 26 November 2009

I know that you show an abysmal ignorance of the basics of science:
And the real flaw with RAM is Bjarne's crewing up the units of measurement: RAM = y-1 where y is the Lorentz factor.
So we have a number without units and subtract 1 from it to another number without units.
The idiocy of thinking that a number without units has the units of acceleration is obvious to every one except Bjarne.
Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no !

How can you lie so much to yourself?

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

 

[Bjarne]

I know what dark matter does: dark matter.
I know what dark energy does: dark energy.
Nobody (including you) knows exactly what either of them are made of.

I know how strong superman is.
But I don’t believe he is real.
I mean physical.
In the same way dark matter is strong but not matter.

I know that a "gravity wave" does not exist.
I know what a gravitational wave really is.
I know what gravitation really is.

If you really did know that then tell us why have gravitational waves never been detected?
There are several facilities over the decades that "should" be able to do that.
These have been built to confirm or disconfirm that parts of SR.
No places has gravitational waves been detected.
This is not as expected according to SR..
Why ?
Answer because gravitational waves from supernovas only make the expansion of the Universe just a little faster, you’ll never be able to detect that.
So like you , Einstein was also not out of the bush..

 

[dafydd]

I know how strong superman is.
But I don’t believe he is real.
I mean physical.
In the same way dark matter is strong but not matter.


If you really did know that then tell us why have gravitational waves never been detected?
There are several facilities over the decades that "should" be able to do that.
These have been built to confirm or disconfirm that parts of SR.
No places has gravitational waves been detected.
This is not as expected according to SR..
Why ?
Answer because gravitational waves from supernovas only make the expansion of the Universe just a little faster, you’ll never be able to detect that.
So like you , Einstein was also not out of the bush..

And you are here to put Einstein right? Not enough laughing dogs in the world.

 

[Bjarne]

And you are here to put Einstein right? Not enough laughing dogs in the world.

http://cbswxrk.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/laughingcow.jpg?w=385&h=385

 

[Paul]

Well done, that certainly explains your position in a coherent and adult manner.

 

[Reality Check]

If you really did know that then tell us why have gravitational waves never been detected?
There are several facilities over the decades that "should" be able to do that.
These have been built to confirm or disconfirm that parts of SR.
No places has gravitational waves been detected.
This is not as expected according to SR..
Why ?

A sensible, coherent question for once. But then you spoil it with a mistake (it is GR not SR) and a stupid insult:

The answer is: Gravitational waves are really really weak. The setectors have to be very very sensitive and even so they can only detect waves from the most energetic events, e.g. LIGO

Measurable emissions of gravitational waves are expected from binary systems (collisions and coalescences of neutron stars or black holes), supernova of massive stars (which form neutron stars and black holes), accreting neutron stars, rotations of neutron stars with deformed crusts, and the remnants of gravitational radiation created by the birth of the universe.

So we have spent a decade looking for rare events producing weak effects. So far no results but the next generation of detectors are expected to do better.

There is indirect evidence of gravitational waves from the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar.

Answer because gravitational waves from supernovas only make the expansion of the Universe just a little faster, you’ll never be able to detect that.

Answer: Your usual gibberish. Gravitational waves have no effect on the expansion of the universe.

 

[Paulhoff]

First at all the basic of my theory; “that matter consumes space” is simple logical, and most at all it is coherent.

No, you in no way have a Theory, you only have an unsupported idea.

It has to be tested many times by other scientist and not disproven before it may become a Theory.

Paul

 

[MRC_Hans]

First at all the basic of my theory; “that matter consumes space” is simple logical, and most at all it is coherent.

SInce you don'¨t know what space is, it is neither logical nor coherent. It is simply words.

• You cannot deny that this can explain for example mass attraction, (two bodies that pulls the same space between them).

Since whatever space is it is not some kind of fabric or rubber sheet ot whatever, no it cannot explain mass attraction. As I have told you years ago, for space to cause attraction, there must be friction between space and objects in space.

• It also can bring light to what’s going on in the interaction process.

No, not at all. And if it can you have certainly not been able ot explain it.

It can unite the expanding space (dark energy) and gravity.

No.

It can connect dark matter as the source to dark energy.

No.

And all this even though the theory in fact not are fare from what you already know is true.

Yes, it is very far from what we know. You just fail to understand the implications.

The expression: "Stretching Space" seems to be close to the well-known: "Curvature of Space" that it can be hard to know what is really the difference, - if any?

If there is no difference, how can you model explain anything? Sure we can call it 'stretching' instead of bending, but if we agree it means the same ,then what is new?

So the theory is therefore almost nothing,

Here we almost agree. Though I would say it is absolutely nothing.

all what it really does is only to bring one single word into the almost empty framework, - and this is coherence.

And the result is almost amazing, the theory can without any effort unite;

Bjarne, TRY to be real: If it was so simple, do you really really think it would have escaped scientists for so long?

The simple basic claim I have introduced is so much down to earth as it possible can get, -it is so close to the understanding we already have as it possible can be, and it follows the laws we both agree are facts.

No, it does not follow facts.

If you believe RAM is wrong you must prove it, –because you cannot make something you believe to a scientific fact, and this is what a world of naïve people have done, - Just because Sir Isaac Newton believed it.

We know it doesn't exist. It has been proved extensively.

We know there are resistances against motion.

No.

We don’t know that it suddenly should disappear when constant speed is reach.

Bjarne, I have explained this to you a dozen times:

It is not resistance against motion, it is resistance against change. When there is no change, there is no resistance.

Honestly, which words do you not understand?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

I have understood for years that different observers in SR and GR observe different rates of time (time dilation) and measure different lengths (length contraction).
What you understand though is unknown.

Then try to understand before you critize.....

Consider this.....

Observer A is observing an object 10 meter away from him, moving in the same direction with the same speed.
Both observer A and observer B, would agree that time was ticking with equal rate and the relative length of the meter stick is the same for both A and B.

The day after the same thing happened, but the speed of the object B was so fast that observer A could see that the size of object B now only was the half compared to the day before.

The day before A could measure 10 meter to the surface of the object.

How much distance to the surface of object B would observer A measure the next day when the object was following the exact same route, but much faster.
If you look at the graph it look like the distance to the surface of B now would be 11 meter.

• Would that be true?
• How much extra would light near object B bend compared to the day before?
• What did happen to the; curvature of space between A and B, - would there due to the fast speed of object B be any length difference ?
• If yes please explain what would happen with the meter stick between A and B ?

 

[Reality Check]

Observer A is observing an object 10 meter away from him, moving in the same direction with the same speed.
Both observer A and observer B, would agree that time was ticking with equal rate and the relative length of the meter stick is the same for both A and B.

Wrong: You cannot say anything about what observer B observes in special relativity because you have not specified what velocity they are moving relative to the object.
If they have the same velocity relative to the object then both observer A and observer B see the same lengths and time rates.
But your cartoons make the length measurements moot. Observer A (and probably observer B) are looking along the line of motion of the object. Neither can measure any length contraction.

Not that you will be able to understand this relatively )) simple bit of SR since you have the delusion the that Lorentz factor involved in it (a number) has the units of acceleration:
Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no !

The day after the same thing happened, but the speed of the object B was so fast that observer A could see that the size of object B now only was the half compared to the day before.
...

Gibberish. And insane questions about the gibberish.
(curvature of spacetime is caused by mass, there is no mass in your cartoons so GR becomes SR)

Bjarne, try learning some physics and mathematics and expressing yourself in them instead of incoherent non-science.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Then try to understand before you critize.....

This is the crucial remark. Follow it yourself: Try to understand physics before you try to improve on it.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Wrong: You cannot say anything about what observer B observes in special relativity because you have not specified what velocity they are moving relative to the object.
If they have the same velocity relative to the object then both observer A and observer B see the same lengths and time rates.
But your cartoons make the length measurements moot. Observer A (and probably observer B) are looking along the line of motion of the object. Neither can measure any length contraction.

As expected
No one could answer the questions
Cows can see the politician escape maneuver
So this is just one more example that proves it is more fruitful to discuss and socialize with cows
They really listen and try all they can to understand.
'Humans are far from so intelligent.
The size of object B - relative to observer A is now the half.
Cows can based on that answer the questions

curvature of spacetime is caused by mass, there is no mass in your cartoons so GR becomes SR

Cows know that when object B is now half the size, due to speed > mass has increased a lot.
A is an observer at the Earth
B is in the second attempt moving faster as the Earth.
So much faster that the size of the object now is half..
This information is enough for cows easy to answer the questions
No calculations are involved.
Only to answer the simple questions, and explain what happens.

RC has revealed he cannot do it...

So who can do it ?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6947707&postcount=3211

 

[MRC_Hans]

So who can do it ?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6947707&postcount=3211

Well, I expect that YOU can't.

Hans

 

[Paul]

The day after the same thing happened, but the speed of the object B was so fast that observer A could see that the size of object B now only was the half compared to the day before.

How did you calculate this result?

If you look at the graph it look like the distance to the surface of B now would be 11 meter.

Because you've drawn it 11 metres away.

If yes please explain what would happen with the meter stick between A and B ?

where

L is the proper length (the length of the object in its rest frame)
L' is the length observed by an observer in relative motion with respect to the object

is the relative velocity between the observer and the moving object

is the speed of light

In physics, length contraction is the physical phenomenon of a decrease in length detected by an observer of objects that travel at any non-zero velocity relative to that observer. This contraction is usually only noticeable at a substantial fraction of the speed of light; the contraction is only in the direction parallel to the direction in which the observed body is travelling. This effect is negligible at everyday speeds, and can be ignored for all regular purposes.

 

[Reality Check]

As expected
No one could answer the questions

As expected you are wrong.
You asked insane questions about an badly defined situation (i.e. gibberish).

The size of object B - relative to observer A is now the half.
Cows can based on that answer the questions

Cows can understand that there is no object B.
Cows can understand that you do not know what you are talking about.
The length contraction happens in the direction of the velocity. The object does not shrink. It contracts in one directions.

RC has revealed he cannot do it...

So who can do it ?

RC has shown that your questions are idiotic because thay are about an impossible situation.

But if you want to to go ahead. You do it. Show your working.

 

[MRC_Hans]

As usually, Bjarne 'runs with a half wind'.

- He read something about contraction (which is, of course purely observational, the objects does not actually change shape or size), and he starts making silly graphics.

We know, of course, where he tries to make this lead: He has this silly notion that we may really be moving at a speed close to c (showing that he has also not understood relativity), and will therefore be shrunken and massive, which should then account for dark matter. Which is another half-cooked idea, because if that effect could exist, it would, of course, also affect orbital mechanics on a solar system scale.

Pathetic.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne
The day after the same thing happened, but the speed of the object B was so fast that observer A could see that the size of object B now only was the half compared to the day before.
RC
Gibberish. And insane questions about the gibberish.
(curvature of spacetime is caused by mass, there is no mass in your cartoons so GR becomes SR)

Rubbish
There is huge speed, close to c, and huge mass increase as well. But as usual is RC exporting reality to a not existing fantasy dimension, or whatever he does. (!) ?

Bjarne
If you look at the graph it look like the distance to the surface of B now would be 11 meter.
Paul
Because you've drawn it 11 metres away.

And what is now left to the “curvature of space” near that body do you think ?

As expected you are wrong.
You asked insane questions about an badly defined situation (i.e. gibberish)

Ohh no. I am asking realistic questions.

The length contraction happens in the direction of the velocity. The object does not shrink. It contracts in one directions.

Now RC have change the 4 dimension Space time to a 2 dimension reality. What will be next?

He read something about contraction (which is, of course purely observational, the objects does not actually change shape or size), and he starts making silly graphics

Do you want to bet ?
This is SR...

He has this silly notion that we may really be moving at a speed close to c

I wrote few weeks ago; “I begin to believe so”, - but only for few days, until I understood that space remember gravity.
The previous Universe was moving so fast that it exploded.
Dark matter and Dark Energy is the evidence.

 

[Reality Check]

There is huge speed, close to c, and huge mass increase as well.

With respect to which observer?
The answer to that question is the core of SR. It is the relative velocity that appears in SR.

And what is now left to the “curvature of space” near that body do you think ?

The body causes as much curvature as it did before. Its mass does not change.
An observer travelling at a relative velocity with respect to the body will measure that the body acts as if the m in F = ma is larger than the rest mass of the body.

Ohh no. I am asking realistic questions.

Ohh no. You are asking unphysical questions about cartoons.

Now RC have change the 4 dimension Space time to a 2 dimension reality. What will be next?

You lie and are showing your ignorance .
Length contraction is basically that length is contracted in the direction of motion. In your 2D cartoons that is what s happening. There will be no length contraction perpendicular to the motion in your cartoons.

Your ignorance of SR means that you have neglected to state the relative velocities of observers A or B with respect to the object or each other but

• A and B have the same velocity as O -> they measure no distortion of O.
• A and B have a different velocity from O but the same velocity as each other -> they measure the same distortion of O.
• A and B have a different velocity from O and each other-> they measure different distortions of O.

It is more complex than that but you obviously do not have the skills to understand it.
Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no !

The general form is the Lorentz transformation

where

and

.