Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Reality Check]

You are lying.
We can observe and calculate the precession of a planet.

We can observe and calculate the precession of a planet.
We can observe and calculate the radius of a planet's orbit
We can observe and calculate the distance of a planet from the Sun.

The calculated value > 78.132 km per year applies for the radius increase of the Earth not of Mercury.

The problem remains and gets even bigger !
The orbital parameters of the Earth are known to an even bigger accuracy then Mercury, e.g. aphelion = 152,098,232 km, i.e. to an accuracy of 1 kilometer.
You claim that it changes by 78 km a year!


Then there is an even bigger problem: Change the distance of the Earth from the Sun and the planet heats up or cools down. Change it enough and the planet cannot sustain life. But

• We have proxy measurements of temperatures gong back a long time, e.g. 800,000 years from ices cores.
• life has been on Earth for 3.6 billion years.

Another problem: According to you, the increase in the Earths distance from the Sun puts the Earth was inside the Sun within the last 2 million years ago !
Alternately it was 2AU away from the Sun, i.e. outside the current orbit of Mars and just as inhabitable.

 

[Paul]

First you must calculate the average orbit speed.
This is done by...

Still can't show the calculations then.

Now you know the average decelerating speed in the "resistance period".
You can use the same to find the average acceleration speed in the "follow wind” period.

Show us the calculations.

Now you can find the distance by multiplying with the amount of second a deceleration or acceleration period takes.

Show us the calculations.

 

[Bjarne]

"Relativistic resistance" does not exist.

It does

A stone dropped from the space station will NOT follow Newtonian physic but be affected be relativistic resistance .

Even a cow-mummy with the head filled with concrete would know that.

You have no permission to export relativistic resistance to a junk dimension.
This is what you do.

You are lying: c in this case is a speed. It is the speed of light. Lorentz defined it as the speed of light.

You are lying:
For a photon a meter or distances do not exist time not either, hence m/s do not exist from the perspective of a photon.

THE LORENTZ FACTOR IS A NUMBER. IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY UNITS OF MEASUREMENT- SIR

Only if "c" really was a speed.
BUT it is not a speed in this context.
Reaching that "speed" means NOTHING is left.

This is what the equation (Lorenz Transformation equation is about); the closer you get to that "speed" - the closer you get to; NOTHING.
That speed "c" = NOTHONG in this context.

A Photon exist in a reality of ; NOTHING - NO TIME - NO DISTANCE.

You can see the exact same in Quantum physic., where you can FORGET everything about time and distance.

Relativistic Resistance is right as real as Cow+Bull resistance, also seen from a pure mathematical perspective.

CALCULATE RELATIVISTIC RESISTANCE RIGHT, WHEN I AM REALLY SO WRONG - SIR .

To counteract the damage education have done to the human race, use this mantra 7 hours in the morning and 7 hours in the evening, - 1 month for each year you have been though educated system, - this will reestablish the coherence between left and right brian half.

Speed of Mercury is paying the bill, for that space always resist to be curved.
Speed of Mercury is paying the bill, for that space always resist to be curved.
Speed of Mercury is paying the bill, for that space always resist to be curved.
Speed of Mercury is paying the bill, for that space always resist to be curved.
Etc..

Spanish Mother Cow has guaranteed, it will work.

 

[Bjarne]

We can observe and calculate the precession of a planet.
We can observe and calculate the radius of a planet's orbit
We can observe and calculate the distance of a planet from the Sun.

You can also observe a cow from big distance, but it is difficult to measure it when you are on the Moon, and the Cow on Jupiter.

The problem remains and gets even bigger !
The orbital parameters of the Earth are known to an even bigger accuracy then Mercury, e.g. aphelion = 152,098,232 km, i.e. to an accuracy of 1 kilometer.
You claim that it changes by 78 km a year!

This distance is only known by calculation, based on classic orbit mechanic and relativity, not based on calculation of all the influences.

Another problem:
According to you, the increase in the Earths distance from the Sun puts the Earth was inside the Sun within the last 2 million years ago !

Inside the Sun ?
What fantasy are you now; blap blap blap about. ??
This have nothing with the discussion to.
We are talking about a elliptical extra orbit extension to extra 4 million km. (dot) And after 50 000 years return to the today well known almost circular orbit. (dot)

Alternately it was 2AU away from the Sun, i.e. outside the current orbit of Mars and just as inhabitable.

We are still only speaking about 4 million km. (dot) - Not 159 million km.

Will you get back to Earth soon ?

Remember the yellow shirt, and the gold medal, - maybe these are also orbiting inside the Sun now or maybe 1,000,000,000,000 billion km form here
We never know, - do we ?

 

[MRC_Hans]

After perihelion (and towards aphelion) Mercury is not gaining speed, but decelerating.
The relativistic mass increase due to the larger perihelion speed is causing Mercury to decelerate slower as it would have done, - if it had less mass, - from perihelion to aphelion.

• So long the spacecraft moves with almost that speed, - yes.
• The spacecraft cannot convert mass to speed, but only speed to mass..
• The larger mass will make it more differcult to stop the spacecraft,- but still mass is not converted to speed..

So what happens to the mass? Does it retain the mass? (Hint: No, it doesn't.)

So where does the mass go? (Hint: It causes the deceleration to be slower.)

Bjarne, it may confuse you that the object is decelerating all the time, but the fact that it decelerates slower, for the same force, in fact means that the relativistic mass is converted back into speed.

It is as if you step on both the accelerator and the brake in your car: The engine adds speed, the brakes remove speed.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

So what happens to the mass? Does it retain the mass? (Hint: No, it doesn't.)

So where does the mass go? (Hint: It causes the deceleration to be slower.)

Imaging in front of you car there would be a large spring, the faster you would move the more the spring would pres your car backward backwards. - This is an analogy to that space resist to be curved, due to speed. This is an analogy to what relativistic resistance really is.

Bjarne, it may confuse you that the object is decelerating all the time, but the fact that it decelerates slower, for the same force, in fact means that the relativistic mass is converted back into speed.

As I wrote, if you will define speed a; slower deceleration, then yes.

It is as if you step on both the accelerator and the brake in your car: The engine adds speed, the brakes remove speed.

From perihelion towards aphelion the engine is not running, only the brake, and less due to the relativistic mass.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Imaging in front of you car there would be a large spring, the faster you would move the more the spring would pres your car backward backwards. - This is an analogy to that space resist to be curved, due to speed. This is an analogy to what relativistic resistance really is.

No. The problem is that you insist on calling resistance.

As I wrote, if you will define speed a; slower deceleration, then yes.

From perihelion towards aphelion the engine is not running, only the brake, and less due to the relativistic mass.

No.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

This distance is only known by calculation, based on classic orbit mechanic and relativity, not based on calculation of all the influences.

This distance is only known by calculation, based on calculation of all the influences.
RAM is your delustion not an influence.

Inside the Sun ?
What fantasy are you now; blap blap blap about. ??

How stupid: 152,098,232 km divided by 78 km/year = 1,949,977 years.
A rate of 78 km/year decreasing the radius (as in your calculation) means that the Earth was inside the Sun 2 million years ago.

A rate of 78 km/year increasing the radius (as in your calculation) means that the Earth was 2AU from the Sun 2 million years ago. It was 20000AU (out where the comets are now) 2 billion years ago and a frozewn iceball.

Both are wrong.

And after 50 000 years return to the today well known almost circular orbit. (dot)

No you calculated a decrease/increase of 78 km/year.
Where does this 50,000 year number come from? You idiotically just doing the calculation for 50,000 years does not mean that the change in radius magically stops.

Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass. He ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units or 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 !

~

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

 

[Bjarne]

No. The problem is that you insist on calling resistance.

Hans

It cannot be anything else like resistance so long you agree that space resist to be deformedg / curved / absorbed. – I assume you understand that in the end of the day, speed of matter causes space to curve more, due to relativistic mass increase.

I mean it doesn’t matter if you pull a big stone after your car or a big cow, both will cause resistance.
It is the same principle that affects matter moving through space.

 

[Reality Check]

It cannot be anything else like resistance so long you agree that space resist to be deformedg / curved / absorbed. – I assume you understand that in the end of the day, speed of matter causes space to curve more, due to relativistic mass increase.

I mean it doesn’t matter if you pull a big stone after your car or a big cow, both will cause resistance.
It is the same principle that affects matter moving through space.

This post is pretty much gibberish but....

You are wrong : The "speed of matter does not cause space to curve more".

1. You are still ignorant that GR applies to space-time. It does not apply to space alone.
2. Relativistic mass increase is observer dependant, not absolute. That is why SR is called Special Relativity. That is why GR is called General Relativity.If you do not specifiy an observer and their velocity relative to the mass then you are automatically wrong.
3. An observer Alice moving with the mass measures no relativistic mass increase.
4. An observer Bob not moving with the mass measures a relativistic mass increase. Bob can then say that this relativistic mass causes an extra curvature of space-time according to him. He will know that there is no relativistic mass or an extra curvature of space-time according to Alice.

And of course this is only is measurable for massive objects moving at large fractions of the speed of light.

 

[MRC_Hans]

It cannot be anything else like resistance

No. The term resistance is used for various sorts of energy losses. There is no energy loss in what we are talking about.

so long you agree that space resist to be deformedg / curved / absorbed.

Space-time curves in a gravity field. We have no indication that it resists it. We have no indication that space is absorbed; that is just your fantasy.

– I assume you understand that in the end of the day, speed of matter causes space to curve more, due to relativistic mass increase.

I have understood all along that a gravity field curves spacetime, thank you. How is that relevant to the matter at hand?

I mean it doesn’t matter if you pull a big stone after your car or a big cow, both will cause resistance.

That is resistance. Loss of energy.

It is the same principle that affects matter moving through space.

No, it is not. There is no resistance to matter moving through space.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

No. The term resistance is used for various sorts of energy losses. There is no energy loss in what we are talking about.

Because a MF is weak by slow classic speed is difficult / impossible to detect and by high speed is hard to believe (for you), - this does not make ignorance to truth.

Think e.g; about;

• Fast rotating magnetars etc… such have a huge magnetic emission, (we don't know what the cause is, but we serious suspect the rotation)
  
• Elementary (mass) particles in motion, - too. (We don't know what is the cause, or what a magnetic field really is)
  
• Magnetic field inside galaxies. (we don’t know how these get there)

The MF caused by speed do first occur when any force (included the centripetal force) no longer act on an object.
Or in other words; - first when the force (speed) acting on space stop..

So soon there no longer are forwards push (force on an object) , - an object will decelerate very slowly due to relativistic resistance, - the energy the object is losing = a magnetic field.

The equation is off course the same as the one used to calculate relativistic resistances (RAM)

A Magnetic field = space in motion, when absorbed space is slowly released, - this = magnetic field – you can say space pulls back its “density”.

Exsamples:

• in the "wake" of moving particles,
• due to fast rotaion of magnetars etc...
• inside galaxies..
• the suns MF.
• for example this > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826535.000
• and this http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Kronberg/Kronberg3_2.html
• Protuberances is is up to 4000 gauss - this is huge, notice the speed of plasma too is hue
• For example this > http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jan_ibex2/
• And much much more…..

Hans you are surrounded by evidence, but reality do not exist if you always deny it and not allow weak electric current to flow from the left brian to the right and back again.

I know you do have another opinion, but you cannot explain the underlaying cause how magnetic fields are created, or what it is, but I guess we both agree it is energy.

So you cannot claim that I have a problem, because we both agree that fast moving objects do release energy.

There is only one to pay for that energy, (and as you properly remember mother cow have refused to pay 7 times),- - so left is only speed to pay, - and this mean deceleration.

So I do in fact not have a “energy problem” – rather you do have it because you must explain me

• Why does speed convert to a magnetism?
• What is the process?
• What is a MF

Space-time curves in a gravity field. We have no indication that it resists it. We have no indication that space is absorbed; that is just your fantasy.

If space does not resist to be curved a gravitational wave would move nowhere.

And worse, - I assume we both agree that space curves around a cow, - now imaging there was a cow in your house yesterday, today it is gone.

The cow was visiting all the rooms.

Do you believe that the curve of space the cow was causing, is still there? –

If not why should it be removed.

Resistance to be curved? – Just a thought?

I mean when the cow left she did not took the (curved) space around with here, did she? - and since the curvature is no longer there, where did it go , Hans ? ...... and why

 

[MRC_Hans]

Because a MF is weak by slow classic speed is difficult / impossible to detect and by high speed is hard to believe (for you), - this does not make ignorance to truth.

Magnet fields have nothing to do with this.

The MF caused by speed do first occur when any force (included the centripetal force) no longer act on an object.
Or in other words; - first when the force (speed) acting on space stop..

Nonsense. Magnet fields are not caused by speed in itself.

So soon there no longer are forwards push (force on an object) , - an object will decelerate very slowly due to relativistic resistance, - the energy the object is losing = a magnetic field.

No, you are wrong. An object at constant speed is not affected by relativistic transfer, and it does not create a magnet field.

The equation is off course the same as the one used to calculate relativistic resistances (RAM)

Yes, the same nonsense.

A Magnetic field = space in motion, when absorbed space is slowly released, - this = magnetic field – you can say space pulls back its “density”.

Bjarne, that is simply nonsense.

So you cannot claim that I have a problem, because we both agree that fast moving objects do release energy.

No, we don't agree. You are either incredibly obtuse, or lying, because I have consistently repeated that resistance against motion does not exist. there is NO way you can have overlooked it.

• Why does speed convert to a magnetism?
• What is the process?

Speed does not convert to magnetism.

• What is a MF

A fundamental force.

If space does not resist to be curved a gravitational wave would move nowhere.

Nonsense.

And worse, - I assume we both agree that space curves around a cow, - now imaging there was a cow in your house yesterday, today it is gone.

The cow was visiting all the rooms.

Do you believe that the curve of space the cow was causing, is still there? –

If not why should it be removed.

It follows the cow.

I mean when the cow left she did not took the (curved) space around with here, did she?

Yes, that is exactly what she did.

- and since the curvature is no longer there, where did it go , Hans ?

It is still there. Wherever the cow is.

Hans

 

[Paulhoff]

Objects that are in orbits, radiate gravity waves which take away some energy of that system, but because gravity waves carry away so little energy in slow moving systems like our solar system it isn't observed. But in systems like black holes where the speeds of the orbits are very high it is observed. The General Theory of Einstein accounts for this, and what has been observed shows it to be correct and nothing is missing.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

Objects that are in orbits, radiate gravity waves which take away some energy of that system, but because gravity waves carry away so little energy in slow moving systems like our solar system it isn't observed. But in systems like black holes where the speeds of the orbits are very high it is observed. The General Theory of Einstein accounts for this, and what has been observed shows it to be correct and nothing is missing.

Correct

When relativistic mass is released this must cause "gravitational waves"
The release does first happen when no more force affect matter.
Gravitational waves are; released absorbed space and hence "space-density" in motion.

The General Theory of Einstein accounts for this, and what has been observed shows it to be correct and nothing is missing

Yes GR accounts for this, -
But we have never measured gravitational waves, and do therefore also now know what this really is.....

A magnetic field is also "space in motion", but a bit different, - and in the "opposite direction" - or more correct space-vacuum in motion, because matter is a sapce vacuum. - When matter move a such sapce vacuum moves too.

This is "almost the same", but right, - yes there are some differences here.
A magnetic field can follow matter in motion also even though the force pushing it forwards still affect it.
What i wrote above (a previous post) according to this was wrong, Paul is right.

Now try to be serious, above I was mentioned several examples where a magnetic field (and many times pretty strong) are found, connected to fast moving mass.
In these cases, we know, and we agree;: that magnetic field are real.

• WHERE does that energy comes from ?
• WHO pay the energy bill.

 

[Reality Check]

Correct

When relativistic mass is released this must cause "gravitational waves"

Wrong. Gravitational waves are not caused by relativistic mass increase or descrease..

The release does first happen when no more force affect matter.
Gravitational waves are; released absorbed space and hence "space-density" in motion.

Gibberish

Yes GR accounts for this, -
But we have never measured gravitational waves, and do therefore also now know what this really is.....

Wrong. GR tells us exactly what gravitational waves are - fluctuations in space-time.

A magnetic field is also "space in motion", but a bit different, - and in the "opposite direction" - or more correct space-vacuum in motion, because matter is a sapce vacuum. - When matter move a such sapce vacuum moves too.

Gibberish and an abysmal display of ignorance. Magnetic field.

Now try to be serious, above I was mentioned several examples where a magnetic field (and many times pretty strong) are found, connected to fast moving mass.

A Magnetic field. is generated by any moving electric charge.

In these cases, we know, and we agree;: that magnetic field are real.

• WHERE does that energy comes from ?
• WHO pay the energy bill.

Magnetic fields are always real. There is no energy to come from anywhere. Only an idiot would think ther is a bill to pay.

 

[Bjarne]

A Magnetic field. is generated by any moving electric charge.

You could also have written it is come from muu muu muu muu, since you do not what the “moving electric charge” really is except 4 words, - hence the muuu muuu analogy is pretty perfect.

Magnetic fields are always real. There is no energy to come from anywhere. Only an idiot would think ther is a bill to pay.

You don’t know what a magnetic field really is..
You don’t know the underlying process how a magnetic field is created.

A cow-mummy with the head full of concrete, would know that since you have no idea of what the underlying cause of a magnetic field really is, - or even what kind of “stuff” a magnetic field is made of, - you in fact is the last to ask whether energy is involved, to create it or not.

For the intelligent cow-mummy-concrete-brain there is no doubt that the foundation / basic from where you make your speech is in fact nothing but complete darkness.

It is obvious you do not have any basic knowledge at all. – And “basic” means; - the underlying cause of what a magnetic field rally is, and what “stuff” it is made of.

An analogy is that a complete idiot can see a + and also a – (minus) , - but this does not mean that the complete idiot know anything about what is “beyond” the + and - , - except a completely superficial expression.

Exactly in the same way, you too do not have any idea about what is beyond the expression “moving electric charge” – except a series of almost empty words, - like for example; muu muuu miuuuu mooo, not make serious much sense to you.

So I guess there is no difference between the knowledge the complete idiot have and you have, - when it comes to the question;

• What is the underlying cause of a magnetic field?
• How is the underlying process causing a magnetic field?
• What “stuff” is a magnetic field made of.
• What is the underlying understanding of electric charge
• What is the underlying meaning of ; muuu miuuuu mooo.

A idiotic cow-mummy (with the head full of concrete) would be intelligent enough to admit, - Yes it is true; I do know almost nothing of what the underlying cause of a magnetic field really is.
I cannot answer any of the above elementary basic questions.
I have no idea at all what a magnetic field really is. - When I am wise, - (would the idiotic cow-mummy-concrete-brain think) - then I better keep my mouth shut, - when it comes to the question whether energy is involved in this process or not.

But you know, there too many idiotic orthodox people here down on the Earth that is very omniscience.
The positive thing is that it is more difficult to brainwash cow-mummy-concrete-brains.

 

[Reality Check]

You could also have written it is come from muu muu muu muu, since you do not what the “moving electric charge” really is except 4 words, - hence the muuu muuu analogy is pretty perfect.

Stop letting your pet cow think for you .
The simple physics is that a moving electric charge generates a magnetic field. The experiments showing that were done 100's of years ago.
Many of the electronic devices in your house depend on that simple fact.

P.S. “moving electric charge” is three words not 4.
If you are so ignorant that you do not know what an electric charge is and that an object with an electric charge can move then there is no hope for you. Even your pet cow knows better !

You don’t know what a magnetic field really is..

Yes I do.

You don’t know the underlying process how a magnetic field is created.
...snipped insane cow fetish...

Yes I do.

Try reading a high school physics text book.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Energy in general is made up, its not just the dark variety.

 

[Bjarne]

The simple physics is that a moving electric charge generates a magnetic field. The experiments showing that were done 100's of years ago.
Many of the electronic devices in your house depend on that simple fact.

Nobody deny that.

If you are so ignorant that you do not know what an electric charge is and that an object with an electric charge can move then there is no hope for you. Even your pet cow knows better !

Nobody deny that too.


The point is; What you know about energy is only; that part that is interchangeable and can travels as EM-waves.

What about dark energy, - as the word say this too is energy, but a completely different kind? You have no idea whether dark energy is an unknown kind of energy, or where it comes from - you simply don’t know.

Exactly in the same way, when it comes to magnetic field caused by speed. You don’t know, and have no evidence, that proves whether there is an energy >> speed lost when a magnetic field is created due to matter in motion.

You know that space and matter somehow is connected, but you have no idea how and also not how this connection obviously change when matter is fast moving. – You have no idea of the process going on here. You only know “something” unknown is going on, and you only know the result of it, (which you instead could had expressed as muuu muuu muu, because this would be almost the same superficially meaning- which is almost exactly as empty as the expression you too often are using).

You have no idea whether gravity / the curvature of space ALWAYS is caused by speed, (speed of matter circling around the Universe). This is really an important question; you at least should try to understand.

You (and Hans) have no idea whether space resist to be curved or not.
You have no idea where the; “force of gravity” comes from and whether it is a force or not, or whether there is energy behind or not.

You have no idea whether energy always is used as well as “lost” (as magnetism) to keep space “curved”.

And worse there are no coherence at all, in such fragmented “Universe”, which means you have nothing to support even assumptions, - which mean you are in fact totally lost in the bush.

This is the fact. And therefore I know many cows and cow-concrete brains would wish you not always was so orthodox omniscience.

Try at least to tell us;

• WHAT do you believe a magnetic field really is ?
• WHAT is it made of?
• Have you ever considered such basic questions?
• Do you believe it is made of some unknown kind of matter, - or space ?
• If it is made of space, how do you believe that space differ from "normal space"?
• Are my questions total irrelevant to you?

Come on RC, I have give you mine suggestions, let us hear yours, - øøøøhhh the problem could be that you now should use you right brain half right ?