Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Reality Check]

Nobody deny that too.

You seemed to with your idiotic and inane "muu muu muu muu" posts.

The point is; ...

The point is insane, incoherent gibberish will be snipped and ignored.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

So, Bjarne, what do YOU know about all these subjects? Note: I don't ask what you imagine. I ask you what you know. So expect to provide evidence.

I certainly don't know everything, but then, I still know far more than you.

• WHAT do you believe a magnetic field really is ?
• WHAT is it made of?

You don't know and I don't know. Who says it is 'made of' anything? As far as we know it is a fundamental force.

Are my questions total irrelevant to you?

Rather, yes. And not only to me; they seem to be simply totally irrelevant.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

So, Bjarne, what do YOU know about all these subjects? Note: I don't ask what you imagine. I ask you what you know. So expect to provide evidence.

I know that the first challenge is to get some coherence in all this chaos.

My mission is only to tell you and others. – look there, - to the left from your nose, - there is a hole in the bush, there you can see the Sun.

Phenomena’s in nature are connected, there is coherence between phenomenas, the laws of nature is united, - and I am absolute sure about that.

I know when first we do have a simple coherent picture of the Universe, - first in our mind; - we are no longer lost in almost total darkness.

I am not saying the picture I am presenting is perfect, but only that; a little coherence here and there is better as nothing.

This I know is the first step; - this is the step we sooner or later must take so that we know exact which test to use to confirm it.

You don't know and I don't know. Who says it is 'made of' anything? As far as we know it is a fundamental force.

We will never know what; space, magnetism, gravitional waves, curved space, dark matter or dark energy really is "made of" -, simply because we will probably never completely understand the nature of space.

But I know the larger united coherence understanding we can reach, - first at all in our concrete minds, - this is the first step we sooner or later must take, - but only when we really want to get out of the bush.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I know that the first challenge is to get some coherence in all this chaos.

Rather elementary, don't you think? Reality must ultimately makes sense.

My mission is only to tell you and others. – look there, - to the left from your nose, - there is a hole in the bush, there you can see the Sun.

The problem is, Bjarne, that you lack knowledge. You see chaos, but much of the chaos you see is only in your own head.

Phenomena’s in nature are connected, there is coherence between phenomenas, the laws of nature is united, - and I am absolute sure about that.

Of course they are, but what ever made you think that YOU alone, without ANY basic knowledge could see what others can't? To find something, you need to know what you are looking for and, preferably, where to look.

I know when first we do have a simple coherent picture of the Universe, - first in our mind; - we are no longer lost in almost total darkness.

We are NOT lost in total darkness.

- And you cannot expect that the full picture of the universe is simple. It might in fact be extremely complex.

I am not saying the picture I am presenting is perfect, but only that; a little coherence here and there is better as nothing.

Unfortunately, you are mistaken. The picture you present is not better than nothing; it is actually misleading. Instead of presenting solutions, you have invented all sorts of things that don't exist.

This I know is the first step; - this is the step we sooner or later must take so that we know exact which test to use to confirm it.

No, I'm sorry, but it is a step in the wrong direction. You cannot understand the universe by imagination alone. You must combine fact and imagination. You invent stuff and stubbornly claim they are facts, instead.

We will never know what; space, magnetism, gravitional waves, curved space, dark matter or dark energy really is "made of" -, simply because we will probably never completely understand the nature of space.

That is probably right.

But I know the larger united coherence understanding we can reach, - first at all in our concrete minds, - this is the first step we sooner or later must take, - but only when we really want to get out of the bush.

You are the one who needs to get out of the concrete: The concrete bunker where you sit and imagine you can do something no other people can do.

I'm sorry, but this is the truth.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

We are NOT lost in total darkness

Tell me what is the problem with the 100.000 years Milankovitz period. -what day is the next ice age starting..... Hans

I mean this phenomena should be so straight so simple, - but something is rotten, isn’t it ?
WHAT Hans ?

We are NOT lost in total darkness.

Really ??
Then TRY to answer a such simple question, only this.
I geuss we are billion of people here on the planet that really want to be sure about that concrete answer.

You must combine fact and imagination.

True.
But i have hard to belive you ever have try such.
Now you need to do exactly this, - imaging WHAT is the problem with the 100,000 years milankovitz periods. ?
No maybe, we want the asnwer from you mouth.
Notice if I was like you I would beforehand reject EVERYTHING you would suggest.
But anyway don't get depressed, now try you best, - try to imaging. – I think you have a major problem, - and the reason is simple, you are too much into the left brained concrete bush.

No, I'm sorry, but it is a step in the wrong direction. You cannot understand the universe by imagination alone. You must combine fact and imagination.

Muuuhhh
Now prove you can do exactly that

We are NOT lost in total darkness.

So what day is the next ice age starting..... Hans
Just answer this pretty simple stupid down to Earth question Hans.
WHAT is rotten ....Hans.

WHAT ?
A lot ?
Notice 97% of the Universe is so-called dark matter and dark energy, - I mean is that a lot?
And there is A LOT More we do not know anything about, - the total Hans,- is that a lot ?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Tell me what is the problem with the 100.000 years Milankovitz period. -what day is the next ice age starting..... Hans

I mean this phenomena should be so straight so simple, - but something is rotten, isn’t it ?
WHAT Hans ?

Simple? What made you think it should be simple? Climatic models are extremely complex. There is nothing rotten, but we simply don't have enough facts to predict when an ice age will start.

Really ??
Then TRY to answer a such simple question, only this.
I geuss we are billion of people here on the planet that really want to be sure about that concrete answer.

And you claim you are closer to an answer than the rest of the world?

Well, I can tell you confidently that you aren't. And you know it: I have noticed that every time you are pushed into a corner, you change the subject. So we were talking gravity, magnetism and relativity, and suddenly you want to talk about ice ages.

You are sooo transparant.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Simple? What made you think it should be simple? Climatic models are extremely complex. There is nothing rotten, but we simply don't have enough facts to predict when an ice age will start.

Hans

Exactly as expected
You could have wrote; muuhh
It would be the same sense.

 

[RobDegraves]

Gosh... this stuff is so stupid I fear that I might actually lose IQ points by reading it.

Bjarne

Try rhyming this crap... maybe it would work as poetry. As science it's strictly appalling. People keep on trying to educate you and you come back with pure silliness. I think you're career as a scientist is pretty well done.... maybe you could do better as an exotic dancer.

 

[Bjarne]

And you claim you are closer to an answer than the rest of the world?

Well, I can tell you confidently that you aren't. And you know it: I have noticed that every time you are pushed into a corner,

That corner only exsist in your fantasy..

you change the subject.

I was stupid enough to believe such simple question not could mean I would "lose you", - but as your last answer proves, I did, - (again) - one more muuuh expression.. it is complex bla bla bla.
An Iceage is cold Hans, - very cold.
A cow mummy concrete brain would have answered; - that it properly have something with the Sun to do, - for example the distance to the Sun not is as you believe.
I call such cow logic thinking, - you belive it is fantasy.

So we were talking gravity, magnetism and relativity, and suddenly you want to talk about ice ages. :rolleyes

It is all connected, but I do not expect you to understand anything of this...

Simple? What made you think it should be simple? Climatic models are extremely complex. There is nothing rotten, but we simply don't have enough facts to predict when an ice age will start.
Hans

And I guess Milankovitz (that have used 20 years) of his life to prove the cause of ice ages, - also in your eyes, only was a fool, using his time on fantasy - right ?

 

[steenkh]

And I guess Milankovitz (that have used 20 years) of his life to prove the cause of ice ages, - also in your eyes, only was a fool, - right ?

If you think highly of him, it might well be the case, but it does not matter. What relevance does it have to the non-existing resistance to movement, or the nature of magnetism?

 

[Bjarne]

If you think highly of him, it might well be the case, but it does not matter. What relevance does it have to the non-existing resistance to movement, or the nature of magnetism?

The 100,000 year period gives the weakest signal, it should give the strongest signal ( of the 3 milankovitz cycles)
This have a lot to do with relativist resistances, magnetism due to speed, space, energy and a hell lot more.

 

[Reality Check]

And I guess Milankovitz (that have used 20 years) of his life to prove the cause of ice ages, - also in your eyes, only was a fool, using his time on fantasy - right ?

That is stupid, Bjarne.
Milutin Milanković was a well respected scientist who showed that one of the causes of ice ages was the orbital cycles. There are others, e.g. the changing distribution of land masses.

 

[Bjarne]

That is stupid, Bjarne.
Milutin Milanković was a well respected scientist who showed that one of the causes of ice ages was the orbital cycles. There are others, e.g. the changing distribution of land masses.

And Relativistic Resistance, - also by constant speed.

Fast rotating magnetars is losing energy / radiation.
Hence these are gradually rotating slower. This is certain knowledge.
This clearly shows that; - Yes rotation (motion) does not continue forever.
We have no reason to believe that a magnetic field (that occurs as a result of motion), not is slowing the rotation too (and motion in general) .

 

[MRC_Hans]

And Relativistic Resistance, - also by constant speed.

The thing you insist on calling relativistic resistance is the phenomenon that with increasing speed, mass increases and thus 'steals' some of the acceleration energy.

How exactly will you explain that this should apply to constant speed? Are you claiming that the mass keeps increasing, even at constant speed?

Fast rotating magnetars is losing energy / radiation.
Hence these are gradually rotating slower. This is certain knowledge.
This clearly shows that; - Yes rotation (motion) does not continue forever.

No, it shows that a rotating magnet field transfers energy. It it didn't, the generator in your car, sort of, you know, really wouldn't work.

We have no reason to believe that a magnetic field (that occurs as a result of motion), not is slowing the rotation too (and motion in general) .

Except that magnet fields don't occur as a result of objects in motion.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I that it properly have something with the Sun to do, - for example the distance to the Sun not is as you believe.

I don't have to believe. We can measure the distance to the sun.

And I guess Milankovitz (that have used 20 years) of his life to prove the cause of ice ages, - also in your eyes, only was a fool, using his time on fantasy - right ?

No. He made serious research. You should try it sometimes.
However, the Milankovitz cycle is obviously only one of many factors that determine ice ages.

- Otherwise we would have had regular ice ages through the history of Earth, and that is not the case.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

The thing you insist on calling relativistic resistance is the phenomenon that with increasing speed, mass increases and thus 'steals' some of the acceleration energy.

How exactly will you explain that this should apply to constant speed?

The KE and mass increase happens because of relativistic resistance, so soon there is no force pushing an object forward, - deceleration will take place, like shown by the Lorenzen equation.

Are you claiming that the mass keeps increasing, even at constant speed?
No.
No, it shows that a rotating magnet field transfers energy. It it didn't, the generator in your car, sort of, you know, really wouldn't work..

Yes, - A magnetic field can transfer energy since it can pull electrons.
But you have no evidence that proves that the MF itself, that occurs by fast motion, happens without use of energy (speed-deceleration).

Except that magnet fields don't occur as a result of objects in motion.

The faster motion of matter, - the stronger MF.

Exsamples;

• MF discovered the galaxy.
• Magnetars.
• Sun Storms.
• Moving elementary particles.

I don't have to believe. We can measure the distance to the sun.

I don’t believe you have such a long tape measure, - you can also not measure.
You can calculate the distance, and that’s it.
But nobody can guarantee that the knowledge you’ll use is complete.

No. He made serious research. You should try it sometimes.

The theory does not fit with reality.
In 1940 the most important cycle was proven to give the weakest signal, it should have given the strongest signal.
So according to you he must be a fool and according to RC an idiot I believe.

- Otherwise we would have had regular ice ages through the history of Earth, and that is not the case.

So long you evidently have no idea what you really talk about, - you could have wrote; - muuu muuu muu, it make the same empty sense.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The KE and mass increase happens because of relativistic resistance, so soon there is no force pushing an object forward, - deceleration will take place,

Why? This means that the object is loosing energy. Where does that energy go?

like shown by the Lorenzen equation.

I wouldn't put faith in this Lorenzen guy, if I were you. He is a complete idiot.

Yes, - A magnetic field can transfer energy since it can pull electrons.

Ehr, ... more or less correct.

But you have no evidence that proves that the MF itself, that occurs by fast motion, happens without use of energy (speed-deceleration).

If a magnet field is generated, it may well cause an energy loss, but there is no magnet field due to motion itself.

I know you are a bit slow, so I'll repeat this: An object in motion does not generate a magnet field.

A charge in motion generates a magnet field, not an object. Since most objects are electrically neutral, they don't generate any magnet field.

The faster motion of matter, - the stronger MF.

Oh, did I mention: An object in motion does not generate a magnet field.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

So long you evidently have no idea what you really talk about, - you could have wrote; - muuu muuu muu, it make the same empty sense.

Well, at least it is nice to see you admit that cows don't have a clue.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Why? This means that the object is loosing energy. Where does that energy go?


If a magnet field is generated, it may well cause an energy loss, but there is no magnet field due to motion itself.

I know you are a bit slow, so I'll repeat this: An object in motion does not generate a magnet field.

A charge in motion generates a magnet field, not an object. Since most objects are electrically neutral, they don't generate any magnet field.

Oh, did I mention: An object in motion does not generate a magnet field.

Hans

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHLIGHT/1999/highlight9909_e.html

Researchers speculate that turbulent matter expanded and strengthened the magnetic fields by pulling them like taffy
Source; http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=galaxies-mysterious-magne

The origin of magnetic fields in galaxies is still a mystery to astronomers. Popular theories suggest continual strengthening over billions of years. The latest results from Simon Lilly’s group, however, contradict this assumption and reveal that young galaxies also have strong magnetic fields.
Sourse; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724221049.htm


http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/04/magnetic-movie.html

 

[MRC_Hans]

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHLIGHT/1999/highlight9909_e.html

Researchers speculate that turbulent matter expanded and strengthened the magnetic fields by pulling them like taffy
Source; http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=galaxies-mysterious-magne

The origin of magnetic fields in galaxies is still a mystery to astronomers. Popular theories suggest continual strengthening over billions of years. The latest results from Simon Lilly’s group, however, contradict this assumption and reveal that young galaxies also have strong magnetic fields.
Sourse; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724221049.htm


http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/04/magnetic-movie.html

No, that does not mean that the movement of an object causes a magnet field.

Hans