Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[steenkh]

Which remarkable statement? Mine that you post idiocy? No, I don't think you will be able to disprove that.

I thought that he considered it remarkable that you implied that the editors of respected journals would laugh at him.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I thought that he considered it remarkable that you implied that the editors of respected journals would laugh at him.

I admit that is an unfounded assumption. - Indeed they might actually cry.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

No, I don't think you will be able to disprove that.

As expected, and if you ever should try again, it would off course be nothing but warm air (again) , or another load of left brained lost in bush argues.

 

[phunk]

[qimg]http://www.science27.com/forum/SolarS2.jpg[/qimg]
This cause of the pioneer anomaly.
The Pioneer was travelling faster (around the Milkyway) as the Sun. Thus the RR is larger.
When travelling 12240 m/s (as pioneer 10 space probe did): y = 8.33 × 10-¹⁰ m/s².
We know the Pioneer probes were decelerating: (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10-¹⁰ m/s2
(These values are remarkable similar. )

How do you explain the fact that the pioneer anomaly is nearly at a right angle (in 2 different directions) to your supposed 'RR'?

 

[Bjarne]

How do you explain the fact that the pioneer anomaly is nearly at a right angle (in 2 different directions) to your supposed 'RR'?

Good question.
Notice that motion away from the Sun is also motion relative to the Sun.
So fare I believe that RR is stable (in this case) and therefore the same value, doesn’t matter how big the angle is.
So soon the angle point just a little either forward or backwards, relative to the Sun’s motion direction, RR will have either a stable accelerating or decelerating influences.
But I cannot be sure of this, experiences will shows. This statement is only based on the known Pioneer Anomalies...

Some of the influence of the Pioneer Anomaly could be due to heat release, in that case the angle of motion relative to RR is not as just written.
You can Google translate this > http://ing.dk/artikel/115376-rammes-voyager-ogsaa-af-pioneer-anomalien

Notice if a object would move exactly opposite the motion direction of the Sun, such will accelerate more than expected, - due to less RR.
But this is only how we will see it. - In fact it will also decelerate, but just slower than the Sun.

 

[Reality Check]

What is the formula for RR

The Lorentz equation tells you how much energy you must use to deform, - force a certain amount of reality into a different (space-time) reality. – It requires energy to do so.

Wrong - there is no "Lorentz equation". There is the Lorentz factor that appers in various equations.

What is the formula for RR?

There is your idiocy in thinking that the Lorentz factor has the units of acceleration.
So RR is just a renamed vaerion of your RAM delustion and:

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
  So far the answer is no !
• 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).

100,000-year problem
...
Source> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles.

Still wrong - this is not a problem with the Milankovitch cycles.
There is a 400,000 year problem with the Milankovitch cycles, i.e. they predict a 400,000 period that is not observed.

 

[Bjarne]

Wrong - there is no "Lorentz equation". There is the Lorentz factor that appers in various equations.

What is the formula for RR?

There is your idiocy in thinking that the Lorentz factor has the units of acceleration.
So RR is just a renamed vaerion of your RAM delustion and:

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
  So far the answer is no !
• 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).

The Lorentz factor tells you how much energy you must use to deform, - force a certain amount of reality into a different (space-time) reality. – It requires energy to do so.

Therefore the larger part (larger mass) of reality you want to force into a new reality, - the more energy must be used.

This is the law of nature that not only applies for a stars, planet, moons and spaceprobes, - but for the whole Universe.
This is the law of nature responsible for that relativistic gravity is responsible for extreme increment of gravity in a BigChunch.

Space doesn’t like to be deformed (by force), - space resists to be deformed by force, - a gravitational wave proves that just in front of your eyes. When the force is gone, the tension on space is released.

The mathematical law responsible for releasing the tension on space, - is of course the same as the law showing how much space resist such tension, and therefore the same for how fast that tension will be released when the force causing the tension is gone.

Your are therefore to a certain extend correct when you claim that The Lorentz equation not (directly) can give us a decelerating result.
But this is not the way you shall understand it.

The equation itself is only a expression for the tension that speed of matter exert on space.
When the force on space is gone, space will release that tension, in a reversible process.

Therefore indirectly the Lorentz equation can also be used to understand the process to release deformed space back to a tension free state it was before speed / force was acting on it.

When the force pushing an object forward, - stop, relativistic resistance is simply an reversible process.

Still wrong - this is not a problem with the Milankovitch cycles.
There is a 400,000 year problem with the Milankovitch cycles, i.e. they predict a 400,000 period that is not observed.

100,000-year problem
The 100,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a significantly smaller impact on solar forcing than precession or obliquity and hence might be expected to produce the weakest effects.
However, observations show that during the last 1 million years, the strongest climate signal is the 100,000-year cycle.
Source> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles.

There are serveral unsolved mysteries.
Also that 400,000 years ago ice ages only lasted 41,000 years.
Right now a interglacial period will last much longer as the previous.

I am sure that due to RR we must reconsider all these periods again, because RR can be in resonance or dissonance with other influences such as perturbations.

Furthermore also the influences from other planets are also affected much different as we so far have believed.
All this is much more complex as so far understood, simply because the RR factor has been overlooked.

 

[Reality Check]

The Lorentz factor tells you how much energy you must use to deform, - force a certain amount of reality into a different (space-time) reality. – It requires energy to do so.
...gibberish...

Not an answer to the question:

What is the formula for RR?

​

Or to the idiocy of RAM:

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
  So far the answer is no !
• 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).

 

[Bjarne]

Or to the idiocy of RAM:

Ram is renamed to RR
RR is a ice-cold mathematical fact.
Use the lorentz factor to calculate RR

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne, What are the units of the Lorentz factor

Ram is renamed to RR
RR is a ice-cold mathematical fact.
Use the lorentz factor to calculate RR

Thanks, Bjarne.


That makes RR into a ice-cold delusional fantasy because you are so ignorant that you cannot understand that the Lorentz factor is a number with no units of measurement.

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
  So far the answer is no !
• 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).

or
Why does relativistic mass have the units of mass
First asked 23 November 2009

From 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]

As expected, and if you ever should try again, it would off course be nothing but warm air (again) , or another load of left brained lost in bush argues.

You obviously did not read my reply.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Ram is renamed to RR

It remains idiocy.

RR is a ice-cold mathematical fact.

No, it is a wet dream of yours.

Use the lorentz factor to calculate RR

No.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

The Lorentz factor tells you how much energy you must use to deform, - force a certain amount of reality into a different (space-time) reality. – It requires energy to do so.

Therefore the larger part (larger mass) of reality you want to force into a new reality, - the more energy must be used.

This is the law of nature that not only applies for a stars, planet, moons and spaceprobes, - but for the whole Universe.

You have not understod relativity. To put it simply: The movements of parts of the solar system relative to each other are not affected by the movement of the whole system.

Even if the solar system was hurtling through the galaxy at 99% of the speed of light, all the orbits would be the same.

If you are in a spaceship moving only 2m/s slower than the speed of light, and fire a rifle, you will see the bullet leaving you at 600m/s, no matter which direction you aim.

Space doesn’t like to be deformed (by force), - space resists to be deformed by force, - a gravitational wave proves that just in front of your eyes. When the force is gone, the tension on space is released.

Wrong.

The mathematical law responsible for releasing the tension on space, - is of course the same as the law showing how much space resist such tension, and therefore the same for how fast that tension will be released when the force causing the tension is gone.

Wrong.

The rest of your post is also wrong.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

To put it simply: The movements of parts of the solar system relative to each other are not affected by the movement of the whole system.

The hole system decelerate inwards of the Milkyway.
Changing the speed (of the Solar system) somewhere is also changing RR and hence also the relative deceleration value between part of the solar system.
What confuse you is that those different observers will measure the RR values differently.

Even if the solar system was hurtling through the galaxy at 99% of the speed of light, all the orbits would be the same.

No, in that case mass would be many times larger, and RR too, anyway that is not possible gravity, because must be must larger as a star can effort, so the analogy is utopia.

If you are in a spaceship moving only 2m/s slower than the speed of light, and fire a rifle, you will see the bullet leaving you at 600m/s, no matter which direction you aim.
Hans

No in that case RR is affecting the bullet differently.

Let us say that you are an observer outside (in space) near the Milkyway and not affected by the mass of the MW.
You could not see the Sun moving away with 250,000 m/s and the earth sometimes +/-30 m/s faster or slower. This aplies from the perspective of the Earth.
For you these speeds would be different. (larger values because your meter stick is shorter)

Measured with your meter stick and your time you could measure a certain RR value according to how much the Sun/Earth would decelerate inwards of the MW.

This would be true for your reality.

But the Earth is in a different space-time, mainly because of the Speed (mass increment), and also because of the size of the planet (mass), and the mass of the MW.

We would not agree with you how much one meter is, but we would both agree that light is measured to = 300,000 m/s.
But this value is relative 300,000 m/s, - if you would compare the "real distance/speed" (which not exsist) 300,000 m/s is not a speed ONLY a relative speed, and only relative REAL.

We would not agree how much the deceleration of the Sun/Earth was, simply because your meter-stick would be relative shorter, even we both had a meter-stick from the same factory.

But seen in an overall perspective all realities are real, and fits together.
So does the relative different RR values. .
What is cheating us is that the meter stick ONLY is real for us.
For you and other different observers, the meter sticks are always different, but also always real.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The hole system decelerate inwards of the Milkyway.
Changing the speed (of the Solar system) somewhere is also changing RR and hence also the relative deceleration value between part of the solar system.
What confuse you is that those different observers will measure the RR values differently.


No, in that case mass would be many times larger, and RR too, anyway that is not possible gravity, because must be must larger as a star can effort, so the analogy is utopia.


No in that case RR is affecting the bullet differently.

Let us say that you are an observer outside (in space) near the Milkyway and not affected by the mass of the MW.
You could not see the Sun moving away with 250,000 m/s and the earth sometimes +/-30 m/s faster or slower. This aplies from the perspective of the Earth.
For you these speeds would be different. (larger values because your meter stick is shorter)

Measured with your meter stick and your time you could measure a certain RR value according to how much the Sun/Earth would decelerate inwards of the MW.

This would be true for your reality.

But the Earth is in a different space-time, mainly because of the Speed (mass increment), and also because of the size of the planet (mass), and the mass of the MW.

We would not agree with you how much one meter is, but we would both agree that light is measured to = 300,000 m/s.
But this value is relative 300,000 m/s, - if you would compare the "real distance/speed" (which not exsist) 300,000 m/s is not a speed ONLY a relative speed, and only relative REAL.

We would not agree how much the deceleration of the Sun/Earth was, simply because your meter-stick would be relative shorter, even we both had a meter-stick from the same factory.

But seen in an overall perspective all realities are real, and fits together.
So does the relative different RR values. .
What is cheating us is that the meter stick ONLY is real for us.
For you and other different observers, the meter sticks are always different, but also always real.

Bjarne, I'm telling you the truth. You can believe it or ignore it, but it will remain the truth.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, I'm telling you the truth. You can believe it or ignore it, but it will remain the truth.

Hans

Yes I know;

Yes it is true that you don't know, and even have no clue of the cause of ;

• what dark matter is
• what dark energy is
• why BigBang happened
• what the curvature of space really mean
• what a gravitionel wave really is
• what happens to photon energy that “must” be lost in your picture of the Universe ?
• why distance to e.g; the moon ( a small field of gravity) not is affected due to the so called expanding universe when distance between big field of gravity (galaxies) ""should"" be affected that way.
• why it requires more and more energy to reach diminishing speed increment (what is the process about).
• why stars continue to fall into galactic black holes.
• how matter can “touch” affect space
• how cosmological redshift “should” be possible without lose og photon energy
• how speed of matter can create gravity
• the cause of decelerating space probes
• the cause of accelerating space probes
• the cause of the orbital eccentricity anomaly of the moon
• the cause of the large magnetic field of galaxies, and cluster of galaxies.
• and much much much much much more........

So yes it is true that the true knowledge you have is truly based on a true completely incoherent understanding of almost (99,9999999999999999999999999999999999999%) everything.

It is like the car mechanic that claims he have true knowledge of a car, but in fact only he have only a true understanding of the drain plug, - the rest of the parts he have no idea at all what is about, - how all these other parts works together with anything else.

But well .... from a true superficial level of understanding, he know it is a car and it is build of metal and PVC, so completely stupid is not what he is.

What you shows, is only that you would be naive enough to trust a such true left brained lost in the drain plug mechanic.

*** I *** prefer to; "repair my car myself" - and use my own head , - instead of trusting a herd of arrogant orthodox omniscient "mechanics".
You know it is always better to at least truly try to understand how the car is working (in a holistic way) instead of getting lost in the drain plug and left brained incoherent nonsense..

To understand it all have something with the right brian half to do, - did you know that?

You know, - I like the right brian half.

Science should be just a little more humble, and could learn a lot from the stupid mechanic, - and not always be so arrogant orthodox omniscient, - like we much too often see. - But I am not sure it ever will happen.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes I know;

Wrong:

Yes it is true that no one knows, but have plenty of clues of the cause of

• what dark matter is
• what dark energy is
• why BigBang happened
• what the curvature of space really mean
• what a gravitionel wave really is
• what happens to photon energy that “must” be lost in your picture of the Universe ?
• why distance to e.g; the moon ( a small field of gravity) not is affected due to the so called expanding universe when distance between big field of gravity (galaxies) ""should"" be affected that way.
• why it requires more and more energy to reach diminishing speed increment (what is the process about).
• why stars continue to fall into galactic black holes.
• how matter can “touch” affect space
• how cosmological redshift “should” be possible without lose og photon energy
• how speed of matter can create gravity
• the cause of decelerating space probes
• the cause of accelerating space probes
• the cause of the orbital eccentricity anomaly of the moon
• the cause of the large magnetic field of galaxies, and cluster of galaxies.
• and much much much much much more........

What science tells us is

• what dark matter acts like (and thus candidates for what it is)
• what dark energy acts like (and thus candidates for what it is)
• that the Big Bang happened and candidates for what caused it.
• the curvature of space really explains gravity
• what a gravitational wave really is
• photon energy lost in the expansion of the Universe is eitehr
  • really lost (there is no reson to think that GR conserved energy at cosmological scales) or
  • is converted to gravitational energy
• exactly why the distance to e.g; the moon ( a small field of gravity) not is affected by the expanding universe (gravity dominates)
  Only ignorant people think that the small scale distance ""should"" be affected that way.
• exactly why it requires more and more energy to reach diminishing speed increment (special relativity).
• exactly why stars continue to fall into galactic black holes.
• exactly how matter can “touch” affect space
• exactly how cosmological redshift is possible without loss of photon energy
• That Bjarne is ignorant because "how speed of matter can create gravity" is wrong. Gravity is not created by relativistic mass increase because an observer on the mass sees no mass increase!
• good possibilities for the cause of decelerating space probes
• good possibilities cause of accelerating space probes
• good possibilities cause of the orbital eccentricity anomaly of the moon
• good possibilities cause of the large magnetic field of galaxies, and cluster of galaxies.
• and much much much much much more........

What Bjarne tells us is that he is ignorant and incapable of learning the basics of science, i.e. that the Lorentz factor is a number without any units of measurement

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
  So far the answer is no !
• 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).

or
Why does relativistic mass have the units of mass
First asked 23 November 2009

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

 

[Paul]

Yes I know;

Then why do you behave as if you have no idea what you are doing?

Yes it is true that you don't know, and even have no clue of the cause of

That appears to be an excellent list of some of the things in this thread you have absolutely no concept of.

So yes it is true that the true knowledge you have is truly based on a true completely incoherent understanding of almost (99,9999999999999999999999999999999999999%) everything

Do you think you could provide any evidence that you have any understanding of 1% of the basics of any of the items in your list?

*** I *** prefer to; "repair my car myself" - and use my own head , -

I hope you use more care and have vastly superior knowledge to that you display when discussing physics.

instead of trusting a herd of arrogant orthodox omniscient "mechanics".

Yes, because we wouldn't want specialists in the maintenance and repair of automobiles to confuse the issue, would we.

You know it is always better to at least truly try to understand how the car is working (in a holistic way) instead of getting lost in the drain plug and left brained incoherent nonsense..

Holistic mechanics is not much use if you only want to change the oil and need to know where the drain plug is.

To understand it all have something with the right brian half to do, - did you know that?

No, because it's crap.

You know, - I like the right brian half.

Guess which side is responsible for fact retrieval.

Science should be just a little more humble,

And you should be on you knees begging science to forgive you for being so arrogant.

and could learn a lot from the stupid mechanic

That would depend on if science needed it's car fixed, or if the mechanic wanted to know why the latest data from the LHC may help in string theory.

and not always be so arrogant orthodox omniscient,

It's a shame that you apparently have no idea what those words mean.

 

[Reality Check]

Science should be just a little more humble, and could learn a lot from the stupid mechanic, - and not always be so arrogant orthodox omniscient, - like we much too often see. - But I am not sure it ever will happen.

Science is very practical. It should not learn from an ignorant, deluded and stupid mechanic. The ignorance of that stupid mechanic leads them to think that scence and scientist are 'omniscient' when the truth is very different.
Nothing is science is set in stone. Every scientific theory is continuously tested. If flawed enough then they are thrown away. If partially flawed then the theory is used only where it is valid.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Anyone notice this little nugget?

We would not agree with you how much one meter is, but we would both agree that light is measured to = 300,000 m/s.
But this value is relative 300,000 m/s, - if you would compare the "real distance/speed" (which not exsist) 300,000 m/s is not a speed ONLY a relative speed, and only relative REAL.

If we both don't agree what a meter is, how can we both agree that light is measured to be 300,000 metres/second?