Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Daylightstar]

You mean the cow is made of dark matter?
So dark matter smell?
This is exactly also what I thought.
The smell must be very similar to something between concrete and rubbish right ?

Does everything turn into dark matter when you switch off the light, Bjarne?

 

[Bjarne]

Does everything turn into dark matter when you switch off the light, Bjarne?

Everything in a BigCrunch turns into so called ; dark matter.

 

[Daylightstar]

So there is a psychological hurdle for you, to answer the question:

Does everything turn into dark matter when you switch off the light, Bjarne?

 

[Reality Check]

Noting but incohorent crap
Noting but incohorent crap
Noting but incohorent crap
Noting but incohorent crap
Or blalp blap blap
Noting but incohorent crap
Noting but incohorent crap
Noting but incohorent crap
Noting but incohorent crap
Noting but incohorent crap
Noting but incohorent crap
Noting but incohorent crap
You cannot see mass increase
Noting but incohorent crap
Noting but incohorent crap
Noting but incohorent crap
Noting but incohorent crap
Noting but incohorent crap

Out of that incoherent crap from an ignorant and deluded crank I see one bit of sense:
That is right - you cannot see increased mass. We measure increased mass.
An observer moving at a velocity v relative to a object with a rest mass m measures (sees) a relativistic mass that it acts as if it has a mass greater than m.
So your delusion of RR depends on the velocity of the observer. It does not exists for any observer moving with the object:

• we move with the Earthsso Earth has no RR for us
• everything moves with the Sun so nothing in the Solar System has any RR due the movement of the Sun.

And RR is a delusion from an person who is so ignorant that that they do now know that:

• 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)

 

[Reality Check]

For example; photon energy cannot be lost, except in your fantasy.
Distance to the moon is NOT increasing due to the so called expanding Universe.
The idea that space expands is so incoherent with everythingelse that is possible can be.

More ignorance:
Photon energy is lost according to the measurements of photon energy being lost. That is the cosmological red shift.
The distance to The Moon is increasing due to tidal drag.
The measurements that space expands is so coherent with everything else that is possible can be.

All you have is your ignorance and continued inability to learn. This is what you too often use as base for no further understanding.

The so called dark energy is the biggest evidence possible to get, which prove that RR is real, simple because dark energy is released gravity.
...
OK ?

OK - you are still ignorant about dark energy.

Nature of dark energy
The nature of this dark energy is a matter of speculation. It is known to be very homogeneous, not very dense and is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity. Since it is not very dense—roughly 10−29 grams per cubic centimeter—it is hard to imagine experiments to detect it in the laboratory. Dark energy can only have such a profound impact on the universe, making up 74% of universal density, because it uniformly fills otherwise empty space. The two leading models are quintessence and the cosmological constant. Both models include the common characteristic that dark energy must have negative pressure.
Negative pressure
Independently from its actual nature, dark energy would need to have a strong negative pressure (i.e. effects, acting repulsively) in order to explain the observed acceleration in the expansion rate of the universe.

 

[Bjarne]

We measure increased mass.
An observer moving at a velocity v relative to a object with a rest mass m measures (sees) a relativistic mass that it acts as if it has a mass greater than m.

So your delusion of RR depends on the velocity of the observer. It does not exists for any observer moving with the object:
• we move with the Earthsso Earth has no RR for us
• everything moves with the Sun so nothing in the Solar System has any RR due the movement of the Sun.
And RR is a delusion from an person who is so ignorant that that they do now know that:

You cannot separate these things. Your are moving;

• with the Solar system
• with the galaxy
• with the local cluster of galaxies
• you could very well be circulating around the universe, like was it a big galaxy
• and the Universe itself could also be moving between other Universes, - like galaxies does.

All this motion creates relativist resistance, and hence also gravity.
The Strong Force / Gravity would properly not exist without motion.

Photon energy is lost according to the measurements of photon energy being lost. That is the cosmological red shift

All you have; = bla bla bla bla

Bla bla bla bla

= not the scientific method.
You cannot just claim that because the sky is blue it is because there is so much oxygen in it , and oxygen is as we all know blue.
You must PROVE such statement
For example how does the so called expanding lie affect a photon etc....
So fare you have ONLY this

We are living in a huge field of gravity, - and really losing gravity.
This is what observation confirms.
The lost of gravity = lost of so called Dark Matter.
Dark matter = Gravity from a previous Universe.
That gravity was caused due to extreme speed in a previous Universe. .

The way that gravity is lost = (is not into unknown dimension which some “scientist” believe) - but it is simply lost as ; released (curvature) tension of space.

Released tension on space = as a gravity wave.
That wave is what you call; Dark Energy.
Dark matter is converted to Dark Energy, so simple is that?
All this are not mysteries but well known properties of space (general relativity).
General Relativity is enough to understand the reason why gravity today is weaker and still get weaker, - and also why light becomes redshiftet.

All you need to understand is the essential, - what is really so called;

• Dark Matter
• Dark Energy
• Curvature of Space
• Gravitational Wave

and especially understand how these "phenomena’s are connected.
Exactly like all the parts in your car are connected and work together ( I hope) unless you have put it together.

We are now in the heart of our BIG PROBLEM with the Univesrs.
All the problems we have can be desribed with one single word; INCOHERENCE.

• "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
• "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

Albert Einsten.

The distance to The Moon is increasing due to tidal drag.

Every Cow know that.
But every cow does also know that the distances to the Moon SHOULD increase 5 mm if the Universe really was expanding.
This does not happen.
All you have done, - (to try) to explain why it not happen is nothing but = bla bla bla bla ...

Bla bla bla bla

= not the scientific method.

 

[Reality Check]

Can Bjarne understand that RR (RAM) delusion is undefined for an undefined observer

You cannot separate these things. Your are moving;

• with the Solar system
• ...

We do not separate them. The fact is that the velocity in the Lortenz factor is the observer's velocity with respect to the.
Thus your delusion of RR is zero for people on Earth as they are moving with the Earth. Your RR is different for every observer.

Can you understand that RR (RAM) delusion is undefined for an undefined observer?

All you have; = bla bla bla bla .

All you have is your abysmal ignorance and delusions:

• 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]

You cannot separate these things. Your are moving;

Get a dictionary.

Look up the appropriate definition of relative.

Think about why your statement is nonsense.

We are living in a huge field of gravity, - and really losing gravity.
This is what observation confirms.
The lost of gravity = lost of so called Dark Matter.

All you have; = bla bla bla bla
Bla bla bla bla = not the scientific method.
You cannot just claim that because the sky is blue it is because there is so much oxygen in it , and oxygen is as we all know blue.
You must PROVE such statement

Dark matter = Gravity from a previous Universe.
That gravity was caused due to extreme speed in a previous Universe. .

All you have; = bla bla bla bla
Bla bla bla bla = not the scientific method.
You cannot just claim that because the sky is blue it is because there is so much oxygen in it , and oxygen is as we all know blue.
You must PROVE such statement

The way that gravity is lost = (is not into unknown dimension which some “scientist” believe) - but it is simply lost as ; released (curvature) tension of space.

All you have; = bla bla bla bla
Bla bla bla bla = not the scientific method.
You cannot just claim that because the sky is blue it is because there is so much oxygen in it , and oxygen is as we all know blue.
You must PROVE such statement

Released tension on space = as a gravity wave.
That wave is what you call; Dark Energy.
Dark matter is converted to Dark Energy, so simple is that?

All you have; = bla bla bla bla
Bla bla bla bla = not the scientific method.
You cannot just claim that because the sky is blue it is because there is so much oxygen in it , and oxygen is as we all know blue.
You must PROVE such statement

and especially understand how these "phenomena’s are connected.
Exactly like all the parts in your car are connected and work together ( I hope) unless you have put it together.

We are now in the heart of our BIG PROBLEM with the Univesrs.
All the problems we have can be desribed with one single word; INCOHERENCE.

All you have; = bla bla bla bla
Bla bla bla bla = not the scientific method.
You cannot just claim that because the sky is blue it is because there is so much oxygen in it , and oxygen is as we all know blue.
You must PROVE such statement

Every Cow know that.
But every cow does also know that the distances to the Moon SHOULD increase 5 mm if the Universe really was expanding.

How does every cow calculate this?


All you have done, - (to try) to explain why it not happen is nothing but = bla bla bla bla ...
Bla bla bla bla = not the scientific method.

 

[Bjarne]

We do not separate them. The fact is that the velocity in the Lortenz factor is the observer's velocity with respect to the.
Thus your delusion of RR is zero for people on Earth as they are moving with the Earth. Your RR is different for every observer.

We will soon discover a relative big perigee / apogee anomaly of the Moon.
This will so clearly point to the fact that we have not only to reconsider RR, we will be force to completely change our mind.
The evidence will be so unambiguous and so obviously.

 

[Daylightstar]

We will soon discover a relative big perigee / apogee anomaly of the Moon.
...

^{Bolding by Daylightstar}
Just around the corner. Isn't it always like that?!

 

[Bjarne]

^{Bolding by Daylightstar}Just around the corner. Isn't it always like that?!

Ohh yeahh
Even an old man can easy mathematically prove that an absolute reference frame must be a fact.
The idea that the laws of physics always are the same for all inertial reference frames is already disproven mathematical.
Watch serious this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV9jngicFH4&feature=related
Try serious to get the point
And you too should know that the something is in fact serious rotten with the theory of relativity..
Only a small parts of it (I guess) but enough that it smells bad, - and again the smell is something between rubbish and rapid concrete.
Time will certainly come (soon) to get rid of that part of nonsense.
You know there are a lot of concrete in science, and a lot of ignorance “scientist”.

 

[Daylightstar]

...something is in fact serious rotten with the theory of relativity..
Only a small parts of it (I guess) but enough that it smells bad, - and again the smell is something between rubbish and rapid concrete. ...

Sure, but apparently you just can't explain it. I can see why this is a problem, with you knowing nothing about relativity and such.

...
Time will certainly come (soon) to get rid of that part of nonsense.
...

Sure, as we saw earlier, your revelation is just around the corner. Maybe tomorrow before breakfast...who knows?

...
You know there are a lot of concrete in science, and a lot of ignorance “scientist”.
...

With ignorance “scientist” I assume you refer to delusional cranks?
Yes Bjarne, I know. We all know.

 

[Daylightstar]

Oh, I forgot to ask you, Bjarne.

How do you think such delusional cranks should be handled? In real life I mean.
DO you have any good suggestions?

 

[Reality Check]

We will soon discover a relative big perigee / apogee anomaly of the Moon.

That is not a reply to the post, i.e. that you remain ignorant about relativity and that it involves relative velocities.

That means that according to an observer on Earth, the Earth is not moving (it is the rest of the universe that is moving!). So your delusion of RR is zero. We can make the Lorentz factor any number at all just by having an observer moving at a specific velocity.

There will be no discovery of a "relative big perigee / apogee anomaly of the Moon" for the simple reason that we measure the position of the Moon already to a relative big accuracy (to millimeters ). That rules out any "relative big perigee / apogee anomaly".

RR is a delusion:

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

 

[Little 10 Toes]

We will soon discover a relative big perigee / apogee anomaly of the Moon.
This will so clearly point to the fact that we have not only to reconsider RR, we will be force to completely change our mind.
The evidence will be so unambiguous and so obviously.

Wow. I wonder if 30 years worth of data is enough?

 

[Bjarne]

That is not a reply to the post, i.e. that you remain ignorant about relativity and that it involves relative velocities.

That means that according to an observer on Earth, the Earth is not moving (it is the rest of the universe that is moving!). So your delusion of RR is zero. We can make the Lorentz factor any number at all just by having an observer moving at a specific velocity.

There will be no discovery of a "relative big perigee / apogee anomaly of the Moon" for the simple reason that we measure the position of the Moon already to a relative big accuracy (to millimeters ). That rules out any "relative big perigee / apogee anomaly".

RR is a delusion:

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

I can see either you did not watch the Video, or you did (as expcted) not understood it, or you did (as expected) ignore the reality it was proven.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV9jngicFH4&feature=related

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV9jngicFH4&feature=related

Had a look and it is just another ignorant Internet crank.
The principle of relativity is in fact a postulate of Galileo not Einstein When Newton first looked at what became his 3 laws, he started with 5 laws including the principle of relativity. He reduced these laws to 3 because the rest can be derived from Newton's laws.

The crank merely asserts that an absolute reference frame exists and is the CMB. He then goes on a conspiracy theory rant showing his ignorance of science. Next is him lying about what the twin paradox is by making up a scenario that has no connection with it. The rest is the usual crank gibberish.

That video only emphasizes your ignorance, Bjarne. Which further explains why you cannot understand that RR is a delusion:

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

 

[Bjarne]

Had a look and it is just another ignorant Internet crank.
The principle of relativity is in fact a postulate of Galileo not Einstein When Newton first looked at what became his 3 laws, he started with 5 laws including the principle of relativity. He reduced these laws to 3 because the rest can be derived from Newton's laws.

The crank merely asserts that an absolute reference frame exists and is the CMB. He then goes on a conspiracy theory rant showing his ignorance of science. Next is him lying about what the twin paradox is by making up a scenario that has no connection with it. The rest is the usual crank gibberish.

That video only emphasizes your ignorance, Bjarne. Which further explains why you cannot understand that RR is a delusion:

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

OK
Let us say you live at planet C
Above you head suddenly 3 planets would overtake your home planet "C" with a speed of 100,000 km/s
We assume you know these planet are faster, - it is not planet ABC that is faster.
Would time on these planets (XZY) tick slower or faster compared to time at planet C ?
Exactly when Planet "X" is above you head a rocket would be launched, in the opposite motion direction (compared to planets XZY) so that exactly above you head the rocket would move in the opposite direction also with 100,000 km/h
Wich mean speed relative to you speed of the rocket would be zero, but relative to planet XZY it would be 100.000 km/s
How would time tick at the captains watch, - relative to the time at planet XZY
Slower or faster ?

 

[Bjarne]

Coorrection
Wich means; relative to your , - the speed of the rocket would be zero, - but relative to planet XZY it would be 100.000 km/s

 

[Little 10 Toes]

[picture snipped]
OK
Let us say you live at planet C
Above you head suddenly 3 planets would overtake your home planet "C" with a speed of 100,000 km/s
We assume you know these planet are faster, - it is not planet ABC that is faster.
Would time on these planets (XZY) tick slower or faster compared to time at planet C ?
Exactly when Planet "X" is above you head a rocket would be launched, in the opposite motion direction (compared to planets XZY) so that exactly above you head the rocket would move in the opposite direction also with 100,000 km/h
Wich mean speed relative to you speed of the rocket would be zero, but relative to planet XZY it would be 100.000 km/s
How would time tick at the captains watch, - relative to the time at planet XZY
Slower or faster ?

I will try to translate this question.

Around a sun there are three planets, A, B, and C. These three planets share the same orbital path around the sun and are clustered together, like three cyclists drafting each other. Planet A will be considered the lead planet. These three planets orbit the sun not at the sun's equator, but at +45 degree latitude. The speed of these three planets in their orbit is 50,000 km/s. There are three additional identical planets, X, Y, Z, (X is the lead planet) but they are travelling counter to A, B, and C as well as at -45 degree latitude. We shall label these three additional planets, the Counter planets. In addition, X, Y, and Z, travel in their orbit at 100,000 km/s.

Would the time passing on the Counter planets (XYZ) be slower or faster compared to time at planet C?

When one of the Counter planets is perpendicular to A, B, or C, a rocket would be launched.

After this, it's all gobbledygook.

... in the opposite motion direction (compared to planets XZY) so that exactly above you head the rocket would move in the opposite direction also with 100,000 km/h
Wich mean speed relative to you speed of the rocket would be zero, but relative to planet XZY it would be 100.000 km/s
How would time tick at the captains watch, - relative to the time at planet XZY
Slower or faster ?

And this is why people can't understand you. Please go learn some English.

It's "XYZ", and "which".