Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Come on Paul.....
Come on nothing, you want to discuss cutting edge theory and then claim to be confused by an article for the general public on the BBC News website.


The physicist's greatest tool is his wastebasket.
- Albert Einstein,
Take Al's advice and use yours.


An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made, in a narrow field.
Niels Bohr
Learning from those mistakes is also required.


I have thought about why the Universe is accelerating.
Good, you should have thought more.


We will now speeding up the deformation of the Universe 100 billion times.
What is "the deformation of the Universe"?


You would now be able to see your PC monitor shrinking.
Why, aren't I part of the universe?


So when you today look at a Monitor distance factor 10 (10 light days) away from you...
You seem to have misunderstood your own example, again.

You know how far away the objects are, therefore you know how old the light is.


This creates the illusion that the monitors close to you are moving faster away from you than the monitors further away.
No.


Can you now see how mad big the illusion is, that the Universe is accelerating.
No.


We have all what we need. We have General Relativity, and this is certainly enought.
GR is all we need now?


Without seeing it all within that frame we are creating a lot of mysteries.
There are a lot of mysteries, sometimes solving one creates another.
 
I have given up communication with Bjarne, but I notice other people are using this thread, and some of the questions discussed are quite interesting, once we clear away the fog of misconceptions and megalomania.

The main fault with people, like Bjarne and that guy on You Tube, when they try to understand/refute SR is that they don't get the whole picture. For instance, Bjarne focuses on the speed - time dilation relationship, and gets confused. However, the point of relativity is exactly that speed makes only sense in comparison with a reference.

Imagine an object in an otherwise empty universe. Let us assume it is a space ship, and call it A.

Q: How fast is A moving?
A: Indeterminable. There is nothing to measure it against.

Now we start the rocket engines, and accelerate to 30,000km/s.

Q: How fast is A moving now?
A: 30,000km/s faster than before. (That is 0.1c, thus A is now slightly heavier than before, and the on board clock ticks slightly slower). However, for an observer ignorant of the fact that the engines have been firing, everything will be the same as before. There will be no way to determine A's speed.

OK, actually A was not quite alone in that universe, because there is another spaceship, B, which some time ago also accelerated to 30,000km/s, but in the opposite direction. Not only that, but there is a 3rd ship, C, which hasn't done anything, it basically just sits there.

Now we have a configuration similar to the way most people understood Bjarne's drawing: A and B speed by C in opposite directions (I have chosen more moderate velocities, so we can ignore relativistic effects and just add them linearly)

Q: So what does each party observe?
A: C observes A and B speed by in opposite directions at 30,000km/s. C's clock ticks a little faster than A's and B's, which tick at the same speed.

A observes C speeding by at 30,000km/s and B speeding by at 60,000km/s. A observes C's clock ticking a bit faster than its own, and B's clock is the same as its own.

B observes the same as A, except, of course the other way around.

Wait! How can C's clock be faster than A's when A observes C to move at 30,000km/s?

It is really quite simple: Nobody's clock changes because of another observer. What causes the relativistic time dilation (and mass increase) is the objects own velocity, within its reference frame. What direction it moves, and what other objects do is entirely irrelevant.

Stay tuned, next time I'll cover redshift ;)

Hans
 
Last edited:
You still have misunderstood that.
Bob started moving 100,000 km/s east together with Charles.
Bob’s spacecraft is very special because it can accelerate from 0 to 100,000 km/s with 1 nanosecond,
That makes it clearer.

Before that 1 nanosecond
  • Alice sees Bob and Charles are moving together at 100,000 km/s to the east.
  • Bob and Charles see Alice moving at 100,000 km/s to the west.
  • Bob and Charles are at rest relative to each other.
and this is what he did just above the earth after Charles dropped / launched him east with the speed 100,000 km/s
After that 1 nanosecond:

Alice sees that relative to her
  • Bob is at rest (no time dilation).
  • Charles is moving at 100,000 km/s to the east (time dilation).
Bob sees that relative to him
  • Alice is at rest (no time dilation).
  • Charles is moving at 100,000 km/s to the east (time dilation).
Charles sees that relative to him
  • Bob and Alice are moving at 100,000 km/s to the west with the same time dilation.
So what is the problem?
Other than your previous idiocy where you think that time has the units of length*speed because you were dumb ebough to assign assign y the units of acceleration in
Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
 
Last edited:
You still have misunderstood that.
Bob started moving 100,000 km/s east together with Charles. Bob’s spacecraft is very special because it can accelerate from 0 to 100,000 km/s with 1 nanosecond, and this is what he did just above the earth after Charles dropped / launched him east with the speed 100,000 km/s
Therefore Alice will not see Bob moving away, because the speed he had 1 nanosecond earlier is counteracted due to his acceleration.
Only Charles will see it like Bob was accelerating way from him.
Alice will see that B is in rest in the same ref frame.

It doesn't really matter anymore Bjarne.
Your 'simplified version' of your internet crackpot friend's example does not even represent his 'example'.
The (non existent) 200,000 km/s relative motion that you based your 'at the same time anomaly' on, does not exist.

It is starting to look like discussing a delusion about a crackpot idea.
 
OK, let's look at redshift (and blueshift):

We continue with the three spaceships from my previous post. After A and B have passed C and each other, they beam lasers at each other. A beams a laser rearwards at B and C, while measuring the speed of the beam. The beam leaves A at the speed of light (c). B and C detect the beam and measure its speed. It arrives at c.

But, what about their relative velocities? B is receding from A at a clip of 60,000km/s, or 0.2c! C is receding at half that speed. So, to reach C at the speed of light, the light beam has somehow to compensate for the energy loss of having been started at speed in the wrong direction. Just like if you throw a rock backwards from a moving car, you will have to throw harder to get the same hit.

Of course, this gets worse for the beam going from A to B, which has to compensate for the speed of both ships.

So where does the light beam get the energy to do that? When looking from A, it is just the usual laser beam, there is no difference, no matter which speed the ship has, and which direction you shoot the beam, it always leaves at c, and in a straight line, with its usual energy.

Well, a light beam consists of photons. Photons can have different energy levels. The wavelength determines the energy. The shorter the wavelength, the higher the energy. The photons, and hence the laser beam, reaching C has a longer wavelength than the photons transmitted from A. When seen from B, it is even lower: The photons have been redshifted. It costs them energy to bridge the speed gap between the ships, and since they cannot loose speed (like the stone, above) they must loose energy, and hence get a longer wavelength.

I will leave it to the intelligent reader to figure out blueshift. ;)

Hans
 
That makes it clearer.

Before that 1 nanosecond
  • Alice sees Bob and Charles are moving together at 100,000 km/s to the east.
  • Bob and Charles see Alice moving at 100,000 km/s to the west.
  • Bob and Charles are at rest relative to each other.
After that 1 nanosecond:

Alice sees that relative to her
  • Bob is at rest (no time dilation).
  • Charles is moving at 100,000 km/s to the east (time dilation).
Bob sees that relative to him
  • Alice is at rest (no time dilation).
  • Charles is moving at 100,000 km/s to the east (time dilation).
Charles sees that relative to him
  • Bob and Alice are moving at 100,000 km/s to the west with the same time dilation.
So what is the problem?

First at all I am afraid I could have simplify the example too much
The problem as I so far understand it is not what A,B and c would see, but how time really is ticking these 3 difference places..

The problem is if A, B and C after a certain A-time would take a photo and send it to each other, - would all be able to agree that all the beards are as everyone expect?

The more I think at this the more confused I get. Where is the logic in this?

And as mentioned, maybe the point here is clearer;'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV9jngicFH4&feature=related

I will return to that when I get more time, - (this summer I will be busy)..

But let's have some suggestion to how long will the beard of A + B + C be after one A-year.

Let's jump back to Iceages.
not because I don't want to dicuss SR, but because I must have to dig dpeeper into this I believe.

In periods where Perihelion is ahead of the Sun's motion direction, the orbital eccentricity of a planet will increase, this influence will be cancelled out so soon Aphelion is ahead of the Sun. Right now Aphelion is ahead of the Sun whereby the orbit of the Earth faster as expected will become completely circular.

Eccentricity.jpg

This graph shows that the orbit of the Earth within 27.000 year will be almost circular..
The RR influence of the orbit of the Earth is (now) contributing to that process, we can say the RR influence is in resonance with the perturbation contribution.
This mean that the orbit will be circular about 10,000 year earlier as expected.

RR will continue to affect the orbit of the Earth also after the orbit is completely circular. Therefore Aphelion will suddenly change to Perihelion whereby the RR contribution will have the opposite influence.

Five_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.gif

The RR influences is therefore sometimes in resonance and sometimes in dissonance with the perturbation contribution.
This explain for example the cause of the mysteries 41 kyr ice cycles.

During the last ice age the RR contribution was in dissonance with the perturbation contribution. This is the cause of ice ages lasting 100,000 year.

Calculation confirms that an ice ages must take about 100,000 years.
But these calculations are only based on the perturbation contribution, and not on the RR contribution.

One example of showing how wrong such calculation are, is that Venus according to the prevailing understanding sometimes only is 38 million km from the Earth. So soon RR is included in the calculation, the minimum distance to Venus is only about 30 million km.
This shows that the perturbation influence can can affect the Earth must stronger as expected, which then off course must result in much faster ice ages cycles and probably not more than 50,000 years cycles..

The cause of the cycles in the last 1 million year could have lasted in 100,000 year, is that the RR contribution either can be in resonance or dissonance.
The RR contribution can therefore either extend duration of and ice ages period to the double, or almost cancel it out.
This is what temperature variation of the last 5 million years seems to confirm.
 
The more I think at this the more confused I get. Where is the logic in this?
The logic is in the science, i.e. once you have specified who the observers are and their velocities relative to each other then it is a simple matter to plug the values into Special Realtivity and find out what the time dilation is observed by each observer.


Let's jump back to Iceages.
not because I don't want to dicuss SR, but because I must have to dig dpeeper into this I believe.
..snipped gibberish and idiotic images...
You need to discuss really basic physics at the level of a high school student since you have insanely given the Lorentz factor (a number without units) the units of acceleration.
Your ideas about ice ages depend on your fantasy of RR thus you have have sunk deep into ice ages and drowned.

RR is a delusion from an person who is so ignorant that that they do now know that:
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)
 
First at all I am afraid I could have simplify the example too much
The problem as I so far understand it is not what A,B and c would see, but how time really is ticking these 3 difference places..
Why do you think that time is not clicking away at the normal pace at each of these locations?

The problem is if A, B and C after a certain A-time would take a photo and send it to each other, - would all be able to agree that all the beards are as everyone expect?
If each waited a week and send a photo to the others, each would have a week's worth of beard on the photos - but they would not receive the pictures at the same time.

The more I think at this the more confused I get. Where is the logic in this?
Considering your refusal to learn from your betters, it is only logical that you are confused.
 
...

The more I think at this the more confused I get. Where is the logic in this?

And as mentioned, maybe the point here is clearer;'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV9jngicFH4&feature=related
...

As mentioned earlier, Bjarne:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7214326&postcount=3944
Your 'simplified version' of your internet crackpot friend's example does not even represent his 'example'.
And:
He argues strictly from the 'non moving' frame of reference.
It appears that he cross-assigns undefined relationships as a set of value comparisons between elements in two different reference frames, and then says that SR would have these value comparisons sets differently, without saying why.
Although he is now claiming that there is a contradiction, he fails to actually point one out.
 
You need to discuss really basic physics at the level of a high school student since you have insanely given the Lorentz factor (a number without units) the units of acceleration

RC,- this is LAST time
The simple point you cannot understand is for example, that let us imaging that you and me would agree that a certain equation can be used to explain the energy speed/force/ energy it takes to press a bull into a corner.

So soon when that energy / speed / force is released the process is reversible.

NOT because the energy/force-equation tell you that, but because a bull don’t like to be pressed into a corner.

Space does not like to be "deformed" exactly like the bull doesn’t like that.

Therefore you can indirectly use the equation, - because the force you must use to get that cow into that corner is the same "energy" / "speed" / “force” whereby the cow will get out of the corner so soon you (and the energy) is gone.

All you must assume, is therefore not a mathematical contradiction or impossibility, - but only that space resists to curve, - as well as cows also don't like it .
 
Last edited:
RC,- this is LAST time
....
This is not the FIRST time that you have written gibberish.
I doubt that it will be the LAST time since someone so ignorant that they do not know that the Lorentz factor is a number with no units of measurement is probably incapable of writing understandable sentences.

You have displayed a total inability to learn the simplest of science:
Two years, 7 months and counting!
 
I Just can't resist peeking at Bjarne's posts; they are simply too much fun to miss entirely::p

I will return to that when I get more time, - (this summer I will be busy)..

Funny how these guys really deep down realize that they are just goofing around. - It's like the overunity fellow cited in another thread, who is suggesting that his sensational overunity device be used to power your air con. :rolleyes:

Bjarne claims to have made a discovery that would be sure to earn him a Nobel and a place in history right beside Einstein and Bohr, but .... unfortunately he is busy this summer.
:dl:

Hans
 
- And this: :D

Therefore you can indirectly use the equation, - because the force you must use to get that cow into that corner is the same "energy" / "speed" / “force” whereby the cow will get out of the corner so soon you (and the energy) is gone.

All you must assume, is therefore not a mathematical contradiction or impossibility, - but only that space resists to curve, - as well as cows also don't like it .

Only one little irritating problem about that :dio:: This assumption is wrong. Cows may come out of the corners, but space doesn't. :nope:

But, that's what you get when you insist on equating astrophysics with cattle. :roll:

Hans
 

How about we create a new 'unit' called the Bjarne (short version Bj) which is basically meters per meter or seconds per second or even cows per cow. This could be assigned to any number without changing it in any real way, so he could assign it to any unit-less number without causing problems. And it might even flatter/please/shock him enough that he stops talking via his underpants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom