Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

So you believe that when a body accelerates M is increasing, good, so fare we agree.
Let say the speed increase is about 200,000 km/s – and hence M increase = 1kg .
Add the M increase (1 Kg) that the basic M (1 Kg ) = 2Kg.
So long the speed increase is + 200,000 km/s the M increase = +1Kg, and hence the total M = 2 kg.
Do you agree ?

Not exactly 2, but otherwise it is more or less right.

Now ; how can speed convert to Mass / deformed space, Explain the PROCESS

I just did.

WHAT calculations


WHAT experiments
CERN ?

I have tried several times to educate you. I have no more time for that. Seek your own knowledge.

What about the lost of magnetic field due to motion ?
WHO will pay for that?
Will reduced speed be the result ?

There is no lost magnet field, except for charged particle moving near a conductor.

It depend on what you mean with “friction” ?
Where is the "border" between space and matter.

Friction is interaction with an adjacent medium.
The border is not well defined, and it is irrelevant for the discussion at hand.

Bjarne, please note that I don't give a damn if you understand or accept all this or not. You are free to live in your own make-believe world.

I prefer the real world.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

One second motion forward or backwards can be described as acceleration or deceleration (depending on whether speed is increasing or decreasing) what happens in that second can be expressed as = +/- m/s.

Bjarne here demonstrates that he does not know the difference between speed and acceleration.

You don't know whether the Universe expands or not.

Yes, we know. The universe is expanding. Period.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, please note that I don't give a damn if you understand or accept all this or not. You are free to live in your own make-believe world.

Hans

Oooohh
So fare I understand;

• You support the invention of a new expanding space property, - that really not is necessary.
• You support the invention of a new expanding space property, - that never have been proven, and hence off course NOT is science, - but rather blind religion.
• You support the expanding Universe idea, - even though it conflict with local measurements showing that local distances NOT ARE EXPANDING, - and hence conflicting with the scientific method itself – that objective shows it doesn’t happen.
• You support the religion; that photons convert energy into; blap blap blap, - even though this NOT is proven and hence only fantasies that NEVER have pass any objective scientific methods. . It is a fundamental law of physics; - that energy CANNOT be lost. - But you are ready to ignore that principle TOO.
• You support a completely incoherent incomplete model of the Universe, that contradict itself also when it comes to the question; Could all the energy once have been inside a small a incredible small “dot” ?
• You support such rubbish even though it is obvious that NOTHING , -- NO FORCE, -- NO LAW OF NATURE – EVER could have brought all that energy into such a fantasy small “dot”.
• You too should know the fact that because it is impossible by any means, by any laws of physics, or even by any insane turbo fantasy; - to force all of the energy into such a dot, - hence the universe can also NOT come out from that insane dot.

The whole theory (that even not is a thesis) is in open conflict with the scientific method and with science itself. It is shut down before it is airborn.
You should in fact shame yourself to support such load of rubbish, and hence indirectly support that young innocent naïve student are mass brainwashed with such authoritarian waffle.

Hans, please note that I don't give a damn if you understand anything of what i write or not. You are free to live in your own make-believe world. But I think it is a shame that million of young innocent student are brainwashed with such incomplete, incoherent, nonsense full of contradictions.

I prefer the real world.

Here smells of something between rubbish, mass brainwash and concrete.

 

[Reality Check]

This only demonstrate how lost you are.
Energy can and MUST convert to different energy.
Energy is NEVER lost.

You are finally (after many years) grasping some physics:
We have always observed that energy is conserved.
That is an observation, not a fact.

So according to you:
Energy lost in redshift can and MUST convert to different energy.
Energy lost in redshift is NEVER lost.

The science is that energy can and MUST convery to gravitational energy.

But...
GR does not conserve energy globally! So some scientist think that the energy is just lost.

One second motion forward or backwards can be described as acceleration or deceleration (depending on whether speed is increasing or decreasing) what happens in that second can be expressed as = +/- m/s.

This gibberish just proves you ignorance once again: acceleration or deceleration is always +/- m/s^2

Sure we could talk about what happens during 1 second.We could also talk about 2 seconds.
What about 2.5 seconds.
Oh look what about 3.124 seconds?
Why did you miss out 53815793872356t78348476387 seconds ?
But we

• have not
• are not and
• never will

be talking about the dumb question of what happens in 1 second.

You don't know whether the Universe expands or not.

Idoicy: What people know is what the evidence shows. The evidence dens shows that the universe is expanding.

What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
​

Why is your multiplier 1 m/s^2? Why is X not 2 m/s^2? Why not 300,000 m/s^2? Why not 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s^2?

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

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no !
Two years, 10 months and counting​

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oooohh
So fare I understand;

• You support the invention of a new expanding space property, - that really not is necessary.
• You support the invention of a new expanding space property, - that never have been proven, and hence off course NOT is science, - but rather blind religion.
• You support the expanding Universe idea, - even though it conflict with local measurements showing that local distances NOT ARE EXPANDING, - and hence conflicting with the scientific method itself – that objective shows it doesn’t happen.
• You support the religion; that photons convert energy into; blap blap blap, - even though this NOT is proven and hence only fantasies that NEVER have pass any objective scientific methods. . It is a fundamental law of physics; - that energy CANNOT be lost. - But you are ready to ignore that principle TOO.
• You support a completely incoherent incomplete model of the Universe, that contradict itself also when it comes to the question; Could all the energy once have been inside a small a incredible small “dot” ?
• You support such rubbish even though it is obvious that NOTHING , -- NO FORCE, -- NO LAW OF NATURE – EVER could have brought all that energy into such a fantasy small “dot”.
• You too should know the fact that because it is impossible by any means, by any laws of physics, or even by any insane turbo fantasy; - to force all of the energy into such a dot, - hence the universe can also NOT come out from that insane dot.

The whole theory (that even not is a thesis) is in open conflict with the scientific method and with science itself. It is shut down before it is airborn.
You should in fact shame yourself to support such load of rubbish, and hence indirectly support that young innocent naïve student are mass brainwashed with such authoritarian waffle.

Hans, please note that I don't give a damn if you understand anything of what i write or not. You are free to live in your own make-believe world. But I think it is a shame that million of young innocent student are brainwashed with such incomplete, incoherent, nonsense full of contradictions.


Here smells of something between rubbish, mass brainwash and concrete.

Unfortunately they are religious "fundies/zealots" with their scientific fingers in their ears and therefore they can't hear you. Never mind the fact that their entire theory is pathetically dependent upon numerous sky entities that they cannot even empirically demonstrate even exist in nature. In fact inflation is already dead so it DOES NOT exist in nature anymore!

Their whole belief system is a "religion" not a "science". It's based on multiple leaps of faith in the unseen (in the lab). The only real functional difference between their fundies and any religious fundy is that they can't call the skeptics "evil", so they label them as "crackpots". It's exactly the same villianize-the-individual-for-blaspheming-against-our-impotent-on-Earth-sky-god technique however.

 

[Reality Check]

Unfortunately they are religious "fundies/zealots" with their scientific fingers in their ears and therefore they can't hear you. Never mind the fact that their entire theory is pathetically dependent upon numerous sky entities that they cannot even empirically demonstrate even exist in nature. In fact inflation is already dead so it DOES NOT exist in nature anymore!

Their whole belief system is a "religion" not a "science". It's based on multiple leaps of faith in the unseen (in the lab). The only real functional difference between their fundies and any religious fundy is that they can't call the skeptics "evil", so they label them as "crackpots". It's exactly the same villianize-the-individual-for-blaspheming-against-our-impotent-on-Earth-sky-god technique however.

Now we have 2 crackpots in one thread !

Michael Mozina - your continued ignorance of what science is and demonstrated inability to understand the science that has been explained to has obvioulsy lead you to this inane semi-religious ranting.

You are ignoring as usual the physical evidence for dark matter and dark energy.
Inflation is more theoretical since it will never be observed directly (the inflation phase is throught to be over). It was proposed as a solution for several observed properties of the universe. Its predictions were then tested and found to be correct. This makes it a scientific theory.

You continue with your miscomprehension that things can only exist if they can be be tested in the lab (Stars do not exist according to Michael Mozina!).

P.S. Have you actually read any of this thread and realize that the person that you seem to be supporting has so little knowledge of science that they imagine that they can assign any units to any equation?

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

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no !
Two years, 10 months and counting​

 

[Reality Check]

A couple of points from Bjarne's last rant:

Oooohh

You support the religion; that photons convert energy into; blap blap blap, - even though this NOT is proven and hence only fantasies that NEVER have pass any objective scientific methods. . It is a fundamental law of physics; - that energy CANNOT be lost. - But you are ready to ignore that principle TOO.

No one is ignoring the law of conservation of energy.
We observe redshift. The photons are losing energy. That energy has to go somewhere.

Expansion of the universe leading to cosmological redshift

The Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) has red-shifted over billions of years. Each photon gets redder and redder. What happens to this energy? Cosmologists model the expanding universe with Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) spacetimes. (The familiar "expanding balloon speckled with galaxies" belongs to this class of models.) The FRW spacetimes are neither static nor asymptotically flat. Those who harbor no qualms about pseudo-tensors will say that radiant energy becomes gravitational energy. Others will say that the energy is simply lost.

You support a completely incoherent incomplete model of the Universe, that contradict itself also when it comes to the question; Could all the energy once have been inside a small a incredible small “dot” ?

Ohhhh - how ignorant.
The Lambda-CDM model of the universe is completely coherent and mostly complete.
There is no problem with all of the energy of the universe once being in a small volume because the physics has not problem with it and the evidence is that this happened.What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans, please note that I don't give a damn if you understand anything of what i write or not.

Unfortunately, I'm sorry to say I understand everything you say. I fully understand your ideas and models.

- They are rubbish.

They are inconsistent, illogical, and they have no connection with reality.

But, that is what you get when you refuse to learn the simplest things and instead make stuff up as you go.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Oh, and I notice you have ignored these simple question:

We have been trough this before: If you sit in a spaceship, moving at half the speed of light away from Earth (wishful thinking on my part, admittedly ) and you beam a laser first forwards (beam A) and then backwards (beam B), How fast will:

Beam A move from your POV?
Beam B move from your POV?
Beam A move from Earth's POV?
Beam B move from Earth's POV?

Answer them or admit that you don't know a thing.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

This gibberish just proves you ignorance once again: acceleration or deceleration is always +/- m/s^2

Sure we could talk about what happens during 1 second.We could also talk about 2 seconds.
What about 2.5 seconds.
Oh look what about 3.124 seconds?
Why did you miss out 53815793872356t78348476387 seconds ?
But we

• have not
• are not and
• never will

be talking about the dumb question of what happens in 1 second.

Because “1” is already there, - the “starting point” of that equation, But RC I do not expect you to see it.

The science is that energy can and MUST convery to gravitational energy.

The sky is blue because of oxygen MUST be blue
Cows are more intelligent as human; therefore cows MUST come from Jupiter
Science MUST solve many mysteries (and creates 1000 more in its "wake" ssshhhh) .
Lost Photon Energy MUST convert to gravity otherwise “scientist” MUST feel them self as very BIG FOOLS.
Crackpots MUST go to the madhouse - (Otherwise "scientist" must go there........ sssshhhhh)

 

[Reality Check]

Because “1” is already there, - the “starting point” of that equation, But RC I do not expect you to see it.

That is even more stupid

• there are 2 1's in the Lorentz factor.
  

  

  Try to learn to count, Bjarne !
• neither of the 1's is 1 second.
  Try to learn to read, Bjarne !
• both of the 1's are just a 1 - no units of measurement.
• I see both of the 1's.

The total delusional nature of thinking that the 1's in the Lorentz factor are 1 second is obvious, when you see how the factor is used, e.g.

Energy is measured in Joules

Energy never has the units of Joule * seconds.

Momentum is measured in units of mass * velocity, e.g. kg * m/s
Momentum never has the units of kg * m

You have had this delusion for many years: From The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked) :

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no !
Two years, 10 months and counting​

Are you still ignoring: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
That evidence is why people 'know' that the univserse expands.

And of course:

Why is your multiplier 1 m/s^2? Why is X not 2 m/s^2? Why not 300,000 m/s^2? Why not 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s^2?
​

 

[Bjarne]

That is even more stupid

• there are 2 1's in the Lorentz factor.
  
  Try to learn to count, Bjarne !
• neither of the 1's is 1 second.
  Try to learn to read, Bjarne !
• both of the 1's are just a 1 - no units of measurement.
• I see both of the 1's.

The total delusional nature of thinking that the 1's in the Lorentz factor are 1 second is obvious, when you see how the factor is used, e.g.

Energy is measured in Joules

Energy never has the units of Joule * seconds.

Momentum is measured in units of mass * velocity, e.g. kg * m/s
Momentum never has the units of kg * m

RC
What you just wrote only reveals that you are lost in the bush.

Resistance against motion is the basic of the process we speak about.
You can (and should really) turn the known equation (we speak about) "on the head".
I mean the modified equation I have shown is in fact the basic version.
The way we normally use the equation (to calculate KE and M change) – the unit “m/s” has been removed from it, - because it is not necessary to calculate consequences of reality transformation - process.

But when you return to the original basic of the equation , - it is and must always be an expression of RESISTANCE AGAINST MOTION.

(But RC you will never get that point)

Are you still ignoring: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
That evidence is why people 'know' that the univserse expands.

Be wise, give it up, - it is a dead rap-duck.
The insane nonsense has been introduced because that was the only shut in the gun we had.
Now, - you have one more option, - this is the version I have explained you.
Get use to it even though the concrete long have been hard.
Young unspoiled people will choose the new version, the old version will slowly die out.

That is even more stupid

• there are 2 1's in the Lorentz factor.
  
  Try to learn to count, Bjarne !
• neither of the 1's is 1 second.
  Try to learn to read, Bjarne !
• both of the 1's are just a 1 - no units of measurement.
• I see both of the 1's.

The total delusional nature of thinking that the 1's in the Lorentz factor are 1 second is obvious, when you see how the factor is used, e.g.

Energy is measured in Joules

Energy never has the units of Joule * seconds.

Momentum is measured in units of mass * velocity, e.g. kg * m/s
Momentum never has the units of kg * m

You have had this delusion for many years: From The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked) :

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no !
Two years, 10 months and counting​

Are you still ignoring: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
That evidence is why people 'know' that the univserse expands.

And of course:

Why is your multiplier 1 m/s^2? Why is X not 2 m/s^2? Why not 300,000 m/s^2? Why not 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s^2?
​

RC
What you just wrote only reveals that you are lost in the bush.

Resistance against motion is the basic of the process we speak about.
You can compare the process, - (where speed of matter, due to resistance converts to kinetic energy ) - with a "similar" process where a forgotten released handbrake converts kinetic energy to thermal energy.
In both cases “resistance” is ALSO important to understand because this is the basic of the process. .

You can (and should really) turn the known equation (we speak about) "on the head".
I mean the modified equation I have shown is in fact the basic version.
The way we normally use the equation (to calculate KE and M change) – the unit “m/s” has been removed from it, - because in this case it is only necessary to calculate consequences of the reality transformation - process, and not the basic. ( The whole simple point is = The FACTOR for any kind of transformation as well for RR is and MUST be the same)

Hence when you return to the original basic of the equation , - it is and must always be an expression of RESISTANCE AGAINST MOTION.

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out.”
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”
Max Planck

 

[Reality Check]

Do you really think that acceleration is a speed

Resistance against motion is the basic of the process we speak about.
But when you return to the original basic of the equation , - it is and must always be an expression of RESISTANCE AGAINST MOTION.

(But RC you will never get that point)

I get the point: You are ignorant. The Lorentz factor appears in the momentum and thus affects force, i.e. shows that as velocity increases you need a bigger force to get the same acceleration.


That has nothing to do with your delusions that

• Thrre is ony one 1 in the Lorentz factor (there are 2)
• the 1 is 1 second (it is a number only)

I mean the modified equation I have shown is in fact the basic version.
[/quoyte]
Do you mean the version that shows that you are ignorant of what acceleration is?

RESISTANCE AGIANST MOTION. (RR) = (y – 1m/s) - where γ = 1m/s /√(1 - v²/c²)

Do you really think that acceleration is a speed?

Why is your multiplier 1 m/s^2? Why is X not 2 m/s^2? Why not 300,000 m/s^2? Why not 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s^2?

Or the version that shows your other delusion: RR= (y - 1)?
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked) :

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no !
Two years, 10 months and counting
​

But the experiments say that RR does not exist:

• Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
  First posted 2 November 2009
• Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).

 

[MRC_Hans]

I mean the modified equation I have shown is in fact the basic version.
The way we normally use the equation (to calculate KE and M change) – the unit “m/s” has been removed from it, - because it is not necessary to calculate consequences of reality transformation - process.

This is one of the most silly things you have ever said (and that is a tall order). There are in facts equations where a constant can be resolved to some unit, but then they are designated a letter, not a number. However, the 1 is not a constant in that equation. The first 1 is a reciprocation, and the second is an offset, because otherwise you might get a zero under the fraction, and, as you daughter can probably tell you, you can't divide by zero.

But when you return to the original basic of the equation , - it is and must always be an expression of RESISTANCE AGAINST MOTION.

Yes, it is equal to resistance against motion. = nonsense.

Young unspoiled people will choose the new version, the old version will slowly die out.

Be sure they are so young that they have not yet learnt any math. Otherwise, they will laugh you out.

Resistance against motion is the basic of the process we speak about.

That YOU speak about. However, we know that it does not exist.

You can compare the process, - (where speed of matter, due to resistance converts to kinetic energy ) - with a "similar" process where a forgotten released handbrake converts kinetic energy to thermal energy.

Yes, and this does not happen. Seriously, Bjarne, how do you imagine that something like that would not have been noticed?



Hans

 

[Bjarne]

That YOU speak about. However, we know that it does not exist.
Hans

• The cause of gravity = absorbed space,- or if you prefer; twisted space caused due the spin of elementary particles.
• The ultimate cause of gravity = speed of matter.
• The process of creating matter and hence also gravity (is always) = Resistance against motion (RR).
• The reason why RC and Hans exist => Speed => RR => Matter
• The reason why The Universe exist = > Speed => RR => Matter

Seriously, Bjarne, how do you imagine that something like that would not have been noticed?

Orthodox Mass Brainwash of young innocent student already from the age of 10 years old.

Or if you prefer; why do you thing Max Planck wrote “exactly the same”, - nicely wrapped.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”
Max Planck

I prefer to call a cow a cow, - a spade a spade, - a naive-fool a naive-fool, - and off course; mass-brainwash for mass-brainwash.

 

[steenkh]

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”
Max Planck

It seems that we can also add that some scientific nonsense also does not disappear, but will fade away when its proponents eventually die!

 

[MRC_Hans]

• The cause of gravity = absorbed space,- or if you prefer; twisted space caused due the spin of elementary particles.
• The ultimate cause of gravity = speed of matter.
• The process of creating matter and hence also gravity (is always) = Resistance against motion (RR).
• The reason why RC and Hans exist => Speed => RR => Matter
• The reason why The Universe exist = > Speed => RR => Matter

Yes, I have heard and understood your fantasy. It remains fantasy.

Orthodox Mass Brainwash of young innocent student already from the age of 10 years old.

I know you have an issue with your time in school, but try not to take it out on others.

Or if you prefer; why do you thing Max Planck wrote “exactly the same”, - nicely wrapped.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”
Max Planck

He was wrong.

I prefer to call a cow a cow, - a spade a spade, - a naive-fool a naive-fool, - and off course; mass-brainwash for mass-brainwash.

And I prefer to call you a naive fool.

Hans

 

[Toke]

It have been a few months since I was here, it appears that Bjarne has not changed?

 

[Bjarne]

It have been a few months since I was here, it appears that Bjarne has not changed?

Is it possible to get a cow into your car?

Right yes it is.

http://j.imagehost.org/0666/cow-in-a-car-fail.jpg

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTSjiHsQ5qbpwp3KkfuYsOoJhiHHIXPeQ-VvLSP5LlxQ4EYg58X

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQiCjCwodvC3U__GNf_BPFXoVn2YSbBf9hgENGLfIopZHDy4_1MfA

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTZDqC5LaPewhBcqPY-4NDpebLL-2qYCYs5LRjMKbOs2A_vveAG

But it is not possible to get the Universe into a dot.

 

[MRC_Hans]

It have been a few months since I was here, it appears that Bjarne has not changed?

He has changed slightly to the worse. More cows, more paranoia, even less sense.

If it was not for the occasional hilarity, I'd have him permanently on ignore.

Hans