Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Reality Check]

Where did I write that?
You don’t like the question do you?
Is manipulation now the last shut in your gun?

Originally Posted by Bjarne
Now just forget about and absolute reference frame and try the best you can to answer the question.

What question?

I have answered your galaxy one (it looks the same, maybe rotated a bit).

Is your continued display of ignorance the only shot in your gun?

 

[Bjarne]

What question?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7545015&postcount=4333

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7545015&postcount=4333

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7548910#post7548910

 

[Bjarne]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7548910#post7548910

Real man wouldn’t be afraid for answering the question >
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7545015&postcount=4333
Sissies would .

RC has you considered being a politician?
I believe you have the ability to make the questioner forget the question.

 

[Paul]

Real man wouldn’t be afraid for answering the question

'Real man' would admit he doesn't know what he's blap blap blap about.

Sissies would .

Really? That's your considered response?

I believe you have the ability to make the questioner forget the question.

Do you mean forget, or do you mean refuse to acknowledge that it has been answered?

 

[Daylightstar]

Real man wouldn’t be afraid for answering the question >
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7545015&postcount=4333
Sissies would .
...

So, Bjarne, considering all the questions you do not answer, what does that make you?
Certainly not a real man.

Are you a sissy? or a eunuch?
Both descriptions seem to fit:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7398151&postcount=4009
No balls, no answer.

 

[Bjarne]

Disproved: Lack of an absolute reference frame

Still RC seems to failed to answer the question ?
Never mind, let me do it, - but I will change it a little..

Let’s imaging a muon orbiting the Milkyway.
For us the diameter is 100.000 LY, - but for the Muon we assume it is only 1/10 = 10.000 LY
For us one second is 1 second, but for the Muon we assume 1 of our second only 1/10 s.

So
100 of our second = 10 muon-second
100 our LY is only 10 muon LY
In both cases only 1/10

Now, - let us imaging Hans would se (and RC confirm) a stone would fall to the earth with 10 m/s^2

But the Myon would see the same event, and hence only see the same stone falling 1 muon-meter (1/10 of a earth-meter).
The muon would not agree it not toke 1 second but only 1/10 second.

But…. 1/10 of 10 meter = 1 meter ..... in 1/10 second = 10 meter per muon second,.
So even though the fact that the Muon see the stone falling much (10 times) slower, - compared to us, - it would agree that ADG (acceleration due to gravity) still was 10/s^2 - also in its own reality.

Now the muon do have a GREAT problem, because the diameter of the galaxy is seen from the muon-perspective only 1/10 of the diameter relative to / seen from our perspective.

Because ADG of the falling stone is the same (10 m/s^2) - and the diameter of the galaxy 10 times smaller, - the muon do in fact need 10 times so much “dark matter” as necessary in our reality, - to explain why stars not are thrown out of galaxies etc.

Hmmmm……..
Wonder if the dark matter turbo factories ever have consider that ?

 

[Daylightstar]

... the dark matter turbo factories ever have consider that ?

Clearly, you haven't.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Still RC seems to failed to answer the question ?
Never mind, let me do it, - but I will change it a little..

What question was asked? If you go back to your original post, you'll see no question was asked:

I will do, in the meantime you could try to disprove the theory.

Let's get back to your post:

Let’s imaging a muon orbiting the Milkyway.
For us the diameter is 100.000 LY, - but for the Muon we assume it is only 1/10 = 10.000 LY
For us one second is 1 second, but for the Muon we assume 1 of our second only 1/10 s.

What the heck is a muon? What diameter is 100.000 LY? Is it the Milky Way? Is it a "muon"? Is it the orbit of a "muon" around the Milky Way? Where did you get this measurement from? Why do we assume anything about the "Muon"? Why do you think time would pass differently on the "Muon"?

The rest of the post makes just as much sense.

 

[Daylightstar]

Well, Bjarne probably refers to his question(s) here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7545015&postcount=4333

which reality Check answered in this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7548910&postcount=4339

Bjarne knows this.

 

[Bjarne]

What diameter is 100.000 LY?

LY = light years

Is it the Milky Way?

Yes

Is it a "muon"?

Yes

Is it the orbit of a "muon" around the Milky Way?

This is what we imaging

Where did you get this measurement from?

The diameter of the Milky Way = 100.000 LY

Why do we assume anything about the "Muon"?

It’s a good picture of the; - principle..

Why do you think time would pass differently on the "Muon"?

Due to speed.
We know this is a fact.

 

[Reality Check]

Real man wouldn’t be afraid for answering the question >
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7545015&postcount=4333
Sissies would .

RC has you considered being a politician?
I believe you have the ability to make the questioner forget the question.

Real man wouldn’t be afraid of reading the answer to the question the question
Sissies would ignore that fact that the question has been answered.

B has you considered reading the post:

I answered the question: (PDF) Appearance of a rapidly moving sphere: A problem for undergraduates

The same basically goes for an elliptical body like a galaxy. A galaxy with a diameter of 100,000 LY will still appear as 100,000 LY wide.

 

[Reality Check]

Still RC seems to failed to answer the question ?

You are wrong:

Originally Posted by Reality Check

I answered the question: (PDF) Appearance of a rapidly moving sphere: A problem for undergraduates

The same basically goes for an elliptical body like a galaxy. A galaxy with a diameter of 100,000 LY will still appear as 100,000 LY wide.

Never mind, let me do it, - but I will change it a little..

Let’s imaging a muon orbiting the Milkyway.
For us the diameter is 100.000 LY, - but for the Muon we assume it is only 1/10 = 10.000 LY
....

Total gibberish.
For the Muon we calculate that it sees (if it had eyes !) that the diameter is 100.000 LY.

(PDF) Appearance of a rapidly moving sphere: A problem for undergraduates
​

 

[MRC_Hans]

Due to speed.
We know this is a fact.

Time passes differently, not distances. Since we generally express astronomic distances in speed*time (e.g. LY), such measurement units break down at relativistic speeds, but other distance units, e.g. meters, parsecs are not changed.

BTW, if you recognize that time changes due to speed, you have implicitly recognized that there is no universal reference frame. (Although I expect you do not understand this.)

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Double

 

[Bjarne]

You are wrong:
The same basically goes for an elliptical body like a galaxy. A galaxy with a diameter of 100,000 LY will still appear as 100,000 LY wide.

Time passes differently, not distances. Since we generally express astronomic distances in speed*time (e.g. LY), such measurement units break down at relativistic speeds, but other distance units, e.g. meters, parsecs are not changed.
BTW, if you recognize that time changes due to speed, you have implicitly recognized that there is no universal reference frame. (Although I expect you do not understand this.)
Hans

We / the solar system are moving 250 km/s (250,000 m/s)
After 120,000 years ( 3,78E12 s.) we have reach the distance 100,000 LY (the diameter of the MW)

Let's say a muon in all these years have followed us, - orbiting the Earth with a speed near the speed of light.
We all agree that the time on the watch of the muon is ticking slower. ( let us say 10 times slower)

We also agree that our speed (in these 120,000 years) must have been 250,000 m/s (the speed of the solar system orbiting the MW).
So any cow on any planet and in any Universe, (doesn’t matter how stupid or brain dead they may be) would certainly agree that if the muon (seen from its own perspective) really would have travelled 100 LY (within our 3,78E12s.) – it must have moved that distance 10 times faster as we (per second), - since time for the muon is 10 time slower.

This mean seen from the perspective of the muon our Sun is not moving 250,000 m/s but 2,500,000 m/s

So you have 2 alternatives.
Either you must accept that the muon travels 10 times faster (per second) as the speed we accept, - due to the orbit of the Sun.
In this case our galaxy must have 10 times so much brain-washed dark matter to keep the Sun here.

Or you must accept that the muon only travels 1/10 of that distance,- since distances and time always must change proportional.
In that case our galaxy must also have also 10 times so much brain-washed dark matter to keep the Sun here.

Which option do you prefer?
And WHY ?

Advise………
According to Mother Cow, the last option is the most logical, since this is the most coherent.
But never mind, I know you, and the brain-wash-system do not appreciate; coherence, - All I can say is that I and cows does.

 

[Reality Check]

We / the solar system are moving 250 km/s (250,000 m/s)
...
Which option do you prefer?
...

Neither: the option is that you continue to you display the ability to write gibberish yet again !

The fact remains that the answer to your question is

Originally Posted by Reality Check

I answered the question: (PDF) Appearance of a rapidly moving sphere: A problem for undergraduates

The same basically goes for an elliptical body like a galaxy. A galaxy with a diameter of 100,000 LY will still appear as 100,000 LY wide.

 

[MRC_Hans]

We / the solar system are moving 250 km/s (250,000 m/s)
After 120,000 years ( 3,78E12 s.) we have reach the distance 100,000 LY (the diameter of the MW)

No, it will take 120 million years.

Let's say a muon in all these years have followed us, - orbiting the Earth with a speed near the speed of light.

Nothing can orbit the earth at that speed. - But for the sake of discussion, let's say it orbited somewhere.

We all agree that the time on the watch of the muon is ticking slower. ( let us say 10 times slower)

OK.

We also agree that our speed (in these 120,000 years) must have been 250,000 m/s (the speed of the solar system orbiting the MW).

That is the speed of the solar system as it orbits the galactic centre, yes.

So any cow on any planet and in any Universe, (doesn’t matter how stupid or brain dead they may be) would certainly agree that if the muon (seen from its own perspective) really would have travelled 100 LY (within our 3,78E12s.) – it must have moved that distance 10 times faster as we (per second), - since time for the muon is 10 time slower.

I think you should stop consulting cows on science, because they get it all wrong. First of all, since the muon is moving near the speed of light, it will have travelled much farther, during the same time. Every time the solar system travels 250km, the muon travels nearly 300,000km.

This mean seen from the perspective of the muon our Sun is not moving 250,000 m/s but 2,500,000 m/s

You could say that, yes. However, the point is that the perspective of the muon has no influence on the solar system.

So you have 2 alternatives.
Either you must accept that the muon travels 10 times faster (per second) as the speed we accept, - due to the orbit of the Sun.

No, that does not make sense. The muon travels at nearly c, the sun travels at 0.0008 c. That won't change.

Or you must accept that the muon only travels 1/10 of that distance,- since distances and time always must change proportional.

No, that is the fancy thing about relativity: Time and distance does NOT change proportionally, which leads us to the third option:

You could actually try to understand relativity, instead of just babbling private fantasies.

Which option do you prefer?
And WHY ?

I prefer the third option, to understand relativity. It requires an open mind and a bit of work, but it has the advantage of being consistent with the real world. You should try it.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

No, it will take 120 million years.

Right..

Nothing can orbit the earth at that speed. - But for the sake of discussion, let's say it orbited somewhere.

Good

First of all, since the muon is moving near the speed of light, it will have travelled much farther, during the same time. Every time the solar system travels 250km, the muon travels nearly 300,000km.
Correct, - but irrelevant.
This has NOTHING with the point to do.

The traveler is “carried” with the solar system with larger speed as the solar system >> and a witness, - this is the point.
The traveler (is in a difference time frame) and can in no way not agree how fast the solar system moves, - or how distances are. One of these factors must “bend”.
Sorry Hans, if you don't understand this, I have only cows to discuss such logic with, and they NEVER have their ears full of orthodox load of concrete. - Cows are always very open-minded.

You could say that, yes. However, the point is that the perspective of the muon has no influence on the solar system.

This is irrelevant, - and have nothing with the point to do.
When you move around the Earth in year 3011 with the fastest possible train or spacecraft , let say 10 km/s, - of course it do not affect the solar systems or bal bla bla bla.
The motion of a muon will off course also not affect the solar system.
Why mention such irrelevant nonsense?

I believe the only option you have is derailing and confusion a pretty’s simple discussion, you must have seen is lost, - right ?

Stick to the point PLEASE.

We can make the discussion far more realistic if you prefer.
Let’s say you live at Mercury, - your clock ticks slower.
Therefore after 120 million years, let’s say yours clock have “lost” 1000 hours.

After 120 million years I at the Earth and you at Mercury have completed one orbit of the MW.

This means;

a.) either you must conclude that the orbit of the MW is shorter seen from Mercury as seen from the Earth perspective,

*** OR ***

b.) your speed (at Mercury) around the MW is FASTER, simply because yours clock tick slower....

But Hans, - Never mind, - you know people can spend 17 years at Universities without even understanding this simple point.

So if you don’t understand it too, - don’t worry this is very natural (for humans).

 

[Reality Check]

Stick to the point PLEASE.

The point is that you are writing gibberish based on your ignorance of special relativity.

Let’s say you live at Mercury, - your clock ticks slower.

Wrong: The clock on Mercury ticks at the same rate as any other clocks.

The clock on Mercury as seen by an observer traveling at a different5 velocity do tick slower.

Therefore after 120 million years, let’s say yours clock have “lost” 1000 hours.

Wrong: My clocks never lose any hours. That is what special relativity states. I am travelling at the same velocity as the clock, thus no time dilation.

When I look at the clock on Mercury, it is ticking slower.
When someone on Mercury looks at my clock, it is ticking slower.
The Mercury and Earth clocks are ticking at exactly the same rate according to the observer on the other planet.

a)...
b)...

And the actual answer:
c) The orbit of the MW is the same as seen from Mercury as seen from the Earth perspective (aside from the tiny fact that they are different planets in different orbits around teh Sun and so have slightly different orbits around the MW).

But Bjarne, - Never mind, - you can spend no years at Universities, retain your ignorance of physics and still are without even understanding this simple point: Special Relativity depends on relative velocities.