Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

Off course distances must change proportional to time, - why do you refuse to reply to these questions.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7593789&postcount=4385

Why should I answer questions when you don't?

But, by all means:

How is the speed of the Sun seen from Mercury?

Depends on how you measure it and whether you understand GR. If you don't, you might conclude that it is a bit faster than it really is.

How is the MW-radius (MW-diameter) – seen from Mercury

The same as seen from everywhere else.

What about the 6 years “lost” of time on your clock relative to mine, - how would that affect the way you calculate the MW-orbit of the Sun ?

We don't use time to calculate the orbit of the sun. Time is the output, not the input.

And most important; How much Mercury-second would such orbit take - for the Sun?

Slightly fewer than it really was.

And?

 

[MRC_Hans]

G is connected with our time, and only a value to make Acceleration Due to Gravity (ADG) fits to our reality.

Wrong.

A person that not share ours time-rate can naturally also not share "G".

Wrong.

A person living at mercury and another at the Earth could never agree about the distance the Sun travels , - the MW, - simple because time is not the same.

Wrong.

– Evidence are atomic clock would't lie.

Irrelevant.

This clearly demonstrate that a person on Mercury must calculate his own “G”

Wrong.

This is so much down to logic earth that it can be.

No, it is just plain wrong.

I don’t understand why you so desperate cling to illogical nonsense, that you clearly not have understood, - and therefore also completely have failed to explain others.

I don’t understand why you cling so desperately to illogical nonsense, that you have clearly failed to understand, - and therefore also have completely failed to explain.


Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Did you read that ;
Spiral galaxies are perhaps the most fascinating structures in astronomy, yet their nature is still a mystery.
For galaxies with nearby companions, astronomers theorize that tidal forces may pull out the spiral structure.
But for isolated galaxies, another mechanism is required in which galaxies form these structures without intervention from a neighbor….

Source; http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...-galaxies.html

Your pictures still show galaxies at different slants, not with different shapes.



- Also, the question is how the stars get concentrated in spiral arms. Obviously, some general resistance, from whatever direction, could not cause that.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Your ignorance is showing again: gravitational constant.
It is a constant that relates gravitational force to mass and distance.
It is "connected with our time" only in the sense that force has units that includes time. It does not vary with time (it is a constant). It does not vary in GR (it is a constant).

I know what confuse you, and this is that if 2 observers shares the perception of the same event.
This is what causing the ”problem” and where the prevailing way of understanding ”G” is a problem.
Let us say that you live at Mercury and your clock relative to mine ticks with the ½ speed.
So long you observes the Universe from that perspective , you will to a certain degree agree that we ( I and you) shares “something” – But in the end of the day you should know that that share is not real, - since time/ distance are in fact different, also even though they not appear to be so.

Let me mention an example;
I can see and measure that a stone falls to the earth 10 meter in exact 1 second.
You live at Mercury and can see the same thing.
But you do not see the exactly same thing, because for you time / distance are not the same as for me. .

We will both see the same speed– but you would not agree it took 1 second, - but only ½ second.
You will therefore also not see the stone falling 10 meter (as I saw) , but only 5 meter. – This is cow logic crystal clear; - otherwise we would not agree of the speed of light. –Distance MUST give when times does.
It is simple math to understand that the speed of the stones **SEEMS** to be the same for both of us, - but in fact it is not, simply because time is different, and distance too.

So yes you can say that we both agree the stone was moving 10 meter per 1 second, ( 5meter in a ½ second is the same speed) . -
BUT we did NOT and we can impossible agree about the DISTANCE that stones was moving in that period (1 second for me and ½ second for you).
So the point is that we cannot share the observation when it comes to the distance that stone was moving in that period.
You have seen the stone falling 5 meter, and I saw it falling 10 meter. – You saw it happen in a ½ second for me it took 1 second.
I do not need to tell you that all Newtonian (gravity) laws of gravity depend on time/distance.

And since it matter whether the stone was falling 10 meter in a certian period, - or only 5 meter, - you should be old enough to understand that we have a problem here with “G” . – It MUST be adjusted all the time otherwise the result will not be exacts by you feed compared to your nose.

 

[Reality Check]

I know what confuse you, and this is that if 2 observers shares the perception of the same event.
This is what causing the ”problem” and where the prevailing way of understanding ”G” is a problem.
Let us say that you live at Mercury and your clock relative to mine ticks with the ½ speed.
So long you observes the Universe from that perspective , you will to a certain degree agree that we ( I and you) shares “something” – But in the end of the day you should know that that share is not real, - since time/ distance are in fact different, also even though they not appear to be so.

Fairly incoherent but the message seems to be that you and I agree that relativity (special and general) is correct. Thus both time and length intervals can be measured differently by different observers.

The rest is wrong. GR states that both time and space are affected by mass (curved). The time bit gives gravitational time dilation. The space bit means that a distance measured in one gravitational field is different from that measured in another gravitational field.

The observer on Mercury will see that

• The time that the stone takes to drop is different from the Earth observer's time.
• The distance that the stone drops is also different from the Earth observer's distance.

The 2 effects cancel out. Both observers would calculate same value for G.

If you really thought about this you would quickly realize that you have made a gigantic error in your time dilation calculations in this post:

You did not put in your different values of G for the Sun, Mercury and Earth !
​

But you made some other fundemental errors:

1. You ignored the gravitatinal field of the Sun (and Jupiter and the galaxy and other galaxies but their effects may be negligible!).
2. Your ignorance of GR means that you do not know that it is non-linear. It does not obey the superposition principle that in Newtonian mechanics allows that simple addition of forces, etc. So you cannot just get a time dilation between two planets by just looking at the difference. You need to solve the Einstein field equations for 2 bodies.
3. The r in the equation you cite is not the radial distance. It is a Schwarzschild coordinate (generally larger than the radial distance).
   We can use a radial distance as an approximation for small distances, e.g. the height of a building or a GPS satellite. But not for millions of kilometres.

The complexity in doing a complete GR treatment of this example of yours is why I decided not to do it!
Especially when it is obvious that the 2 observers will measure different orbital periods for the Sun. Kepler's third law then means that the semi-major axis of the orbit is different according to the observers. But this is a classical law so it is probably incorrect to use it.

The basic point is that if you are going to treat this as a GR example then you have to use GR throughout. And in GR: G is a constant.

 

[Bjarne]

- Also, the question is how the stars get concentrated in spiral arms. Obviously, some general resistance, from whatever direction, could not cause that.

Hans

Understand Relativistic Resistance (RR) does solve that question too.
Galaxies DO NOT have that strong amount of dark matter you and a herd of naïve “scientist” believe in. Only visible matter counts.

When a star moves in the opposite direction, of the (“RR-direction) (green arrow) – the star are free to accelerate away from the galaxy, - so much they can.

The closer stars are to the center of gravity (COG) the stronger centripetal force.
Therefore the centripetal force will forces these stars faster outwards as for example those in 50,000 LY away from the COG – in the periphery.
Naturally this leaves a certain traffic pattern, and this is what explains the cause of the strange arms density pattern.

Notice that in that outgoing process stars are still affected by gravity from the galaxy – but it will in the mention “green-zone” period take longer time to turn the motion direction towards the RR direction.

When the direction again is more or less against towards the RR direction, deceleration will happen due to RR.
It is now impossible to continue directly towards the RR direction.
RR will naturally cause stars relative fast to move almost directly towards the COG.
Moving 90 degree away from the RR direction allows the stars again to accelerate and winds back lose of speed due to RR.

The centripetal force is now (in the red-arrow-zone) outplayed by RR.
The Mass density is larger near the center of a galaxy, and is hence causing inner stars to change motion direction a bit faster as outer stars.

Also this period of motion must leave a certain pattern that reveals how long time it takes a star to change direction, due to RR.

In that process stars can pass by pretty close to the center of a galaxy. Not all will survey some would be swallowed.

The heavier galaxies are, - the more they can prevent stars trying to escape, and hence the more circular orbits will be, - but still we see the exact same pattern-principal in big galaxies.

 

[Reality Check]

Understand Relativistic Resistance (RR) does solve that question too.

Understand Relativistic Resistance (RR) is a delusion that actual physics shows 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).

and your mistakes about another version of your RR:

• 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?

The Mystery of Spiral Galaxies -- Is their Structure an Illusion?

 

[Bjarne]

The problem is that not many are asking the teaching critical question. If a person would do so the teacher will soon be angry because he will feel himself too stupid to be able to answer all such question. Einstein’s education is an example of that.

If a person don’t believe for example; the nonsense that all law of nature are the same for all kind of observers, - it is not always popular. If he continues to be skeptical, - sooner or later he must face the alternative of being part of a brain-washed team: - and this is that such person must be a stupid insane idiotic ignorant crackpot.

So scientific education is and will always be single tracked, - exact like the most fanatic religion’s are.

Not many want the title; “an insane idiotic ignorant crackpot” – so better allow the system to wipe out the last ability to; - think self, - and accept all kind of incoherent and unsupported junk, - like all other innocent brainwashed student does.

So what some few hopefully can read above, - between the lines, - is how much damage mass-brainwash is doing

I mean even though that it is simple and obviously to see that mass-brainwashed science certainly leads to completely mathematical meltdown, - still there are no way for mass-brainwashed innocent student to escape the damage already done.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Understand Relativistic Resistance (RR) does solve *blah, blah* pattern-principal in big galaxies.

No.

Bjarne, There is no need for all that typing. We all realize that you are clinging to your illusion of RR, and you imagine that it can explain all sorts of things. It does not exist, and it would not do what you think if it did exist.

Let's, just for the exercise, retrace:

What is your background for thinking RR exists?
Explain clearly and simply (as you claim one must be able to).
No cows, no silly pictures, no demands that we answer questions.
Just the basic explanation of the cause, preferably including (correct) math.

When you do, I will reply.


Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

So scientific education is and will always be single tracked, - exact like the most fanatic religion’s are.

Bjarne, you have never been near any kind of scientific education, so how would you know what it is about?

If you went even to high-school, you obviously didn't pay much attention, or you would not suck so much at simple mathematics.

All your rantings against things you don't know anything about only make you look like an idiot.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

If a person don’t believe for example; the nonsense that all law of nature are the same for all kind of observers, - it is not always popular. If he continues to be skeptical, - sooner or later he must face the alternative of being part of a brain-washed team: - and this is that such person must be a stupid insane idiotic ignorant crackpot.

That is correct: a person who blindly believes without any evidence that the laws of nature can be different for any observer is a 'stupid insane idiotic ignorant crackpot' (your words).

Some ignorance is displayed by the phrase 'all law of nature are the same for all kind of observers' which is wrong. It is specific kinds of observers that see the same laws of physics, e.g. in SR it is observers in inertial reference frames (basically with a constant velocity relative to each other).

Smart, sane, knowledgeable people know how science works. They know that a scientific theory starts with a hypothesis to explain existing observations, has a mathematical model that explains these observations and makes testable, falsifiable predictions that are tested and shown to be correct.
Special relativity starts with 2 postulates, one of which is that "The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other".
It makes testable, falsifiable predictions that have been extensively tested (Tests of special relativity). So the postulates of SR work. Ditto for GR (Tests of general relativity).

RR started with a display of ignorance:

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
​

And is easily seen to predict that particle storage rings will not work unless RR is taken in account

Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance"
​

RR is not taken in account for particle storage rings. They work. Thus RR does not exist.

And your latest effort to get around the units of measurement ignorance just plugs in an arbitrary acceleration
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?
I will ignore the dumb act of stating an equation for RR with this arbitrary value in m/s (a speed!) because you came clean later about forgetting to tell anyone that in your head this was for 1 second.

 

[Bjarne]

No.

Bjarne, There is no need for all that typing.
We all realize that you are clinging to your illusion of RR, and you imagine that it can explain all sorts of things.
It does not exist, and it would not do what you think if it did exist.

Let's, just for the exercise, retrace:

What is your background for thinking RR exists?
Explain clearly and simply (as you claim one must be able to).
No cows, no silly pictures, no demands that we answer questions.
Just the basic explanation of the cause, preferably including (correct) math.

When you do, I will reply.

It requires more and more energy to reach diminishing speed increment.
Matter and space is somehow connected / woven into each other.

According to this theory; the cause of gravity is; that the space density is twisted / absorbed due to particle spin.
Speed of matter reinforces this already ongoing process whereby particles are twisted deeper into space, and hence exert stronger deformation of space.
Space resists deformation.
Therefore increased deformation of space must also resist speed (of any object), since speed is causing the space-deformation increase.
We will refer to this as Relativistic Resistance (RR).

Through history only the energy conservation process has been understood and only mathematically.
The result of (y - 1) in the equation;
KE = (y - 1) mc² - where y = 1/v(1 - v²/c²), - is a factor.
We can use that factor to calculate the increase of M or KE.

But the basic process of resistance against motion (RR) must off course be directly proportional to the energy converting process.
To be able to calculate RR the well known equation must be slightly modified, so that the result is with unit (m/s).
All we need to add is therefore “m/s” as shown > ; RR = (y – 1m/s) - where ? = 1m/s /v(1 - v²/c²)

Any moving object must decelerate so soon no force acts on it. The idea that RR only applies during the acceleration phase is based on medieval observation. We will be forced to give up that idea.

Released kinetic energy due to deceleration must be considered converted to a magnetic field in the “wake” of a decelerating body whereby energy is not is lost. Reference http://www.dr.dk/Videnskab/Videnskab/2006/06/27105328.htm

This means that a spaceprobe (and any object) will decelerate due to relativistic resistance against motion (RR).

Based on the new equation ;

RR/ Deceleration = (y - 1 m/s) - where γ = 1m/s/√(1 - v²/c²) we can calculate RR both for the 2 pioneer space probes;

When travelling 12240 m/s (as pioneer 10 space probe did) the result = 8.33 × 10-10 m/s²

Compared with this, (we know) the Pioneer probes were decelerating: 8.74 × 10-10 m/s²

The fact that RR also applies to constant speed, make it possible to explain;

• the cause of the Pioneer Anomalies,
• the cause of accelerating space probes anomalies.
• how solar systems was created
• why stars continue to circle inwards to the black holes of galaxies; ref.
• the cause of a BigCrunch and a BigBang
• The cause of Ice ages.
• and much more

Question;
Is the energy preserved after speed is slowing down due to RR ?

Answer;
Yes the energy is conserved, it is converted to magnetic fields http://www.dr.dk/Videnskab/Videnskab/2006/06/27105328.htm

Also read;
http://www.science27.com/english/SpaceProbeAnomalies.html
http://www.science27.com/english/Mercury.html
http://www.science27.com/english/IrregularMoonsNew.html

The force of this theory is cohorence and simple logic.

 

[Bjarne]

Smart, sane, knowledgeable people know how science works. They know that a scientific theory starts with a hypothesis to explain existing observations, has a mathematical model that explains these observations and makes testable, falsifiable predictions that are tested and shown to be correct.

Start to explian why - the underlaying reason why - it require more and more energy to reach diminishing speed increment

Special relativity starts with 2 postulates, one of which is that "The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other".
It makes testable, falsifiable predictions that have been extensively tested (Tests of special relativity). So the postulates of SR work. Ditto for GR (Tests of general relativity).

It is simple and obviously - even for a braindead cow - to see that the above discussed mass-brainwashed science certainly leads to completely mathematical meltdown.
When 2 observers do not agree how long distance a stone moves in a certain period, or for exsample the distance the Sun really travels, in a certain period.
Such disagreements are crystal clear mathematical incompatible with the laws of gravity, - you should know that.

 

[Paul]

It is simple and obviously - even for a braindead cow - to see that the above discussed mass-brainwashed science certainly leads to completely mathematical meltdown.

So now you've decided to deny relativity?

 

[Reality Check]

Start to explian why - the underlaying reason why - it require more and more energy to reach diminishing speed increment

The underlying reasons are the postulates of SR !
Of course whatever I say, you will come back with no that is not that 'underlying' reason due to your ignorance of science.
In science the 'underlying' reason is that basis (postulates) of the theory matches what the universe does.

We do not have to make up a fantasy of RR starting from a stance of ignorance (Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units), ignoring that it predicts that particle storage rings do not work (Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance") and then just making up stuff (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? ).

Whst science does is start with the existing knowledge, create an explanation of them, make predictions from that explantion and then test the predictions to see if the explanation is correct.

 

[Paul]

It requires more and more energy to reach diminishing speed increment.

And?

Matter and space is somehow connected / woven into each other.

Evidence?

According to this theory; the cause of gravity is; that the space density is twisted / absorbed due to particle spin.

Evidence?

Speed of matter reinforces this already ongoing process whereby particles are twisted deeper into space, and hence exert stronger deformation of space.

Evidence?

Space resists deformation.

Evidence?

Therefore increased deformation of space must also resist speed (of any object), since speed is causing the space-deformation increase.
We will refer to this as Relativistic Resistance (RR).

Begging the question.

But the basic process of resistance against motion (RR) must off course be directly proportional to the energy converting process.

Why? And why of course?

To be able to calculate RR the well known equation must be slightly modified, so that the result is with unit (m/s).

What makes you think you can do that?

Any moving object must decelerate so soon no force acts on it.

Remember Newton?

"every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force."

​

The idea that RR only applies during the acceleration phase is based on medieval observation. We will be forced to give up that idea.

The idea that RR exists is curerntly without foundation.

Released kinetic energy due to deceleration must be considered converted to a magnetic field in the “wake” of a decelerating body whereby energy is not is lost. Reference

Which part of the referenced article do you suppose has anything to do with RR?

This means that a spaceprobe (and any object) will decelerate due to relativistic resistance against motion (RR).

No.

Based on the new equation ;

Which is wrong.


The rest is just demonstrable nonsense based on a complete failure to understand any physics.

The force of this theory is cohorence and simple logic.

Only for entirely new definitions of theory, coherence, simple and logic.

 

[Reality Check]

Based on the new equation ;

RR/ Deceleration = (y - 1 m/s) - where γ = 1m/s/√(1 - v²/c²) we can calculate RR both for the 2 pioneer space probes;

When travelling 12240 m/s (as pioneer 10 space probe did) the result = 8.33 × 10-10 m/s²

Compared with this, (we know) the Pioneer probes were decelerating: 8.74 × 10-10 m/s²

The equation is obviously wrong since it gives a speed, not a deceleration.
Also γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²).
And see 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 anomaly is (8.74±1.33)×10^−10 ms^−2. The ±1.33 is the error limit, Any values that you calculate outside of those limits is wrong. Your value is wrong!

Now add in the fact that people have calculated the effect of thermal radiation on the spacecraft. It turns out that this accounted for 67% of the anomaly (before March 2011). This leaves (2.88±1.33)×10^−10 ms^−2 to be accounted for. Your value is even more wrong !


And then we have March 2011 when the Pioneer anomaly was explained

"Pioneer Anomaly Solved By 1970s Computer Graphics Technique"
​

 

[Bjarne]

The underlying reasons are the postulates of SR !
Of course whatever I say, you will come back with no that is not that 'underlying' reason due to your ignorance of science.
In science the 'underlying' reason is that basis (postulates) of the theory matches what the universe does.

We are discussing science on an abstract level.
Reaching a deeper and more coherent understanding of the nature of space can only be based abstract thinking (imagination/fantasy).
The challenge must be to reach a united picture of the Universe. Great mysteries must be possible to adapt and crack within such picture / framework, - for example what caused BigBang - what is dark energy too - etc.

Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.
Albert Einstein

It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.
Albert Einstein

It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid.
Albert Einstein

We do not have to make up a fantasy of RR starting from a stance of ignorance

The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.
Albert Einstein

When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than any talent for abstract, positive thinking.
Albert Einstein

Whst science does is start with the existing knowledge, create an explanation of them, make predictions from that explantion and then test the predictions to see if the explanation is correct.

One of the he problem with science is that there are no attempt ( to few and too incomplete) that tries to unite / understand the underlying laws of nature.
It is like putting a puzzle together without having even an idea of it the picture is a beach, a wood, or a cow. All you have are pieces.

 

[Bjarne]

So now you've decided to deny relativity?

No I am just trying to understand it
Not to learn it by heart.
And I do easy see there is a problem, since 2 relative different observers can’t share a common experience, whenn it comes to what distance are. This must mean a variable “G”.
This fact cannot explain dark matter as I suspected last week, but probably only a question to consider a mathematical solution that allows the difference to counteract, - by all the time adjusting “G”

I wonder how such an easy error / easy to discovery can have surveyed in 100 years. The influence is relative weak, but it is true, and something we should take serious.
I mean there are no reasons to brainwash more as "necessary" – the laws of nature (equations) is not always universal, - as student learns, - but relative too, - at least gravity must be.

I think and think for months and years. Ninety-nine times, the conclusion is false. The hundredth time I am right.
Albert Einstein

So the idea that the laws/equations always are the same, - was not the 100 sequence hit that time - Albert

 

[Bjarne]

The equation is obviously wrong since it gives a speed, not a deceleration.

I call it "deceleration" - and I still believe it is.
Who have told you that deceleration always must be linear .
Relativistic deceleration is NOT linear.
I have explained that to you at least 17 times, - exactly so many years you have spend at a University.