Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Paul]

We are discussing science on an abstract level.

No, that's what you think you are doing.

Reaching a deeper and more coherent understanding of the nature of space can only be based abstract thinking (imagination/fantasy).

That's not even wrong.

The challenge must be to reach a united picture of the Universe.

Good, because that is a challenge.

Great mysteries must be possible to adapt and crack within such picture / framework,

That may possibly make sense in your head; you might try rearranging those thoughts into a more coherent sentence.

Any man who reads...

Yes, we know Einstein said things, randomly repeating them doesn't make you look clever or advance your argument.

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

Now you're just being silly.

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.

Pieces that you know fit together in a specific way to form a whole; people do all kinds of puzzles without a reference all the time.

 

[Paul]

No I am just trying to understand it

So "mass-brainwashed science certainly leads to completely mathematical meltdown" is part of understanding relativity is it?

Not to learn it by heart.

How do you plan to understand something you refuse to learn?

This must mean a variable “G”.

Why?

This fact cannot explain dark matter as I suspected last week,

It's not a fact, and flailing about wildly while making stuff up won't solve the problem of dark matter.

but probably only a question to consider a mathematical solution that allows the difference to counteract, - by all the time adjusting “G”

Sorry, you appear to be speaking Lorenzen again.

I wonder how such an easy error / easy to discovery can have surveyed in 100 years.

Because it isn't either of those things.

The influence is relative weak, but it is true, and something we should take serious.

You don't even take it seriously enough to make a coherent post about it, whatever it is.

 

[Paul]

I call it "deceleration" - and I still believe it is.

Calling it something doesn't make it that thing.

Here, I'll show you:

That is the spiral galaxy NGC 3393.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

SR.

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

GR.

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

Nonsense. The mass of particles and their spin is unconnected.

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

No. Experiments show that this is not the case.

Space resists deformation.

No. Experiments show this is not the case.

Therefore increased deformation of space must also resist speed (of any object), since speed is causing the space-deformation increase.

No. Experiments show this is not the case.
(This is getting tedious.)

We will refer to this as Relativistic Resistance (RR).

Bjarne, stop saying 'we' when you mean 'I'. It makes you look silly.

Through history only the energy conservation process has been understood and only mathematically.

No. It has been confirmed empirically. Why do you make these silly claims? If you did just a minimum amount of research (such as reading a physics book), you would find you are wrong.

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.

SR.

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

SR.

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)

You can't just "slightly modify" a formula. Don't you ever come to work for me, 'cause I might "slightly" modify the formula for your pay, so you got paid in peanuts.

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

No. A moving object will maintain constant speed and direction when no force acts on it. Proven experimentally. Energy is conserved.

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

Your wilful ignorance shows again. Do some reading. It is confirmed by modern physics.

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

No. Only charged objects create a magnet field, and it doesn't even always cost energy. That article is about special conditions around black holes.

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

However, they don't.

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

No, it wasn't. It was accelerating towards the sun. You were told this several times, why don't you listen to people?

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

No. This is the most silly thing of it all. You are clinging to an effect on the 9th decimal of the Pioneer probe (and you are even wrong about that), and then you think that if this extremely weak function exists, you can explain all sorts of stuff with it.

However, thank you for answering my question. Unfortunately, your answer confirms that you simply don't know what you are talking about.

Since your basic premises are false, there is no reason to continue this discussion.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

We are discussing science on an abstract level.

Nope. 'We', if 'we' includes you, are not discussing science at all. You have no idea what science is.

Reaching a deeper and more coherent understanding of the nature of space can only be based abstract thinking (imagination/fantasy).

This might sound just a little bit philosophical, if it didn't come from someone who kept referring to cows.

The challenge must be to reach a united picture of the Universe.

Bjarne, I'm afraid your great challenge, currently, is to understand basic physics and simple mathematics.

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

Make up your mind: Was Einstein wise, or was he an idiot? If your "theories" are right, he was an idiot.

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.

This is blatant nonsense. Billions of Euros are spent trying to understand the underlying laws of nature. What exactly do you think they are doing in places like CERN?

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.

What YOU are doing is trying to put one together where you don't even have the pieces. What on Earth makes you think you can understand the underlying laws, when you haven't even grasped the basics?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Make up your mind: Was Einstein wise, or was he an idiot? If your "theories" are right, he was an idiot.Hans

Let the man have the last word;

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

This is blatant nonsense. Billions of Euros are spent trying to understand the underlying laws of nature. What exactly do you think they are doing in places like CERN?

Still dreaming of the brainwashed fantasy higgs , even though it is now proven that it do not exist.
Many of these people are too proud to admit that they have lost all these billion and billion of € and got NOTHING.
So what are they doing NOW;
Well I believe drinking coffee and wasting more of yours and my money, because these 10,000 scientist must still have their salary every month, right ?
Now they are probaly soon asking for a lot more money, because the fantastic higgs will NEVER die before all these “scientist” are dead and also not before the insane systematically mass brainwash also in this area one day hopefully will come to an end.

How many of these “scientist” do you believe now are willing to admit that higgs speculation was nothing but a rap-duck ?
I guess almost none.
Mass brainwash is probably lot more dangerous than you are willing to understand and admit.

Bjarne
Through history only the energy conservation process has been understood and only mathematically.
Hans
No. It has been confirmed empirically.Why do you make these silly claims? If you did just a minimum amount of research (such as reading a physics book), you would find you are wrong.

What really happens in the process when kinetic energy (speed) converts to mass and gravity is NOT understood at all.
Off course we have such experiences (empirically).
The existence of UFO’s are also confirmed empirically million of times, but what have that with SCIENCE to do?
Hans honestly this time you make yourself sillier as mother cow ever can forgive.

No, it wasn't.It was accelerating towards the sun. You were told this several times, why don't you listen to people?

Try to check the internet and how many are discusting the Pioneer deceleration.
If everybody does understand that a cow goes backwards, and explains it in different words as acceleration towards the Sun - would that too be a great problem to you. ?

What YOU are doing is trying to put one together where you don't even have the pieces. What on Earth makes you think you can understand the underlying laws, when you haven't even grasped the basics?

Hans it is trivial to discuss with you.
Even simple math that without a shadow of doubts clearly shows a 9 years old schoolboy that since 2 observers in different space-time reference frames not are sharing same time, can impossible share distances either, (how long 1 meter is ) .
As mention a couple of time, even sick brain-dead cows know that the distance between the Earth and the Moon therefore NOT and NEVER is the same for 2 such observers (in diffrence reference frames), and therefore a such cow also know that “G” NOT is universal.

I have (above) many times invited you (concrete and objective) to solve the mystery, how could a such HUGE contradiction have surveyed in 100 years, if it really is so that not only you and RC continues postulate the insane idea that G is constant.

What in hell make people believe that “G” is constant?
What in hell make you believe that a mathematical equation (that naturally only can be valid only a certain place on Earth) is primary and universal ?
It seesm that you belive that the reality of different observer (except your own) plays secondary and almost insignificant roles, which are allowed to export the 21 th bright blue dimension.
It remind me about the middle age where fools and beast also believed that the Earth was the center in the Universe.
Hans do you really believe in something like that too?

Cows do not normally feel them self much better as humans, but I can guarantee you that when the insane G news reached cows communities, nothing could prevent almost 7 million cows to almost die by laughter. 847,000 cows got heart-attack because of the news, all caused by laugher. Too much is simply too much mother cows said as excuse for the self-caused humiliation of the human race.

The collective cow reaction clearly shows that we discuss something, even at a simple simple simple (almost completely brain dead level mathematical level) , - that you not have understood at all, and worse, that you not are willing even to attempt to understand.

If you would have been serious, so serious like a 9 years old unspoiled schoolboy (that thank god still not is mass-brainwash) – you would at least have tried to answer very very very simple questions mention here > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7593789&postcount=4385

 

[Paul]

Let the man have the last word;

Unsurprisingly, that's not an answer.

Do you think Einstein was a genius or an idiot?

Still dreaming of the brainwashed fantasy higgs , even though it is now proven that it do not exist.

Really, you have proof?

Because that would be new tot the people at the ATLAS experiment:

At the EPS meeting in July, ATLAS and CMS reported that a few more events than expected had been seen in one mass region, described in the news media as a possible hint for the Higgs boson. However the latest results do not show any additional enhancement of these hints — but we are still in the early days of this search.
By the end of 2011, this data sample may double again, and increasing statistics can take these Higgs search results in either of two directions: 1) if this excess of events sees no further enhancement, we may be able to exclude portions of the mass region of the excess at the 95% CL, or 2) if the excess increases, the excitement level will rise, but it may take yet another year's data to determine if we can announce a discovery.
​

Many of these people are too proud to admit that they have lost all these billion and billion of € and got NOTHING.

Absolutely, if you were to go here, for instance, I'm sure you wouldn't find hundreds of pages of information on all their experiments.

Well I believe drinking coffee and wasting more of yours and my money, because these 10,000 scientist must still have their salary every month, right ?

It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that what you believe has no basis in any reality.

How many of these “scientist” do you believe now are willing to admit that higgs speculation was nothing but a rap-duck ?

Why don't you try asking them, I'm sure your "theories" would amuse them immensely.

Off course we have such experiences (empirically).
The existence of UFO’s are also confirmed empirically million of times, but what have that with SCIENCE to do?

Ah, I see empirical is something else you do not understand.

Try to check the internet and how many are discusting the Pioneer deceleration.

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1="pioneer+anomaly"&word2="pioneer+deceleration"

What in hell make people believe that “G” is constant?

Scientific experimentation, what makes you think it isn't?

What in hell make you believe that a mathematical equation (that naturally only can be valid only a certain place on Earth) is primary and universal ?

Because your assumption is without foundation.

If you would have been serious... ...to answer very very very simple questions mention here > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7593789&postcount=4385

You mean the one that has been answered, but that you refuse to accept the answwer to?



I don't know if this explains some of your ideas, but are you confusing G with g?

 

[Bjarne]

Unsurprisingly, that's not an answer.
Do you think Einstein was a genius or an idiot?

You can take his own word for that he could come to wrong conclusions.

Really, you have proof?

Because that would be new tot the people at the ATLAS experiment:
At the EPS meeting in July, ATLAS and CMS reported that a few more events than expected had been seen in one mass region, described in the news media as a possible hint for the Higgs boson. However the latest results do not show any additional enhancement of these hints — but we are still in the early days of this search.
By the end of 2011, this data sample may double again, and increasing statistics can take these Higgs search results in either of two directions: 1) if this excess of events sees no further enhancement, we may be able to exclude portions of the mass region of the excess at the 95% CL, or 2) if the excess increases, the excitement level will rise, but it may take yet another year's data to determine if we can announce a discovery.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/cern-higgs-boson-god-particle-likely-does-not-exist/

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1="pioneer+anomaly"&word2="pioneer+deceleration"

http://www.googlefight.com/index.ph...ioneer+anomaly"&word2="pioneer+accelerations"

I don't know if this explains some of your ideas, but are you confusing G with g?

G = 6,67E-11
g = 9,8 m/s ^2
I meant and mean G

 

[Paul]

You can take his own word for that he could come to wrong conclusions.

Anyone can come to the wrong conclusion, that's not an answer.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/cern-higgs-boson-god-particle-likely-does-not-exist/

A journalist giving his opinion of a conference presentation is not proof.

From the page you obviously haven't read:

"So for every value of the Higgs boson mass, we look for the signals it would produce. We can already say that some Higgs masses are strongly disfavoured — we talk about "excluding at the 95% confidence level (CL)", meaning that there is less than one chance in twenty that the Higgs has this mass.
The Higgs boson can decay into a variety of different particles, and searches in ATLAS currently cover nine different decay modes. The latest data reported at this conference extend the excluded mass ranges beyond those presented at the EPS meeting. In fact, in the latest results, 85% of all mass regions below 466 GeV are excluded at the 95% CL. This leaves three mass regions where the Higgs discovery is most likely: 115-146 GeV, 232-256 GeV, 282-296 GeV plus any mass above 466 GeV....
...By the end of 2011, this data sample may double again, and increasing statistics can take these Higgs search results in either of two directions: 1) if this excess of events sees no further enhancement, we may be able to exclude portions of the mass region of the excess at the 95% CL, or 2) if the excess increases, the excitement level will rise, but it may take yet another year's data to determine if we can announce a discovery."
​

That piece, ATLAS advances in the search for the Higgs and New Physics, is dated 22 August 2011.

http://www.googlefight.com/index.ph...ioneer+anomaly"&word2="pioneer+accelerations"

Even if you do that properly and remove the s from accelerations, pioneer anomaly has 38 times more hits.

Do you even know what it is you think you are trying to demonstrate?

G = 6,67E-11
g = 9,8 m/s ^2
I meant and mean G

OK, that's certainly one valid reason for your utter confusion ruled out.

 

[Bjarne]

A journalist giving his opinion of a conference presentation is not proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeVuQXrK4Ww

The first half of the video is good, not so much the last

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snb0rzDQbPE

 

[Paul]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeVuQXrK4Ww

An Internet nutter reading out the same article and then denying the big bang and global warming is definitely not proof.

Unless you wanted us to see proof that you appear to never understand anything you reference.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Let the man have the last word;

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

So you have no answer.

Still dreaming of the brainwashed fantasy higgs , even though it is now proven that it do not exist.
Many of these people are too proud to admit that they have lost all these billion and billion of € and got NOTHING.

How would you know?

What really happens in the process when kinetic energy (speed) converts to mass and gravity is NOT understood at all.

You don't understand it at all. Otherwise you wouldn't say nonsense as the above. Speed and kinetic energy is not converted to mass.

Try to check the internet and how many are discusting the Pioneer deceleration.

Let's stick to Pioneer for a while. Bjarne, what is the speed and direction of the pioneer probe?

Hans it is trivial to discuss with you.

How would you know? You never managed to mount a discussion.

What in hell make people believe that “G” is constant?

The fact that it is.

Pioneer, Bjarne. Speed and direction?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

'
Let's stick to Pioneer for a while. Bjarne, what is the speed and direction of the pioneer probe?

I answered that 2 days ago,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7602827&postcount=4412
You then wrote; "thank you", pretending you has read it.
Tell me how old are you, more than 80 ?

Pioneer, Bjarne. Speed and direction?

Pioneer 10 towards Taurus Pioneer 11 opposite

 

[Reality Check]

I call it "deceleration" - and I still believe it is.

Who cares what strange beliefs you have in your head?
The fact is that you call it a deceleration and then have an equation that is not a deceleration.

 

[Reality Check]

The Pioneer anomaly proves that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist

Since you ignored this:

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"
​

I will state it again:

1. Your impossible* value of RR does not match that of the actual accelerattion.
2. Your impossible*value of RR is even more wrong when thermal radiation is taken in account.
3. The Pioneer anomaly was explained in March 2011: "Pioneer Anomaly Solved By 1970s Computer Graphics Technique"

* N.B. impossible because your RR is not an acceleration.
Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
and
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?

Also

Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance"
11th December 2009
​

 

[Reality Check]

Spiral galaxies prove that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist

Bjarne's latest fantasy is that 'kinetic resistance' (RR) causes spiral galaxies to have their distinctive arms.
However the winding problem has been known about since 1925

The pioneer of studies of the rotation of the Galaxy and the formation of the spiral arms was Bertil Lindblad in 1925. He realized that the idea of stars arranged permanently in a spiral shape was untenable due to the "winding dilemma". Since the angular speed of rotation of the galactic disk varies with distance from the centre of the galaxy (via a standard solar system type of gravitational model), a radial arm (like a spoke) would quickly become curved as the galaxy rotates. The arm would, after a few galactic rotations, become increasingly curved and wind around the galaxy ever tighter. This is called the winding problem.

The winding problem thus disproves RR. Of course Bjarne might just give up on this prediction. But then he will have to come up with some fantasy about how that RR does not act on stars in orbits when it works on everything else in orbits.

The arms are not physical structures like the arms of starfish. They are thought to be either the consequence of the various orbits of the stars (density wave theory) or a self-propagating wave of new star formation (SSPSF model).

 

[Bjarne]

Who cares what strange beliefs you have in your head?
The fact is that you call it a deceleration and then have an equation that is not a deceleration.

Which religion tells you that deceleration (or acceleration) MUST be linear?

 

[Bjarne]

The arms are not physical structures like the arms of starfish.

Haleluja Haleluja
Amen

They are thought to be either the consequence of the various orbits of the stars

Haleluja Haleluja
Amen

or a self-propagating wave of new star formation (SSPSF model).

Haleluja Haleluja
Amen

Or bla bla bla bla bla

or bal bla bla bla bal
Or bla bla bla

WHERE are the EVIDENCE

 

[Bjarne]

S[*]Your impossible*value of RR is even more wrong when thermal radiation is taken in account.

Halelujahhh Halelujah
Amen

The Pioneer anomaly was explained in March 2011: "Pioneer Anomaly Solved By 1970s Computer Graphics Technique"

Haleluja Halelujahh
Where is the nobel price and the EVIDENCE
Halelujahhh Halelulajjaahh

Øhhhhh

Of course, other groups will want to confirm these results and a team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, which has gathered the data on the probes, is currently studying its own computer model of the thermal budgets.

It'll be interesting to see whether they agree. If they do; problem solved. Probably!

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/

 

[MRC_Hans]

I answered that 2 days ago,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7602827&postcount=4412
You then wrote; "thank you", pretending you has read it.
Tell me how old are you, more than 80 ?


Pioneer 10 towards Taurus Pioneer 11 opposite

You should know by now that when I ask questions like that, then there is a trick behind it.

The speed you use there is the speed of the Pioneer probes, with respect to the Sun. However, as we have discussed before, the Sun is zipping along on its orbit of the galaxy at a speed of 250,000m/s. Don't you think you should take that into account when calculating the direction and magnitude of your RR?

Hans