Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

Bjarne, I'm not one of those who report people for little things, but there is a rule against distorting people's names, just so you know it. And it is extremely childish.

If you REALLY want to understand RR in its full scale, you MUST:

• Try to forget that there are only ONE certain reality and all other perceptions “only” “some kind of illusions”

Nobody talks about illusions. The different perceptions we have are all part of the same reality.

Also start to understand it from the basic level and this *** IS *** here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7593789&postcount=4385

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7593789&postcount=4385

True. That post correctly depicts RR. As nonsense.

Try to answer ALL the questions so good you can at this post.

I already did, in post #4401

I can try to tell you where you we not wrong, but I am sure you are not prepared understand.

Well, if you would make sense for once I would understand. As long as you post gibberish, however .....

Imaging this;

Most people having fantasies like yours choose medication.

BUT we cannot say that the Sun is moving 250 km/s with reference to our reality, or even that the Earth is moving 30 km/s with reference to our reality, - because we are already are part of the time/distance/ speed transformation caused by that speed.

Yes, we can say that they do that with reference to our reality.

Shortly spoken, - you must KNOW the exact time rate, and the speed towards the RR direction before you can calculate RR.

Fine! And you claim you can calculate the RR of the Pioneer probes. So what is the exact speed and direction of the Pioneer probes in whatever reality you are using?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I'm no physicist, but I think Bjarne has failed to grasp almost every concept he's tried to abuse in that post.

Not only in that post. In virtually ANY post he ever made.

He has talked about gravity, and failed to grasp it.
He has talked about weather systems, and failed to grasp them.
He has talked about astrophysics, and failed to grasp it.
Back on the Danish forum, he even talked about evolution, and failed to grasp it.

I think he has committed almost all known fallacies:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#repetition

Hans

 

[Paul]

Not only in that post. In virtually ANY post he ever made.

Oh, I know that, it's just that sometimes he accidentally posts the truth or stumbles blindly around the edges of cow-free science.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, I'm not one of those who report people for little things, but there is a rule against distorting people's names, just so you know it. And it is extremely childish.

MS Word did that, - when I was editing Auto-change Hans to Viggo. - I thought it was better not to involve you "Hans" in a different realities. "Hans" would cause too much confusion, hence Viggo was better.

Nobody talks about illusions. The different perceptions we have are all part of the same reality.

And these different perceptions ARE different realities, even though there was no one to percept except a clock-

Most people having fantasies like yours choose medication.

Yes I know it Hans, there is only 1 reality and the Earth is the center in that , right (?)

Bjarne
BUT we cannot say that the Sun is moving 250 km/s with reference to our reality, or even that the Earth is moving 30 km/s with reference to our reality, - because we are already are part of the time/distance/ speed transformation caused by that speed.
Hans
Yes, we can say that they do that with reference to our reality.

This shows the point didn’t got through to you (as expected). - You cannot add a speed that is already added.
You can only calculate RR based on a well defined reference frame, and only when the speed is faster and towards the RR direction.
I guess you have heard about the The Hafele Keating experiment, - 2 airplanes flying opposite round the earth with atomic clock on board.
This is both a good SR as well as a good RR illustration
All kind of speed that affects you, - transforms yours reality, - but ONLY 1 time.

Fine! And you claim you can calculate the RR of the Pioneer probes. So what is the exact speed and direction of the Pioneer probes in whatever reality you are using?

I have done the calculation based on motion directly towards the RR direction, and shown the calculation for you several times. Relative small adjustments can be necessary, since the direction not is 100%.
Experience will show, how to fine tune.

 

[Reality Check]

I have done the calculation based on motion directly towards the RR direction, and shown the calculation for you several times.

Your calculations show that RR does not account for the Pioneer anomaly:
The Pioneer anomaly proves that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!

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

 

[Bjarne]

Your calculations show that RR does not account for the Pioneer anomaly:
The Pioneer anomaly proves that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!

RR will change much more than you can imaging.

 

[Reality Check]

RR will change much more than you can imaging.

You can imagine anything you like.
I go by the facts.
The fact is that your calculations have shown that RR does not exist: The Pioneer anomaly proves that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!

The fact is that the existence of particle storage rings means that RR does not exist:
Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance"
11th December 2009

The fact is that RR cannot explain spiral arms:
Spiral galaxies prove that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!

The fact is that your incompetence means that RR was doomed from nearly 2 years ago:
Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009

The fact is that your attempt to fix this was another display of incompetence:
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?

 

[MRC_Hans]

MS Word did that, - when I was editing Auto-change Hans to Viggo. - I thought it was better not to involve you "Hans" in a different realities. "Hans" would cause too much confusion, hence Viggo was better.

MmmOK. If you use Word, do turn on the spell checker. It will at least weed out your worst typos.

And these different perceptions ARE different realities, even though there was no one to percept except a clock-

This may be a language problem. The perceptions are real (realitet in Danish), but they are not, in English, different realities (virkelighed in Danish). Obviously, there is only one reality, especially for you, since you say that extra dimensions and universes are nonsense.

Yes I know it Hans, there is only 1 reality and the Earth is the center in that , right (?)

This is called a straw man ( http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#straw ), however, ironically it IS in fact implied by your own claim, although I doubt you realize this:

1) You claim there is an absolute reference frame.
2) You calculate the RR of Pioneer by its velocity and direction (you get the direction somewhat wrong, but that is hardly surprising) relative to Earth.
3) Thus, Earth must be at rest in the universal reference frame.

This shows the point didn’t got through to you (as expected). - You cannot add a speed that is already added.
You can only calculate RR based on a well defined reference frame, and only when the speed is faster and towards the RR direction.

Gibberish. What is the reference frame for the Pioneer probe, and why?

I guess you have heard about the The Hafele Keating experiment, - 2 airplanes flying opposite round the earth with atomic clock on board.
This is both a good SR as well as a good RR illustration

How do you feel it demonstrates RR?

All kind of speed that affects you, - transforms yours reality, - but ONLY 1 time.

Gibberish.

I have done the calculation based on motion directly towards the RR direction, and shown the calculation for you several times. Relative small adjustments can be necessary, since the direction not is 100%.
Experience will show, how to fine tune.

How do you determine the RR direction? (Except as whichever suits you at the moment? )

I'm sorry Bjarne, but you're off at the deep end, and that life-preserver you are clutching is made of concrete. Every time you try to make me or RC look silly, it just hits yourself.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

This may be a language problem. The perceptions are real (realitet in Danish), but they are not, in English, different realities (virkelighed in Danish). .

Perception translated to danish = opfattelse, - erkendelse , sansning. Ref Gyldendal

Obviously, there is only one reality, especially for you, since you say that extra dimensions and universes are nonsense

There is no certain reality, since time and distance are different.

1) You claim there is an absolute reference frame.
2) You calculate the RR of Pioneer by its velocity and direction (you get the direction somewhat wrong, but that is hardly surprising) relative to Earth.
3) Thus, Earth must be at rest in the universal reference frame.

No, the pioneer probes was decelerating towards the Sun,.
The Earth follow the Suns’ motion, - we are half of the time faster as the sun and half of the time slower.
That too off course affects us with different periodical RR, - but the RR-average is the same, as if we not was orbiting.
Read the chapter ice ages http://www.science27.com/english/Mercury.html

Gibberish. What is the reference frame for the Pioneer probe, and why?

If you want to ignore the influence of SR, you can say anywhere "near" the Sun, where radius is constant and no orbit motion. “That” is a valid stabil reference frame for meassure the Pioneer deceleration.
Notice there is one new time/distance reality for every fragment of a millimeter due to gravity (and orbit speed), all are real.

How do you feel it demonstrates RR?

In our orbit around the MW our reality is changing depending on if we move towards the RR direction or opposite.
In the period we are moving towards the RR direction your clock is ticking slower and your meter-stick stretching proportional.
The opposite happen when we are moving opposite the RR direction.
The same principle is true when you moves different east - west direction round the Earth (but not South North) .
This is NOT against SR it contributes to understand what SR is about.

I'm sorry Bjarne, but you're off at the deep end, and that life-preserver you are clutching is made of concrete. Every time you try to make me or RC look silly, it just hits yourself.

Hans you are surrounded by so many trees that you are completely lost. Everywhere it is only green. Believe the man that tell you; you are lost in a bush.

Time will come when you and RC must admit that cows are human’s superciliousness.
To make the time short help me to find programmer, - used to calculate planet moon / obits.
I have no time now.
I will do it ASAP.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
To make the time short help me to find programmer, - used to calculate planet moon / obits.
I have no time now.
I will do it ASAP.

You have no time now.
Looks like your 'astrophysicist/programmer' also has no time [for you].

 

[MRC_Hans]

Perception translated to danish = opfattelse, - erkendelse , sansning. Ref Gyldendal

Bjarne, you don't have to teach me English.

Hans you are surrounded by so many trees that you are completely lost. Everywhere it is only green. Believe the man that tell you; you are lost in a bush.

I'm ready to, but you are definitely not that man.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, you don't have to teach me English.



I'm ready to, but you are definitely not that man.

Hans

What about Mother Cow then ?

 

[Reality Check]

What about Mother Cow then ?

She is a

• mother
• cow

So what? Every cow in the world knows that your RR idea is a delusion whether a mother or not.

 

[Paul]

What about Mother Cow then ?

 

[MRC_Hans]

What about Mother Cow then ?

I like my beef medium, thanks.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

She is a
Every cow in the world knows that your RR idea is a delusion whether a mother or not.

Don't humiliate cows with such brain-dead statement.

 

[Reality Check]

Don't humiliate cows with such brain-dead statement.

Don't humiliate cows with such brain-dead statement. If they could read numbers they would know that you cannot:

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

Even cows would not be ignorant enough to do this:
Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009

They know that your attempt to fix this was another display of incompetence:
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?

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

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

 

[Bjarne]

Think about if the Universe is infinity (what else should it be?)

How can it “expand” – “get bigger”? - Impossible..

Only a limit size can expand.

Hence space itself (as a whole) cannot, since its nature (probably) is infinity

Also the idea “length contraction” seems to have the same problem, - because when something is affected due to gravity (for example gravity of the Universe) – we say length is contracted.

If we assume that gravity of the Universe not always is the same, for example during a BigChunch or right after BigBang (when speed was huge) we must say that gravity of the Universe varies.

Hence the Universe “should” sometimes be; “length-contracted”, - and sometimes “length-expended”.
But if the nature of space / the Universe is INFINITY, how can the universe possible get “SMALLER” or BIGGER ?

This shows that a lot understanding of basic science is build on an impossible contradiction.
So what really happens , when the Universe “expands” or by “length-contraction” – must be reconsidered.

This only leaves us with one option; only the rulers is not always the same, and the “space-density” – nothing else.

There is no expanding Universe. The Universe itself is always the same “infinity size”….

The expanding Universe is only an optical illusion, - nothing else.

We are losing gravity, hence general relativity can explain all what really happens, - and that's it.

 

[Reality Check]

Think about if the Universe is infinity (what else should it be?)

The universe is not "infinity". Infinity is a concept not a size.
The universe may have no bounds. Another way to say this is that the size of the universe is infinite.

How can it “expand” – “get bigger”? - Impossible..

You are wrong.
An infinite universe can expand. The expansion is every point in the universe (not matter how big the universe is) getting further away from each other.

The rest of your post is just gibberish.
There is no length contraction caused by gravity (GR). That is special relativity.
If we assume that the strength of gravity (the gravitational constant G) varies then .... we assume that the strength of gravity varies !
See the Brans–Dicke theory for an example of a theory where G can vary.
Scientist are interested in whether G varies and have tested it, e.g.
Constraining a possible time-variation of the gravitational constant through "gravitochemical heating" of neutron stars
and
Precision timing of PSR J1012+5307 and strong-field GR tests

Confirmation of general relativity on large scales from weak lensing and galaxy velocities is also interesting (but not a direct thest of any variation in G).

The expansion of the universe is a set of evidence. A variation in G has no effect on whether the universe is expanding or not.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:

• The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
• The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
• Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
• Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
• Time dilation in supernova light curves.

The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:

• Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
• Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
• Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
• Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.

Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.

 

[MRC_Hans]

But if the nature of space / the Universe is INFINITY, how can the universe possible get “SMALLER” or BIGGER ?

You can have two (or more) amounts of different size, and both (all) infinite.

Example:

A = The number of prime numbers = infinite

B = The number of uneven numbers = infinite

A<B

Hans