Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Bjarne, kindly keep other Danes out of this. You have no right to embarrass us all.

Hans

+1

I live not too far from where Bjarne does and it seems like the cows outwitted him (again).

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang

No I am not the only one that believe RR is real.
9893765 % of all cows in all Universes and also those at Jens Peter Jensen’s Ploughed fields knows that; It requires more and more energy to reach diminishing speed increment

So you are admitting that your idea is a stupid as a bunch of cows.

​

Special Relativity (not your fantasy of RR): It requires more and more force to accelerate a mass as it gets to more and more speed.

The only thing RR is causing is a permanent record of a continuing display of ignorance of basic science

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

And you displaying a persistent delusion that RR exists when it does not match reality:

• Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance"
  11th December 2009
• The Pioneer anomaly proves that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!
• Spiral galaxies prove that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!

P.S.
Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang
First asked 21st October 2011 (10 days and counting)
Or is this just another fantasy of yours?

 

[Bjarne]

Special Relativity (not your fantasy of RR): It requires more and more force to accelerate a mass as it gets to more and more speed.

Cows know that what you just described = resistance against motion (both against acceleration and against constant speed) ...
Mathematical, - what you just described = resistance against motion
Cows do not see any reason, - what so ever, - why that resistance should disappear out in the big blue, - big nothing.,- or to a unknown dimension etc., - so soon when constant speed is reached.
Such idea is only supported by fantasy exactly as the higgs was. ( and still is by the most hard core)..
What I am saying is; it is a fact that RR is a mathematical fact.
It is not scientifically proven, that RR not also should apply by constant speed.

An analogy a “scientist” observes a acceleration cow moving towards headwind.
The “scientist” know that this is causing resistance against motion (against acceleration), - against motion of the cow, - doesn’t matter whether the cow accelerate of moves with constant speed.
So soon the cow have achieved constant speed something strange illogical / incoherent utopia fantasy happens inside the brian of the "scientist"- that tells him , now there will be no more resistance..
Without the “scientist” possible really can tell what in hell was happen here.. ??????
So all what we really know was happen MUST only have something to do with what hapen inside the head of the "scientist" - because NOTHING did happen in the real world, that prove or justify that RR now is gone (!)

Could it have something with this to do ? >> http://www.google.dk/imgres?q=brain...3&tbnw=145&start=0&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0

The truth is there is NOTHING that tells the “scientist” first at all what the RR really is ( why it requires more and more energy to reach diminishing speed increment) , so he do not know (in the first place) what he is dealing with.
So what on earth (or in hell) can make the “scientist” believe that RR suddenly is just pist - gone ? (except something in his fantasy)

So you are admitting that your idea is a stupid as a bunch of cows.

Don't humiliate / underestimate cows.
One day (relative soon) the human race will be forced to understand that mother cow knew more about brain-washed higgs fantasy and RR-half-wind, - than the entire human race.

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

Rubbish
Fast moving particles emits a magnetic field, so does galaxies.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=galaxies-mysterious-magne

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang

Cows know that what you just described = resistance against motion (both against acceleration and against constant speed)
...
Rubbish
Fast moving particles emits a magnetic field, so does galaxies.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...sterious-magne

People know that Special Relativity is "resistance against acceleration"
Idiots would think that Special Relativity "resistance against constant speed" - there is no such thing.

Complete ignorance:
Any moving charged particles particles emit a magnetic field (basic electromagnetism). This has been known for centuries.
Any accelerating charged particles emits radiation (and slows down). This radiation is designed for in particle accelerators and storage rings.
You seem to have forgotton what is in
Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance"
11th December 2009
so:

And this is the reason for the recent posts displaying more of Bjarne's ignorance.
(Hey Bjarne - superconducting magnets need electricity to produce magnetic fields. Wow what a surprise!)

There are energy losses in the operation of particle accelerators, especially circular ones like the LHC. The known laws of physics tell us what these energy losses are. The accelerator is designed to work with these known energy losses. They are compensated for in the RF system.

Scientists know the exact energy losses. The energy that the RF system has to put into a stored beam is the exact energy loss due to the motion of the particles in the beam.

Then you run the accelerator and it works.

Accelerators do not have double* their budgeted electricity cost
To accelerate the particles you use electricity.
Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" means that more electricity is used that is designed or budgeted for. Somebody has to pay the bill. Accountants tend to scream loudly when a budgeted item doubles*.

* Bjarne is deluded enough to think that you can assign the Lorentz factor (a number without units of measurement) any units that he likes, e.g. those of acceleration. This is an arbitary multiplication of his "kinetic resistance" equation by 1 m/s^2, KR = (y-1) * a where a = 1 m/s^2.
But we can select any value for a that we like. Including values that make accelerators consume a million times their budgeted electrictity cost.

Accelerated particles do not hit the walls of the accelerator


This is one of the very good points that Cuddles makes http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5345407&postcount=473.

• RF systems (e.g. RF cavity resonators) are used to accelerate particles and to keep them in the ring.

If there was an extra impossible "kinetic resistance" then the accelerated particles would always hit the walls of the accelerator because the RF systems do not know about Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance".


Stored particles do not hit the walls of the accelerator



The next point is that the beams are circulated without acceleration for hours at a time. This is the accelerator acting as a storage ring. Making the beam travel in a circle is fairly basic physics. All you need are magnets and Maxwell's equations. The magnets are tuned to keep particles at a specific energy traveling in a circle.

• Known losses (e.g. synchrotron radiation) are compensated for by RF systems.
• Unknown losses such are Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" are not compensated for.

If the particles are not at that energy they escape the storage ring. They hit the walls. In the case of high energy beams as in the LHC they then proceed to destroy the system.


Accelerated particles have the energy that is predicted
Yet another (less compelling) reason is that scientists are really interested in the collisions and their products. They are so interested that they measure the energy of all of the products in calorimeters.
There is a little law of physics that you should know about: energy is conserved.
Thus the energy of the products is equal to the energy of the particles that collided.
No one has claimed a Nobel Prize by noticing that energy is not conserved in the collisions, i.e. the products have half the predicted energy of the particle beams.

And then you state what sceintists have known for decades - galaxies have magnetic fields !
The article is that these well known magnetic fields established themselves qucker than thought: Galaxies' Mysterious Magnetic Fields Grew Up Fast.



The rest of the post is gibberish. Just in case this gibberish has something to do with your delusion of RR:

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

And you displaying a persistent delusion that RR exists when it does not match reality:

• Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance"
  11th December 2009
• The Pioneer anomaly proves that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!
• Spiral galaxies prove that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!

P.S.
Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang
First asked 21st October 2011 (11 days and counting)
Or is this just another fantasy of yours?

 

[Toke]

I kind of lost the plot months ago, as far as I can tell Bjarne is still not making any sense?

 

[steenkh]

I kind of lost the plot months ago, as far as I can tell Bjarne is still not making any sense?

Nope. He is still clueless, and he will probably remain so.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I kind of lost the plot months ago, as far as I can tell Bjarne is still not making any sense?

I don't think there was ever a plot. And no not making sense, and apparently hell-bent on never to be going to.

I can tell you Bjarne's basic tenet, though: "I don't get anything of this science thingy, so scientists must be fools."

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Cows know that what you just described = resistance against motion (both against acceleration and against constant speed) ...
Mathematical, - what you just described = resistance against motion
Cows do not see any reason, - what so ever, - why that resistance should disappear out in the big blue, - big nothing.,- or to a unknown dimension etc., - so soon when constant speed is reached.

And this is the reason cows never make it far in physics: They don't have a clue.

Kids who care to listen half of the time in school know why this resistance applies only when speed is changed. This is because it is not resistance against motion. It is resistance against change. Of course, Bjarne, as long as you insist on ignoring the entire field of thermodynamics, it may be difficult for you to make any sense of this, but the whole thing is about kinetic energy: When you accelerate (or decelerate) an object, you exchange energy with it. This shows up as resistance. Of course, when you stop accelerating it, there is no energy exchange, and hence no resistance.

I don't expect to make Bjarne understand this, but I'm hoping for some of the cows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eb7vsurZ8U

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

People know that Special Relativity is "resistance against acceleration"
Idiots would think that Special Relativity "resistance against constant speed" - there is no such thing.

My friend notice Special relativity is not only about time and distance deformation, - but rather about reality transformation, - since also mass is changing.

A complex and not understood process take place – due to speed of matter.
It requires energy to reach such “change of reality”
Buty so soon that speed / energy is remove the process is reversible.
This is what we discuss when we discuss “RR”

Be honest to yourself.
Admit to you self that yours understanding of theunderlying process of RR = zero.
You can compare it with; - that you can see the cow eat grass and drink water, and the result is milk, butter, cheese etc.. –
But the fact that you can see the result or eat it, is not the same as that you have understood what really happen inside the cow.
So you have in fact no reason to be so omniscient..
The cow simply know better as you.

Accelerators do not have double* their budgeted electricity cost
Accelerated particles do not hit the walls of the accelerator
Stored particles do not hit the walls of the accelerator
Accelerated particles have the energy that is predicted

Of course there are “no surprises” since we KNOW that there is a constant lost of energy to a magnetic field.
Be honest to you self. One time in your life try serious to ask - WHERE does that energy come from ?
And do it cause lost of kinetic energy?
Of course you can replace kinetic energy, but this do not justify that the lost of kinetic energy not should be real in the first place.

Complete ignorance:
Any moving charged particles particles emit a magnetic field (basic electromagnetism). This has been known for centuries.

Ohh Yeeehh man, and do you believe anyone deny that ?

Any accelerating charged particles emits radiation (and slows down). This radiation is designed for in particle accelerators and storage rings.

Exactly, so you have 2 different kind of energy lost, my friend.

 

[Bjarne]

And this is the reason cows never make it far in physics: They don't have a clue.
Kids who care to listen half of the time in school know why this resistance applies only when speed is changed. This is because it is not resistance against motion. It is resistance against change.

Hans this is religion.
Off course no one denies or doubt that it require a lot of energy to get a cow to move east when it already is moving west w. 1000 km/h.
But one truth cannot be used to justify a big lie.
This is what you do.

There is ALWAYS resistance by motion.
This explains;

• 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;
• the cause of a BigCrunch and a BigBang
• The cause of Ice ages. (+ adition to Milankovitch)
• The cause of so called (brain washed)(and abused expression) ; dark matter.
• and much more

 

[Reality Check]

This explains;

• the cause of the Pioneer Anomalies,

That is a lie: The Pioneer anomaly proves that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans this is religion:Off course no one denies or doubt that it require a lot of energy to get a cow to move east when it already is moving west w. 1000 km/h.
But one truth cannot be used to justify a big lie.
This is what you do.

There is ALWAYS resistance by motion.
This explains;

• 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;
• the cause of a BigCrunch and a BigBang
• The cause of Ice ages. (+ adition to Milankovitch)
• The cause of so called (brain washed)(and abused expression) ; dark matter.
• and much more

Corrected that for you.

You are the religious one, here: Based on no knowledge what so ever, you just imagine stuff. And silly stuff at that.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Corrected that for you.

You are the religious one, here: Based on no knowledge what so ever, you just imagine stuff. And silly stuff at that.

Hans

Ohh no
In this context I ask for yours EVIDENCE; - that relativistic resistance process not should be reversible.
Is the increasing resistance against motion suddenly just zero when constant speed is reached? - WHERE is the scientific EVIDENCE?
You & Co (NOT Cow) make science out of blue air.
NOT me, I ask for EVIDENCE

If you cut the power to the LHC, - lost of kinetic energy would cause deceleration.
Cows knew this already in 1827

 

[Bjarne]

Your impossible* value of RR does not match that of the actual accelerattion.

Peanuts.

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

There are space for secondary influences, what ever these may be.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Ohh no
In this context I ask for yours EVIDENCE; - that relativistic resistance process not should be reversible.

What do you mean by reversible?

Is the increasing resistance against motion suddenly just zero when constant speed is reached? - WHERE is the scientific EVIDENCE?

Has been presented to you.

You & Co (NOT Cow) make science out of blue air.
NOT me, I ask for EVIDENCE

You ask for evidence, then refuse to read it.

However, you provide zero evidence for your own ideas.

How about providing some evidence for YOUR ideas?

If you cut the power to the LHC, - lost of kinetic energy would cause deceleration.

There is some loss in an accelerator. It has nothing to do with RR, however.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

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

There are space for secondary influences, what ever these may be.

There secondary influences account for all of the Pioneer anomaly !
But you obviously do not understand the post:
The Pioneer anomaly proves that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!

I will state it yet again:
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 of 8.33 × 10-10 m/s² is wrong as it falls outside of the error limits!

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 as it falls outside of the error limits and is not even near the actual value !

And then we have March 2011 when the Pioneer anomaly was explained ! "Pioneer Anomaly Solved By 1970s Computer Graphics Technique"

 

[Bjarne]

What do you mean by reversible?

In this context; - I mean the reality you know, as well as all other space-time realities are "reversible", - which mean; - if there was no speed of matter, - these realities could not be held together at all.

Or expressed with other words, - the faster speed, - the more elementary particles spins them self into space, and the more space will be absorbed,

This is causing gravity increment, - but not only time and gravity is changing, - reality is changing, - time ticks slower, the space density is stretching, - and even the ruler is stretching.

Reality / matter / gravity can only be maintenance by speed.
The process (of pulling space together to a certain reality) is only possible because of resistance of motion.

You can compare it to how kinetic energy can convert into thermal energy; -again you see that resistance (friction) is the keyword.

It is the “same principle” when you convert different energy to kinetic energy.
Kinetic energy means; that you convert (som kind of ) energy and create a different reality.
It happens by “pushing” matter forward against resistance against motion.

How and why?; - Space resist to be absorbed (by particle spin), and particle is pushed deeper into sapce due to speed increment, - this = stronger absorbed sapce, and hence stronger gravity..,

So soon the energy that push through the resistance against motion is removed, the process is revisable, simple because space resist to be absorbed.
This is what we discuss, when we discuss relativistic resistance (RR).

Why and how can I claim this ?
Well this is cow logic, - something must held space "contracted" - that something can ONLY be speed, - there is NOTHING else.

We can easy take the first step and assume; it must be the nuclear interaction process that pulls sapce , and yes it is, - but where does then the interaction get its power from???

My friend the answer to that important question is allready blowing in the wind, - we KNOW speed can do the job.

So the questions mother cow asked already many billion years ago was; is speed always (in the end of the day) responsible for both matter (the strong interaction) and gravity?

Without speed of matter, the forces (gravity and the interaction) can't probably not exist at all, - simply because there would be nothing to hold these forces together.

However, you provide zero evidence for your own ideas.
How about providing some evidence for YOUR ideas?

I will prove that RR always is valid, doesn’t matter whether we speak about acceleration or constant speed.
But my freind, just take it easy.
You could help me to find a good astrophysicist / programmer.

There is some loss in an accelerator. It has nothing to do with RR, however

A Magnetic field is (in this context) a result of a space vacuum in motion.
A space vacuum = a gravitional field.
Space does resist a space-vacuum in motion, because of the process that interact with space due to motion.

So soon when the energy to disturb space like that stop, - the process is revisable, and this is what we can describe as deceleration.

Regarding; Emission of radiation; So far I know plasma will be hot when moving fast.
Lost of radiation have not directly something with RR to do. But it will of cause also cost kinetic energy.

 

[Reality Check]

...
A Magnetic field is (in this context) a result of a space vacuum in motion.
...

A mixture of gibberish and ignorance.
For example: "space vacuum in motion" is gibberish.
And a Magnetic field has an existing definition which has nothing to so with that gibberish.

A magnetic field is a field produced by moving electric charges, by electric fields that vary in time, and by the 'intrinsic' magnetic field of elementary particles associated with the spin of the particle.

 

[Bjarne]

A mixture of gibberish and ignorance.
For example: "space vacuum in motion" is gibberish.
And a Magnetic field has an existing definition which has nothing to so with that gibberish.

A cow has also an existing definition, but this doesn’t mean you know what happen inside the cow.

 

[MRC_Hans]

In this context; - I mean the reality you know, as well as all other space-time realities are "reversible", - which mean; - if there was no speed of matter, - these realities could not be held together at all.

Funny how you scorn the idea of extra dimensions, but you talk about other realities.

Or expressed with other words, - the faster speed, - the more elementary particles
*snip*
what we discuss, when we discuss relativistic resistance (RR).

I'm sorry, but the only thing I can deduce from that rant is that you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.

Why and how can I claim this ?
Well this is cow logic, - something must held space "contracted" - that something can ONLY be speed, - there is NOTHING else.

We can easy take the first step and assume; it must be the nuclear
*snip*
- simply because there would be nothing to hold these forces together.

This is just word salad.

I will prove that RR always is valid, doesn’t matter whether we speak about acceleration or constant speed.
But my freind, just take it easy.
You could help me to find a good astrophysicist / programmer.

Excuses, excuses, Bjarne. You can't explain what RR really is and why it should exist. You can't explain how it should work on the real world, or how it would be detected. You don't need a good astrophysicist / programmer, you need some education. You need to learn some science so you can know a little about what you are talking about, so you can stop making a fool of yourself.

- Or you need to realize that physics is not for you, and get a life.

A Magnetic field is (in this context) a result of a space vacuum in motion.

This is better than the rest, because it is at least wrong. The rest of what you say is not even wrong; it simply makes no sense at all. However, any time you are prepared to listen and learn, I don't mind explaining magnet fields to you. It is, after all, part of my professional expertise.

Regarding; Emission of radiation; So far I know plasma will be hot when moving fast.

Again, you seem to have no clue. Plasma is matter where electrons and nuclei are separated and move around freely. This can happen under high temperatures, high pressures, strong electrical fields, or a combination thereof. It has nothing to do with speed.

Hans