Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Reality Check]

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

You and your cow fetish

We know what happens inside a magnetic field - that is what Maxwell's equations are all about.
We know that your "space vacuum in motion" is gibberish.
We know that a Magnetic field has an existing definition which has nothing to so with that gibberish.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You and your cow fetish

We know what happens inside a magnetic field - that is what Maxwell's equations are all about.
We know that your "space vacuum in motion" is gibberish.
We know that a Magnetic field has an existing definition which has nothing to so with that gibberish.

AND, as it happens, we also know what goes on inside a cow.

Note: In this context, 'we' does not include Bjarne, obviously.

Hans

 

[Paul]

Given his general confusion, Bjarne probably thinks a cow magnet is some kind of implosion caused by relativistic cows.

 

[Toke]

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

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

Well, there is a lot of the science thingie I don't get either, but since my laptop is working physicists must be getting it mostly right.

Personally I stick to sci-fi, electrical and systems drawings.

 

[Bjarne]

We know what happens inside a magnetic field - that is what Maxwell's

The fact is that you don't know anything about the nature of a magnetic field.

You can even not answer whether it is made of space of some kind of matter, or what so ever.

And if it was made of space you have zero knowledge to explian that further.

Why?

Because the brian-wash-system do have no clue what so ever - hence it have not be possible to teach you.

And still you pretend you know, - just because we can make some simple calculation.

It sound like the farmer that claims he knows everything what happens inside the cow because he can count to 20 liter milk every day.

How unimaginative orthodox omniscient idiotic

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

When I cannot answer for a while I am maybe at a hospital with a heart attack

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

 

[Reality Check]

The fact is that you don't know anything about the nature of a magnetic field.
...snipped insane questions...

The fact is that you, Bjarne, don't know anything about the nature of a magnetic field or you would not ask such idiotic questions about them.

The fact is that I know a lot about the the nature of a magnetic field because I can read.


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

 

[Bjarne]

Double

 

[Bjarne]

The fact is that I know a lot about the the nature of a magnetic field because I can read.

Superficial Boasting
Mmuuuuuhh

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Mother cow have corrected your statement, - you know less than 1 % about the true nature of a magnetic field. ( this is not "a lot")

If you don't agree, - come on tell us a little about what you know:

For exsample

• WHAT is a magnetic field made of ?
• Is it's nature made of space?
• Some kind of space?
• WHY does a magnetic field pulls particles ?
• What is the nature of that attraction ?
• How does it happen?
• Why does moving particle pulls a magnetic field ?

I belive you can answer none of theese questions, - and unbeliable you will still claim you know all about the nature of a magnetic field.
Try to be a little serious RC
It is easy to bal bla bla bla bla
This is not science.

 

[Bjarne]

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.

Both me and mother cow know what plasma is and also that temperature is high.
BUT I wrote that temperature will probably get higher due to speed.

 

[Reality Check]

Superficial Boasting
....

Abysmal Ignorance: Magnetic field

• nothing
• no
• no
• attraction
• attraction
• it attracts
• gibberish - a moving charges particle creates a magnetic field.

 

[Bjarne]

Abysmal Ignorance: Magnetic field

• nothing
• no
• no
• attraction
• attraction
• it attracts
• gibberish - a moving charges particle creates a magnetic field.

• muhhhh
• muhhhh
• muhhhh
• muhhhh
• muhhhh
• muhhhh

Are also nothing but (empty) words.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The fact is that you don't know anything about the nature of a magnetic field.

You can even not answer whether it is made of space of some kind of matter, or what so ever.

Bjarne, you problem is that you think that because you don't understand this, then nobody does. This is wrong. We know that a magnet field is different from both space and matter.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Both me and mother cow know what plasma is and also that temperature is high.

No, the temperature is not necessarily high. Plasma can be cold.

BUT I wrote that temperature will probably get higher due to speed.

No, that was not what you wrote. Maybe it was what you tried to write. Anyhow, it is wrong.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, you problem is that you think that because you don't understand this, then nobody does. This is wrong. We know that a magnet field is different from both space and matter.

Be honest Hans, this is crap.
You know what a MF does, not what it really is .

No, the temperature is not necessarily high. Plasma can be cold.

I guess only when it can be insulated from electrons.

Bjarne
BUT I wrote that temperature will probably get higher due to speed.
Hans
No, that was not what you wrote. Maybe it was what you tried to write. Anyhow, it is wrong.

What about this ;
Heat itself is a relative term, as to one object being "hotter" than another, which is a reflection of the relative kinetic energy (and therefore the speed) of the ions, atoms, or molecules that make up the object.
Things get hotter as more energy is added to them, resulting in the constituent atoms or ions having more kinetic energy.

As the temperature gets high enough, the atoms or ions are traveling at near light speed, but the kinetic energy continues to increase indefinitely if more energy is added, so the temperature also increases as long as more energy is added than is lost.

Eventually, the energy level gets high enough to where the subatomic particles that make up atoms and ions come apart and form a quark plasma (this is what existed after the "big bang" until the universe cooled enough for matter to form).

Why do you think fast moving plasma is emitting radiation ?

 

[Reality Check]

• muhhhh
• muhhhh
• muhhhh
• muhhhh
• muhhhh
• muhhhh

Are also nothing but (empty) words.

Are also nothing except abysmal ignorance: Magnetic field
Are also nothing except the behavior of a 5 year child - or are you having your cows write your posts for you ?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Be honest Hans, this is crap.
You know what a MF does, not what it really is .

And neither do you. Nobody does.

I guess only when it can be insulated from electrons.

You guess wrong.

What about this ;
Heat itself is a relative term, as to one object being "hotter" than another, which is a reflection of the relative kinetic energy (and therefore the speed) of the ions, atoms, or molecules that make up the object.

No, heat is an absolute term. Temperature is absolute. Ever heard of absolute zero, 0deg Kelvin?

Things get hotter as more energy is added to them, resulting in the constituent atoms or ions having more kinetic energy.

Depends on what kind of energy is added. Things don't get hotter from having added kinetic energy.

As the temperature gets high enough, the atoms or ions are travelling at near light speed,

We don't know any temperatures that high.

but the kinetic energy continues to increase indefinitely if more energy is added, so the temperature also increases as long as more energy is added than is lost.

Eventually, the energy level gets high enough to where the subatomic particles that make up atoms and ions come apart and form a quark plasma (this is what existed after the "big bang" until the universe cooled enough for matter to form).

Meaning what?

Why do you think fast moving plasma is emitting radiation ?

That is because it is charged. I told you it consists of electrons and nuclei. That means it muse be charged.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

And let's throw some science into the thread and really confuse Bjarne!
Negative temperature

Some of what Bjarne is saying can be interpreted as sensible for once!
Part of the energy of a plasma is the kinetic energy of the particles within it. In general this is tiny compared with the energy stored in EM fields.
The quark epoch of the early universe is thought to be a quark-gluon plasma.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Some of what Bjarne is saying can be interpreted as sensible for once!
Part of the energy of a plasma is the kinetic energy of the particles within it. In general this is tiny compared with the energy stored in EM fields.

Still, plasma does not have to be hot. We use plasma etching in several kinds of production and it is at room temperature. The electric field, on the other hand ....

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Still, plasma does not have to be hot. We use plasma etching in several kinds of production and it is at room temperature. The electric field, on the other hand ....

Hans

If you can insulate electrons, yes it does not need to be hot, - how would you explain that is possible, - when cooling it will catch free electron.
But when moving with fast speed the process must cause temperature to rise, if not all gained energy is emitted, (which not is possible).

 

[Bjarne]

No, heat is an absolute term. Temperature is absolute. Ever heard of absolute zero, 0deg Kelvin?

Hans

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1775/why-is-there-no-absolute-maximum-temperature