Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

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.

First at all I am not an expert in accelerators.
But even seen from a superficial level there is nothing in that areas of science that disproves that it also require energy to keep particles moving with constant speed.

When a particle moves with constant speed, we say the energy that it has cost to achieve that speed is conserved. .
We can calculate that process and we know how energy and mass is one and the same thing.

So when we maintain a constant speed some seems to believe that we shall not supply a particle with more energy, - it is already their. .
BUT this is wrong....

We believe particles is almost like a small batteries, and the energy can be stored for ever.

First at all, yes we can calculate how mass, and speed is related, - BUT WE DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING OF WHAT REALLY HAPPENS IN THAT PROCESS.

So the chain is not suddenly went of the gearwheel, it have never been there.
We have in fact fundamentally never really understood what we are dealing with.

As I have mention many time. I ONLY claims that;
the property responsible for – “ the curvature of space” is the exact same “stretching” property as the “stretching” expanding universe.

This will, change A LOT and as consequences A LOT MUST crack. (not because I want, but because there is s domino effect even I can not stop)

This innocent small thought immediately brings you to the consequence; that matter then MUST contract space.

It seems so logical that the spin of particles MUST spins space together, and that this is the cause of gravity.

To understand the cause of gravity is fundamental when we also want to understand how speed can create gravity.

http://www.science27.com/english/quantum_physics.html

To spins space together to mass, - is therefore a question of the amount of ENERGY.

If a particle moves fast doesn’t matter if it accelerate or moves by constant speed, the process to spin space together is supported by the speed it self.
Speed reinforce the particles ability to contracts space stronger the faster it moves, - and this is the way speed (energy) is converted into mass.
We can say that speed gives the particles "following wind" and hence ENERGY to contract space harder, - the result is - stronger stretched / curved / contracted space.

BUT - Space MUST resist to be contracted.
And that resistance is what we call inertia.

Space is also resisting “normal gravity” this will lead to pulsations of BigCrunch and BigBang, in a endless circle .

Now even though energy in a fast moving particle is “conserved” , - space will resist that further contraction of space, (we call gravity /mass).
This all means = deceleration.
To keep particles moving at certain speed in an accelerator therefore still MUST required a huge amount of energy.

Can we completely in a proven way account for what all the energy in a accelerator is used for ?
And can we exactly account for how and what this energy is converted to:

For example

• Heat
• Radiation
• Magnetism

When it comes to magnetism, we can say that lot energy "disappears" out in the big blue as magnetism.

BUT we all know that motion of particles created their own magnetic field, also by constant motion.

This magnetic field we also MUST maintain, in order to keep the particle moving with constant speed.

And THIS magnetic field that the moving particles created also "disappears" out in the big blue.

THIS magnetic field is in fact the “smoking gun”

A magnetic field (created by motion) is always natures expression of : Resistance Against Motion.

And it is NOT free of charge.,

Understanding THIS completely, is understanding what I am talking about when I talk about Resistance Against Motion.

So simple is that, and the history is not longer than this.,

-------------

 

[Reality Check]

First at all I am not an expert in accelerators.

...snipped word salad and giberish...
-------------

You do not need to be an expert. Experts designed the accelerators using the laws of physics that do not include your delusion of"kinetic resistance". If this fantasy of yours actually existsed then accelerators would not work:

• Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance"!
  First posted 30th November 2009

And there is the fact that "kinetic resistance" is based on your ignorance of the basics of physics, i.e. that physical quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass.

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
  So far the answer is no !

 

[MRC_Hans]

So that the gods can laugh of both you and me.
But after measurement is done, I am afraid they will only laugh of you and Co....(not misunderstand "Co" not "cows".)

*Yawn*

I have change my mind after realizing that the weight of concrete is 2300 KG per m3 – I did not know it was so heavy.

This a really good example of what a hopeless amateur you are. You just barge ahead with ideas and even experiments without doing the slightes background research.

When travelling with constant speed there are no further resistance according to the prevailing understanding. I do NOT believe that, this is the point.

That does not mean that inertia disappears. It doesn't. This is so simple that even your cows could understand it, perhaps you should try to wrap your mind around it, too.

Hans

 

[Paulhoff]

You can't claim that so long you even don't know why it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed.

Because the energy used to move an object becomes part of the objects mass, daaaa. You never played with E=MC², have you.

An objects mass at 86.602540378443864676372317075294% the speed of light has double the mass as at rest, and time is going at half the rest speed for that object. The math is know and has been proven millions and millions of times.

Do the real Math.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

Because the energy used to move an object becomes part of the objects mass, daaaa. You never played with E=MC², have you.

This is sooooooo superficial, as if I try to explian you that the cause to a cow give milk is off course that it drink water and eat graas, every one can see it.

That does not mean that inertia disappears. It doesn't. This is so simple that even your cows could understand it, perhaps you should try to wrap your mind around it, too.
Hans

If I were you I would not bla bla bla so much about inertia that you really don't know what is.
It’s like catching the wind, - unless you have some idea of how space and matter is connected.

 

[dafydd]

 

[ArcturusA]

If I were you I would not bla bla bla so much about inertia that you really don't know what is.
It’s like catching the wind, - unless you have some idea of how space and matter is connected.

So here's something that's been bugging me for a while.

What do you mean by "connected"?

 

[Paulhoff]

Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

This is sooooooo superficial, as if I try to explian you that the cause to a cow give milk is off course that it drink water and eat graas, every one can see it.

Talking about cows now I see.

Energy has Mass, for something to move it must have energy, daaaaaaa.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

What do you mean by "connected"?

Matter is causing space to deform
Hence there is a connection right?

 

[Reality Check]

Matter is causing space to deform
Hence there is a connection right?

There is a connection: mass (and energy) causes spacetime to curve.
But you have the delusion that mass causes space to contract which is easily shown to be wrong:
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads includes

• "Bended space is Contracted Space"
  Curved space is not contracted space
  First Asked 11 November 2009

 

[ArcturusA]

Matter is causing space to deform
Hence there is a connection right?

And what more do you want besides "matter is causing space to deform"? Isn't that a connection?

 

[Bjarne]

And what more do you want besides "matter is causing space to deform"? Isn't that a connection?

Yes it is, and that connection is the cause of resistance against motion.

But you have the delusion that mass causes space to contract which is easily shown to be wrong:

Bull.....t
Matter contract / consume space.
Matter = contracted space.

Therefore space around matter must stretch.
A such property do you already know space have.

And this "stretching" is the exact same property that affects everything in the Universe right now.

Because of all this is so simple and also included the meter stick, the universe will always have the same “size”

Uniting GR and the expanding space have HUGE consequences.

Already the GR-math is available to prove several consequences that MUST have.

For example that:

Cosmological redshift is NOT due to a “real” expansion of the Universe (since the meter stick also grows proportional).
BUT cosmological redshift is “ONLY” due to time ticks slower and slower proportional to the expanding Universe.

We must make such conclusion because we already know that time is stretching proportional with stretching space, (that have got the clumsy expression; - ”curvature of space” ).

This is not just a new invented Universe, - but already supported by nothing less as REALETY.

If you do NOT agree, tell me know WHAT happens to a photon when the Universe expands. WHAT my friend?

And tell my HOW in hell is it possible that Em-Frequencies (energy) JUST DISSAPEARS - out in the big blue GR junkyard.?

Can you REALLY not see that YOU are on thin ice ?

Just trying to blab la bla that FACT away, and cover it with nice expressions, or confusions like for example Doppler-effect bla bla bla, - will always only be nothing but crap.
Doing so is bla bla bla REALETY away.

The answer is cow stupid down to Earth simple.
1 second is stretching proportional with the Universes expansion EXCACTLY like space is stretching due to the fact THAT MATTER CONSUMES SPACE, - and therefore space MUST STRECTH near matter too.

And THEREFORE the Em-Frequencies in the previously universe are less than today / per time / second.
Simply because times (a second) was shorter before and before / before as well.

THIS connection between time and space is already in YOUR BOOK, all that is left is to understand is WHAT the clumsy expression; Curvature of space really is.
--------

 

[Paulhoff]

Yes it is, and that connection is the cause of resistance against motion.

Nope, because no energy is used, so no speed of losted. Else the Earth would have crashed into the Sun long long ago.

And by the way the moon is a little farther away today than yesterday Bjarne.

Paul

 

[Reality Check]

Bull.....t
Matter contract / consume space.
Matter = contracted space.

Bull.....t.

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads includes

• "Bended space is Contracted Space"
  Curved space is not contracted space
  First Asked 11 November 2009

The fact is that you cannot understand the simple explanation of why contracted space is not curved space in that post:

First asked 11 November 2009:

Bjarne:
Have you grasped the simple fact that curved space is not contracted space yet?

In flat space the sum of the angles inside a triangle is 180 degrees.
This is no longer true in curved space.
Uniform contraction of space does not produce any curvature of space since it is uniform and preserves shapes. Thus a triangle in flat space which has a sum of 180 degrees still has the same sum after uniform contraction.

Uniform contraction of space does not produce forces when compared to flat space (no GR gravity). This is because straight paths in it remain as straight paths. Newton's laws then show that there is no force.

Nonuniform contraction of space needs sinks and sources of space which has other problems as sol victus has mentioned.

My objection to nonuniform contraction of space is more physical (and perhaps wrong). As I see it a point mass acting as a drain of spacetime will create an infinite curvature at its position. In other words it will be a black hole with all the consequences, e.g. instantly exploding because of Hawking radiation.

So far the answer is:
Bjarne cannot understant the simple fact that curved space is not contracted space.

and since you may not be capable of following links :

That's not entirely wrong, but it's incomplete because it has a major problem. Where does the flow originate? If mass is a drain, what's the source? There's no such thing as negative mass, after all.

For example, suppose you have a single point mass somewhere in otherwise empty space. Then the flow points towards that mass. If you follow one of the flow lines out away from the mass, it can't end anywhere or loop back, so it must go all the way to infinity - and there must be an infinity for the line to "end" on; the space cannot be compact.

That's more or less OK, until you try to understand what happens in a universe like ours. Our universe might be infinite, but observation indicates that it's full of a more or less homogeneous mass density everywhere. So, where are all those flow lines coming from? Infinity is no help, because it's full of mass (this is the gravitational version of Olbers' paradox).

That's actually a completely intractable problem - it has no solution - unless you allow space itself, even away from the mass, to deform in response to these flows. Interestingly, you're more or less inevitably led to something like general relativity purely based on the observation that there is no negative mass and that the universe is homogeneous (of course that's not how Einstein arrived at it, he used the much more powerful principle of general covariance).

 

[MRC_Hans]

If I were you I would not bla bla bla so much about inertia that you really don't know what is.
It’s like catching the wind, - unless you have some idea of how space and matter is connected.

Ahh, but I do know what inertia is.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Nope, because no energy is used, so no speed of losted. Else the Earth would have crashed into the Sun long long ago.

And by the way the moon is a little farther away today than yesterday Bjarne.

I can see you haven't still not read this >>

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html

And after you have read it, - just keep believing like they did in the antique, - the Earth is in the centre of the Universe and a exception from all you can see happens up on the sky zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

And if someone not agrees, he must be very special.

 

[Bjarne]

Have you grasped the simple fact that curved space is not contracted space yet?

You are Right (happy now?)
Contracted space = matter
The curvature of space = Stretching space

And by the way:
Clumsy superficial expressions = Clumsy superficial expressions

Curved brains is not contracted brains.
Ust Kut is a town in Russia not in New Zealand
In the town Ust Cut space is stretching in New Zealand it is curving
In Denmark some places space is stretching and other places it is curving.
Curvature of space is just a bit too cow clumsy, - Caroline Cow told told me in a dream.
RC. Confusion Ltd. is NOT a town north form Krasnoyarsk but a factory down under some place.

 

[Paulhoff]

I can see you haven't still not read this >>

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html

And after you have read it, - just keep believing like they did in the antique, - the Earth is in the centre of the Universe and a exception from all you can see happens up on the sky zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

And if someone not agrees, he must be very special.

That still doesn't show that you are right.

The rotation affect was already explaned by Einstein's general relativity.

Paul

 

[ArcturusA]

I can see you haven't still not read this >>

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html

And after you have read it, - just keep believing like they did in the antique, - the Earth is in the centre of the Universe and a exception from all you can see happens up on the sky zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

And if someone not agrees, he must be very special.

You can't just wave around a link and assume it supports your idea.

If you want anyone to listen to what you're saying with any seriousness, then you have to demonstrate that your space contraction idea reproduces those effects. Words and assumptions mean absolutely nothing.