Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Paul]

Welcome to Bjarne's Infuriating World of Inconsistent Idiocy Dazza.

 

[Bjarne]

What question was that supposed to answer, it certainly wasn't mine.

The relative perspective of RR

 

[Bjarne]

WHAT Lorentz equation?

Do you mean the Lorentz transformation as used in SR?

Do you mean the Lorentz force as in EM?

Do you mean the Lorentz–Lorenz relationship between refractive index and polarisability?

"KE = (y - 1) mc² - where y = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)"

 

[Bjarne]

Read my WHOLE reply.. not just the first sentence and you will see where I explained myself.

The "whole system" is important.. it is a way to make sure you considering all that is important. If you just look at ONE object you may find that conservation of energy does NOT hold... Conservation of energy is true for the WHOLE system (i.e. everything... or at least all the things that are important in your model).

Else you will again misunderstand this "increase in energy" you talk about and you will not understand why the T tensor in the equation above is so important (as it talks about the TOTAL energy/momentum etc of the 'universe').

It is not the universe that moves in this case, but a random small object.

 

[DazzaD]

"KE = (y - 1) mc² - where y = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)"

Ok.. let us call that the Relativistic Kinetic Energy.. there is not really any "Lorentz Equation" as such.

So this form of KE...on your website you clearly just insert the units of speed (metres per second...m/s) into the formula ... why?

What difference does that make?

How does that change the relationship?

Why are you writing the units in the formula anyway? (generally a very very bad idea in maths/physics... very confusing and of little use).


You say "of course it must be changed to have units of m/s"... why? You CANNOT have energy with units of velocity...that would be like saying

Temperature = length

It would be a nonsense.

You also say:

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

without any justification (quite apart from the fact that this whole business about RR is weird, wrong and not explained).

WHY must it "of course" be proportional?

And how can it be proportional to a PROCESS?

That again makes no sense.

 

[DazzaD]

It is not the universe that moves in this case, but a random small object.

Makes no difference.

I am telling you that conservation of energy only applies if you look at all the possible ways the energy can be stored/converted/putin/takenout...

You cannot use conservation of energy by looking at one object in isolation (see my example above).

In the energy-momentum tensor... IF that applies to the WHOLE universe.. then we are of course looking at the total 'energy/moment' of the WHOLE universe...

If you want to say that ONE object is getting faster, and thus has more KE, and thus has more mass, and thus has a greater gravitational influence on its surroundings then - HEY PRESTO - you are invoking the surroundings as well and you need to consider the energy/momentum/mass/gravitational influence of the surroundings as well... unless you want to deliberately avoid that in order to come up with some weird and wrong conclusion.

 

[DazzaD]

The Lorentz equation is in its basic root an expression of resistance against motion.
The fact that we use it only to get a unit neutral transformation factor for calculating parallel effects, is not a contradiction, - but something that should get the awake to understand the underlying process.
The factor is simply in its basic a refection of resistance against motion. It is mathematical obvious.

Are you invoking the concept of aether again? While still maintaining that the present day formulation of SR is valid?



The Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation just tells us how to convert what one observer sees, to what another observer, in a different frame of reference, would see - according to SR!

If you assume that "information" cannot be transmitted instantaneously then you can arrive at this Lorentz transformation as a way of "changing" coordinates.

In fact, I believe (but would be unable to show) that if you merely believe in a causality preserving property then it can be shown that the Lorentz transformation is the proper way to transform coordinates between different frames of reference (I am assuming this is true for a Minkowski space.. others here may know more about this than I).

 

[DazzaD]

Notice my friend, the concept behind ”Cosmological Redshift" is the biggest scientific lie that ever have existed on this planet and ever will. It has NOTHING with science to do.

Do you know what the Astrophysical Journal is?

It publishes three 500-page issues per month.

These contain papers, some of which may be only a few pages long, which summarise the life's work or several years work of the top scientists around the world for all to see, share, look at, argue over, debate, pull to bits.

It has been doing this since 1895.

It is only one of the top journals in this field.

That is many billions of man hours from people much better educated than you or I.

That is a lot to stack yourself up against if you want to call all of that "complete rubbish" and "I will prove it wrong".

Good luck.

You will need it.

I await a start on your proof with eager interest.

 

[Paul]

The relative perspective of RR

You've been told that RR doesn't exist many times by many people in many ways with many degrees of complexity and patience.

 

[Bjarne]

So this form of KE...on your website you clearly just insert the units of speed (metres per second...m/s) into the formula ... why?

Otherwise the factor is unit-less.

How does that change the relationship?

It doesn’t, - but the factor is now also a deceleration factor

Why are you writing the units in the formula anyway? (generally a very very bad idea in maths/physics... very confusing and of little use).

Because otherwise RC don’t understand the point.

You say "of course it must be changed to have units of m/s"... why? You CANNOT have energy with units of velocity...that would be like saying

The factor result doesn’t have anything with energy to do before you multiplied it with Mc^2

Bjarne Wrote
"But the basic process of resistance against motion (RR) must off course be directly proportional to the energy converting process."
DazzaD wrote
WHY must it "of course" be proportional?
And how can it be proportional to a PROCESS?
That again makes no sense.

It is the excact same with you car.
A Resistance factor is proportional with liter (fuel) it consumes and USD you spend and with possible deceleration.

 

[Bjarne]

Makes no difference.

I am telling you that conservation of energy only applies if you look at all the possible ways the energy can be stored/converted/putin/takenout...

You cannot use conservation of energy by looking at one object in isolation (see my example above).

In the energy-momentum tensor... IF that applies to the WHOLE universe.. then we are of course looking at the total 'energy/moment' of the WHOLE universe...

If you want to say that ONE object is getting faster, and thus has more KE, and thus has more mass, and thus has a greater gravitational influence on its surroundings then - HEY PRESTO - you are invoking the surroundings as well and you need to consider the energy/momentum/mass/gravitational influence of the surroundings as well... unless you want to deliberately avoid that in order to come up with some weird and wrong conclusion.

It requires more and more energy to reach diminishing speed increment.
We are speaking about relativistic resistance. It is off course a continuation of the classic Inertia.

The point here is that we don’t know why it require energy to accelerate an object, and certainly also not why requires more and more energy to reach diminishing speed increment.

Anyway it is easy to understand that you can force an object to a different space-time reality.
But you have no evidence what so ever, that the resistances process only applies in the acceleration period, - remember you shall not base science on something that in fact is nothing but speculation, hence it is not and have never been fact that RR suddenly vanish when constant speed is reached.

Instead you must expect deceleration exactly as already expressed by the decelerating factor.

Your are also asking where the energy due to the deceleration goes? – here > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=galaxies-mysterious-magne

 

[Bjarne]

Do you know what the Astrophysical Journal is?

It publishes three 500-page issues per month.

These contain papers, some of which may be only a few pages long, which summarise the life's work or several years work of the top scientists around the world for all to see, share, look at, argue over, debate, pull to bits.

It has been doing this since 1895.

It is only one of the top journals in this field.

That is many billions of man hours from people much better educated than you or I.

That is a lot to stack yourself up against if you want to call all of that "complete rubbish" and "I will prove it wrong".

Good luck.

You will need it.

I await a start on your proof with eager interest.

I believe there have been about 50 thesis trying to solve the Pioneer Anomaly , not all can possible be true, and maybe even none of them. So what magazines write bla bla bla bla year after year after year, - and how many ton you can count, is often only entertainment. Not scientific facts.
The concept behind cosmological redshift has never passed any objective scientific methods. You cannot conclude oxygen is blue because the sky is blue, - that would not be enough.
Hence you can also not say that the redshift we receive is because of a completely new concept that NEVER has passed any scientific test.

 

[Paul]

And here we are again, back at the point where Bjarne ignores everything that doesn't support his fantasies and pretends he's being scientific.

It was almost amusing the first time, now it's pathetic.

 

[DazzaD]

Otherwise the factor is unit-less.

Yes..

Of course it is..

Gamma is a dimensionless constant!

It doesn’t, - but the factor is now also a deceleration factor

Oh my word.. so you just change the laws of nature at will to make the units whatever you wish?

But you have no evidence what so ever, that the resistances process only applies in the acceleration period, - remember you shall not base science on something that in fact is nothing but speculation, hence it is not and have never been fact that RR suddenly vanish when constant speed is reached.

Oh my word. Everything you base your 'theory' on is mad speculation and is demonstrably wrong wrong wrong...
Instead you must expect deceleration exactly as already expressed by the decelerating factor.

Your are also asking where the energy due to the deceleration goes? – here >

No .. I didnt ask at all.. I know where it was, and where it went. You were the one who didnt seem to understand conservation of energy.

I believe there have been about 50 thesis trying to solve the Pioneer Anomaly , not all can possible be true, and maybe even none of them. So what magazines write bla bla bla bla year after year after year, - and how many ton you can count, is often only entertainment. Not scientific facts.
The concept behind cosmological redshift has never passed any objective scientific methods. You cannot conclude oxygen is blue because the sky is blue, - that would not be enough.
Hence you can also not say that the redshift we receive is because of a completely new concept that NEVER has passed any scientific test.

Indeed there have been. Many suggestions. Many people dont even believe there is an 'anomaly' to explain away. Suggesting legitimate and possible explanations to help us understand some data we have collected does not mean you can cry foul and call down the whole structure of science.

That is patently absurd.

Ridiculous

dare I say stupid?

Did you even read what I wrote about the Astrophysical Journal?

I dont know of a single physicist or mathematician that seriously suggests astrophysics is not a hard science. None.

To say it is not based on objective scientific tests is making you look extremely stupid.

It is like saying that the mobile phone you own has never been within a million miles of another living being at any point in its construction.

Now you can suggest alternatives all day to the mainstream view. I welcome that. I love that. I love reading about challenges to things I thought I knew. I love delving deeper into the physics and maths and finding out that the way I thought about things before may have been wrong or incomplete.

All you have offered me so far is sore ribs from laughing. Do you have any maths or physics to sober me up?

 

[Bjarne]

Yes..
Oh my word.. so you just change the laws of nature at will to make the units whatever you wish?

It was there all the time, since resistance always was the basic.

Oh my word. Everything you base your 'theory' on is mad speculation and is demonstrably wrong wrong wrong...

Opposite, the idea that RR should disappear by constant speed = religion.

I dont know of a single physicist or mathematician that seriously suggests astrophysics is not a hard science. None.

And that is the problem, especially when they only are dealing with creeds, and not with certain knowledge confirmed by the scientific method.

 

[Paul]

Round and round we go, soon he'll be quoting scientists again, but for now they're brainwashed robots.

 

[DazzaD]

It was there all the time, since resistance always was the basic.


Opposite, the idea that RR should disappear by constant speed = religion.


And that is the problem, especially when they only are dealing with creeds, and not with certain knowledge confirmed by the scientific method.

Such a shame.. I do enjoy a good debate and the occasional good natured "barney" online but I will have to sit this one out until some sembelence of reason and dialogue prevails.

At the moment you are displaying the attitude of a 3 year old with his thumb to his nose, his fingers waggling, saying "nah nah na nah nah"...

Provide some evidence, some maths, some data and maybe I might delve in again.

Seriously contending that astrophysics is not a hard science is probably more stupid than claiming that RE has nothing to do with religion or English is not the study of a language or Geography is not in the least bit related to processes on Earth.

You sir are making yourself look a fool ... I would hope to any impartial observer that it is obvious who is the one open to rational debate, willing to change their mind when presented with compelling evidence and who enjoys being proved wrong with something new and wonderful (I will give you a hint.. it starts with "scien" and ends with "tist").

 

[Bjarne]

Seriously contending that astrophysics is not a hard science is probably more stupid than claiming that RE has nothing to do with religion or English is not the study of a language or Geography is not in the least bit related to processes on Earth.

I am not alone Google translate >>

http://ing.dk/artikel/23965-naturvi...kke-laengere-videnskab-men-er-blevet-religion

 

[DazzaD]

I am not alone Google translate >>

http://ing.dk/artikel/23965-naturvi...kke-laengere-videnskab-men-er-blevet-religion

oh I don't doubt that you are alone. there are many poorly educated and deluded people with access to the internet. Claiming astrophysicists do not understand Newton's laws is like saying the top F1 mechanics do not know how to hold a hammer. laughable.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

I am not alone Google translate >>

http://ing.dk/artikel/23965-naturvi...kke-laengere-videnskab-men-er-blevet-religion

Translated from the above article
If an engineer builds a bridge and the bridge collapses, is no doubt that the engineer must have counted wrong or completely misunderstood something about bridge building. But the engineering world of learning from experience, and coincident bridges are therefore fortunately rare. If an astronomer (cosmologist, astrophysicist) expects wrong in a distant galaxy or completely mis stood the task or engage in wild guesses, so this will have no consequences. Astronomy is not the same degree based on experience, but is more based on what astronomers can get each other to believe.

I notice that the author is a "civilingeniør". Using Wikipedia, that means he's a engineer. Nice biased opinionated article. If you replace "astronomers" with "computer programmers who don't have computers", you get the same point.