Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

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.

An engineer knows his work most safe.
The cosmology can deliver a huge load of fantasy, if just it is possible to brainwash the majority to believe in it, - then the job is done.
Engineers cannot build bridges, and brainwash fools and beast until they believe it is safe. If they use such techniques, they would fast lose their jobs.
That's the difference.

 

[DazzaD]

Hehe... Classic misunderstanding of the subjects of astronomy and astrophysics.

People who have a poor understanding of science and maths (and that sometimes includes engineers) think that the only real "science" is that which can be done with their hand.

They believe that measuring the length of the bridge using a metre ruler is a valid, well defined, fair, scientific measurement... but if you dare to measure the distance to the nearest star by NOT using a metre ruler then woe betide you! How dare you try to denigrate science by not making (what they think is) a direct measurement! Parallax? Poppycock.... Standard candles? What pish-mish-posh that must be...

If I cant hold it it isnt science...


Pfftt... As I said only people with a poor understanding of science think that...

A simple test would be to talk about thermometers, say a mercury in glass thermometer to measure the temperature of a cup of tea. What is the thermometer measuring? The temperature of the liquid? Really? How do you know? What is the scale? How is it defined? How is it checked? How do you know the thermometer is accurate?

All that happens in astrophysics is that the "cups of tea" are blooming big and a long way away.

Still the same science.. backed in the same, rigorous way...

Testable and repeatable doesnt mean you have to have many copies of the universe physically to hand.... it just means other people should be able to understand and replicate your results and that they should match what you see around you.

By definition we only have one observable universe... just the same as we only have one observable bridge in the example above... looking at the bridge AFTER it has been made we make measurements and infer certain things from the laws of physics. just as we can with the universe...

Nobody is being brainwashed... you only say that to stir up an emotional component.

Science is simple..

Demonstrate and show me a better explanation that fits the data in a better way and that can make testable, practical predictions and I will change my view to your way of thinking.

Until then.. either put up or shut up.

 

[DazzaD]

An engineer knows his work most safe.
The cosmology can deliver a huge load of fantasy, if just it is possible to brainwash the majority to believe in it, - then the job is done.
Engineers cannot build bridges, and brainwash fools and beast until they believe it is safe. If they use such techniques, they would fast lose their jobs.
That's the difference.

Science is not a popularity vote (in principle).

Brainwashing what majority? The public?

Are the public in the best position to decide on cosmological theories? (or which vaccine works? or the best deal for the economy? or whether to replace that road surface?)...

Brainwash the majority of the expert scientists? Is this another way of saying convince the majority of expert scientists, by peer review, analysis, repeating experiments, demonstrating, predicting that you are right? If so that is called - wait for it - science.

Brainwash who?

If I am so easily fooled by mainstream cosmological theories why are you having such trouble showing me the "obvious truth"? If you are so right why can you not explain it to me? Why can't you show me one scrap of evidence, one shred of truth? blimey - one correct equation might do it for me.

 

[DazzaD]

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Now let us see...

1. 5 points
2. + a good few
3. + a good few
4. + a good few
5. + a good few
6. at least +5
8. at least +5
14 at least +10
15 at least +10
17. +10
18. +10 many times
19. +10
24. +20
26. +20
36. +40
37. +50

Blimey.. this could be a good score here...

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hehe... Classic misunderstanding of the subjects of astronomy and astrophysics.

People who have a poor understanding of science and maths (and that sometimes includes engineers) think that the only real "science" is that which can be done with their hand.

They believe that measuring the length of the bridge using a metre ruler is a valid, well defined, fair, scientific measurement... but if you dare to measure the distance to the nearest star by NOT using a metre ruler then woe betide you! How dare you try to denigrate science by not making (what they think is) a direct measurement! Parallax? Poppycock.... Standard candles? What pish-mish-posh that must be...

If I cant hold it it isnt science...

Also, allow me to point out that engineers are not necessarily scientists. To correctly build a bridge, you need not be a scientist. You just have to be able to read the book and do the math.

And you can be an excellent authority on geology and metallurgy (as in this case) and not have a clue on astrophysics.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Also, allow me to point out that engineers are not necessarily scientists. To correctly build a bridge, you need not be a scientist. You just have to be able to read the book and do the math.

And you can be an excellent authority on geology and metallurgy (as in this case) and not have a clue on astrophysics.

Hans

Without engineers there would't be any telescopes and hence no (brainwashed) astronomy

 

[Reality Check]

Thank god for that.

Wow: you are still have demonstrated that

1. You are unskilled.
2. Yor are proud of being unskilled !
3. You cannot recognize your mistakes.

Thus: the Dunning–Kruger effect

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)

852 days and the answer to Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) is still no !

Off course I can, much is only speculation, something can be wrong. I have change my mind many times.

Here follows one exsample..........
We know times tick different, we also know this is due to a strange property of space.
But think about why exactly time tick slower, for example in a gravitational field.
Do you even have an idea?
...gibberish based on your ignorance of physics snipped...

Yes I do. It is due to an property of space-time (it's curvature).

 

[Reality Check]

I am sure you understand E=Mc^2 - Hence also that M= E/c^2

My friend, are you that ignorant ?
c is the speed of light. It is a constant.

 

[Reality Check]

Just read this:

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

"But the basic process of resistance against motion (RR) must off course be directly proportional to the energy converting process. To be able to calculate RR the well known equation must be slightly modified, so that the result is with unit (m/s). All we need to add is therefore “m/s” as shown > ; RR = (y – 1m/s) - where y = 1m/s/√(1 - v²/c²)"

That is the stupid equation that I refer to in the
"852 days and the answer to Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) is still no !"

The ignorance has got worse because he now records that he thinks m/s are the units of acceleration !

 

[Reality Check]

The Lorentz equation is in its basic root an expression of resistance against motion.
...gibberish...

Doubly wrong

• This is not the Lorentz equation.
• The Lorentz factor is a quantity that appears in SR. It is in its "basic root" an expression of the different velocities of observers.

 

[Reality Check]

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

852 days and the answer to Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) is still no !

(and redefining the Lorentz facotor as he does later is just idiotic)

Also:
Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
First asked 2 November 2009 Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).
Bjarne's idea is evidence wrong (acceleration due to gravity is constant inside a sphere).
First asked 2 November 2009

 

[Reality Check]

Without engineers there would't be any telescopes and hence no (brainwashed) astronomy

That is rather ignorant.
The first telescopes were created by spectacle makers (not engineers) when they noted that lenses put together could magnify things.
Scientists then improved them (e.g. Galileo and Newton) and continue to improve them.

If there were no engineers then telescopes would still be built.

 

[Bjarne]

Doubly wrong

• This is not the Lorentz equation.
• The Lorentz factor is a quantity that appears in SR. It is in its "basic root" an expression of the different velocities of observers.

Crap, it has in its root first at all , - RESISTANCE AGAINST MOTION (RR) , - as well (off course) as a consequence reflecting the increasing energy required to overcome that RR.
This show, - bringing a object to another relative reality, - simply require that the RR is overcome and the necessary energy provided.

 

[Bjarne]

That is the stupid equation that I refer to in the
"852 days and the answer to Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) is still no !"

The ignorance has got worse because he now records that he thinks m/s are the units of acceleration !

Just insert that unit and you have units.
It should have been there, someone have removed it, probably because of the factor also is able to use as factor to calculate E increase.

Off course the factor also (directly) reflects resistance against motion (m/s and only m/s is just missing).

If that not should be the case there would not be any resistance by acceleration. Such idea would be completely insane, ignorant, and idiotic, - (to use you own way of expression).

 

[Bjarne]

That is rather ignorant.
The first telescopes were created by spectacle makers (not engineers) when they noted that lenses put together could magnify things.
Scientists then improved them (e.g. Galileo and Newton) and continue to improve them.

If there were no engineers then telescopes would still be built.

Still this does not mean cosmology = (certian) science
That would be the same as saying that sciencetolegy also = (certain) science.
Muuuuhhh

 

[Bjarne]

Doubly wrong

• This is not the Lorentz equation.
• The Lorentz factor is a quantity that appears in SR. It is in its "basic root" an expression of the different velocities of observers.

From one space time reality to another is by speed, hence also energy is required BECAUSE there is resistance to do so.
Muuuh muuuh muuuh, muuuuuuuuøøøøøhhhhh - this mean = how is it possible to be so ignorant not understanding such simple fact ?

 

[Bjarne]

Edit
Relative speed is changing space-time, - hence also energy is required BECAUSE there is resistance to do so.
Muuuh muuuh muuuh, muuuuuuuuøøøøøhhhhh - this mean = how is it possible to be so ignorant not understanding such simple fact ?

 

[Daylightstar]

... such simple fact ?

You forgot to mention the 'simple fact'.

 

[Bjarne]

You forgot to mention the 'simple fact'.

muuuuuuuuøøøøøhhhhh

 

[Daylightstar]

muuuuuuuuøøøøøhhhhh

Muuuuh moooh moooouuooh muuuuuuuuøøøøøhhhhh muuuuh.


Muuh.