Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Alex Cured]

The moon is half of its orbit accelerating - and the other half decelerating. – This is why you must calculate the influence off RR in two ½ orbit periods.

The Lorenzen transformation is used to calculate both time and energy (and mass) transformation. This is one and the same process, - but this process is reversible due to RR, and this mean deceleration.

okay, thanks

Another way to say this is that at any given point in the orbit where the mass of the Moon is being increased due to SR, there is a corresponding point where the mass is being reduced by SR (assuming that SR effects at low velocities are linear).

And so there isn't any net effect is there?

This doesn't require any new science though does it?

 

[Alex Cured]

^{Hilited part added by Daylightstar.}
On 31th of may 2011 I asked Bjarne about this formula.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7236431&postcount=3972

And on 22nd of July 2011 I asked Bjarne about this formula.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7395749&postcount=4004

Never received an answer.

A little progress then

 

[Bjarne]

okay, thanks

Another way to say this is that at any given point in the orbit where the mass of the Moon is being increased due to SR, there is a corresponding point where the mass is being reduced by SR (assuming that SR effects at low velocities are linear).

And so there isn't any net effect is there?

This doesn't require any new science though does it?

RED ARROW ZONE
When the motion direction is more or less towards the RR direction, (see the red arrow) such stars absolute motion will be larger as other stars in the galaxy.
Thus RR will gradually force the motion of stars inwards of the galaxy. Some stars can therefore move almost directly towards the centre of a galaxy. In that process stars gains speed, even though RR (resistance against motion) is causing it to happen. But stars are in in that period are anyway losing potential gravity due to RR

GREEN ARROW ZONE
Star moving in the opposite direction of the Relativistic Resistance (RR) direction (green arrow) are seen from a absolute motion perspective moving slower as the rest of the absolute galaxy speed, and hence less affected by RR. Slower absolute motion means weaker RR and hence acceleration. Therefore are stars in the green arrow period gaining back the KE and potential gravity lost in the red zone period. In that period the centripetal force is forcing stars outwards.

This also explain this http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1972IAUS...44..380A

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne disproves RR using spiral galaxies

RED ARROW ZONE
...
GREEN ARROW ZONE

The spiral arms of spiral galaxies are not stars aranged in actual arms. This has been known since 1925

The pioneer of studies of the rotation of the Galaxy and the formation of the spiral arms was Bertil Lindblad in 1925. He realized that the idea of stars arranged permanently in a spiral shape was untenable due to the "winding dilemma". Since the angular speed of rotation of the galactic disk varies with distance from the centre of the galaxy (via a standard solar system type of gravitational model), a radial arm (like a spoke) would quickly become curved as the galaxy rotates. The arm would, after a few galactic rotations, become increasingly curved and wind around the galaxy ever tighter. This is called the winding problem.

More ignorance that disproves RR once again !

Bjarne's fantasy starts with him making up an equation that is obviously wrong (860 days and the answer to Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) is still no !).
He then confirmed this idiocy on 22nd February 2012 by arbitarily inserting the wrong eek units into an equation!

The "predictions" from his RR fantasy rules out RR from existing.
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).

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne asserts that RR predicts a Big Crunch (disproving it again)

RR leads to a Big Crunch, it MUST do so.

And yet another fantasy about Bjarne's RR fanatasy.

The science is that all of the measurements show that there will be no Big Crunch.

Thus Bjarne disproves RR once again!

Bjarne's RR fantasy starts with him making up an equation that is obviously wrong (861 days and the answer to Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) is still no !).

He then confirmed this idiocy on 22nd February 2012 by arbitrarily inserting the wrong eek units into an equation!

The "predictions" from his RR fantasy rules out RR from existing.
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 disproves RR using spiral galaxies!

 

[Reality Check]

What do you mean

The properties of the uniiverse (e.g. as derived from the WMAP data - see this press release WMAP 7-year Results Released) is that it as a flat spacetime. Since the expansion of the universe is measured to be accelerating there will be no Big Crunch and so RR is wrong yet again.

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne shows that RR is a fantasy again

The Lorenzen transformation is used to calculate both time and energy (and mass) transformation.

You did not answer him.
We know that you do not use the Lorentz transformation because the Lorentz factor has no units and your imaginary thing does.
861 days and the answer to Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) is still no !

The question was

Originally Posted by Alex Cured
But even if you can use it here, the velocity you're using is the lunar average orbital speed of the Earth (you have 1000 m/s - wolfram gives it as 1020 m/s - http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i...ty+of+the+moon), but the Earth+Moon are orbiting the Sun and the Sun is orbiting the galaxy etc, so even if you can use the Lorenz xform this way, the number you're feeding it seems wrong)

The answer is that the number you are feeding your equatuion is wrong because the velocity can be any velocity relative to the Moon, e.g. the 0.999999c that LHC protons travel at).

 

[Bjarne]

^{Hilited part added by Daylightstar.}
On 31th of may 2011 I asked Bjarne about this formula.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7236431&postcount=3972

And on 22nd of July 2011 I asked Bjarne about this formula.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7395749&postcount=4004

Never received an answer.

Average speed multiplied with period (t)

As you can see small orbits are almost insignificant effects
The larger orbit, like the orbit of the Earth, if affected much more
Galaxies much much more
Clusters much much much more.
And if you assume that clusters are orbiting the Universe, the influence is extreme.

 

[Bjarne]

Since the expansion of the universe is measured to be accelerating ........[/B]

Halelujah Halelujah

 

[Reality Check]

Halelujah Halelujah

Science. Science.
Stuff that you are ignorant of!

 

[Bjarne]

Scientists have been up to their space-examining tricks again, looking eleven-billion light-years away and wondering "What's going on over there?" And since it affects how the universe began and everything that's been happening since, you should wonder too. They've spotted super-squeezed, massive, high speed galaxies - and they don't know why.
Sourse http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...eezed-massive-highspeed-galaxies-spotted.html

Why ?
Becuase gravity was stronger everywhere looooong ago

 

[Reality Check]

Why ?
Becuase gravity was stronger everywhere looooong ago

Beacuse you have the inane fantasy that gravity was "stronger everywhere looooong ago" and no idea what it mrans (no stars, only black holes!)

 

[Bjarne]

New Evidence that Mysterious Dark Force From Outside Tugs at Our Universe

http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...eyond-known-universe-tugging-visible-galaxies

 

[Bjarne]

Dark matter mystery deepens

The standard cosmological model describes a universe dominated by dark energy and dark matter. Most astronomers assume that dark matter consists of "cold" (i.e. slow-moving) exotic particles that clump together gravitationally. Over time these dark matter clumps grow and attract normal matter, forming the galaxies we see today.

Cosmologists use powerful computers to simulate this process. Their simulations show that dark matter should be densely packed in the centers of galaxies. Instead, new measurements of two dwarf galaxies show that they contain a smooth distribution of dark matter. This suggests that the standard cosmological model may be wrong.

"Our measurements contradict a basic prediction about the structure of cold dark matter in dwarf galaxies. Unless or until theorists can modify that prediction, cold dark matter is inconsistent with our observational data," Walker stated.

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2011/10/17/dark.matter.mystery.deepens

Muuuuuøøøøøhhh

"Stars in a dwarf galaxy swarm like bees in a beehive instead of moving in nice, circular orbits like a spiral galaxy," explained Peñarrubia. "That makes it much more challenging to determine the distribution of dark matter."

Their data showed that in both cases, the dark matter is distributed uniformly over a relatively large region, several hundred light-years across. This contradicts the prediction that the density of dark matter should increase sharply toward the centers of these galaxies.
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2011/10/17/dark.matter.mystery.deepens

Muuuuuøøøøøhhh

 

[Reality Check]

New Evidence that Mysterious Dark Force From Outside Tugs at Our Universe

http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...eyond-known-universe-tugging-visible-galaxies

A rather stupid title from an editor!

That "Mysterious Dark Force From Outside" is gravity!

What exactly is pulling these galaxies remains to be seen, but the NASA team believes that dark flow is actually the gravitational pull of massive objects beyond the edge of the known universe

 

[Bjarne]

A rather stupid title from an editor!

That "Mysterious Dark Force From Outside" is gravity!

The Universe is a orbit my dear. RR make the rules.

 

[Daylightstar]

A little progress then

Hehehehe, 'indeed'

 

[Daylightstar]

On 31th of may 2011 I asked Bjarne about this formula.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7236431&postcount=3972

And on 22nd of July 2011 I asked Bjarne about this formula.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7395749&postcount=4004

Never received an answer.

Average speed multiplied with period (t)

As you can see small orbits are almost insignificant effects
The larger orbit, like the orbit of the Earth, if affected much more
Galaxies much much more
Clusters much much much more.
And if you assume that clusters are orbiting the Universe, the influence is extreme.

Never received an answer.

 

[Daylightstar]

Looks like we have to turn up the Muuuuuøøøøøhhh a bit more.

 

[Reality Check]

Dark matter mystery deepens
http://esciencenews.com/articles/201...ystery.deepens

Argument by news article!

Muuuuuøøøøøhhh



Muuuuuøøøøøhhh

If you read the actual paper (A Method for Measuring (Slopes of) the Mass Profiles of Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies) then you see no mention of this opinion.

Of course the real idiocy of citing this article is that you are now admitting that dark matter exists and RR is yet again not needed !