Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[DazzaD]

DazzaD, that's been pointed out to him before, he'll just ignore it.

Oh I know. Seen it. Done it myself. Seen others do it. But I am a persistent bugger and I am not letting it slide (just like I wouldn't in my classroom... patience exceeding that of a saint)....

Would be nice if he could prove us both wrong on that count...

 

[phunk]

Would be a nice change of pace, that's for sure.

 

[Alex Cured]

Can you disprove it ?
If so, - do it

DazzaD said it better than I ever could

 

[Alex Cured]

Central gravity / Black holes are mysteries,
The magnitude of galactic central black holes are proportional to the mass of a galaxies.
This connecting should not be there, but it is, - it is common knowledge , also even though fools deny it.

No such correlation has been established. This is an example of you making an ungrounded assumption (and also another example of the way you go off on tangents)

I failed to show how that mystery possible also could be solve based on the same main thread that follows everything I claims, - which is, - that matter absorbs space density.

I have no idea what this means. It sounds like something from a very sub standard sci-fi (Blake's 7 perhaps?)

Still this mystery holds the key to a much deeper understanding of the nature of gravity, - no doubt about it.
And even though it is clear how little we know (which mean NOTHING when it comes to the nature of gravity) - fools bla bla bla like we know almost everything.

You're the only one here who isn't a fool, and yet you do a very good impression.

The basic simple change of mainly only an expression gives us a much better understanding of a lot, also even though it only is an abstract thought, - for example what the curvature of space really means, and how gravity can be both a force and curvature of space at the same time, - why RR must be expected all the time, and much more.

DazzaD has tried to help you with this but you weren't listening

If the main thread is wrong, - prove it.

Bjarne, you prove it's baseless yourself with your incompetent maths, and tangential digressions when challenged, that simply expose more examples of your lack of basic physics

I do not necessary have to prove anything, disprove is also an option, - but so far the disprove have been nothing but brainwashed religion, and never anything based on the scientific method.

Every contribution I've seen from Reality Check shows this to be untrue.

Or even not based on cow simple math, - like for example that resistance against motion is a simple mathematical fact for cow level intelligence.

childish

I will prove my theory, this is why i wrote this http://www.science27.com/rr
This will be the main door to a new understanding.
Sooner or later, - probably later, - due to massive amount of brainwash.

All the evidence is that you're not the next Einstein

 

[Bjarne]

[unlurk]

Now you have asked a half sensible question and stopped with the childish cow stuff (to an extent)..I will answer

I am a teacher of mathematics.
I teach maths and physics to degree level.
I am an examiner for A Level maths and physics.
I have a first class degree in maths and astrophysics.
My PhD was in Cosmology - Dark Matter.

I have a piano in Barcelona.

Take

[qimg]http://www.science27.com/rr/index.1.jpg[/qimg]

On the left you have deceleration (in itself a misleading term).

Of course it is, and this is why I have wrote that we can only know the "deceleration" the first second, after that it is a new situation,- a new calculation. Muuøøøh

That has units of metres per second² (assuming standard SI units).

Forget ^2
We speak about what happens the first second.

On the right you have a dimensionless factor on the bottom .. and a number 1, given units of m/s on the top (why you are writing the units for the right hand side and not the left I do not know).

Thus you have an equation where the 'dimensions' (and that is a technical mathematical term referring to what the things are 'measured in', not talking about dimensions as in space and time) DO NOT MATCH.

Thus, using dimensional analysis on the level of my GCSE students, this formula CANNOT possibly be correct in any way, shape or form.

The left hand side is an acceleration, the right hand side is a velocity or speed. They do not match.

You may just as well say

temperature of my chair = 4 x length of my cat

Thus I have 'disproved' your 'theory' and the onus is on you to make corrections and convince me you have something that is better than the existing knowledge.

In doing so I have also shown that you do not have the mathematical skills expected of a typical 15 year old child in the UK.

LAST time.........
We do NOT speak about "deceleration"
We do NOT speak about ^2
The "deceleration" process is NOT liniar.
We can ONLY calculate the result the first second, after that a new calculation is necessery.

I have mentioned this MANY time before above, - also at the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFmXYojzWAo

When I in the equation wrote “deceleration” is it because we have no better word for that process.

The RR process is NOT linear, - NOT the one way and NOT the other way.
Capito now ?

When I wrote “deceleration” and that this is a simple mathematical fact, is it because try this, - when you bind a dead cow after you car, acceleration is more differcult.
WHAT IN HELL MAKE YOU BELIVE THAT THIS SIMPLE MATHEMATICAL FACT THAT RESISTANCE AGIANS MOTION IS TRUE, - SHOULD VANISH, - JUST BECAUSE YOU REACH 120 KM/H AND THE SPEED IS STABLE.

We are dealing with brainwashed rubbish, not science.

 

[phunk]

So we can only know the deceleration at exactly 1 second? How about 1/2 second?

 

[phunk]

What happens when you use a different unit of time? Does your formula work in miles per hour?

 

[Bjarne]

All the evidence is that you're not the next Einstein

Excactly
According to Carl Marx we shall NOT all be equal intelligent, but rather equal brainwashed single tracked naive & stupid.
Many Obersturmbahnführer Pol Pot, - Kim Jong and plenty more 100% agrees to that.
Then everybody is happy, especially Comrade Staling (even though he is dead), and off course those responsible for the brainwash system.
We call it Jantelov in Denmark.
Here that law is 800,007 billion times stronger as the sexual drive.
In New Zeeland it is only 797.897billion times stronger.
In UK I hear it is 797.003 times stronger.
And so on..

 

[Bjarne]

So we can only know the deceleration at exactly 1 second? How about 1/2 second?

The equation is about proportional calculation.
Deceleration relative to 1 meter per second
v and c in that equation is also per second - not ^2

But the starting point is in fact not whether this equation is completely correct, or whether it can be better.

The point is first at all to accept that motion in space is NOT resistance free.
THERE ARE NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for any religion claiming that.

Next step is how to calculate that resistance, - and what will happen due to the fact that it is NOT PROVEN THAT THIS RESISTANCE AGIANST MOTION SHOULD VANISH JUST BECAUSE CONSTANT SPEED WILL BE REACHED.

 

[Alex Cured]

LAST time.........
We do NOT speak about "deceleration"
We do NOT speak about ^2
The "deceleration" process is NOT liniar.
We can ONLY calculate the result the first second, after that a new calculation is necessery.

I have mentioned this MANY time before above, - also at the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFmXYojzWAo

You have, and the reason it's repeatedly challenged is it doesn't make sense.
Why do you choose a second for your calculation? Is it the atomic unit of time? Isn't a second composed of a thousand milliseconds? Is the velocity the same in the first millisecond and the last? (If it isn't ... that's delta-v)
(And "fixing" your calculation to use a millisecond would still have the same problem ... a millisecond is composed of a thousand microseconds, etc, etc)

When I in the equation wrote “deceleration” is it because we have no better word for that process.

The RR process is NOT linear, - NOT the one way and NOT the other way.
Capito now ?

Yes, it's deceleration, but you can't admit it because that make your maths wrong.

When I wrote “deceleration” and that this is a simple mathematical fact, is it because try this, - when you bind a dead cow after you car, acceleration is more differcult.
WHAT IN HELL MAKE YOU BELIVE THAT THIS SIMPLE MATHEMATICAL FACT THAT RESISTANCE AGIANS MOTION IS TRUE, - SHOULD VANISH, - JUST BECAUSE YOU REACH 120 KM/H AND THE SPEED IS STABLE.

We are dealing with brainwashed rubbish, not science.

The vehicle + cow weighs more.
Dragging a cow would introduce ... more drag.
The vehicle slows down when coasting due to mechanical drag, friction with the road surface and wind-resistance.
All explained with basic mechanics.

 

[phunk]

Bjarne, stop calling it an equation. It's not an equation if both sides have different units.

What's special about 1m and 1s? Does the calculation work for 1 foot per second?

 

[Bjarne]

All explained with basic mechanics.

Relativistic Resitance is much more complifcated math like that.

You have, and the reason it's repeatedly challenged is it doesn't make sense.
Why do you choose a second for your calculation? Is it the atomic unit of time? Isn't a second composed of a thousand milliseconds? Is the velocity the same in the first millisecond and the last? (If it isn't ... that's delta-v)
(And "fixing" your calculation to use a millisecond would still have the same problem ... a millisecond is composed of a thousand microseconds, etc, etc)

Yes, it's deceleration, but you can't admit it because that make your maths wrong.
.

I am not saying it is easy
1 second is a human invention.
Nature doesn’t know what that is.
And yes, the first half of the second RR would be larger.
When you are so good to math show us how to compensate for these lack..
RC couldn’t do it even though he spend 17 years to the University.
Instead he just keeps repeating there are no resistances, and he believed he have solve the problems. Amen.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, stop calling it an equation. It's not an equation if both sides have different units.

What's special about 1m and 1s? Does the calculation work for 1 foot per second?

As I wrote c and v are also m/s
So what is your problem ?

 

[Alex Cured]

Excactly
According to Carl Marx we shall NOT all be equal intelligent, but rather equal brainwashed single tracked naive & stupid.
Many Obersturmbahnführer Pol Pot, - Kim Jong and plenty more 100% agrees to that.
Then everybody is happy, especially Comrade Staling (even though he is dead), and off course those responsible for the brainwash system.
We call it Jantelov in Denmark.
Here that law is 800,007 billion times stronger as the sexual drive.
In New Zeeland it is only 797.897billion times stronger.
In UK I hear it is 797.003 times stronger.
And so on..

I'd not heard of 'Jantelov' before and enjoyed the wikipedia page. Thanks for that. (I don't think we have anything quite like that in England, beyond resenting others success and secretly enjoying it when the successful come unstuck, but that may be universal!)

As to the rest, that we are all basically deluded, I suppose it's possible ... but have you considered the alternative possibility?

 

[phunk]

[qimg]http://www.science27.com/rr/index.1.jpg[/qimg]

As I wrote c and v are also m/s
So what is your problem ?

The left hand side of your equation is "deceleration", which has units of m/s², the right hand side reduces to m/s. Different units. It's like saying meters = kelvin. Makes no sense.

 

[DazzaD]

And I shall patiently repeat myself again.

You are wrong. Very wrong. Demonstrably wrong. Wrong by all measures of mathematics and physics.

I am not talking about RR. Or your ideas on space/gravity.

Your maths in that equation is incorrect.

And what's more, a typical school child could tell you why you are incorrect and you still do not even begin to see why you are incorrect because you do not listen. You repeat the same old drivel.

If the equation is not homogeneous with respect to units it cannot be correct.

Your attempt at explanation have shown up an even worse understanding of basic mathematics.

You say that v and c both have units of m/s.

Therefore, in dividing them, you have a dimensionless constant. A number. Something without units. Not measured in any physical units. Merely a number. Not a temperature. Not a speed. Not a force. Just a constant. A number.




In addition you are repeating the same old rubbish about the power of 2, the squared bit...

I dont care if you measure the 'thing' within the first 1 second, 2 seconds, 3 seconds, 2 years .. it makes no difference.

If the units of acceleration are metres per second squared then thats what they are.. regardless of how long you did the experiment for.. it makes no difference.

If the units of temperature are kelvins, it doesnt matter if I do it on a cold day, hot day, measure for 2 hours or two minutes... the units are kelvins... not kelvin squared or kelvin cubed.


You do not understand units.
You do not understand dimensions
You do not understand what an acceleration is.
You do not understand what a speed is.
You do not understand what a constant is.
You do not understand what an equation is.

Therefore you have no hope whatsoever of demonstrating any new maths or physics. None.

Now normally I am very patient and polite, and would give you great leeway, especially as you are posting in a second language.

But you have shown yourself to be rude, stubborn, unwilling to listen to advice, evidence trolling and immature behaviour.. It is a wonder this thread has not been closed as it has gone so off topic and round in circles to no avail.

Can you tell me what is wrong with the following equations?

KE is kinetic energy of a particle
m is the mass of a particle
v is the velocity of a particle
^ indicates an index or power
* indicates a multiplication




KE = 2mv

KE = mv^2

KE = (mv)^2

KE = v m^2

KE = m + v

KE = 3/2 * m * v^2

 

[DazzaD]

Forget ^2
We speak about what happens the first second.

First second, second second... makes no difference...

The reason for the power of 2 is a completely separate issue to that and you still fail to see that.

Let us say that the 'brightness' and temperature of a star of type A behaves like


'Brightness' is proportional to T to the power of 4


and for another star, of different type, type B, behaves like

'Brightness' is proportional to T to the power of 3.

Can you tell me, roughly, in a few short sentences, what practical difference that makes? How might you expect the stars to be different/similar to each other? Which one has the most sensitive dependence on temperature? Which one will have a brightness that changes very 'rapidly' when the temperature increases? Why?

LAST time.........
We do NOT speak about "deceleration"
We do NOT speak about ^2
The "deceleration" process is NOT liniar.
We can ONLY calculate the result the first second, after that a new calculation is necessery.

What does 'linear' mean to you? (careful... )

 

[steenkh]

What does 'linear' mean to you? (careful... )

He thinks it means 'can be calculated' ....

 

[Bjarne]

The left hand side of your equation is "deceleration", which has units of m/s², the right hand side reduces to m/s. Different units. It's like saying meters = kelvin. Makes no sense.

Can you not read http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8096042&postcount=5845

 

[Bjarne]

And I shall patiently repeat myself again.

You are wrong. Very wrong. Demonstrably wrong. Wrong by all measures of mathematics and physics.

I am not talking about RR. Or your ideas on space/gravity.

Your maths in that equation is incorrect.

And what's more, a typical school child could tell you why you are incorrect and you still do not even begin to see why you are incorrect because you do not listen. You repeat the same old drivel.

If the equation is not homogeneous with respect to units it cannot be correct.

Your attempt at explanation have shown up an even worse understanding of basic mathematics.

You say that v and c both have units of m/s.

Therefore, in dividing them, you have a dimensionless constant. A number. Something without units. Not measured in any physical units. Merely a number. Not a temperature. Not a speed. Not a force. Just a constant. A number.

Right, so far you have the beginning to a transformation factor, after completing the equation you do have the final factor, and yes it is unit less.

This factor you can now multiply with M of the object and you do have the increasing mass as a result
Or you can multiply it with mc^2 and you do have KE increase.

Now try to divide 1 m/s with less say 1000 - what do you get now
Do you get 0.0001 m/s ?

This shows the principle for how you can use the same transformation factor to show the Resistance against motion, the first second.

But it is not only resistance against motion; it is in fact resistance against forcing an object from one space time reality to another one.

This is why the resistance rather must be understood as RR – relativist resistance.

My friend think about you create gravity this way, - you create curvature of space that way, - your conserve energy that way.

Such a process is NOT resistance free, - If you really believe it is – PROVE IT.