Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bjarne said:
Such a process is NOT resistance free, - If you really believe it is – PROVE IT.
Click to expand...

No, you say it is true, it is up to you to prove it, not the other way around. You are the one that says that you have something new, it is up to you to prove that it is true, it is not up to us to disprove it.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
I don't see how he can ever prove anything if he doesn't even know what "=" means and is unwilling to learn.
 
phunk said:
I don't see how he can ever prove anything if he doesn't even know what "=" means and is unwilling to learn.
Click to expand...

Try this
  • Tie a dead cow after your car, and drive. - What happen?
  • Now tie 2 dead cows after you car and drive. - What happen?
  • Now tie 3 dead cows after you car and drive. - What happen?
  • Now tie 4 dead cows after you car and drive. - What happen?

  • Is it true that the more dead cows you tie after your car the more gasoline does it consume?
  • Is it true that the more dead cows you tie after your car the more energy does it consume?
  • Is it true that the more dead cows you tie after your car the more resistance against motion is it?

  • Is it true that these principles are the same if you try to accelerate a cow to huge speed, - towards the direction of Andromeda?
  • Do you believe there also is resistance to accelerate in space, the whole way up to the speed c?
  • Do you believe resistance against acceleration in space is increasing?

  • Do you believe that resistance suddenly vanish when constant speed is reached, - and if so, - tell me what in hell should the reason for that be ? - except medieval creeds and religion?
  • WHAT in hell does medieval creeds and religion have with science to do?
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
Do you believe that resistance suddenly vanish when constant speed is reached, - and if so, - tell me what in hell should the reason for that be ? - except medieval creeds and religion?
  • WHAT in hell does medieval creeds and religion have with science to do?
Click to expand...
Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.
 
Bjarne said:
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.
Click to expand...
You mean that you have the Lorentz factor.


This factor you can now multiply with M of the object and you do have the increasing mass as a result
Click to expand...
Why?


Or you can multiply it with mc^2 and you do have KE increase.
Click to expand...
Why?


This shows the principle for how you can use the same transformation factor to show the Resistance against motion, the first second.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't, and what is your obsession with seconds?


But it is not only resistance against motion; it is in fact resistance against...
Click to expand...
The rest just isn't worth responding to again.
 
Ignoring simple direct questions again.

Perhaps Bjarne struggles with the mathematics expected of a typical 10 year old then?
 
Bjarne said:
Try this
  • Tie a dead cow after your car, and drive. - What happen?
  • Now tie 2 dead cows after you car and drive. - What happen?
  • Now tie 3 dead cows after you car and drive. - What happen?
  • Now tie 4 dead cows after you car and drive. - What happen?

  • Is it true that the more dead cows you tie after your car the more gasoline does it consume?
  • Is it true that the more dead cows you tie after your car the more energy does it consume?
  • Is it true that the more dead cows you tie after your car the more resistance against motion is it?
Click to expand...
No, there isn't more resistance against motion. There is more resistance against change in motion. It's called inertia. Constant speed requires no energy input.

  • Is it true that these principles are the same if you try to accelerate a cow to huge speed, - towards the direction of Andromeda?
  • Do you believe there also is resistance to accelerate in space, the whole way up to the speed c?
  • Do you believe resistance against acceleration in space is increasing?

  • Do you believe that resistance suddenly vanish when constant speed is reached, - and if so, - tell me what in hell should the reason for that be ? - except medieval creeds and religion?
  • WHAT in hell does medieval creeds and religion have with science to do?
Click to expand...

I believe that you don't understand inertia or that all motion is relative. Resistance to motion doesn't exist, which should be obvious once you understand that there's no universal frame to be at rest in. You can be at rest in one frame of reference and near light speed in another, and the laws of physics work just fine (the real ones, not your cow logic).
 
Back to the topic of "Bjarne doesn't know what equals means", can you answer a simple question for me Bjarne? Humor me, you may learn something.

If you take an equation, and perform the same mathematical operation on both sides, does it remain equal?
 
Bjarne said:
http://www.science27.com/rr/index.1.jpg

As I wrote c and v are also m/s
So what is your problem ?
Click to expand...
Your problem remains the inability to understand simple science.
c and v are also m/s.
v/c has no units.
The Lorentz factor has no units.
It is extremely ignorant to multiply the Lorentz factor by an arbitrary acceleration.
The units of deceleration are m/s^2.
It is totally idiotic to multiply the Lorentz factor by an arbitrary speed and call that a deceleration.

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

Why RR is a fantasy and Bjarne debunks RR again and again!
 
phunk said:
No, there isn't more resistance against motion. There is more resistance against change in motion. It's called inertia. Constant speed requires no energy input.
Click to expand...

Inertia is a 300 years old Newtonian concept. And yes still valid, but this is not what we are talking about.
"Only" 100 years ago we got and additional understanding of that.

Inertia has nothing to do with the fact that it require more and more energy to reach a diminish speed increment.
This is why I don’t refer to inertia but relativistic resistance.

There is a significant difference.
We are talking about a relative weak effects, and only significant by relative large speed.
This is where most people (and fools) get stuck.
So now first try to understand what we are talking about, - then criticize.

I believe that you don't understand inertia or that all motion is relative. Resistance to motion doesn't exist, which should be obvious once you understand that there's no universal frame to be at rest in. You can be at rest in one frame of reference and near light speed in another and the laws of physics work just fine (the real ones, not your cow logic).
Click to expand...

An absolute motion direction exists.
Imagine the Universe for example as a limit size, and for example orbiting itself, or orbiting multiple universes, - and you as an outsider.
It wouldn’t take you long time to determinate an “absolute motion direction” exist.
This is NOT the same as absolute speed.
Try hard to get that under the concrete.
Also even though you cannot see what I am talking about.

I am always talking about speed relative to an absolute motion direction, - which mean towards the RR direction = resistance.

Moving opposite that direction, the opposite is a fact.

I am fully aware that c always is the same for locals observers, but still you do have a absolute motion direction, and still c is not comparable the same speed.
EVERYTHING is relative.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Your problem remains the inability to understand simple science.
c and v are also m/s.
v/c has no units.
The Lorentz factor has no units.
It is extremely ignorant to multiply the Lorentz factor by an arbitrary acceleration.
The units of deceleration are m/s^2.
It is totally idiotic to multiply the Lorentz factor by an arbitrary speed and call that a deceleration.
[/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Exactly as it takes more energy to pulling a larger and larger amount of cows, and exactly as resistance here is a mathematical fact, - the principle are exactly the same, if you would send a cow to Andromeda with large speed. But off course only when Andromeda is more or less towards the RR direction.

If RR is opposite the motion direction, - the cow would relative to an absolute motion direction be affected by less RR.

You have no scientific right to ignore this, except creeds and religion.

I am not saying the math we have is perfect, but it is the best we have.
When A is rich and B is poor we can calculate the proportional between A and B.
But if B don’t exist it would be dame difficulty. This is where 1 m/s get into the equation. We cannot have zero muuuhh

If you don’t like the math, let us see if you can do it better.

But first stick to the basic point and this is…………..
Why do you not understand the fact that because require more and more energy to reach a diminishing speed = resistance.

Tell us what in hell is going on inside your head, - if anything, - SIR ?

WHY do you deny that we are talking about a unique kind of resistance that has NOTHING to do with change of motion direction (inertia)?

As I TRY to explain in the post above IT HAS NOTHING – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the classic inertia. – repeat NOTHING. It is addition knowledge you must add to everything you know and don’t know.

You are only reciting holy brain-dead illogical incoherent creeds, this is why diccusion with you is so derailed it possible can be. And why I only have one choose, and this is to ignore you.

  • Try to be SPECIFIC
  • Try to be real SCIENTIFIC
  • Try to be OBJECTIVE

AMEN
 
Last edited:
Avoiding the simple maths again.

You cannot dare to lecture people on relatively advanced physics if you cannot understand simple ideas about units, dimensions, equations and indices.


You cannot dare to lecture a top chef on cooking if you dont even know what food is, what a kitchen is or how to cook a piece of toast.

The analogy is there to help you understand how obstinate and deliberate you are being in evading these simple questions.
 
Bjarne said:
But first stick to the basic point and this is…………..
Click to expand...
I will first stick to the basic point and this is not your gibberish… It is ………..

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

Why RR is a fantasy and Bjarne debunks RR again and again!

But if you want me to "fix your math" then I will because it is something a child can do:
RR = (12412.78 m/s^2)(1-gamma)
or another child might "fix your math" as:
RR = (89427.41 m/s^2)(1-gamma)

But an adult would then point out that these equations have arbitrary numbers in them and so are meaningless.

An older child could write: RR = x(1-gamma) where x is an unknown acceleration.
Actual measurements of RR are then needed to determine x but: Why RR is a fantasy and Bjarne debunks RR again and again!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom