Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

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 !

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!

What would a total brainwashed adult then do after to have spent much too much of his life in a brainwashed university, and revived teaching of total brainwashed teachers?

 

[Reality Check]

What would a total brainwashed adult then do after to have spent much too much of his life in a brainwashed university, and revived teaching of total brainwashed teachers?

What would a total ignorant adult then do after to have spent much too much of his life in ignorance and ignoring the teaching of all their high school teachers ?

They would write web pages containing ignorance of science as you have:

A deceleration is not a speed!
​

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

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

What an edulcated adult would do after spen\ding some of his life in a high school and recieved teaching of teachers is know that: A deceleration is not a speed!

 

[Alex Cured]

So why pray-tell, do planets show nothing of this. SHOW THE MATH.

Paul

http://www.science27.com/english/Mercury.html

From that page:

This has the same thing your lunar calculation had. There are approximately 3.154e7 seconds in a year: so the first calculation is for a quarter year and you use this result in the second calculation.

This is apart from the problem that the first calculation multiplies something in seconds with something in m/s. This should produce something in metres yet you assign it m/s.

In the second calculation you multiply something in seconds with the previous result which means the result should be in ms and you assign it metres.

Also you don't explain here how you derive the multiplication factor other than to say it's something to do with Lorentz, and at the velocities we're talking about 1/√(1 - v²/c²) comes out very close to 1 (in fact I calculate v needs to be 10% of c before there's even a factor of 1.005 involved). Can you explain how you derived the resistance factor please?

Previously I asked why this effect would only occur when travelling towards RR and you didn't reply. Wouldn't this resistance still be present when moving away? Analogy: If a sledge is dragged up a hill there would be resistance from the surface but there would still be resistance if it was dragged down the hill.

As far as I can see if RR exists it should cause planets, stars and galaxies to spiral into one another.

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.science27.com/english/Mercury.html

So what does this web page show us?
Firstly your total inability to do correct mathematics (871 days and the answer to Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) is still no)

Next some dumb calculations that you cannot match to reality because of your total inability to do correct mathematics.

Next that you cannot even design a web site! A URL that is supposed to be about Mercury points to an Ice Ages page.

Next your ignorance of what a perihelion is - it is the point of closest approach of a body to the Sun. It is not the perihelion precession of Mercury

The total observed precession of Mercury is 574.10±0.65 arc-seconds per century[3

 

[Bjarne]

From that page:
[qimg]http://i40.tinypic.com/3356sub.jpg[/qimg]

This has the same thing your lunar calculation had. There are approximately 3.154e7 seconds in a year: so the first calculation is for a quarter year and you use this result in the second calculation.

No you misunderstood this, - first you must find the average deceleration speed per half orbit.
Therefore you must divide the time of 1 orbit with 2 ,
and next also the max deceleration speed with 2 to get the average dec sped.
This is what you see in the first calculations. So i was also right with the moon.

This is apart from the problem that the first calculation multiplies something in seconds with something in m/s. This should produce something in meters yet you assign it m/s.

m/s is the deceleration average speed per second.
m (meter) is the result after multiplied with t.

In the second calculation you multiply something in seconds with the previous result which means the result should be in ms and you assign it meters.
You must also multiply the average speed (when found) period with t to know distance / orbit increase per ½ orbit.
Also you don't explain here how you derive the multiplication factor other than to say it's something to do with Lorentz, and at the velocities we're talking about 1/√(1 - v²/c²) comes out very close to 1 (in fact I calculate v needs to be 10% of c before there's even a factor of 1.005 involved). Can you explain how you derived the resistance factor please?

No use this to calculate the deceleration the first second

Previously I asked why this effect would only occur when travelling towards RR and you didn't reply. Wouldn't this resistance still be present when moving away? Analogy: If a sledge is dragged up a hill there would be resistance from the surface but there would still be resistance if it was dragged down the hill.

As far as I can see if RR exists it should cause planets, stars and galaxies to spiral into one another.

We must know the RR direction..
This is the direction where RR affects all objects.
The RR direction is the direction an outsider would say is the one and object is moving faster than all other objects.
Moving opposite that direction would cause "following wind" due to less RR in the opposite direction.

 

[Paul]

No you misunderstood this, - first you must find the average deceleration speed per half orbit.

You're wrong before you've even started.

Therefore you must divide the time of 1 orbit with 2

OK, so now you have the duration of half an orbit, a meaningless number.

and next also the max deceleration speed with 2 to get the average dec sped.

No, no and no.

This is what you see in the first calculations. So i was also right with the moon.

You aren't right about anything.

m/s is the deceleration average speed per second.
m (meter) is the result after multiplied with t.

No.

No use this to calculate the deceleration the first second

Why would I want to use the Lorentz factor to do this.

We must know the RR direction..

First we must prove the existence of RR.

This is the direction where RR affects all objects.

So RR has a specific source? Care to tell us where that is?

The RR direction is the direction an outsider would say is the one and object is moving faster than all other objects.

If an 'outsider' said that, I'd ask him if he'd been on the mushrooms again.

Moving opposite that direction would cause "following wind" due to less RR in the opposite direction.

Are you going to start with space wind again?

 

[DazzaD]

Hiya Bjarne.. still ignoring my simple questions that highlight the areas where you completely and utterly misunderstand?

Would it be helpful to you if I post some questions my kids have used in year 9 to do with dimensions and units?

 

[Bjarne]

Hiya Bjarne.. still ignoring my simple questions that highlight the areas where you completely and utterly misunderstand?

Would it be helpful to you if I post some questions my kids have used in year 9 to do with dimensions and units?

Make yourself clear.

 

[DazzaD]

Make yourself clear.

Hello Bjarne.

You are still ignoring my simple questions to do with your mathematical errors.

I have some questions on the topic of dimensions and units that I use for my students.

Would it be helpful to you if I sent them to you/posted them here to help you practice and see where you are going wrong?

Then perhaps you may be able to present your case more clearly.

 

[Paul]

http://www.science27.com/rr/image001.jpg

I wanted to address this specifically:

That 'equation' seems to come from Bjarne's conservation of energy equation KE = (y - 1) mc² - where y = 1/√(1 - v²/c²) and apparently modified because "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"

I coulnt find that anywhere, but I did find mentions of k=(γ-1)mc² in relation to relativistic equations.

As a non physicist this is confusing because I don't have advanced education to know why things may or may not be correct. I cannot see why a formula to convert kinetic energy between frames of reference would help calculate deceleration or speed an a single frame. Unless I've missed it, this doesn't seem to have been addressed directly amongst everything else Bjarne posts.

 

[DazzaD]

http://www.science27.com/rr/image001.jpg

I wanted to address this specifically:

That 'equation' seems to come from Bjarne's conservation of energy equation KE = (y - 1) mc² - where y = 1/√(1 - v²/c²) and apparently modified because "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"

I coulnt find that anywhere, but I did find mentions of k=(γ-1)mc² in relation to relativistic equations.

As a non physicist this is confusing because I don't have advanced education to know why things may or may not be correct. I cannot see why a formula to convert kinetic energy between frames of reference would help calculate deceleration or speed an a single frame. Unless I've missed it, this doesn't seem to have been addressed directly amongst everything else Bjarne posts.

Hiya

This is what we are currently trying to get Bjarne to see...

In essence.. he is taking one equation to do with one thing and just bodging it, thinking he can use it to talk about another item.

For example...


Speed = distance / time


which has units of metres per second (or m/s) say...


If I then add some 'units' of 'seconds' I can get it to have units of just 'm'... i.e. a length

So

Speed = distance (t) / time

Hence

speed = length


Which is completely and utterly wrong ...

Firstly you cannot just go around "multiplying" by whatever units you wish...

Generally speaking you dont write the units within the equation itself to avoid confusion, but if you choose to do so, then just the act of writing the units on one side only does nothing physical (and certainly isnt something 'allowed' in order to 'change' the physics of the situation).


Secondly, if the dimensions of the thing on the left hand side are different to the dimensions of the thing on the right hand side, then the equation cannot possibly be correct.

If the left hand side talks about a speed, and the right hand side doesnt.. then they cannot be equal.

 

[Paul]

Hiya

This is what we are currently trying to get Bjarne to see...

That's what I thought, but we keep getting bogged down in unnecessary details and derails about relativity.

I think Bjarne needs to understand that his first problem is that he's using the wrong equations to do the wrong job in the wrong way with he wrong units.

Anyway, thanks for clearing that up, at least I know I'm on the right track.

 

[Bjarne]

Hello Bjarne.

You are still ignoring my simple questions to do with your mathematical errors.

I have some questions on the topic of dimensions and units that I use for my students.

Would it be helpful to you if I sent them to you/posted them here to help you practice and see where you are going wrong?

Then perhaps you may be able to present your case more clearly.

Based on the transformation factor you can transform what you want, - Kg, - Joule and as reversible procees also "deceleration" m/s, - but not linear, and hence not ^2.

The point is not only the math, but primarily the basic point is that the idea that the resistance due to forcing a object to a different reality

1. not is without resistance
2. not only apply during the acceleration period.

Stick to the scientific method, it is never proven, or even not probable that relativistic resistance should vanish by constant speed.
If you don’t like the math, do you own consideration, - and tell us instead how you then would suggest a revisable transformation process mathematical.
Because the process is in deed reversible.

Everything that moves screams to heaven that this is a fact.
Cows understood this long long loooong ago.
Because it is so simple, so coherent, so logical, so obvious.

So the basic “problem” is in fact not mathematical details. – e.g: m/s or m/s^2 or blab la bla blab la – but rather to see the signs on the sky.
There are billions, and billions and billions of them.

Everywhere you look, from the small dust particle to huge cluster of galaxies. The Earth's orbit included.

What more evidence can you ask for?

 

[Bjarne]

I cannot see why a formula to convert kinetic energy between frames of reference would help calculate deceleration or speed an a single frame. Unless I've missed it, this doesn't seem to have been addressed directly amongst everything else Bjarne posts.[/FONT]

All what you do know is that it indeed require more and more energy to reach diminishing speed increment, and then also to reach a different space time reality.

What on earth or in hell make you believe that process NOT is reversible.
EVERYTHING around your ears and nose points to that this process is reversible

My friend, - EVERYTHING

Why is this obviously fact so difficult to understand?

Let me answer you , - because you have learned to believe different EVERYBODY has, and the most hardcore are brainwashed not to think at all, but only to believe the holy book. Even though every moving object on the sky is laughing of them.

 

[Reality Check]

How a child would fix Bjarne's math

No use this to calculate the deceleration the first second
http://www.science27.com/rr/image001.jpg

Who would be dumb enough to just want to calculate a "deceleration" for "the first second"?
The fact remains that your "deceleration" is the multiplication of the Lorentz factor by an arbitrary speed and subtracting the number 1. The equation is nonsense.

So we still have: 872 days and the answer to Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) is still no !

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)(gamma - 1)
or another child might "fix your math" as:
RR = (89427.41 m/s^2)(gamma - 1)
or another child might "fix your math" as:
RR = (0.0025 m/s^2)(gamma - 1)
or another child might "fix your math" as:
RR = (-1.0089 m/s^2)(gamma - 1)

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(gamma - 1) 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!

 

[Alex Cured]

No you misunderstood this, - first you must find the average deceleration speed per half orbit.
Therefore you must divide the time of 1 orbit with 2 ,
and next also the max deceleration speed with 2 to get the average dec sped.
This is what you see in the first calculations. So i was also right with the moon.

okay, but here's a problem: the way you derive the multiplier (for the Earth 4.93e-9 and for the moon 5.6e-12) are unitless entities if they are being calculated from (1/√(1 – v²/c²))-1

v²/c² are the only things that have units and because they have the same units they cancel.

Yet you think the result is m/s !

(If boiling an egg takes 180 seconds and making toast takes 90 seconds, we could say:
180 seconds / 90 seconds = 2
Useful? Well it seems we have time to make 2 rounds of toast while the egg boils! But anyway the result "2" doesn't have any units. The seconds cancel. Can you see that?)

Back to your calculations: You don't even use them consistently.
On the page about the Moon you have:

Average deceleration speed per ½ orbit. due to RR
1,180,300 s * 5,6 * 10-12 m/s = 0.0000033048 m.
2

and on the page about the Earth:

Average deceleration Speed.
15,768,000 s s * 4.93 *10-9 m/s= 0,03886812 m/s
2

Assuming that extra "S" is a typo, these 2 "equations" are the same:
T * L /2 = something

where T is the time for 1/2 an orbit and L is the Lorenz derived value.
Yet in one you say the result is a distance and in the other a velocity!
In fact because L is unitless the result is in seconds (whatever that means), oh and you call this "average deceleration"!

Why do you think the Lorenz factor is even relevant? My limited understanding is this is a way to map between inertial frames of reference. So where is the "other" frame? And BTW aren't you contending that inertia is religion/old science? Yet you're using something devised to maps between inertial frames to derive your own calculation which is proving that inertia is wrong!

We must know the RR direction..
This is the direction where RR affects all objects.
The RR direction is the direction an outsider would say is the one and object is moving faster than all other objects.
Moving opposite that direction would cause "following wind" due to less RR in the opposite direction.

Okay so RR is more like the flow or current in a river?
The trouble is you haven't produced anything credible to show that it's real.

 

[Bjarne]

okay, but here's a problem: the way you derive the multiplier (for the Earth 4.93e-9 and for the moon 5.6e-12) are unitless entities if they are being calculated from (1/√(1 – v²/c²))-1

Use this

Today I will start to calculate why Sedna have such a mysterious orbit

 

[Bjarne]

 

[DazzaD]

Use this
[qimg]http://www.science27.com/rr/image001.jpg[/qimg]

Today I will start to calculate why Sedna have such a mysterious orbit

I shall repeat this ad nauseum

If the left hand side of the equation has units of acceleration (which it does)

And the right hand side has units of velocity (which it does according to you)

Then it CANNOT possibly be correct... it actually does not matter one bit what the equation is, what the letters represent, whether they are squared or cubed, if it is linear or quadratic, cartesian or parametric....

IF the two sides of the equation do not have matching 'dimensions' it CANNOT be correct.. no matter what.. no matter who made it... no matter what it says... no matter what the physics is... it is impossible.. it cannot be... by any measure... I do not believe you will find a single scientist or mathematician in the world who would disagree with this basic tenet.

I dont care about RR. I dont care about SR. I dont care about gamma. I dont care about first second.

The equation, as you have explained it, cannot possibly be correct.




Anyway... what is 'strange' about an elliptical orbit?

If you cannot even do simple dimensional analysis I doubt if you will understand orbital mechanics or even the equation of an ellipse in mathematics.

 

[Bjarne]

I shall repeat this ad nauseum

If the left hand side of the equation has units of acceleration (which it does)

NO
Because the "deceleration" is NOT linear