Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[DazzaD]

NO
Because the "deceleration" is NOT linear

I can be incredibly patient.

No matter how 'quickly' the acceleration 'changes'

Whether it is linear, parabolic, hyperbolic, sinusoidal...

The fact is it still has the same 'dimensions' (or units if you like)..

It will be measured in, say m/s^2

NOT in m/s

Acceleration, of any type whatsoever, anywhere in physics, by anyone, for any reason.. will have dimensions of length divided by time squared.

Your 'linear' bit is a big red herring

 

[MRC_Hans]

The funny thing is that Bjarne is here arguing against something that does not exist.

First, he states the obvious:

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.

We all know this, and we know it is because more and more of the acceleration energy is converted to mass, instead of sped.

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

Here, Bjarne is getting off into fantasy land. He is inventing a non-existing claim to argue against. This is a version of the strawman fallacy.

Of course, the process is reversible, we all know this (so one can now wonder who exactly Bjarne imagines he is arguing with): Just like we need more energy to reach a diminishing speed increase, we will get a diminishing amount of energy from an increasing speed reduction whne decelerating.

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.

And here Bjarne is expounding on his imaginary adversaries, who may be blind and brainwashed, but probably also non-existent.

The most ironic part of all this is that Bjarne fails to realize that exactly the reversibility of the process is proof that his precious RR does not exist: The amount of energy you put into accelerating an object is exactly the same as the amount of energy that you can extract when decelerating it. Thus, nothing is lost to resistance. This has been shown not only experimentally and mathematically, but every pendulum, every satellite, every planet, moon and star is proving it every day.

And, of course, I have pointed this out to him long ago, but he has ignored it.

Hans

 

[Paul]

All what you do know is...irrelevant nonsense snipped

What does transforming between frames for kinetic energy have to do with deceleration with a single observer?

Also,

do you know why (γ-1) is in E=mc² for kinetic energy in the first place?

why did you add -1 to your equation?

why do you think you can ignore units just because of an arbitrary time restriction?

 

[Bjarne]

The funny thing is that Bjarne is here arguing against something that does not exist.

First, he states the obvious:



We all know this, and we know it is because more and more of the acceleration energy is converted to mass, instead of sped.



Here, Bjarne is getting off into fantasy land. He is inventing a non-existing claim to argue against. This is a version of the strawman fallacy.

Of course, the process is reversible, we all know this (so one can now wonder who exactly Bjarne imagines he is arguing with): Just like we need more energy to reach a diminishing speed increase, we will get a diminishing amount of energy from an increasing speed reduction whne decelerating.



And here Bjarne is expounding on his imaginary adversaries, who may be blind and brainwashed, but probably also non-existent.

The most ironic part of all this is that Bjarne fails to realize that exactly the reversibility of the process is proof that his precious RR does not exist: The amount of energy you put into accelerating an object is exactly the same as the amount of energy that you can extract when decelerating it. Thus, nothing is lost to resistance. This has been shown not only experimentally and mathematically, but every pendulum, every satellite, every planet, moon and star is proving it every day.

And, of course, I have pointed this out to him long ago, but he has ignored it.

Hans

Make up your mind, do you want to speak about energy or whether the Lorentz transformation process is reversible or not
It is 2 different discussions.

1.
A dead cow tied after your car would decelerate your car so soon your run out of fuel.
This is logic even for the dead cow you are pulling.
Stick to that simple facts and logic and now explain to grandmother why a cow on its way out in the blue with huge speed should be an exception.

2.
The energy issue is also simple.
When you cannot point to where lost KE is, it MUST be "lost" which mean converted to something else.
Otherwise you must physical be able to point to it, - at least so long E=mc^2 is true.

3.
The idea that "potential gravitionel energy” is in fact energy, - that right now, - is false, - potential gravitionel energy is not real energy, - as a real energy concept it doesn’t exist.
Exactly like a potential cow also not exist right now. If potential energy was real you should be able to say exactly here is it. – You cannot.
Lakes in the mountains do not have more mass as a lake in the valley. Cows walking there every day know this.

Make you self clear what you want you really to say.

 

[Bjarne]

Mysterious Sedna

How did Sedna get into the strange orbit?
It should be impossible.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/16mar_sedna/

The answer is again due to RR. To understand what happens in Sednas orbit we must first understand what went wrong in Mercury's orbit.

Albert Einstein is belived to have solved the Mercury Perihelion Precession Anomaly.
But when the ruler is "stretching" proportional with time this is not the case. Hence the cause of this anomaly must be reconsidered.

According to the theory I represent distances are stretching proportional with time dilation.
Hence also the cause of Mercury's perihelion Precession anomaly must be found a completely different place.

The table above shows how arc second of Mercury's orbit can be converted to meter.
When we (on the one hand) compare the RR that shows 14603 m per half orbit (29206 m per orbit), with (on the other hand) the known magnitude value of the Mercury's orbit (19399 m), we can off course see that these values not are matching.

This indicate that the RR influence must be weaker as calculated above.
Which indicate that the magnitude of RR only is 100% when moving directly towards the RR direction.

Experiences and better understanding the nature of RR will guaranteed eliminate such "gap" in the future.
Furthermore the calculation shown here don't take everything into consideration, for example not that deceleration due to moving towards RR, - immediately is turned into acceleration , when approaching the orbiting object.
The calculations above only shows the decelerating, not the consequence of that.

This mean Sedna's Perihelion Precession Period (caused only due to RR) is increasing ('about') 16,000,000 km per 6,030 year.

Sedna's aphelion is today approximately 1,34 * 10¹⁴ meter further away from the Sun as its perihelion is.
To reach that distant distance due to the influence of RR can be calculated to 1,34 * 10¹⁴ / 1,6 * 10¹⁰ m = 8375 periods.
Because each period takes 6030 years, the total time to have created the strange orbit can be calculated to 50 million years.

The orbit circumference is about 4,9 * 10¹⁴ m .
The perturbation influence of he orbit is insignificant, - which mean that almost only RR is responsible.
We can therefore also calculate how many period a complete perihelion precession period must take. 4,9 * 10¹⁴ m / 1,6 * 10¹⁰ m = 30625 period of 6030 years.

A perihelion precession period therefore takes about 184,6 billion years.
This is off course also only a estimated calculation.
There are several other influences that must be taken into consideration as well.

At least we have here one more significant factor that shows that we have a lot more to learn.

100 years ago we did only knew one orbit anomaly, this was the anomaly of Mercury. But since the list have been growing.....

This theory solves all these mysteries in one go.

• The Flyby Anomalies.
• The cause of the Pioneer Anomalies.
• That stars continue to be dragged into the galaxies’ black holes. *) note1
• The long term (known) weak eccentricity anomaly of the moon. *) note2
• That Spiral galaxies can last much longer than the expected 1 billion years .
• The Milankovitch cycle problem of 100,000 years, and all other ice age cycle mysteries. *) note3
• Stars in a dwarf galaxy swarm like bees in a beehive instead of moving in nice, circular orbits like a spiral galaxy *)note4
• It predicts a periodical short term, relatively large perigee / apogee anomaly of the Moon’s orbit, still not discovered.
• It solves the Sedna orbit Anomaly.

*) note1 http://translate.google.dk/translat...r.dk/Videnskab/Videnskab/2006/06/27105328.htm
*) note2 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.0212v3.pdf
*) note3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
*) note4 http://esciencenews.com/articles/2011/10/17/dark.matter.mystery.deepens
*) note4 http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/16mar_sedna/

 

[Alex Cured]

NO
Because the "deceleration" is NOT linear

I believe variation in acceleration is called "jerk"

(Sorry but I couldn't resist)

 

[phunk]

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

Bjarne, your RR is not reversible. It violates conservation of momentum. Imagine you accelerate something to 0.5c, then wait a year, then decelerate back to 0. According to you, the object will slowly decelerate on its own while you're waiting. So it will take less energy to decelerate back to 0 than it did to get to 0.5c. Where did the rest of the energy go?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Make up your mind, do you want to speak about energy or whether the Lorentz transformation process is reversible or not
It is 2 different discussions.

Here we note the standard evation: "Oh, I was talking about something else!"

1.
A dead cow tied after your car would decelerate your car so soon your run out of fuel.
This is logic even for the dead cow you are pulling.

And the typical complete red herring, adapted to the special Bjarne cow fetish. Of course, friction consumes energy, even a child knows that.

Stick to that simple facts and logic and now explain to grandmother why a cow on its way out in the blue with huge speed should be an exception.

Oh, and grandmother. Bjarne seems to think that if a scientific theory cannot be explained to his grandmother, it must be wrong.
Of course, even Bjarne's grandmother probably understands that towing a dead cow in space would be a different matter.

2.
The energy issue is also simple.
When you cannot point to where lost KE is, it MUST be "lost" which mean converted to something else.

Yay, tripple fallacy! Not bad at all.

1: The energy issue is not actually simple.
2: There is no KE lost. If you accelerate an object the decreased speed increment is turned into mass instead, hence the KE increase is the same.
3: Conversion is not equal to loss. The conversion of thrust into KE is lossless.

Otherwise you must physical be able to point to it, - at least so long E=mc^2 is true.

I here assume Bjarne refers to the energy he claims is lost. It is not lost, and we can point to it.

3.
The idea that "potential gravitionel energy” is in fact energy, - that right now, - is false, - potential gravitionel energy is not real energy, - as a real energy concept it doesn’t exist.

Here we are on our way into gibberish. Bjarne now seems to invent a concept of 'not real energy'. It may (but most likely isn't) be interesting to see how he will justify this distinction.

Exactly like a potential cow also not exist right now. If potential energy was real you should be able to say exactly here is it. – You cannot.
Lakes in the mountains do not have more mass as a lake in the valley. Cows walking there every day know this.

Ahh, that fallacy. Yes, I suppose that from cow fetish status level, system energy is quite a mouthful to grasp.

Make you self clear what you want you really to say.

And of course this fallacy runs deep in anything Bjarne writes: If Bjarne cannot understand it (not to mention his grandmother and his pet cow) then it can't be right. .... How strange the world would be, were that true.

NOTE: Before somebody deems this post off topic (as if there was a topic left here), please notice that the title of the thread was recently changed to "Bjarne on: ..... etc". Thus, Bjarne and his take on the original topic is indeed valid for discussion.

... Also, I might aplogize for my somewhat rude 3rd person way of addressing Bjarne, but I have resolved not to communicate directly with him any more. In the unlikely case that he begins to make a bit of sense, I could be induced to change that resolve.

Hans

 

[Paulhoff]

Bjarne, your RR is not reversible. It violates conservation of momentum. Imagine you accelerate something to 0.5c, then wait a year, then decelerate back to 0. According to you, the object will slowly decelerate on its own while you're waiting. So it will take less energy to decelerate back to 0 than it did to get to 0.5c. Where did the rest of the energy go?

I wouldn't worry about it, the earth would have plowed into the sun long ago with his idea of motion and we wouldn't be talking about it today.

Paul

 

[DazzaD]

3.
The idea that "potential gravitionel energy” is in fact energy, - that right now, - is false, - potential gravitionel energy is not real energy, - as a real energy concept it doesn’t exist.
Exactly like a potential cow also not exist right now. If potential energy was real you should be able to say exactly here is it. – You cannot.
Lakes in the mountains do not have more mass as a lake in the valley. Cows walking there every day know this.

Interesting

So you do not even have a typical 12 year old's understanding of energy.

Couple that with your lack of understanding of length and time and you seem very well set up to challenge the foundations of physics.

(I am being sarcastic)

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, your RR is not reversible. It violates conservation of momentum. Imagine you accelerate something to 0.5c, then wait a year, then decelerate back to 0. According to you, the object will slowly decelerate on its own while you're waiting. So it will take less energy to decelerate back to 0 than it did to get to 0.5c. Where did the rest of the energy go?

All the speed you add to an object can only be converted to KE or M increase when the acceleration happens towards the RR direction.
When you accelerate an object opposite the opposite happens, it is ‘loosing’ KE
Still you are using energy to accelerate but this is to turn the absolute momentum to motion in the opposite direction.
You must distinguish between what is Inertia and what is RR.

RR and Intertia are different aspect of nature.
When energy (KE) is lost, - mass is lost.
Mass is a result of space absorption.
Absorbed space = M
Released space = release of M, - and hence what you call a magnetic field.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=galaxies-mysterious-magne

 

[DazzaD]

Oh I love this.. how much can you get wrong if you tried? I dont know

Circumference (orbits are not circular)

Chuff knows what he is talking about with the perihelion radius change (doesnt understand what precession is)

Changing an angle into a distance (huh?)

Per half a year orbit is one period (err.. no.. by definition)

Average deceleration speed (makes no sense)

Average (doesnt say which one)

Average is time x speed all divided by 2 (huh?)

Average deceleration speed is actually a distance

Calling it an anomaly (well it isnt any more is it...)

Using a comma to seperate out the 'thousands' (ok.. pet hate of mine maybe.. but potentially confusing when used with a period for a decimal 'point' seperator)

Saying the pertubation of the orbit is insignificant then saying of course other influences must be taking into account (and likely not even knowing what pertubation of the orbit even is)

That is without picking fault with the wording of every single sentence (which I will ignore here if english is not his first language).

So even given the benefit of every doubt.. it is still a steaming pile of random mumbo jumbo with no real evidence he understands how to do even the most basic tasks in maths and physics (averages, speeds, acceleration, units, definitions etc...)

 

[DazzaD]

When you accelerate an object opposite the opposite happens, it is ‘loosing’ KE

and to the list we can add, just from this sentence


no understanding of the concept of squaring a negative number
no understanding of vectors
no understanding of the difference between speed and velocity
no understanding of the concept of acceleration

 

[DazzaD]

RR and Intertia are different aspect of nature.
When energy (KE) is lost, - mass is lost.
Mass is a result of space absorption.
Absorbed space = M
Released space = release of M, - and hence what you call a magnetic field.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=galaxies-mysterious-magne

Mass is not a result of space absorption (meaningless term)

Does M represent mass?

Release of mass creates a magnetic field?

Laughable... incorrect...wrong...

And what has that got to do with the link? Nothing I can see at all (it talks about polarisation of light from distant quasars as the light passes through "magnetic" galaxies).

 

[MRC_Hans]

Here, we will just sample a few juicy tidbits:

Mysterious Sedna

How did Sedna get into the strange orbit?
It should be impossible.

Nobody says it should be impossible, of course. Just that the cause is not known.

And of course, Bjarne completely misses that it is not the shape of Sena's orbit that is the mystery. It is that it is where it is.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/16mar_sedna/

I'll just retain the link here, for reference.

1,34 * 10¹⁴ / 1,6 * 10¹⁰ m = 8375 periods.

So a valuer without a unit devided by a value in meters becomes periods.

Because each period takes 6030 years, the total time to have created the strange orbit can be calculated to 50 million years.

Ooops, no. According the the link provided by Bjarne himself (above) the period of Sedna is 10,500 years. but, ... what is 4,470 years among friends? (Other sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90377_Sedna estimate 11,400 years)

4,9 * 10¹⁴ m / 1,6 * 10¹⁰ m = 30625 period of 6030 years.

Here, we have meters divided by meters, and again get periods.

A perihelion precession period therefore takes about 184,6 billion years.

Which is considerably longer than the age of the universe (so it obviously can't explain Sedna's present orbit).


However, to an average nine year old, Bjarne's calculations probably look pretty impressive.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

I here assume Bjarne refers to the energy he claims is lost. It is not lost, and we can point to it.

When you cannot point to M, (in this context) you can also not point to KE or E, - E or M will simply be 'lost" - converted to "something else" due to lost of KE. – Gone – not existing.
And that something that is a magnetic field.

When a object again falls (in a gravitational field) it gains back that energy, - and it literally it comes out of NOTHING.

When the whole Universe would collapses M end KE would also increase.

Huge huge huge energy (and hence M) would pop up from nowhere / anywhere. This is the reality we live in.

Whether you prefer to deny it, is your own business.

 

[Paulhoff]

And my GPS still works.

Paul

 

[MRC_Hans]

And the fun continues.

http://www.science27.com/forum/cowstamp2.jpg

When you cannot point to M,

Here we see the denial tactics. I have said that we can point to it. We were talking about energy, but now he calls it M, and just keeps claiming I can't point to it.

(in this context) you can also not point to KE or E, - E or M will simply be 'lost" - converted to "something else" due to lost of KE. – Gone – not existing.

Then we throw around some random letters to make it look technical, - and claim that energy can be gone.

And that something that is a magnetic field.

And, let's throw in something entirely irrelevant: Magnet fields.

When a object again falls (in a gravitational field) it gains back that energy, - and it literally it comes out of NOTHING.

Bjarne thinks it comes out of nothing because in his head, potential energy is not real energy.

When the whole Universe would collapses M end KE would also increase.

Huge huge huge energy (and hence M) would pop up from nowhere / anywhere. This is the reality we live in.

Very strange. Not only is this nonsense, but it doesn't even follow from Bjarne's own model.

Whether you prefer to deny it, is your own business.

We are immensely grateful for this.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Double

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne thinks it comes out of nothing because in his head, potential energy is not real energy.

Hans

In this context point to M.
You cannot
So WHERE is the energy ?

I cannot say that I am a farmer with 25000 cows, ( but I have hidden all my cows you cannot see them) the are all potential cows .
Can I ?

Muuhhh