Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

What, in your idea (or according to "the theory I represent") is the KE of the ISS?

Use the equation I have mention several time and calculate the KE.
But you must calculate it you self.. Don’t be so lazy..

But I already did, at least once, remember?

And I got two quite different values; one is 1 x 10^13 J, the other 0 J

I asked you how could the ISS have two different KEs, and you didn't reply.

How do you (Bjarne) determine the ISS's speed?

Like you wrote above 7000 m/s , this is probably correct.
I have no intention to change this, either I have any intension to change the Speed of the Moon.

Dude, the question is How do you (Bjarne) determine the ISS's speed?

Note that this is a different question than What do you (Bjarne) determine the ISS's speed to be?

Are you going to answer my question, Bjarne?

Are you going to answer my question, Bjarne?

I have done it, you can used the same framework shown to calculate the Moons KE and resistance, - > www.science27.com/english/Culcu3.htm

But you must calculate it you self.. Don’t be so lazy..

Dude, the question is Please provide me with a link to online physics material that explains, in detail how the thermal energy due to friction can be determined, with the essential requirement that you explicitly state that you agree with it 100% (not 90%, not 95%, not 99%, but 100%).

That question has nothing whatsoever to do with the Moon, KE, or your website.

Are you going to answer my question, Bjarne?

 

[Reality Check]

The point is:

Moving particles create a MF, doesn’t matter if these are acceleration or moving with constant speed.

Hence of course also doesn’t matter if these are stored or not

A point is:
Scientists and engineers know that moving charged particles create a MF.
This has been taught to high school students for almost 2 centuries. It is well lnown. Every particle accelerator ever constructed has been designed with this in mind.

The real point is that the existence of working particle accelerators disproves your fantasy of "kinetic resistance". From
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads

1. Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass. He ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units or acceleration.
   • Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
     First asked 23 October 2009
     So far the answer is no
2. Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
   • 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]

The real point is that the existence of working particle accelerators disproves your fantasy of "kinetic resistance".

Only bla blab la
Prove that magnetism of the moving particles not is created due to resistance against motion

 

[MRC_Hans]

Only bla blab la
Prove that magnetism of the moving particles not is created due to resistance against motion

Easy: Only charged particles create a magnet field when moving. Non-charged particles, like neutrons, create no magnet field.

Next?

Hans

 

[dafydd]

Only bla blab la
Prove that magnetism of the moving particles not is created due to resistance against motion

Prove that a Boojum is a Snark.

 

[Bjarne]

Easy: Only charged particles create a magnet field when moving. Non-charged particles, like neutrons, create no magnet field.

Next?

Hans

The particles moving in the accelerator does.

 

[ArcturusA]

The particles moving in the accelerator does.

The particle moving in the accelerator are charged.

 

[steenkh]

The particles moving in the accelerator does.

What is the relevance? The fact is that uncharged particles do not create a magnetic field, and your claim is busted.

You have earlier declared CERN scientists for bungling idiots who would not notice if the energy consumption of the LHC was larger than expected, so will you now claim that nobody has noticed the magnetic field of uncharged particles before?

 

[Bjarne]

What is the relevance? The fact is that uncharged particles do not create a magnetic field, and your claim is busted.

Even a cow in motion would create a magnetic field, but weaker than charged particles does.
It all depends; how the particles interact with each other, so long particles perfectly interact, this itself doesn’t create a MF, - because two particles neutralize the motion of space.
But all the particles that contributes to mass increase, due to motion, creates a MF proportional to the mass increase.

You have earlier declared CERN scientists for bungling idiots who would not notice if the energy consumption of the LHC was larger than expected,

Never, you must have dreamt that.

so will you now claim that nobody has noticed the magnetic field of uncharged particles before?

If you can answer yes, to that uncharged particles can move by the speed (almost) c – without their mass increases, then my answer is yes, then nobody have notice that these particles create a magnetic field.

The Suns magnetic field is created due to particle motion >> space in motion
So my friend is all written with huge CAPITAL letters on the sky…..

The MF of Sun wind and storm is the same stor, it is part of the same phenomena......

Open your eyes...it is so obvious

****************************************************************
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Max Planck

 

[Reality Check]

Only bla blab la
Prove that magnetism of the moving particles not is created due to resistance against motion

More basic physics that you are ignorant of: Electromagnetism.

Simple fact:
Your "resistance against motion" does not exists. You cannot even get the simplest phsyics about this fantasy right (see below),

Proof supplied below but I doubt Bjarne will undersand it since he has persisted in his delusion of "resistance against motion" for many months or even years.

The real point is that the existence of working particle accelerators disproves your fantasy of "kinetic resistance".

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads

1. Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass. He ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units or acceleration.
   • Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
     First asked 23 October 2009
     So far the answer is no
2. Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
   • 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]

Even a cow in motion would create a magnetic field, but weaker than charged particles does....

More moo cow gibberish from Baryne yet again!

​

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads

 

[steenkh]

Even a cow in motion would create a magnetic field, but weaker than charged particles does.

So physicists are incompetent because they have not noticed this?

It all depends; how the particles interact with each other, so long particles perfectly interact, this itself doesn’t create a MF, - because two particles neutralize the motion of space.

There is too much gibberish in this for me to understand it.

But all the particles that contributes to mass increase, due to motion, creates a MF proportional to the mass increase.

OK, so you have yet another theory that is against observable facts?

Never, you must have dreamt that.

Nope, it was on this very forum. Do not force me to search for it.

If you can answer yes, to that uncharged particles can move by the speed (almost) c – without their mass increases, then my answer is yes, then nobody have notice that these particles crate a magnetic field.

As far as I know the answer is no: uncharged particles increase their mass just like charged particles do, so your fantasy is in deep trouble.

The Suns magnetic field is created due to particle motion >> space in motion
So my friend is all written with huge CAPITAL letters on the sky…..

Irrelevant and wrong.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Even a cow in motion would create a magnetic field, but weaker than charged particles does.

No, it does not. An uncharged particle in motion does NOT create a magnet field, period.

(If a cow does, it is because its farts are charged).

It all depends; how the particles interact with each other, so long particles perfectly interact, this itself doesn’t create a MF, - because two particles neutralize the motion of space.

Gibberish.

But all the particles that contributes to mass increase, due to motion, creates a MF proportional to the mass increase.

No. Definitely not. There is no connection between mass or mass increase, and magnet fields.

Perhaps you should learn some basic physics?

Hans

 

[Paulhoff]

In CRTs there are two ways of deflecting the electrons coming from the gun in the neck of the tube on their way to the front screen to hit the phosphorus to make a line and/or image.

One way is using plates inside the neck and then charging those plates with a positive and negative charge that will defect the electrons. This is use in oscilloscope because it can be done at a high frequency.

The second way is using a yolk on the outside of the neck of the tube. The yolk is made of two wire coils (windings) one horizontal and one vertical, the two yoke coils use to make magnetic fields and these are used to defect the electrons. Magnetic fields made this way are slower than using plates but they can deflect the electrons much more, which makes the CRT much shorter then if plates were used.

Now science doesn't know all this.

Paul



Oh, and relativity has to be used in designing CRTs for TV, and even more so for Color TV (they have a shield in front of the tube to block electrons from hitting the wrong color phosphorus) because the electrons get up to about a 10% the speed of light and the mass is a little greater.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Oh, and relativity has to be used in designing CRTs for TV, and even more so for Color TV (they have a shield in front of the tube to block electrons from hitting the wrong color phosphorus) because the electrons get up to about a 10% the speed of light and the mass is a little greater.

[MODE=Bjarne]The designers do not notice because that extra effect is like a fly on a cow comparet to the power consumption of a color TV![/Bjarne]

Hans

 

[tusenfem]

The Suns magnetic field is created due to CHARGED particle motion >> space in motion
So my friend is all written with huge CAPITAL letters on the sky…..

Corrected that for you Bjarne.

 

[Bjarne]

Nope, it was on this very forum. Do not force me to search for it.

One again you certainly have dreamt it

No, it does not. An uncharged particle in motion does NOT create a magnet field, period.
(If a cow does, it is because its farts are charged).

Everything that increases its mass due to motion will create a MF in it's wake. BUT when speed is low you can’t measure it, especially not when such MF interact for example with the Earths or the Suns MF.

No. Definitely not. There is no connection between mass or mass increase, and magnet fields.

You don’t know the cause of the sun’s MF or the cause of the huge MF of fast rotating magnetars , or the cause of MF deep inside the galaxy, we assumes to be there, - and plenty others.

You have according to the book no idea at all what a MF really is. (Except what it does> and superficial blab la bla)

The answer is short and simple; - matter in motion = space in motion = a MF, - doesn’t matter what so ever.

How do you think a MF can move through space ? When there is NOTHING out there to interact with except space?

In the city court there is only one suspect: > space it self.
Cow logic simple that ONLY space is to suspect > judge.
And because this is so cow logic simple I believe the high court would refuse any appeal, for example because there is nothing else to blame. Nothing else as space it self has been at the crime scene...

The designers do not notice because that extra effect is like a fly on a cow compared to the power consumption of a color TV

Prove it….
But you problem would bee you cannot distinguish the MF created by the particle motion, - from the MF created by the electrical circuit.

Nothing can justify, that you can deny the simple logic, - popping up EVERYWHERE, - where fast motion happens, - unless you first at all can disprove the simple low IQ logic : - that space it self seems to be the ONLY one to blame, since there is nothing else to blame.... .

And my friends you all should know space IS strange....You also all know: - deformed space DO FOLLOW MATTER in motion. - How cow logic stupid can this really be ?

************************************************** **************
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Max Planck

 

[tusenfem]

So physicists are incompetent because they have not noticed this?

No, they just have not used cows they way they should.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Everything that increases its mass due to motion will create a MF in it's wake.

No. Only in your dreams. Bjarne, HALLOOOO, jorden kalder: du tager FEJL.

BUT when speed is low you can’t measure it, especially not when such MF interact for example with the Earths or the Suns MF.

Yes we could, if it existed. It doesn't.

You don’t know the cause of the sun’s MF or the cause of the huge MF of fast rotating magnetars , or the cause of MF deep inside the galaxy, we assumes to be there, - and plenty others.

YOU don't know. The rest of us know quite a bit.

You have according to the book no idea at all what a MF really is. (Except what it does> and superficial blab la bla)

We know as much about that a magnet field is as we know about anything else (including cows). However, knowing just what it does is quite enough to see that you are wrong.

The answer is short and simple; - matter in motion = space in motion = a MF, - doesn’t matter what so ever.

No.

How do you think a MF can move through space ? When there is NOTHING out there to interact with except space?

Photons, actually. However, where did you get the idea that a field can only move by interacting with something?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Yes we could, if it existed. It doesn't.

You cannot measure it, first when the Earth rotation speed, or motion speed would increase dramatically, I can guarantee you would be able to measure it.

YOU don't know. The rest of us know quite a bit.

Ohh come on dreamer , - Tell me about that “bit”.

Bjarne
How do you think a MF can move through space ? When there is NOTHING out there to interact with except space?
Hans
Photons, actually. However, where did you get the idea that a field can only move by interacting with something?

The point is that a MF can travel through space with the speed of light.
A MF IS NOTHING, because it IS space (in motion)
What else as space can a MF be ?