Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[dafydd]

Don't you mean cow data?

I can combine concrete and cows.Here the the famous concrete cows of Milton Keynes in conference about Dark Energy.

 

[Dr. Trintignant]

The force of gravity at the event horizon is not enough to pull matter apart. An astronaut in a spacecraft orbiting just outside the event horzion is Ok. It is not until thay are well within the event horizon that tidal forces start to tear them apart.

That's not true in general (of course, everything that Bjarne says is still nonsense). A small black hole will rip you apart through tidal forces well before you get to the event horizon. In fact, a neutron star is likely to be sufficient here. But with a large enough black hole, you could pass well through the event horizon without feeling significant tidal forces.

- Dr. Trintignant

 

[Reality Check]

Energy comes out of the jet, and you don’t know if this also affects the ”black” hole, since you can’t see it..

Still wrong.
Energy is not a object so it cannot come out of anything. The jet comes out of the accrual disk. The particles that the jet consists of have energy.

Amen...

Measured...

We cannot use measurements at the top due to too much noise; we are measuring in the bottom.

Then your experiment is really, really useless because you have no idea what the results will be.

...snipped gibberish...
Just forget all this for a while; it is not possible to use measurements at the top because of noise. – Therefore this part is irrelevant now.

We will ONLY use measurements from the bottom, first when the container all was empty and again when 1 some or all is full.

As I said you are just pulling the numbers out of your pet cow's bottom:

1. You cannot tell us how you got the first number ("Based on the prevailing thesis we should be able to measure 267μGal at the roof so soon one container is full ( I believe).").
2. You first stated that the number you expected was 67 μGal, i.e. 25% of 267 μGal.
3. You seemed to have changed you mind and now mentions 50% (133.5 μGal).
4. There is a good chance that you will pull another number out of thin air before the experiment.
5. There is a small chance that as soon as you have the results you will pull another number out of thin air to make the experiment fit your delusion.

What is your prediction for the ADG at the bottom of the silo?
Show your working for both the prevailing theory and your theory. This is what high school studens are taught to do in science classes. They get no marks for guessing.
You need to address all of the cases:

• The silo is empty - plug the four silo weights and distances into the equations for the ADG from the 4 silos.
• The silo is full - plug the silo weights + the weight of the 1 solo contents and distances into the equations for the ADG from the 4 silos.
• All of the silos are full - plug the silo + contents weights and distances into the equations for the ADG from the 4 silos.

This assumes that you have some reason for the last measurement.
The simpler experiment would be:

1. Measure the ADG at the bottom of 1 silo with all of the silos empty.
2. Measure the ADG at exactly the same position when that silo is full.
3. Subtract the 2 to get the ADG from that silo alone at that position at the bottom.
4. Compare the result to your arbitary number pulled out of your pet cows's bottom.
5. If the numbers do not agree exacly then shoot your pet cow .

I expect that you are wasting your money and time.
You have calculated the ADG according to some unknown "prevailing theory" (probably Newtons law of gravity but who knows?), using some unknown model to gate a number. You have then multiplied that number of an arbitary number. So you will probably have

• A wrong value of Newtonian ADG
  The silo is a cylinder. Yoiu probably used the equation for a sphere. Thus your result is wrong.
• Multiplied by an arbitary wrong value
• To give an arbitary wrong value of ADG.

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

 

[Reality Check]

I did not notice this:

To calculate the expected pull towards the expected gravitational center a special equation shall be used, due to the angel to the center.
I am waiting for that.

So it looks like you are incapable of calculating the ADG and so someone else is doing it for you.
The "special equation" will possibly be based on the well known gravitational field from a cylinder as derived in this PDF. But generalized for a point not on the cylinder axis.
You will then multiply the number by your pet cows number to get an nonsense number with is unlikely to match the experimental results.

A thought:
What is the ADG at the Earth's surface according to your theory?
If it is not 9.8 m/s multiplied by your pet cows number then why not?

 

[Aitch]

Space can escape; this is what matter really is >> contracted space, - which mean if the Milkyway would expand a tiny little bit, it is just because the lunch of its black hole is over, for today...

Good grief! I predicted(?) that idea in post #1295. I must be psychic - can I have my $1M in used notes, please?

 

[MRC_Hans]

It can be inside as well
I believe it is.
Think about what can cause such a fast moving jet.

Beginning to sound like Kumar.

Just fyi: Nobody givas a hoot about what you believe, Bjarne.

Hans

 

[The Man]

Good grief! I predicted(?) that idea in post #1295. I must be psychic -

Or just thinking like Bjarne!!!!

Congratulations, your cows have come home.

can I have my $1M in used notes, please?

Nope, sorry, just in used and patently abused cows.

 

[Aitch]

Or just thinking like Bjarne!!!!

It's a gift! Can I exchange it for something useful?

 

[MRC_Hans]

--

The Mystery of the Photons Energy Stability, - in Spacetime.​

Bjarne, cut out the large fiery letters! It is the sign of idiots, and you don't exactly need that.

• What happens to the lost of photon energy when a photons moves away from e.g.; the Sun?
• How can a photon gain energy, for example when it is approaching the Earth?
• Where does gained energy comes from?

Basically the same place as if it was a rock. Gravity interaction transfers energy between moving objects. So in your example, the energy goes to the Sun and comes from the Earth.

These questions can’t be answered in a logical or satisfied way, - , and is in fact a serious logical problem.

Not at all.

Also in this case photon energy “seems” to had disappear out in nowhere.

This shows that something is fundamentally wrong with our understanding, - but what.?

I can tell you exactly what is wrong. First of all it is only your understanding that is lacking. Nobody else has a problem.

As to what is wrong, I have a hint for you: Stop consulting the cows about physics. They really don't have a clue.

We have often heard that energy cannot disappear. But this is (according to the prevailing understanding) what must happen to photons traveling through the expanding universe, or in space-time (away from a gravitational field).

No, it is just transferred somewhere else. It does not disappear.

But, do read up on thermodynamics, you really need it.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Deleted
Hans

 

[The Man]

It's a gift! Can I exchange it for something useful?

Perhaps a cow pie. If it has dried out enough, but not too much, it could be useful as a Frisbee or, if still just a bit too moist, in a PETA protest?

 

[Bjarne]

With regard to cosmological redshift, I think you can get by fairly well using special relativity, up until the large scale structure of spacetime becomes important.

No this speed (SR) have nothing to do with cosmological redshift, but only time and distance deviation

With regard to gravitational redshift, you're going to need some general relativity. That means you're going to have to deal with differentiable 4-manifolds with Lorentz metrics, and you're going to have to learn about the notion of intrinsic curvature on those manifolds. Until then, you literally would not know what you're talking about.

Right
I am not sure how the prevailing understanding is regarding photons lost or gain of energy when it comes to gravitational redshift (or cosmological redshift= I can see hans have a nuts empty bid on that below).

Anyway the true explanation of what really happen in both cases is the same (gravitational redshift and cosmological redshift).

You claim that matter is contracted space, but when you have a lot of matter which is the essence of a black hole, then space does not contract, but "escapes" (whatever that means)

Imaging the gravity funnel. The matter surrounding that is causing the inwards pull.
You do not need matter inside it, but only to understand the nature of gravity / space.
http://multimedia.jp.dk/archive/00068/sorthul1500_68932e.jpg

Bjarne
We cannot use measurements at the top due to too much noise; we are measuring in the bottom.
RC
Then your experiment is really, really useless because you have no idea what the results will be.

This really really really once again demonstrate you have not the slightest idea of what you talk about.
This was stupidity number 238913246124 on my list.

I know a available cow that can teach you, is that something for you ?

You seemed to have changed you mind and now mentions 50%

Yes because the earth is blocking for 50% of the access to space.

The rest of your silo-question-worries I really suggest Caroline cow can take care, - she is normally educating children between 7 and 10 years, but now she is not so busy now.
You know she have the ability to learn you all this silo gravity from the scratch.
I suspect Paulhoff for already to take lesson from her, because he is not so stupid. Maybe Paulhoof can teach you, if you cannot communicate with Caroline.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6207613&postcount=1572

 

[Bjarne]

The Mystery of the Photons Energy Stability, - in Space-time.
Continued..............​

Bjarne, cut out the large fiery letters! It is the sign of idiots, and you don't exactly need that.

No it is the sign of concentration, and only looks idiotic until you understand it.

Bjarne

• What happens to the lost of photon energy when a photons moves away from e.g.; the Sun?
• How can a photon gain energy, for example when it is approaching the Earth?
• Where does gained energy comes from?

Basically the same place as if it was a rock.

Hans
Gravity interaction transfers energy between moving objects.
So in your example, the energy goes to the Sun and comes from the Earth.

Completely crap, there are no mass attractions on particles without mass.

Bjarne
We have often heard that energy cannot disappear. But this is (according to the prevailing understanding) what must happen to photons traveling through the expanding universe, or in space-time (away from a gravitational field).
Hans
No, it is just transferred somewhere else. It does not disappear.

Tell me about that "something"

Let me try to make it more simple and clear.

Let's say; Observer "A" live in a space time ticking double so fast as for observer "B"

In on second Observer "A" counts 5 Hz in a photon.
Observer "B" counts 10 Hz per second in another photon..

If Observer "A" also could see the photon in Observer "B's" space-time, he would counts the frequency duration to 2 seconds, but the photons frequency in his own space-time would only last 1 second. Hence Observer A would conclude both photons had the same energy.

Observer "B" would also agree that also the photon in Observer "A" space-time had the same energy than the one in Observer "B's" space-time", although the duration of the photon in observer "A's" space-time only would appear to last ½ second.

Based on Planck's constant we would hence easy conclude that both photons always had the same energy (per second), - even though the frequencies (and time) are different.

This mean if time is double so fast, by observer "A", - a photon here, (by observer "B") with the double numbers of frequencies, (and double "stretch" of time) will have the same energy as a photon with the half number of frequencies in Observer "A's" reality.

Therefore time (space-time) is decisive for that photons with difference frequencies are absorbed in different space-time..

Now imaging that both observer measure 1 meter between each wavelength.
But when Observer "B" would use his meter stick to measure the wavelength of the photon in Observer "A's" space-time, he would only measure the half distance (2.5 meter, not 5 meter) - (if we assume the Universe was only half the size in Observer "A's" space-time).

Now imaging that this photon (from Observer "A's" space-time) would move in the universe 1 billion years, until we (Observer "B") would measure it - In that billion years the Universe have expanded to the double size, and so have the photons wavelength, now is the distance between of the total wavelength suddenly 5 meter.

But time is no longer the same as when the photons energy was measured by Observer "A" , - In the billion year the journey have taken, time has also "stretched" to the double "size", - and this mean the photon measured in the "new time", (by Observer "B") "suddenly" only have the half energy.

THIS is how to understand cosmological redshift.

• Photons do NEVER lose energy.
• Photons do NEVER gain energy.

Time and distance are changing proportional with anything else.

THIS was the secret of cosmological redshift.

Photon absorptions specter are "time stamps" send from different space-time.

Photons do not "carry time", - they are measured in time, or absorbed in time.

THIS is a consequence of uniting stretched space (the curvature of space) (GR) with the expanding nature of the expanding Uiniverse.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes because the earth is blocking for 50% of the access to space.

No: You have a fantasy that the earth "blocks access to space". You then pull the number 50% out of your pet cow's bottom. Why does

the earth not "blocks access to space" 100%? What about

• 99%
• 80%
• 50.000001%
• 49.999999%
• 40%
• 20%
• 0.01%
• or some other random number from your pet cow?

The simple fact is that force of gravity cannot be blocked., e.g. when the Moon is on one side of the Earth, it's pull is not blocked by any % by the Earth at a point on the other side of the Earth

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

 

[Bjarne]

No: You have a fantasy that the earth "blocks access to space". You then pull the number 50% out of your pet cow's bottom. Why does

the earth not "blocks access to space" 100%? What about

• 99%
• 80%
• 50.000001%
• 49.999999%
• 40%
• 20%
• 0.01%
• or some other random number from your pet cow?

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

So far I understand it have not with the size of the surface to, but due to that the gravitionel center is at ground level, - the Earth participate in the process.

I am too lazy to dig deeper into this now, Measurement shall show, -so far the conclusion is always +50% - also even though it is correct it sound a little strange (now).

A bit difficult to put word on what I mean.
But in the case shown above you'll understand in this case it is 50 %

The simple fact is that force of gravity cannot be blocked., e.g. when the Moon is on one side of the Earth, it's pull is not blocked by any % by the Earth at a point on the other side of the Earth

When the Moon was on the Earth, it should pull all its space it needs from "one" direction, I hope this will remove som clouds for you.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Could I suggest we stop feeding this puppy till such time as he submits something new, apart from of ever more bizarro fabulations? I think that even as slo-mo trainwrecks go, this one is getting tedious.

Bjarne, get some data, and in the meantime, read up on ... well maybe start with primary school physics.

Hans

 

[Paulhoff]

Could I suggest we stop feeding this puppy till such time as he submits something new, apart from of ever more bizarro fabulations? I think that even as slo-mo trainwrecks go, this one is getting tedious.

Bjarne, get some data, and in the meantime, read up on ... well maybe start with primary school physics.

Hans

I would suggest not posting anything at all on this thread, this is my last post on it and I will stop the email from this thread.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

Could I suggest we stop feeding this puppy till such time as he submits something new, apart from of ever more bizarro fabulations? I think that even as slo-mo trainwrecks go, this one is getting tedious.

Bjarne, get some data, and in the meantime, read up on ... well maybe start with primary school physics.

Hans

Data will come, take it easy.

In the meantime try to digest this load:

A year ago I wrote about how gravity was involved in tornadoes and hurricanes.
BUT impossible to prove, since the effect is so relative weak.

http://www.science27.com/english/tornadoes.html
http://www.science27.com/english/hurricanes.html

One week ago I discocered >> these "hole in the sky" ....( that confirms it seems I was right conserning that gravity also is invloved in creating tornadoes and hurricanes)

First at all, yes it is hard to believe that gravity also is involved in the "holes in clouds" you can see below..

But big clouds are "heavy" extended masses, and gravity is without doubt involved, - the question is just how much .

Let the impression hang in the air some few days, and after just a little speculation, many of you will see how simple and natural it is that gravity does play a role in these - hole in the sky - "mysteries" too.

Many people believe UFO's are involved - because science can't give a complete explanation - so far.

the answer is much more down to earth simple. > central gravity.

Also this is a little hint of what we can expect in central gravity measurement experiments (and in black holes)

http://www.science27.com/images/Holeinthesky.jpg
[

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 4.

Gravity also plays a role when small low pressures are created.

Many places in the world "hole in the sky" have been observer. The prevailing theory is; - those heavy ice crystals are falling down into the hole, - this part is probably correct.

But the heavy ice crystals are not created by airplanes (if so the hole would not be round), these are also not created by sky's in higher altitude, (this can not explain the round shape and the relative small size).

The reel cause is slow upwards rotating air moving both upwards and towards the gravitional centre of small weak low pressures, (most often towards a the centre of a big cloud) and at the same time (natually) rotating upwards.

When slowly moving upwards air (in the centre of small low pressure) rise, the vapour (as the upwards rotating wind carries) crystallizes, and fall down (after a while), - the same way it came from (in the centre of the hole).

The size of a low pressure determinate how strong role gravity plays.

Gravity plays a weak but important role.

More holes in the clouds:
http://weathervortex.com/sky-holes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XvBYBOFKaM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXF9HSB627U&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91DngoT5Hi8&feature=related

 

[Paul]

I see Bjarne applies the same rigorous standards to meteorology as he does to physics.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped more gibberish and pretty pictures from Bjarne...

which only leaves:

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