THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

[Bjarne]

Be we do have measurements. A century's worth of them, all confirming the predictions made by General Relativity.

Ands GR is far from or coherent or complete understanding of anything.

• Not why space curves
• Nor how matter and space is connected
• Not what causes black holes.

Yes we do, but you don't understand it.

Understanding is not the same as proves.
You can probaly easy understand how a cow can bear an elephant. But is not sure it reflects reality.

Einstein said his biggest blunder was introducing the cosmological term to his equations for GR in order to have a static universe (no expansion or contraction).

Because he did not believe in a flexible space.

Where is the funnel?

Everywhere

If you don't understand it just say so,don't make silly remarks that make you look even more foolish

It’s not a question of “understanding” GR.
All what we have is a fragment: > GR
This is far from being a complete picture, - It is only some superficial (curved) lines and a clumsy expression, and nothing more as that.
You have almost nothing.

Begin to at least try to understand: how does the matter – space connection works.
Unless doing that, all you really have is like a cow on the top on the iceberg, that in fact does not know what an iceberg really is except a cold curved clumsy something without grass.

 

[steenkh]

But not everything "falling" into a gravitational field goes into orbit.

Material that is aimed directly at a dormant black hole without any accretion disk would presumably not go into an orbit, but if the aim is just slightly off, it will go into orbit, mostly an unstable orbit.

That's the point when I claim that light possible can escape in the jet.

Once the material has reached the event horizon, there is no going back: nothing escapes from behind the event horizon.

If the motion direction of light is pointing to the bottom of the funnel, and it doesn't goes in orbit what do you think it would happen in the center with that light ?

It disappears behind the event horizon.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne
That's the point when I claim that light possible can escape in the jet.
Steenkh
Once the material has reached the event horizon, there is no going back: nothing escapes from behind the event horizon.

Sounds reasonable.

Now notice the point:
What would happen with that light that ends exactly in the centre of the black hole, amigo?


Here you can see how mad "science" has become.
I hope this is not what my children will "learn" (be brainwashed) with soon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW3OJOxB5Co

 

[steenkh]

What would happen with that light that ends exactly in the centre of the black hole, amigo?

It is absorbed.

 

[ArcturusA]

Ands GR is far from or coherent or complete understanding of anything.

GR is absolutely coherent. Again, just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean those with training don't.
No one will claim GR, in its current form, offers a complete understanding. But that doesn't mean its wrong, just that it needs more fine tuning.

Not why space curves

It's an intrinsic property of space that it curves in the presence of mass. Asking why is like asking why electrons have charge.

Your 'theory' has the exact same issue: why does matter drag along space?

Not what causes black holes.

You have to stop saying such nonsense if you want to be taken seriously.
Black holes were a prediction of GR - their formation, and properties outside of the event horizon are well understood. Their effect on matter and light are well understood.
Black holes are defined as objects which such a high mass density that they distort spacetime enough that nothing can escape once it crosses the event horizon. They are caused/created by collapse of high mass stars when nuclear fusion ends, and neither electron nor neutron degeneracy pressure can halt the collapse.

Understanding is not the same as proves.
You can probaly easy understand how a cow can bear an elephant. But is not sure it reflects reality.

What?
No one's claiming proof of GR. We are claiming overwhelming evidence in support of it. Proof is not possible in science.

Because he did not believe in a flexible space.

No, he did it because he expected that the universe was not expanding or contracting.

Everywhere

Then are you saying light from everywhere can escape the black hole?

It’s not a question of “understanding” GR.
All what we have is a fragment: > GR
This is far from being a complete picture, - It is only some superficial (curved) lines and a clumsy expression, and nothing more as that.
You have almost nothing.

Almost nothing?
You're crossing over into wilful ignorance or just deceit now, Bjarne.

Guess you can throw away that GPS, since GR is apparently rubbish.

Now notice the point:
What would happen with that light that ends exactly in the centre of the black hole, amigo?

If light crosses the event horizon, at any point and at any angle, it will invariably end at the exact centre of the black hole. No other fate is possible.

 

[Dancing David]

If you had read the post above you would have seen that I agree that light can be trapped, when it goes into orbit.

But not everything "falling" into a gravitational field goes into orbit.
That's the point when I claim that light possible can escape in the jet.
If the motion direction of light is pointing to the bottom of the funnel, and it doesn't goes in orbit what do you think it would happen in the center with that light ?
Cow C would be thrown out. And light ? - also thrown out I believe..

Nope, if Cow C falls in the event horizon, she will not come back out.

You are the one who asked the silly question about accretion idsks and can't seem to understand the jets are next to but not in the black hole.

Off course and the cows in you garden too.

No, no cows, lots of wild rabbits and the occasional possum but no cow.

 

[Reality Check]

Now notice the point:
What would happen with that light that ends exactly in the centre of the black hole, amigo?

Now notice the point, amigo.
It is really simple physics but well out of the understanding of Bjarne:

• Gravitational fields bend light, e.g.
  • The measured bending of light by the Sun.
  • Gravitation lensing.
• Light bends more as the strength of the gravitational field increases.
• Increase the strength of the gravitational field enough and light goes in a circle.
• Light that is travelling in a circle orbits the body producing the gravitational field and cannot escape.
• That is a black hole.
  This happens when heavy stars undergo gravitational collapse.

If you increase the strength of the gravitational field a little more then the light can no longer orbit. Any light that crosses the event horizon at any angle spirals down to the center of the black hole.

 

[Dancing David]

Sounds reasonable.

Now notice the point:
What would happen with that light that ends exactly in the centre of the black hole, amigo?


Here you can see how mad "science" has become.
I hope this is not what my children will "learn" (be brainwashed) with soon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW3OJOxB5Co

Um, the 'center of a black hole' is one area where most scientists will aknowledge that the model breaks down because we have not unified QM and GR. Moooo.

 

[Reality Check]

But not everything "falling" into a gravitational field goes into orbit.
...snip...

Other than your insanity of funnels that is almost right.
Not everything that falls into an gravitational field goes into orbit. For example

• Meteors that fall into the Earth's gravitational field often end up as meteorites.
• So long as an object does not cross the event horizon of a black hole it need not go into orbit, e.g. a spaceship can leave the vacinity of a black hole from points outside of the event horizon.

But everything that crosses the event horizon of a black hole will end up at the center of the black hole.

If you knew anything about black holes then you would know that.

 

[Bjarne]

It is absorbed.

But what when it not hits cow C or something else?
And what will happen with EMW when the space these move in also are moving inwards the black hole ?

It's an intrinsic property of space that it curves in the presence of mass. Asking why is like asking why electrons have charge.

We don’t know why and that’s in fact a huge problem when it come too truly understanding almost anything what has with gravity top do. The cow on the top of the iceberg can’t claim it knows what an iceberg is. It have only seen 2 % of it.

Your 'theory' has the exact same issue: why does matter drag along space?

Please read - http://www.science27.com/english/quantum_physics.html

You have to stop saying such nonsense if you want to be taken seriously.
Black holes were a prediction of GR - their formation, and properties outside of the event horizon are well understood. Their effect on matter and light are well understood.
Black holes are defined as objects which such a high mass density that they distort spacetime enough that nothing can escape once it crosses the event horizon. They are caused/created by collapse of high mass stars when nuclear fusion ends, and neither electron nor neutron degeneracy pressure can halt the collapse.

This would be true if matter doesn’t comes out of the black hole. (BH) . But the day you begins to understand the connection between magnetism and matter, you’ll see that a black hole MUST be a huge magnetic field.
And I can guarantee you that cow C know it was that force it was main responsible for throwing it out of the galaxy again.
In other words, it’s not that amount of mass in the hole as you believe, but rather a huge magnetic field. Predicting a black hole is like shooting in the mist. GR can’t even predict if we have one in the MW.

What?
No one's claiming proof of GR. We are claiming overwhelming evidence in support of it. Proof is not possible in science.

I am not talking about what we know, but rather what we don’t know, and what clearly is misunderstood.

• The way central gravity works is misunderstood.
• The way matter and space connect is not understood at all.
• The nature of curved space in not understood.

Hence our attempt to understand many phenomena’s is of mainly these 3 reasons doomed to fail.

Then are you saying light from everywhere can escape the black hole?

No I am saying that EMW that hits the bottom of the funnel will most likely escape, if not hitting matter and if not staying in orbit.
Furthermore I am speculating in what happen if that space where EMW orbits is sucked inwards to the funnel and thrown out of a galaxy.
I belive all EMW is thrown out again, via the jet.

Guess you can throw away that GPS, since GR is apparently rubbish.

I am not saying GR is “rubbish” but that we have most more to learn.
A obviously place to start is to ask: what if matter and space is connected like this or that, what would be the consequences?
How would the Universe then look like?
This is a innocent down to Earth thought that every serious scientist at least should use 10 minutes of their life to think about.
BUT there is probably not enough entertainment is such pretty cow logic & simple thought I believe.
I guess therefore we need a parallel universes and 11 dimensions, and a Universes that collides.

Honestly can’t you really not see the point : - I am crazy because my thought are on the farmer and cow logic level.
But “science” that now has started factories where madness is in batch production, they are genius

You are the one who asked the silly question about accretion idsks and can't seem to understand the jets are next to but not in the black hole.

This idea is build on desperations, - same like higgs, dark matter and this > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW3OJOxB5Co

Any light that crosses the event horizon at any angle spirals down to the centre of the black hole.

This is also what I thought, and I assume the bottom means bottom, which mean that at a certain point it is difficult to say it circles, or what do you think?
Anyway it will end up in the eyes of a “hurricane” – It will end in a huge magnetic field inside the BH and it will certainly be thrown out of the jet.

I claim as I do because I must.
All what I am really is saying is basically: that matter sucks space.
Hence it is a consequence that space must follow matter.
And this means that in the “eye” of a black hole there must be a huge magnetic field. MUST.

A magnetic field is space in motion.
It MUST suck space into the galaxy from one side and throw it out from another side..

All particles must hence be thrown out in space again, as well as EMW.

Please read this http://www.science27.com/english/magnetism.html

 

[Reality Check]

This would be true if matter doesn’t comes out of the black hole. (BH) . But the day you begins to understand the connection between magnetism and matter, you’ll see that a black hole MUST be a huge magnetic field.

That is a totally stupid idea.
Black holes have mass. Black holes do not have magnetic fields.

I am not saying GR is “rubbish” but that we have most more to learn.
A obviously place to start is to ask: what if matter and space is connected like this or that, what would be the consequences?
How would the Universe then look like?
This is a innocent down to Earth thought that every serious scientist at least should use 10 minutes of their life to think about.
BUT there is probably not enough entertainment is such pretty cow logic & simple thought I believe.
I guess therefore we need a parallel universes and 11 dimensions, and a Universes that collides.

Your universe does not exist. You are full of pretty cow logic & simplistic thought

Honestly can’t you really not see the point : - I am crazy because my thought are on the farmer and cow logic level.

You are crazy because you are spouting these ridiculous ideas and exposing yourself as totally ignorant of physics.

A magnetic field is space in motion.

Wrong. A magnetic field is a magnetic field.

It MUST suck space into the galaxy from one side and throw it out from another side..

It MUST NOT suck space into the galaxy from one side and throw it out from another side.

All particles must hence be thrown out in space again, as well as EMW.

Not from within a black holes event horizon.

 

[Reality Check]

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

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

1. "Bended space is Contracted Space"
   Curved space is not contracted space
   First Asked 11 November 2009
2. 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 !
3. 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's idea is proven wrong (acceleration due to gravity is constant inside a sphere).
     First asked 2 November 2009
4. Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
   First asked 26 November 2009
5. Can Bjarne understand that the force of gravity is not constant within a solid sphere?
   First asked 26 October 2009
6. Can Bjarne understand the physics behind orbital resonances?
   First asked 3 December 2009
   So far the answer is no !
7. Does Bjarne understand orbital mechanics?
   First asked 3 December 2009.
   So far the answer is no !
8. Can Bjarne understand that energy is not a force and cannot "equalize" a force?
   First asked 9 December 2009.
   
   
   
   
   You can expend energy to create a force to equalize a force as a hovering helicopter does. But the simple facts are:
   • Forces are vectors but energy is a number.
   • The SI units of force are Newtons but the SI units of energy is Joules.
9. Bjarne asks what a particle is!
10. His simplistic knowledge of physis is betrayed by his delusion that since the force of gravity varies as 1/r^2 (e.g. a factor of 4 when r doubles) then the "speed factor “should” hence have been factor 4 as well" (plust other silly previous posts).
    The Basics of Space Flight: Circular Orbital Motion shows clearly that the mean orbital speed of objects should vary that the inverse of the square root of r. The fact that objects actually act like this in the real universe shocks Bjarne!
11. More of Bjarne's ignorance of simple physics (circular motion).
12. Bjarne asks "( What is ”radian” ? – 1 orbit)"
13. Bjarne does not understand that gravitational time dialation has been measured and matches GR. It is not "guessing".
14. Bjarne's ignorance of GR
15. Bjarne's ignorance of the electromagnetic spectrum and geometry
16. Bjarne's delusion that black holes are a result of stretching space.
    (one post displaying so, so much ignorance !)
17. Bjarne's delusion that galactic jets are emitted from within black holes.
    (one post displaying so, so much ignorance !)

And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):

• Does Bjarne know that the Lorentz factor does not have any units of measurement?
  First asked 22 November 2009
• Does Bjarne think that the Lorentz factor is measured in kilograms?
  First asked 23 November 2009
• Why does relativistic mass have the units of mass
  First asked 23 November 2009

 

[Reality Check]

Please derive Maxwell's Laws from "space in motion"

Another crazy assertion from Bjarne

A magnetic field is space in motion.

First asked 14 January 2010
Bjarne,
Please derive Maxwell's Laws from "space in motion"

 

[steenkh]

Apparently a common bar magnet is in constant motion to explain its magnetic field!

 

[Reality Check]

Please read - http://www.science27.com/english/quantum_physics.html

Bjarne continues to display his ignorance:

• He is deluding in thinking that spinning particles contract space.
  No particles contract space.
  Curved space is not contracted space
  First Asked 11 November 2009
• He is silly enough to think that elementary particles have the shapes of 2 cones base-to-base.

Please read this http://www.science27.com/english/magnetism.html

Bjarne continues to display his ignorance:

• The mass of elementary particles curves space.
• Ferromagnetism.
• Electromagnetism.

Both web pages (in fact his entire web site) are just his pretty diagrams + vague descriptions = science delustion.
In fact pretty diagrams + vague descriptions = crank idea that has no applicaiton in the real universe.

The real idiocy is that Bjarne descibes spins classically.
The whole point of quantum mechanics is that this does not work since it does not describe the universe that we measure.

 

[steenkh]

The real idiocy is that Bjarne descibes spins classically.
The whole point of quantum mechanics is that this does not work since it does not describe the universe that we measure.

Science, schmience! You are just biased, and blinded by your faith in misguided authorities like Einstein. You cannot comprehend true cow-logic!

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
Please read - http://www.science27.com/english/quantum_physics.html


*snip*
Please read this http://www.science27.com/english/magnetism.html

I have reported this post because I would like a moderator decision on how often it is OK to spam your private web-page. Bjarne has kept posting links to his private page which only contains reiterations of the same unsupported speculations as the ones he posts here.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

No, no cows, lots of wild rabbits and the occasional possum but no cow.

Ok I mean rabbits.. Don’t shut them, they are so cute.

That is a totally stupid idea.

Only until you understand that there is more as GR to discover.

Black holes have mass. Black holes do not have magnetic fields.

Off course mass is spinning / orbiting to the bottom of the funnel, and that’s it, - from here its thrown out.
So yes a black hole has mass, BUT it also has a spinning magnetic field (MF). – The powerful MF is the most important, and means you doesn’t need so much mass.
Still the black hole can trap light, not because of it deforms due to the mass inside the hole, but because it mainly deforms because of the mass outside the hole.
Central gravity is misunderstood.
My middle name is Measurement, - not Believe.

You are crazy

Off course I am crazy, because I do not have the same fanatic believe as you.
But so long your fanatic brain washed religion don’t require that you must shut me I am very happy..

Wrong. A magnetic field is a magnetic field.

Exactly and a cow is a cow.
But the point is: what is the underlying cause of the magnetic field (and the cow).

It MUST NOT suck space into the galaxy from one side and throw it out from another side.

All that I claim is basically that: matter sucks (space) and matter (and cows) and this is why RC is still with us.
This simple claims change our Universe, to be simple, logical and coherent. But i understand that many brainwashed people must be angry, because this also means that they must have naive enough to let the system hypnotize them, and this can't off course not be true.

Bjarne
All particles must hence be thrown out in space again, as well as EMW.
RC
Not from within a black holes event horizon.

Now listen Amigo....
Stephen Hawking & the whole “fantastic” team believes that EMW can escape (to the Parallel Universe) they just have invented.
Many people also believe a cow can escape and come out in a other time.
Has the time-journey (religion) still not reached NZ ?

I too believe that a cow not only can escape a black hole but it is thrown out of a black hole.
Amigo, - the point is what happens when the funnel suck you through, capito?

Apparently a common bar magnet is in constant motion to explain its magnetic field

Yes it is, driven by disharmoniously interaction / particle spin.

Bjarne has kept posting links to his private page which only contains reiterations of the same unsupported speculations as the ones he posts here.

And this also just shows how intolerant people are (and always have been) . Its 100 years since I added a link to my site. Personal attach like "´cracy" (see above) is probaly OK. The cow logic is clear: If you can't hit the therory, then go for the man.
How sissyish

 

[MRC_Hans]

And this also just shows how intolerant people are (and always have been) . Its 100 years since I added a link to my site. Personal attach like "´cracy" (see above) is probaly OK. The cow logic is clear: If you can't hit the therory, then go for the man.
How sissyish

Not at all. I simply want to know what the forum rules allow.

You have no theory to hit.

Hans

 

[steenkh]

My middle name is Measurement, - not Believe.

Then you should live up to your middle name instead of persisting with your crazy beliefs.