Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Your thumb will be pulled and you might feel it - Newtons laws

Click to expand...

Let say it was a strong thumb, - the force from the stone would challenge the EM force in you arm and muscles and after short time the thump would be pulled.
Because of the resistance the muscles would be warm, so would the hole of your body, and you thumb would be damn tired, because of the force and energy affecting it.
Even a thumb of steel would be tight and sooner or later being pulled. Simply because the force / energy of the stone MUST challenge the EM force either of your arm and body or of the steel arm and thumb.
It makes no difference, energy would affect and be transferred to the thump, doesn’t matter what it was made of – exactly in the same way two bulls moving in opposite direction (with a robe between) would challenge each others force & energy, - such force MUST be supplies with grass / energy.
So we have maintained the cow logic mutual energy/force in this illustration. (I at least hope) .



1.
If you want to stop a moving object, you must use the same amount of KE as represented by the moving object.

2.
If you want the objects to move in the opposite direction you must once again use the same amount of KE.

It doesn’t matter how long time this process takes, you can’t in no way get any discount.

The fact that the object not “stops” before it change direction, doesn’t matter.
Still the energy it requires to get an object to moves in a completely opposite direction require 2 * times the KE of the moving object.

When completing 1 orbit the motion direction has completely changed 2 times.
Since a 180 degree change of motion direction require 2*KE – two times 180 degree (total 360 degree) change of motion off course require 4*KE.

All what’s differs from the process (mentioned in point 1 and 2 above) is TIME.
Because you can decide the time by choosing the size of the orbit, - you can chose how fast you want to deliver the energy to completely change the motion direction opposite, - 2 times.

But you can in NO WAY change the fact that you need 4 * KE relative to the speed of the object in orbit to change its motion direction completely – 2 times. T H I S - I S - F A C T.

And this is a consequence of the law of inertia that even a 2 years old bull wouldn’t deny.

So comrades just keeping ignoring simple fact, all what you do is fooling you self.. – not me, and not a single bull.
Bulls are must more intelligent like us; they begin to understand this simple law of nature already before the leave mother cows teats.

I believe that bull and cows and bulls could be very good astronomers, they simply allready have it all in their blood.

For the others here that can think.

Click to expand...

HA HA HA, what a joke…



Unless getting this simple law of inertia completely under your brain scalp, and skin, it has no sense continuing this part further out in space.

I mean if elementary logic is denied, this will lead nowhere.



So better let us stay here on Earth and be happy that we are here with the must intelligent creature of the Universe
(BUT let me know when someone should get the idea to accept the law of inertia, so that we can continue. )

If not I then better use my time learning more from the bulls, instead of wasting more time here.
----

You have gone from cows to thumbs and now bulls. One of these days you are going to have to actually think and leran about the physics of the Moon, planets, Sun and other things that do not go moo!

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

Bjarne said:

When completing 1 orbit the motion direction has completely changed 2 times.
Since a 180 degree change of motion direction require 2*KE – two times 180 degree (total 360 degree) change of motion off course require 4*KE.

Click to expand...

And there is your ignorance of what is going on yet again:
For a body in an orvit:

• The gravitational force is perpendicular to the direction of travel.
• There is no change in speed of the object. Its velocity does change continuously.
• Its speed does not change and so its kinetic energy is does not change.

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

The example with an 85 kg stone circling around me and the figure that accompanies it, is totally WRONG!!!

Suppose it was me, slightly over 85 kg then the stone would not just rotate around my thumb if it were set in motion. Because of the (almost) equal masses the two bodies, the stone and myself, would rotate around some central point, unless I have something to hold on to, which I will not have in outer space. Basic physics, Bjarne. If you come up with an example, then please give a correct one.

Apart from that, I can just have my arm pulled straight and not exert any strength with my muscles and then ...... hey no heating!

Bjarne said:

The fact that the object not “stops” before it change direction, doesn’t matter.
Still the energy it requires to get an object to moves in a completely opposite direction require 2 * times the KE of the moving object.

Click to expand...

Well there's your problem.

You're confusing kinetic energy and momentum.

Kinetic energy is a scalar quantity, which means it is independent of direction. So a 1 kg object travelling left at 1m/s has the same KE as if it were travelling right at 1 m/s.
In a circular orbit, speed (a scalar) doesn't change, so the KE is constant.

Momentum is a vector quantity, which means it has both magnitude and direction. Using the same example above, the momenta would be 1 kgm/s and -1 kgm/s to the left.
In a circular orbit, velocity (a vector) does change continuously, so the momentum does too. In an orbit, it will completely reverse direction twice, as you're saying for the KE. Gravity as a centripetal force provides the acceleration for that reversal to happen, without loss of energy.

RC WROTE
Your thumb will be pulled and you might feel it - Newtons laws

Click to expand...

----To pull of your thump requires energy, which mean the next quote is a lie >>> :

ArcturusA
There is no energy cost to keep an object in orbit

Click to expand...

• We don’t know what resistance against motion in the acceleration phase really is
• We don’t know the cause of it
• We don’t know why it create mass
• We don’t know if this mass is real and if it is real energy, or only fourth dimension bla blab la
• We don’t know how excactly mass effect space
• We don’t know how mass and space is connected.
• We don’t know how to calculate that “negative” speed due to resistance agianst motion (and don’t like if anyone tries)

BUT we BELIVE that that resistance against motion suddenly disappear out in the big blue (when constant speed is reached) , EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO REASON AT ALL TO BELIEVE SO.

They call it physics

What about to call it what it is - religion



AMEN

Continuing your crackpot formating:

Bjarne said:

--

RC WROTE
Your thumb will be pulled and you might feel it - Newtons laws

Click to expand...

--To pull of your thump requires energy, which mean the next quote is a lie >>> :

Click to expand...

RC WROTE
Your thumb will be pulled and you might feel it - Newtons laws.
Gravity goes both ways. The rock pulls on your thumb. Your thumb pulls on the rock.
To pull of your thump requires force, which mean the next quote is the physcial truth >>> : "There is no energy cost to keep an object in orbit"

They call this physics - you know the thing you know nothing about.

What about to call your constant and ignorant delusion - religion



AMEN

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

ArcturusA said:

Well there's your problem.

You're confusing kinetic energy and momentum.

Kinetic energy is a scalar quantity, which means it is independent of direction. So a 1 kg object travelling left at 1m/s has the same KE as if it were travelling right at 1 m/s.
In a circular orbit, speed (a scalar) doesn't change, so the KE is constant.

Momentum is a vector quantity, which means it has both magnitude and direction. Using the same example above, the momenta would be 1 kgm/s and -1 kgm/s to the left.
In a circular orbit, velocity (a vector) does change continuously, so the momentum does too. In an orbit, it will completely reverse direction twice, as you're saying for the KE. Gravity as a centripetal force provides the acceleration for that reversal to happen, without loss of energy.

Click to expand...

ArcturusA, do not expect Bjarne to understand the difference between a scalar quantity and a vector quantity.

His continued, willful ignorance of physics and mathematics is well documented in this post The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads!
The displayed inability to learn which is a trademark of crackpots is also obvious in his repeating the same fantasy over and over again.

I wonder is he is aware that anyone who comes across his web site will be stunned by the basic mistakes it contains, e.g.
Perhaps he hopes that his family and friends either do not have access to the Internet or are as ignorant as him of the basics of physics. He certainly does not realize that the web site and this forum will be around for many years documenting his ignorance of physics.

Gravity goes both ways. The rock pulls on your thumb. Your thumb pulls on the rock.

Click to expand...

CRAP
The thump could be a dead cow
It can't pull anything
So only the rock pulls my dear.

To pull of your thump requires force, which mean the next quote is the physcial truth >>> : "There is no energy cost to keep an object in orbit"

Click to expand...

CRAP
To pull of that finger requires force + energy
Someone have to pay
And the Big Nothing doesn't

ArcturusA said:

Well there's your problem.

You're confusing kinetic energy and momentum.

Kinetic energy is a scalar quantity, which means it is independent of direction. So a 1 kg object travelling left at 1m/s has the same KE as if it were travelling right at 1 m/s.
In a circular orbit, speed (a scalar) doesn't change, so the KE is constant.

Momentum is a vector quantity, which means it has both magnitude and direction. Using the same example above, the momenta would be 1 kgm/s and -1 kgm/s to the left.
In a circular orbit, velocity (a vector) does change continuously, so the momentum does too. In an orbit, it will completely reverse direction twice, as you're saying for the KE. Gravity as a centripetal force provides the acceleration for that reversal to happen, without loss of energy.

Click to expand...

And the conservation of momentum is most easily seen by considering two objects of equal mass in circular orbits about each other.

Do you think that a dead cow has no mass and so no gravity

Bjarne said:

CRAP
The thump could be a dead cow
It can't pull anything
So only the rock pulls my dear.

Click to expand...

CRAP
A dead cow has mass and so has gravity.
A thumb has mass and so has gravity.

Or is this another bit of ignorance:
First asked 26 May 2010
Bjarne,
Do you think that a dead cow has no mass and so no gravity?

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

Bjarne said:

CRAP
To pull of that finger requires force + energy
Someone have to pay
And the Big Nothing doesn't

Click to expand...

CRAP
To pull of that finger (actually thumb) requires force. A pull is a force !
No energy is needed to produce a gravitational force. It is a consequence of the curving of space-time by mass.

No one has to pay - that is your confusion with electric bills showing up again. And since there is no bill to pay your Big Nothing thingy does not pay it.

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

To pull of your thump requires force, which mean the next quote is the physcial truth >>> : "There is no energy cost to keep an object in orbit"

Click to expand...

Crap
5 minutes ago I meet a angry dog
No force without energy was the clear massage

If the dog would had bid me I would have feel the force of its teeths
But the dog would have lost more energy.




So dogsh..t simple

Is it REALLY so difficult to understand ?

PS
The wall was not pulling in the dog, and did not give the dog more energy.
But the dog challenged the EM force in the damn wall and MUST have transferred energy to that damn wall.

Bjarne said:

Is it REALLY so difficult to understand ?

Click to expand...

No, but you're still here so you seem to be having difficulty at least.

I'm sure we've told you this before, but if a force does not move it does no work and therefore transfers no energy.
If the dog doesn't stretch its lead, then it doesn't gain energy, no matter how hard it pulls.

That defines energy. If you don't believe that, then you're not talking about energy at all.

ArcturusA said:

No, but you're still here so you seem to be having difficulty at least.

I'm sure we've told you this before, but if a force does not move it does no work and therefore transfers no energy.
If the dog doesn't stretch its lead, then it doesn't gain energy, no matter how hard it pulls.

That defines energy. If you don't believe that, then you're not talking about energy at all.

Click to expand...

• It is a fact that the dog use / lose energy, doesn’t matter what happens inside the wall
• That energy doesn’t disappear
• Some of the energy goes to the asphalt etc...
• If the dog pulls a stone the stone gains energy
• When the Moon pulls the Earth rotation, the Earth gains energy
• A tied dog trying to escape (an orbit) is losing energy
• A tied bull that tries to escape (an orbit) is losing energy.
• A Moon tied to the Earth is losing energy, - the Earth gain that energy and that explain a.) Inner heat 2b) rotation
  
• How difficult can it be to realize that resistance against motion also applies for constant speed. ?

Bjarne said:

Is it REALLY so difficult to understand ?

Click to expand...

It seems to be difficult for you to understand that what fails here is your analogy, not our understanding. There is no energy lost in a gravitational orbit.

In a couple of other threads in which contemporary physics is a central player (or not), several JREF members concluded that the one posting what seemed to them to be wrong, incomprehensible, or nonsense (or some combination thereof) may, in fact, have simply been using several key terms from standard physics textbooks in highly idiosyncratic ways.

For example, IIRC, a prolific JREF member kept using the term "cathode" to refer to an element in an electrical circuit which emits both positively and negatively charged particles, in equal numbers*. Such a thing clearly is not a cathode^WP in the standard, textbook sense.

In response to this persistent, and evident, mis-communication (you cannot have a meaningful dialogue if the parties use key terms to mean different things, especially when the party being idiosyncratic does not make any effort to clarify their intended meaning!), one JREF member started to make a list of words or short phrases that seemed to be used with meanings known only just one other JREF member, starting with standard, textbook physics terms.

Perhaps it would help if such a list begun to be compiled in this thread too?

For example, it seems to me, based on admittedly limited reading of this thread, that the following are terms that Bjarne uses in an idiosyncratic way (and does not, it seems, provide clear definitions of his intended meaning):

-> energy
-> kinetic energy
-> force

One thing which follows from this (if it is, indeed, what's happening) is that this thread will go on, and on, and on, with Bjarne talking past everyone else, and no meaningful dialogue will ever take place (except, of course, among everyone else).

So, Bjarne, why not take the time and effort to state, as clearly and completely, exactly what you mean when use terms like energy and force?

* or some such; I don't claim to have understood what MM meant. However, the "cathode" in question sits in a fully ionised plasma whose density would make it pretty good vacuum in a lab here on Earth

DeiRenDopa said:

So, Bjarne, why not take the time and effort to state, as clearly and completely, exactly what you mean when use terms like energy and force?

Click to expand...

We already tried to make Bjarne explain long ago what he meant by space being stretched. He could not come up with a definition that made sense; he just heaped more words on top of it. Bjarne has no strict definition of any of his terms: he thrives on picking up some physics concept, molding it in his own fantasy, and presenting it in a completely garbled way.

steenkh said:

We already tried to make Bjarne explain long ago what he meant by space being stretched. He could not come up with a definition that made sense; he just heaped more words on top of it. Bjarne has no strict definition of any of his terms: he thrives on picking up some physics concept, molding it in his own fantasy, and presenting it in a completely garbled way.

Click to expand...

I kinda suspected that might be the case.

If so, then perhaps another type of response, also used in the threads I indirectly referenced, might be, um, interesting.

Take a piece of Bjarne text containing an undefined (or highly idiosyncratic) term, and replace with a semantically equivalent text. Then ask for clarification.

For example: "Some of the energy goes to the asphalt etc..." becomes "Some of the !@!#$$ goes to the asphalt etc...",

and so: "Bjarne, I do not know what you mean by !@!#$$, could you clarify please? Otherwise your sentence is meaningless (to me at least, and I suspect to everyone else reading it too)."