Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alex Cured said:
this thread definitely seems to be slowing down ... real evidence for RR at last?
Click to expand...
RR is Bjarne's personal fantasy based on his ignorance of science.

It starts with him making up an equation that is obviously wrong (860 days and the answer to Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) is still no :jaw-dropp!).
He then confirmed this idiocy on 22nd February 2012 by arbitarily inserting the wrong (:eek:) units into an equation!

The "predictions" from his RR fantasy rules out RR from existing.
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, in the time this thread's been running couldn't you have taught yourself programming ... I mean, you've obviously got the astrophysics bit sorted ...
 
Last edited:
I say, steady on there, you should a least warn a chap if you are going to do that sort of thing.


Still, a valid point robustly made.
 
Alex Cured said:
Bjarne, in the time this thread's been running couldn't you have taught yourself programming ... I mean, you've obviously got the astrophysics bit sorted ...
Click to expand...

I have only 4 brain cells left
2 of them are still hardly damage of mass brainwash, and mass hypnotize.
Mother cow is too clumsy, she admit she cannot do the job.
So what, we have to save few humans first.
What about you, do you want to be saved?

I just don't get the dark energy connection...
Click to expand...
The main thread is that matter absorbs space.
Space-density is stretching towards where it is "lost" which mean towards matter.
In the moment matter release that absorbed space density, or most of it, -is released, - the tension on space will get back to a tension free state.

Even though this is only abstract thinking, it solve the problem how gravity can be both a force (for example ask you self why a cow attract you) and also how it at the same time curves.

RR leads to a Big Crunch, it MUST do so.
In that process the most stars are ripped apart ( I wrote before all stars would explode, but young stars do have too weak surface gravity and is therefore ripped apart, so I change my mind)

Only dying collapsing stars with strong surface gravity, will survey extreme speed/extreme gravity, - and last longer, these stars will explode.
Due to the extreme increasing gravity in the period of a Big crunch, and also due to the extreme energy (kinetic energy) – the explosion will be MUCH stronger as "nowadays" supernovas.

My friend the sky if full of this evidence, all you need is only to look up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQHuF3BGZzw

I think most likely during a big crunch gas and stars are dragged much faster into the black holes of galaxies.
What all happen in a Big Crunch can even be above mother cow’s imagination.

But no doubt that the real BigBang was a lot different as thought and the cause was a Big Crunch.

It will happen again and again in endless circles.

Also try this http://www.science27.com/english/abstract.html

cowstamp.jpg
 
Last edited:
Alex Cured said:
I s'pose the only way I can relate the idea is to say that even if the observations are wrong and the universe is closed, it still doesn't require RR to lead to a Big Crunch
Click to expand...
Right it all depend on which model you prefer.
 
Bjarne said:
Programming the orbit of the moon, to prove RR

http://www.science27.com/english/IrregularMoonsNew.html
Click to expand...

Looking at the page you supplied, the first formula you give is
selection020.jpg


http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=orbital+time+moon gives 2.3606×10^6 seconds so 1,209,600 is approx. half of this.
If this number is the number of seconds in 1/2 an orbit why are you further dividing by 2?
It seems like this calculation is actually producing a 1/4 of something?

(And why would you calculate the deceleration for 1/2 an orbit anyway?)

The bigger problem is using the Lorenz transformation. My reading of this is that it's basically a mapping function from time dilation between one frame of reference to another.

But even if you can use it here, the velocity you're using is the lunar average orbital speed of the Earth (you have 1000 m/s - wolfram gives it as 1020 m/s - http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=orbital+velocity+of+the+moon), but the Earth+Moon are orbiting the Sun and the Sun is orbiting the galaxy etc, so even if you can use the Lorenz xform this way, the number you're feeding it seems wrong)
 
Alex Cured said:
Looking at the page you supplied, the first formula you give is
[qimg]http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/6506/selection020.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=orbital+time+moon gives 2.3606×10^6 seconds so 1,209,600 is approx. half of this.
If this number is the number of seconds in 1/2 an orbit why are you further dividing by 2?
It seems like this calculation is actually producing a 1/4 of something?

(And why would you calculate the deceleration for 1/2 an orbit anyway?)

The bigger problem is using the Lorenz transformation. My reading of this is that it's basically a mapping function from time dilation between one frame of reference to another.

But even if you can use it here, the velocity you're using is the lunar average orbital speed of the Earth (you have 1000 m/s - wolfram gives it as 1020 m/s - http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=orbital+velocity+of+the+moon), but the Earth+Moon are orbiting the Sun and the Sun is orbiting the galaxy etc, so even if you can use the Lorenz xform this way, the number you're feeding it seems wrong)
Click to expand...

Right there was several mistakes / inaccuracies here.
These are now corrected

The moon is half of its orbit accelerating - and the other half decelerating. – This is why you must calculate the influence off RR in two ½ orbit periods.

The Lorenzen transformation is used to calculate both time and energy (and mass) transformation. This is one and the same process, - but this process is reversible due to RR, and this mean deceleration.
 
Last edited:
Alex Cured said:
Looking at the page you supplied, the first formula you give is
[qimg]http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/6506/selection020.jpg[/qimg]
...
1,209,600 s. * 5,6 * 10-12 m/s = 0.000003387 m/s...................2
Click to expand...
Hilited part added by Daylightstar.
On 31th of may 2011 I asked Bjarne about this formula.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7236431&postcount=3972

And on 22nd of July 2011 I asked Bjarne about this formula.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7395749&postcount=4004

Never received an answer.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom