Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bjarne said:
No Stenkh want to earn on some commercial or business transaction, ....
Click to expand...
No. You are showing your ignorance the role of context in any language.
There is no commercial or business transaction involved in this thread. Thus it is idiotic to select that meaning of realize.

This thread has become about you recording your ignorance of science. Thus steenkh is pointing out that it is not your knowledge of English that makes most of your posts nonsense. It is that anyone who reads them realizes that your ignorance makes them devoid of sense.
 
Bjarne said:
No no no
This is not true
I have ask someone to give me a big english lesson I never forget, - by checking this http://www.science27.com/rr/
Click to expand...

[UNLURK] Really? OK why not? Here goes:


Preface
It requires more and more energy to reach diminishing speed increment As speed reaches an increasing frantion of c, more and more acceleration energy is converted into mass, instead of veocity. It is never has been proven repeatedly that resistance against motion only apply during the acceleration period. This theory Bjarne's silly idea is never the less that resistance also happens by constant speed. We will refer to this as Relativistic Resistance (Hereafter “RR”). Considering RR is a reversible process, will solve all known kinematic orbit and trajectory anomalies and mysteries, - as follows; it really follows logically that it does not exist at constant speed.


    • The Flyby Anomalies.*)*)*
    • The cause of the Pioneer Anomalies.*)
    • That Stars continue to be dragged into black holes of galaxies.)*) note1**)*
    • The long term (known) weak eccentricity anomaly of the moon.*) note2
    • That Spiral galaxies can last much longer than the expected 1 billion years*)
    • The 100,000 years Milankovitch cycle problem ad all other ice ages cycle mysteries. *) note3
    • That Stars in a dwarf galaxy swarm like bees in a beehive instead of moving in nice, circular orbits like a spiral galaxy *) note4)
    • It predicts a periodical short term relative large perigee / apogee anomaly of the Moons orbit still not discovered*)*)*
The basic of the theory silly idea
Speed increment of an object is causing energy and hence also mass increment. Due to mass increment the curvature of space near a moving object is also increasing.
Space resists deformation, (e.g. when tension of space is release a gravitational wave is the result). Hence there are several reasons to believe that the Lorentz transformation (whereby speed of an object converts to; mass/kinetic energy/ deformed-space) is a reversible process. Space must have some kind of “elastic” nature “woven” together with matter.
This has already been decribed and is well understood by science.

The Lorentz transformation is therefore also an expression of the tension increase of space as a fast moving object exerts. When the force (causing the speed of an object) stops, - speed-related tension on space is automatically released. Which mean that the Lorentz transformation factor also is an deceleration factor. Relativistic resistance is a reversible process. Therefore the Lorentz equation must reflect the magnitude of resistance against motion, and hence at the same time the magnitude of deceleration. Unfortunately, this author not only does not understand the Lorenz transformantion, but he is generally unable to handle mathematics above primary scool level.
index.1.jpg

- As his suggestion to arbitrarily assign a unit to a random part of a nequation clearly shows.​


The rest is unadulterated gibberish and needs no correction. It can either be deleted or, if the intention is to fill up the page, replaced with random letters.

......


What is the betting that Bjarne will, after all, quickly forget this lesson?

Hans
[/UNLURK]
 
Last edited:
My GPS still works and CERN still works with Special and General Relativity and Bjarne's non-work on the universe isn't needed.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
MRC_Hans said:
[UNLURK] Really? OK why not? Here goes:


Preface
It requires more and more energy to reach diminishing speed increment As speed reaches an increasing frantion of c, more and more acceleration energy is converted into mass, instead of veocity. It is never has been proven repeatedly that resistance against motion only apply during the acceleration period. This theory Bjarne's silly idea is never the less that resistance also happens by constant speed. We will refer to this as Relativistic Resistance (Hereafter “RR”). Considering RR is a reversible process, will solve all known kinematic orbit and trajectory anomalies and mysteries, - as follows; it really follows logically that it does not exist at constant speed.


    • The Flyby Anomalies.*)*)*
    • The cause of the Pioneer Anomalies.*)
    • That Stars continue to be dragged into black holes of galaxies.)*) note1**)*
    • The long term (known) weak eccentricity anomaly of the moon.*) note2
    • That Spiral galaxies can last much longer than the expected 1 billion years*)
    • The 100,000 years Milankovitch cycle problem ad all other ice ages cycle mysteries. *) note3
    • That Stars in a dwarf galaxy swarm like bees in a beehive instead of moving in nice, circular orbits like a spiral galaxy *) note4)
    • It predicts a periodical short term relative large perigee / apogee anomaly of the Moons orbit still not discovered*)*)*
The basic of the theory silly idea
Speed increment of an object is causing energy and hence also mass increment. Due to mass increment the curvature of space near a moving object is also increasing.
Space resists deformation, (e.g. when tension of space is release a gravitational wave is the result). Hence there are several reasons to believe that the Lorentz transformation (whereby speed of an object converts to; mass/kinetic energy/ deformed-space) is a reversible process. Space must have some kind of “elastic” nature “woven” together with matter.
This has already been decribed and is well understood by science.

The Lorentz transformation is therefore also an expression of the tension increase of space as a fast moving object exerts. When the force (causing the speed of an object) stops, - speed-related tension on space is automatically released. Which mean that the Lorentz transformation factor also is an deceleration factor. Relativistic resistance is a reversible process. Therefore the Lorentz equation must reflect the magnitude of resistance against motion, and hence at the same time the magnitude of deceleration. Unfortunately, this author not only does not understand the Lorenz transformantion, but he is generally unable to handle mathematics above primary scool level.
[qimg]http://www.science27.com/rr/index.1.jpg[/qimg]
- As his suggestion to arbitrarily assign a unit to a random part of a nequation clearly shows.​


The rest is unadulterated gibberish and needs no correction. It can either be deleted or, if the intention is to fill up the page, replaced with random letters.

......


What is the betting that Bjarne will, after all, quickly forget this lesson?

Hans
[/UNLURK]
Click to expand...

images
 
Bjarne said:
What about the 10,000 directly employed in the higgs religion then?

images
Click to expand...

What you don't seem to understand is that Science, unlike you, isn't dogmatic when it is shown to be wrong.

You are dogmatic, even if you think you aren't.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Bjarne said:
What about the 10,000 directly employed in the higgs religion then?
Click to expand...
Doubly stupid, Bjarne.
Firstly I was talking about this thread:
Originally Posted by Reality Check
No. You are showing your ignorance the role of context in any language.
There is no commercial or business transaction involved in this thread. .
Click to expand...

Secondly there is the insane idea that the scientific theory of mass being caused by the Higgs field is a religion.
 
Reality Check said:
Doubly stupid, Bjarne.
Firstly I was talking about this thread:


Secondly there is the insane idea that the scientific theory of mass being caused by the Higgs field is a religion.
Click to expand...

There are people that begin to understand it
http://harvardmagazine.com/breaking-news/hollis-professor-harvey-cox-brings-a-cow-to-harvard
http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news-eve...aims-privilege-of-grazing-cow-in-harvard-yard

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20111226/NEWS05/712269939
 
Bjarne said:
https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/i...1EGt2P3NpZVGHwi6fWPVcdjxIFtraazhyy65x1u0vXzYQ
Click to expand...
I see that you cannot get the point that your web page is :
MRC_Hans said:
The rest is unadulterated gibberish and needs no correction. It can either be deleted or, if the intention is to fill up the page, replaced with random letters.
Click to expand...
This gibberish starts with
868 days and the answer to Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) is still no :jaw-dropp!
And gets worse!

Why RR is a fantasy and Bjarne debunks RR again and again!
 
Last edited:
Bjarne, your attacks on science are frankly silly. I presume you 're doing this because you think your idea is being rejected, not because it fails to convince, but because of some dogma on the part of the critics, or even sillier, that there is some secret clique of science with a vested interest denying the truth for financial advantage, is it?

The nature of scientific enquiry is actually all about disproving things. Anyone with a new hypothesis has to negotiate this process and to be able to answer criticisms. This isn't something especially reserve for you, all science works like this.

It's only when all the possible ways that have been thought of to demolition a hypothesis have failed and it therefore becomes unreasonable to continuing denying it, that a hypothesis can progress to a theory.

To demonstrate that science doesn't work the way you claim, instead of dark energy, let's look at the problem of the galaxy rotation anomaly that is usually explained by halos of "dark matter".

Well you may or may not be surprised to know that there are serious alternatives to dark matter. Take a look at at Modified Newtonian Dynamics. MOND proposes that Newton's laws may not be universal ... Pretty radical! Why aren't the vested interests ridiculing the proponents of this idea?

Even more radical, Professor Moffat's Modified Gravity Theory (MOG), says that there is a fifth fundamental force that acts in opposition to gravity and weakens it in deep gravity zones but varies with distance from there. Again, science challenges these ideas but doesn't automatically rejected it.

MOG and MOND are being tested and challenged all the time, and the architects of MOND for example have had to modify it to fit the Bullet Cluster observations, so this is anther thing that proponents of hypotheses do, they recognise deficiencies and if possible adapt.

Your idea isn't being treated unfairly. The trouble is RR falls at the first hurdle.
 
Last edited:
There was a time when Bjarne earned some respect. He actively developed experiments to test his beliefs, and he spent his own money on carrying them out. He even reported the negative results here, although he was of course unable to understand that the results were negative.

These days, he has given up on testing his crank beliefs, and has retreated into pure attention seeking. He has probably realised that there is something deeply flawed with his theories, but he cannot give it up, and instead he tries to keep up our interest by making silly statements about cows, or childishly misinterpreting posts. In other words, Bjarne is now only a troll.
 
True. There were melt-downs before, but he mostly semed to pick up and try to argue again, but this time it seems to be final.

Bjarne failed the most basic test of all, for being a scientist. It is not language. It is not mathematics. It is not logical skills. It is not even that he talks about cows. All these things are bad, but the fatal failure is inability to admit it when you're wrong.

Hans
 
steenkh said:
There was a time when Bjarne earned some respect. He actively developed experiments to test his beliefs, and he spent his own money on carrying them out. He even reported the negative results here, although he was of course unable to understand that the results were negative.

These days, he has given up on testing his crank beliefs, and has retreated into pure attention seeking. He has probably realised that there is something deeply flawed with his theories, but he cannot give it up, and instead he tries to keep up our interest by making silly statements about cows, or childishly misinterpreting posts. In other words, Bjarne is now only a troll.
Click to expand...

Central gravity / Black holes are mysteries,
The magnitude of galactic central black holes are proportional to the mass of a galaxies.
This connecting should not be there, but it is, - it is common knowledge , also even though fools deny it.

I failed to show how that mystery possible also could be solve based on the same main thread that follows everything I claims, - which is, - that matter absorbs space density.
Still this mystery holds the key to a much deeper understanding of the nature of gravity, - no doubt about it.
And even though it is clear how little we know (which mean NOTHING when it comes to the nature of gravity) - fools bla bla bla like we know almost everything.

The basic simple change of mainly only an expression gives us a much better understanding of a lot, also even though it only is an abstract thought, - for example what the curvature of space really means, and how gravity can be both a force and curvature of space at the same time, - why RR must be expected all the time, and much more.

If the main thread is wrong, - prove it.
I do not necessary have to prove anything, disprove is also an option, - but so far the disprove have been nothing but brainwashed religion, and never anything based on the scientific method. Or even not based on cow simple math, - like for example that resistance against motion is a simple mathematical fact for cow level intelligence.

I will prove my theory, this is why i wrote this http://www.science27.com/rr
This will be the main door to a new understanding.
Sooner or later, - probably later, - due to massive amount of brainwash.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
The basic simple change of mainly only an expression gives us a much better understanding of a lot, also even though it only is an abstract thought, - for example what the curvature of space really means, and how gravity can be both a force and curvature of space at the same time, - why RR must be expected all the time, and much more.

If the main thread is wrong, - prove it.
I do not necessary have to prove anything, disprove is also an option, - but so far the disprove have been nothing but brainwashed religion, and never anything based on the scientific method. Or even not based on cow simple math, - like for example that resistance against motion is a simple mathematical fact for cow level intelligence.
Click to expand...

[unlurk]

Now you have asked a half sensible question and stopped with the childish cow stuff (to an extent)..I will answer

I am a teacher of mathematics.
I teach maths and physics to degree level.
I am an examiner for A Level maths and physics.
I have a first class degree in maths and astrophysics.
My PhD was in Cosmology - Dark Matter.

Take

index.1.jpg


On the left you have deceleration (in itself a misleading term).

That has units of metres per second2 (assuming standard SI units).

On the right you have a dimensionless factor on the bottom .. and a number 1, given units of m/s on the top (why you are writing the units for the right hand side and not the left I do not know).

Thus you have an equation where the 'dimensions' (and that is a technical mathematical term referring to what the things are 'measured in', not talking about dimensions as in space and time) DO NOT MATCH.

Thus, using dimensional analysis on the level of my GCSE students, this formula CANNOT possibly be correct in any way, shape or form.

The left hand side is an acceleration, the right hand side is a velocity or speed. They do not match.

You may just as well say

temperature of my chair = 4 x length of my cat

Thus I have 'disproved' your 'theory' and the onus is on you to make corrections and convince me you have something that is better than the existing knowledge.

In doing so I have also shown that you do not have the mathematical skills expected of a typical 15 year old child in the UK.
 
DazzaD, that's been pointed out to him before, he'll just ignore it.
 
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