THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

Reality Check · Nov 20, 2009

Bjarne said:
What this really is: central naturally gravity....

http://scienceblogs.com/startswitha...ra_that_changed_the_u4/mass_recon0024_500.jpg

What this really is: the nonsense of an ignorant crackpot....

The diagram is of the density of matter in the galactic cluster (to be nore exact the surface density).
If you have a galactic cluster that is 1000 times bigger than the one pictured then there will be 1000 time the amount of dark matter. The density will not chnage.

But: The galactic cluster has not been stretched.

The rest of your post is your usual incoherent rantings.

Reality Check · Nov 20, 2009

Bjarne said:
The force responsible for the “Flat Universe” is hence the space wind of the universe, and not caused by “dark matter”.

This is really the stupidest thing that you have said. It shows that you do not even know what your own idea is :jaw-dropp

!

Your "space wind" is caused by an object orbiting (or at least moving) around a rotating object. Without that object, M = 0 and there is no "space wind". If that object does not rotate then R = 0 and there is no space wind.

What object is doing the rotating?
How fast is it rotating?
What is its mass?
How far away is the universe from that object?

And the depth of your ignorance shows again:

The universe is everything there is. It cannot have a "space wind" because there is nothing that is not the universe.
The measured flatness of the universe is caused by the visible matter, dark matter and dark energy in it.

steenkh · Nov 20, 2009

Sensation_of_physics said:
When reading this, I find myself wondering why this "Centrally space is stronger contracted / deformed" must casue gravitational lensing, seeing as we have yet to be presented with a formal (=mathematical) argument that show this.

Indeed. Contracted space would not result in gravitational lensing, only curved space would cause this.

And Bjarne does not know the difference ... oh well ... :whistling

Bjarne · Nov 20, 2009

I find it really amusing that Bjarne will tell us, with - I presume - a straight face, that space itself can spontaneously create a gravity field... encore:

This is not what it is about, but rather that gravity is like napoleons soldiers, when he demonstrates how many he had for the English admiral he cheated, and showed him the same soldier’s again and again different places.

Gravity does almost the same, each time gravity encircles matter it “repeats it self”. Not literally but rather it shows its central nature again and again and again. - It's that central nature of gravity we have misunderstood.

Yeah right, now gravity can originate from little green space-santas, it seems.

No space can and will always affects central space MUCH stronger.

Towards infinity space is affected decreasingly r^2 because the amount of space in that direction is gradually increasing.
Towards the centre of encircled space, - space is affected increasingly simply because of the amount of space is gradually decreasing.

Call that the Napoleon Tactic. Still today we can laugh how simple clever Napoleon was and how stupid the admiral was. One day we will all laugh about how stupid simple gravity works, and how blind we was really not to could see that.

Well Bjarne seemingly ignores what each and every physical properties he would assign to space, likewise lack even a heuristic definition and is meaningless without a proper definition of space.

I can only agree, but notice you wrote : proper definition of space ( not superficial incoherent definition beyond even imagination possibilities.)

Curved space is a purely mathematical construct

Yes and that’s the problem exactly in that moment you tries really to understand SPACE, and not ONLY the math, at that moment you'll realize you have nothing less as a dead end..

What this really is: the nonsense of an ignorant crackpot....

Trench digger...read more Oppenheimer fellow, and learn from the flexible space to be flexible in you brain .

Your "space wind" is caused by an object orbiting (or at least moving) around a rotating object.

Not only, also orbit motion does the same, this has been mention many times.

1. What object is doing the rotating?
2. How fast is it rotating?
3. What is its mass?
4. How far away is the universe from that object?

Answer of Q1 = everything is our Universe.
Answer of Q2+3+4 = we can not see it because we have no ref point.
But this is a consequence of the same simple Napoleon tactic.

dafydd · Nov 20, 2009

Bjarne said:
This is not what it is about, but rather that gravity is like napoleons soldiers, when he demonstrates how many he had for the English admiral he cheated, and showed him the same soldier’s again and again different places.

Gravity does almost the same, each time gravity encircles matter it “repeats it self”. Not literally but rather it shows its central nature again and again and again. - It's that central nature of gravity we have misunderstood.

No space can and will always affects central space MUCH stronger.

Towards infinity space is affected decreasingly r^2 because the amount of space in that direction is gradually increasing.
Towards the centre of encircled space, - space is affected increasingly simply because of the amount of space is gradually decreasing.

Call that the Napoleon Tactic. Still today we can laugh how simple clever Napoleon was and how stupid the admiral was. One day we will all laugh about how stupid simple gravity works, and how blind we was really not to could see that.

I can only agree, but notice you wrote : proper definition of space ( not superficial incoherent definition beyond even imagination possibilities.)

Yes and that’s the problem exactly in that moment you tries really to understand SPACE, and not ONLY the math, at that moment you'll realize you have nothing less as a dead end..

Trench digger...read more Oppenheimer fellow, and learn from the flexible space to be flexible in you brain .

Not only, also orbit motion does the same, this has been mention many times.

Answer of Q1 = everything is our Universe.
Answer of Q2+3+4 = we can not see it because we have no ref point.
But this is a consequence of the same simple Napoleon tactic.

More gibberish.

Sensation_of_physics · Nov 20, 2009

Bjarne said:
I can only agree

So Bjarne agrees his ideas are meaningless without knowledge of the nature of space, but he promotes and defends them anyway - what an interesting position; that almost deserves a

"thank you for finally admitting that you are knowingly deceiving your readers!"

Theoreticians at least have the honesty to admit that space curvature is only a mathematical model of reality, if a very accurate one.

Theoreticians at least have they modesty to admit that the don't know what dark matter is, but recognize that it is by far the best way to account for the wayward gravity we see everywhere we look.

Bjarne on the other hand, seems to have an answer for every question the village fool can dream up, something that not even ten wise men could do, according to the old saying.

Bjarne · Nov 21, 2009

Theoreticians at least have the honesty to admit that space curvature is only a mathematical model of reality, if a very accurate one.

You must have misunderstood
Yes I agree that we must have a: proper definition of space, but “curvature of space” is ONLY a : quote : mathematical model of reality.
For our mind is this mud, if we want to understand more, because this old expression in reality confuse and mislead us, simple because of literal “curvature” of space is not only difficult to understand but rather completely impossible to imaging.

I can provide the 4 wheel drive, to get people out of the mud. But 100 years deep muddy wheel track doesn’t make it easy for all the escape the sump.

Bjarne · Nov 21, 2009

Here are now finally the final equation to calculate the lost of orbit altitude, based on if there were no space wind

Ex 1 the Earth
Ex 2 a satellite 35790 km above the Earth
Already today satellites that moves over the poles will lose 0.77 mm per orbit
Yes this will be the new CHOCK, and this will be discovered.

Sensation_of_physics · Nov 21, 2009

Bjarne said:
[qimg]http://www.science27.com/forum/cows.jpg[/qimg]

And we are yet again back to Bovinophilism...

dafydd · Nov 21, 2009

Sensation_of_physics said:
And we are yet again back to Bovinophilism...

Shouldn't this thread be moved to the humour section?

Reality Check · Nov 22, 2009

Bjarne said:
You must have misunderstood
Yes I agree that we must have a: proper definition of space, but “curvature of space” is ONLY a : quote : mathematical model of reality.

There is a proper mathematical definition of space: mathematical space.
General Relativity is a mathematical model of reality and so is all of theoretical physics.

Cow 2 is toally stupid. A calf knows that the equation has no units. Divide a speed by anothe speed and you get a number which is the ration between the speeds.
Divide v m/s by c m/s and you get v/c without units. Plug in any other units for speed and you still get v/c without units. The rest of the euqation has no units. Thus y has no units.

This is somthing any idiot can see - except in one crackpot's delusions:

Delustion 1: "Bended space is Contracted Space"
- Curved space is not contracted space
  First Asked 11 November 2009
Delustion 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.
- Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
Delustion 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
- Bjarne's idea is proven wrong (acceleration due to gravity is constant inside a sphere).
  First asked 2 November 2009

Lets add another question:
First asked 22 November 2009

I state that y is measured in kilograms.
Please prove that I am wrong by deriving the correct units for y.

Bjarne,
Start with: what are the units of v/c where v is a speed and c is a speed?

Bjarne · Nov 22, 2009

Divide a speed by anothe speed and you get a number

That "number" - "proportional" - MUST fundamentally reflect:

R E S I S T A N C E against motion = (-m/s)

or if you better like

NEGATIVE MOTION (- m/s)

and hence proportional (off course) also larger KE consumption. (Joule)

And why also proportional more mass ?

Well because the particle spins deeper into space when these are "pushed". (kg)

Cow 2 is totally stupid

No no no comrade

In the same way if you forget to release you handbrake you can find a proportional that reflects
1.) Negative motion
2.) More fuel consumption
3.) Lost of money
4.) More heat
5.) Stupidity

If MY calculation "should" be wrong, then at least show us the right Limit Realety Check.

Tubbythin · Nov 22, 2009

Bjarne said:
No no no comrade

Yes yes. This is really trivially obvious.

dafydd · Nov 22, 2009

Bjarne said:
That "number" - "proportional" - MUST fundamentally reflect:

R E S I S T A N C E against motion = (-m/s)

or if you better like

NEGATIVE MOTION (- m/s)

and hence proportional (off course) also larger KE consumption. (Joule)

And why also proportional more mass ?

Well because the particle spins deeper into space when these are "pushed". (kg)

No no no comrade

In the same way if you forget to release you handbrake you can find a proportional that reflects
1.) Negative motion
2.) More fuel consumption
3.) Lost of money
4.) More heat
5.) Stupidity

If MY calculation "should" be wrong, then at least show us the right Limit Realety Check.

The stuff is so funny.Are you dictating this from a padded cell?

Reality Check · Nov 22, 2009

Bjarne said:
That "number" - "proportional" - MUST fundamentally reflect:
...snipped crackpot gibberish....

The number is a number. It represents a ratio of speeds. That is what it MUST fundamentally reflect.

Bjarne said:
If MY calculation "should" be wrong, then at least show us the right Limit Realety Check.

What is the limit?
Pick a reason why your "calculation" is wrong:
This is something any idiot can see - except in one crackpot's delusions:

Delustion 1: "Bended space is Contracted Space"
- Curved space is not contracted space
  First Asked 11 November 2009
Delustion 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.
- Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
Delustion 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
- Bjarne's idea is proven wrong (acceleration due to gravity is constant inside a sphere).
  First asked 2 November 2009

Reality Check · Nov 22, 2009

Does Bjarne know that the Lorentz factor does not have any units of measurement?

First asked 22 November 2009

I state that y is measured in kilograms.
Please prove that I am wrong by deriving the correct units for the Lorentz factor

.

Bjarne,
Start with: what are the units of v/c where v is a speed and c is a speed?

Reality Check · Nov 22, 2009

Does Bjarne think that the Lorentz factor is measured in kilograms?

First asked 23 November 2009
Some idiot states that the Lorentz factor

is measured in kilograms because "it MUST fundamentally reflect:
R E L A T I V I S I T I C mass (kilograms) "

Bjarne,
Can you prove this idiot wrong?

Bjarne · Nov 22, 2009

What is the limit?

If MY calculation "should" be wrong, then at least you (Limit Realety Check) show us the right value.

I guess you can not because i am right.

Also cow number 3 is right.

Reality Check · Nov 22, 2009

Bjarne said:
If MY calculation "should" be wrong, then at least you (Limit Realety Check) show us the right value.

Your calcuation "is" wrong. Your equation has no units. You quote quantiites with units. Any idiot can see that this is wrong.

Give me an equation that results in an actual acceleration and I wil plug the numbers in. How about "a=F/m"?

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
First asked 2 November 2009

Reality Check · Nov 22, 2009

Why does relativistic mass have the units of mass

First asked 23 November 2009
Relativistic mass M = ym where m is the rest mass and y is the Lorentz factor that Bjarne uses in his pulled out of his nether regions "kinetic resistance" formula of (y-1).

Bjarne,
Why does relativistic mass have the units of mass?
According to you it should have units of force (i.e. mass * acceleration).
Where have all of the scientists in the world gone wrong in the last 104 years?

THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Banned

Student

Philosopher

Philosopher

Student

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Illuminator

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Share this page

ISF - Join now!