Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
He keeps talking about a resistance to moving. Not once has this ever been seen. He does not show any math that would show it, it does throw out a number but doesn't show where he gets it from in his math. If there is a resistance to moving, where is this energy going?

Paul

:) :) :)
 
And what has kept the planets from slowing and going into the Sun, and what has kept all the stars from going into the center of the Galaxy, and what has kept all the galaxies from becoming a big crunch.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Paulhoff said:
He keeps talking about a resistance to moving. Not once has this ever been seen. He does not show any math that would show it, it does throw out a number but doesn't show where he gets it from in his math. If there is a resistance to moving, where is this energy going?

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...



This has been pointed out to him for many months (see Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe! below).
But then he displays the ignorance of basic physics that we expect from science cranks.

One wonders about these people who create weird, non-science web sites full of their personal delusions that display an ignorance of science to the world.
Another their delusions has to be that their family and friends cannot use the Internet to read the web site (or this forum). Or maybe they just hope that their family and friends are as ignorant of science as they are.

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his 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.
  3. Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
  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 :eye-poppi!
  7. Does Bjarne understand orbital mechanics?
    First asked 3 December 2009.
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
  8. Can Bjarne understand that energy is not a force and cannot "equalize" a force?
    First asked 9 December 2009 So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!

    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. Please show your calculations that the Domus Vista data is too inaccurate to test your idea
  17. What calculations did you do to show your cylinder data will be acurrate?
  18. Where does the kinetic energy of a cow falling off a cliff come from?
    First asked 20 May 2010
    No answer so far except some insane gibberish and a link to a crank web site page about Quantum Mechanics :eye-poppi!
  19. Yet another example of Bjarne's lack of knowledge of mathematics and physics!
And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):
 
Paulhoff said:
He does not show any math that would show it, it does throw out a number but doesn't show where he gets it from in his math.
Click to expand...
He has no math. Occasionally he uses an equation, but without understanding what it means, and with disregard for rules of math (like when he assigns units as he pleases). He is also of the opinion that if the math does not give the result he wants, the math is wrong.
 
And what has kept the planets from slowing and going into the Sun,
Click to expand...
So fare I know planets are moving away from the Sun.
The sun too has tidal force effect .
When a small percent of that is misunderstood, it's enough to prevent planet to decelerate, exactly like shown applies for the Earth, - here>> http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6004837&postcount=797
Should that not be enough , try to add this force, - its real http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411

and what has kept all the stars from going into the center of the Galaxy,
Click to expand...
They allready does my dear, and this is even a “mystery” . - Now you know - the reason to that "we" do not know the answer is ONLY, >> - a stubborn mass hypnotic fanatic brainwashed silly orthodox illogical incoherent idea http://www.dr.dk/Videnskab/Videnskab/2006/06/27105328.htm

and what has kept all the galaxies from becoming a big crunch.
Click to expand...

Once again, it allready happens….
http://www.dr.dk/Videnskab/Videnskab/2006/06/27105328.htm
Time will come for our Sun too..

( You can google translate these link)

And our Suns rotation speed must be decrease too.

Rather ask; why we defend such stupid idea; that resistance doesn’t apply for constant speed.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
They allready does my dear, and this is even a “mystery” . - Now you know - the reason to that "we" do not know the answer is ONLY, >> - a stubborn mass hypnotic fanatic brainwashed silly orthodox illogical incoherent idea http://www.dr.dk/Videnskab/Videnskab/2006/06/27105328.htm
Click to expand...
It is very funny that Bjarne quotes an article that says that new data has confirmed that the model we already have for how black holes accrete matter is correct! Scientists must be stupid and brain-washed because they always think that new crackpot theories are not necessary when real life data fit existing models! :)
 
Last edited:
steenkh said:
It is very funny that Bjarne quotes an article that says that new data has confirmed that the model we already have for how black holes accrete matter is correct! Scientists must be stupid and brain-washed because they always think that new crackpot theories are not necessary when real life data fit existing models! :)
Click to expand...

Now read how this article ends my dear:
For Miller og hans medforskere udgør opdagelsen første skridt i forståelsen af, hvordan sorte huller vokser. ”Vi er bestemt ikke nået til vejs ende endnu,” pointerer Miller. ”Der ligger stadig meget arbejde foran os.”
Click to expand...

Google translate it and it says:
For Miller and his (medforskere) "fellows" represents the discovery the first step in understanding how black holes grow. "We are certainly not reached the end yet," points out Miller. "There is still much work ahead of us."
Click to expand...

.... MUCH MORE .... >> Resistance against motion (?)

Just an idea right?
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
Now read how this article ends my dear:


Google translate it and it says:


.... MUCH MORE .... >> Resistance against motion (?)

Just an idea right?
Click to expand...

So you're saying that because a scientist says he has a lot of work to do, it means you're right?

I still have a lot of work to do in my field, too. That doesn't mean that resistance to motion is the answer.
 
Bjarne said:
Now read how this article ends my dear:
Click to expand...
I do not see anywhere at the end of the article where he thinks that he needs crackpot theories to get him out of some trouble. In fact, I do not see that he is in trouble at all, but that not everything concerning black holes is understood at this point in time.

Just recently I read an article about jets, as seen in black holes, exotic stars and elsewhere, and these are understood poorly. Since they are also formed by magnetic forces, this could be one area that he was thinking of.
 
I still have a lot of work to do in my field, too. That doesn't mean that resistance to motion is the answer.
Click to expand...
Ask instead: what proves or justify the nuts idea that resistance against motion not applies for constant motion. ?
There is no such proves, so why invent that stupid idea in the first place.
 
Bjarne said:
why we defend such stupid idea; that resistance doesn’t apply for constant speed.
Click to expand...
Bjarne, there is no difference between constant and changing speed. Inertia applies to both, and the fact that there is no resistance to movement applies to both.

You keep repating that it is strange that the rules should suddenly change, but they don't.

This is called a strawman argument.

Hans
 
ETA: Deleted. Going to find a better way to say what I was saying...
 
Last edited:
Bjarne, there is no difference between constant and changing speed. Inertia applies to both, and the fact that there is no resistance to movement applies to both.
You keep repating that it is strange that the rules should suddenly change, but they don't.
This is called a strawman argument.
Hans
Click to expand...

It requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed.
How do you explain what really happens?
Don't just cover this like > bla bla "inertia" bla bla expression, - but explain WHY you must use more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed.
 
Bjarne said:
It requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed.
How do you explain what really happens?
Don't just cover this like > bla bla "inertia" bla bla expression, - but explain WHY you must use more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed.
Click to expand...
With more speed comes more mass, the energy use to move an object becomes part of the mass of that object, energy has mass, simple.

Cern gets protons up to 99.999999% the speed of light, that that speed protons are about 7,071 times more massive.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Paulhoff said:
With more speed comes more mass, the energy use to move an object becomes part of the mass of that object, energy has mass, simple.
Paul
:) :) :)
Click to expand...

This explains nothing
Like if I say a bomb say bang, - it doesn’t explain WHY.

If you must used force to get a car uphill it MUST come down when the force suddenly (halfway up) disappear.

If you use force to drag a stone backwards in a stone-sling, it will fly when you release the potential force on it.

If you must use more and more energy to accelerate an object, it too builds up potential energy, - WHY should the stone also not release that energy as well, - when the force is gone (and therefore decelerate) ?

I mean otherwise this would be a unsound illogical religion against common sense.

The whole problem is ONLY that the nature of space is too abstract we cannot comprehend or even imaging its strange nature.
But sooner or later we are forces to get a better understanding of how space and matter is connected, and that space is not much different from the rubber in the stone-sling.

Take a look at sun storms, - all stars have such.
Fast rotating stars have very violent sun storms.
This is the spacy “stone-slings” – or rather plasma-slings. - In front of you own eyes.
So what is really the problem? – Its all written on the sky with HUGE CAPITAL LETTERS.
All what is left is ONLY to open your eyes.,
  • Space is elastic.
  • Space resist any kind of motion, - also rotations.

When huge amount of twisted space deep inside the Sun is released we will have interglacial periods.
After such deep twisted space is released the Sun will be calm and an ice age will start. – (This could happen any day) .

The Sun has different “layers” of elastic twisted space, simply because deep inside the Sun, gravity prevents mass from being ejected, Rotation is also slower deeper inside and hence “”anti-rotation energy”” can build up (for thousands of years) – Simply because space always tries to prevent matter to move/rotate.

But it’s a weak “force”, and therefore all this takes time.
Hence deeper inside space can twist must stronger and through long period of time. In thousands of years the Sun can build up; - anti-rotation potential energy.
Like a stone sling releasing its potential energy, so does the Sun (from different inner layers) when it can no longer be twisted further..

In acreages the Sun builds up the potential to new period of sun storms, from deep inside. The deeper inside layers, is the foundation.

This is all a complex phenomena, many factors play a role.
For example also the strength of the Earth MF plays a role according to how cold it will be from time to time. - To understand more, read Henrik Svensmark…
So prepare you fellows, an ice age is coming soon.

....
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
This explains nothing
Like if I say a bomb say bang, - it doesn’t explain WHY.
Click to expand...
Why, like you have said why about anything.

That is how the universe works. If one moves, one uses energy, that energy now because part of the system being moved, that energy has mass, that mass is added to the system, that system now has to have a little bit more energy to overcome that added mass at slow speeds and at much higher speeds much more energy is needed to overcome the added mass. Like it or not, that is how this universe works.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:
Why, like you have said why about anything.

That is how the universe works. If one moves, one uses energy, that energy now because part of the system being moved, that energy has mass, that mass is added to the system, that system now has to have a little bit more energy to overcome that added mass at slow speeds and at much higher speeds much more energy is needed to overcome the added mass. Like it or not, that is how this universe works.
Paul
:) :) :)
Click to expand...

I think Storm P could have given a better explanation.
http://www.scorpmeister.dk/gammel/billeder/stormp.gif
 
Bjarne said:
When I talk about energy, it is KE, and thermal energy due to friction, as well as energy to overcome resistance against motion.
This is not the main point, but rather that; to keep a object in orbit energy must be converted to another kind of energy.
But it can also just be transferred to KE in the other end of the string.
The point is that you MUST have a energy LOST and in space you even MUST create the resistance against motion, to get "footing" for staying in orbit.

A astronomic body must rotate, in order for resistance / "footing" can be established.
If the orbit speed is too low and hence the achived resistance / footing to weak, - > the result is this > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html

Off course a force is not energy.
But energy can create a force (to prevent a orbiting object to move too fast). This is what the Moon need, and this is what its own transfer of KE to the Earth provides.

A force can transfer energy; this is what the force of mass attraction does. .

The discussion we had have the last few days can mainly be simplified to how matter and space is connected. We know matter affects space so we should try to understand a bit more, at least abstract, mathematical.

The problem is that spaces seem to be nothing, this confuses us, and this leads to especially 2 HUGE wrong conclusions.

The day we will be force to accept matter consumes space, (coming soon) this day will bring light to these two historical mistakes.

One consequence is that it is much easier to understand how matter and space is connected. Hence it will also be easy to understand how the mass attraction of the Earth/Moon can pull the Earth rotation. This is easy when we understand that matter sucks space. Space stretching therefore can be used in the same sense as a (elastic) string.

Another consequence of the same simple thought is that; because of matter sucks space is: - deformed space must move when matter moves.
This cans not surprisingly only mean resistance from motion, simply because (deformed elastic) space does not want to move. Hence we are force to realize that of course resistance against motion is permanent; there is no reason to believe something else.

This conclusion will be further emphasizes when we understand and respect the simple fact that the energy lost, when a object is forced to change direction, off course also MUST comprehend motion-direction-change in a orbit. It is silly and lazy and illogical to believe orbits should be an exception from that law.

These simply & pretty innocent corrected errors is enough to understand that energy from orbiting objects MUST be “lost” / transferred / converted also even though we not see it.
The KE represented by the object in motion, is only a small part of the total KE.

As a bonus by accepting these corrected errors, the Pioneer and the gravity assist anomalies solves it self, - and we will begin to understand why planets sometimes are too close or to far from their mother stars.
For example why Jupiter’s atmosphere can’t have been created where Jupiter is now.

But yes there is a small crackpot price to pay, BUT a much more contradictions free Universe in return.
Click to expand...
(bold added)

So, what is "KE"?

And how do you determine the KE of something, an object say?

What is "thermal energy due to friction"?

And how do you determine the thermal energy due to friction in a particular process, or environment, say?

What is "energy to overcome resistance against motion"?

And how do you determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?
 
It is sooooo easy using a Scientific Calculator. At what percent of the speed of light would an object weight double its weight?

2 divided into 1 or hit the 1/x function = .5

Then all you have to do is hit the Arc (INV) Sin = (30) and than the Cos = (0.8660 etc) x 100 you have the answer in percent (86.60%) the speed of light.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
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