Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Paulhoff said:
No you haven't, stop lying.

Give me the ergs for ISS at 10kps and 340 tonnes.

Paul

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

Let me put it this way
Imaging you has a wash machine inside your car.
Your cat sits inside the wash machine.
The wash machine is connected to the battery of the car and rotating the cat.
The car is moving with 100 km/t
The KE due to the cars motion applies both for you and the cat.
The KE due to the wash machine rotation only apply for the cat.
So the KE of the cat is KE-Car + KE-wash machine.
This is true for the cat but also for anyone else in the Universe, that want to calculate it.
You cannot say that because that the cat is inside the wash machine it can hide itself for the total KE.
Also you cannot say that because you not are inside the wash machine, then the reality for the cat is a lie.
So basis is that we ONLY need a pretty simple overall logical KE framework, and we can keep all our equations exactly like these are. –This is what I am doing and I believe this is OK.
I don’t think we need to add / change more as a overall logical framework. .
Now replace the wash machine with the ISS, it is about the same story, just a different perspective. If you can't / or do not want to get that point, - All right, I accept this, - nothing more I can do.
 
Bjarne said:
It must also be work to do for the dark matter and dark energy sect, when they soon will be unemployed.
Click to expand...
It isn't a sect. Dark matter and Dark energy are only names used until those things are figured out and/or found, the names are only place holders until than.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Bjarne said:
Let me put it this way
Imaging you has a wash machine inside your car.
Your cat sits inside the wash machine.
The wash machine is connected to the battery of the car and rotating the cat.
The car is moving with 100 km/t
The KE due to the cars motion applies both for you and the cat.
The KE due to the wash machine rotation only apply for the cat.
So the KE of the cat is KE-Car + KE-wash machine.
This is true for the cat but also for anyone else in the Universe, that want to calculate it.
You cannot say that because that the cat is inside the wash machine it can hide itself for the total KE.
Also you cannot say that because you not are inside the wash machine, then the reality for the cat is a lie.
So basis is that we ONLY need a pretty simple overall logical KE framework, and we can keep all our equations exactly like these are. –This is what I am doing and I believe this is OK.
I don’t think we need to add / change more as a overall logical framework. .
Now replace the wash machine with the ISS, it is about the same story, just a different perspective. If you can't / or do not want to get that point, - All right, I accept this, - nothing more I can do.
Click to expand...
That talk is with DeiRenDopa, not me.

I don't have to imagine anything, I have the math, and it has been tested millions of times, it works at CERN, or don't you know what CERN is.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
I find it so funny, but at CERN where protons are made to go to almost the speed of light, that nothing new has been found that would make the people at CERN change anything in the equipment and/or how they move those protons.

How do you explan that Bjarne without making up more magic. If you aren't religious you should be, your thinking is the same.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Bjarne said:
So basis is that we ONLY need a pretty simple overall logical KE framework, and we can keep all our equations exactly like these are. –This is what I am doing and I believe this is OK.
Click to expand...

The kinetic energy of an object is directly dependant of the velocity of said object. You are suggesting that the kinetic energy of several objects is directly related. This can only make sense in a common frame of reference.

So what is your suggested frame of reference for this "overall logical KE framework"?
 
Bjarne said:
Are you going to answer my questions, Bjarne?
Click to expand...
I have already done that......

My calculation is based on the current (equations as mentioned above) so like we normally calculate KE.
This mean each new motion process always starts from KE=zero. -Whether this is right? – I am not sure.
If a such local-framework is correct, is must be part of a overall-framework we so fare not have.

You can compare the ISS with our Moon, and you can see how I have calculated the KE.
It is the exact same principle for the ISS.

I am sure we at least (in additional to the existing framework) need a new overall-framework to be able to calculate the total KE increase and decrease due to total speed (relative to “c”) of a object.

This must include the speed of :
  • Orbiting the Earth
  • Orbiting the Sun
  • Orbiting the Milky Way
  • Orbiting the local cluster
  • Orbiting the Universe

Seen from that perspective it doesn’t matter if you live on board on the ISS or on the Earth, the way to calculate your total KE would always be based on how fast you move relative to light, and therefore the same result everywhere.

Possible conflict
The existing “local-framework” ( that means; in every local motion process, - the KE increase starts from zero,) could be OK.
It could also be wrong.
Can the existing local-framework “connect” with an overall framework?
Or are these two completely independent?

Maybe the prevailing local-framework is wrong, and must be replaces with a new-local-framework where the local KE always is an integrated part of the overall framework.

In both cases the overall-framework means that; - The Mass and KE reality is the same for everybody doesn’t matter where they are.

In both cases time and distances dilation would be untouched.
Each local-process are off course always self responsible for maintaining own local respectively KE.

In the “worse case” it only means we properly must understand and see any local process of motion relative to the total speed of light, as a implemented part of a overall framework, and not relative to zero.
Which mean before we exact can calculate any possible deceleration due to resistance against motion, we must first know (for example) the total speed of the earth (relative to c) ( I don’t think this option is the case)

But I also don’t believe the nuts idea that reality just above you head, is that much stranger than here and that the KE and M increase just is reality for ghosts.

Off course distances and time is relative-different from place to place, - but not KE.

KE-increase must be seen in a complete overall perspective, - unless logic is completely lost.

But this doesn’t mean that the local-framework must be wrong.
So you can’t accuse me for totally ignoring the Lorenz Transformation, but rather to try to understand a full logic range of it.
I haven’t put much effort in this part.
It must also be work to do for the dark matter and dark energy sect, when they soon will be unemployed.

....
Click to expand...
Here, again, are the two questions I asked:

DeiRenDopa said:
What, in your idea (or according to "the theory I represent") is the KE of the ISS?

How do you (Bjarne) determine the ISS's speed?
Click to expand...
Sorry Bjarne, I didn't any answer that tells me (or any other reader) what the KE of the ISS is (in your idea).

What is it?

Using the method you use to determine the ISS's speed - in the post of yours I'm quoting - what is the ISS's speed?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Bjarne, you still haven't answered my question about how the thermal energy due to friction can be determined.

Here it is again: Please provide me with a link to online physics material that explains, in detail how the thermal energy due to friction can be determined, with the essential requirement that you explicitly state that you agree with it 100% (not 90%, not 95%, not 99%, but 100%).
Click to expand...
Are you going to answer my question, Bjarne?
 
I find it so funny, but at CERN where protons are made to go to almost the speed of light, that nothing new has been found that would make the people at CERN change anything in the equipment and/or how they move those protons.
How do you explan that Bjarne without making up more magic. If you aren't religious you
Click to expand...
Very fast moving particles create a magnetic field. This is how resistance against motion is converted to another kind of energy. We know this happens, so does the scientist in CERN, so there is in fact no surprised except to understand the way lost of KE due to resistance against motion coverts to a different kind of energy = a magnetic field.

What, in your idea (or according to "the theory I represent") is the KE of the ISS?
Click to expand...
Use the equation I have mention several time and calculate the KE.
But you must calculate it you self.. Don’t be so lazy..

How do you (Bjarne) determine the ISS's speed?
Click to expand...
Like you wrote above 7000 m/s , this is probably correct.
I have no intention to change this, either I have any intension to change the Speed of the Moon.

Are you going to answer my question, Bjarne?
Click to expand...
I have done it, you can used the same framework shown to calculate the Moons KE and resistance, - > www.science27.com/english/Culcu3.htm

But you must calculate it you self.. Don’t be so lazy..
 
Last edited:
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads

Bjarne said:
Very fast moving particles create a magnetic field. This is how resistance against motion is converted to another kind of energy. We know this happens, so does the scientist in CERN, so there is in fact no surprised except to understand the way lost of KE due to resistance against motion coverts to a different kind of energy = a magnetic field.
Click to expand...
So totally wrong again Bjarne.
  • All moving at any speed, charged particles generate magnetic fields.
  • There is no such thing as "resistance against motion".
  • "Resistance" (as in an arbitrary acceleration) is not an energy thus cannot be converted into energy. This imaginary acceleration of your would change the speed of the CERN particle beams and make them collide with the accelerator ring walls. This does not happen :jaw-dropp !
    You probably are ignorant of this but the Large Hadron Accelerator has been working for a while now.
  • The scientists in CERN designed a machine without your physically impossible fantasies. That machine works :jaw-dropp !
  • A magnetic field is not an energy. It is .... a magnetic field :jaw-dropp !
    A magnetic field does store energy.
The bit about CERN has been pointed out to you before as below
  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 physics 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" (plus 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 dilation 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 accurate?
  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):
 
All moving at any speed, charged particles generate magnetic fields.
Click to expand...
And the point is; that the faster a particle moves, the larger MF will it create.
When a particle moves with the speed almost "c” - the created MF is huge.

There is no such thing as "resistance against motion".
Click to expand...
Bla bla bla, this is your only argument..

"Resistance" (as in an arbitrary acceleration) is not energy thus cannot be converted into energy.
Click to expand...
Try to get the following few simple points through the 17 meter of concrete, and though the ½ meter thick anti crackpot glasses:
  1. Fast moving particles created a huge MF
  2. That MF "lost" require KW
  3. We know 1+2 is a fact.
  4. 1+2 happens as a result of energy resistances against motion, in that process energy (KW) is converted to the MF of the particles, and this is of course means that energy (KW) is lost.

    So there is in fact nothing strange, - all we need to understand is that the creation of the MF happens because of resistances against motion.

You probably are ignorant of this but the Large Hadron Accelerator has been working for a while now.
Click to expand...
You surly are ignorant of points: 1+2+3+4

The scientists in CERN designed a machine without your physically impossible fantasies. That machine works!
Click to expand...
Off course it works.
Why should it not?
There are no mysteries lost of KE, the lost you already has, - due to the creasted MF by the particle motion, - is enough.

A magnetic field is not an energy.
Click to expand...
To create a strong MF require energy, and therefore the MF created due to particle motion reflects energy lose.
The world’s most stupid cows agree to that simple logic.
So there are no mystery.
And no one claims that huge amount of energy is lost without we already know.
The basic you need to understand is the fact that a MF is created in the process of particle motion.
We KNOW there is such huge lost.
If you also can understand that this known lost is a result of resistance against motion, it would be HUGE steep forwards. - But I believe you can't ride that horse because of the anti-crackpot glasses would overload that poor horse, (and maybe even a 10 tons truck as well ).
So the idea that CERN due to resistance against motion should have additional KE lost, is crap, - the lost is already there and already know.

Just understand the nature of the process how a MF is created, that's the point, my dear.

A magnetic field does store energy.
Click to expand...
Nobody (except you) has got that silly idea.
 
Bjarne said:
Very fast moving particles create a magnetic field. This is how resistance against motion is converted to another kind of energy. We know this happens, so does the scientist in CERN, so there is in fact no surprised except to understand the way lost of KE due to resistance against motion coverts to a different kind of energy = a magnetic field.
Click to expand...

You, of course miss the point, even if you think you haven't. Nothing new has shown up at CERN as they speed up the protons to near the speed of light. Everything is accounted for, if not that machine would not work. There is no resistance against motion that has to be put into the design of CERN. You do realize, (I guess not) that if your idea was true the Design of CERN would have to be changed so it would work. What do you think, they just throw things together like a toy and magic happens and the cyclotron just happens to works. If things are off by the tiniest bit there would have been major damaged to the system, but it is working.

Also, yes a charged partial that is moving makes a magnetic field, but there is no loss of motion because if it. If there was then would you please explain to us how Cosmic Rays ever get to the earth from Super Nova’s traveling all those many light years to get to the earth’s upper atmosphere and with some of those partials having greater power then what CERN can make.

Paul


:) :) :)
 
Also, yes a charged partial that is moving makes a magnetic field, but there is no loss of motion because if it.
Click to expand...
Wrong
  • Off course, to create a MF, - require KW
  • Off course that KW is wasted
  • Of course that means lower speed per KW
 
Quote:
A magnetic field does store energy.
Click to expand...
Bjarne
Nobody (except you) has got that silly idea.
Click to expand...

It does store energy, that is used in electronics all the time, my CRT is built on using that. CRT TV's have used that for years to make high voltage. Cars use that for high voltage for the sparkplugs. That is only two of many ways Stored energy in a magnetic field is used.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:
It does store energy, that is used in electronics all the time, my CRT is built on using that. CRT TV's have used that for years to make high voltage. Cars use that for high voltage for the sparkplugs. That is only two of many ways Stored energy in a magnetic field is used.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...
misk mask
Has nothing with the point to do
 
Bjarne said:
Wrong
  • Off course, to create a MF, - require KW
  • Off course that KW is wasted
  • Of course that means lower speed per KW
Click to expand...
Yes you are Wrong, if a charged partial travels in a straight line, no energy is lost in the creation of photons. This is known at CERN, that is one reason why it is so big, so the turns used in it are not sharp. The energy lost to making photons in the turns is all accounted for, nothing like your so-called ideas show up. If your ideas where true the design for it would have to be changed. That would have been a big deal in science and it would have been scientific papers on it. THERE ARE NONE.

Paul

:) :) :)


 
Bjarne said:
misk mask
Has nothing with the point to do
Click to expand...
You have no learning curve, I will now only write to the others on this thread and to those who may be reading so they know the facts, you are out of the picture.

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