Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magnetic fields in galaxies and an artistic way of visualizing magnetic fields.

None of these support your implication that magnetic fields are caused by fast moving objects.
Magnetic fields are caused by electrically charged bodies moving at any speed.
A magnetic field is a field of force produced by moving electric charges, by electric fields that vary in time, and by the 'intrinsic' magnetic field of elementary particles associated with the spin of the particle.

Galactic magnetic fields are thought to be described by the αω dynamo model but there are alternative theories.
 
And Relativistic Resistance, - also by constant speed.
Gibberish unconnected with Milankovitch cycles.

Fast rotating magnetars is losing energy / radiation.
Also noting to do with Milankovitch cycles.
Fast rotating magnetars lose energy because their magnetic fields interact with the interstellar medium and slow them done.

This clearly shows that; - Yes rotation (motion) does not continue forever.
Idiotic statement, Bjarne: This clearly shows that the rotation of fast rotating magnetars slows down.

We have no reason to believe that a magnetic field (that occurs as a result of motion), not is slowing the rotation too (and motion in general) .
That is basic physics. A rotating magnetic field is a dynamo. It transfers energy from the rotating object to the surrounding medium.

But then you add the idiotic bit of "motion in general". The loss of energy only slows the rotation down.
 
And it does not not mean that the movement of an object not causes a magnet field.
It is physically impossible for "the movement of an object" to create a magnetic field.

You need the movement of an electrically charged body. That will create a magnetic field. This is really, really basic physics, Bjarne.
 
Magnetic fields in galaxies and an artistic way of visualizing magnetic fields.
None of these support your implication that magnetic fields are caused by fast moving objects..

You do have some facts here you cannot explain, this is seen from the perspective of my theory at least ""something".
The possibility that matter in motion create a MF is certainly there, - until Mr Omniscience have disproven that option..

Magnetic fields are caused by electrically charged bodies moving at any speed.
Not only, - in galaxies and cluster of galaxies, magnetic occurrence are mysteries , - Mr Omniscience.

Galactic magnetic fields are thought to be described by the αω dynamo model but there are alternative theories.
Yes for example that matter due to the relativistic resistance pulls a magnetic field, as a naturally consequence of that space (always) resist any motion of matter, as well as mass-particles, - not only motion of charged particles.

Matter in motion creates weaker MF as charged particles in motion, - it’s only a question about how much matter / particles interact with that space where matter travels through.

Matter creates a MF only due to the mass increase. - Matter does not (fully )interact directly with that space matter travels through, - only to that degree where mass is created due to that speed,.

Charged particles interact directly with space and is therefore creating a relative strong MF..

A MF is only a question about; of how much space-vucuum matter pulls away, .... how much matter is connected to that space...

Try to see it through the hole in the bush, Sir.
 
Last edited:
The problems with Bjarne latest fantasy

In this post, Bjarne calculates 78.132 km per year for the radius increase of the Earth from his delusion of RAM.
We know that RAM is a delusion because:
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.
From The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)

He also makes up a fantasy that this increase swaps to a decrease on a 100,000 year cycle (the number seems pulled out of his cows backside).

But let say that this ignorant person has found something and take his result (excluding the 100,000 year cycle fantasy).
The first problem:
The orbital parameters of the Earth are known to an even bigger accuracy then Mercury, e.g. aphelion = 152,098,232 km, i.e. to an accuracy of 1 kilometer.
You claim that it changes by 78 km a year :jaw-dropp!

The second problem:

Change the distance of the Earth from the Sun and the planet heats up or cools down. Change it enough and the planet cannot sustain life. But
  • We have proxy measurements of temperatures gong back a long time, e.g. 800,000 years from ices cores.
  • Life has been on Earth for 3.6 billion years.
The third problem:
According to you, the increase in the Earths distance from the Sun puts the Earth was inside the Sun within the last 2 million years ago :jaw-dropp!
Alternately it was 2AU away from the Sun, i.e. outside the current orbit of Mars and just as inhabitable.
 
Last edited:
You do have some facts here you cannot explain, this is seen from the perspective of my theory at least ""something".
The possibility that matter in motion create a MF is certainly there, - until Mr Omniscience have disproven that option..

Magnet fields are very easy to detect. Apart from gravity, which is sort of always here, the magnet field was the first fundamental force to be detected and measured. As shown by the article you linked to, we can detect the magnet fields of distant galaxies.

If moving objects created magnet fields, it would be easily detectable. We would have known for at least a century.

Yes for example that matter due to the relativistic resistance pulls a magnetic field, as a naturally consequence of that space (always) resist any motion of matter, as well as mass-particles, - not only motion of charged particles.

Matter in motion creates weaker MF as charged particles in motion, - it’s only a question about how much matter / particles interact with that space where matter travels through.

No, matter in motion does not create a magnet field. No matter how many times you repeat it, it remains wrong.

Matter creates a MF only due to the mass increase.

No, matter in motion does not create a magnet field. No matter how many times you repeat it, it remains wrong.

- Matter does not (fully )interact directly with that space matter travels through, - only to that degree where mass is created due to that speed,.

No, matter in motion does not create a magnet field. No matter how many times you repeat it, it remains wrong.

Charged particles interact directly with space and is therefore creating a relative strong MF..

No, matter in motion does not create a magnet field. No matter how many times you repeat it, it remains wrong.

A MF is only a question about; of how much space-vucuum matter pulls away, .... how much matter is connected to that space...

Really?

Soo, you are now claiming that charged objects pull differently at space-vucuum [sic]? And since you also claim that this pull at space-vucuum is responsible for gravity, it follows that a charged object has a different gravitational pull than a non-charged one, right?


Try to see it through the hole in the bush, Sir.

Sure! Let me see ... I see the hole ... I see ... Wait! It's a hole in your head.

Hans
 
In this post,
He also makes up a fantasy that this increase swaps to a decrease on a 100,000 year cycle (the number seems pulled out of his cows backside).

The 100,000 years period, is the Earth's precession period, first calculated by Milankovitch. - (perturbations periods)
I thought RC would not respect that great scientist either . Now RC claims that the 100,000 years Milankovitz; seems pulled out of his cows backside.
What will be next?

Well what else could we expect after 17 years at a University.

During these (already existing) Milankovitz 100,000 years periods relativistisc resistance (RR) will first push the "perihelion part" of the orbit backwards (the next 50,000 year), simple because this is the period where perihelion of the Earth always is pointing towards the solar systems motion direction, round the Milkyway.

But how shall we ever expect RC will understand what that mean ?

Due to Perihelion parts of the orbit is pushed backwards the orbital eccentricity will increase. This period have just started.

The 50,000 years after that, - the opposite happens. – But RC just forget it, I will be greatly surprise if you can understand anything else as what comes out backwards of a cow. I mean why do you think you won the yellow shirt and the gold medal ?

We are talking about a elliptical extra orbit extension to extra 4 million km. (dot) And after 50 000 years return to the today well known almost circular orbit. (dot).....

We are still only speaking about 4 million km. (dot) - Not 159 million km.

Will you get back to Earth soon RC ?
Remember the yellow shirt, and the gold medal, - maybe these are also orbiting inside the Sun now or maybe 1,000,000,000,000 billion km form here
We never know, - do we ?

The second problem:

Change the distance of the Earth from the Sun and the planet heats up or cools down. Change it enough and the planet cannot sustain life.

What is "enough" RC, - except a place in your own fantasy, - do you mean 1 billion km, - is it exactly there where you forgot the gold medal and yellow shirt ?

Just tell me when you again return to Earth, - (if you ever does).

According to you, the increase in the Earths distance from the Sun puts the Earth was inside the Sun within the last 2 million years ago !
Alternately it was 2AU away from the Sun, i.e. outside the current orbit of Mars and just as inhabitable.
Liar
This is only according to you own fantasy.
 
The 100,000 years period, is the Earth's precession period, first calculated by Milankovitch. - (perturbations periods)
I thought RC would not respect that great scientist either . Now RC claims that the 100,000 years Milankovitz; seems pulled out of his cows backside.

It is, of course, your interpretation that is pulled out from somewhere where the sun don't shine. But you know that.

During these (already existing) Milankovitz 100,000 years periods relativistisc resistance (RR) will first push the "perihelion part" of the orbit backwards (the next 50,000 year), simple because this is the period where perihelion of the Earth always is pointing towards the solar systems motion direction, round the Milkyway.

Such as this. Of course Bjarne completely misunderstands Milankovits' theory.

Here it is in a very easy to understand explanation (in Danish, as Bjarne's Danish is somewhat better than his English):

http://www.hax.dk/pdf/DrivSide28-29.pdf

A more comprehensive, and English, explanation here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Note that it doesn't even mention the galactic rotation period, let alone Bjarnes imaginative relativistic resistance.

We are still only speaking about 4 million km. (dot) - Not 159 million km.

What does (dot) mean, Bjarne?

Hans
 
Magnet fields are very easy to detect. Apart from gravity, which is sort of always here, the magnet field was the first fundamental force to be detected and measured. As shown by the article you linked to, we can detect the magnet fields of distant galaxies.

If moving objects created magnet fields, it would be easily detectable. We would have known for at least a century.

And this is what you actually always can measure, except when stronger MF overshadow.
For example the mysterious MF's discovered in galaxies, and cluster of galaxies, - that not "should" be there...

Here on the planet we are affected by;

The Ionosphere Dynamo
The Earth’s Magnetic Field
Electric current in the ionosphere and magnetosphere.
The Sun’s MF field.

For example the Ionosphere Dynamo is weakening or strengthening the global field. - In this case the magnitude is just strong enough to measure a difference.

If a MF is weak , - it is impossible to distinguish due to the MF of the Earth..

No, matter in motion does not create a magnet field. No matter how many times you repeat it, it remains wrong.

The effect is exactly so weak as relativistic mass increase, so what you is saying is that it should also be possible to measure that the mass of your body is increased due to the speed 200 km og you car, right ?

Hans,- we are talking about a weak field, by such slow speed.
First when you is reaching the speed of stars (250 000 m/s) , you can measure these MF, but still we are talking about pretty weak MF.

Soo, you are now claiming that charged objects pull differently at space-vucuum [sic]? And since you also claim that this pull at space-vucuum is responsible for gravity, it follows that a charged object has a different gravitational pull than a non-charged one, right?
When 2 interacting particles (matter moves) , these particles are constantly swapping a little package of absorbed / contracted space.

Space do resist that interaction, and if the strong force suddenly dissapear that space (the little package of absorbed sapce) will be released as expanding space.
So far so good.

Now, put these 2 above mentioned interacting particles in motion.

Now the mass will increase due to speed.
This mean first now the resistance against "the curvature of space", is changing a bit.
First now is the resistance against “space curving” is not only against space to curve, - BUT ALSO AGAINST THAT SPEED THAT GAVE THAT BODY EXSTRA MASS/GRAVITY.

BUT that resistances is WEAK, so long we are talking about relative slow motion relative to c. - And in this case to resistance agianst motion is only affecting the mass increase.

Charged particles are a completely different story.
These particles “feels” a magnetic field as; another particles they can “dance with” – whereby these hence are completely twisted into that flow of space a magnetic field is, and hence easy carried away by the MF. This is why particles are carried away of a MF. When these particles moves (due to other reasons), they do also interact much stonger with that space where they move, and hence pulls a larger flow of space, - than matter (particles) that interacts with each other.

The stronger the MF is, the deeper are such free particles is twisted into space and the more does these particles pulls space.

Pulling space in its wake, - this is all what a MF, (created by matter / particle) is about.
 
Last edited:
It is, of course, your interpretation that is pulled out from somewhere where the sun don't shine. But you know that
This is what RC wrote here > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7079504&postcount=3646

Such as this. Of course Bjarne completely misunderstands Milankovits' theory

Yes this is what you do, the 100,000 years cycle and all what Milankovitch have discovered and shown is unchanged by my theory. And you KNOW it.

My theory is in addition to that.

It is so simple.

You KNOW that.
RC – KNOW that too.

The last post of yours and RC's only proves that you and RC has run out of sharp ammunition, and now the target is (once again) only to fool and confuse the stupid readers.

Just too cheap Hans.

I hope you enjoy it.

You and RC is soooo simple transparent
 
Last edited:
The 100,000 years period, is the Earth's precession period, first calculated by Milankovitch.
Completely wrong, as usual.

100 000 years is the apparent ice age cycle, which is problem for Milankovitch Theory because it does not fit well with the periods of the Milankovitch cycles.

You may be thinking of the orbital eccentricity, which overall has a roughly 100 000 year cycle although none of the contributing variations does. Or you could pretend you were thinking of orbital inclination, also 100 000 years.

For your information, althought I'm sure you'll either pretend you knew or deny it's relevance, the perihelion precession of earth is about 23 000 years and the axial precession is about 26 000 years.


I thought RC would not respect that great scientist either . Now RC claims that the 100,000 years Milankovitz; seems pulled out of his cows backside.
Where did you get 100 000 years from again?


But how shall we ever expect RC will understand what that mean ?
It doesn't seem to mean anything, it appears to be something that escaped from your head while your brain wasn't looking.


Due to Perihelion parts of the orbit is pushed backwards the orbital eccentricity will increase. This period have just started.
Eccentricity and apsis are completely different.


The 50,000 years after that,
Where do you get this stuff from?


We are talking about a elliptical extra orbit extension to extra 4 million km. (dot) And after 50 000 years return to the today well known almost circular orbit. (dot).....
So now you're talking about eccentricity again?


We are still only speaking about 4 million km. (dot) - Not 159 million km.
The difference in distance to the sun between perihelion and aphelion is currently around 5 million km.


What is "enough" RC, - except a place in your own fantasy,
I would imagine that enough is the place where the planet can no longer support life; on the galactic scale not very far.


do you mean 1 billion km, - is it exactly there where you forgot the gold medal and yellow shirt ?
Don't you find it tiring being so stupid all the time?


Just because you don't understand the consequences of what you post, doesn't mean they are not true.
 
If a MF is weak , - it is impossible to distinguish due to the MF of the Earth..

Not at all. We can easily detect much weaker magnet fields.

The effect is exactly so weak as relativistic mass increase, so what you is saying is that it should also be possible to measure that the mass of your body is increased due to the speed 200 km og you car, right ?

Sure, that is no problem.

Hans,- we are talking about a weak field, by such slow speed.
First when you is reaching the speed of stars (250 000 m/s) , you can measure these MF, but still we are talking about pretty weak MF.

You are now trying to talk yourself out of it, but it won't work. We can accelerate neutrons to relativistic speeds (not by magnet fields), and if they made a magnet field, we would detect it.

Also, if we were talking about a pretty weak MF, obviously, it would have virtually no effect, so you are now dismantling your own model.

When 2 interacting particles (matter moves) , these particles are constantly swapping a little package of absorbed / contracted space.

No, they are not. This is just your fantasy.

Space do resist that interaction, and if the strong force suddenly dissapear that space (the little package of absorbed sapce) will be released as expanding space.
So far so good.

Unfounded speculation.

Now, put these 2 above mentioned interacting particles in motion.

Now the mass will increase due to speed.
This mean first now the resistance against "the curvature of space", is changing a bit.
First now is the resistance against “space curving” is not only against space to curve, - BUT ALSO AGAINST THAT SPEED THAT GAVE THAT BODY EXSTRA MASS/GRAVITY.

BUT that resistances is WEAK, so long we are talking about relative slow motion relative to c. - And in this case to resistance agianst motion is only affecting the mass increase.

Charged particles are a completely different story.
These particles “feels” a magnetic field as; another particles they can “dance with” – whereby these hence are completely twisted into that flow of space a magnetic field is, and hence easy carried away by the MF. This is why particles are carried away of a MF. When these particles moves (due to other reasons), they do also interact much stonger with that space where they move, and hence pulls a larger flow of space, - than matter (particles) that interacts with each other.

The stronger the MF is, the deeper are such free particles is twisted into space and the more does these particles pulls space.

Pulling space in its wake, - this is all what a MF, (created by matter / particle) is about.

No. You are just fabulating. There is absolute no evidence for all that. Try to grasp reality, for a change. Start by actually learning what we already know.


Hans
 
Originally Posted by Bjarne
The 100,000 years period, is the Earth's precession period, first calculated by Milankovitch.
Originally Posted byPaul
Completely wrong, as usual.
Not completely wrong, only the word “presssion”

100 000 years is the apparent ice age cycle, which is problem for Milankovitch Theory because it does not fit well with the periods of the Milankovitch cycles.
Right, but this can easy be fixed, by the Relativistic Resistance (RR) theory I represent.

You may be thinking of the orbital eccentricity, which overall has a roughly 100 000 year cycle although none of the contributing variations does.
Right.

Eccentricity and apsis are completely different.
Right
  • An apsis is the point of greatest or least distance of a body from one of the foci of its elliptical orbit
  • The orbital eccentricity of an astronomical body is the amount by which its orbit deviates from a perfect circle, where 0 is perfectly circular, and 1.0 is a parabola, and no longer a closed orbit.
The RR theory, means the perihelion apsis is shortening 3.9 million km, and the aphelion apsis is extended 3,9 million km.

The difference in distance to the sun between perihelion and aphelion is currently around 5 million km.
Correct, and notice, due to that difference you do have a temperature difference for example here (Denmark) that say; +20 / minus 5 (roughly) I guess.
When the apsis are changing like described, on the one hand the summer at the Southern hemispheres will be warmer, and the winter on the summer on the northern hemisphere will be much colder.

This means that spring will come late here, and the summer will be short.

But at the same time the warmer summer at the southern hemisphere will have a global effect as well, and make the winter here a little warmer.

But the overall picture will be that the winter will be warmer and summer colder and colder.

Worse scenario is that the summer will be so cold, and so short that there is not time to melt the ice, in the most northern areas.

But yes there are several other Milankovitz contributions as well as influences from the Suns activity, and (I hate to say it) but hopefully also from the CO2 level.

I would imagine that enough is the place where the planet can no longer support life; on the galactic scale not very far.
As you wrote, you already know the consequences of +/ 5 million km distance variation to the Sun.
It should be “easy” to imaging which level we are talking about, - when RR is causing a 3,9 million km radius change, as just described.
 
Not at all. We can easily detect much weaker magnet fields.

Source ?
Weak electromagnetic and maybe ferro MF field I guess yes, due to the frequencies.

You are now trying to talk yourself out of it, but it won't work. We can accelerate neutrons to relativistic speeds (not by magnet fields),
How then ?
Source ?

and if they made a magnet field, we would detect it.
Does the relativistic mass increase due to that speed ?
Source ?

Start by actually learning what we already know.
Start by understanding how much you do not know, and how incoherent your picture of nature relay is. .
  • Where does the MF inside galaxies come from?
  • Where does the MF inside cluster of galaxies come from ?
  • Where does the MF Magnetars and Pulsars come from ?
  • Do you see the common denominator; >> Speed, - (you must look outside the bush) >> – If not Mother Cow certainly can see it.
I guess you agree these MF's is not caused by charged particles ?
Allready here you have a problem, Sir.

I mean I hope there is no reasons to believe that a herd of charged particles follows the Sun or follows the MilkyWay, - or such kind of mad fantasy is it, - is it?

So WHERE does the mentioned MF’s comes from Hans ?

If these NOT are causes by charged particles, WHAT is then left to created these MF's, - Hans ?

  • Do you believe UFO's is to blame ?
  • Or dark galaxies - or dark matter is to blame?
  • Or the 21st bright blue demotion is to blame?
  • OR - WHAT IS LEFT TO BLAMÈ – Hans ?

According to Mother cow; there is ONLY one serious candidate left, and this is regular matter + motion. - And Hans -that’s it, there are no other obtions.

So just use a little coherence cow logic and a simple process of elimination, - that’s all you need.

The Universe is not so complicated like you wish it to be.
 
Last edited:
The problems with Bjarne latest fantasy
The 100,000 years period, is the Earth's precession period, first calculated by Milankovitch. - (perturbations periods)
That is ignorant:Milankovitch cycles are not Earth's precession period. They are a result of the sum of "variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit" (emphasis added)

You arbitrarily picked one number with the help of you your pet cow.

During these (already existing) Milankovitz 100,000 years periods relativistisc resistance (RR) will first push the "perihelion part" of the orbit backwards (the next 50,000 year), simple because this is the period where perihelion of the Earth always is pointing towards the solar systems motion direction, round the Milkyway.
...snipped more ignorance...
The perihelion is the point of closest apprach of an orbiting body to the primary. It does not point anywhere. The perihelon of the Earth is 147,098,291 km.

You cannot even understand your own fantasy. That delusional RAM is "resistance against motion" - the motion is the orbit. It always happens against the motion of the orbiting object. It is nothing to do with the Soar System's motion anywhere.

P.S. Did you know that the distance to the Moon is measured using radar and laser to an accuaracy of centimeters?

Do your ignorant RAM calculation for the Moon. How many meters a year does it's orbit increase?
The problems with Bjarne latest fantasy
 
I guess you agree these MF's is not caused by charged particles ?

Why not? There are a lot of charged streams going on in stars.


I mean I hope there is no reasons to believe that a herd of charged particles follows the Sun or follows the MilkyWay, - or such kind of mad fantasy is it, - is it?

Follow? What do you think goes on around a supermassive black hole?

Do you know what plasma is? (Hint: Charged particles galore)

Hans
 
  • Where does the MF inside galaxies come from?
  • Where does the MF inside cluster of galaxies come from ?
  • Where does the MF Magnetars and Pulsars come from ?
  • Do you see the common denominator; >> Speed, - (you must look outside the bush) >> – If not Mother Cow certainly can see it.

To put it simply:
  • The movement of charged particles (plasma).
  • The movement of charged particles (plasma).
  • The movement of charged particles (plasma).
  • Do you see the common denominator; >> charged particles moving, - (you must know some science ) >> – If not Mother Cow certainly can see it.
Mother Cow certainly knows that Bjarne is ignorant of the science and too lazy or deluded or whatever to learn it.

The MF of galaxies currently comes from the plasma of the interstellar medium that is moving around in them. There is evidence that the MFs were seeded from primordial MFs in the eary universe when the galaxies first formed.

The MF between galaxies is the MF of the galaxies. MF do not magically stop at the boundaries of galaxies.

Stellar magnetic field The MF of all stars (including magnetars and pulsars) are generated by the motion of plasma (charged particles) inside them. All that is special about magnetars and pulsars is that the MF has been concentrated into a small volume (and so is much stronger) when the stars collapsed.
 
Not completely wrong, only the word “presssion”
Which would make it all wrong.


Right, but this can easy be fixed, by the Relativistic Resistance (RR) theory I represent.
You don't present a theory, you present garbled nonsense stemming from ignorance and arrogant refusal to be educated.


Right.


Right
So you're going with the pretend you know what we're talking about and that you already agreed.


The RR theory, means the perihelion apsis is shortening 3.9 million km, and the aphelion apsis is extended 3,9 million km.
Again the confusion of apsis and eccentricity, in the same reply where you claim to know the difference.


When the apsis are changing like described, on the one hand the summer at the Southern hemispheres will be warmer, and the winter on the summer on the northern hemisphere will be much colder.
That is axial precession, not apsidal precession.


This means that spring will come late here, and the summer will be short.
That depends on eccentricity.


But at the same time the warmer summer at the southern hemisphere will have a global effect as well, and make the winter here a little warmer.
No.


But the overall picture will be that the winter will be warmer and summer colder and colder.
No.


Worse scenario is that the summer will be so cold, and so short that there is not time to melt the ice, in the most northern areas.
You mean like an ice age?


As you wrote, you already know the consequences of +/ 5 million km distance variation to the Sun.
Summer and winter.


It should be “easy” to imaging which level we are talking about, - when RR is causing a 3,9 million km radius change, as just described.
I know basic science is a problem for you, but even you can see that 3.9 is less than 5.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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