Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Daylightstar · Aug 24, 2011

Bjarne said:
Dear ... orbit

You're doing your job well, Bjarne.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7493587&postcount=4146

Reality Check · Aug 24, 2011

Bjarne said:
Dear the universe is so huge you probably can see that Flow / Motion is not as expected, - but of course too big that you or an ant can see the orbit.

Darling you have no evidence that the flow is anything but what it is: a flow.

Bjarne said:
I have a coherent theory that predicts that excactly must happen, as well as I predict we will disovover a lot more from such "flow" of clusters in orbit

You have an incoherent fantasy made up of streams of gibberish.

A coherent theory involves mathematics.
You have shown a total failure to understand even the simplests mathmatics, e.g. dimensional analysis:
Your delusons about one version of your RR:

Or the version that shows your other delusion: RR= (y - 1)?
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked) :

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no !
Two years, 10 months and counting

Dark flow is that there is a group of galaxy clusters with a pecular velocity that happens to be toward a certain point. That is not an orbit. That is possible evidence of an attractive force on the group that is situated outside of the observable universe.

And your prediction is insane: If clusters 'orbited' the universe then every cluster would orbit, not just this one group.

Reality Check · Aug 24, 2011

DeathDart said:
...gibberish snipped...
"Dark Matter" sounds a lot like like many of the commonly believed dead ends, that has hung up science in the past.

That shows ignorance on your part.
You need to learn that the observational evidence for dark matter is overwhelming before relying on how a phrase sounds to you.

Is it the word dark that scares you? Or the word matter? or the combination?

Reality Check · Aug 24, 2011

DeathDart said:
All you Maxwell, pure mathematical types, are terrible at making discoveries.

I thought that this was gibberish but maybe it is just ignorance.
Dark matter is a set of observations: the observational evidence for dark matter
The composition of dark matter is the theory part.
What we know is that the observations show that it is

23% of the observable universe.
Does not emit light (is dark), i.e. interacts weakly (or not at all) electromagnetically.
Does interact gravitationally.

One of the latest observations is explained in this blog: Why Dark Matter Rules Mini-Galaxies!

With just over 1,000 stars and yet a mass of something like 600,000 solar masses, Segue 1 is the most dark-matter-dominated object found to date!
Some people contend that this discrepancy is cause for alarm, and some even reject the idea of dark matter because of it! And while it surprised me when I first learned about it just a few days ago, it shouldn't have.
...
So what happens when you put a source of radiation pressure in or near something with normal matter and dark matter? Well, the dark matter stays put no matter what. But the normal matter?
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/upload/2011/08/why_dark_matter_rules_mini-gal/Red Sh5.gif(image snipped)
It depends on how deep your gravitational potential well is! If you've got a lot of mass in a large galaxy (or very large cluster of galaxies), most of the normal matter stays put, as this extra pressure is insufficient to kick the normal matter out. But the smaller and lower-mass your galaxy (or dwarf galaxy, or mini-galaxy) is, the more normal matter gets expelled!
And that's why dark matter rules mini-galaxies, and the tinier you are, the more dark matter rules you!

DeathDart · Aug 24, 2011

Reality Check said:
That shows ignorance on your part.
You need to learn that the observational evidence for dark matter is overwhelming before relying on how a phrase sounds to you.

Is it the word dark that scares you? Or the word matter? or the combination?

How about the theory that better matches what is observed, without creating undetectable and randomly placed matter?

Its in that galaxy, but not in this galaxy. It appears where you need for it to appear. That is not a solution.

Bjarne · Aug 24, 2011

Reality Check said:
Darling you have no evidence that the flow is anything but what it is: a flow.

Sweetheart don’t through stones when you live in a glass house.

Yes the "flow" is there

You have no evidence, - I not either.
But I expect such flow MUST be there.
You have ONLY fantasy without any coherence (as usual) so soon you must explian WHY ?

You have an incoherent fantasy made up of streams of gibberish.
A coherent theory involves mathematics.

Why do you then not prove mathematical;

that RR not exist
that space really is nothing
show us the math proving why a cow have 16 teeth in it's month.
why Venus orbit the Sun and not the Earth,
why the Universe expands (according to your religion)
why the sky is blue
that Higgs really exist (and even if you do, where is mathematical evidence for that the evidence that it REALLY exists)
etc.......

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain; they do not refer to reality."
Albert Einsten

Reality Check · Aug 24, 2011

Bjarne said:
Yes the "flow" is there

You have no evidence, - I not either.

At last we agree - no one has evidence for an orvbot!

Bjarne said:
Why do you then not prove mathematical;

that RR not exist

How idiotic: read what I posted over 2 years ago.

RR= (y - 1) is a number not an acceleration. Thus mathematically RR does not exist.

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked) :

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no !
Two years, 10 months and counting

Your delusons about another version of your RR:

The experiments say that RR does not exist:

Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
First posted 2 November 2009
Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).

Bjarne · Aug 24, 2011

Reality Check said:
How idiotic: read what I posted over 2 years ago.
RR= (y - 1) is a number not an acceleration.
Thus mathematically RR does not exist.

Wrong equation, you must use the modified version.

The experiments say that RR does not exist:

Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
First posted 2 November 2009

Click to expand...

Ohh no
Who pay for the Magnetic field left it the wake of the particle flow ?
If not sped of matter (particles) ?

And by the way.... who pay for this energy loss here :
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=galaxies-mysterious-magne
if not lose of speed ?

Reality Check · Aug 24, 2011

Bjarne said:
Wrong equation, you must use the modified version.

The modified version is insanely wrong - it returns a speed not an acceleration.
Do you really think that acceleration is a speed?
Why is your multiplier 1 m/s^2? Why is X not 2 m/s^2? Why not 300,000 m/s^2? Why not 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s^2?

Bjarne said:
Ohh no
Who pay for the Magnetic field left it the wake of the particle flow ?
If not sped of matter (particles) ?

Ohhh no - gibberish and abysmal ignorance of physics.

Since you are too lazy to actually read Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance"
Posted on 11 December 2009!

Here is is:

Reality Check said:
And this is the reason for the recent posts displaying more of Bjarne's ignorance.
(Hey Bjarne - superconducting magnets need electricity to produce magnetic fields. Wow what a surprise!)

There are energy losses in the operation of particle accelerators, especially circular ones like the LHC. The known laws of physics tell us what these energy losses are. The accelerator is designed to work with these known energy losses. They are compensated for in the RF system.

Scientists know the exact energy losses. The energy that the RF system has to put into a stored beam is the exact energy loss due to the motion of the particles in the beam.

Then you run the accelerator and it works.

Accelerators do not have double* their budgeted electricity cost
To accelerate the particles you use electricity.
Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" means that more electricity is used that is designed or budgeted for. Somebody has to pay the bill. Accountants tend to scream loudly when a budgeted item doubles*.

* Bjarne is deluded enough to think that you can assign the Lorentz factor (a number without units of measurement) any units that he likes, e.g. those of acceleration. This is an arbitary multiplication of his "kinetic resistance" equation by 1 m/s^2, KR = (y-1) * a where a = 1 m/s^2.
But we can select any value for a that we like. Including values that make accelerators consume a million times their budgeted electrictity cost.

Accelerated particles do not hit the walls of the accelerator

This is one of the very good points that Cuddles makes http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5345407&postcount=473.

RF systems (e.g. RF cavity resonators) are used to accelerate particles and to keep them in the ring.

If there was an extra impossible "kinetic resistance" then the acceleratparticles would always hit the walls of the accelerator because the RF systems do not know about Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance".

Stored particles do not hit the walls of the accelerator

The next point is that the beams are circulated without acceleration for hours at a time. This is the accelerator acting as a storage ring. Making the beam travel in a circle is fairly basic physics. All you need are magnets and Maxwell's equations. The magnets are tuned to keep particles at a specific energy traveling in a circle.

Known losses (e.g. synchrotron radiation) are compensated for by RF systems.

Unknown losses such are Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" are not compensated for.

If the particles are not at that energy they escape the storage ring. They hit the walls. In the case of high energy beams as in the LHC they then proceed to destroy the system.

Accelerated particles have the energy that is predicted
Yet another (less compelling) reason is that scientists are really interested in the collisions and their products. They are so interested that they measure the energy of all of the products in calorimeters.
There is a little law of physics that you should know about: energy is conserved.
Thus the energy of the products is equal to the energy of the particles that collided.
No one has claimed a Nobel Prize by noticing that energy is not conserved in the collisions, i.e. the products have half the predicted energy of the particle beams.

Bjarne said:
And by the way.... who pay for this energy loss here :
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=galaxies-mysterious-magne
if not lose of speed ?

And by the way .... even your pet cow would make sense of that article:

there is no loss of energy mentioned in that article.
there is no loss of speed mentioned in the article.

One of these years or decades you need to try to understand what you read :jaw-dropp

!

Bjarne · Aug 25, 2011

Reality Check said:
The modified version is insanely wrong - it returns a speed not an acceleration.

Off course all that not agree to insane 100% mass brainwashed orthodox "science" are insanely wrong, it have been so the last 100 years, and it will be so forever. But this is not science but the history of the weakness of the human nature;

Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts.
Albert Einstein

And by the way .... even your pet cow would make sense of that article:

there is no loss of energy mentioned in that article.

there is no loss of speed mentioned in the article.

One of these years or decades you need to try to understand what you read !

The point is; if you do open your mount and tell the only possible truth (that speed lost can be the only way to pay the energy bill) you are an insane CRACKPOT, - right ?
Or where do you think the energy to that magnetic fields comes from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=galaxies-mysterious-magne ?

For example tell us about the PROCESS; - what happens when matter due to speed converts into gravity "deformed space".
PLEASE tell me about the PROCESS not only cold mathematic blab la bla you never have understood ….

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
Albert Einstein

Bjarne · Aug 25, 2011

Reality Check said:
I have something against people writing gibberish. .

So you don't like scientists, astronomer etc ?

Bjarne · Aug 25, 2011

Reality Check said:
A coherent theory involves mathematics.
You have shown a total failure to understand even the simplests mathmatics, e.g. dimensional analysis:

So why are you not mathematical proving that the Universe really expands ?.

2+2 = 4
But it is not mathematical evidence that proves that when the sky is double so blue today as yesterday it is because today there is double so much oxygen , --- because oxygen is blue (as we all know).

It also doesn't proves mathematical that when the EM-spectra have expanded 100% then is it because of the Universe, oxygen, cows and what so ever… also have expanded 100%

So first ask; - what do you want me to prove mathematical?

Well let us with a gravity wave.
Until a gravity wave arrive an observer gravity will still be excact the same for that observer as before the gravity wave begun to travel.

The second after the gravity wave have past that observer, he is still affected by the gravity from the sourse / “the gravity wave”.

A gravity wave will spread with the speed of light - after passing an observer the equation is still based on MG/r^2, but not from the source (the starting point of the gravity wave) and to the observer, but based on the distance between the source and the distance to where the gravity wave have reached.

For example, let us say the Sun would suddenly dissolve.
After 8 min. a gravity-wave would hit us.
But in those 8 minutes the gravity of the Sun would be the same for us.
After the gravity-wave have pass by, let us say reach halfway to Jupiter (300 million km) we would on earth still be attracted to where the Sun once was, - the gravity strength would now be MG/3E11^2 – and not MG/1,5E11^2 as before.

In the same way, a gravity wave 13 billion LY away would affect us exactly the same way even after the supernova was gone 13 billion years ago.

And even after 26 billion years we still would be affected by the star that exploded 26 billion years ago (but now only 25% compared to 13 billion years before // if we would still be 13 billion LY away//).

Do you agree to that ?

Based on that you should be able to understand that space will “remember” a previous deformation billion of years after a previous Universe is gone.
This is what we just have proven.

All you really need to understand is that gravity was extreme when BB went off, - simple due to extreme speed.
This too cows learn to calculate allready 2 years after they are born.

Based on that it is easy to understand what Dark Matter REALLY is.

So yes RC I agree… mathematic can be a good place to start, - but unfortunately still concrete is concrete, still mass-brainwash is mass-brainwash and still religion will rules science (like it always have done).

So good math is nothing worth when the concrete is 80 meter thick.
Do you understand this too ?

Bjarne · Aug 25, 2011

Reality Check said:
The modified version is insanely wrong - it returns a speed not an acceleration.

It shall NOT return as deceleration, - but as speed, - so everything is OK...
The eqaution is ONLY designed to tell us what happens in the FIRST SECOND.
After that you do have a new speed (of the object), and must start calculate it all again, (after to have deducted the lost in the first second)

We are NOT speaking about a linear deceleration BUT a unique lost of speed, - only possible to calculate FIRST SECOND at the time, - dear.

Daylightstar · Aug 25, 2011

Excellent job again, Bjarne. Almost outdoing yourself.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7493587&postcount=4146

Amazing how you try to defend so much stupidity with so much stupidity.

Paul · Aug 25, 2011

Otto West: Don't call me stupid.
Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095159/quotes?qt=qt0320171

Reality Check · Aug 25, 2011

Why is your addition 1 m/s? Why not 2 m/s? Why not 300,000 m/s?

Bjarne said:
It shall NOT return as deceleration, - but as speed, - so everything is OK...
The eqaution is ONLY designed to tell us what happens in the FIRST SECOND.

That is stupid when you can just use an acceleratti

But now we have 2 versions of RR all idiotic:
(RR) = (y – 1m/s) - where γ = 1m/s /√(1 - v²/c²) AND THE TIME IS 1 SECOND.

This of course still shows your total ignorance of physics: y is a number. You cannot subtract a speed from it.

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no !
Two years, 10 months and counting

And: Why is your addition 1 m/s? Why not 2 m/s? Why not 300,000 m/s? Why not 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s?

Or if I fix it for you to an vaild equation:
Why is your multiplier 1 m/s^2? Why is X not 2 m/s^2? Why not 300,000 m/s^2? Why not 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s^2?

And RR does not exist:

Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
First posted 2 November 2009
Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).

Bjarne said:
We are NOT speaking about a linear deceleration BUT a unique lost of speed, - only possible to calculate FIRST SECOND at the time, - dear.

Total ignorance -darling.
You can calculate a loss of speed for any time interval: v = at where v = velocity, a = accelteration and t = time.

MRC_Hans · Aug 25, 2011

Bjarne said:
So why are you not mathematical proving that the Universe really expands ?.

The proof of that is available. Try Google.

2+2 = 4

WOW! Who said Bjarne can't do math?

But it is not mathematical evidence that proves that when the sky is double so blue today as yesterday it is because today there is double so much oxygen , --- because oxygen is blue (as we all know).

Gibberish.

It also doesn't proves mathematical that when the EM-spectra have expanded 100% then is it because of the Universe, oxygen, cows and what so ever… also have expanded 100%

Gibberish.

So first ask; - what do you want me to prove mathematical?

Well, do you have anything to prove?

Well let us with a gravity wave.

Or, perhaps let us not.

Until a gravity wave arrive an observer gravity will still be excact the same for that observer as before the gravity wave begun to travel.

As far as that is understandable, it appears to be right.

The second after the gravity wave have past that observer, he is still affected by the gravity from the sourse / “the gravity wave”.

Of course. After all gravity can't just disappear.

A gravity wave will spread with the speed of light - after passing an observer the equation is still based on MG/r^2, but not from the source (the starting point of the gravity wave) and to the observer, but based on the distance between the source and the distance to where the gravity wave have reached.

It doesn't really make sense to state an observation without an observer, but ... let that pass.

For example, let us say the Sun would suddenly dissolve.
After 8 min. a gravity-wave would hit us.

Uhh, no. The sun can't suddenly vanish; the mass will still be there, in some form.

But in those 8 minutes the gravity of the Sun would be the same for us.

Yes.

After the gravity-wave have pass by, let us say reach halfway to Jupiter (300 million km) we would on earth still be attracted to where the Sun once was, - the gravity strength would now be MG/3E11^2 – and not MG/1,5E11^2 as before.

No.

In the same way, a gravity wave 13 billion LY away would affect us exactly the same way even after the supernova was gone 13 billion years ago.

No.

And even after 26 billion years we still would be affected by the star that exploded 26 billion years ago (but now only 25% compared to 13 billion years before // if we would still be 13 billion LY away//).

No.

Do you agree to that ?

No.

Based on that you should be able to understand that space will “remember” a previous deformation billion of years after a previous Universe is gone.
This is what we just have proven.

No.

All you really need to understand is that gravity was extreme when BB went off, - simple due to extreme speed.

No.

Based on that it is easy to understand what Dark Matter REALLY is.

No.

Hans

MRC_Hans · Aug 25, 2011

OK, I think I understand what Bjarne is trying to claim. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, it is wrong.

Let us say the sun would suddenly vanish.

So for some 8 minutes, we would notice nothing on Earth, then the sun would wink out, and a gravity wave would hit us. How exactly we would sense that gravity wave, I'm not sure, but after it had passed, Earth would no longer 'feel' the gravity of the sun, so it would proceed at a straight line into space, tangential to its previous orbit, and at unchanged speed.

For some time longer, Jupiter would still 'feel' and 'see' the sun, then the same would happen there.

The only way the universe would 'remember' the gravity of the sun would be that in the places where the gravity wave had not arrived, there would be no difference.

.....

Of course, an object really can't just disappear. An exploding star does not vanish, its mass is just spread over a larger area.

Hans

MRC_Hans · Aug 25, 2011

Bjarne said:
It shall NOT return as deceleration, - but as speed, - so everything is OK...
The eqaution is ONLY designed to tell us what happens in the FIRST SECOND.
After that you do have a new speed (of the object), and must start calculate it all again, (after to have deducted the lost in the first second)

We are NOT speaking about a linear deceleration BUT a unique lost of speed, - only possible to calculate FIRST SECOND at the time, - dear.

Bjarne, pray tell: What is the difference between lost speed and ... deceleration?

Hans

Bjarne · Aug 25, 2011

Reality Check said:
That is stupid when you can just use an acceleratti

But now we have 2 versions of RR all idiotic:
(RR) = (y – 1m/s) - where γ = 1m/s /√(1 - v²/c²) AND THE TIME IS 1 SECOND.

I have found the right found you could not after asking you plenty times.

Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Graduate Poster

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Share this page

ISF - Join now!