Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

MRC_Hans · Aug 30, 2011

Bjarne said:
First try to understand it you self.
In the previous post you admittet that you did't
So that would be a perfect place to start
Then understand thayt gravity wave are different
Such from Binary system will not faltten but continue forever
BUT such that emarge due to lost of matter will certianly gradually fatten / weakening.

I'm sorry, that part is simply incomprehensible. At the very least, use a spell-checker, but that would not be enough here, I'm afraid.

The fact is that we have so many facileties able to detec gravitional waves, we SHOULD long ago have results.

BUT when gravity waves (from supernovas or Binary stars) are changing everything propotinal we have nothing to compare with, and cannot detect such.

You have no idea what you are talking a bout.

Tak a look at this > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzZgFKoIfQI

So left is now to understand what is the force of gravity.

And you don't.

Gravitational waves are pretty good expression when we talk about such from binary systems, - but we are not.

Incomprehensible.

We are talking about such as are the result of matter dissolving and hence off course also dissolving depressions of space.
This can be illustrate as below..
http://www.science27.com/forum/sunWave.jpg
You can see the stretch of space between the Sun and the Earth (fig.A - red area) would be released after 8 minutes if the Sun would dissolve but still the depression would be there, after passing the Earth.
In this case it is misleading to talk about a "wave"- simple because there are no waves, but instead flattening of a depression, - with the speed of light.

And?

A BigCrunch / BigBang will leaves billions of such. Because gravity was extreme when BigBang went off, - which mean a previous Universe was exploding.
Therefore when matter again is created, there are still old depressions left.
Such old depression-remains is what so-called dark matter is.

Nonsense.

Bjarne, perhaps you should study the subject a bit before you try to be wise about it? Dark matter is not some diffuse gravity field all over the universe, it is very localized in galaxies. Your model does not explain that.

Also, there is not a scenario where there is some large 'amount of gravity' in the universe. Gravity is closely tied to mass, and the amount of mass in the universe is fairly constant.

I know you imagine that the whole universe could have had a great speed and this could have created a lot of gravity, but that is nonsense: Speed is relative, and it does not create gravity in itself. Acceleration creates gravity, but in turn consumes energy. There is not enough energy in the universe to increase the total gravity by any appreciable amount.

Hans

Bjarne · Aug 31, 2011

MRC_Hans said:
If matter disappears (it can't, but if ....)

Do you know “we” believe the "dot" that triggered BigBang was smaller as an electron?
So you believe all the elementary particles was inside that “dot” ?

the gravity from it stops.
Just like if you turn out a lamp.
But the gravity/light that already left the mass/lamp will continue to spread at the speed of light.
(Note that otherwise gravity an light are quite different, but in this context they behave in the same way.)
Hans

Right,
Or in other words;
When the strong nuclear force is outplayed the interaction can no longer twist particles into space, and therefore gravity ‘stops” – or in other words stretching space towards matter is released with the speed of light, from the starting point - which is from the object.

Bjarne, perhaps you should study the subject a bit before you try to be wise about it? Dark matter is not some diffuse gravity field all over the universe; it is very localized in galaxies. Your model does not explain that.

The next would probably be that dark matter is intelligent, because it always behave in the same systematical way, right ?
The BigChunch scenarios I have describe above is; - when all matter in the Universe would dissolve in a BigChunch (and trigger a BigBang).

My model doesn’t go into details.
Many things are still unknown in that model.
It is not certain that allmatter completely would dissolve when billion of stars/ galaxies exploded due to extreme speed / gravity?

A lot of matter could very well survey. – I strongly believe it does.

If just large part of extreme fast moving galaxies would explode that would delay the BigChunch process a lot.

A BigChunch would therefore return again and again, - and again.

Speed of surveying matter would then slow down, due to the lost of gravity (of the Universe) and therefore still be in orbit around both the Universe, as well as in orbit in cluster and in galaxies etc.

But still surveying relative fast moving matter would contribute with strong gravity.

Also, there is not a scenario where there is some large 'amount of gravity' in the universe.

So far have we have not discovered what could be the center of the Universe. I believe this ;http://www.newscientist.com/article...in-space-is-1-billion-light-years-across.html

Gravity is closely tied to mass, and the amount of mass in the universe is fairly constant.

What about this then;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW7BvabYnn8

I know you imagine that the whole universe could have had a great speed and this could have created a lot of gravity, but that is nonsense: Speed is relative, and it does not create gravity in itself. Acceleration creates gravity, but in turn consumes energy.

So let us imaging acceleration of the Earth to almost c, - gravity would increase 10 000 times, - and now the acceleration would stop.
WHAT would happen with that xtreme gravity of the Earth – Hans ?

There is not enough energy in the universe to increase the total gravity by any appreciable amount.

Gravity is a result of speed, - this triggers a self-perpetuating process, because increasing speed (due to gravity) = increasing gravity and increasing gravity = increasing speed.
The process MUST go mad, - as long as you accept RR and hence that matter orbits / is circling inwards of the huge gravitionel field we call the Universe.

With reference to this context, you and other should try the best you can to suggest.

WHY is the strength of black holes proportional with the amount of visible mass of a galaxy?

We KNOW this is true, but now why?
I believe here is the rest of the camel buried.
We must learn much more about black holes.

Bjarne · Aug 31, 2011

Reality Check said:
Almost total gibberish.
If a mass vanishes (which is physically impossible but this is just a thought experiment) then the gravity from that mass vanishes immediately.
It is the gravitational field that vanishes ('is gradually lost') with the speed of light. Changes in the gravitational field propagate with the speed of light.

Hurra RC, - yes you hot the point, - It is the gravitational field that vanishes ('is gradually lost') with the speed of light.

Exactly, hence it miust be converted into some other form of energy, e.g. gravitational energy. Thus you must have no problem with cosmological redshift !
This is really simple, Bjarne:

It would be 1.000.000.000 easier for me to accept it was converted to dark invisible elephants.
The sky is blue today so it must be a lot of oxygen out there today, because the blue color that not was here yesterday is today converted to oxygen. Amen.

Space is not a force, or energy - when it curves a force / act on it, - that is the strong force.
When the strong force is "gone", - all what is emitted is EM-waves; these represent the "lost" / convert of energy.
Space is only the "body of the process" - the strong force plays with.
As soon the strong force is "gone", - it releases its grip in the stretch of space it was causing.
This is not an interchangeable energy process, - but a unique phenomenon that NOT can be converted to any kind of energy.
It happen because of RELEASE of gravity / deformed space and because of lost of the alliance between gravity and the strong force.

If you press a spring and later release it - are there then any energy that converts to gravity - or to dark elephants - or ufo's - etc ? - I mean really?

MRC_Hans · Aug 31, 2011

Bjarne said:
Do you know “we” believe the "dot" that triggered BigBang was smaller as an electron?

Yes. Not that it is that important, but I'm aware of the present theory.

So you believe all the elementary particles was inside that “dot” ?

No. The elementary particles did not yet exist. What exactly was inside that dot is probably beyond our understanding, but we might call it pure energy.

Or in other words;
When the strong nuclear force is outplayed the interaction can no longer twist particles into space, and therefore gravity ‘stops” – or in other words stretching space towards matter is released with the speed of light, from the starting point - which is from the object.

No. Your strange space twist model is pure fantasy, and you have not supported it with facts.

The next would probably be that dark matter is intelligent, because it always behave in the same systematical way, right ?

The BigChunch scenarios I have describe above is; - when all matter in the Universe would dissolve in a BigChunch (and trigger a BigBang).

Current theory allows for a Big Crunch scenario, but observations currently indicate that it will not happen.

My model doesn’t go into details.
Many things are still unknown in that model.

That is an understatement of some magnitude.

You model is pure fantasy, it has no observational evidence, and it is internally inconsistent. In fact, there is absolutely no reason to even consider it.

It is not certain that allmatter completely would dissolve when billion of stars/ galaxies exploded due to extreme speed / gravity?

No. Where would the energy to accelerate them come from?

A lot of matter could very well survey. – I strongly believe it does.

Frankly Bjarne, I don't give a damn what you believe.

If just large part of extreme fast moving galaxies would explode that would delay the BigChunch process a lot.

Bjarne, the matter does not disappear because something explodes.

A BigChunch would therefore return again and again, - and again.

Speed of surveying matter would then slow down, due to the lost of gravity (of the Universe) and therefore still be in orbit around both the Universe, as well as in orbit in cluster and in galaxies etc.

But still surveying relative fast moving matter would contribute with strong gravity.

Gibberish.

So far have we have not discovered what could be the center of the Universe. I believe this ;http://www.newscientist.com/article...in-space-is-1-billion-light-years-across.html

The universe is infinite. It has no centre.

What about this then;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW7BvabYnn8

The universe is infinite. It has no centre.

So let us imaging acceleration of the Earth to almost c, - gravity would increase 10 000 times, - and now the acceleration would stop.
WHAT would happen with that xtreme gravity of the Earth – Hans ?

Nothing. It would be there, but you wouldn't notice.

Gravity is a result of speed, - this triggers a self-perpetuating process, because increasing speed (due to gravity) = increasing gravity and increasing gravity = increasing speed.

No it will not. The more mass, the more energy is needed for acceleration.
You don't understand relativity.

The process MUST go mad, - as long as you accept RR and hence that matter orbits / is circling inwards of the huge gravitionel field we call the Universe.

Nobody but you accepts RR.

With reference to this context, you and other should try the best you can to suggest.

No. Do your own homework. Your model is silly and inconsistent. It builds on ignorance and lack of understanding. There is absolutely no reason we should waste time with it.

We might use time to educate you, but you have consistently refused to learn.

WHY is the strength of black holes proportional with the amount of visible mass of a galaxy?

We KNOW this is true, but now why?
I believe here is the rest of the camel buried.
We must learn much more about black holes.

We are working on black holes, don't worry.

Hans

Bjarne · Aug 31, 2011

MRC_Hans said:
Yes. Not that it is that important, but I'm aware of the present theory.

Then don't say that matter not completely can dissolve

What exactly was inside that dot is probably beyond our understanding, but we might call it pure energy.

HA HA HA

No. Your strange space twist model is pure fantasy, and you have not supported it with facts.

It is a coherent theory as well as prevailing BigBang speculation is an incoherent thesis.

Current theory allows for a Big Crunch scenario, but observations currently indicate that it will not happen.

There are several reasons for this
1.) The so-called; "expanding Universe" speculation is misunderstood nonsense.
2.) The Universe is a huge feild of gravity.
3.) RR is real this factor rules much more as you believe, - misunderstanding this is also one of the main reason to the Dark Matter nonsense.
Stars and galaxies must NOT follow Kepler , but rather the principle of Resistance against motion. (RR) – This is a completely different cup of coffee. Stars are circling inwards.

No. Where would the energy to accelerate them come from?

The same place as the energy that accelerates a stone dropped to the Earth comes from, - from gravity.
And if you ask where gravity comes from – well from the alliance from with the strong force.
And if you ask where the strong force comes from, - hmm Max Plank would say from the matrix mind. – I would say; hmmm I don’t know.

Bjarne, the matter does not disappear because something explodes.

Right
and this is also not a point. the prevailing BigBang is fantasy, NOTHING could cause such utopia.

The universe is infinite. It has no centre.

Hallelujah Hallelujah
Amen..

The more mass, the more energy is needed for acceleration.

Why, do you think ?
Ohh I could save that Q, you have not the slightest idea anyway.
.

Reality Check · Aug 31, 2011

Bjarne, what energy is the energy lost in cosmological redshift converted to

Bjarne said:
Hurra RC, - yes you hot the point, - It is the gravitational field that vanishes ('is gradually lost') with the speed of light.

Hurra, B - yes you are still wrong.
I have known the point that changes in gravitational filed propagate at the speed of light for decades. This is one of the things that you learn when you study physics.

Bjarne said:
It would be 1.000.000.000 easier for me to accept it was converted to dark invisible elephants.

That is the problem - your ignorance of sceince means that you cannot accept simple stuff like the conservation of energy means that the energy lost in cosmological redshift has to be converted into some kind of other energy.
That other kind of energy is gravitational energy.

But maybe you have an alternative: Bjarne, what energy is the energy lost in cosmological redshift converted to?

Bjarne said:
Space is not a force, or energy - when it curves a force / act on it, - that is the strong force.

How ignorant of you

The curvaturture of space-time is interpreted as a force. That force is gravity. What causes the curvature is not a force - it is mass and energy.
The strong force is basially zero outside of the nucleus of an atom !

The rest is just your usual gibberish.

Reality Check · Aug 31, 2011

Bjarne said:
1.) The so-called; "expanding Universe" speculation is misunderstood nonsense.
2.) The Universe is a huge feild of gravity.
3.) RR is real this factor rules much more as you believe, - misunderstanding this is also one of the main reason to the Dark Matter nonsense.

1) You are displaying your ign oirance one more time:
What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
Cited 28th July 2011 and still not understood by Bjarne.
2) Yes it does - so what?
3) HA HA HA - the delusion of RR once again

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).

But now we have 2 versions of RR both 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

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?

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

Bjarne · Sep 1, 2011

Reality Check said:
Hurra, B - yes you are still wrong.
That is the problem - your ignorance of sceince means that you cannot accept simple stuff like the conservation of energy means that the energy lost in cosmological redshift has to be converted into some kind of other energy.

There is no lost, time today is ticking faster as in the past because we (the Universe) is losing gravity, since the BigBang.
Distances today are shorter due to less stretch of space compared to short time after BigBang.
Change of time and distance affects the spectra too.
Since distances are shorter and time faster (now) the spectra are more blue—sifted today compared to yesterday.

We are speaking about 2 different realities.
So there are no lost of photons energy but only different realities
One reality today and another one tomorrow.

That other kind of energy is gravitational energy.

Amen…

But maybe you have an alternative: Bjarne, what energy is the energy lost in cosmological redshift converted to?
The curvaturture of space-time is interpreted as a force. That force is gravity. What causes the curvature is not a force - it is mass and energy.

Gravity = the curvature of space. This itself is not a force.
Even though the expression “force of gravity” tell you that gravity is a force, you cannot point on that force, can you?
If you do not agree, now point, show me where is the force, and how did it got there ?

You must dig deeper before you can "point" and ask which force is bending space.
The answer is; the nuclear interaction.
The spin of elementary particles consumes space.
Hence the strong force do have a “side effect” .
That side-effect = bended space / deformation of space.
You can say that space is the “body” of the strong force.

The strong force is basially zero outside of the nucleus of an atom :

This tells you the difference between gravity and the strong force. These apparently 2 forces are united, and YES still the result are different, and MUST be so.

You can compare it with riding a cow, - you will have strong speed forward and a weaker motion up and down.
You cannot conclude that these two forces must be the same magnitude, because both forces are united and both come from the cow.
There are and there will always be "2 forces" when riding the cow.
One force push you up "and down"
One force push you and the cow forward.
As you see one force is stronger than the other, -but RC there is nothing wrong with that, - it will always be like that.

What causes the curvature is not a force - it is mass and energy.

No.
You can also not claim that the force of the cow is mass and energy.
The interaction process MUST happen; the interaction process is like the crankshaft of your car, when driving uphill there is a stronger tension on the crankshaft, because gravity tries to prevent you going up the hill.

In the same way, if space for example between a moon and a planet is stronger effected, this too affect the interaction, because the interaction pulls space together (absorbs space), and the Moon denies to fall the Earth and is therefore counteracting the absorption of space, and hence the nuclear consumption of space.

This is a challenge to the interaction / strong force, because interaction will be more difficult. The result is gravitionel heat, inside astronomic bodies.

Do me a favors, admit that gravity indeed is an “energy source” since a stone falling to earth demonstrate exactly that.
Now, - from where does that energy suddenly “pop up” ?
You MUST follow the track to find the energy source.
Let me guide you with the question; which possible force in the Universe is it possible to suspect for curving space, and hence creating the phenomena; gravity?

The strong forces keep space "contracted", - a side effect is gravity. Gravity can challenge the strong force, and this is exactly what gravity does.

When you now the next hour would jump ½ meter up in the air, - you would in that ½ hour challenge the strong force, BECAUSE you would try to counteract the work of the strong force which is to absorbe space. Remember you too is absorbed space. - So soon you jump you are trying to counteract the work of the strong force, because you will try to split apart space contraction.

The interaction/strong force consumes space.
Particles are twisted into space.
THIS is the nuclear attraction.
The attractions between particles are STRONG.
Gravity is a SIDE EFFECT.
Gravity is a phenomenon that occurs because of the overall space-vacuum caused by the interaction / strong force.

Exactly as the motion up and down when riding the cow is different from the speed of the cow and (you riding it) – so are the magnitude of gravity and the nuclear attraction different too.

BUT RC in the end of the day these 2 “forces” CAN have the exactly same magnitude.
Gravity CAN be so strong that the strong force, no longer can pull more space together. – the result is BAAAAANNNGG - and absorbed space is released.

Reality Check · Sep 1, 2011

Bjarne, what energy is the energy lost in cosmological redshift converted to

Bjarne said:
...gibberish snipped...
Amen…

Science...

Bjarne said:
Gravity = the curvature of space. This itself is not a force.

Gravity is not the curvature of space.
The science goes

There is some mass and/or energy.
This causes space-time (not space!) to curve.
That causes objects to travel in curved paths.
An object that follows a curved path is accelerating (there is a change in the direction of their velocity.
In Newtonian mechanics any object that is accelerating is subject to a force (F=ma).
We call that force gravity.

Bjarne said:
The answer is; the nuclear interaction.
...space being eaten garbage and more gibberish snipped...

That is idiotic. The only things that can curve space-time are mass and energy: Einstein field equations

The Einstein field equations (EFE) may be written in the form:[1]

$3f50fd206f2fe543a6a8a3e687cf74c3.png$
where
$6460b186b90928446203202093be3fe0.png$
is the Ricci curvature tensor,
$153fc2a5a0a49d52dda62d96ae0a293f.png$
the scalar curvature,
$40a5ac3e25dd028b59da56f33e9f0c88.png$
the metric tensor,
$60d25297bc0ea8a83f9cf58edec8e72b.png$
is the cosmological constant,
$3e00f9a1e18c7251df05848cdc0b416b.png$
is Newton's gravitational constant,
$08163b03d3a58471d7f88fc4e581a282.png$
the speed of light, and
$a8bfd1f62f79057eae93f2d07bd03544.png$
the stress-energy tensor.

See the curvature on the left hand side, Bjarne?
See the stress-energy tensor on the right-hand side which is causing the curvature, Bjarne?

And you ignored:
Bjarne, what energy is the energy lost in cosmological redshift converted to?
First asked 1 September 2011.

MRC_Hans · Sep 1, 2011

Bjarne said:
Then don't say that matter not completely can dissolve

Matter can be converted to energy, and vice versa. But guess what? Energy has gravity, too.

There are several reasons for this
1.) The so-called; "expanding Universe" speculation is misunderstood nonsense.

Misunderstood by you, yes. And because you don't understand it, it looks like nonsense to you.

2.) The Universe is a huge feild of gravity.

No, the universe is much else, but it contains a huge field of gravity. Or rather, a lot of gravity fields.

3.) RR is real

Bjarne, you need to learn that no matter how often you repeat something that is wrong, it will not become right. You have misunderstood the relationship between acceleration and mass. It does not work the way you imagine.

Stars and galaxies must NOT follow Kepler , but rather the principle of Resistance against motion. (RR) – This is a completely different cup of coffee. Stars are circling inwards.

It is a cup of nonsense. If the stars are circling inwards, why can't we observe it?

The same place as the energy that accelerates a stone dropped to the Earth comes from, - from gravity.

You don't even understand a fairly simple thing as thermodynamics. How do you expect to have a qualified discussion about cosmology when you haven't even grasped a primary school subject like thermodynamics?

And if you ask where gravity comes from – well from the alliance from with the strong force.

Instead, you just spout nonsense.

You are a joke.

Hans

Bjarne · Sep 1, 2011

MRC_Hans said:
You have misunderstood the relationship between acceleration and mass. It does not work the way you imagine. Hans

I guarantee you it does.
There are not one single piece of evidence that objective confirms that Relativistic Resistance (RR) only “should” apply by acceleration and suddenly “vups” not exist by constant speed.

The previous weeks we have discussed that Cosmological redshift
According to the new theory Cosmological redshift is caused due to gravity difference since the BigBang.

That Claim is based on what is possible with respect to all known law of nature, and NOT - ***ONLY *** totally blind orthodox mass-brian-washed ideas , such as ;

that all energy once was in a dot of nothing blab bla bla la blap hallelujah
that photon energy convert to blab bla bla la blap hallelujah
that local distance NOT expand because of blab la bla hallelujah
that “dark flow” can be ignored because of blab bla bla la blap hallelujah
that a HUGE whole in the Universe (conflicting with the BigBang speculation) can be ignored because of blab bla bla la blap hallelujah

- - ---- -

So what I have shown so fare is ONLY ; that a previous UNIVERS could very well have exploded 13,7 billion ago due to extreme speed / gravity.

This makes it probable that cosmological redshift MUST be comprehended by the general relativity, since time / gravity is constantly being "LOST" / "converted to other realities".

But this part of the theory does not explain why speeds of stars and cluster of galaxies are too fast.

A very important aspect of the theory is Relativistic Resistance. (RR)
Because first at all this is the cause of that the Universe always will end up in a BigChunch.

Understanding the full range of that law of nature will also bring us a huge step when it comes to understanding the strange large speed of astronomic bodies.

Motion of galaxies are much more complicated as understood.
I will try to dig deeper into this when I get time, and explain why for example stars are much to fast.

Already I believe you can smell the powder,- it is off course because stars are circling inwards due to RR.

- - ------------------------- -

MRC_Hans · Sep 1, 2011

Bjarne said:
I guarantee you it does.

Your guarantee is not worth a cow's fart.

There are not one single piece of evidence that objective confirms that Relativistic Resistance (RR) only “should” apply by acceleration and suddenly “vups” not exist by constant speed.

I have shown you the evidence and explained it to you in very simple terms. Since you can use a computer and make a living, you cannot be a total imbecile, so I must conclude that you don't want to understand.

So what I have shown so fare is ONLY ; that a previous UNIVERS could very well have exploded 13,7 billion ago due to extreme speed / gravity

Except, you have not shown a thing. All you have is idle fabulation.

A very important aspect of the theory is Relativistic Resistance. (RR)

Which does not exist.

Hans

MRC_Hans · Sep 1, 2011

But, I'll give you one more chance:

Bjarne, you say RR is essential for your model. So, present your evidence for the existence of RR.

Hans

Bjarne · Sep 1, 2011

MRC_Hans said:
But, I'll give you one more chance:

Bjarne, you say RR is essential for your model. So, present your evidence for the existence of RR.

Hans

There are plenty

1.
We know RR exist during the acceleration period, - it is NEVER proven it "should" "vups" disappear (to a unknown dimension or what so ever) when constant speed is reached.

2.
So called dark matter of galaxies, (and clusters) is not MATTER but RR.
I will come back to this when I have time, - still building.

3.
Fast Moving particles (CERN) create their own magnetic field.
This mean lost of energy and can ONLY mean lose of speed., - also by constant speed.
If not speed pays the price for the Magnetic field "emission" Who does ? Mother Cow, - NO Hans . So WHO?

4.
Galaxies too created there own magnetic field, also due to motion. WHAT ELSE - SUGGEST something so logic that a cow can approve it, and you a grandmother understand it, - Hans.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=galaxies-mysterious-magne

5.
The Moon has a weak eccentricity Anomaly.
This is an indirect proves of something bigger where also RR is involved.
But Hans you will never got the point, because you are not serious. So I don’t want to repeat that point. Instead you can read this, - but you are too orthodox, prejudiced and precocious, and will therefore never succeed. http://www.science27.com/english/IrregularMoonsNew.html

6.
Ice ages are NOT understood, there are several mysteries.
RR solves ALL.
Read this http://www.science27.com/english/Mercury.html

7.
The ONLY force that can cause a BigChunch, - the Universe to dissolve / explode is extreme GRAVITY, and the only influence that can trigger this is RR.

8.
All kind of space-probe anomalies are caused by RR.
http://www.science27.com/english/IrregularMoonsNew.html

9.
The Moon has also a large orbit anomaly during the 9 years perigee precision period. - This is where RR will be proven. I am searching astrophysicists to program the orbit of the Moon and will prove that the LHR measurement confirms that “something” is missing. – That something is RR
http://www.science27.com/english/IrregularMoonsNew.html

How much more evidence do you want?.
I am sorry Hans But I believe even a 125 megaton atom bomb would not be enough to bring logic through the 1178 kilometer thick concrete to you. One day I am sure you will agree to how serious damage the education system really is doing to innocent naive student.

Paul · Sep 1, 2011

Bjarne said:
There are plenty

This should be 'interesting'.

We know RR exist during the acceleration period,

Not evidence, just the usual baseless assertion.

it is NEVER proven it "should" "vups" disappear (to a unknown dimension or what so ever) when constant speed is reached

We know you don't understand inertia, there's no need to keep reminding us.

So called dark matter of galaxies, (and clusters) is not MATTER but RR.

Not evidence, just the usual baseless assertion.

This mean lost of energy and can ONLY mean lose of speed., - also by constant speed.

Not evidence, just the usual baseless assertion.

Galaxies too ...

Not evidence, just the usual baseless assertions and gibberish for the whole post.

Paul · Sep 1, 2011

Bjarne said:
You support such rubbish even though it is obvious that NOTHING , -- NO FORCE, -- NO LAW OF NATURE – EVER could have brought all that energy into such a fantasy small “dot”.

I'm curious Bjarne, are you trolling or have you actually regressed in the last year?

I ask because back in post 24 you said

Bjarne said:
The Universe started like a small dot.
99,9999999 % of what we normally think is matter, is space

Reality Check · Sep 2, 2011

MRC_Hans said:
Matter can be converted to energy, and vice versa. But guess what? Energy has gravity, too.

Just to emphasis this: Energy has exactly the same gravity as the equivalent mass.

Reality Check · Sep 2, 2011

Bjarne said:
1.
We know RR exist during the acceleration period,

1. You are lying - you assert that your fantasy of RR exists.

Everyone else in the world can see you displaying your igorance of science and inability to understand that this RR delusion would meant that particle accelerators would not work (see the bottom of the post)

Bjarne said:
2.
So called dark matter of galaxies, (and clusters) is not MATTER but RR.
I will come back to this when I have time, - still building.

2. That is idiotic: It has to be matter because it acts like matter.
Nothing to do with your fantasy of RR since it does not exist.

Bjarne said:
3.
Fast Moving particles (CERN) create their own magnetic field.
This mean lost of energy and can ONLY mean lose of speed., - also by constant speed.

3. Nothing to do with your fantasy of RR since it does not exist.
Moving electric charges always generate their own magnetic fields. That is standard electromgnetism.

Bjarne said:
4.
Galaxies too created there own magnetic field, also due to motion

4. Nothing to do with your fantasy of RR since it does not exist.

Bjarne said:
5.
The Moon has a weak eccentricity Anomaly.

5. Nothing to do with your fantasy of RR since it does not exist.

Bjarne said:
6.
Ice ages are NOT understood, there are several mysteries.

5. Nothing to do with your fantasy of RR since it does not exist.
Thsi is the creationist 'god of gaps' idoicy translated into 'RR of gaps'

Bjarne said:
7.
The ONLY force that can cause a BigChunch, - the Universe to dissolve / explode is extreme GRAVITY, and the only influence that can trigger this is RR.

7. Extreme ignorance:

Gravity is the ONLY force that can cause a Big Crunch. It need no delusion of RR to 'trigger' it..
A Big Crunch is unlikely: The universe's expansion is accelerating.

Bjarne said:
8.
All kind of space-probe anomalies are caused by RR.
http://www.science27.com/english/IrregularMoonsNew.html

8. Nothing to do with your fantasy of RR since it does not exist.

Bjarne said:
9.
The Moon has also a large orbit anomaly during the 9 years perigee precision period. -

9. Nothing to do with your fantasy of RR since it 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).

But now we have 2 versions of RR both 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

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?

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

MRC_Hans · Sep 2, 2011

Bjarne said:
There are plenty

1.
We know RR exist during the acceleration period, - it is NEVER proven it "should" "vups" disappear (to a unknown dimension or what so ever) when constant speed is reached.

No, that is not RR, it is inertia. I have explained inertia to you, and it is primary school stuff, but you refuse to listen.

2.
So called dark matter of galaxies, (and clusters) is not MATTER but RR.
I will come back to this when I have time, - still building.

In other words, you have no evidence.

3.
Fast Moving particles (CERN) create their own magnetic field.
This mean lost of energy and can ONLY mean lose of speed., - also by constant speed.

Only charged particles. They loose speed in accelerators because that field will induce current in nearby metal parts. This is not RR, it is magnetic drag, a form of friction.

It does not apply to non-charged particles. It does not apply to matter. It does not apply to anything moving in free space.

4.
Galaxies too created there own magnetic field, also due to motion. WHAT ELSE - SUGGEST something so logic that a cow can approve it, and you a grandmother understand it, - Hans.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=galaxies-mysterious-magne

Irrelevant.

5.
The Moon has a weak eccentricity Anomaly.
This is an indirect proves of something bigger where also RR is involved.
But Hans you will never got the point, because you are not serious. So I don’t want to repeat that point. Instead you can read this, - but you are too orthodox, prejudiced and precocious, and will therefore never succeed. http://www.science27.com/english/IrregularMoonsNew.html

Irrelevant.

6.
Ice ages are NOT understood, there are several mysteries.
RR solves ALL.
Read this http://www.science27.com/english/Mercury.html

Irrelevant nonsense.

7.
The ONLY force that can cause a BigChunch, - the Universe to dissolve / explode is extreme GRAVITY, and the only influence that can trigger this is RR.

Nonsense. Normal, already observed gravity is the force for a big crunch, however, present observation indicates that it is not quite enough.

And, you are inconsistent here. You are claiming that the universe is not really expanding. Thus there is no Big Bang, and thus there is no Big Crunch.

8.
All kind of space-probe anomalies are caused by RR.
http://www.science27.com/english/IrregularMoonsNew.html

Nonsense.

9.
The Moon has also a large orbit anomaly during the 9 years perigee precision period. - This is where RR will be proven. I am searching astrophysicists to program the orbit of the Moon and will prove that the LHR measurement confirms that “something” is missing. – That something is RR
http://www.science27.com/english/IrregularMoonsNew.html

Nonsense.

How much more evidence do you want?.

Oh, to overthrow the present theory, you would need a lot, but here we might be impressed if you have just a little. So far, you have nothing. All you have succeeded in proving is that you are a deluded fool who should request his school money back:

You didn't learn proper English.
You didn't learn even simple mathematics.
You didn't learn any physics.

Tell me, did you attend school at all, or were you out with the cows or something?

One day I am sure you will agree to how serious damage the education system really is doing to innocent naive student.

Bjarne, you obviously never came in close touch with the education system, so you have no absolutely idea what it may do to people.

Hans

PS: This is not to say that there is anything wrong with being uneducated. I have met very bright uneducated people, but when you set out to best educated people, you end up short. And when you insist of spouting uneducated nonsense and compare other people with cows, you make a complete fool of yourself.

Bjarne · Sep 2, 2011

MRC_Hans said:
And when you insist of spouting uneducated nonsense and compare other people with cows, you make a complete fool of yourself.

Cows certainly don’t deserve this.

Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Illuminator

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Share this page

ISF - Join now!