Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
We never got some explanation, why Bantofomoki should be wrong?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV9jngicFH4&feature=player_embedded

I know in “some” people’s eyes he probably is only an idiotic crackpot never educated, and do almost so many spelling mistakes as Hans and RC - and bal bal blab la.bla blæ bla .

So when you are finish with personal attach and sour eructation, - then please try to be serious, and answer the question.
If you still believe; - he went wrong somewhere, let us hear about exactly where.

As you know I agree that; there must be an absolute reference frame. This part of the RR claims.
Bantofomoki have come same conclusion but from a different angle.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
We never got some explanation, why Bantofomoki should be wrong?
Click to expand...
You are mistaken:
Reality Check said:
Had a look and it is just another ignorant Internet crank.
The principle of relativity is in fact a postulate of Galileo not Einstein When Newton first looked at what became his 3 laws, he started with 5 laws including the principle of relativity. He reduced these laws to 3 because the rest can be derived from Newton's laws.

The crank merely asserts that an absolute reference frame exists and is the CMB. He then goes on a conspiracy theory rant showing his ignorance of science. Next is him lying about what the twin paradox is by making up a scenario that has no connection with it. The rest is the usual crank gibberish.

That video only emphasizes your ignorance, Bjarne. Which further explains why you cannot understand that RR is a delusion:
Click to expand...
Bantofomoki is a crank because he posted his 'objective refutation of the first postulate of relativity' as a YouTube video.
 
Bjarne said:
As you know I agree that; there must be an absolute reference frame. This part of the RR claims.
Bantofomoki have come same conclusion but from a different angle.
Click to expand...

There are thousands of cranks out there who insist there must be an absolute reference frame because they cannot grasp relativity. They publish their ideas on YouTube, crappy private websites, and internet fora.

They are wrong. They have no evidence, only their own ignorance and incredulity, and probably a vain and childish dream of being the smartest person on Earth.

It is not our task to refute every silly claim you can dig up from other cranks in support of your own silliness. It is your claim, and it is up to you to present evidence for it.

- Evidence is not something you think or believe.

- Evidence is not that there is something we, science in general and us here in particular, happen to not know.

- Evidence is not that there is some other crackpot somewhere who has an idea similar to yours.

- Evidence is not half formulas where you have omitted or inserted units or parameters at your pleasure.

- Evidence is not that you can't understand the current theory, or that I can't explain it to your grandmother.

- Evidence is a coherent thesis that does not clash with objective observation, and correct and comprehensive mathematics to support it.

And stop whining about personal attacks; at least half your posts contain personal attacks on one or several of us here. If you can't take it, don't deal it.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
There are thousands of cranks out there who insist there must be an absolute reference frame because they cannot grasp relativity. They publish their ideas on YouTube, crappy private websites, and internet fora.

They are wrong. They have no evidence, only their own ignorance and incredulity, and probably a vain and childish dream of being the smartest person on Earth.

It is not our task to refute every silly claim you can dig up from other cranks in support of your own silliness. It is your claim, and it is up to you to present evidence for it.

- Evidence is not something you think or believe.

- Evidence is not that there is something we, science in general and us here in particular, happen to not know.

- Evidence is not that there is some other crackpot somewhere who has an idea similar to yours.

- Evidence is not half formulas where you have omitted or inserted units or parameters at your pleasure.

- Evidence is not that you can't understand the current theory, or that I can't explain it to your grandmother.

- Evidence is a coherent thesis that does not clash with objective observation, and correct and comprehensive mathematics to support it.

And stop whining about personal attacks; at least half your posts contain personal attacks on one or several of us here. If you can't take it, don't deal it.

Hans
Click to expand...

So now which words would you use if you should prove for your grandmother that an absolute reference frame not exist ?
Both grandmother and mother cow ask for EVIDENCE, - Hans.
 
Bjarne said:
So now which words would you use if you should prove for your grandmother that an absolute reference frame not exist ?
Both grandmother and mother cow ask for EVIDENCE, - Hans.
Click to expand...

I told you it was a mistake to make cows sentient.

While I am not sure about an absolute frame, it may be possible to approximate absolute measurements.

Our absolute speed through the Universe, along with an approximate vector might be possible.

To say one particular framework is a better reference than another framework, depends on what you need the information for.

While it would seem that the center of the universe might make a good reference, it is likely that the space is occupied by a black hole.

Something that I learned about the universe, it doesn't give a rat's ass what anybody thinks. It does, what it does. The universe is not going to change to suit human logic. This doesn't mean that I have given up on human logic, better than 99% of human logic (as far as science and engineering) is correct.

You can argue physics if you understand a few simple laws.

The conservation of energy in all it's forms.

For every motion there is an equal and opposite motion.

Time is a variable that is dependent on many factors.

Gravity is a non-cancelling force. The mechanical force on an object at the midpoint between two spaced identical masses is zero. The gravitational field on an object between two spaced identical masses is twice of that it would be if there were just one mass. There is NO cancellation possible with what is known about gravity, at this time.

Gravity of any significant strength has never been proven to exist without mass. Energy may have the effect of mass, but it is diluted by 1/C².

Trying to use energy to directly modify gravity in any useful way is not even conceptually possible. (At this Time) Using energy to overcome gravity's effects is possible. Efficiently coupling transmitted energy into rocket exhaust may eventually create a much more economical way of getting mass into orbit.
 
Bjarne said:
So now which words would you use if you should prove for your grandmother that an absolute reference frame not exist ?
Both grandmother and mother cow ask for EVIDENCE, - Hans.
Click to expand...
Bjarne, can't you read?

I don't have to prove accepted science to you, your grandmother, or your cow.

If you want to learn accepted science, read a book, take a course, or whatever.

I don't give a damn if you understand it or not.

YOU are the one with the alternative claim, you must prove your claim.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Bjarne, can't you read?

I don't have to prove accepted science to you, your grandmother, or your cow.
Click to expand...
"Accepted Science" ??
HA HA HA
What a abused load of nonsense.
Why you do not wrote; - accepted religion?

I don't give a damn if you understand it or not.
Click to expand...
You claim that a absolute reference frame doesn’t exist
I ask you in simple words to explain us all, included mother cow and grandmother why you believe an absolute reference frame not exist. ?

I don’t see any problems in that, - both you, - mother cow, - and me agree that there are plenty reference frames.

Mother cow and I are pretty sure that some are more absolute than others.

For example the reference frame of an ant is not so “absolute” as the one knowing he lives in a galaxy.

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

And I could add; - and then you can also not explain it to others, - right Hans ?
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
You claim that a absolute reference frame doesn’t exist
I ask you in simple words to explain us all, included mother cow and grandmother why you believe an absolute reference frame not exist. ?
Click to expand...
You claim RR is real. Your claim:

Bjarne said:
As you know I agree that; there must be an absolute reference frame. This part of the RR claims.
Click to expand...
(Bolding added)

Your claim, your proof.

Example: If I say that you are a dork, you say that you're not, should I ask that you prove that you're not a dork?

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
-- Albert Einstein
Click to expand...
Please think about this quote when this thread is over 4300 posts.
 
Bjarne said:
"Accepted Science" ??
HA HA HA
What a abused load of nonsense.
Why you do not wrote; - accepted religion?
Click to expand...

Since you don't understand science, you are not in a position to judge it.

You claim that a absolute reference frame doesn’t exist
I ask you in simple words to explain us all, included mother cow and grandmother why you believe an absolute reference frame not exist. ?
Click to expand...

Which of the words do you not understand?

You made a claim, you need to provide the evidence.

I don't have to educate every clown who doesn't want to open a science book. The evidence for accepted science is out there, you can go educate yourself.

I don’t see any problems in that, - both you, - mother cow, - and me agree that there are plenty reference frames.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

Mother cow and I are pretty sure that some are more absolute than others.

For example the reference frame of an ant is not so “absolute” as the one knowing he lives in a galaxy.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

And I could add; - and then you can also not explain it to others, - right Hans ?
Click to expand...

I can. I have explained it to you. You didn't listen, and I'm not gonna repeat it. Live with it.

Hans
 
Has something unusual happened in Denmark where the rest of us should be running around screaming? A Zombie with a bad translator?
 
Bjarne said:
You claim that a absolute reference frame doesn’t exist
I ask you in simple words to explain us all, included mother cow and grandmother why you believe an absolute reference frame not exist. ?
Click to expand...
Here you go in simple words that your grandmother and mother cow (and maybe even you) can understand:
Experiments testing the existence of a absolute reference frame have failed to detect an absolute reference frame.
​
Lack of an absolute reference frame
The principle of relativity, which states that there is no preferred inertial reference frame, dates back to Galileo, and was incorporated into Newtonian Physics. However, in the late 19th century, the existence of electromagnetic waves led physicists to suggest that the universe was filled with a substance known as "aether", which would act as the medium through which these waves, or vibrations travelled. The aether was thought to constitute an absolute reference frame against which speeds could be measured, and could be considered fixed and motionless. Aether supposedly had some wonderful properties: it was sufficiently elastic that it could support electromagnetic waves, and those waves could interact with matter, yet it offered no resistance to bodies passing through it. The results of various experiments, including the Michelson–Morley experiment, indicated that the Earth was always 'stationary' relative to the aether – something that was difficult to explain, since the Earth is in orbit around the Sun. Einstein's solution was to discard the notion of an aether and an absolute state of rest. Special relativity is formulated so as to not assume that any particular frame of reference is special; rather, in relativity, any reference frame moving with uniform motion will observe the same laws of physics. In particular, the speed of light in a vacuum is always measured to be c, even when measured by multiple systems that are moving at different (but constant) velocities.
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
Here you go in simple words that your grandmother and mother cow (and maybe even you) can understand:
Experiments testing the existence of a absolute reference frame have failed to detect an absolute reference frame.
​
Lack of an absolute reference frame
Click to expand...

Now we wait for Bjarne to say "Crap", "blap, blap, bap, blab", or something like that, after which he will proceed with his nonsense.

Hans
 
Reality Check said:
Here you go in simple words that your grandmother and mother cow (and maybe even you) can understand:
Experiments testing the existence of a absolute reference frame have failed to detect an absolute reference frame.
​
Lack of an absolute reference frame
Click to expand...


It is an interesting question.
Let's say you was orbit the Sun with a speed almost c.
Let's us say time would now tick 10 times slower (at yours watch) and distances 10 times shorter, - compared to my time / distances persepctive.

What would the diameter of a galaxy be, seen from yours perspective.
From my perspective it is 100.000 LY
How is it seen from you, - also 100.000 LY ?
Or only 10,000 LY?
 
Bjarne said:
It is an interesting question.
Let's say you was orbit the Sun with a speed almost c.
Let's us say time would now tick 10 times slower (at yours watch) and distances 10 times shorter, - compared to my time / distances persepctive.

What would the diameter of a galaxy be, seen from yours perspective.
From my perspective it is 100.000 LY
How is it seen from you, - also 100.000 LY ?
Or only 10,000 LY?
Click to expand...
The scenerio is unrelated to the fact that an absolute reference frame has been ruled out by experiments: Lack of an absolute reference frame

But it is similar to an interesting scenerio that is covered most uindergraduate courses: If you are traveling at a high enough velocity so that relativistic effect are significant then what shape will you see a spherical body having?
The first thought is that it will be contracted in the direction of your velocity (an ellipsoid). But it turns out that the differnt paths that the light travels means that it remains looking like a sphere so long as you are far from it.

(PDF) Appearance of a rapidly moving sphere: A problem for undergraduates
 
Reality Check said:
The scenerio is unrelated to the fact that an absolute reference frame has been ruled out by experiments: Lack of an absolute reference frame

But it is similar to an interesting scenerio that is covered most uindergraduate courses: If you are traveling at a high enough velocity so that relativistic effect are significant then what shape will you see a spherical body having?
The first thought is that it will be contracted in the direction of your velocity (an ellipsoid). But it turns out that the differnt paths that the light travels means that it remains looking like a sphere so long as you are far from it.

(PDF) Appearance of a rapidly moving sphere: A problem for undergraduates
Click to expand...

Now just forget about and absolute reference frame and try the best you can to answer the question.
 
Bjarne said:
Now just forget about and absolute reference frame and try the best you can to answer the question.
Click to expand...
That is right - we need to forget about absolute reference frames because the do not exist: Lack of an absolute reference frame
I take it that you now agree since you want to forget about them.

I answered the question: (PDF) Appearance of a rapidly moving sphere: A problem for undergraduates

The same basically goes for an elliptical body like a galaxy. A galaxy with a diameter of 100,000 LY will still appear as 100,000 LY wide.

That is why scientists have not bothered to try to test length contraction by looking at galaxies. They know that the different paths that light travels from the sides of the galaxies means that length contraction cannot be observed.

Length contraction is so hard to measure that there is no direct observation of it. But there is a demonstration that it exists: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
A current-carrying wire is observed to be electrically neutral in its rest frame, and a nearby charged particle at rest in that frame is unaffected by the current. A nearby charged particle that is moving parallel to the wire, however, is subject to a magnetic force that is related to its speed relative to the wire. If one considers the situation in the rest frame of a charge moving with the drift velocity of the electrons in the wire, the force is purely electrostatic due to the different length contractions of the positive and negative charges in the wire (the former are fixed relative to the wire, while the latter are mobile with drift velocities of a few mm per second). This approach gives the correct quantitative value of the magnetic force in the wire frame. This is discussed in more detail in: Purcel, Electricity and Magnetism. It is rather remarkable that relativistic effects for such a tiny velocity explain the enormous magnetic forces we observe.
Click to expand...


ETA: Lets really confuse you: What if we observe a block traveling at close to c?
Light from the rear of the block (as seen from the observer) takes longer to reach the observer. 'Seeing' is creating an image of all the photons that at that instant reach the retina of your eye (or in the case of a measurement the photographic surface.). So this image consists of photons from the front of the block and photons from the rear which departed earlier when the block was at an earlier position.

As above we have then have to add the effect of length contraction.

These effects combine. The result is that the block looks as if it has rotated!
It actually looks rotated by an angle a with cos(a)=1/gamma.

My guess is that an elliptical galaxy would have a smiliar effect, i.e. we would see that it has rotated.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom