Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bjarne said:
The Universe is a orbit my dear. RR make the rules.
Click to expand...
Totally ignorant, Bjarne.
An orbit is the path that an object (e.g. the Moon) takes around another object (e.g. the Earth).

The universe is everything there is. There is nothing for it to orbit around.

RR is an inane fantasy:
861 days and the answer to Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) is still no :jaw-dropp!

He then confirmed this idiocy on 22nd February 2012 by arbitrarily inserting the wrong (:eek:) units into an equation!

The "predictions" from his RR fantasy rules out RR from existing.
Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
First asked 2 November 2009
Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).

Bjarne disproves RR using spiral galaxies!

Bjarne shows that RR is a fantasy again (by not understanding that the Lorentz factor has a speed relative to an observer)!
 
Reality Check said:
Argument by news article!

Muuuuuøøøøøhhh



Muuuuuøøøøøhhh

If you read the actual paper (A Method for Measuring (Slopes of) the Mass Profiles of Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies) then you see no mention of this opinion.

Of course the real idiocy of citing this article is that you are now admitting that dark matter exists and RR is yet again not needed :jaw-dropp!
Click to expand...

Yes Yeh Yes
I know it we are all idiotic ignorant insane liars blab la blab la bla bla and the truth is bal bla bla bla bla Halleluja Amen.

ØØøøøøhhh did you also read this

The paper discussing this research was accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal.

MØØøøøøhhh
 
Last edited:
Alex Cured said:
okay, thanks

Another way to say this is that at any given point in the orbit where the mass of the Moon is being increased due to SR, there is a corresponding point where the mass is being reduced by SR (assuming that SR effects at low velocities are linear).

And so there isn't any net effect is there?

This doesn't require any new science though does it?
Click to expand...

Bjarne, continuing from here:
Isn't the lunar orbital anomaly more likely to be due to our currently incomplete understanding of the fine detail of the lunar gravity? ("Mascons")

The Grail mission is currently mapping the lunar gravity in high detail, finishing I think in April, with the data analysis into next year.

It could be that the "anomaly" may not last for much longer.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
[qimg]http://www.science27.com/images/cgal.jpg[/qimg]
RED ARROW ZONE
When the motion direction is more or less towards the RR direction, (see the red arrow) such stars absolute motion will be larger as other stars in the galaxy.
Thus RR will gradually force the motion of stars inwards of the galaxy.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't something moving towards a resistance slow down?
I s'pose it might then have a nett tug towards the galactic core due to gravity, but this is like the lunar example: It's cyclical, and so for every point where there was deceleration due to RR there would be an equivalent point of acceleration due to RR.

And it seems like the winding problem remains: if the answer to that problem is say, the density wave, then RR isn't actually needed to explain any observed phenomena.
 
Actually if there was something working the way you say RR does it's not clear to me at all why something moving away from the "source" would not also be affected, just to a lesser extent, thus that spiral galaxy would quickly (in a few revolutions) be reduce to a blob.

Bjarne, if we could successfully build a very high speed drive like say a Bussard ram scoop, and say it was accelerated to 75% the speed of light in the direction of RR, and then the drive was switched off, are you saying it would slow down due to RR, until the engine was reignited?
 
Alex Cured said:
Wouldn't something moving towards a resistance slow down?.
Click to expand...

Yes this is what you must expect.
But in a orbit declaration is turn to acceleration because potential gravity is lost, - It then gained back when moving opposite the RR direction, due to relative less RR in the opposite direction
 
Last edited:
Alex Cured said:
Actually if there was something working the way you say RR does it's not clear to me at all why something moving away from the "source" would not also be affected, just to a lesser extent, thus that spiral galaxy would quickly (in a few revolutions) be reduce to a blob.
Click to expand...
Bjarne used to explain this problem with a mysterious stellar wind that exactly counteracted the resistance against motion so that it was impossible to tell if the resistance exists!

Perhaps this idea was too much crackpot even for Bjarne, and now he tries with another crackpot idea that kinetic energy which is usually lost with resistance, can somehow be gained and counteract the resistance. :boggled:
 
Bjarne said:
Yes this is what you must expect.
But in a orbit declaration is turn to acceleration because potential gravity is lost, - It then gained back when moving opposite the RR direction, due to relative less RR in the opposite direction
Click to expand...
corrected - deceleration
 
Actually if there was something working the way you say RR does it's not clear to me at all why something moving away from the "source" would not also be affected, just to a lesser extent, thus that spiral galaxy would quickly (in a few revolutions) be reduce to a blob.
Click to expand...
steenkh said:
Bjarne used to explain this problem with a mysterious stellar wind that exactly counteracted the resistance against motion so that it was impossible to tell if the resistance exists!
Perhaps this idea was too much crackpot even for Bjarne, and now he tries with another crackpot idea that kinetic energy which is usually lost with resistance, can somehow be gained and counteract the resistance. :boggled:
Click to expand...
Yes there is resistance towards the RR direction and “following wind” the opposite way.
Because deceleration is turned into acceleration (due to closer approach e.g. to the Earth / Sun ) is why little (or none) kinetic energy is “lost”, -(converted to magnetism) in the Solar system.
In galaxies this is different..

Space-wind is something different.
I am sure that, - the rotation of orbiting objects transmit KE to objects orbiting around them.
But only when the angular rotation speed, - is faster as the (angular) orbit speed of the orbiting objects.

When the angular speed of the orbiting object is faster as angular rotation speed, of the central object, (e.g.; the Sun) the opposite happens.
In such case the orbiting objects are responsible for the rotation speed of the central object.
For example, the Sun transmits KE to the planets, but the Planets not to the Sun, - the result is decreasing Sun rotation. (There is plenty of evidence for such pattern “out there”).

Opposite for example fast moons (e.g. Jupiter’s fastest moon, pulls Jupiter’s rotation) .
This mean planets, and moons are lost one by one.
The Earth has also lost a (small) moon once; - this is why the Earth is rotating.
Properly the lost of a Moon is what killed the dinosaurs, and also 90% of life on Earth.
It is impossible to prove in a lifetime; therefore I do not pay it much attention.
http://www.science27.com/english/the_space_wind.html
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
...inasane insults and cow fetish cut
did you also read this
The paper discussing this research was accepted for publication in
Click to expand...
Yes I read that "The paper discussing this research was accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal"

You remain ignorant of the actual paper.
If you read the actual paper (A Method for Measuring (Slopes of) the Mass Profiles of Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies) then you see no mention of this opinion.

Of course the real idiocy of citing this article is that you are now admitting that dark matter exists and RR is yet again not needed :jaw-dropp!
 
Bjarne debunks RR again (no spiral arms because of "space wind")

Bjarne said:
Yes there is resistance towards the RR direction and “following wind” the opposite way.
Click to expand...
RR is an inane fantasy (as is "space wind"):
864 days and the answer to Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) is still no :jaw-dropp!

He then confirmed this idiocy on 22nd February 2012 by arbitrarily inserting the wrong (:eek:) units into an equation!

The "predictions" from his RR fantasy rules out RR from existing.
Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
First asked 2 November 2009
Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).

Bjarne disproves RR using spiral galaxies!

Bjarne shows that RR is a fantasy again (by not understanding that the Lorentz factor has a speed relative to an observer)!

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked) also has
Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe (dur to RR)!
First posted 26 November 2009

The latest debunking of RR from Bjarne is an extenson of Bjarne disproves RR using spiral galaxies!. He now claims that thhis fantasy of a "space wind" oposses RR.
Thus the two together mean that his fantasies have no effect whatsoever in the universe, especially on stars orbiting in a galaxy.
But sipral arms exist. And according to his ignorance of physics (the winding problem) they are physical arms that have to be created by his forces that do nothing :jaw-dropp !
 
Citation to the scientific evidence that the Earth lost a small moon once

Bjarne said:
Which evidence, except halelujahh ?

Muuøøh
Click to expand...
Which is yet more evidence of your ignorance of science.

And cow fetish.

And you did not answer: Citation to the scientific evidence that the Earth lost a small moon once.
 
Reality Check said:
Which is yet more evidence of your ignorance of science.

And cow fetish.

And you did not answer: Citation to the scientific evidence that the Earth lost a small moon once.
Click to expand...

Hey- what make you believe it was a asteroid ?
Mars have 2 Moons
Jupiter + all other gas planet plenty moons.
Earth only 1 - hmmm- it could had have 2-3-4-5
We expect mars will lose Phobos
http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14285
 
Bjarne said:
Mars have 2 Moons
Jupiter + all other gas planet plenty moons.
Earth only 1 - hmmm- it could had have 2-3-4-5
We expect mars will lose Phobos
Click to expand...
Cows have 4 legs, chickens only have 2. We expect cows will lose 2 legs.
 
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