Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Paulhoff]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Correction
A magnetic field = a sapce vacuum in motion, - not spacein motion.

In one word "NOT"

Paul

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Correction
A magnetic field = a sapce vacuum in motion, - not spacein motion.

No.

But do try to define your space vacuum. A space vacuum is the absense of ...... what?

Hans

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

No.

But do try to define your space vacuum. A space vacuum is the absence of ...... what?
Hans

Space vacuum is:

• that much space-density that is left after matter have consume that much density it want.
• the absence of a certain amount of space-density.
• space stretching towards matter.
• a depression in the space density.

It is not bended space, - the only suitable of the old expression is ; deformed space.

What else as "THIS" > in motion can a MF possible be?
There is simply nothing else to accuse?

First understand the cause of mass attraction, then understand what space really does, and does not, - and what space is, - and is not.

How can you believe that we understand gravity (GR) so long we haven’t understood the cause of mass attraction.
We have completely idiotic mysophobia against space.

A MF is the absorbed space connected to matter, - that moves, - the result is that a space vacuum will move........

RAM and MF is two side of the same count....

Á magnetic field is made of the same "fine stuff" that space is made of, and that everything else is made of.


Cern; - we can used it to determinate how fast we are moving, due to all the astronomic motion the Earth is part of.
The total speeds concern motion of matter (or particles) relative to "c"
It could be funny to know, - it’s really simple to calculated, but math is borrowing me, and no one would listen anyway...

My freind you know you can create almost all the particles you want, - How do you think ? - Well >> Energy + space-density = matter

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
Max Planck

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Space vacuum is:

• that much space-density that is left after matter have consume that much density it want.
• the absence of a certain amount of space-density.
• space stretching towards matter.
• a depression in the space density.

It is not bended space, - the only suitable of the old expression is ; deformed space.

Bended or deformed, that's just words, you can call it deformed if you will.

Deformed space (really spacetime) is gravity.

Quote:

What else as "THIS" > in motion can a MF possible be?
There is simply nothing else to accuse?

The deformation of space does not imply motion; it is a static condition around a mass.

However, it is gravity, not a magnet field. A magnet field is something entirely different.

Quote:

First understand the cause of mass attraction, then understand what space really does, and does not, - and what space is, - and is not.

I think I already understand it far better than you do.

Quote:

How can you believe that we understand gravity (GR) so long we haven’t understood the cause of mass attraction.

Mass attraction = gravity. It is the same thing.

Quote:

A MF is the absorbed space connected to matter, - that moves, - the result is that a space vacuum will move........

Bjarne, make up your mind: Are you talking about gravity, or magnet fields? Those are two different things.

Quote:

RAM and MF is two side of the same count....

Nonsense. Especially since your version of resistance against motion does not exist.

Quote:

Á magnetic field is made of the same "fine stuff" that space is made of, and that everything else is made of.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:

Cern; - we can used it to determinate how fast we are moving, due to all the astronomic motion the Earth is part of.
The total speeds concern motion of matter (or particles) relative to "c"
It could be funny to know, - it’s really simple to calculated, but math is borrowing me, and no one would listen anyway...

No. That is the tricky part of relativity. c is the same in all directions for any observer, no matter how fast you move.

Hans

[Bjarne]

Quote:

The deformation of space does not imply motion; it is a static condition around a mass.

Unbelievable that you still haven’t got the point.

A gravitionel field is:

• a Space vacuum
• that much space-density that is left after matter have consume that much density it want.
• the absence of a certain amount of space-density.
• space stretching towards matter.
• a depression in the space density

All different expression explains the same phenomena.

Quote:

However, it is gravity, not a magnet field. A magnet field is something entirely different.

A Magnetic Field is the absorbed space connected to matter, (space vacuum) - that moves, (due to different reasons) - the result is magnetic field....

Quote:

Bjarne, make up your mind: Are you talking about gravity, or magnet fields? Those are two different things.

Hans wake up a cow can read I am talking about both…

Quote:

No. That is the tricky part of relativity. c is the same in all directions for any observer, no matter how fast you move.

This is misunderstood crap.

The thing is that the speed of the Earth doesn’t accelerate a photon. Yes this is correct. But this is also not what i deny.

And it is also correct that the speed of the Earth doesn’t make “c” faster.
Hence “c” is the same (for a photon) in all direction.
But this is also not what i deny.

But we are not speaking about photons or whether something is faster as “c” ..

We are speaking about that the earth already have a certain speed in space compared to the speed of light.

For example imaging you 10.000 atoms bombs would explode every second from one direction and accelerate the Earth up to 200.000 km/ s compared to light.

Off course this speed would count .

And off course something would happen will the Earth due to this speed.

You don’t need to measure the speed relative to other astronomic bodies, but you certainly can and must measure it relative to the speed of light.

For example: imaging that a photon would compete with the Earth to reach the other side of the Milkyway's orbit.

Off course the speed of the Earth counts.

[Paulhoff]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

You don’t need to measure the speed relative to other astronomic bodies, but you certainly can and must measure it relative to the speed of light.

Which you can't do, since that is the whole thing about relativity.

Paul

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Unbelievable that you still haven’t got the point.

You don't have a point. You are simply wrong.

Quote:

A gravitionel field is:

• a Space vacuum
• that much space-density that is left after matter have consume that much density it want.
• the absence of a certain amount of space-density.
• space stretching towards matter.
• a depression in the space density

And you know this how?

Quote:

All different expression explains the same phenomena.

The phenomenon is conventional gravity, and your expressions are, at best, poor approximations.

Quote:

A Magnetic Field is the absorbed space connected to matter, (space vacuum) - that moves, (due to different reasons) - the result is magnetic field....

No.

Quote:

This is misunderstood crap.

It is the theory of relativity.

Quote:

We are speaking about that the earth already have a certain speed in space compared to the speed of light.

For example imaging you 10.000 atoms bombs would explode every second from one direction and accelerate the Earth up to 200.000 km/ s compared to light.

Off course this speed would count .

In terms of relativity, no.

Quote:

And off course something would happen will the Earth due to this speed.

You don’t need to measure the speed relative to other astronomic bodies, but you certainly can and must measure it relative to the speed of light.

Bjarne, you are wrong.


What is silly is not that you don't get all this. Lots of people don't. What is silly is that you pretend to know - and are getting it all wrong. You are acting like a petulant child, refusing to understand or learn and demanding that reality and everybody comply with its whims.

You are ridiculous, and you have made a total fool of yourself in practically every single one of your posts here.

You are like the emperor in The Emperor's New Clothes, except that everybody else can see that you have nothing on.

Hans

[Bjarne]

Quote:

And you know this how?

Jep

Quote:

Thanks to J.L.Hafele and R.E.Keating, who did a series of experiments in 1971, we have no need to find the equipment to do the above experiment ourselves. They took four Cesium atomic beam clocks and placed them on commercial jet flights around the world, first eastward, then westward. They used clocks at the U.S Naval Observatory as their ground reference clocks.
Using the planes flight plans and the Theory of Relativity, Hafele and Keating predicted that the clocks on the planes should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip. In actual fact when the clocks were checked they had lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds on the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanoseconds on the westward trip.
Sourse
http://www.articlesbase.com/science-...y-3089776.html

Why do you think ?

Quote:

Bjarne, you are wrong.

Hans you are wrong

You can measure an objects (or particle's) total speed compared to the speed of a photon, exactly as you can measure the speed of a slow car compared to a fast one.

A photon doesn’t care whether it stars its journeys from a “position” in motion or not. The total speed of a photon will always be the same, and in any direction. Basic speed is not added and does not affect the photon.

A particle really cares; - it will feel all the speed that affects it.

And as an inevitable result its mass and KE will increase due to all the speed that affects it. Each time you add speed to an already moving object, a particle (object) will MOVE FASTER.

KE and Mass will increase doesn’t matter if you ride a horse, a UFO, or a combination between all these 3. – so long you total speed gets faster, - compared to "c" it counts. - For you and a particle total speed always matters.

[Bjarne]

Hans

Here is some cow logic training for your brain

Imaging you were flying a Speedfire with 500 Km/h

Now you would fire a bullet with 2500 km/h

Exactly in that moment you was fire the bullet a F16 was overtaking you,
The speed of the F16 is compared to your Speedfire + 2500 km/h

Which object would reach the target first (100 meter ahead) ?

The F16 or the bullet?

Now let say that F16 would also fire a bullet also in the same moment as you >> the speed of that bullet would also be 2500 km/h

How fast would that bullet be relative to the speed of your Speedfire?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Jep

I asked you how do you know?

Quote:

Why do you think ?

Because you add the speed of Earth's rotation.

Quote:

You can measure an objects (or particle's) total speed compared to the speed of a photon, exactly as you can measure the speed of a slow car compared to a fast one.

Correct.

Quote:

A photon doesn’t care whether it stars its journeys from a “position” in motion or not. The total speed of a photon will always be the same, and in any direction. Basic speed is not added and does not affect the photon.

Yes and no. You have understood part of it.

Quote:

A particle really cares; - it will feel all the speed that affects it.

A particle doesn't give a damn, but its speed is the sum of all forces affecting it .... for non-relativistic speeds.

Quote:

And as an inevitable result its mass and KE will increase due to all the speed that affects it. Each time you add speed to an already moving object, a particle (object) will MOVE FASTER.

That is right, for non-relativistic speeds.

Quote:

KE and Mass will increase doesn’t matter if you ride a horse, a UFO, or a combination between all these 3. – so long you total speed gets faster, - compared to "c" it counts. - For you and a particle total speed always matters.

Nah, you don't quite get it, but keep trying.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Imaging you were flying a Speedfire with 500 Km/h

Spitfire, it's Spitfire.

Quote:

Now you would fire a bullet with 2500 km/h

Now the bullet will go 3,000 km/h. (at least for a short distance)

Quote:

Now let say that F16 would also fire a bullet also in the same moment as you >> the speed of that bullet would also be 2500 km/h

Yeah, yeah, everyone knows that. But if you fire a laser beam in front of the F16, in the direction of Mars, then how fast will it go,

a) Seen from the F16?
b) Seen from Earth?
c) Seen from Mars?

And if you fire a laser beam backwards from the F16, in the direction of the Andromeda Galaxy, then how fast will it go,

d) Seen from the F16?
e) Seen from Earth?
f) Seen from the Andromeda Galaxy?

Think carefully.

Hans

[Bjarne]

Quote:

I asked you how do you know?

Logic and coherent thinking, + you know I socialize with very intelligent animals.

http://tytempletonart.files.wordpres...w-statue-1.jpg

Quote:

Because you add the speed of Earth's rotation.

Ahhh you see, you add the speed, - goood Hans, - that’s the point.

Quote:

Correct

And that was my point.

Quote:

A particle doesn't give a damn, but its speed is the sum of all forces affecting it ....

Right and the limit will always be “c”

Quote:

Bjarne
And as an inevitable result its mass and KE will increase due to all the speed that affects it. Each time you add speed to an already moving object, a particle (object) will MOVE FASTER.
Hans
That is right, for non-relativistic speeds.

Good Hans

Quote:

Nah, you don't quite get it, but keep trying.

You haven’t got it, but you will understand

Quote:

Spitfire, it's Spitfire.

Spitfire, it's Spitfire, but it should have been speedfire.

Quote:

Now the bullet will go 3,000 km/h. (at least for a short distance)

Yeah Yeah Yeahh, that right…

Quote:

But if you fire a laser beam in front of the F16, in the direction of Mars, then how fast will it go,,-

This is not the point, we speak about speed of particle not speed og photons.
(I have answered you regarding photons.)

Quote:

Yeah, yeah, everyone knows that. But if you fire a laser beam in front of the F16, in the direction of Mars, then how fast will it go,

Still c, and still this is not the point.

Quote:

a) Seen from the F16?
b) Seen from Earth?
c) Seen from Mars?

And if you fire a laser beam backwards from the F16, in the direction of the Andromeda Galaxy, then how fast will it go,

d) Seen from the F16?
e) Seen from Earth?
f) Seen from the Andromeda Galaxy?

Think carefully.

Read what i wrote, - I wrote YOU, and you was flying the spitfire, not the speedfire.

Now a new question
You are a captain on a UFO, - the speed is 200.000 km/s
Now you will fire a bullet with the speed 150.000 km/s

In the same moment you fire the bullet, a photon (300,000 km/h) is overtaking your UFO.

Now, - how fast will the bullet fly relative to the photon ?

[MRC_Hans]

Answer my questions, and we may continue:

But if you fire a laser beam in front of the F16, in the direction of Mars, then how fast will it go,

a) Seen from the F16?
b) Seen from Earth?
c) Seen from Mars?

And if you fire a laser beam backwards from the F16, in the direction of the Andromeda Galaxy, then how fast will it go,

d) Seen from the F16?
e) Seen from Earth?
f) Seen from the Andromeda Galaxy?

a:
b:
c:
d:
e:
f:

Hans

[Bjarne]

Quote:

Answer my questions, and we may continue:

I was asking first

[Bjarne]

Can someone help Hans

You are a captain on a UFO, - the speed is 200.000 km/s
Now you will fire a bullet with the speed 150.000 km/s

In the same moment you fire the bullet, a photon (300,000 km/h) is overtaking your UFO.

Now, - how fast will the bullet fly relative to the photon ?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

I was asking first

I make the rules for my participation. Live with it.

Seriously, we are investigating your claim that it should be possible to detect absolute motion in the CERN accelerators, and my questions are relevant for that. Yours are not.

So answer my questions or we stop here.

Hans

[Paulhoff]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Now, - how fast will the bullet fly relative to the photon ?

As far as the bullet sees it, the photo will pass the bullet at the speed of light, or 300,000 km/s.

Paul

[Bjarne]

Quote:

I make the rules for my participation. Live with it.

Seriously, we are investigating your claim that it should be possible to detect absolute motion in the CERN accelerators, and my questions are relevant for that. Yours are not.
So answer my questions or we stop here.
Hans

We are discussion the motion of particles in a accelerator, - not motion of laser beams.

And exactly like the speed of both yours UFO (200.000 km/s) + (PLUS) the speed of the bullet (150.000 km/s) both counts and shall be added. - so does the speed of the Earth + (PLUS) the speed of the particle (CERN).

If the purpose with the experiment is the reach almost "c" - all the speed a particle have (except opposite speed) shall be added.
Doesn’t matter of you agree or like it or not...

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

We are discussion the motion of particles in a accelerator, - not motion of laser beams.

Does a laser beam not consist of particles? I can understand if you want to limit the discussion to particles with mass, but you have not said so.

Quote:

And exactly like the speed of both yours UFO (200.000 km/s) + (PLUS) the speed of the bullet (150.000 km/s) both counts and shall be added. - so does the speed of the Earth + (PLUS) the speed of the particle (CERN).

No. Why should they all be added. That is not what can be observed, and it is not what is predicted by science.

Quote:

Doesn’t matter of you agree or like it or not...

But our agreement is supported by reality, whether you like it or not.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

We are discussion the motion of particles in a accelerator, - not motion of laser beams.

And exactly like the speed of both yours UFO (200.000 km/s) + (PLUS) the speed of the bullet (150.000 km/s) both counts and shall be added. - so does the speed of the Earth + (PLUS) the speed of the particle (CERN).

If the purpose with the experiment is the reach almost "c" - all the speed a particle have (except opposite speed) shall be added.
Doesn’t matter of you agree or like it or not...

No. In the realm of relativistic velocities, you can no longer just add speeds. That is what I'm trying to explain to you.

So:

But if you fire a laser beam in front of the F16, in the direction of Mars, then how fast will it go,

a) Seen from the F16?
b) Seen from Earth?
c) Seen from Mars?

And if you fire a laser beam backwards from the F16, in the direction of the Andromeda Galaxy, then how fast will it go,

d) Seen from the F16?
e) Seen from Earth?
f) Seen from the Andromeda Galaxy?

a:
b:
c:
d:
e:
f:

AND, to save time, the next set set of questions (you may skip to these, if you think you can manage the transition):

Replace the F16 with a spaceship travelling at 0.99c (99% of the speed of light) and answer the questions again.

Hans

[Paulhoff]

The ship plus the bullet speed should be about 87.5% the speed of light and if we make 300,000 kps the speed of light, you can do the math for how fast the bullet is going.

And still to the bullet, light will pass it at 300,000 kps no matter what direction the light passes it.

Paul

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

We are discussion the motion of particles in a accelerator, - not motion of laser beams.

And exactly like the speed of both yours UFO (200.000 km/s) + (PLUS) the speed of the bullet (150.000 km/s) both counts and shall be added. - so does the speed of the Earth + (PLUS) the speed of the particle (CERN).

If the purpose with the experiment is the reach almost "c" - all the speed a particle have (except opposite speed) shall be added.
Doesn’t matter of you agree or like it or not...

However, if you must do it this way, please state the speed of the particles in the Large Hadron Collider when they travel east, at night.

Speed of Earth's surface (due to rotation): About 300m/sec.
Orbital speed of Earth: About 30,000m/sec.
Speed of particles in the accelerator: c-3m/s.

So according to you,

300m/s + 30,000m/s+(c-3m/s)= ?

Hans

[Paulhoff]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

However, if you must do it this way, please state the speed of the particles in the Large Hadron Collider when they travel east, at night.

Speed of Earth's surface (due to rotation): About 300m/sec.
Orbital speed of Earth: About 30,000m/sec.
Speed of particles in the accelerator: c-3m/s.

So according to you,

300m/s + 30,000m/s+(c-3m/s)= ?

Hans

He will never get it.

Paul

[Bjarne]

Quote:

Does a laser beam not consist of particles?

Not photons, - but elementary particles.

Quote:

I can understand if you want to limit the discussion to particles with mass, but you have not said so.

We are discussion CERN; - hence there are no reason to mention photons, except if you want to illustrate the difference between photons and particles...

Quote:

No. Why should they all be added? That is not what can be observed, and it is not what is predicted by science.

This is the law of logic; - the speed of the bullet is added to the speed of the Earth, exactly as the speed of a particle (on the Earth) must be added to the speed of a particle.

Quote:

No. In the realm of relativistic velocities, you can no longer just add speeds. That is what I'm trying to explain to you.

I am not speaking about relativistic speed, so keep that too out of the discussion.

When we speak about the maximum speed a particle can reach, and the fact that all the motion (that not oppose) contribute and must be added.

Quote:

The ship plus the bullet speed should be about 87.5% the speed of light and if we make 300,000 kps the speed of light, you can do the math for how fast the bullet is going.
And still to the bullet, light will pass it at 300,000 kps no matter what direction the light passes it.
Paul

How did you get that?

The UFO moves with 200.000 km/s
The bullet (fired from the UFO) moves (or “should” move) with 150.000 km/s
So how fast is the bullet moving relative to the photon?
87,5 % doesn’t seems to make sense.

Quote:

However, if you must do it this way, please state the speed of the particles in the Large Hadron Collider when they travel east, at night.

This is the trick; we should be able to discover that sometimes we have a little more energy support due to the earth’s motion the same way as the Suns orbits direction round the MilkyWay.

I can't believe this should surprise these scientists.

Whether the Earth’s rotation speed (the day/night speed) counts negative or positive? - Hmmm
This speed is only about ( 460 m/s)– and maybe too insignificant to discover when unknown numbers of coffee machine also is running.
The orbit speed of the Earth (29780 m/s) winter/summer speed must counts too.
This off course also depends on the Earth orientation relative to the Suns orbit around the Milkyway. This mean there is kW to save, running the experiment, on a certain time of the year. We should be able to measure that.

[Aitch]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Speed of Earth's surface (due to rotation): About 300m/sec.
Orbital speed of Earth: About 30,000m/sec.
Speed of particles in the accelerator: c-3m/s.

Does this include the speed of the Earth due to galactic rotation?

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Aitch

Does this include the speed of the Earth due to galactic rotation?

No that speed is about 250 000 m/s

[phunk]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

I am not speaking about relativistic speed, so keep that too out of the discussion.

Relativistic speed is the only kind of speed there is. The simple addition that we do on a daily basis is just an approximation that happens to be close enough at the speeds most of us are used to dealing with.

[Bjarne]

Quote:

Relativistic speed is the only kind of speed there is.

If you also mean relative to the speed of a photon, I agree....

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Crap

Nice reply, Bjarne - for a 5 year old child.

It is simple enough.
At low speeds you can just add velocities together and get it roughly correct for practical purposes.
At high speeds you have to take how the universe really acts and use special relativity.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Aitch

Does this include the speed of the Earth due to galactic rotation?

No. The rotational and orbital speeds are quite complex enough for Bjarne.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Not photons, - but elementary particles.


We are discussion CERN; - hence there are no reason to mention photons, except if you want to illustrate the difference between photons and particles...


This is the law of logic; - the speed of the bullet is added to the speed of the Earth, exactly as the speed of a particle (on the Earth) must be added to the speed of a particle.


I am not speaking about relativistic speed, so keep that too out of the discussion.

When we speak about the maximum speed a particle can reach, and the fact that all the motion (that not oppose) contribute and must be added.



How did you get that?

The UFO moves with 200.000 km/s
The bullet (fired from the UFO) moves (or “should” move) with 150.000 km/s
So how fast is the bullet moving relative to the photon?
87,5 % doesn’t seems to make sense.


This is the trick; we should be able to discover that sometimes we have a little more energy support due to the earth’s motion the same way as the Suns orbits direction round the MilkyWay.

I can't believe this should surprise these scientists.

Whether the Earth’s rotation speed (the day/night speed) counts negative or positive? - Hmmm
This speed is only about ( 460 m/s)– and maybe too insignificant to discover when unknown numbers of coffee machine also is running.
The orbit speed of the Earth (29780 m/s) winter/summer speed must counts too.
This off course also depends on the Earth orientation relative to the Suns orbit around the Milkyway. This mean there is kW to save, running the experiment, on a certain time of the year. We should be able to measure that.

I have only one comment, Bjarne: Idiot!

I asked you a very specific question:

Speed of Earth's surface (due to rotation): About 300m/sec.
Orbital speed of Earth: About 30,000m/sec.
Speed of particles in the accelerator: c-3m/s.

So according to you,

300m/s + 30,000m/s+(c-3m/s)= ?

You are very welcome to add in the galactical speed, but answer the question.

No amount of hand-waving, cattle connotations, or other verbal flatulence is getting you off this one.

You have made a claim, now answer the simple resultant equation, or back out.

Hans

PS: I'm not going to let you off this hook, so bite, or leave.

[Paulhoff]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

How did you get that?

The UFO moves with 200.000 km/s
The bullet (fired from the UFO) moves (or “should” move) with 150.000 km/s
So how fast is the bullet moving relative to the photon?
87,5 % doesn’t seems to make sense.

You're the one that says you know this stuff, so why don't you know this simple thing.

Anything that is moving at 200,000 km/s time and measurements are not the same as if it wasn't so-called moving. Time is slowed down and measurements in the direction of motion are shortened for your UFO. So its measurement of 150,000 km/s is not the same as when the UFO is not so-called moving, 150,000 km/s it is much slower than that, even if it seems to be 150,000 km/s to your UFO that is moving at 200,000 km/s.

Now open a book and learn the math Einstein found and showed that nothing can go faster than the speed of light.

So in other words, a UFO moving at 200,000 km/s can't really shoot a bullet at 150,000 km/s faster in the same direction that it is moving because that would be faster than light.

Paul

[Bjarne]

Quote:

At low speeds you can just add velocities together and get it roughly correct for practical purposes.
At high speeds you have to take how the universe really acts and use special relativity.

And where is so the border between “low speed” and “high speed” ?

If you want to compare the speed of a particle with the speed of a photons, -you always add speeds together (for the particle), - but what you must take into consideration is only that there is a limit for the particle, and increasing RAM

I think we all know that RC..

Maybe it is not so simple to calculate how fast we really are moving based on CERN.
A strong magnetic field (CERN) is not a naturally environment, - it can have it’s; “own reality”… I am not so sure of this...

Quote:

I have only one comment, Bjarne: Idiot!

I asked you a very specific question:

Speed of Earth's surface (due to rotation): About 300m/sec.
Orbital speed of Earth: About 30,000m/sec.
Speed of particles in the accelerator: c-3m/s.

So according to you,

300m/s + 30,000m/s+(c-3m/s)= ?

I think a 800% idiotic + 974% senile + 375% brain damage cow in less as 237,2 E-143 second have understood that the point is; > the energy you need to reach that speed depend on the speed the particles already have, exactly like the bullet fired from your UFO moving 200.000 km/s or from a Morris 1000 moving 85 km/h also is decisive for how much gun power you must use for getting a bullet to reach c-3m/s´
Muuhhhh from here…

Quote:

So in other words, a UFO moving at 200,000 km/s can't really shoot a bullet at 150,000 km/s faster in the same direction that it is moving because that would be faster than light.

Paul has a point here.

[Bjarne]

Double

[Bjarne]

--
The difference between; Elementary Particles and Photons.

The spin of the elementary particles consume / contract spaces.

A consequence must be; a culmination point at which space absorbs the entire energy of the particle.

The absorbed energy (contracted space) must be released, this force a particle to (unwind).

As the result, the particle release 'twisting' space around it until a new culmination point is reached at the opposite end.

This shows that a particle constantly oscillates between two states: a 'hard compressed space' (when it is perceived as a "hard particle" matter) and opposite, - a wave.

If one particle of a nucleus releases space, another particle immediately uses such released space for the opposite action (to contract space) because such cooperation saves energy.

Naturally the strong force seems to be an inevitable result of what once probably only was chaotic spinning particle, and hence the strong force is: collective coherent osculation frequencies due to opposite spin of space whirls.

However the force of gravity is caused by the total amount of contracted space that the strong interaction always keeps together, which mean that the strong force and gravity must be united.

This is how particle interact with space and each other, and how particle are able to keep space contracted (as matter).

A result of this is that because matter = “contracted space “, - space must be “lacking” elsewhere, - and this is why space around matter must understood as; a vacuum in the space density. > A space vacuum.

Particles are small whirlpool twisting space around them. When these are moving in space, they are twisted deeper into space.

Speed > and Mass increase
Particle Speed > mean larger effect on space / larger space vacuum, - (the same as larger gravity). – Therefore speed = “M” increase...

Speed and KE increase
Particle Speed > Larger KE - must be understood; > twisted /contracted space = energy.

Speed and RAM / “Inertia”
Space does not like to be twisted, - it will resist, and hence also resistant particles to get twisted deeper into space. . – This is how RAM / “inertia” must be understood.

Particle / Wave properties .
The particle property is; > when a particle have twisted all its energy into space, whereby the particle only exist in that split moment just before it “untwisting” itself.
The wave property (of a particle) is, the pull and push-interaction, process whereby the space density oscillates.

The difference between EM-Waves and particles
EM-waves (photons) do not twist them self into space, whereby these also not get deeper twisted into the space density, when they are moving.
Therefore photons get no M, or KE increase as well as no RAM by moving.
These are only “pulsations in space” / waves...

Plasma
Particles that are not bound to other particles (free particles / plasma) do not counteracts each other’s involvement with space, and is therefore easier to be affected (pulled away) by a magnetic field (a space vacuum in motion) .

So it is all not only something strange that happens in the 21th bright blue dimension, - BUT something we easy can understand, - if we want......

---

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

And where is so the border between “low speed” and “high speed” ?

Your ignorance of physics has fooled you - there is no border between “low speed” and “high speed”.
The reason that people do not use relativistic mechanics all the time is only that the math is a bit harder.
For practical purposes: If the speed is low compared to the speed of light then the correction to classical mechanics can be small enough to ignore and so people use classical mechanics.

Originally Posted by Bjarne

If you want to compare the speed of a particle with the speed of a photons, -you always add speeds together (for the particle), - but what you must take into consideration is only that there is a limit for the particle, and increasing RAM

• The speed of a photon is always c (speed of light, i.e. photons!) in a vacuum.
• The speed of a particle with mass can be anything up to the speed of light.
• The speed of a particle with no mass is always the speed of light.

RAM is a figment of your imagination.
You are ignorant enough to randomly assign "kinetic resistance" k (= (1 - γ) where γ is the Lorentz factor) the units of acceleration when it is a units number.
This delusion has persisted for at least a year now!

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

Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
The answer continues to be no !

Bjarne, once again: What are the units of measurement for "kinetic resistance"?

Of course "kinetic resistance" is not your only bit of crackpottery or ignorance:

Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked!
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

--
The difference between; Elementary Particles and Photons.
...snipped usual gibberish...

There is no difference between Elementary Particles and Photons - by definition a photon is an elementary particle.
Since your ignorance extends to the definitions of photon and elementary particle:

• photon: "In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic interaction and the basic unit of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation."
• elementary particle

Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked!
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)

[Paulhoff]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

And where is so the border between “low speed” and “high speed” ?

NO, but at everyday speeds the difference is so small you couldn't tell, unless you have an atomic clock in your back pocket.

Geeeeeeeezzzzzzz

Paul

[Bjarne]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

There is no difference between Elementary Particles and Photons - by definition a photon is an elementary particle.

This is so stupid as it would be to claim that there is no difference between a flying cow without any mass;
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...uTBgEjAL-__gY=

And a cow with mass
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...1YHoS07i4U3JE=

Because a cow is a cow.

Quote:

there is no border between “low speed” and “high speed".

Good RC, I just wanted to puut you attention to that point...

Quote:

You are ignorant enough to randomly assign "kinetic resistance" k (= (1 - γ) where γ is the Lorentz factor) the units of acceleration when it is a units number.

According to the equation you refer to you are fooling you self.
The only thing we can use “c” (c ²) for, - is to compared “v” with something impossible to reach.

It is therefore also wrong to call “c” a “limit” because in this case the limit cannot be reach. (matter cannot reach c)

It is a “fictive” value without any units, and therefore without the units “meter” since there is no motion at that speed.

It is rather: a point ZERO, - a point without any motion, and therefore without unit. .

It is like asking you the question how fast can you run compared to a wall of concrete.
Dont tell me the wall must have the unit meter.

So the equation is : v²/c² must be understood as: v(meter/second)² / c(no unit)²

Not surprisingly the result is still (meter/second)² - But also a factor, because even though Hans is 2 meter tall it can also mean that 2 meter = 10.000 bricks, - as mentioned before.
So who is the stupid my friend ?

[Paul]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

So who is the stupid my friend ?

Quite clearly Bjarne, you are the stupid.