Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

Thus the stone will always reach the surface.

RC have understood that the stone dropepd from the space station will reach the surface of the Earth. Not bad.

N.B. The concept of energy conservation is unsure in GR. Energy is conserved locally (small scales, weak gravitaional fields). No one is sure what happens globally.

Why?

Bjaren wrote;
But you know this is one of the 2 causes to the Mercury precession anomaly?
Rc Wrote;
But you know that you are lying?
The Mercury precession anomaly was caused by applying Newtonian gravitation to the orbit of Mercury and seeing that it did not match the observations.
The Mercury precession anomaly was solved by GR.
The Mercury precession anomaly no longer exists.

The one reason is “relativistic resistance” which means the orbit speed is too slow when reaching perihelion.
The other reason is angular deficit.

I expected you would know this, or at least willing to understand it, after 17 years at a University.

I also expected that people that have spend 17 years of their life at a Universisy not would be stupid enough to accuse others to liars, - when the fact is that the real cause is that a such person not have understood what he blab blab about.

But well, every day new suprised..

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne Wrote yesterday;
Simple ?
Well yes when understood it is very simple
But you know this is one of the 2 causes to the Mercury precession anomaly?
You wrote some weeks ago "the mass increase" not was correct in this context, today you understood it was.
So I can see you have changed your mind.
Well it is always good to do so when you are wrong, but it is also good to admit that I believe first now you begin to understand the one of the 2 causes to the precession anomaly, - right ?

And here is the answer from Hans >>

No. I don't know if you do this to annoy people, or you are simply thinking this way, but it is pretty annoying:

First you ask some very naive and poorly phrased question and demand an answer even cows can understand.

So people give you a very simplified answer, in hopes that you will understand.

Now let us take a look at what Hans wrote your about 1 week before >> ;

), - how would it now be possible to explain the Mercury Perihelion Precession Anomaly?

Hans wrote about 1 -2 weeks ago;
Because MASS does not change.
In orbital mechanics, both velocity and distance (=spacetime) AND mass are part of the equation.
Simply put, the relationship between mass and spacetime changes, and this is the explanation for the Mercury Perihelion Precession Anomaly.
Hans

Sourse; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6994673&postcount=3385

A completely brain damage cow can read that you (hans) above deny that speed is changing mass.

But yesterday you had changed your mind;

Here every man and fool, can read that now you admit that "relativistic mass increase" is compensating for the "relativistic speed lost", and this is why Mercury not is falling down at the Sun.

Sourse; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7050830&postcount=3535

 

[MRC_Hans]

And here is the answer from Hans >>



Now let us take a look at what Hans wrote your about 1 week before >> ;


A completely brain damage cow can read that you (hans) above deny that speed is changing mass.

This should show you not to rely on braindead cows. In the first instance, we were discussing the distortion of spacetime around the sun, due to the gravity field. That does not change the mass.

But yesterday you had changed your mind;

No, yesterday I answered a different question. You asked about a falling object and the effect speed had on its mass.

Here every man and fool, can read that now you admit that "relativistic mass increase" is compensating for the "relativistic speed lost", and this is why Mercury not is falling down at the Sun.

No, it had nothing to do with Mercury.

... So I can see that you have started to draw on yet another fallacy: When you can't argue your case, try to discredit the opposition.

How low can you stoop, Bjarne.

How long do you think I will continue to try and help you by answering your questions, only to have them turned upside down and be used in silly attempts to discredit me?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

To wit:

RC have understood that the stone dropepd from the space station will reach the surface of the Earth. Not bad.

Reality Check was answering the hypothetical riddle about the stone dropped into a hole through the Earth (and nobody metioned a space station). And Bjarne posts the above. Intentional misrepresentation, in an attempt to ridicule.

You are a truely unpleasant person, Bjarne. (You don't know this, but it takes very much for me to say that about someone)

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

The mass increase due to velocity is merely a conversion of energy (from potential to kinetic energy).

If this was the case Satellites and planets would fall, due to “relativistic resistance” we would discover that
It is so easy to understand

It is like playing a guitar with only 2 strings.
The one string is relativistic speed the other is relativistic mass .
These are the only 2 you can play with.

It affects the “energy” of the guitar yes, but you can only play with these 2 stings.

So what is lost due to "relativistic resistance" can ONLY be returned by "relativistic mass increase". THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTION:

When first speed is lost, it can NOT increase agian. Relativistic Mass increase is the only option to win back the same gravitional level...

Therefore YES “relativistic resistance” is true, when a planet “falls” towards perihelion, it will fall more as it “should” according to classic orbit mechanic.

The ONLY thing that can save that planet from demising is MASS increase,.

You even have the prove here>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal

Relativity is NOT something that happens in the completely unreal 21 th bright blue dimention, (to where you and RC have scientific junk export permission).

It happens HERE just in front of your nose. – It is REAL.

The amount of energy, including that which has the form of matter, in the universe is constant.

Crap….

1. It is naive to ignore the possibility that the mass/size of the Universe it limited, - it could easy be limit like the solar system, a galaxy, or in a cluster of galaxies.
2. Exactly like the above mentioned gravity-systems the mass off the Universe MUST circulate around a gravitionel center, exactly as it does in all other gravitionel systems.
3. Exactly as all system do have a acceleration period the above described Universe MUST have this too.
4. Therefore the kinetic energy is NEVER stable. – NEVER.
5. Depending on the size of the Universe, the “acceleration lane” can be billion and billion of light years.
6. Such “acceleration lane” MUST accelerate matter to a huge speed.
7. This MUST increase the mass of the Universe.
8. The increase of mass MUST increase the acceleration
9. You MUST get a self-perpetuating process.
10. If the Universe is large enough speed and gravity MUST simply go mad ( the day dark energy is out of breath)
11. Dark energy is only gravity release from a previous Universe, known as so-called dark matter, this will convert to expanding space (so called dark energy) . This process MUST finish, and a BIGCHRUNCH - MUST begin.

 

[Bjarne]

To wit:


Reality Check was answering the hypothetical riddle about the stone dropped into a hole through the Earth (and nobody metioned a space station). And Bjarne posts the above. Intentional misrepresentation, in an attempt to ridicule.

Now stop this crap, and read this http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7048409&postcount=3530

You are a truely unpleasant person, Bjarne. (You don't know this, but it takes very much for me to say that about someone)

It is 876573584568875336 time more unpleased to call a fellow a LIAR, - ONLY because RC NOT have understood there are 2 reason to the Precession anomaly.

 

[MRC_Hans]

If this was the case Satellites and planets would fall, due to “relativistic resistance” we would discover that
It is so easy to understand

Why would they do that? I just explained ot you that what you call resistance is merely conversion of energy. There is no energy lost.

It is like playing a guitar with only 2 strings.

Well, somebody here is certainly not playing with a full complement.

The one string is relativistic speed the other is relativistic mass .
These are the only 2 you can play with.

Play? You can't play with them at all; they are closely connected.

So what is lost due to "relativistic resistance" can ONLY be returned by "relativistic mass increase".

It is a very clumsy way of experessing it, but it is mainly correct.

When first speed is lost, it can NOT increase agian. Relativistic Mass increase is the only option to win back the same gravitional level...

This, OTOH, if wrong, on several accounts.

First of all, speed is not lost: What happens is that as an object gets close to c, more and more acceleration energy is converted to mass, instead of to speed (making the kinetic energy rise linearly).

Secondly, the process is fully reversible: Once you apply force to slow down the object, the energy comes back as the mass is reduced again.

Therefore YES “relativistic resistance” is true, when a planet “falls” towards perihelion, it will fall more as it “should” according to classic orbit mechanic.

You have a very inefficient way of expressing things. Let me rephrase it:

When a planet moves towards perihelion, it is accelerating because it is moving closer to the primary. It is gaining kinetic energy. Most of this KE comes in the form of speed, but a fraction of it is in the form of mass increase. It will not come closer ('fall more') but it will arrive later. So how does it keep from falling into the star?

Well, on its way to aphelion, it will loose all the gained KE both in the form of speed and mass, and it will arrive in the proper place, but again, slightly delayed. Therefore, we get a perihelion precession.

It is naive to ignore the possibility that the mass/size of the Universe it limited, - it could easy be limit like the solar system, a galaxy, or in a cluster of galaxies.

There is a possibility that the universe is limited, but how is that relevant to our present discussion?

Exactly like the above mentioned gravity-systems the mass off the Universe MUST circulate around a gravitionel center, exactly as it does in all other gravitionel systems.

That is a possibility, but we have no observations that makes it likely.

Exactly as all system do have a acceleration period the above described Universe MUST have this too.

But, as I explained to you, above, that would merely mean that some speeds (and hence masses) would oscillate around an equilibrium.

Therefore the kinetic energy is NEVER stable. – NEVER.

Nobody claied it was.

Depending on the size of the Universe, the “acceleration lane” can be billion and billion of light years.

Obviously, of the universe is circling around a center point, some of the orbits are truely huge.

Such “acceleration lane” MUST accelerate matter to a huge speed.

That depends on the force acting on its constituents.

This MUST increase the mass of the Universe.

No.

The increase of mass MUST increase the acceleration

No.

You MUST get a self-perpetuating process.

No. As explained above, you are missing half the process. Things are accelerated on from aphelion to perihelion, but the process is reversed on the way from perihelion to aphelion, thus maintaining equilibrium.

Dark energy is only gravity release from a previous Universe,

How could gravity be left over from a previous universe? Where has it been in the meantime?

Hans

ETA: Oh, and I'd better add a disclaimer: The above explanations are simplified . If you study the subjects closer, you will find details that have been left out.

 

[Reality Check]

RC have understood that the stone dropepd from the space station will reach the surface of the Earth. Not bad.

How idiotic, Bjarne - you totally lied about what I wrote.
This reply

The conservation of energy is very simple, i.e. the conversion of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy as the stone falls will be equal to the conversion of kinetic energy to gravitational potential energy as it rises. This applies both in Newtonian and GR gravitation.
Thus the stone will always reach the surface.

was in response to your question about a stone falling through the Earth.

Why?

Because of the use of a pseudo-Riemannian metric in GR

The one reason is “relativistic resistance” which means the orbit speed is too slow when reaching perihelion.
The other reason is angular deficit.
...snipped more gibberish...

The one reason is stupid - too slow compared to what?
The orbital speed of Mercury was exactly correct when reaching perihelion in both Newton and GR.
The "other reason" was the Mercury precession anomaly !

The Mercury precession anomaly was caused by applying Newtonian gravitation to the orbit of Mercury and seeing that it did not match the observations. That was an "angular deficit".
The Mercury precession anomaly was solved by GR.
The Mercury precession anomaly no longer exists.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Now stop this crap, and read this http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7048409&postcount=3530




It is 876573584568875336 time more unpleased to call a fellow a LIAR, - ONLY because RC NOT have understood there are 2 reason to the Precession anomaly.

And where does RC mention falling from a space station?

You ARE a liar. Yes, it is not nice to call you that, but it is justified.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

Here every man and fool, can read that now you admit that "relativistic mass increase" is compensating for the "relativistic speed lost", and this is why Mercury not is falling down at the Sun.

Mercury is not "falling down at the Sun" because it is in an orbit like everything else that orbits the Sun.
In an elliptical orbit

• Gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy as the object gets closer to the primary object (e.g. the Sun). The object gets faster and there is relativistic mass increase.
• Kinetic energy is converted to gravitational potential energy as the object gets further from the primary object (e.g. the Sun). The object gets slower and there is relativistic mass decrease.
• The conservation of energy means that the object gains and loses the same speed in its orbit. There is no net change in relativistic mass.

This has nothing to do with the perihelion precession of Mercury or any other planet.

 

[Bjarne]

Why would they do that? I just explained ot you that what you call resistance is merely conversion of energy. There is no energy lost.

I am not claiming there is a energy lost.
This is your own invention.
Speed is “lost” compared to a classic framework, but in fact converted to mass increase...

Speed by perihelion is not what it must be according to classic orbit mechanic, and not as predicted by classic physic.

First of all, speed is not lost: What happens is that as an object gets close to c, more and more acceleration energy is converted to mass, instead of to speed (making the kinetic energy rise linearly).

Agree.

Secondly, the process is fully reversible: Once you apply force to slow down the object, the energy comes back as the mass is reduced again.
By perihelion speed itis according to classic physic is lost.
And it will never return as speed, - what prevent Mercury to fall from the Sun is not that speed is reversible, and hence not that the lost speed will return, - but what save it is relativistic mass increase.

When a planet moves towards perihelion, it is accelerating because it is moving closer to the primary. It is gaining kinetic energy.

What "primary", do you call the sun “primary” – well make it so complicate you can, then sure that not all would understand.

Most of this KE comes in the form of speed, but a fraction of it is in the form of mass increase.

Now we are talking about approaching perihelion.
In that case ALL the KE comes from speed.

It will not come closer ('fall more') but it will arrive later.

It will both arrive later and fall towards the Sun..

Well, on its way to aphelion, it will loose all the gained KE both in the form of speed and mass, and it will arrive in the proper place, but again, slightly delayed. Therefore, we get a perihelion precession.

Hans come on now, - the precession anomaly is FASTER as it should have been .
I don’t know where you have got the idea that it should be slower.

Because Mercury is affected by “relativistic resistance” it will fall, and in this process both take a shortcut (in its orbit) + also convert it's “gravitational level” (the distance it falls) to speed.

So by perihelion Mercury is losing speed, but also gaining speed + gaining more relativistic mass because of 2 reasons.

So because of Mercury is Loosing speed, (orbit shortcut) + falling from a higher gravitional level it is reaching perihelion FASTER as it would have done. This is why we call it the Mercury Perihelion Precession Anomaly.

No. As explained above, you are missing half the process. Things are accelerated on from aphelion to perihelion, but the process is reversed on the way from perihelion to aphelion, thus maintaining equilibrium.

Edit; "perihelion" of the Universe will always move "further a head" due to the increasing gravity.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I am not claiming there is a energy lost.
This is your own invention.

Your model implies loss of energy. Otherwise, there would be no problem.

Speed is “lost” compared to a classic framework, but in fact converted to mass increase...

Speed by perihelion is not what it must be according to classic orbit mechanic, and not as predicted by classic physic.

Ehr, no. That is what we have been talking about all along. Note I said, the planet 'arrives late' at perihelion.

By perihelion speed itis according to classic physic is lost.
And it will never return as speed, - what prevent Mercury to fall from the Sun is not that speed is reversible, and hence not that the lost speed will return, - but what save it is relativistic mass increase.

Because the mass is converted back into speed as it moves back towards aphelion. Yes the mass is converted back to speed. I'm sorry, I realize this rains a bit on your parade, but that's a fact.

What "primary", do you call the sun “primary” – well make it so complicate you can, then sure that not all would understand.

You can translate for the cows, if you wish.

Now we are talking about approaching perihelion.
In that case ALL the KE comes from speed.

No. The KE comes from gravity. Most of it is converted to speed, but, as you observed yourself, some is converted to mass.

It will both arrive later and fall towards the Sun..

Hans come on now, - the precession anomaly is FASTER as it should have been .
I don’t know where you have got the idea that it should be slower.

Uhh, above you just agreed that it would be later.

However, we were not just now talking about Mercury, just general orbital mechanics (albeit including relativity). The special thing about Mercury is that so close to the sun, the spacetime distortion also plays a role.

Because Mercury is affected by “relativistic resistance” it will fall, and in this process both take a shortcut (in its orbit) + also convert it's “gravitational level” (the distance it falls) to speed.

So by perihelion Mercury is losing speed, but also gaining speed + gaining more relativistic mass because of 2 reasons.

So because of Mercury is Loosing speed, (orbit shortcut) + falling from a higher gravitional level it is reaching perihelion FASTER as it would have done. This is why we call it the Mercury Perihelion Precession Anomaly.

I suggest you go and read up on the Mercury anomaly before you attempt to discuss it.

Blab blab blap.. – If the “accelerating lane” is long enough there are no problem. – The “decelerating lane” would properly never be reached.

What were we talking about recently, on the moon's orbit? Remember, gravity vs centripetal force?

What happens if you speed up the moon?
Yes, the centripetal force gets greater.
What happens when the centripetal force gets greater?
Yes, it starts to move away from Earth.
What happens when it moves away from Earth (gets higher)?
Yes, it begins to slow down again.

Bjarne, the faster your 'acceleration lane', to sooner you reach the 'deceleration lane'.

You should read up on all this, your models simply don't compute.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Your model implies loss of energy. Otherwise, there would be no problem.

Before you agree, that the centripetal force did the compensation, now you have again change your mind. ? - or ?

No there is no lost of energy.
Speed is converted to mass, mass is converted to the same “potential gravity level” and the KE balance is perfect.

Ehr, no. That is what we have been talking about all along. Note I said, the planet 'arrives late' at perihelion.
It will arrive too early..

Right.

Because the mass is converted back into speed as it moves back towards aphelion. Yes the mass is converted back to speed. I'm sorry, I realize this rains a bit on your parade, but that's a fact.

Crap
Towards aphelion there is only deceleration, - there is no mass converted to larger speed, - mass is converted to centripetal force, and this is the way mass brings the planet upwards. So mass is NOT converted to speed, but to a higher potential gravity level.

No. The KE comes from gravity. Most of it is converted to speed

Crap you cannot convert gravity to speed. Because a cow would know gravity is still there.

Bjarne, the faster your 'acceleration lane', to sooner you reach the 'deceleration lane'.

You did not read the cancel + “edit” – before you posted
Repeat;
Edit; "perihelion" of the Universe will always move "further a head" due to the increasing gravity.

And I could add, there are much more to learn, - other influences such as you see when stars continues falling to black holes inside galaxies..

 

[Paul]

I am not claiming there is a energy lost.
This is your own invention.

It's your implication.

Speed is “lost” compared to a classic framework, but in fact converted to mass increase...

You can't lose energy and gain relativistic mass. For there to be an increase in relativistic mass there must be increased energy.

By perihelion speed itis according to classic physic is lost.

What makes you think that?

And it will never return as speed

Crap.

what prevent Mercury to fall from the Sun is not that speed is reversible, and hence not that the lost speed will return, - but what save it is relativistic mass increase.

Crap.

What "primary", do you call the sun “primary” – well make it so complicate you can, then sure that not all would understand.

It is only possible to simplify things so far; if you are genuinely confused by the word primary in this context, you will never understand the concepts being discussed.

It will both arrive later and fall towards the Sun..

Later yes, fall no.

Hans come on now, - the precession anomaly is FASTER as it should have been .
I don’t know where you have got the idea that it should be slower.

Didn't you just say "it will... ... arrive later"?

Because Mercury is affected by “relativistic resistance” it will fall

No it won't.

and in this process both take a shortcut (in its orbit)

It just changes orbit when it feels like it?

+ also convert it's “gravitational level” (the distance it falls) to speed.

Would that be the same speed that "will never return as speed."

So by perihelion Mercury is losing speed, but also gaining speed

Really, it's doing both at the same time, while accelerating?

gaining more relativistic mass because of 2 reasons.

There's only one way to gain relativistic mass, more energy.

So because of Mercury is Loosing speed, (orbit shortcut) + falling from a higher gravitional level it is reaching perihelion FASTER as it would have done.

Mercury does not lose speed, magically change orbit or get to perihelion faster.

This is why we call it the Mercury Perihelion Precession Anomaly.

It was called the that because there was an anomaly with the precession when using classical mechanics.

 

[Bjarne]

So this have been a completion who was the best to misunderstand each other
I think nothing can take the gold medal from RC, he had have the yellow shirt for more than 1 year now, - but Hans have certainly now won the Silver medal and Paul and I the bronze.

 

[Bjarne]

Mercury is not "falling down at the Sun" because it is in an orbit like everything else that orbits the Sun.
In an elliptical orbit

All motion in space = resistance.
Mathematical it is the exact same as if you would drive in death drum and pull the brake.

Mathematical resistance = resistance.

Math does not know the difference between pulling the brake at you bike and pulling the brake of Mercury.

If you do not add energy the speed by perihelion necessary according to classics orbit mechanism is not achieved, and you’ll certainly circle inwards.

Mercury would do that too, as well as hit the sun, if not mass increase and hence the centrifugal force would save it.

So Mercury do pay the price with is decreased speed.

Luckily the centripetal force pulls Mercury out of the beginning fall, each time it approach aphelion.

The special with relativistic resistance is; that mass is increasing proportional with the speed decrease, with mean yes the energy is maintained and still there but only as increased mass (energy) of the planet.

After perihelion speed is decreasing, hence it is wrong to claim that KE is converted to speed.

The increased mass makes the centripetal force stronger.

This is what takes back the planet from the fall that certainly is going on towards perihelion.

Relativistic résistance is REAL, exactly like all other kind of resistance is real.

You can say you pay with speed, - you pay with reduced motion , - but what you get is more mass, which mean you get curvature of space, as well as more of the energy responsible for curving space.

BUT the bill you pay is speed.

So you cannot say that because this is the theory of relativity, the reduced speed is not real, - it is exactly as real as Monday Morning.

 

[Bjarne]

If you drop a stone from the space station, it will not follow classic physic, the stone will be delayed.
Why?
Because resistance against motion is real
Not only on Mercury, it is real here on this planet every day.

Exactly like resistance of a stubborn cow can cause, - also is real every day..
Relativistic resistance is not a place in Russia
Relativistic resistance is not a junk year in the bright blue 21 st dimension
Don’t believe RC and Paul, none of them has scientific junk dump permission to unknown dimension.

 

[Reality Check]

So Mercury do pay the price with is decreased speed.

Half right: Mercury do pay the price with decreased speed when it gets further away from the Sun
Mercury do pay the price with increased speed when it gets nearer to from the Sun

It gains the same kinetic energy as it loses. KE = 1/2 mv ^2. The speed Mercury gains is the same as it loses.

 

[Reality Check]

If you drop a stone from the space station, it will not follow classic physic, the stone will be delayed.
Why?
Because resistance against motion is real

RAM is your fantasy not science.

There is resistance to acceleration (inertia). That has been known about since Newton and taught to school children every day so you are really, really late in realizing this.

If you "drop" a stone from the space station it will not drop. It will remain in orbit.

 

[Paul]

All motion in space = resistance.

No.

Mathematical it is the exact same as if you would drive in death drum and pull the brake.

I don't know what a death drum is, but I do know that while motion can be deceleration, it by no means must be.

Math does not know the difference between pulling the brake at you bike and pulling the brake of Mercury.

Yes it does.

If you do not add energy the speed by perihelion necessary according to classics orbit mechanism is not achieved

Who said there was no increased energy?

Mercury would do that too, as well as hit the sun, if not mass increase and hence the centrifugal force would save it.

Learn about orbits.

Luckily the centripetal force pulls Mercury out of the beginning fall, each time it approach aphelion.

That makes no sense.

You claim Mercury will fall into the sun, then you claim that when it is at it's furthest point centripetal force pulls it towards the sun, stopping it falling.

The special with relativistic resistance is; that mass is increasing proportional with the speed decrease, with mean yes the energy is maintained and still there but only as increased mass (energy) of the planet.

NO. Relativistic mass increases with increased speed.

This is what takes back the planet from the fall that certainly is going on towards perihelion.

You do know that centripetal force makes a body follow a curved path, don't you?