Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

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.

As i wrote nothing can take the yellow shirt from you, I believe you also deserve the Nobel prize for the ability to misunderstand.

Now imaging a airplane flying with 800 km/h - Everything is Ok
Now a hurricane like these on Saturn affect the airplane (resistance) and the speed drops to only 75 km/s.
(did you notice the words “resistance” and “speed drop”. ?)
Now and first now, (did you notice the words “first now”) the speed is increasing due to the plane is falling (decreasing) towards mother earth.
Did you notice the word falling?
And because of it falls (did you notice fall) the speed will now increase.
But before you get to that advanced mathematical point, you must off course admit (notice the word admit) that the aircraft is approaching the earth.
Exactly like this mercury is approaching the Sun, simple due to too slow speed. (Notice the word "slow").
The yellow shirt is definitive yours RC , no one else can misunderstand so much like you.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

You can't just say it is this or that. They are all connected.

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.

Then you have no 'run away' effect.

Crap

Bjarne, you know far too little to call anything 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.

It doesn't help to repeat this, it iremains wrong. The mass increase is completely coupled to speed, and when the speed gets lower, the mass gets lower, too. However, this means that the KE has to go somewhere, and what happens is that the energy needed to slow down the object is higher. In other words, it will decelerate slower.

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

Of course you can't. Gravity is not converted, it is the force that accelerates the object. The hight (potential energy) is what is being converted.

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.

No.

Now, there might be some interesting phenomenon with relativistic orbital velocities near super-heavy black holes, but the density of matter in the universe is far to low for anything like this.

The mass density of visible matter (i.e., galaxies) in the Universe is estimated at 3e-28 kg/m^3 (3e-31 times the mass density of water).

From here: http://www.cs.umass.edu/~immerman/stanford/universe.html

You will have to realize that the average density of the universe is equal to what we would normally consider an excellent vacuum. The orbital accelerations between different parts of it is virtually non-existent.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

...gibberish snipped....

Wow what a great post, Bjarne, No one else can spout gibberish like you

 

[Paul]

Now imaging a airplane flying with 800 km/h - Everything is Ok

An aeroplane in the atmosphere is not a planet in space, but let's play your silly game.

Now a hurricane like these on Saturn affect the airplane (resistance) and the speed drops to only 75 km/s.

The plane is now travelling at 4500 km/h .

Assuming your incompetence, we will take a value of 75 km/h.

Now and first now, (did you notice the words “first now”) the speed is increasing due to the plane is falling (decreasing) towards mother earth.

If the plane stalls, it will go into a dive (or spin) and accelerate until it either hits the ground or gains enough speed to achieve level flight again.

Exactly like this mercury is approaching the Sun, simple due to too slow speed. (Notice the word "slow").

No.

 

[Bjarne]

[/B]
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.

I hope you have read this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7058642&postcount=3561 at least 800 times, and that you have understood at least 0,000000000000000000000000000000000023%
If so we can continue to the conclusion;
Mercury is affected by increasing “Relativistic resistance” towards perihelion.
So the price Mercury pay is speed decrease and as a result is it falling towards the Sun.
The result is that Mercury also is losing potential gravitational energy / level.
What Mercury get is ONLY increasing mass?
Increasing mass is converted to centripetal force, - that force takes Mercury out of the fall, and brings it back to its original potential gravitational energy / level.

So in simple words:

1. Mercury is paying with reduced speed
2. Mercury get increased mass
3. Increased mass = increased gravity
4. Increased gravity = increased curvature of space.

So we can simplify this to;

1. Mercury pay with decreasing speed.
2. Mercury get increased curvature of space

The following statement can only be understood of cows or by people with good coherence between left and right brain.

• Space resists to be “curved” (Cows have known that in 975 billion years)
• A force seems to curve space. (Cows have know that in 2975 billion years)

Above we have learn that “speed” is causing space to curve, - the only suspicious possible part to pay for that resistance, - the fact that space only can be curved by force, - is therefore speed.

Speed of Mercury is paying the bill, for that space always resist to be curved.

I will later finish the work to show that this also applies for constant speed, and for example is what the Milankovitch 100.000 cycles so desperate need.

So we can all spend 17 years at one of the finish (brain-dead) University of the world, but the result is properly only that the last coherence between the left and the right brian half is swift off totally.

Here is what the Spanish cow suggested.

To counteract the damage education have done to the human race, use this mantra 7 hours in the morning and 7 hours in the evening, - 1 month for each year you have been though educated system, - this will reestablish the coherence between left and right brian half.

Speed of Mercury is paying the bill, for that space always resist to be curved.
Speed of Mercury is paying the bill, for that space always resist to be curved.
Speed of Mercury is paying the bill, for that space always resist to be curved.
Speed of Mercury is paying the bill, for that space always resist to be curved.
Etc..

Spanish Mother Cow has guaranteed, it will work.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Now imaging a airplane flying with 800 km/h - Everything is Ok
Now a hurricane like these on Saturn affect the airplane (resistance) and the speed drops to only 75 km/s.

Speed DROPS to 75 km/s ????? That is some speed drop, I'd say.

Nevermind, I suppose you mean 75 km/h, right?

So we can now add airplanes to the long list of things you don't understand. - Let us say we have this aircraft travelling ar 800 km/h, air speed.

Let us suppose it meets a head wind of 725 km/h (actually at 38,000 ft, winds can go up to 350 km/t, so this is not as extreme as you think). So now the ground speed (speed over the ground) drops to 75 km/h.

Will the aircraft fall out of the sky? No, because the airspeed (speed through the air) is, of course, still 800 km/h. So the plane flies on, but it will be mighty late, and fuel could end up being a problem.

exactly like this mercury is approaching the Sun, simple due to too slow speed. (Notice the word "slow").

And now we have got the airplane analogy right, we can see that Mercury is safe; as IT has no no air resistance, it needs not worry about fuel, all that happens is that it arrives late, and we already covered that.

The yellow shirt is definitive yours RC , no one else can misunderstand so much like you.

Bjarne, you are much too modest here. You are the undisputed leader in nonsense and misunderstandings.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I hope you have read this post
*snipped, inane drivel*
Spanish Mother Cow has guaranteed, it will work.

There seems to be about ½ point hidden in this nonsense, but I have better things to do than try to extract it.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

I hope you have read this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7058642&postcount=3561

I understand that post is gibberish. At most it is a really, really pathetic and stupid attempt to insult me.

If so we can continue to the conclusion;
Mercury is affected by increasing “Relativistic resistance” towards perihelion. So the price Mercury pay is speed decrease and as a result is it falling towards the Sun. The result is that Mercury also is losing potential gravitational energy / level.
...snipped Spanish cow fetish...

The result is that you are displaying your ignorance yet again.

• Mercury is affected by increasing “Relativistic resistance” towards perihelion.
• Mercury is affected by decreasing “Relativistic resistance” from perihelion.

No potential gravitational energy is being lost. It gets converted into kinetic energy and then the kinetic energy gets converted back into the same amount of potential gravitational energy.

Now I will really confuse you :
Mercury (and the Earth and every other planet!) is actually "falling toward" the Sun! It is actually spiraling into the Sun! But the rate is too small to measure.
This is a consequence of GR and confirmed test of GR:

For example, planets orbiting the Sun constantly lose energy via gravitational radiation, but this effect is so small that it is unlikely it will be observed in the near future (Earth radiates about 200 watts (see gravitational waves) of gravitational radiation). Gravitational waves have been indirectly detected from the Hulse-Taylor binary. Precise timing of the pulses shows that the stars orbit only approximately according to Kepler's Laws, – over time they gradually spiral towards each other, demonstrating an energy loss in close agreement with the predicted energy radiated by gravitational waves. Thus, although the waves have not been directly measured, their effect seems necessary to explain the orbits. For this work Hulse and Taylor won the Nobel prize.

 

[Bjarne]

Nevermind, I suppose you mean 75 km/h, right?

This is why you only got the silver medal.

Let us suppose it meets a head wind of 725 km/h (actually at 38,000 ft, winds can go up to 350 km/t, so this is not as extreme as you think). So now the ground speed (speed over the ground) drops to 75 km/h.

Will the aircraft fall out of the sky? No, because the airspeed (speed through the air) is, of course, still 800 km/h. So the plane flies on, but it will be mighty late, and fuel could end up being a problem.

I don’t know what you are cooking, after the speed (over time) have dropped to 75km/h, due to serious resistance the airplane will pretty fast fall almost directly to the ground.

And now we have got the airplane analogy right,

You have nothing except a unfinish soup.

we can see that Mercury is safe; as

Nobody claims anything else.

IT has no no air resistance,

Cows too know that too.

it needs not worry about fuel,

Agree

all that happens is that it arrives late, and we already covered that.

Wrong….
I still don’t know where you got that idea…

Because

• Mercury will fall due to slower orbit speed and thereby also gain speed.
• In the fall it will gain more speed as would have had if not it would fall but still lower speed as it must have in that “new altitude”.
• So the net-result compared to the expected classis orbit speed Mercury is FASTER, hence it will reach the classic expected perihelion too early.

Opposite if you would drop a stone through the hole in the Earth down to RC in New Zeeland, that stone would arrive the center of the Earth delayed, - and would never get back that lost speed or time.

Hence it would arrival RC too late. – Also in this case the relativistic mass increase will force the stone that mush out of the gravitionel field as speed decreased had lost.

 

[Bjarne]

• Mercury is affected by increasing “Relativistic resistance” towards perihelion.

True
We know it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. We have equation for that.

• Mercury is affected by decreasing “Relativistic resistance” from perihelion.

You have nothing that support that statement.
The speed that pay the price for “Relativistic resistance” is not reversible to speed, - ONLY to mass. that's a HUGE difference

No potential gravitational energy is being lost.

You deserve the yellow shirt (gravitational energy is periodical "lost" my friend)

It gets converted into kinetic energy and then the kinetic energy gets converted back into the same amount of potential gravitational energy.

In the end of the day yes.
We are discussion left half brained fragmented details
You should be good to that (if you want) .

Now I will really confuse you :
Mercury (and the Earth and every other planet!) is actually "falling toward" the Sun! It is actually spiraling into the Sun! But the rate is too small to measure.
This is a consequence of GR and confirmed test of GR:

Why is this consequence of GR
Frame dragging?
The Sun MUST rotate gradually slower over time, that too is lost of energy..

 

[steenkh]

I don’t know what you are cooking, after the speed (over time) have dropped to 75km/h, due to serious resistance the airplane will pretty fast fall almost directly to the ground.

You really know nothing about airplanes, do you

It is the air speed that keeps planes flying, not ground speed. A strong headwind could keep a plane flying even if it is stationary relative to the ground.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You really know nothing about airplanes, do you

It is the air speed that keeps planes flying, not ground speed. A strong headwind could keep a plane flying even if it is stationary relative to the ground.

I have even, at an airshow, seen a plane fly backwards eek: NOT for rookie pilots!). So we can add another item to the list of things Bjarne doesn't understand. Since, to save on the world's IT ressources, RC has the only list, I hope he adds it.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I don’t know what you are cooking, after the speed (over time) have dropped to 75km/h, due to serious resistance the airplane will pretty fast fall almost directly to the ground.

No.

What keeps a plane up is the air flow over the wings. The plane still moves at 800 km/h through the air, so it has no problem staying airborne. It moves much slower with respect to the ground, but that only impacts the flight-time.

Bjarne, I fly to China 5-6 times a year. The flight time from CPH to Beijing is 9 hours, but the flight time from Beijing to CPH is 9½ hour. Why do you think this is? Because, at 11km altitude, strong winds blow, and virtually always towards East. But the airspeed is the same.

Opposite if you would drop a stone through the hole in the Earth down to RC in New Zeeland, that stone would arrive the center of the Earth delayed, - and would never get back that lost speed or time.

I already agreed that it would loose time, but it will get the speed back on the way up.

Except..

If you drill a hole to NZ, the stone will impact the hole wall before it has fallen very far.

Guess why.

(No it's not a joke, it is physics, let's see if you can figure it out)

Hans

 

[Paul]

I think I deserve a slap on the wrist for my rookie mistake in rushing to confront the intent rather than the reality of Bjarne's silly aeroplane analogy.

I hereby apologise to science and undertake to exercise greater care in the future.

It wouldn't have made any difference, as we have seen, but a chap must have standards.

 

[Bjarne]

No.


I already agreed that it would loose time, but it will get the speed back on the way up.

Hans

Mercury will not get the lost (not achieved) speed back.
What happens after perihelion is deceleration, which mean that also the speed gained towards perihelion get lost.
But larger relativistic mass mean that the deceleration happens slower because of the centripetal force is stronger.

The same principle apply for the stone decelerating from the center of the Earth and towards NZ

 

[MRC_Hans]

No it will not get the lost (not achieved) speed back.
What happens after perihelion is deceleration, which mean that also the speed gained towards perihelion get lost.
But larger relativistic mass mean that the deceleration happens slower because of the centripetal force is stronger.

Bjarne, I suggest you repeat this 20 times right now, so we can get it over with. Or 40, if you need. You will still be wrong.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

The same principle apply for the stone decelerating from the center of the Earth and towards NZ

Come on, Bjarne, show us you can, or admit you don't know, then I'll explain it to you: Why will the stone never reach the center of Earth, much less NZ?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think I deserve a slap on the wrist for my rookie mistake in rushing to confront the intent rather than the reality of Bjarne's silly aeroplane analogy.

I hereby apologise to science and undertake to exercise greater care in the future.

It wouldn't have made any difference, as we have seen, but a chap must have standards.

You are forgiven .

Aviation is not that easy.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne wrote;No it will not get the lost (not achieved) speed back.
What happens after perihelion is deceleration, which mean that also the speed gained towards perihelion get lost.
But larger relativistic mass mean that the deceleration happens slower because of the centripetal force is stronger.

Bjarne, I suggest you repeat this 20 times right now, so we can get it over with. Or 40, if you need. You will still be wrong.
Hans

Stepwise, - do you deny that Mercury decelerate after perihelion?
If you so we better stop here.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Stepwise, - do you deny that Mercury decelerate after perihelion?
If you so we better stop here.

Of course I don't deny that.

However, due to it's slightly increased mass, it has a higher inertia (I know you never got to grips with inertia), so it decelerates slower than it would have done otherwise. In that way it gains some speed.

Hans