Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

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

Inertia is an expression that belongs to classic physic.
To be exact we are not talking about Inertia.
Relativistic mass increase & Relativistic resistance is a 200 years newer discovery and a different story.
Same "family" yes, - but different.
Except that mistake left yes you deserve the silver medal and RC Gold for the ability to misunderstand everything.

 

[Reality Check]

You have nothing that support that statement.

Wrong: Conservation of energy means that Mercury gains the same kinetic energy as it lost. That means that it gains the same speed that it lost

Why is this consequence of GR

Gravitational waves.

 

[Bjarne]

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

Wrong: Conservation of energy means that Mercury gains the same kinetic energy as it lost. That means that it gains the same speed that it lost

Crap crap crap

The "lost" speed - is lost forever.
Mass increase in converted to stronger centripetal force.
Mass increase is NOT the same as speed increase.

The speed that pays the price for “Relativistic resistance” is not reversible to speed, - ONLY to mass, that's a HUGE difference.

Heavy cows know everything about that.
If you don’t believe here is the evidence;
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pYyHiQ1nCLI/S_czjrCtspI/AAAAAAAABH0/XAfuZ-bcilM/s1600/flying+cows.jpg
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRWbQ3HWEX7_HuMcq231g_SJbX2DqrVXW34csS7NszMdrJIVX1fhVStItRc

Hans have finally got it right (except the word inertia)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7059234&postcount=3580

But it is not without reason that you have won the gold medal, ( for the best ability to misunderstand everything).

Gravitational waves.

Planet are approaching the Sun because of gravity waves ??
WHAT kind of soup are you now cooking?

 

[Reality Check]

Crap crap crap

The lost speed is lost forever.

ignorance ignorance ignorance.
Followed by utter gibberish.

You have no idea what the defintion of kinetic energy is so here is it:

1/5 mv²​

Conservation of energy means that any kinetic energy that is lost is gained again. Think of gravitational potentail energy and KE as being on a seesaw. When one decreases the other is increased and the other way around.

Planet are approaching the Sun because of gravity waves ??
WHAT kind of soup are you now cooking?

The soup of science not your soup of ignorance.
It is any orbiting object spiralling toward the object it is orbiting.
Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar

The orbit has decayed since the binary system was initially discovered, in precise agreement with the loss of energy due to gravitational waves predicted by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. The total power of the gravitational radiation (waves) emitted by this system presently, is calculated to be 7.35 x 1024 watts.[5] For comparison, this is 1.9 % of the power radiated in light by our own Sun. (Another comparison is that our own Solar System radiates only about 5000 watts in gravitational waves, due to the much larger distances and orbit times, particularly between the Sun and Jupiter).
With this comparitively large energy loss due to gravitation wave radiation, the rate of decrease of orbital period is 76.5 microseconds per year, the rate of decrease of semimajor axis is 3.5 meters per year, and the calculated lifetime to final inspiral is 300,000,000 years.[2]

 

[Bjarne]

ignorance ignorance ignorance.
Followed by utter gibberish.

You have no idea what the defintion of kinetic energy is so here is it:

1/5 mv²​

Conservation of energy means that any kinetic energy that is lost is gained again. Think of gravitational potentail energy and KE as being on a seesaw. When one decreases the other is increased and the other way around.

Mass increase is not speed.

 

[Bjarne]

Finally I did the calculation

Green dot = Perihelion
Red dot = Apehelion

Relativistic Resistance (RAM) does also affect the Earth by constant speed.
Even a complete circular orbit as well as elliptical orbits is affected. This effect is in addition to what so far is known. (The mercury orbit precession anomaly and perturbation,)

RAM affects the Earth from the direction; the Sun follow in its orbit of the Milky Way.
The speed of the Earth is seen from the perspective of the Sun, half of the year, - slower as the Sun’s orbit speed, - and the other half of the year, - faster as the Sun’s orbit speed.

The RAM (relativistic resistance) can be compared to headwind from the direction the Sun moves forward. That “headwind” (RAM) is always pushing the orbit of the Earth backwards.

Therefore the one half of the 100.000 year’s Milankovitz cycle, - (50.000 year) when perihelion is in the “headwind-zone” the orbit of the Earth is pushed towards the Sun, as well as aphelion pushed further away because in this period aphelion is in “follow wind” . Hence in this period the orbit of the Earth is pushed elliptical.

The next 50.000 year of the Milankovitz cycle the opposite happens and the elliptical orbit is pushed back to a circular orbit.

Therefore;

• perihelion is pushed almost 4 million km closer to the Sun, - but ...
• aphelion almost 8 million km further away from the Sun in the first 50.000 years period.

At the same time the orbit speed by aphelion will decrease, and increase by perihelion, - which in addition will make the summer shorter and the winter longer.

And as mentioned, also the influence from perturbation must be added.
I guess this is what the Milankovitz period so desperate need to be able to explain the cause of ice ages, but I haven’t so far not done any calculations on that part.

100,000-year problem
The 100,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a significantly smaller impact on solar forcing than precession or obliquity and hence might be expected to produce the weakest effects. However, observations show that during the last 1 million years, the strongest climate signal is the 100,000-year cycle. In addition, despite the relatively great 100,000-year cycle, some have argued that the length of the climate record is insufficient to establish a statistically significant relationship between climate and eccentricity variations.[8] Some models can however reproduce the 100,000 year cycles as a result of non-linear interactions between small changes in the Earth's orbit and internal oscillations of the climate system.[9][10]
Source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycle

 

[Bjarne]

The above illustrated RAM is supported by several other facts.

1.
Stars continue to fall into black holes of galaxies.
This cause of this is easy to predict based on RAM (relativistic resistance) also applies for constant sped.


2.

We know that 75% of all galaxies (close to us) are 10 billion year old spiral galaxies.
According to the prevailing understanding, such spiral structures "should" not be able to last more than 1 billion years.
But this doesn't seem to be the case.
Stars simply spirals inwards, - towards the center of a galaxy.

3.

Also the cause of space probes accelerating more than expected by fly by can be explained only based on RAM.
The cause is very similar to how planet orbits are pushed backwards of RAM, and for example this give the last “push” necessary to explain the cause of ice ages.
I will cover this further soon.

4.

Irregular Moons (extreme elliptical orbits) is also caused by a combination between RAM periodically push these orbits elliptical + acceleration from the Sun support elliptical extension more as it support the return to more circular orbits.

Therefore the moons orbit are more and more elliptical, - the further these are from their mother planet, and the closer the mother planets orbit the Sun.
This would properly mean that if Jupiter was orbiting in the orbit of the Earth it would have lost most of its moons.
I will also cover this further soon.

This especially applies for Moons of the gas planets.
It should be possible to detect that also the orbit of our moon get more elliptical as predicted.

 

[Paul]

Finally I did the calculation

Apparently this might come as something of a surprise to you, but saying "I did the calculation" and posting some pictures is not the same as showing the calculation.

Show us the calculations you did, from the beginning, and how these demonstrate any of your ideas.

RAM affects the Earth from the direction; the Sun follow in its orbit of the Milky Way.

Then it should affect the sun to a far greater degree, please give us the calculations for how this additional affect relates to the already perturbed orbits of the solar system.

 

[Bjarne]

Apparently this might come as something of a surprise to you, but saying "I did the calculation" and posting some pictures is not the same as showing the calculation.
Show us the calculations you did, from the beginning, and how these demonstrate any of your ideas.

RAM used in the calculation is based on the Lorenz transformation 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
“v” is based on the speed 29700 m/s

Then it should affect the sun to a far greater degree,

The whole solar system, included the planets circles inwards of the galaxy, due to RAM

You can calculate how fast based on 1/√(1 - v²/c²) speed u can use > 250 000m/s .
Notice ADG cannot continue to increase, because the ADG of a galaxy is limit, RAM sets the limit
It is superstition to belive that we (the solar system) orbit the galaxy as a planet the Sun, or as a moon a planet.
We and all other solars systems (stars) are on the way to the black hole...
Notice the galaxy is also on the move

please give us the calculations for how this additional affect relates to the already perturbed orbits of the solar system.

The precession anomaly can be calculated like Einstein did it.
But this only affect the speed difference between aphelion and perihelion.
The basic relativistic resistance I speak about, is tha basic - constant speed the planet for a period is faster or slower as the orbit speed of the Sun, ( e.g.; the earth ½ year).
I imaging the orbit of the Earth was almost circular and the orbit speed (of the Earth) always almost 30 000 m/s - then this is the speed to use. - In this case we can ignore the "insignificant" speed difference between aphelion and perihelion.

But to get it right, you must do 2 set of calculation.
1 based on the basic speed and one based on the acceleration difference.
Edit... I think it must be possibly to combine these 2 set or calculation, but I will never do that. I hate it even thinking on it.

 

[Paul]

RAM used in the calculation is based on the Lorenz transformation 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
“v” is based on the speed 29700 m/s

I didn't ask you to tell us what you say you've done, again, I asked for the calculations.

Are you capable of showing them?

The whole solar system, included the planets circles inwards of the galaxy, due to RAM

Please give us the calculations for how this additional affect relates to the already perturbed orbits of the solar system.

The precession anomaly can be calculated like Einstein did it.

Can you do it?

But to get it right, you must do 2 set of calculation.

I'd be surprised if you correctly did just one.

1 based on the basic speed and one based on the acceleration difference.

Show us.

Edit... I think it must be possibly to combine these 2 set or calculation, but I will never do that. I hate it even thinking on it.

But you still expect us to believe that you can perform all the other calculations necessary.

 

[Bjarne]

I didn't ask you to tell us what you say you've done, again, I asked for the calculations.
Are you capable of showing them?

All you need is this;

1.
RAM used in the calculation is based on the Lorenz transformation 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
“v” is based on the speed 29700 m/s

and this

2.

Please give us the calculations for how this additional affect relates to the already perturbed orbits of the solar system.

Imaging the speed difference between aphelion and perihelion is almost insignificant, and the orbit almost circular. - Now you do only need the calculation shown above.

Can you do it?

If I want yes.
But why lose time on something already invented.

But you still expect us to believe that you can perform all the other calculations necessary.

You don't need more than what already shown here + already known.
Did you know it took Milankovitz 20 years to calculate his theory?

 

[MRC_Hans]

The "lost" speed - is lost forever.
Mass increase in converted to stronger centripetal force.
Mass increase is NOT the same as speed increase.

The speed that pays the price for “Relativistic resistance” is not reversible to speed, - ONLY to mass, that's a HUGE difference.

Funny how you insist on repeating this nonsense.

So Mercury becomes heaveir for each orbit?

So CERN has a basement where they keep all the superheavy particles from their accelerators?

So if we ever build a spaceship that can go close to the speed of light, the astronauts will weigh fifty tons forever?

Are you serious?

Really?

Hans

 

[Paul]

All you need is this;

Still avoiding the question I see.

Show us the calculations.

Using the names of formulae isn't doing the calculations.

Posting pictures isn't doing the calculations.

Saying "all you need is this" and telling us how someone else did something isn't doing the calculations.

Imaging the speed difference between aphelion and perihelion is almost insignificant, and the orbit almost circular.

Guessing, fudging and grossly oversimplifying isn't doing the calculations.

Now you do only need the calculation shown above.

No, you need to do the calculations.

If I want yes.
But why lose time on something already invented.

Claiming you can isn't doing the calculations.

Less procrastination, more calculating.

You don't need more than what already shown here + already known.

Then it should be easy for you to do the calculations shouldn't it?

Did you know it took Milankovitz 20 years to calculate his theory?

I bet he showed people the calculations when asked.

 

[Bjarne]

Funny how you insist on repeating this nonsense.

So Mercury becomes heavier for each orbit?

After perihelion (and towards aphelion) Mercury is not gaining speed, but decelerating.
The relativistic mass increase due to the larger perihelion speed is causing Mercury to decelerate slower as it would have done, - if it had less mass, - from perihelion to aphelion.

So if we ever build a spaceship that can go close to the speed of light, the astronauts will weigh fifty tons forever?

• So long the spacecraft moves with almost that speed, - yes.
• The spacecraft cannot convert mass to speed, but only speed to mass..
• The larger mass will make it more differcult to stop the spacecraft,- but still mass is not converted to speed..

 

[Bjarne]

Still avoiding the question I see.

Show us the calculations.

.

First you must calculate the average orbit speed.
This is done by multiplying the time (s) (½ year) - with the deceleration speed.
The deceleration speed is found by the Lorenz Transformation equation > 1/√(1 - v²/c²)

Now you know the average decelerating speed in the "resistance period".
You can use the same to find the average acceleration speed in the "follow wind” period.

Now you can find the distance by multiplying with the amount of second a deceleration or acceleration period takes.

Divide that with 3,14 to find the diameter and with 2 to find the radius increase.

Add the length of the 2 periods and multiply it with the amount of year, to see the result after serveral years, for exsample after 50.000 years. .

 

[Reality Check]

RAM used in the calculation is based on the Lorenz transformation 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
“v” is based on the speed 29700 m/s

What is the actual equation for RAM?

It had better not be that idiotic equation that you have been using to demonstrate your ignorance for these many years.

Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass. He ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units or acceleration.

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
  So far the answer is no !

From The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)


P.S.
Bjarne, show us "the equation hat unite gravity and the strong force"
Asked on 16 March 2011

 

[Reality Check]

...Add the length of the 2 periods and multiply it with the amount of year, to see the result after serveral years, for exsample after 50.000 years. .

So Mercury is falling toward the Sun at a rate of ~4 million kilometers per 50.000 years or a rate of 78.132 km per year.

Big problem, Bjarne: Mercury's orbital parameters are constantly being measured. They are known to within 100 km. So why have scientists not measured that Mercury is falling into the Sun?
What abut the other planets, Bjarne?

You are also ignoring the conservation of energy as before.
One more time:

• As Mercury gets closer to the Sun it gains kinetic energy (its speed increases) and loses gravitaitonal potential energy .
• As Mercury gets further from to the Sun it loses kinetic energy (its speed decreases) and gains gravitaitonal potential energy.
• Energy is conserved so: The same amount of KE that is gained is lost.
• Mercury ends up with exactly the same speed. Its average speed does not change.

 

[Bjarne]

What is the actual equation for RAM?

It had better not be that idiotic equation that you have been using to demonstrate your ignorance for these many years.

Point 1

First at all, you, Hans me and Co and Cows all agree that relativistic resistance is true, it concerns our reality and not the relativity in the 21 th dimension.

Now you have spend 17 years at a University, you should be able to find the right equation, you should be able to show me that equation if the one I have used is wrong, - SIR.

Point 2

I have used the Lorenz Transformation equation to calculate RAM
1/√(1 - v²/c²)
You have to understand that c in this case is not a speed

C is a point without time and without distances.
“c” is a unity where everything and nothing is one.

The way to understand it is below.

You can see that A and B do not agree about the distances to the Sun.
The distance seen from and outside observer is the same (Observer C) .

Observer "B" do only observe the half distance to the Sun compared to observer "A".

The reason could be either huge gravity or extreme speed.

If the speed of B would increase dramatically the distance to the sun would decrease. – Hence just before reaching “c” – B would only measure 1 mm to the Sun.

And if we mathematically should assume B would reach c, - (B could be a photon) then there would be no distance to the sun anymore.

Repeat NO DISTANCE - this is a mathematical fact, for the one reaching that "speed" - But NOT for you.
You are NOT part of the game.

So “c” is from the perspective of c, no distance and no time.

What the Lorenz Transformation equation in fact does is only to tell you how your reality would look like, the further to the “speed” c you would move.

And when you would reach that point "C" you would discover that “c” is unit-less, there are no time, no distance anymore.

Therefore the result of the Lorenz Transformation Equation is only a factor simply because c is in that equation NOTHING, the end of the Universe. Do you have strong enough imagination to understand; NOTHING.

If you do not agree dear RC tell us HOW TO CALCULATE RELATIVISTIC RESISTANCE, it is accurate so real than Monday Morning.

So show us all your higher level an how to CALCULATE IT SIR.

It is sooo easy only to blap blap blab blap bal blab la blab la blab la blap blap blap blap and make long stupid list and repeat and repeat and repeat how stupid I am .
CALCULATE IT RIGHT, WHEN I AM REALLY SO WRONG - SIR .

I Geuss that could be done 100 times faster as all the time you have used to repeat how stupid I am

 

[Bjarne]

So Mercury is falling toward the Sun at a rate of ~4 million kilometers per 50.000 years or a rate of 78.132 km per year.

Big problem, Bjarne: Mercury's orbital parameters are constantly being measured. They are known to within 100 km. So why have scientists not measured that Mercury is falling into the Sun?

We can observe and calculate the precession of a planet.

Based on all the science we have we can ONLY calculate the radius of a planet and to the Sun.

We cannot measure it. It’s a big difference.

The calculated value > 78.132 km per year applies for the radius increase of the Earth not of Mercury.

Edit
When the Earth moves in the "headwind zone" - it will fall closer towards the Sun. This will make the orbit more eleptical (in this 50.000 years cyle) but also faster.
When the Earth moves in the "follow wind zone" it will make the orbit even more eleptical , but also slower (in this 50.000 years cyle) .
Hence the total orbit-time that is won in the "headwind zone" is lost in the "follow wind zone".
One orbit therefore take the same time, whereby we cannot use time to derterminate any difference.
The radius difference will propaly only be 3,9 million km for both aphelion and perihelion, - within the next 50,000 years
(not the double for aphelion as stated above)

Note!
This is based on 29,600 m/s relative to zero
Maybe the relativistic resistance must be relative to the speed of Suns orbit in the galaxy (250,000 m/s relative to 250,000+29,600 m/s), whereby the resistance will be larger, and hence also the Radis difference per year.

What abut the other planets, Bjarne?

It is easy to calculate too.

Mercury ends up with exactly the same speed. Its average speed does not change.

For each orbit - yes.
But still you still cannot convert mass to speed, only to larger centripedal force and hence weaker deceleration.
So if you MUST have speeds into that “picture” - mass can only be converted to slower; “speed decrease” in the deceleration period of a planet.

 

[Reality Check]

Point 1

First at all, you, Hans me and Co and Cows all agree that relativistic resistance is true, it concerns our reality and not the relativity in the 21 th dimension.

Point 1 First of all you are deluded.
"Relativistic resistance" does not exist.
There is the relativist fact that you cannot accelerate matter to the speed of light. This in not called "relativistic resistance".

Point 2
I have used the Lorenz Transformation equation to calculate RAM
1/√(1 - v²/c²)
You have to understand that c in this case is not a speed

You are lying: c in this case is a speed. It is the speed of light. Lorentz defined it as the speed of light.

..snipped insane giberish....
CALCULATE IT RIGHT, WHEN I AM REALLY SO WRONG - SIR .

THE LORENTZ FACTOR IS A NUMBER. IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY UNITS OF MEASUREMENT- SIR

Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass. He ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units or acceleration.

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
  So far the answer is no !

From The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)