Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Paulhoff]

Correct

He says, then runs with it into a whole other direction that has nothing to do with what I said. Bjarne is much like a dower that will bend anything to fit their ideas, which aren't backed up by anything, to make their worldview work.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

Why not? There are a lot of charged streams going on in stars.

Pushed by alien right ?

Follow? What do you think goes on around a supermassive black hole?
Do you know what plasma is? (Hint: Charged particles galore)
Hans

So the plasma is just out to get some fresh air ?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Pushed by alien right ?


So the plasma is just out to get some fresh air ?

Come back when you have a point. Or, in the unlikely event that you should have an argument.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

I have recently promised to comment the flyby anomalies further. Here we go>

Above are the trajectories of the space probes are turned, so that the zodiac signs are in the same direction.

This makes it easier to compare with the Relativistic Resistance direction (RR) (when an object that moves relative faster or slower as the Sun).

As already mentioned RR is strongest when moving faster as the Suns orbit speed , (we will call this South) and weakest RR opposite (we will call this North) .
These two directions are those that give the strongest anomalies.
Both these orbit direction will accelerate and object.

When moving straight West or East we shall expect deceleration.
In these direction an orbit is not faster or slower as the Sun, but still moving relative to the Sun with a certian speed, - this too = RR.

This seems to explain why for example the strongest anomaly was measured in the trajectory of NEAR.

And it seems to explain why the anomaly of ROSETTA was so weak.

And it seems to explain why the 2 PIONEER space probes both were decelerating.

And why we again shall expect a new iceage....

 

[Reality Check]

I have recently promised to comment the flyby anomalies further. Here we go>
...
And it seems to explain why the 2 PIONEER space probes both were decelerating.
...snipped...

Not it does not. All you have is pretty pictures. They do not explain anything.

But you also have these problems: The problems with Bjarne latest fantasy

And the fatal bit of ignorance:

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)

 

[Bjarne]

The image above illustrate the orbit of space probes; Rosetta.


Period 1 and 3.
Both these are acceleration periods.
These period are stronger as; period 2

Period 2, is also Acceleration period, this is because the orbit still is pushed towards the Sun, so even though we are talking about a decelerating "force", - the result is in this parts of the orbit an object is accelerating,.

But the acceleration is weaker than in period 1.

Acceleration in this part of the orbit only applies for objects close to the Sun.

Further away from the Sun the result is only deceleration.
This is because even though a object is pushed towards the sun, - the acceleration due to gravity, of the Sun is much weaker further away from the Sun, - so the net-result further out is deceleration.
This is why we saw the Pioneer space probes were decelerating.

Period 4; is a deceleration period, this period counteract the acceleration of period 2.

The image above illustrate the orbit of space probe; Near..

The speed increment therefore only depends on how long period 1 and 3 is.

Near did have long periods, but Rosetta only short periods, and Galileo medium.

This is why the magnitude of the anomalies was so different.

 

[Paul]

Why do you appear to believe that the universe exists in only one plane?

 

[Bjarne]

The orbital parameters of the Earth are known to an even bigger accuracy then Mercury, e.g. aphelion = 152,098,232 km, i.e. to an accuracy of 1 kilometer.

The orbital parameters of the Earth are known - belived - to an even bigger accuracy then Mercury, e.g. aphelion = 152,098,232 km, i.e. to an accuracy of 1 kilometer. Based on; only calculation on the baisc of uncomplete understanding of nature

Why do you appear to believe that the universe exists in only one plane?

One WHAT ?

 

[MRC_Hans]

This is getting too silly. Still:

Two questions:

1) Why does this only apply to space probes? Why does it not seriously perturb the plantes and moons? (Not to mention comets)

2) If an object looses speed due to RR, where does that energy go?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

The orbital parameters of the Earth are known - belived - to an even bigger accuracy then Mercury, e.g. aphelion = 152,098,232 km, i.e. to an accuracy of 1 kilometer. Based on; only calculation on the baisc of uncomplete understanding of nature

And what exactly are your figures for the position of the space probes based on?

One WHAT ?

Wheee, Bjarne does not know what 'plane' means in the context of orbital mechanics.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Why does this only apply to space probes?

It applies all objects; planets, moons, stars, space probes, comet, aroids.

Why does it not seriously perturb the plantes and moons? (Not to mention comets).

It does. But the speed of our Moon is for example only about 1 m/s – the influence is almost significant, but the orbit of the Moon will become more elliptical.

Large orbital eccentricity is caused by a combination between Relativistic Resistance (RR) and acceleration due to gravity towards the Sun.

When apogee is in the RR "following wind zones (and perigee in the "headwind zone") the orbital eccentricity is in these periods increasing, - and decreasing when perigee is in the a moons RR-"following wind zone" .

The new theory predicts, that In half of a moons eccentricity period, a moons will gradually approach the mother planet - and the other haft of the eccentricity period a moon will return to a more circular orbits. (so like also the planets are affected by RR, as described in the chapter; Ice Ages).

These influence of these two differences period are therefore from time to time neutralizing each other.

But there is also a influences from acceleration due to gravity of the Sun.
The sun too is pulling / increasing the orbital eccentricity of moons.
The effect will be largest when apogee is pointing towards the Sun, and weakest when perigee is pointing towards the Sun.
Therefore the orbital eccentricity of moons will gradually increase of that reason. (see the image below).

If an object looses speed due to RR, where does that energy go?

1. First you must understand that RR is stronger if you move fasters as the Sun’s orbit speed.
   
2. BUT RR does also affect the Sun. The Sun and the whole solar system is moving inwards of the MilkyWay due to RR. Therefore so soon an object moves opposite the Suns orbit direction, it will fall slower towards the center of the Milkyway.
3. A space probe in this direction (opposite the Sun’s motion direction) will therefore seen from the perspective of the Sun be faster as expected, simply because in that direction the RR is weaker.

As I wrote above the speed of period 2 and 4 equalizes each other. The cause of this is in the one end you approach the Sun, in the other end you get further away from the Sun.

During period 1 an object accelerate towards the Sun, in period 3 it accelerate away from the Sun.
So the acceleration is in these 2 different directions are also equalizing each others.

You can say the potential gravitational energy that is “lost” due to the approach of the Sun in the one end, is won back because the aphelion gets further and further away in the other end. - So nothing is lost.

Also time an orbit takes is still the same, because of speed increase by the gradually shorter perihelio-apsis is equalizing speed decrease by the gradually more distance aphelion apsis.

It is really not easy to discover these anomalies.

You must measure, or use your brain.
After that I suggest to send space probes directly ahead of the Sun, - towards the Suns motion direction.

And another space probe the opposite way, - only to measure these anomalies, - we certainly will discover that fact that RR is real by constant speed. .

Shortly spoken,
What all these space probes have discovered is put very simple; that orbits are not like we believe these to be.
SPEED is by perihelion larger when an elliptical orbit, - is more elliptical, - as believed (due to RR).
THIS is what accelerating space proves reveals.

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

Note:
If the second half of an period is "active", > "return to almost circular orbit" ( aphelion is pointing towards the Sun), then the opposite happens, speed get slower by perihelion.
This happens only for Neptune and Jupiter. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Outer_Planet_Orbits.jpg
But still 1 orbit takes the same time. – Simply before the energy from an overall perspective is the same.
You cannot measure that speed "anomaly" except if you have equipment on Jupiter to that purpose.
In the same way, if you want to measure the speed anomalies of asteroids you must have equipment on board.

 

[MRC_Hans]

It applies all objects; planets, moons, stars, space probes, comet, aroids.

Then whe don't we observe it?

It does. But the speed of our Moon is for example only about 1 m/s – the influence is almost significant, but the orbit of the Moon will become more elliptical.

It is 1 km/s, but sure, what is a factor 1,000 for a genious like you? ;p

- However, it is really 30km/s, because it follows Earth in its orbit.

When apogee is in the RR "following wind zones (and perigee in the "headwind zone") the orbital eccentricity is in these periods increasing, - and decreasing when perigee is in the a moons RR-"following wind zone" .

No.

First you must understand that RR is stronger if you move fasters the Sun’s orbit speed.

'fasters'??

Bjarne, let's rewind this and start again: There is no RR as a resistance.

You can say the potential gravitational energy that is “lost” due to the approach of the Sun in the one end, is won back because the aphelion gets further and further away in the other end. - So nothing is lost.

You statement above is wrong, but you are right that nothing is lost. And this of course means that the orbit is not changed.

Either there is an energy loss, in which case you need to explain where that energy goes,

- or there is no energy loss, in which case the orbits are not changed over time.

You can't have it both ways.

It is really not easy to discover these anomalies.

You really should go into homeopathy; they also have all these fantastic effects that dwindle into insignificance as soon as we try to measure them.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Shortly spoken,
What all these space proves have discovered is put very simple; that orbits are not like we believe these to be.
SPEED is by perihelion larger when an elliptical orbit, - is more elliptical, - as believed (due to RR).

Bjarne, we don't observe all this. Why should we think you are right when none of this is what we observe? Should we just take your word for it?

We have been observing planetary orbits for a couple of centuries by now. We can even predict the position of unobserved planets (Uranus was found this way).

If those orbits are not what we believe, then why is that difference invisible?

Hans

 

[Paul]

The orbital parameters of the Earth are known - belived - to an even bigger accuracy then Mercury, e.g. aphelion = 152,098,232 km, i.e. to an accuracy of 1 kilometer. Based on; only calculation on the baisc of uncomplete understanding of nature

So when someone calculates the position of a body in space and then looks for it, finding it exactly where they expected, is it pixies?

One WHAT ?

Oh dear, oh very, very, dear.

 

[Bjarne]

Then whe don't we observe it?

You do observe it;

1. When Ice age agian and agian, systematically is knocking at your door.
2. Space probes orbit anomalies are real.
3. Stars continues to fall towards black holes.
4. 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.

All you need to do is only to stick your head out of that bush, there where you got lost.

Except that it is not easy because the only instrument that can detect it is a watch, if not the orbit time was the same, but it is.

It is 1 km/s, but sure, what is a factor 1,000 for a genious like you?

That was what I mean, it will result in such a insignificant anomaly , that I am too lazy to calculate it.

However, it is really 30km/s, because it follows Earth in its orbit

And therefore moons follows the orbit anomaly of planets, through thick and thin.

There is no RR as a resistance.

You know it exist by acceleration.
You should know we are not talking about classic Newtonian inertia.
If you believe RR, - not should apply by constant speed, - why then not just prove it, before supporting such rubbish-science.

Either there is an energy loss, in which case you need to explain where that energy goes,

- or there is no energy loss, in which case the orbits are not changed over time.

You can't have it both ways.

I have above cut it in cardboard for you, - the potential gravity energy is returned due to the more and more distance aphelion.
So simply is that.
You are now revealing that you are completely lost when it comes to such simply KE calculation / understanding.

Bjarne, we don't observe all this. Why should we think you are right when none of this is what we observe? Should we just take your word for it?
We have been observing planetary orbits for a couple of centuries by now. We can even predict the position of unobserved planets (Uranus was found this way).?
If those orbits are not what we believe, then why is that difference invisible?
Hans

Excatly like you have, - “we” too have our head too deep inside the bush.
Try at least 1 minute to stick it up through the hole in the Bush, and you will see we have observes RR long ago, - it is reality.

1. You do observe it when an Ice age is knocking at your door.
2. Space probes orbit anomalies are real, and observed.
3. Stars continues to fall towards black holes, - this too is observed.
4. 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 , - this too is observed.

How much evidence do you want ?

As I wrote, just stick your head out of that bush there where you got lost, - that’s all you need to do.

 

[Bjarne]

So when someone calculates the position of a body in space and then looks for it, finding it exactly where they expected

The only way to know the distance to a planet is to calculate it.
But if you set of equations are incomplete, - a concrete cow brain know for certain that you'll fail.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You do observe it;

No, we don't.

Except that it is not easy because the only instrument that can detect it is a watch, if not the orbit time was the same, but it is.

No, we have other instruments.

That was what I mean, it will result in such a insignificant anomaly , that I am too lazy to calculate it.

Then how can you know it is insignificant?

And therefore moons follows the orbit anomaly of planet, through thick and thin.

No.

You know it exist by acceleration.
You should know we are not talking about classic Newtonian inertia.
If you believe RR, - not should apply by constant speed, why then not just prove it, before supoorting such creeds = science.

Wow, do we really have to go over this again?

I asked you before, but you ignored it: Do you imagine that an object moving at relativistic speed gets heavier and heavier at constant speed?

I told you, over a year ago, how inertia works: The reistance encountered at acceleration is the force needed to transfer KE to the object. It should be obvious, even to you, that once there is no acceleration, the KE does not change, so of course there is also no force, hence no resistance.

I have above cut it in cardboard for you, - the potential gravity energy is returned due to the more and more distance aphelion.
So simply is that.

And simply wrong.

You are now revealing that you are lost when it comes to simply understanding.

No, I understand what you say. And you are wrong.

You do observe it when an Ice age is knocking at your door.

Sure! That is the reason global temperature is currently rising.

Space probes orbit anomalies are real, and observed.

So we can observe these tiny anomalies in some space probe orbits, but not on the planets? Well, that makes sense.

A star continues to fall towards black holes, - this too is observed.

They do, for other reasons.

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 , - this too is observed.

And your source for this?


Hans

 

[Bjarne]

No, we have other instruments.

Crap, to measure the distances to the Sun. You may be dreaming.

Then how can you know it is insignificant?

Calculate it you self and you’ll see 1/√(1 - v²/c²).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7064008&postcount=3586

Wow, do we really have to go over this again?
I asked you before, but you ignored it: Do you imagine that an object moving at relativistic speed gets heavier and heavier at constant speed?

No, the mass is relative to the speed, exactly like you are used to calculate the M increase.
No difference.
“v” in the Lorenz equation is still “v”, - you have no point at all.

So we can observe these tiny anomalies in some space probe orbits, but not on the planets? Well, that makes sense.

As I wrote, yes you can, you must have an atomic watch onboard on the planet, and all you can do is to observe that the orbit speed of the planet is sometimes "too fast" and sometimes "to slow".

Maybe you can measure due to Doppler, but I don’t believe - not these extreme small anomalies.

There is no other option if you want to check planets sped (by perihelion).
Exactly the same principal as the way we detect the speed of a space probe is known. – Imaging that the atomic watch of NEAR was broken, - how would you measure its exact speed.
You would have no idea of the distance to it.
Hans all this is so simple, cows knew all this already 17.000.000 years ago.

And your source for this

All astronomers know that too, just ask the first one you’ll meet.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Crap, to measure the distances to the Sun. You may be dreaming.


Calculate it you self and you’ll see 1/√(1 - v²/c²).

Ahh, I thought you were too lazy....

And the 30Km/s added by following Earth?

And the other planets, which have similar speeds?

No, the mass is relative to the speed, exactly like you are used to calculate the M increase.

Good, so how can RR work at constant speed?

As I wrote, yes you can, you must have an atomic watch onboard on the planet, and all you can do is to observe that the orbit speed of the planet is sometimes "too fast" and sometimes "to slow".

Maybe you can measure due to Doppler, but I don’t believe - not these extreme small anomalies.

Your lack of knowledge about measuring methods is ratner uninteresting. Why don't you read a few books about this?

There is no other option if you want to check planets sped (by perihelion).
Exactly the same principal as the way we detect the speed of a space probe is known. – Imaging that the atomic watch of NEAR was broken, - how would you measure its exact speed.
You would have no idea of the distance to it.

You are showing your ignorance.

Hans all this is so simple, cows knew all this already 17.000.000 years ago.

Statements like this really show your intellectual level.
How old are you, again? 7?

All astronomers know that too, just ask the first one you’ll meet.

In other words, you don't have a source. Thank you.

Hans

 

[Paul]

Crap, to measure the distances to the Sun. You may be dreaming.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/distance.html

Calculate it you self and you’ll see 1/√(1 - v²/c²).

What do you think the Lorentz factor is?

No, the mass is relative to the speed, exactly like you are used to calculate the M increase.

I don't know if you've noticed, but there is no mass in the equation for the Lorentz factor.