Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

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

The factor you get, can you multiply with the mass, and you get the M increase,- if you also multiply with c² you get the KE increase.

And the 30Km/s added by following Earth?

The Moons follows the speed and the RR push against the Earth.

Good, so how can RR work at constant speed?

As I wrote “v” in the equation is still “v” hence the KE and M is stable when v is stable. - I cannot see any mystery here. So why keep repeating this Q

Why must I repeat everything to you at least 5 times, - tell me are you over 80 years old ?

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

I believe that book does not exist.
Do you really believe we can measure the distance to the Sun etc...?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, think about that the relativistic mass of the Earth is changing all of the time.

The speed is not always 30 km/s – But I guess there is a perihelion / aphelion difference about 5 km/s – ( If someone know pl tell me, I simply can't find it at the internet) .

When the Earth is faster as the Sun e.g; the mentioned 5 km/s, this must increase the mass of the Earth about 1E-9 times, and also the distance, - hence the distance to the Sun would be 150 Meter longer (and 38 cm longer to the Moon).

Are we aware of that ?

I mean how can we talk about relativistic mass without to take is serious , - if so it would sound like drunken nonsense.

Distances to the Sun must shrink due to (periodical) larger speed / mass.

Does you (and others) agree to that?

I mean a stone dropped from the space station is not only delayed, it is also a little heavier , - this knowledge is real, - then distances (the meter stick) is never the same, Have you ever considered that?

 

[MRC_Hans]

The factor you get, can you multiply with the mass, and you get the M increase,- if you also multiply with c² you get the KE increase.


The Moons follows the speed and the RR push against the Earth.


As I wrote “v” in the equation is still “v” hence the KE and M is stable when v is stable. - I cannot see any mystery here. So why keep repeating this Q

Why must I repeat everything to you at least 5 times, - tell me are you over 80 years old ?


I believe that book does not exist.
Do you really believe we can measure the distance to the Sun etc...?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, think about that the relativistic mass of the Earth is changing all of the time.

The speed is not always 30 km/s – But I guess there is a perihelion / aphelion difference about 5 km/s – ( If someone know pl tell me, I simply can't find it at the internet) .

When the Earth is faster as the Sun e.g; the mentioned 5 km/s, this must increase the mass of the Earth about 1E-9 times, and also the distance, - hence the distance to the Sun would be 150 Meter longer (and 38 cm longer to the Moon).

Are we aware of that ?

http://www.science27.com/forum/Speedgr.jpg

I mean how can we talk about relativistic mass without to take is serious , - if so it would sound like drunken nonsense.

Distances to the Sun must shrink due to (periodical) larger speed / mass.

Does you (and others) agree to that?

I mean a stone dropped from the space station is not only delayed, it is also a little heavier , - this knowledge is real, - then distances (the meter stick) is never the same, Have you ever considered that?

Well, I suppose you are simply a hopeless case. You prefer fantasy to knowledge. Suit yourself.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Well, I suppose you are simply a hopeless case. You prefer fantasy to knowledge. Suit yourself.

Hans

I do not see where you believe the fantasy part is?
It rather sounds like you again are out of sharp ammunition, or is afraid for especially this subject.

 

[Paul]

I do not see where you believe the fantasy part is?

It starts with your belief in the excessive weight of water vapour and ends in the 21^st bright blue dimension.

It rather sounds like you again are out of sharp ammunition, or is afraid for especially this subject.

You don't necessitate sharp ammunition, you usually manage to trip yourself up before any effort would be required to bring you down.

 

[Reality Check]

Is the Moon immune to RAM/RR/whatever your fantasy called today

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

rong: The orbital parameters of the Earth are known to an even bigger accuracy than Mercury, e.g. aphelion = 152,098,232 km, i.e. to an accuracy of 1 kilometer. Based on calculations on the basis of a very complete understanding of nature, not the ignorance of an Internet crackpot.

Did you know that the distance to the Moon is measured using radar and laser to an accuracy of centimeters?

Do your ignorant RAM calculation for the Moon. How many meters a year does it's orbit increase?
Is the Moon immune to RAM/RR/whatever your fantasy called today?

The problems with Bjarne latest fantasy

Lunar Laser Ranging experiment

The Moon is spiraling away from Earth at a rate of 38 mm per year

.

 

[Bjarne]

It starts with your belief in the excessive weight of water vapour and ends in the 21^st bright blue dimension.


You don't necessitate sharp ammunition, you usually manage to trip yourself up before any effort would be required to bring you down.

Go for the ball, not for the man.
In soccer we call what you do for; dirty game.
So you too are afraid to walk out in the Relativistic Speed / Mass / gravity / Distance mine field.

I understand this, reality is really strange >> http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7088588&postcount=3681
Suddenly "reality” could disappear right under your feed, - right.
You could easy get on such deep water , and suddenly there are no return.
Hans have that experience too. Therefore now he prefers to be quite. (He is so transparent you know) (you to)

If I am really not is right now, it is simple to prove, - just try to answer the question instead of kicking the man >> http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7088588&postcount=3681

Or do me the favour please just admit that weakness, to imaging / understand this; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7088588&postcount=3681 - and answer the question, - rather that kicking me.

 

[Bjarne]

rong: The orbital parameters of the Earth are known to an even bigger accuracy than Mercury, e.g. aphelion = 152,098,232 km, i.e. to an accuracy of 1 kilometer. Based on calculations on the basis of a very complete understanding of nature, not the ignorance of an Internet crackpot.

Did you know that the distance to the Moon is measured using radar and laser to an accuracy of centimeters?.

I have heard that the best way to sell a lie is to mix truth and lies.

It is true that we can measure the distance to the moon, because we have several mirror up there left by NASA.

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

But it is a GREAT lie that we can do the same to other planets and to the Sun. (with same accuracy)
At lest I have not hear that Nasa have placed mirrors on the Sun too or at Andromeda etc.



But we never know maybe these have

And I geuss if NASA really wanted to know the distance to the Sun and planets etc...and if it were possible they have place a mirrors here too , - long ago, - - don't you think ?.

 

[Paul]

Go for the ball, not for the man.

There isn't a ball. There isn't even a real pitch, and there certainly aren't any fixed goalposts.

In soccer we call what you do for; dirty game.

It's a bit late for you to suddenly cry unsporting conduct.

So you too are afraid to walk out in the Relativistic Speed / Mass / gravity / Distance mine field

I didn't say I could and I certainly didn't say it was easy to do.

I understand this, reality is really strange >>

That's a start.

Suddenly "reality” could disappear right under your feed, - right.

Wrong.

You could easy get on such deep water , and suddenly there are no return.

No.

Hans have that experience too. Therefore now he prefers to be quite. (He is so transparent you know) (you to)

In soccer we call what you do for; dirty game.

If I am really not is right now, it is simple to prove, - just try to answer the question instead of kicking the man >>

There are questions?

Or do me the favour please just admit that weakness, to imaging / understand this

Imagination and understanding are two very different things, something that you would do well to realise before going any further.

rather that kicking me.

Then don't lay on the ground wearing a 'kick me I'm a fool' sign

 

[Reality Check]

I have heard that the best way to sell a lie is to mix truth and lies.
...quote]
I have heard that the best way to sell a fantasy is to ignore the facts:

Lunar Laser Ranging experiment

The Moon is spiraling away from Earth at a rate of 38 mm per year

Do your ignorant RAM calculation for the Moon. How many meters a year does it's orbit increase?

The problems with Bjarne latest fantasy

 

[Reality Check]

How do we measure the distance of the Earth from the Sun

This is actually an interesting question.
What we do is measure the distance of the Earth from Venus!
Simple geometry gives us that the distance to Venus when it is furtherst from the Sun is a*cos(e) where a is the distance from the Earth to the Sun and e is the angle between the Sun and Venus.

Observe Venus to measure e.
Use radar to measure the distance to Venus.
Calculate a.

 

[Bjarne]

This is actually an interesting question.
What we do is measure the distance of the Earth from Venus!
Simple geometry gives us that the distance to Venus when it is furtherst from the Sun is a*cos(e) where a is the distance from the Earth to the Sun and e is the angle between the Sun and Venus.
Observe Venus to measure e.
Use radar to measure the distance to Venus.
Calculate a.

Both the orbit of Venus and the Earth is pushed more elliptical and in the exact same direction.

I believe the orbit of Venus is affected approximate to the same degree as the Earth due to RR (because the speed of Venus is faster) I will calculate later, don’t worry.

So what we are doing here can be compared that you try to measure the distance to a cow moving with 100 km/h, but the big problem is that you to moves in the same direction with the same “speed”/distance ( I assume) , and therefore you will off course not measure that the cow actually are on the move. I guess this is where the chain went off. - Hang on I will be back maybe today with the calculation that shows that Venus too is expanding its orbital eccentricity .

Do your ignorant RAM calculation for the Moon. How many meters a year does it's orbit increase?

It makes no sense to do this calculation unless you know the very exact distance to the Sun.

If the distance to the Sun is only 10 km misunderstood (right now) the influence of the ADG of the Sun here (150 million km away) is +/- 6.637345282764e-10 m/s

This is not much, but must be seen in the perspective; how much RR would affect the Moon it is in fact a lot.

The RR effect on the Moon is about 5,5556e-12m/s (based on 1000 m/s)

So only radius; 10 km distances off, = gives us a "force" / speed of the Sun 119,4712593196774 times stronger as the RR affetc on the Moon.

Therefore we must know the distance to the Sun extremely exact before it at all makes sense. – I will say we must know the distance within -/+ 100 m, - and this is certainly not the case.

ADG Calculation - GM/r²150.000.000.000 m = 0.005276690004351093 m/s
150.000.010.000 m = 0.005276689340616565 m/s

6.637345282764e-10

Even though we know that the Moon is moving away from us, this is easy to determinate based on the average of all the data (all the time the distances that have been measured the last 35 years).
You can always say because of the Earth or the Moon moves like this and this, the distance to the Sun "must" be so and so.
But this is not based on exact measurement but guessing

 

[Reality Check]

It makes no sense to do this calculation unless you know the very exact distance to the Sun.

That makes no sense. The Moon is orbiting the Earth. We know the "very exact" distance of the Moon from the Earth, ie.g.
Lunar Laser Ranging experiment

The Moon is spiraling away from Earth at a rate of 38 mm per year

It also makes all of your calculations wrong - you do not know the "very exact distance to the Sun" of any planet or spacecraft.

But we already know that your calculations are wrong:

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 Moon is orbiting the Earth. We know the "very exact" distance of the Moon from the Earth, ie.g.
Lunar Laser Ranging experiment

Nobody deny we know the exact distance.
But one thing is measurement. something else is to calculate it all, and confirm that calculation fits with measurement.

Not only the Earth affects the Moon, the Sun does too, - the distance to the Sun is very important to know.

We can measure the distance to Venus, but this doesn’t proves that Venus AND the Earth not BOTH are affected by RR, - towards the same direction.
We cannot use radar to measure the distance to the Sun, because the Sun doesn’t reflect it.

It also makes all of your calculations wrong - you do not know the "very exact distance to the Sun" of any planet or spacecraft.

Of course I do not, you do not either.
I do nit need to know these distance, - only the RR.

 

[Bjarne]

The most important factor why we do not measure an effect due to Relative Resistance (RR), - in the orbit of the Moon is the tidal effect.

http://galathea3.emu.dk/billeder/satelliteeye/casestudies/broome/tide_FIG4_800.jpg

RR is always a decelerating force, also even though the result in the orbit of the Sun = acceleration.
The acceleration happens simply because orbiting object is approaching the Sun due to deceleration.

But the Earth is different.
RR off course affect the Earth as already explained, and off course the Moon too.

But so long the deceleration is prevented to happen, there will be no "escalation” , no acceleration and hence no distance increase of that reason.

So the question is rather what prevents the deceleration of the Moon to take place?
The answer is; the tidal effect is an accelerating force.

That force would have been just a little stronger without RR.
So the force of RR on the Moon is simply neutralized by the tidal effect.

Don't believe we fully have understood the real magnitude of the tidal force. Many are not so sure about that anymore. One strong evidence of that could very well be Wasp18b, and several other strange stars.

The latter explanation would significantly increase WASP-18b's lifetime and, if confirmed, would force astronomers to rethink their understanding of tidal interactions in planetary systems and how solar systems evolve.
source http://www.monstrous.com/Space/WASP-18b.html

 

[Reality Check]

Is the Moon immune to RAM/RR/whatever your fantasy called today

The most important factor why we do not measure an effect due to Relative Resistance (RR), - in the orbit of the Moon is the tidal effect.

The most important factor why we do not measure an effect due to Relative Resistance (RR), - in the orbit of the Moon is

RAM does not exist due to your ignorance of mathematics (see below)
​

Forget out the tidal effect - just do your RAM calculation.
First asked 16 Apriil 2011

Lunar Laser Ranging experiment

The Moon is spiraling away from Earth at a rate of 38 mm per year

(P.S. this is the tidal effect!)

And none of your idiocy below. Show your working including the units of measurement.

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)

 

[Reality Check]

What is the formula for RR

Just noticed that you pulled a number out of your pet cow's behind

The RR effect on the Moon is about 5,5556e-12m/s (based on 1000 m/s)

1. What is the formula for RR?
2. Why do you get a velocity?
3. What should the units for RR be? Show your working.

You went totally insane with your RAM fantasy:
RAM = Lorentz factor - 1 means that RAM is a number and then you idiotically assigned it the units of accelleration.

Maybe you can do better than that with RR.

 

[Reality Check]

P.S.
Bjarne, show us "the equation hat unite gravity and the strong force"
Asked on 16 March 2011 (32 days and counting!)
Over a month now and no equation. So I think that you were lying or just deluded, Bjarne !

 

[MRC_Hans]

I do not see where you believe the fantasy part is?
It rather sounds like you again are out of sharp ammunition, or is afraid for especially this subject.

Every part of your "theory" is fantasy.

I have shot your ideas full of holes. No need to waste more ammo.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

What does that mean ?

(9 ± 3) × 10^-12 yr^-1

I mean yr is year, but why ^-1

 

[MRC_Hans]

What does that mean ?

(9 ± 3) × 10^-12 yr^-1

I mean yr is year, but why ^-1

Without context it doesn't seem to mean anything. If it is supposed to be a formula, it is incomplete.

Hans

Hans