Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

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

Hans

Hans

I belive it mean "per year" backwards in time

 

[MRC_Hans]

I belive it mean "per year" backwards in time

And?

 

[Bjarne]

And?

Let say the orbit of the Earth would change so that the distance to the Earth would be 30 km shorter by perihelion and 30 km longer by aphelion.

How much would that affect the Moons orbital eccentricity after one year.

As shown at the image now the moon would at PERIHELION (both towards apogee and towards perigee) always be 30 km. closer to the Sun. – And by APHELION (both towards apogee and towards perigee) is always be 30 km further away from the Sun.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Let say the orbit of the Earth would change so that the distance to the Earth would be 30 km shorter by perihelion and 30 km longer by aphelion.
http://www.science27.com/forum/moonsun2.jpg

It seems you have the A and P wrong in the lower right position.

How much would that affect the Moons orbital eccentricity after one year.

That would depend on what changed Earth's orbit. Even such a small change would have to have a cause. I can't just now think of a cause that would not also affect the moon.

As shown at the image now the moon would at PERIHELION (both towards apogee and towards perigee) always be 30 km. closer to the Sun. – And by APHELION (both towards apogee and towards perigee) is always be 30 km further away from the Sun.

And how did you reach that conclusion?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

It seems you have the A and P wrong in the lower right position.

Right, fixed

That would depend on what changed Earth's orbit. Even such a small change would have to have a cause. I can't just now think of a cause that would not also affect the moon.

RR affecting the Earth's orbit (pushing perihelion closer to the Sun and Aphelion further away) (36 km/year).
RR does affect the Earth but not the Moon in a way you can observe directly.

And how did you reach that conclusion?

If RR was affecting the Moon directly the Moon would fall, - it does not happen.

So the tidal force must counteract the basic deceleration that would have been a result of RR, if the Earth did not had any tidal force.

Which mean; some of the force / energy from the tidal force (of the Moon) is used to overcome RR (not to be affected by RR ).

But the Earth do not have a tidal force strong enough, - so the Earth is affected, and due to that the Moon is indirectly affected as demonstrated by the illustration

So the ting is; because the Earth is changing its orbit, - the moon mustchange its orbital eccentricity. ( ekstension of the orbital eccentricity) .

How can that be calculated.

 

[MRC_Hans]

RR affecting the Earth's orbit (pushing perihelion closer to the Sun and Aphelion further away) (36 km/year).

Source?

RR does affect the Earth but not the Moon in a way you can observe directly.

How can that happen?

If RR was affecting the Moon directly the Moon would fall, - it does not happen.

That could also indicate that RR does not exist.

So the tidal force must counteract the basic deceleration that would have been a result of RR, if the Earth did not had any tidal force.

But we already know the effect of the tidal force: It makes the moon slowly recede.

Which mean; some of the force / energy from the tidal force (of the Moon) is used to overcome RR (not to be affected by RR ).

Or it means that RR does not exist.

But the Earth do not have a tidal force strong enough, - so the Earth is affected, and due to that the Moon is indirectly affected as demonstrated by the illustration

Or it isn't.

So the ting is; because the Earth is changing its orbit, - the moon mustchange its orbital eccentricity. ( ekstension of the orbital eccentricity) .

Is the earth actually changing its orbit? What is the observational evidence?

How can that be calculated.

How should I know? It is not my idea.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

The eccentricity of the Earth's orbit is currently about 0.0167, meaning that the Earth's orbit is nearly circular, the semiminor axis is 99.98% of the semimajor axis. Over thousands of years, the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit varies from nearly 0.0034 to almost 0.058 as a result of gravitational attractions among the planets

From here:

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

So it is possible that the current change is 37km/year, but there is no indication that it is due to RR.


Hans

 

[Bjarne]

From here:

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

The Q is how much the Sun effect the orbit of the Moon.

So it is possible that the current change is 37km/year, but there is no indication that it is due to RR.

Why did you wrote that. I thought you would belived that the distance to the Sun is as we belive it is ?

 

[MRC_Hans]

The Q is how much the Sun effect the orbit of the Moon.

Apart from how much it affects Earth's orbit? I don't know. Try to google it.

Why did you wrote that. I thought you would belived that the distance to the Sun is as we belive it is ?

It is. The average distance to the Sun is 149,597,887.5 km. However, the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit varies from nearly 0.0034 to almost 0.058. So it is changing over a range of 0.0546. This corresponds roughly to 16,000,000km, so without doing the math, I assumed it is plausible that it may be changing 37km/y currently. Only, after checking, I see it is currently reducing, and not, as you claim, increasing.

All from the sources linked above.

Say, Bjarne, when do you start to do your own homework?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Say, Bjarne, when do you start to do your own homework?

Hans

I just did, but I do not know the correct equation
So here is what i did.

The result only apply in that spilt second the moon is closer to the Sun (30 km closer) - so the exstra pull from the Sun do not cause a large extenion of the moons orbital eccentricity.

But well I must have the right equation to get it correct.

When I have these , don’t worry I can do that piece of homework.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Say, Bjarne, when do you start to do your own homework?

I just did, but I do not know the correct equation
So here is what i did.
[snip]
But well I must have the right equation to get it correct.

When I have these , don’t worry I can do that piece of homework.

Priceless.

 

[phunk]

I belive it mean "per year" backwards in time

Lol.

It just means "per year". yr^-1 means 1 / yr.

 

[Paul]

I just did

That appears to be tables of stuff you just made up.

but I do not know the correct equation

Then you haven't done your homework.

The result only apply in that spilt second the moon is closer to the Sun (30 km closer)

What about when it's not?

so the exstra pull from the Sun do not cause a large extenion of the moons orbital eccentricity.

You mean 0.00000000021144(in whatever units you used) is not a large number?

But well I must have the right equation to get it correct.

That would certainly help.

When I have these , don’t worry I can do that piece of homework.

I seem to remember you claiming to be able to produce equations before.

 

[Bjarne]

That appears to be tables of stuff you just made up.


You mean 0.00000000021144(in whatever units you used) is not a large number?

Yes, the way I compared in useless.

I cannot use this for anything.

The influence happens gradually.

Furthermore I am not sure the tidal effect is counteracting the RR of the Moon, but rather that due to a perihelion precession of the Moon = 1 year, - the influence is canceling out each one year, except that influence that is due to the further approach of the Earth to (the Suns) Perihelion and further distance increase to aphelion.

But as I wrote the Moons orbital eccentricity due to the orbít change of the Earth happens gradually and slowly. I must use the excact equation, no doubt about that.

I am willing to pay for getting that right ...

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, the way I compared in useless.

I cannot use this for anything.

The influence happens gradually.

Furthermore I am not sure the tidal effect is counteracting the RR of the Moon, but rather that due to a perihelion precession of the Moon = 1 year, - the influence is canceling out each one year, except that influence that is due to the further approach of the Earth to (the Suns) Perihelion and further distance increase to aphelion.

But as I wrote the Moons orbital eccentricity due to the orbít change of the Earth happens gradually and slowly. I must use the excact equation, no doubt about that.

I am willing to pay for getting that right ...

Bjarne, what exactly is it you are trying to figure out?

You keep referring to RR, but this phenomenon doesn't exist in the way you imagine, so if you're looking for the formular for that, you are not going to find it.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

The result only apply in that spilt second the moon is closer to the Sun (30 km closer) - so the exstra pull from the Sun do not cause a large extenion of the moons orbital eccentricity.

I cannot use this for anything.

The influence happens gradually.

You seem to have already realized it, but it is so important that I want to point it out anyway:

You can never calculate a dynamic system as a series of steady stages. NEVER.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

You seem to have already realized it, but it is so important that I want to point it out anyway:

You can never calculate a dynamic system as a series of steady stages. NEVER.

Hans

Bjarne, what exactly is it you are trying to figure out?

You keep referring to RR, but this phenomenon doesn't exist in the way you imagine, so if you're looking for the formular for that, you are not going to find it.

Hans

RR (Relativistic Resitance) exists without any doubt. (You too know that)..

The question is only whether that total brain-dead idea; - that is "should" disappear by constant speed, (without any evidence / logic for such rubbish-statement), - is true.
(Which seems to be impossible at least seen from the perspective of a cow concrete brain).

So now pretend RR always exist also by constant speed, - what would be the consequences;

Well first at all the evidence;

• That Milankovitch was correct, - but Milankovitch just “forgot” a factor > RR influence.
• Furthermore that all Space probes anomalies can be explained just based on that simple law of nature.
• RR can explain why stars behave so “strange” – Ellipse galaxies do not “close” as expected and starts continues to “fall”.
• In the end of the day RR tricker a BigChrunch and a BigBang.
• RR must be suspected for being the ultimate cause of gravity. .

**********************************************************************************

THE MOON

When RR affects the orbit of the Earth as shown above, there will be an small indirect effect on the Moons orbit too, simply because the Sun’s pull in the moon will change when the orbit the Earth is getting for example; 30-40 km closer to the Sun at perihelion and 30-40 km further away from the Sun at aphelion, - per year.

The Moon is not far away so we must be able to measure that change on the Moons orbit.

So the task now is to calculate the indirectly influence of the Moon.

Notice there will be 2 effects on the Moon.
RR will also have a direct effect on the Moon.
But a perihelion precission period at the Moon's orbit is not 112 000 year (like the earth's orbit) but only about 30 days.
Every 30 days this influence cancels out.
If we want, it should be possible to observe / meassure that influence as well.

I think the Laser measurement programme not is programmed to detect changing’s at such small time-scale, but mainly only to detect long term variation.

So better forget that influence (for a while)..

Now it is only the indirect influence of the orbit change of the Earth that is the Question. .

So how much more elliptical will the orbit of the Moon become due to perihelion / aphelion distance change, as just described..

 

[MRC_Hans]

RR (Relativistic Resitance) exists without any doubt. (You too know that)..

No, it does not exist in the form of 'resistance'. You may regard this as nitpicking, but in science it is important to get the therminology right. 'Resistance' refers to a source of energy loss.

What happens in relativistic acceleration is that some of the KE is converted to mass, instead of velocity. It is not lost.

The question is only whether that total brain-dead idea; - that is "should" disappear by constant speed, (without any evidence / logic for such rubbish-statement), - is true.
(Which seems to be impossible at least seen from the perspective of a cow concrete brain).

And this is the reason we see so few cows working at scientific institutions, except in the job of experimental animals.

Since this phenomenon is related to the transfer of KE, it will obviously only apply to the transfer of KE. Since there is no transfer of KE at constant speed, it does not apply to constant speed.

If you really try, you should be able to understand this.

- Wait, I'll try to give it a bovine angle; that may help you: As long as you push a cow, you will feel resistance. Stop pushing, and there is no resistance. Capisco?

So now pretend RR always exist also by constant speed, - what would be the consequences;

So now pretend that Santa Claus exists. - What would be the consequences?

Well first at all the evidence;

Yeah, let's see that.

That Milankovitch was correct, - but Milankovitch just “forgot” a factor > RR influence.

In other words, that is NOT evidence.

Furthermore that all Space probes anomalies can be explained just based on that simple law of nature.

Unfortunately, they can't. Pioneer is being accelerated towards the sun, causing it to slow down, while the fly-by anomaly causes a speed up. And of course, all the communication and GPS sattelites behave precisely as predicted. So, no evidence there.

RR can explain why stars behave so “strange” – Ellipse galaxies do not “close” as expected and starts continues to “fall”.

How would it explain the behavior of stars? Stars generally don't move at relativistic speeds. No evidence there.

In the end of the day RR tricker a BigChrunch and a BigBang.

Speculation. Empty speculation.

RR must be suspected for being the ultimate cause of gravity. .

So, according to you, masses at rest have no gravity? And, according to this, all your previous 'theories' about absorption of space, space vacuum, etc. are then wrong??

When RR affects the orbit of the Earth as shown above, there will be an small indirect effect on the Moons orbit too, simply because the Sun’s pull in the moon will change when the orbit the Earth is getting for example; 30-40 km closer to the Sun at perihelion and 30-40 km further away from the Sun at aphelion, - per year.

Unfortunately, as shown in the link I gave you above, the excentricity of Earth's orbit is currently getting smaller. In other words, the exact opposite is happening. - There is nothing so deadly for a thesis as direct observational evidence to the contrary.

I think the Laser measurement programme not is programmed to detect changing’s at such small time-scale, but mainly only to detect long term variation.

Thinking is not good enough. Knowing is better.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/

The distance to the moon is known to a precision of 2cm. Those measurements are instantaneous (rather they take about 20s), so we know both short-term and long-term variations in the moon's orbit.

So, we have a hypothesis by you, and it has no evidence. Wanna know what we call such hypotheses?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

- Wait, I'll try to give it a bovine angle; that may help you: As long as you push a cow, you will feel resistance. Stop pushing, and there is no resistance. Capisco?

And here is what that cow would answer you;
"Stop pushing ! - then I would stop walking, muuuh",- , only humans is walking restless around without reason, not cows. Muuuhhh-Capisco?

If space could answer you it would say; Hans I don’t like you to push a body through me, the day you stop pushing that body constantly using energy on it I will stop that motion.

So now pretend that Santa Claus exists. - What would be the consequences?

That one day he (or what is left of him) would follow the rest of the Universe into a BigChrunch, - in that process he could be the fastest and heavies Santa Claus ever existing and ever contributing to a new Bigbang explosion (due to mad RR / gravity/ speed).’

Unfortunately, they can't. Pioneer is being accelerated towards the sun, causing it to slow down, while the fly-by anomaly causes a speed up..

All the Space probes anomalies are in the first places caused by deceleration + (in the follow wind zone) = acceleration (or more exact relative less deceleration).

So the underlying cause of all the space probes anomalies, are in fact nothing BUT different level of deceleration.

And of course, all the communication and GPS satellites behave precisely as predicted. So, no evidence there

The effect on satellite is much weaker as of the Moon. These are apogee anomalies fast building up and cancel out. If you give me the duration of the apogee precession period, I can easy calculate the influence. Notice time of 1 orbit is always the same (not affected) only the distance to the Satellites by apogee and perigee. Let assume the influence is 5 cm per period (before it cancel out) - the only way of discovering this would be that the signal will come 0,05 / 300,000,000 later or sooner as expected. Who do you think would notice. I believe even not an atomic watch?

How would it explain the behavior of stars? Stars generally don't move at relativistic speeds. No evidence there

The evidence is clear in that moment you see it all from above the bush level.

So, according to you, masses at rest have no gravity?

I am afraid there are no “rest”

And, according to this, all your previous 'theories' about absorption of space, space vacuum, etc. are then wrong??

No, RR in or Solar system is the first place you must understand it.
For example; The Earth do have larger speed at perihelion, this mean the mass at the Earth is simply larger at that point.
Not much but is must be true.
You can calculate, but to weak to measure (with a gravimeter).
The fact that you speed is only 100 km/h in the Opel Kasdett is not the end of the World. In the end of the day every pseed counts.

If our speed in the Milkyway would stop, we would lose gravity too, - the same if the speed of the local cluster would stop.
And as you know, I believe there are a level more, > the speed of the rotation of the Universe + there could be one level higher than this, - the speed of the Universe itself.
Relative to what you may ask? – Answer relative to different observer. Speed is different and each time the more and more “absolute” perspective is different.

Unfortunately, as shown in the link I gave you above, the eccentricity of Earth's orbit is currently getting smaller. In other words, the exact opposite is happening. - There is nothing as deadly for a thesis as direct observational evidence to the contrary.

Seen form an overall perspective no, - you only get the results you want, - based on the uncompleted data you enter into the equations.

 

[Paul]

You can waffle, misunderstand, ignore, insult, lie and invent all you want Bjarne, but until you produce some evidence the conclusion must be that you are incompetent, a liar or an incompetent liar.