Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

Only the orbit of the size of the Moon has been analyzed through the years.

The fact that the known extending eccentricity anomaly not is discovering before now, - proves this.

Long term measurement of the size of the Moons orbit can easy be done without paying attention to whether apogee and perigee happens exactly where these excactly should happen (short term anomaly).

The most lazy way, and precise way, to measure the size of the orbit, - would be to do the measurement month by month orbit by orbit, years by year, and then compare the orbit size.

Doing such lazy work would not reveal anything else as the size of the orbit, - But NOT the eccentricity anomaly, - and NOT the apogee/perigee anomaly.

I can guarantee you humans are exactly as lazy as cows, why should anyone analyze anything else.

Why should you?

Did you got the question; - why should you ?

Even if I would pay you 100,000 DKK you would be too lazy to do the analyzing right ?

So long there are no doubt in “our” mind to whether there could be other anomalies here, nobody will use 1 second to do such analyzing. – Take a look at your own mind, - you are absolutely sure there is nothing about it, - so why spend time on it?

If only the distance to the Sun is misjudged relative almost insignificant this will certainly also affect the Moons eccentricity too.

Now when you know this is in fact the case (that the Moons eccentricity) not is as expected, you should at least begin to speculate what could be wrong.
But Hans even at this point – you are too lazy even to (serious) speculate, and even to suggest.

The main problem is in yours Universe everything is always perfect.

A LOT points to the fact that something very basic is wrong.
We can, and we will (soon) solve several mysteries, - in one go.

• Whys stars continues to fall in to black wholes
• Why we have spiral galaxies after 10 billion years. These "should" only could last1 billion year.
• Why magnetic fields in galaxies are unexplained mysteries.
• Decelerating Space probes mysteries.
• Accelerating Space probes mysteries.
• The Moons unexpected eccentricity Anomaly.
• Ice ages
• Why ice ages sometimes only last 41 000 years ( I suggest the reason is due to resonance / disonance between RR and perturbations contribution.
• We will off course also discover the anomaly of our moon also applies for all other moons.

We are speaking about an unknown law of nature, - no ...now I am lying we know RR but of some unknown muuuh-cow stupid reason "we" believe it only apply by acceleration, and suddenly wupps is gone by constant speed, - so all the mention unnecessarily mysteries are only brain-dead creations. .
.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Only the orbit of the size of the Moon has been analyzed through the years.

The fact that the known extending eccentricity anomaly not is discovering before now, - proves this.

Long term measurement of the size of the Moons orbit can easy be done without paying attention to whether apogee and perigee happens exactly where these excactly should happen (short term anomaly).

The most lazy way, and precise way, to measure the size of the orbit, - would be to do the measurement month by month orbit by orbit, years by year, and then compare the orbit size.

Doing such lazy work would not reveal anything else as the size of the orbit, - But NOT the eccentricity anomaly, - and NOT the apogee/perigee anomaly.

I can guarantee you humans are exactly as lazy as cows, why should anyone analyze anything else.

Why should you?

Did you got the question; - why should you ?

Even if I would pay you 100,000 DKK you would be too lazy to do the analyzing right ?

So long there are no doubt in “our” mind to whether there could be other anomalies here, nobody will use 1 second to do such analyzing. – Take a look at your own mind, - you are absolutely sure there is nothing about it, - so why spend time on it?

If only the distance to the Sun is misjudged relative almost insignificant this will certainly also affect the Moons eccentricity too.

Now when you know this is in fact the case (that the Moons eccentricity) not is as expected, you should at least begin to speculate what could be wrong.
But Hans even at this point – you are too lazy even to (serious) speculate, and even to suggest.

The main problem is in yours Universe everything is always perfect.

A LOT points to the fact that something very basic is wrong.

We can, and we will (soon) solve several mysteries, - in one go.

• Whys stars continues to fall in to black wholes
• Why we have spiral galaxies after 10 billion years. These "should" only could last1 billion year.
• Why magnetic fields in galaxies are unexplained mysteries.
• Decelerating Space probes mysteries.
• Accelerating Space probes mysteries.
• The Moons unexpected eccentricity Anomaly.
• Ice ages
• Why ice ages sometimes only last 41 000 years ( I suggest the reason is due to resonance / disonance between RR and perturbations contribution.
• We will off course also discover the anomaly of our moon also applies for all other moons.

We are speaking about an unknown law of nature, - no ...now I am lying we know RR but of some unknown muuuh-cow stupid reason "we" believe it only apply by acceleration, and suddenly wupps is gone by constant speed, - so all the mention unnecessarily mysteries are only brain-dead creations. .
.

OK, you don't WANT to understand. Fine, suit yourself.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

Only the orbit of the size of the Moon has been analyzed through the years. ...snipped rant.... .

You still are unable to understand the simple fact that the distance from the Earth to the Moon has been measured accurately for 30 years.
Lunar Laser Ranging experiment (to an accuracy of centimeters)
Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation (to an accuracy of millimeters)

There is no report of a 0.9 meter change in distance from the Earth to the Moon.

This is yet another nail in the coffin of the idiocy of RAM (which you seem to have renamed RR).

1. The perigee / apogee anomaly you are taling about of 0.9 m would have been found by the analysis you cite !
   The Moon does not have a short time 0.9 m eccentricity anomaly
2. RR is seems to be your renamed RAM and so is a delusion.
   But just in case: What is the formula for RR?

RAM debunked:

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
  So far the answer is no !
• Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
  First asked 2 November 2009
• Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).

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

 

[Bjarne]

You still are unable to understand the simple fact that the distance from the Earth to the Moon has been measured accurately for 30 years.

Imaging you have a cow.
You would every day exactly measure exactly how much milk she give you
how much food and water you will give here ,
and you would measure her size

Let's us now say that you meassure that the cow is growing 38 mm everyday year.

Everything is fine, science is perfect, - but one day you discover that your cow do not get bigger everywhere with same rate.

The cow get 5 mm longer every year as expected and then not so tall as expected.

Cow-science tells you that should not happen.

So now is the question do this happen with all cows? or do you have a very special cow ? - Why did it happen?

How on earth is it possible that it should took you 30 year to discover that?

Tell us have you in 30 years never measured how long your cow is?

Really Stupid, - so don’t tell god and everyone that you know “per millimeter” everything about the size of your cow.


What if I tell you that in a 4½ years period the teeth of the cow is gradually pushed longer backwards in the month of the Cow, and in a 4½ year period that influences would cancel out. – Would you discover that?

Also something similar happens with the cow’s intestinal canal.

Let me answer, - no you would not discover that anomaly because this is not what farmer cow science is about.

Not even a cow expert expect that to happen, so why research such fantasy, - RIGHT?

I guess you have figured out the frequency motion of the teeth and intestinal canal of the cow do not affect the outer size of the cow.

But I am sure after 17 years at a University such cow anomaly is ALSO possible to discover.

The only problem left is only that after such a “17 years tour” not much fantasy ability is left, - but mainly stone hard concrete.
Another problem is if someone should take the second cow anomaly for possible / serious (and research it) all a such persons concrete friends would consider a such person for mad.
So better pretend; we know everything about cows.

Muuuhhh

 

[Paul]

Gravity Probe B confirms Einstein effects

 

[Paul]

Imaging you has a cow.

Your analogy is, once again, spectacularly inept.

You would every day exactly measure exactly how much milk she give you
how much food and water you will give here

So far, so sensible.

and you would measure her size

And here's where your usual inability to understand science kicks in.

What do you mean by size? That's quite important to know if you are going to measure it.

Let's us now say that you meassure that the cow is growing 38 mm everyday year.

Again, what does that mean?

but one day you discover that your cow do not get bigger everywhere with same rate.

So we are assuming that you are an idiot?

The cow get 5 mm longer every year.

It doesn't grow much does it.

Cow-science tells you that should not happen.

Only in the sense that I would expect most growing cows to exceed 5mm/year.

So now is the question do this happen with all cows?

Do you have any other data? Didn't think so.

or do you have a special cow ? - Why did it happen?

You could always ask a competent scientist, as you're too lazy to do any research for yourself.

How on earth is it possible that it should toke you 30 year to discover that?

It wouldn't, as I mentioned, your analogy is junk.

Tell us have you not in 30 years never measured how long you cow is?

Your premise of incompetent data gathering is inherently flawed.

Really Stupid, - so don’t tell god and everyone that you know exact “per millimeter” that you know everything about the size of you cow.

Why wouldn't I know the exact size of a cow with millimetre precision?

As for god, are you going to start making stupid theological arguments too?

Let me answer, - no you would not discover that because this is not what farmer cow science is about.

But it is what biology is about, and given the importance of cattle a great deal is know about their anatomy and biological processes.

Not even a cow expert expect that to happen, so why research such fantasy, - RIGHT?

You seem to be confusing reality and science with your total ignorance and inability to comprehend.

I guess you have figured out the frequency motion of the cow teeth and intestinal canal do not affect the outer size of the cow.

How do you know that?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

How soon before Bjarne starts incorporating "spinning"?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Imaging you have a cow.
*Blah, blah, blah...*
Muuuhhh

Bjarne you are being intentionally obtuse. I explained to you that the only way to discern small variations in the moon ranging data is to first filter out ALL LARGE VARIATIONS. The only way that can be done is to map them statistically. Now a 900mm annual regular variation would be VERY easy to see. It would probably be visual by eye on a simple XY scatter plot, but at any rate, even a poor statistician would spot it immediately.

You can persist in your illusion if you prefer, but the reality is that the mere fact that they have been able to find much slower, much smaller variations in distance (mm/year) absolutely guarantees that if there was a 900mm annual variation, it would have been mapped long ago.

It doesn't exist, so if your model shows it should be there, you need to revise your model.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne you are being intentionally obtuse. I explained to you that the only way to discern small variations in the moon ranging data is to first filter out ALL LARGE VARIATIONS.

No No No No.
Already at the very basic the chain went off for you.
Let us say (mainly) Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn, each year account for (I guess) less than 1mm, of the total 38 mm orbit extension of the Moon.
It is not important how big that influence really is, but off course that is calculated correct.

That value must now be deducted to the measured value (orbit by orbit) . The net-result is how much of the influence is due to the tidal effect.

So what you do it just to take a lot of measurement of each orbit, and simply just analyses where the contribution to the orbit extention possible may come from.
All the orbit extension contributions you cannot blame planets perturbations for; you can now conclude this must be due to the tidal effect.

You can persist in your illusion if you prefer, but the reality is that the mere fact that they have been able to find much slower, much smaller variations in distance (mm/year) absolutely guarantees that if there was a 900mm annual variation, it would have been mapped long ago.

No this is exactly not the case.
If any analyze of orbit eccentricity anomaly would have been done as parts of the LLM mission, why did the not found the already know (long term) eccentricity anomaly before 30 years after the projects started?
This seems to confirm that this project must always have been pretty simple.

Notice
YES if LLM-scientists would pay attention to, that the next perigee or apogee would displace (about 1,3 meter from each other each ½ orbit) yes they could easy calculate that this is really what happens.

But unaware that possibility there has never been reason to raise such doubt.
This is why it never has been done any kind of analyzing of this part..

Inattentive only to let the computer consume collected distance measurements, and spit out orbit size from time to time, - the predicted relative enormous short term anomaly can last the next 1000 years without to be discovered.

The predicted short term anomaly is not an orbital extending anomaly; - the orbit of the Moon is not changing size due to that..

Notice not only perogee / apogee is not following our rules; speed is off course also affected, exactly in the same way as speed of space probes are
http://www.science27.com/english/SpaceProbeAnomalies.html reveals the same.
But again it is small values we are talking about.

The cause of the now known long term eccentricity anomaly is probably that the predicted short term perigee/apogee anomaly + the eccentricity anomaly of the Earth.

The orbit of the Earth is now getting faster circular as based on known knowledge (97km per year) – This is actually causing less orbit eccentricity of the Moon as expected.

The conclusion is therefore; - that the recently discovered long term orbital eccentricity anomaly of the Moon (5mm) is in fact stronger as now measured, - because the influence of the Earth eccentricity decrease, - is counteracting part of that influences, - more as prevailing science can account for.
So all this have many facets .

 

[MRC_Hans]

No No No No.
Already at the very basic the chain went off for you.
Let us say (mainly) Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn, each year account for (I guess) less than 1mm, of the total 38 mm orbit extension of the Moon.
It is not important how big that influence really is, but off course that is calculated correct.

*blah, blah, blah...*

You just demonstrated that you don't have the slightest idea of how these things are done.

But, if you want to keep flaunting your ignorance and stupidity, be my guest.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

Imaging you have a cow.
...snipped gibbiesh...

The Moon does not have a short time 0.9 m eccentricity anomaly

(it does have a long term eccentricity increase: On the anomalous secular increase of the eccentricity of the orbit of the Moon)

P.S. What is the formula for RR?

Imagine you have a dead cow in a field that is a certain distance from a post.
Someone states that the dead cow will move 0.9 meters in half a year from the post and then move 0.9 meters back toward the post
Every day you run a tape measure from the post to the cow and measure the distance top the cow. You see that it is getting 38 mm further from the post every year. There is no 900 mm change in position.

Only an idiot would not see that the person claiming that the cow moves 900 mm is wrong.

Muuuhhhhhhhhh

RAM debunked:

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
  So far the answer is no !
• Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
  First asked 2 November 2009
• Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).

 

[MRC_Hans]

P.S. What is the formula for RR?

Nonexistent.

Seriously, Bjarne's RR builds on his fragmented understanding of relativity, combined with flawed logic. He has understood that at higher speeds, acceleration from a given force is progressively reduced, and that mass increases instead. He has failed to understand the energy exchange involved in this (Bjarne does not understand thermodynamics at all), and he does not realize that the process is fully reversible.

As for his moon anomaly, it is a remarkable piece of faulty logic:

Bjarne claims that the 900mm annual (or 4½year, or whatever he is currently dreaming) has gone unnoticed, because scientists were not looking for it.

Yet he claims that the same scientists are totally mystified at finding a long-term 5mm anomaly. So obviously they weren't looking for that, either.

So in Bjarne's world, an unexpected 900mm anomaly is overlooked, but an unexpected 5mm one is not.

We call this "make stuff up as you go".

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

The Moon does not have a short time 0.9 m eccentricity anomaly

(it does have a long term eccentricity increase: On the anomalous secular increase of the eccentricity of the orbit of the Moon)

P.S. What is the formula for RR?

Imagine you have a dead cow in a field that is a certain distance from a post.
Someone states that the dead cow will move 0.9 meters in half a year from the post and then move 0.9 meters back toward the post
Every day you run a tape measure from the post to the cow and measure the distance top the cow. You see that it is getting 38 mm further from the post every year. There is no 900 mm change in position.

Only an idiot would not see that the person claiming that the cow moves 900 mm is wrong.

Muuuhhhhhhhhh

RAM debunked:

I am now preparing an article............................

Is Relativistic Resistances Misunderstood?​

Preface
It require more and more energy to reach diminishing speed increase.
Consider Relativistic Resistances (Hereafter “RR”) is a reversible process.
This can solve all known kinematic orbit and trajectory anomalies and mysteries, as follows;

1. Stars continues to be dragged into black holes of galaxies. - Spiral galaxies can last much longer than the expected 1 billion years *) note1. - All stars are simply slowly circling inwards of Galaxies due to RR.
2. It solves the long term (known) eccentricity anomaly of the moon. *) note2
3. It solves the cause of the Pioneer anomalies.
4. It solves the Flyby Anomalies.
5. It solves the 100,000 years Milankovitch cycle problem. *) note3
6. It predicts a short time perigee / apogee anomaly of the Moons orbit, - still not discovered.

Increasing speed of an object is causing increasing mass, thus also increasing; deformed space.
Space resists deformation, (e.g.; a gravitational wave).
Thus there is a reason to believe that the transformation process whereby speed of an object converts to; mass/kinetic energy/deformed-space, - must be revisable.

This article assumes that “y” in the Lorentz equation; [where γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)], - on the one hand is the factor responsible for how much tension speed of an object is causing on space, - but on the other hand the same transformation factor is also responsible for release of that tension, (on space) so soon the force causing the speed of a body stop.
This means that an object then must decelerate. (Released kinetic energy due to deceleration is assumed converted to a magnetic field in the “wake” of a decelerating body) *) note4, - whereby energy is preserved.

This cause of the pioneer anomaly.
The Pioneer was travelling faster (around the Milkyway) as the Sun. Thus the RR is larger.
When travelling 12240 m/s (as pioneer 10 space probe did): y = 8.33 × 10-¹⁰ m/s².
We know the Pioneer probes were decelerating: (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10-¹⁰ m/s2
(These values are remarkable similar. )

When moving in the opposite the direction (slower as the Sun), - an object is weaker affected by RR than the Sun is.
Therefore a such object, will seen from the perspective of the Sun instead (look like it) accelerate more as expected, - but seen from a larger the perspective (Galaxy perspective) the object still decelerating inwards of the galaxy, - but just slower as the Sun.

This cause of the Ice ages and Flyby Anomaly (accelerating Space probes.)
When an orbiting objects moves opposite the motion direction of the Sun it will accelerate, due to less RR relative to the RR affecting the Sun (“A” image above).
Moving in the same direction as the sun, with larger speed as the Sun, will cause deceleration. (“B” in the image), - but it will be turned to acceleration because approaching the Sun. Only at area “C” the speed will be slower due to RR.
In periods where aphelion is ahead of the Sun, an orbit will be forced more elliptical, this influence will be cancelled out so soon Aphelion is ahead of the Sun.
This solves the 100,000 years Milankovitch cycle problem. *) note3
The RR influence affecting the orbit of the Earth (can based on the Lorentz equation) be calculate to 6.81*10-9m/s and hence to perihelion/aphelion increase/decrease about 97 km/year.
The cause of all fly-by anomalies are therefore the same as the cause of the Pioneer Anomaly.
The measured fly-by speed increment differences only depend on the angle of the semi major axis relative to the RR-direction.
When the semi major axis is almost aligned with the RR direction these anomaly is strongest. When the semi major axis is more or less perpendicular, relative to the RR direction, - the speed increment anomaly is proportional reduced.
In addition to the speed increment anomalies, we shall also expect space probes to be affected by eccentricity anomalies (still not discovered).

The Perigee Apogee anomaly of the Moon.
This theory predict that the Moon have an undiscovered short term orbit anomaly.
During the half of the perigee precession period of the Moon, when perigee of the Moon points (more or less) towards the RR direction (4½ year), the orbit of the moon is each year orbit forced 150 mm backwards (closer to the Earth).
We will refer to that period as; Period “X”
The same happens 4½ year after when apogee points towards the RR direction. We will refer to that as; Period “Y”
During Period “X” the orbit of the moon will get more elliptical. During period “Y” more circular. (and the anomaly will cancel out.)
When the Moon in period “X” (4½ year) gradually get more elliptical, the radius by each perigee is decreasing 1,3 meter each orbit, during totally 54 orbits = total 149 meter.
(At the same time the radius by each apogee is increasing the same rate).
The Opposite happens during period “Y” , when apogee points towards the RR direction.

The already known eccentricity anomaly of the Moon.
During period “X” the Moon is losing just a little bit more gravitational energy as it is able to win back in period “Y” .
A similar influence of the Moon happens in these periods where the orbit of the Earth gets more elliptical.
This explains the cause of the already known eccentricity anomaly of the Moon. *) note2
Right now the orbit of the Earth gets more circular, (also due to RR) which mean right now there is an opposite influence affecting the eccentricity anomaly of the Moon. .
This result is that the known eccentricity anomaly of the Moon is partly counteracted due to the weakening eccentricity of the Earth.
The eccentricity anomaly of the Moon is therefore in reality stronger as so far discovered.

Why have we not discovered the Perigee Apogee anomaly of the Moon?
During the haft of an orbit period when the moon moves towards the RR direction, (period “B” - image above) it will decelerate.
Because the moon in that process will approach the Earth, - deceleration will be turned to acceleration. .
But during the period when the Moon moves opposite the RR direction, (period “A”) it will accelerate (due to less RR in that direction), thus in these period the Moon will win back the kinetic energy lost the first half of the orbit.
This mean the size of the orbit is not affected during to the relative large displacement of perigee and apogee.
There is no guarantee that “we should” already have discovers such relative large perigee / apogee anomaly. We did also not discover the long term anomaly, even though it was there in decades. *) note2
We can off course easy confirm that this anomaly is real, but it will require very complex calculation and analysing of old LLR (Lunar Laser Ranging experiment) data.
The purpose with the LLR is to monitor the size of the moons orbit, not to analyse whether apogee and apogee happens exactly where these “must” happens. We do simply have had no reason to be suspicion; this is why such a relative large anomaly so long could have been remaining undiscovered.

The intension with this article is so far only to bring attention to the hereby presented statement, to be able either to confirm or reject the theory.

*) note1 http://translate.google.dk/translat...r.dk/Videnskab/Videnskab/2006/06/27105328.htm
*) note2 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.0212v3.pdf
*) note3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
*) note4 www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724221049.htm


Is this perfect English ?
if not please correct

 

[Little 10 Toes]

I am now preparing an article............................

Is Relativistic Resistances Misunderstood?​

Preface
It require more and more energy to reach diminishing speed increase.
Consider Relativistic Resistances (Hereafter “RR”) is a reversible process.
This can solve all known kinematic orbit and trajectory anomalies and mysteries, as follows;

1. Stars continues to be dragged into black holes of galaxies. - Spiral galaxies can last much longer than the expected 1 billion years *) note1. - All stars are simply slowly circling inwards of Galaxies due to RR.

[big fat snip]

*) note1 http://translate.google.dk/translat...r.dk/Videnskab/Videnskab/2006/06/27105328.htm
*) note2 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.0212v3.pdf
*) note3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
*) note4 www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724221049.htm


Is this perfect English ?
if not please correct

Here's the correct link for note 1. ( http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/chandra_blackhole_magneticfield.html) Why are you providing us a link of a translated page from Danish to English when you could have just provided us the original English article?

Edit: I don't have enough time to fix all your English errors

 

[Reality Check]

Is Relativistic Resistances Misunderstood?

There is no Relativistic Resistances To be Misunderstood.


As for the list of your ignorance:

1. There is no problem with stars falling into black holes.
2. Your fantasy of RR will not solve the long term eccentricity anomaly of the Moon because RR is a fantasy. You cannot even answer: What is the formula for RR?
   And if RR is just a renamed vaerion of your RAM delustion then:
   • Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
     First asked 23 October 2009
     So far the answer is no !
   • Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
     First asked 2 November 2009
   • Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).
3. A fantasy cannot solve anything.
4. A fantasy cannot solve anything.
5. There is no "100,000 years Milankovitch cycle problem".
6. You are truly deluded about the "short time perigee / apogee anomaly of the Moons orbit".
   The Moon does not have a short time 0.9 m eccentricity anomaly.

This article assumes that “y” in the Lorentz equation; [where γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)], - on the one hand is the factor responsible for how much tension speed of an object is causing on space
...snipped usual ignorant rant and pretty picture fantasies...
Is this perfect English ?
if not please correct

It is perfect Gibberish so no one needes to correct it.

 

[Bjarne]

Why are you providing us a link of a translated page from Danish to English when you could have just provided us the original English article?

For Miller and his cohorts, proving the magnetic field winds exist is an inspiring early step in understanding how black holes grow. "It is certainly not the endpoint," finalized Miller. "There is much work left to do."
Source; http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/chandra_blackhole_magneticfield.html

Your fantasy of RR will not solve the long term eccentricity anomaly of the Moon because RR is a fantasy. You cannot even answer: What is the formula for RR?

The Lorentz equation tells you how much energy you must use to deform, - force a certain amount of reality into a different (space-time) reality. – It requires energy to do so.

Therefore the larger part (larger mass) of reality you want to force into a new reality, - the more energy must be used.

This is the law of nature that not only applies for a stars, planet, moons and spaceprobes, - but for the whole Universe.
This is the law of nature responsible for that relativistic gravity is responsible for extreme increment of gravity in a BigChunch.

Space doesn’t like to be deformed (by force), - space resists to be deformed by force, - a gravitational wave proves that just in front of your eyes. When the force is gone, the tension on space is released.

The mathematical law responsible for releasing the tension on space, - is of course the same as the law showing how much space resist such tension, and therefore the same for how fast that tension will be released when the force causing the tension is gone.

Your are therefore to a certain extend correct when you claim that The Lorentz equation not (directly) can give us a decelerating result.
But this is not the way you shall understand it.

The equation itself is only a expression for the tension that speed of matter exert on space.
When the force on space is gone, space will release that tension, in a reversible process.

Therefore indirectly the Lorentz equation can also be used to understand the process to release deformed space back to a tension free state it was before speed / force was acting on it.

When the force pushing an object forward, - stop, relativistic resistance is simply an reversible process.

There is no "100,000 years Milankovitch cycle problem".

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
Source> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles.

 

[MRC_Hans]

No Bjarne, it is not correct English, but leave it as it is, because your inept English fits your silly ideas perfectly.

And yes, relativistic resistance is misunderstood. You have misunderstood it completely.

You have, in short, no *********** clue what you are talking about.

I suggest you send your article to a few respected scientific magazines. They can always do with a good laugh.

What a marooon.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

No Bjarne, it is not correct English, but leave it as it is, because your inept English fits your silly ideas perfectly.

And yes, relativistic resistance is misunderstood. You have misunderstood it completely.

You have, in short, no *********** clue what you are talking about.

I suggest you send your article to a few respected scientific magazines. They can always do with a good laugh.

What a marooon.

Hans

I believe there are no fact (except fire with blank cartridges) ....to disprove that remarkable statement right ?

 

[steenkh]

I believe there are no fact (except fire with blank cartridges) ....to disprove that remarkable statement right ?

If your article is accepted by any respected journal (other than in the joke section), you will have disproved that statement of obvious fact.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I believe there are no fact (except fire with blank cartridges) ....to disprove that remarkable statement right ?

Which remarkable statement? Mine that you post idiocy? No, I don't think you will be able to disprove that.

Or yours about RR, etc.? Yes, there are facts to disprove your statements. They have all been presented in this thread, and you have ignored them all.

Hans