Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Paul]

Si Señor, - but why do yu divide with 60,000

What is 60 x 1000?

The reason why I ask is not that I believe that energy = force, - but because I want to know how much energy can be transferred between a “mass attraction connection”.. per / a certian time..

It appears from that sentence that you do not know what you want.

You seem to be attempting to solve problems that don't exist in fields where you do not understand the basics.

Anyway, try to forget the brainwashed world you live in, - and only focus on that "mass attraction connection" - where a force really exist, - how can energy transfer be related to it ??

It's your idea, why don't you tell us?

 

[Bjarne]

http://online.unitconverterpro.com/...ert-alpha/factors.php?cat=energy&unit=37&val=

 

[Paul]

http://online.unitconverterpro.com/...ert-alpha/factors.php?cat=energy&unit=37&val=

Congratulations, you have found one of the many online unit conversion pages.

Was there any point to that?

 

[Daylightstar]

http://online.unitconverterpro.com/...ert-alpha/factors.php?cat=energy&unit=37&val=

This reminds me of a toddler pointing at something and uttering a non word.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
I know that deep down you seriously want to do science ...

It appears to me that Bjarne is certainly interested in science, but not in a meaningful way.

 

[MRC_Hans]

'

Si Señor, - but why do yu divide with 60,000

Now, you might read the reference I gave you, but ... no, that would be too much to ask. It is to get kilowatts.

The reason why I ask is not that I believe that energy = force,
- but because I want to know how much energy can be transferred between a “mass attraction connection”.. per / a certian time..

I mean; - for example between the Earth and the Moon, there is ”a force" - you could compared that to a; big elastic wire, - some kind of space-tension, - or whatever expression you prefer.

I prefer the expression 'gravity'.

During the moon's orbit, it hence has all what it need to pull the Earth rotation.

No.

Off course the Earth is rotating faster as the Moons orbit (the moon is not geostatic), -ignore that,

No. Why should I ignore a fact?

- instead imaging the Earth was not rotating at all.
How much energy could the moon (due to it's orbit) transfer trough that connection / per time? – (“2E20 Newton) .

Bjarne, we have been trough tidal forces two years ago. What is your point?

I know you will say nothing because of bal blab bla. – but remember;

1. We don’t know what mass-attraction really is, - and hence also not what that "“force-connection” really is, - and hence also not to understand what happens between the Moon and the earth, except that space is curving bla bla bla bla
2. I also know you would say that since there is no resistances no energy is transferred, - so what you could do is ; assume there where resistances.
3. Etc..

Blablabla. You make no sense at all.

Anyway, try to forget the brainwashed world you live in, - and only focus on that "mass attraction connection" - where a force really exist, - how can energy transfer be related to it ??

By movement. By change of potential energy level. If something changes position in the gravitational well, energy is transferred.

You didn't understand that, did you? ... Well, tough luck.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, we have been trough tidal forces two years ago. What is your point?

The Tidal effect is slowing the Earth's rotation at a rate of 2.2 seconds per 100.000 years.
This mean the rotation at the surface (by the equator) of the Earth after 100.000 years is 1014 meter slower per 24 hour than today.
Due to the influence due to RR the Earth rotation is losing 7.61*10-13 meter per second.
After 100.000 years this is only 2.4 meter slower.
Well the Earth rotation is also "paying" for kinetic "lost" of the Moons orbit speed, - this is about 10 times so large as the lost due to the RR that affect the Earth rotation, (too lazy to calculate it now) - so all together only few percent is misunderstood by the prevailing understanding
There is plenty of space for RR.
Don't underestimate that.

Correction
After realizing that Relativist Resistance also was the cause of ice ages, I thought an object moving opposite the absolute motion direction would accelerate. This is wrong, the first impression and statement is correct.

This becomes very clear after paying a little attention to outer object such as Sedna. -I will come back to this ASAP.

A little point is also that RR creates its own perigee or perihelion precession period. These will off course interact with perbutation precession periods, if any.

The last ½ year I was not so sure how big a role the space-wind would play, but I am back to the first impression that claims, that it is a equalizing force.

But this have long seen to be a bit complicated, but now easier as I thought

What happens can be read below.

We don't know really what mass attraction is.
According to this theory it is "lack of space density" - which mean a space vacuum.
When two astronomic objects absorbs space from the same area between each other, space in that specific area will attract the objects, simply because the planets attacks the space density.

We can say that that tension of space in that area occurs, and this is what we in centuries have expressed as "a mass-attraction force".

Imaging that the Moon was landed on the Earth and that a rocket would try to pull the Moon away from the Earth. The rocket (if strong enough) would not only pull the Moon, but at the same time also the Earth. It would require larger force (more than 7,3*E23 N.) only to pull the Moon away from the Earth.

Between the rocket and the Moon there is a wire that make it possible for the rocket to pull the Moon. Also the gravity-mass-attraction between the Earth and the Moon is also part of scenario.
Even if the moon not was touching the Earth, still the rocket would also pull the Earth, not only the Moon.

If we now assume the Moon is back in it's orbit, the attraction force that affect the Moon has now decreased to 2*E20 N ("only 3700 times less) ,- which mean that a weak pull (acceleration) of the moon still force the Earth to follow.
Hence the orbit of the Moon also is affected through that force-connection.

So we can certainly conclude that the FORCE between the Earth and the Moon is real, which must mean that when the angular motion of a random moon is faster than the rotating of it's mother planet, - this must cause the planet-rotation to accelerate.

If the opposite is the case , which mean when the angular motion of a random moon is slower than the rotating speed of the moons mother planet, the planet is forced to give off kinetic energy and force moons further away from the planet. Rotation of the planets will simply feel the resistance from the mass-attraction-connection - like "friction".

And off course the exact same pattern must be seen by star / planet systems.

This mean that the moon Phobos is pulling Mars rotation, Adrastea and Metis is pulling Jupiter's rotation, - Mimas is pulling Saturn's Rotation. 11 inner moons is pulling Uranus rotation, 5 inner moons is pulling Neptune's rotation. The other outer moons have the opposite effect, these are slowing the planets and hence thrown further outwards.

So on the one hand all the moons (that are faster as the planet rotation) pulls the planet rotation , hence these moons are slowly losing kinetic energy.
Hence these are doomed and thus slowly falling towards the planet.
In that process the planet gains rotation speed.

On the other hand, all the slower outer moons are forced further away from the planets, because the mass attraction-connection is off course working both way.

Seen from Venus, all the outer planet are retrograde "moons" - (this is how Venus is effected) , and these (especially the Earth) hence pulls Venus rotation retrograde. (Venus is faster)

Mercury's rotation is bound by the gravity connection of the Sun, which too is therefore not a mystery.

The only exception is the Earth.
The Earth should not rotate so fast as it does, because the angular orbit speed of our Moon is relative slow, so our Moon cannot explain the fast Earth rotation, - but it is not a problem, but naturaly...
This theory claims that the Earth recently had 2 moons (like Mars) one of these was fast. Because of lost of kinetic energy it was smashing into the Earth. The lost of that moon was probably the cause of 90% of all live on earth was eliminated for 65 million years ago. -It was probably not a meteor but a moon that was smashing into the Earth.

To fully understand all this, it is off course necessary also to understand that relativistic Resistance also applies by constant speed, - not only by acceleration.

http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

 

[MRC_Hans]

No.

Simply no.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

No.
Simply no.
Hans

What I just described above is what is named; SpaceWind in the theory I represent.
This is not a perfect expression, but the best so fare. It is difficult to express result of mass-attraction between object in few word. Better suggestions are welcome.

There are several EVIDENCES that this is true.

1.
We don’t know what mass attraction really is and how a force can occur between two bodies, we should be less arrogant and more open minded exactly like cows are.

2.
It is obviously for both intelligent and stupid cows, even for cows from the 60' that only have 1 braincell left because of abuse of LSD (and obviously for few intelligent humans) that; - when the Moon was landed on the Earth, a pull in the moon would also be a pull in the Earth.

So a correct pull true the “mass-attraction-connection” between the Earth and the Moon, certainly would make the Earth rotate.

It makes no difference that the moon not is landed on the Earth. The “mass-attraction-connection” is still there and still valid and still moon's are orbiting planets.
So we have all what we need to make moon pull planet rotations..
All we need is one cow brain cell.

3.
You, and the planets “should” not exist , when rocks was orbiting the new born Sun in a protoplanetary disks collision with the gas should cause all rocks pieces to fall towards the Sun, so the planets should not exist. – SOMETHING is missing, that SOMETHING is space wind. This is common knoglege.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n19HIHCpOVE&feature=related

4.
And that SOMETHING is ALSO something NASA have discovered and even calculated because of spacecraft’s orbit anomaly shows the exactly same.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html

 

[Paul]

What I just described above is what is named; SpaceWind in the theory I represent.

The idea for which there is no evidence.

Calling it a theory and making rambling posts of nonsense, misunderstanding, lies and magical thinking does not make it a theory.

This is not a perfect expression,

It centainly isn't.

but the best so fare.

It's not even the best at 09:33.

It is difficult to express result of mass-attraction between object in few word. Better suggestions are welcome.

Gravitation.

So we have all what we need to make moon pull planet rotations..
All we need is one cow brain cell.

What about Mercury and Venus?

You, and the planets “should” not exist , when rocks was orbiting the new born Sun in a protoplanetary disks collision with the gas should cause all rocks pieces to fall towards the Sun, so the planets should not exist. –

This probably won't do any good, but try reading about protoplanetary disks, accretion, planetesimals and protoplanets before pretending to understand everything.

SOMETHING is missing, that SOMETHING is space wind. This is common knoglege

No it isn't, no it isn't and no it isn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n19HIHCpOVE&feature=related

Did you actually watch the lecture?

And that SOMETHING is ALSO something NASA have discovered and even calculated because of spacecraft’s orbit anomaly shows the exactly same.

Again, have you actually read the article or did you just assume that "the angle that the spacecraft's incoming and outgoing trajectories make with respect to Earth's equator" somehow justifies 'space wind'?

 

[Bjarne]

What about Mercury and Venus?

The orbit speed of Venus is faster than the outer planets. Venus is pulled retrograde by these
Mercury > http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PLANETS/mercury.htm

This probably won't do any good, but try reading about protoplanetary disks, accretion, planetesimals and protoplanets before pretending to understand everything.

You did not click the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n19HIHCpOVE&feature=related - did you ?

 

[Paul]

The orbit speed of Venus is faster than the outer planets. Venus is pulled retrograde by these

What does that have to do with neither Mercury or Venus having moons?

You did not click the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n19HIHCpOVE&feature=related - did you ?

Yes. Twice.

The point about now knowing how planets escape stars is made, but there is absolutely no mention of any spacewind nonsense, merely that friction should mean that gravity worked faster than accretion.

I admit I missed this very short question at the end of the lecture, I therefore retract one of my 'no it isn't's


Some information you may find useful, from the lecture:

Space is expanding

Galaxies are moving apart
Everything is moving away from everything else

At about 1 second everything was “Squashed into about the area of my fist”

We know back to billionth of a second what was happening

“Whenever you try and extrapolate well beyond where you can actually test things you are asking for trouble”

Dark matter is “transparent, weighs an awful lot and doesn’t shine” is not made of neutrons and protons, and is not concentrated in any particular point in galaxies.

Dark energy is invisible, makes the universe expand, becomes stronger with distance and dominates the universe.

Black holes shouldn't be able to get as big as they have
​

Any response to the rest of my points?

 

[Bjarne]

What does that have to do with neither Mercury or Venus having moons?

Moons pulls planets rotation.
Planet too pulls other planets rotations. .
Faster planet orbit, like for example the orbit speed of Venus will seen from Venus look like other planet (except Mercury) are "retrograde" - whereby the rotation influence is the same as retrograde moons would had been.

This influence (from “retrograde”planets) is the cause of Venus retrograde rotation. Simply because Venus have no moons to counteracts .

All planets effects each other's rotation, and are either/ both weakening the rotation of others or/and reinforcing the rotation.
Not much but still significant.

The rotation of Mercury is mainly due to the tidal force of the sun, but also RR affects the Mercury as well as other planets orbit of the Solar system.

The point about now knowing how planets escape stars is made, but there is absolutely no mention of any spacewind nonsense, merely that friction should mean that gravity worked faster than accretion.

We KNOW (it is common knowledge) - SOMETHING is wrong, since planet does exist (they should not) and since space probes mathematical are affected by the rotation of the Earth.

But you are right nobody (except cows and very few people) have understood what causing that “SOMETHING”. – I call that “something” SpaceWind.

 

[Bjarne]

Any response to the rest of my points?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n19HIHCpOVE&feature=related

My only comment to the Video (so fare) is that SpaceWind is causing planets to escape from the new born Sun as soon as the rotation of the centre of the gas clouds (the Sun) is fast enough. the rotation speed of the stars (or the earth) either push planets (or moons) further out, - or opposite, - allowing them to approach. ( our Sun is losing rotation speed now, but not "long" ago it was gaining rotation speed due to lost of the planet "Titanic" http://www.science27.com/english/SolarSystem.html)

Pulsars.
I do not understand much of whar Dr Paul Francis say , but only that it is a mystery that 20% of all giant pulsars are pulsating to slow.
Dr Paul Francis is speaking too fast .
Give me more info, what is he saying more about these.
So fare my conclusion is that time in the young Universe was ticking slower, that could be the reason.

I also do not understand the point with sideward’s motion into a black hole. What is he saying?

 

[Bjarne]

Cassini took readings of the day-length indicator regarded as most reliable, the rhythm of natural radio signals from the planet. The results give 10 hours, 45 minutes, 45 seconds (plus or minus 36 seconds) as the length of time it takes Saturn to complete each rotation. Here's the puzzle: That is about 6 minutes, or one percent, longer than the radio rotational period measured by the Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 spacecraft, which flew by Saturn in 1980 and 1981.

Sourse http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-062804.html

 

[Bjarne]

Jupiter and Saturn rotate far more rapidly than they logically should! Their extensive and thick atmospheres experience substantial turbulence due to those planets' very rapid rotation. This turbulence must necessarily convert some kinetic energy of rotation into frictional heat. Given the extremely long time that Jupiter and Saturn have existed, this frictional heat loss should have extensively slowed the rotation of those planets. However, that is apparently NOT the case!
Sourse; http://mb-soft.com/public/planetro.html

 

[Paul]

Moons pulls planets rotation.
Planet too pulls other planets rotations...

Could you add some more fudge to that sundae?

This influence (from “retrograde”planets) is the cause of Venus retrograde rotation. Simply because Venus have no moons to counteracts .

It's more likely to be because of a huge impact.

The rotation of Mercury is mainly due to the tidal force of the sun, but also RR affects the Mercury as well as other planets orbit of the Solar system.

RR doesn't exist.

We KNOW (it is common knowledge)

It is not common knowledge, you only know because you happened to see that lecture.

SOMETHING is wrong, since planet does exist (they should not) and since space probes mathematical are affected by the rotation of the Earth.

Why are you conflating?

But you are right nobody (except cows and very few people) have understood what causing that “SOMETHING”. – I call that “something” SpaceWind.

Calling your conflated magic 'spacewind' doesn't make it any less of a fantasy.

 

[Paul]

My only comment to the Video (so fare) is that SpaceWind is causing planets to escape from the new born Sun as soon as the rotation of the centre of the gas clouds (the Sun) is fast enough...

Which shows that you have understood nothing of what was said.

So fare my conclusion is that time in the young Universe was ticking slower, that could be the reason.

You don't understand, you can't hear the lecture properly and you want help with the concepts, but you are OK with making unsupported guesses about the nature of the universe. Very scientific of you.

I also do not understand the point with sideward’s motion into a black hole. What is he saying?

Watch again, it is very simple and simply explained.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Cassini took readings of the day-length indicator regarded as most reliable, the rhythm of natural radio signals from the planet. The results give 10 hours, 45 minutes, 45 seconds (plus or minus 36 seconds) as the length of time it takes Saturn to complete each rotation. Here's the puzzle: That is about 6 minutes, or one percent, longer than the radio rotational period measured by the Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 spacecraft, which flew by Saturn in 1980 and 1981.

Sourse http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-062804.html

More from the rest of the article that you haven't told us why you are quoting it:

Cassini scientists are not questioning Voyager's careful measurements. And they definitely do not think the whole planet of Saturn is actually rotating that much slower than it did two decades ago. Instead, they are looking for an explanation based on some variability in how the rotation deep inside Saturn drives the radio pulse.

...
(Dr. Don Gurnett, principal investigator for the Cassini Radio and Plasma Wave Science instrument, University of Iowa, Iowa City) said, "Although Saturn's radio rotation period has clearly shifted substantially since the Voyager measurements, I don't think any of us could conceive of any process that would cause the rotation of the entire planet to actually slow down. So it appears that there is some kind of slippage between the deep interior of the planet and the magnetic field, which controls the charged particles responsible for the radio emission." He suggests the solution may be tied to the fact that Saturn's rotational axis is nearly identical to its magnetic axis. Jupiter, with a more substantial difference between its magnetic axis and its rotational axis, shows no comparable irregularities in its radio rotation period.

Bolding added.

Shouldn't Saturn be slowing since it has a ring system, and it has over 60 moons? (http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/science/moons/)

Edit: adding the last part because you claim the Earth is slowing down because of the Moon's presence.

 

[Paul]

Cassini took readings of the day-length indicator regarded as most reliable, the rhythm of natural radio signals from the planet. The results give 10 hours, 45 minutes, 45 seconds...

Yes, it appears that the rotation of Saturn's magnetic field can change over time.