Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Daylightstar]

Right I have calculated this roughly; - Titan cannot cause such huge resistance
You are right.
You know which consequence this has right?
Now you can choose between;
To be shut
Hanging
Guillotine.
Poison injection.
Don't say that we not are human.
...

The above sounds extremely ugly.
With respect to whom should this choice be made?
Please clarify!

 

[Bjarne]

No. If there is no contact, there is no rotary interaction. The reason there is one in the Earth/moon system is ONLY because of tidal friction. If the Earth was a solid, homogeneous ball, there would be no effect on rotation

So you believe that even though there still is s force / mass attraction between the Earth and the Moon if it was hanging let's say 1 meter above the earth or like now 384.000 km above the Earth, - no kinetic energy can be transferred from the Moons orbit and to the rotation of the Earth or opposite.

So fare I understand the Earth MUST touch the Moon before this is possible.'
Which objective scientific experiment or methods confirms this.
I don't mean; hallelujah or Amen?

And I guess you also believe that the rotation have existed since the solar system was created.
How was the planet rotation created?
How do you know?
Which objective scientific methods proves this (except hallelujah and Amen)

 

[Paul]

Which objective scientific experiment or methods confirms this.
I don't mean; hallelujah or Amen?

I ask the same question about any of your ideas.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Sourse;http://creationwiki.org/Moon_is_receding_at_a_rate_too_fast_for_an_old_universe_(Talk.Origins)

Link out of order Google this instead; - Moon is receding at a rate too fast for an old universe (Talk.Origins)

Bjarne, that is a link to religious fanatics trying to argue that Earth was created 6000 years ago, in six days, just as it says in the bible. Do try to pick your sources with just a little bit of care.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

Sourse;http://creationwiki.org/Moon_is_receding_at_a_rate_too_fast_for_an_old_universe_(Talk.Origins)

Link out of order Google this instead; - Moon is receding at a rate too fast for an old universe (Talk.Origins)

Really idiotic first link, Bjarne. Even you cannot be dumb enough to think that Earth is 6000 years old as believed by creationists!

TalkOrigins refute this claim as you point out.

This has nothing to do with the RR fantasy which is based on ignorance of basic science:

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
• Why is your multiplier 1 m/s^2? Why is X not 2 m/s^2? Why not 300,000 m/s^2? Why not 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s^2?

With that persistent delusion that RR exists when it does not match reality:

• Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance"
  11th December 2009
• The Pioneer anomaly proves that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!
• Spiral galaxies prove that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!
• RR is useless:
  Bjarne: Show your calculations that RR is the cause of Sedna's orbit

P.S.
Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang
First asked 21st October 2011 (31 days and counting!)

 

[Reality Check]

Good you got the point
"So some unknown reason prevented this from happening. "

Bad - you still have not got the point:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Of course planets exist (not only in the Solar System). So some unknown reason prevented this from happening. The resolution to the problem will be based on valid physics, not your delusions.

(emphasis added)
RR is a delusion because it does not match reality and is useless:

• Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance"
  11th December 2009
• The Pioneer anomaly proves that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!
• Spiral galaxies prove that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!
• RR is useless:
  Bjarne: Show your calculations that RR is the cause of Sedna's orbit

 

[MRC_Hans]

Right I have calculated this roughly; - Titan cannot cause such huge resistance
You are right.

Admitting errors is the first stop to enlightenment.

You know which consequence this has right?
Now you can choose between;
To be shut
Hanging
Guillotine.
Poison injection.
Don't say that we not are human.

Ahh, I wouldn't do any of this to you. All you get is a small pat on the back for admitting your mistake.

OK Hans you deserve an serious answer, even though you will not understand anything of it.

Oh, I don't need one. I already understand all this. Also, it would be the first time you had provided a serious answer. Unfortunately, as clearly evident from the following, you can't.

What had happen with Saturn is a bit complicated.

At least it seems to be for you.

Recently Saturn have lost a moon, this is why it now is rotating relative fast as well as losing rotation speed.

As far as we know, Saturn has not lost a moon. There is some theory that Sedna might have interacted with Saturn, but that is another matter.

Also, loosing a moon will make a planet rotate slower, not faster.

But 6 minutes lost within only 23 years is really a lot.

Saturn is rotating quite fast. Also we can't establish a precise rotational period for Saturn, because it is mainly consists of gas. The rotational period depends on how and where we measure it.

How did it happen?
Well , when a fast Moon (faster as Saturn’s own rotation) orbit Saturn, it will increase Saturn rotation speed.

No. Or, at least, only by a tiny bit. I just listed the mass of Saturn, above. Do you realize the amount of energy it takes to change the rotational period of such a mass? If a moon could somehow transfer that much energy to the planet, it would drop like a stone.

The increasing rotation speed will continue so long the mass-attraction-connection allows transfer part of its own orbit speed / energy to Saturn’s rotation speed.

No. There is no such thing as a mass-attraction-connection.

You have invented yet another fantasy concept.

But because Saturn is a gas planet such moon will cause Saturn’s inner solid core to rotate faster as the surrounding gas atmosphere.
This is because speed of the rotation only can continue until Relativistic Resistance (RR) set the limit.

No. There is no such thing as RR. Another of your fantasy concepts.

Because the circumstance gets larger the further away the planet we get, the speed of the atmosphere must travel faster and faster if the rotation everywhere should be “geostatic” .
Such rotaion is therefore not possible, simple because RR will not allow it.

Gibberish.

Instead RR is causing the inner core and the gas atmosphere to travel with the same speed, which mean that the inner core complete 1 orbit faster than the atmosphere.

Gibberish.

Probably the inner core is / was completing 1 orbit 2-3 or maybe 4 times faster than the surface of the gas planet we see.

Are you crazy? What sort of friction do you imagine that would cause? Do you realize that the inner parts of the gas is under a pressure that makes it denser than water?

The very rapid lose of rotation speed must mean that Saturn have lost a Moon very recently.
Maybe in this century.

Oh? and that moon is now where? You do realize that moon-sized objects don't just vanish, right.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

In other words, we don't know Saturn's rotational period precisely. Since it is a gas planet, this is hardly surprising.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, that is a link to religious fanatics trying to argue that Earth was created 6000 years ago, in six days, just as it says in the bible. Do try to pick your sources with just a little bit of care.

Hans

What so funny dear
Try this > It's the same process that's gradually driving the moon's orbit outward: Tides raised by the moon in our oceans are gradually transferring Earth's rotational energy to lunar motion. As a consequence, each year the moon's orbit expands by about 4 cm and Earth's rotation slows by 0.000017 second.

Source; http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17228-why-is-the-earth-moving-away-from-the-sun.html

Well 1,7 second or 2 second per 100,000 year
What is your problem, shall i call the blue car?

 

[Bjarne]

Really idiotic first link, Bjarne. Even you cannot be dumb enough to think that Earth is 6000 years old as believed by creationists!

Why not
I mean whether the brain is washed with blue religion or red religion what difference does it make?
Brainwash is still brainwash ?

I mean I give a dame whether the right answer is 1,7 s per 100,000 year or 2 or 2,2s.

The point is somewhat difference and this is the nuts fanatic religious idea how you & Co (not cow) believe rotation of astronomic is caused.

 

[MRC_Hans]

So you believe that even though there still is s force / mass attraction between the Earth and the Moon if it was hanging let's say 1 meter above the earth or like now 384.000 km above the Earth, - no kinetic energy can be transferred from the Moons orbit and to the rotation of the Earth or opposite.

That is correct, apart from tidal friction.

So fare I understand the Earth MUST touch the Moon before this is possible.'
Which objective scientific experiment or methods confirms this.

Bjarne, you can make this experiment yourself. Go out to your car. Take a workshop lift and lift the driving wheels off the ground. Now climb into the car, start the engine, and see how far you can drive.

Gravitational pull only works between gravitational centres. If there is no mechanical friction (and tidal friction is a mechanical friction), rotation does not come into the picture at all.

And I guess you also believe that the rotation have existed since the solar system was created.

That is more or less correct, although rotational periods can have changed since then, for a number of reasons (tidal friction, collisions, ...)

How was the planet rotation created?

Preservation of angular momentum.

How do you know?
Which objective scientific methods proves this

Bjarne, I could teach you basic physics, but you have shown absolutely no willingness to learn, so I won't bother. Educate yourself, if you want to know.

It is a little funny that you think that you can just make wild guesses about imaginary forces, but from others you demand objective science. Which objective scientific method proves YOUR ideas?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

What so funny dear
Try this > It's the same process that's gradually driving the moon's orbit outward: Tides raised by the moon in our oceans are gradually transferring Earth's rotational energy to lunar motion. As a consequence, each year the moon's orbit expands by about 4 cm and Earth's rotation slows by 0.000017 second.

Source; http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17228-why-is-the-earth-moving-away-from-the-sun.html

Well 1,7 second or 2 second per 100,000 year

That is tidal friction. TIDAL FRICTION. We talked about this a year ago, and you seemed to generally understand it. Not so I guess.

Tidal friction causes small, slow changes in orbits and rotational periods, it does not drive rotation.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

As far as we know, Saturn has not lost a moon.

belive

There is some theory that Sedna might have interacted with Saturn, but that is another matter.

Speculation
Amen

Also, loosing a moon will make a planet rotate slower, not faster.

Misunderstood Humburg
http://www.science27.com/english/SolarSystem.html

No. Or, at least, only by a tiny bit. I just listed the mass of Saturn, above. Do you realize the amount of energy it takes to change the rotational period of such a mass? If a moon could somehow transfer that much energy to the planet, it would drop like a stone.

Yes I realize how much energy we are talking about and this is why you have a problem.
A suggestion is not a scientific evidence.
Something strange is going on.

I have no problem, only the atmosphere of Saturn, - which means huge part of the planet mass can cause such fast deceleration.

Oppesite, to achieve such rotation speed is a question of time, millions of years to increase or decrease the achieved rotation when only moons shall cause it, this is no problem.

Are you crazy? What sort of friction do you imagine that would cause? Do you realize that the inner parts of the gas is under a pressure that makes it denser than water?

It makes no difference whether it is rock, water or gas in the core.
We are talking about gravitational "friction" something you prefer not to try to understand. (why do you think lightnings are most powerfull at Saturn ?)

Try to put 100 kilo weight on you feet’s and then ask you self what is causing gravitational force, what is weight, what is mass attraction. ?

Then tell me before you sound more crazy like the creation sect...

I am sure you have not understood anything of that, I mean not what is causing it, or what it is, - but only what it does.

How can you speak of properties of mass attraction without knowing what it is in the first place. ?
Are you fanatic nuts religious ?

Gravitational pull only works between gravitational centres. If there is no mechanical friction (and tidal friction is a mechanical friction), rotation does not come into the picture at all.

I call such; blind matter fixation..

It is a little funny that you think that you can just make wild guesses about imaginary forces

The FORCE of gravity / mass attraction is real - there is no law of nature demanding people to be physical matter fixated to be able to understand such simple point.

 

[Paul]

Why not

Well, for a start, writing goes back almost that far and protowriting nearer 9000 years.

Brainwash is still brainwash ?

Hogwash is still hogwash.

I mean I give a dame whether the right answer is 1,7 s per 100,000 year or 2 or 2,2s.

Do you mean that you don't give a damn, because if that's true, you've been making lot of noise over nothing.

The point is somewhat difference and this is the nuts fanatic religious idea how you & Co (not cow) believe rotation of astronomic is caused.

What is the connection?

 

[Bjarne]

What is the connection?

That the moon is hanging above you head sometimes, even though there is no matter fixated physical connection between the Earth and the Moon..

I know you will know say space is curving hallelujah hallelujah
The point is that you really, deep down, have no idea what curved space really is, and hence really don't know what you bla bla nla about
Nobody has.
This is where trouble started.
We are assigning space & mass attraction properties, without having any idea of what we are dealing with in the first place.
Have you understood that mass attraction don’t care about matter or about physical friction.
Matter fixation overshadows the ability to be just a little more space fixated,

The main problem is that we have no idea what space really is, we can even not imaging properties of space. - This is where the chain went off. - Or more correct the chain was never on.

 

[Paul]

belive

Know.

Speculation
Amen

Science.

Misunderstood Humburg

Care to provide the opposing calculations?

Yes I realize how much energy we are talking about and this is why you have a problem.

You obviously don't understand and that's your problem.

A suggestion is not a scientific evidence.

Neither is wild unsupported guesswork.

Something strange is going on.

Lots of strange things are going on. The universe is a very strange place.

It makes no difference whether it is rock, water or gas in the core.

Really?

We are talking about gravitational "friction" something you prefer not to try to understand. (why do you think lightnings are most powerfull at Saturn ?)

I'm not at all sure what it is you think you are talking about.

Try to put 100 kilo weight on you feet’s and then ask you self what is causing gravitational force, what is weight, what is mass attraction. ?

A fundamental interaction, the force due to gravity, and it depends on what you think you mean by it.

Then tell me before you sound more crazy like the creation sect...

As opposed to someone who rants on the internet about the brilliance of his scientific ignorance and insults anyone who tries to help him understand?

I call such blind matter fixation..

Are you putting your sentences through extra languages in google before you post?

 

[Bjarne]

A fundamental interaction, the force due to gravity, and it depends on what you think you mean by it.

Think about this
9,8 Newton = 1 Kg.
You feel the weight (and hence the force) because matter tells you, now there is contact. This is all matter does. The force is the real "thing" in this case , made of space.

It is the FORCE that makes the contact so that you can fell it, - matter is used by the force, - but the nature of the force is still A SPACE PROPERTY.

So it make no difference that the moon is hanging above you head - the mass attraction, and the FORCE is still REAL.

You cannot feel it because collision with space doesn’t harm you.

But this doesn’t make the FORCE unreal. It is still there.

A force is a force doesn’t matter whether it is the force from the pull of a cow or the force from the Moons pull in the earth.

The fact that gravity and hence mass attraction not is physical doesn’t make any difference.

Force is always Force, you cannot just ignore that.

So there is a invisible "wire" between a moon and a planet

made of space,
made of FORCE,
made of mass attraction . -

THIS is the connection.

 

[Paul]

Think about this

Perhaps you should have done that before you posted.

9,8 Newton = 1 Kg.

No it doesn't

9.80665 N = 1 kgf both units of force

kg unit of mass

You feel the weight (and hence the force)

The weight is the force.

The force is the real "thing" in this case , made of space.

Made of space is it? How does that work then?

It is the FORCE that makes the contact so that you can fell it,

No it isnt.

So it make no difference that the moon is hanging above you head - the mass attraction, and the FORCE is still REAL.

Do you actually have a point, that you can back up, about the moon or are you just going to shout space vacuum or spacewind all night?

You cannot feel it because collision with space doesn’t harm you.

Neither does collision with feather, but I can feel that.

The fact that gravity and hence mass attraction not is physical doesn’t make any difference.

What is the difference between what you think gravity is, and what you think mass attraction is?

Force is always Force, you cannot just ignore that.

I'm not dismissing force per se, just the ones you invent because you don't understand the ones we already have.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
The point is that you I really, deep down, have no idea what curved space really is, and hence really don't know what you I bla bla nla about
Nobody has...

You almost got it right.

 

[Reality Check]

Recently Saturn have lost a moon, this is why it now is rotating relative fast as well as losing rotation speed.
...snipped RR delusional rant...

Citation, Bjarne?

ETA:
A possibility for the origin of the rings is that the ice was stripped from a Titan sized moon that then fell into Saturn. This has nothing to do with the rotational spied of Saturn or any loss of rotation speed.