Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

Hans you know NOTHING about what mass attraction is, so STOP your nonsense.

OK, Bjarne, I'll make a deal with you:

I will stop posting about things I don't know all about, if you do the same.

Where are the EVIDENSE for that mass attraction contact not is transmitting energy between objects?

I refuse to educate you on physics. If you want to know, educate yourself.

Here is mathematical evidence for that you is lying http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html

It is not mathematical, it is observational, and it is not evidence for your claim. Earth is not solid and homogeneous. Ans, of course, it is a very tiny effect.

Hans

 

[Paul]

Here is mathematical evidence for that you is lying http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html

Congratulations, your commitment to remaining ignorant is truly impressive.

You obviously have not read or understood the article correctly, or you are deliberately advancing a falsehood, because the importance of trajectory rules out your nonsense.

Coherence my friend, - coherence.

That would be nice, yes.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Here is mathematical evidence for that you is lying http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html

http://www.science27.com/english/Stars3.htm

I decided to highlight this, because it is an example of Bjarne's dishonest way of arguing.

The link refers to the so-called fly-by anomaly. What has happened a couple of times is that space probes making a close pass of Earth (to gain speed), they have achieved a very tiny amount extra speed. We are talking about 4mm/s for a probe moving at some 40km/s!

Now comes the bizarre thing: Bjarne claims that science does not know that rotation transfers energy, but the same scientists did measure the tiny fly-by anomaly. How will Bjarne explain that the same scientists somehow have not noticed a similar effect in the thousands of satellites orbiting Earth?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

It is not mathematical, it is observational, and it is not evidence for your claim. Earth is not solid and homogeneous. Ans, of course, it is a very tiny effect.

Hans

Ohhh Mother Cow, is it possible to be more stubborn ?

Scientists have come up with a mathematical formula that successfully reproduces all the known occurrences of the effect, and they suspect the Earth's rotation may somehow be to blame.
source; http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html

 

[Bjarne]

I decided to highlight this, because it is an example of Bjarne's dishonest way of arguing.

The link refers to the so-called fly-by anomaly. What has happened a couple of times is that space probes making a close pass of Earth (to gain speed), they have achieved a very tiny amount extra speed. We are talking about 4mm/s for a probe moving at some 40km/s!

Now comes the bizarre thing: Bjarne claims that science does not know that rotation transfers energy, but the same scientists did measure the tiny fly-by anomaly. How will Bjarne explain that the same scientists somehow have not noticed a similar effect in the thousands of satellites orbiting Earth?

Hans

Because the holy tidal effect "sect" have taken ALL the honor for the rotation change of the Earth and that the moon is pushed away...

A little parts of that is due to the interaction between the SW (spacewind) and RR (relativistic resistance) .

The Moon is due to the tidal effect moving 38 mm away from the Earth every year.

As a side effect the rotation of the Earth's is slowing 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 direct influence of RR the Earth rotation is losing 7.61*10-13 meter per second. After 100.000 years this is only 2.4 meter slower after 100,000 years (per 24 hours).

Due to indirect influence (the opposite SW influence) kinetic rotation energy of the Earth is also lost due to kinetic energy transfer used to push the moon further away from the Earth and to counteract the influence of RR of the Moons orbit velocity.

Based on the calculation here http://www.science27.com/english/MoonEarth-KE.htm we see that the indirect KE-lost (to maintain the moon against RR ) we can see that this is only about 20 % of the direct KE lost.
So we are speaking about that only a very tiny part of the tidal effect must be caused by an additional reason.

RR will off course affect satellites too.

But these values are too counteracted by the SW and the tidal effect force.

(The magnitude of the tidal force is partly miscalculated, a small part of these orthodox values is due to SW).

Without the SW and the tidal force clockwise satellites would decelerate, (for example) a Satellite just a little faster as Geostationary Orbit [GEO] (35790 meter) would decelerate 5.26* 10-11 m/s

Retrograde Satellites are still affected (only) by full tidal force (and RR but not due to SW) and is off this reason also not decelerating

When you send probes in huge gravity assist orbit you will use the orbit time to determinate the radius, (based on Keplerian equations) - already here will things go wrong when not all the forces are taken into account.
This leads to that especially elliptical orbits clearly shows something is very wrong. And this is what NASA (almost) has proven..

More reading about Satellites http://www.science27.com/english/Sattelites.htm

 

[Daylightstar]

http://vimeo.com/32397612

Bjarne, let this video sink in. The puppet in the video, that is you.

 

[Paul]

A little parts of that is due to the interaction between the SW (spacewind) and RR (relativistic resistance) .

They don't exist.

Due to the direct influence of RR

RR doesn't exist.

Due to indirect influence (the opposite SW influence)

Spacewind doesn't exist.

Based on the calculation here

Which appear, to my untrained eyes, to be nonsense.

RR will off course affect satellites too.

RR doesn't exist.

But these values are too counteracted by the SW

Spacewind doesn't exist.

More reading about Satellites

Spacewind doesn't exist.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Because the holy tidal effect "sect" have taken ALL the honor for the rotation change of the Earth and that the moon is pushed away...

- I admit I have been looking forward to this...

Bjarne, you know NOTHING about what tidal effect is, so STOP your nonsense.

A little parts of that is due to the interaction between the SW (spacewind) and RR (relativistic resistance) .

Bjarne, you know NOTHING about what SW and RR is, so STOP your nonsense.

Due to the direct influence of RR the Earth rotation is losing 7.61*10-13 meter per second. After 100.000 years this is only 2.4 meter slower after 100,000 years (per 24 hours).

Where is the EVIDENCE for that RR exists as you?

More reading about Satellites http://www.science27.com/english/Sattelites.htm[/quot

Bjarne, you know NOTHING about satellites, so STOP your nonsense.

If I have to know everything, so do you. So unless you can provide scientific proof for each and every one of your claims, I won't bother to address them.

Fair?

Hans

 

[Isentropic Frontkick]

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 ??

Do you want to understand what makes gravity work?

That's an admirable goal. The road to that understanding is built on an understanding of physics, which you clearly need some work on. That's not to put you down, rather an honest assessment based on your comments.

Thinking out of the box is great, but you need to know what the boundaries of the box are so you know you're thinking outside of it. Without knowing the box, you won't know where it's weak or has holes; any holes you think you may have found may instead be holes in your own reasoning.

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang

Based on the calculation here http://www.science27.com/english/MoonEarth-KE.htm

You still have not learned 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?

In this case therre are multiple stupidities:

• The minor stupidity of of doing the calculation for 1 second.
• The major stupidity of subtracting a number (y-1) from a velocity.

And still have 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 (33 days and counting!)

 

[Bjarne]

You still have not learned basic science:

• 
  
  Mass brainwash is not something you learn, but something that happens to naive people.

 

[Bjarne]

- I admit I have been looking forward to this...

Also to this ? ;

http://esa-spaceweather.net/spweather/workshops/SPW_W3/PROCEEDINGS_W3/paper4.pdf

Most polar-orbiting satellites also have anomalies in their orbits. An anomaly in an orbit is any change or deviation from a perfectly stable orbit. Some anomalies are planned into an orbit so that the orbit will remain sun synchronous as earth revolves around the sun during the course of a year. Anomalies further complicate satellite orbital predictions.
Source; http://www.tpub.com/content/aerographer/14271/css/14271_16.htm

and this
http://arxivblog.com/?p=702

 

[Paul]

Also to this ?

Is there a point to any of that?






Also, could you please stop making significant changes after posting. If you have new information, make a new post.

 

[Bjarne]

Is there a point to any of that?
.

Mainly this;
She says that the precession of Saturn’s perihileon, as predicted by general relativity, needs to be corrected to fit the data. The correction is tiny: -0.006 arcseconds per century.
http://arxivblog.com/?p=702

So,

• spacecrafts anomalies
• anomaly of the moon
• Saturn’s rotation speed is fast decreasing
• And now; precession anomaly of Saturn as shown above

It is all exactly as one can expect according to this theory.
It will come a lot more of such the coming decades..

PS
What about this
Next is the slow but sure increase in the length of the astronomical unit (AU), a unit of measure roughly equal to the mean distance from Earth to the sun. This has been calculated as 149,597,870,700 meters, plus or minus three meters, and it is by far the most accurately determined constant in astronomy, the data coming from distance measurements between Earth and various Mars orbiters and landers dating from 1976 to the present. However, these data indicate that the AU is increasing by about 15 centimeters per year.

Source
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23865/

 

[Paul]

It is all exactly as one can expect according to this theory.

You don't have a theory, if you did you could present it.

Remember, 'the magic space pixies did it and ran away' is not a theory.

It will come a lot more of such the coming decades..

Will any of it be real science, or are you just trying to produce enough organic matter to power a small country.

 

[Paul]

What about this

What about it?

At least give us a hint at what you think you are implying.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Do you want to understand what makes gravity work?

That's an admirable goal. The road to that understanding is built on an understanding of physics, which you clearly need some work on. That's not to put you down, rather an honest assessment based on your comments.

Thinking out of the box is great, but you need to know what the boundaries of the box are so you know you're thinking outside of it. Without knowing the box, you won't know where it's weak or has holes; any holes you think you may have found may instead be holes in your own reasoning.

Really, really well said, especially about the box.

- And unfortunately, Bjarne's problem is that he hasn't even an idea where the box is.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Also to this ? ;

http://esa-spaceweather.net/spweather/workshops/SPW_W3/PROCEEDINGS_W3/paper4.pdf

Most polar-orbiting satellites also have anomalies in their orbits. An anomaly in an orbit is any change or deviation from a perfectly stable orbit. Some anomalies are planned into an orbit so that the orbit will remain sun synchronous as earth revolves around the sun during the course of a year. Anomalies further complicate satellite orbital predictions.
Source; http://www.tpub.com/content/aerographer/14271/css/14271_16.htm

and this
http://arxivblog.com/?p=702

So what, Bjarne? Who discovered those anomalies? Did YOU? ...

No you didn't. They were discovered and factored in by the brainwashed scientists you despise so much. You couldn't calculate the orbit of a satellite even if somebody gave you all the figures.

Don't you perhaps think that the scientists who design, launch, and track satellites, with such precision that they can detect deviations somewhere on the sixth decimal, know just a little more about this stuff than you do?

The first satellites were launched before you were born. Don't you think they would sort of have noticed 'space wind', 'relativistic resistance', and other things you have dreamed up, if they existed?

I'm sorry to put you down, but it needs to be done: Do you really, really imagine that an un-educated guy, by googling and dreaming, can make scientific discoveries that have stumped thousands of scientists all over the world, for a century?

Tell me, Bjarne: Would you ask a cow to repair a truck? And if no, why not?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

The correction is tiny: -0.006 arcseconds per century.

So this. 0.006 arcseconds per year is the support for your great discovery?
Do you even have an idea what that is?
I'll tell you what it is: It is roughly equivalent to how much a moth sitting on your rear fender can sped up your car by farting.

So,

• spacecrafts anomalies
• anomaly of the moon
• Saturn’s rotation speed is fast decreasing
• And now; precession anomaly of Saturn as shown above

It is all exactly as one can expect according to this theory.

Oh? well explain that. - Don't forget the mathematics.

Explain, coherently and in detail, how your 'theory' explains each of these phenomena.

Hans

 

[Daylightstar]

...
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23865/

... new physics, ...

There you go.

...
Next is the slow but sure increase in the length of the astronomical unit (AU), ...

The length of the AU will not actually change with a varying mean distance Sun-Earth.