Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

Then why do you do just that: Set yourself up as a judge of truth and knowledge?

So that the gods can laugh of both you and me.
But after measurement is done, I am afraid they will only laugh of you and Co....(not misunderstand "Co" not "cows".)

Well, but your experiments are also not going so well, are they now? You FAILED to measure your central gravity.

I have change my mind after realizing that the weight of concrete is 2300 KG per m3 – I did not know it was so heavy.
Hence the building (Domes Vista) can give a “hint”..
I hope we can do a new attempt in the same building, in the centre. This will be clarified soon.

The final project is measurement maybe in USA with a borehole gravimeter, in a well define solid mass.

If anyone know who in Europe that have a boreholes gravimeter it will be rewarded.

What ARE you talking about? Whoever told you that inertia disappears? It is always there

When travelling with constant speed there are no further resistance according to the prevailing understanding. I do NOT believe that, this is the point.

So 2 anomalies that don't happen consistently and have a wide range of possibly explanations that don't involve you theory? That's your evidence?

You can have a million thesis, but not one that justifies why the astronomic bodies "should" be exceptions and not effected. This doesn’t make sense.

And please notice almost all stars do NOT follow Kepler.
The math is hence simple.
Just look at the sky, it is all written with huge caps.

Open your own, explain how retrograde satellites stay in orbit in your theory. Transfer of momentum from the planet would be in the opposite direction of their motion, and they would slow down and fall out of orbit.

There are many reasons to that we haven't discover that.

• Far from all satellites are used for scientific experiments.
• Satellites orbits are adjusted from time to time, and adjusted temporary by signal delay / change etc.
• When placing satellites in orbit you can’t measure its distance 100% exactly.
• To overcome resistance against motion all satellites are in fact a little close to earth as we believe.
• Mercury is about 3000 meter closer to the Sun as we believe. This is necessary to overcome resistance against motion.
• Gravity difference from the Earth (e.g; the poles gravity contra equator, mountains)
• Gravity from the Moon Sun and Jupiter
• Particle collisions.
• SR
• (GR) Not time dilation, BUT resistance influence. ( the result seems to be the same)
• The Moons and Suns tidal effect
• Altitudes.

If we would focus scientifically 100% on retrograde satellites in different altitudes we will discover something is seriously wrong (with the sattelite altitudes).

DTU is now ready with a star triangulating devise. This certainly can help to solve the mystery.

Notice we already know there is a lot wrong.(Probes and also planets that no are as we expect).
New discovery will surly follow in the next few years.

I have already done some calculations; It is not much altitude retrograde satellite are losing.

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

These calculation are NOT adjusted for the real GR effect > resistance against motion.

I hate to do further calculation, ( so don't ask me).
My brain is not created to that, but only to dream me away from incoherent creeds. .
---------------

 

[phunk]

Far from all satellites are used for scientific experiments.

But the position of all of them is necessary to point antennas at them.

Satellites orbits are adjusted from time to time, and adjusted temporary by signal delay / change etc.

They are adjusted, because they are perturbed by known forces, not your imaginary ones.

When placing satellites in orbit you can’t measure its distance 100% exactly.

Nothing's 100% but they are close enough to know that you are wrong. GPS wouldn't work if there were unknown forces affecting the satellites.

To overcome resistance against motion all satellites are in fact a little close to earth as we believe.

Wrong, or GPS wouldn't work.

Mercury is about 3000 meter closer to the Sun as we believe. This is necessary to overcome resistance against motion.

You enjoy that circular logic don't you. You're assuming your theory is right, then declaring something that hasn't be observed must be true to fit your theory, then using that as evidence that your theory is right?

Gravity difference from the Earth (e.g; the poles gravity contra equator, mountains)

Of course there are differences at different altitudes. That's the standard theory.

Gravity from the Moon Sun and Jupiter

Those are the reasons why satellites need minor adjustments occasionally. They are not going to magically align to always add to a satellites velocity in the opposite direction of the magical 'resistance' you propose.

Particle collisions.

Which average out to a tiny acceleration away from the sun due to the solar wind. Emphasis on tiny.

SR
(GR) Not time dilation, BUT resistance influence. ( the result seems to be the same)

Relativity doesn't consider inertia to be resistance to motion. Your theory of inertia requires a special frame of reference that throws relativity out the window. GR and SR wouldn't work in your version of the universe. And GR time dilation is measurable, and the result is not the same as 'resistance'.

The Moons and Suns tidal effect

These somehow maintain orbits regardless of the direction of the orbit?

Altitudes.

?

If we would focus scientifically 100% on retrograde satellites in different altitudes we will discover something is seriously wrong (with the sattelite altitudes).

If something was seriously wrong with satellite altitudes, we wouldn't need to focus on it, it would be glaringly obvious when we tried to point antennas at them and they weren't where we expected.

Notice we already know there is a lot wrong.(Probes and also planets that no are as we expect).

Actually whatever the pioneer anomaly is, it's not affecting the planets. They are exactly where we expect them to be.

And finally the most important point:
A retrograde Satellite will not fall to the Earth, but just be a little closer to the earth than a anticlockwise satellite.
The point is that orbiting closer to the Earth (as expected) supplies any satellite with kinetic energy that is “lost” to the resistance against motion.

How does it always supply kinetic energy in the right direction? Except for geosynchronous satellites, they are all going in different directions at different altitudes, some even in polar orbits or retrograde. Your theory would produce a systematic error in orbital calculations, always in the direction of earth's rotation, and that would be observed. There are incredibly sensitive satellites in orbit now to test GR frame dragging, they would pick up on the orbital calculation errors if your theory were true. They don't.

 

[Bjarne]

But the position of all of them is necessary to point antennas at them..

Not within few centimetres

They are adjusted, because they are perturbed by known forces, not your imaginary ones.

Also distances are relative.
That would cahnge a lot.

Nothing's 100% but they are close enough to know that you are wrong. GPS wouldn't work if there were unknown forces affecting the satellites.

We talk about few centimetres per year.

Wrong, or GPS wouldn't work.

Yes they would..

You enjoy that circular logic don't you. You're assuming your theory is right, then declaring something that hasn't be observed must be true to fit your theory, then using that as evidence that your theory is right?

The cause of the Mercury orbit is not proven.

Relativity doesn't consider inertia to be resistance to motion.
Your theory of inertia requires a special frame of reference that throws relativity out the window.
GR and SR wouldn't work in your version of the universe.
And GR time dilation is measurable, and the result is not the same as 'resistance'.
SR have nothing with the theory to do

Yes parts of GR is ; out of the windows.
Distances are relative too.

If something was seriously wrong with satellite altitudes, we wouldn't need to focus on it, it would be glaringly obvious when we tried to point antennas at them and they weren't where we expected.

Still we speak about few centimetres.
I have not checked for a while.
Can do it later.

How does it always supply kinetic energy in the right direction? Except for geosynchronous satellites, they are all going in different directions at different altitudes, some even in polar orbits or retrograde. Your theory would produce a systematic error in orbital calculations, always in the direction of earth's rotation, and that would be observed. There are incredibly sensitive satellites in orbit now to test GR frame dragging, they would pick up on the orbital calculation errors if your theory were true. They don't.

Forget that parts.
This was wrong, (long time ago).
Retrograde satellites must be losing altitude.
See the calculation here >> http://www.science27.com/english/Sattelites.htm

 

[phunk]

Not within few centimetres

A few centimeters is measurable over a much larger distance than the orbits of our satellites. They have been measuring the moon's recession of roughly 2cm per year since the 70s.

The cause of the Mercury orbit is not proven.

The orbit of Mercury matches the GR prediction very closely.

Yes parts of GR is ; out of the windows.

Parts we've measured already?

Distances are relative too.

Yes, distances being relative is a standard part of relativity too.

Retrograde satellites must be losing altitude.
See the calculation here >> http://www.science27.com/english/Sattelites.htm

And yet they aren't losing altitude any more than prograde satellites. What does that say about your theory?

 

[Bjarne]

A few centimetres is measurable over a much larger distance than the orbits of our satellites. They have been measuring the moon's recession of roughly 2cm per year since the 70s.

What is this worth, when you meter stick never is what you think it is.
Distances are relative, by mercury, in satellites orbits and backwards in time.

The orbit of Mercury matches the GR prediction very closely.
Yes, but still it is not caused by time dilation.
It can’t be because when distances are relative too there will be no anomaly.

The real cause is resistance against motion.

Parts we've measured already?

The meter stick is not the same tomorrow, or in different gravitional fields
First understand the consequence of unification of “curvature of space” with the expanding space.
So what you “measure” in satellites orbits, or by Mercury or in the previous Universe is done with a meter stick that only is valid exactly here and now, - not tomorrow not yesterday, not by Mercury.

Yes, distances being relative are a standard part of relativity too.

And the meters stick is never the same.
That’s the point.

And yet they aren't losing altitude any more than prograde satellites. What does that say about your theory?

It tells that the few retrograde satellites we have is not properly scientific researched. When this is done you’ll see.

And it tells you that GPS is commercial business, - not science.
If a problem can be solved by adjusting here or there, nobodies cares whether the cause was this or that, there are many possibilities.

If you measure the time of a satellite orbit, and adjusting for GR + SR etc, you believe you’ll know the distance / radius to it. – We will be forced to rethink all this.

 

[phunk]

You need to be careful with your quotes, you made it look like I said things that I didn't.

And yes, with GPS, they do care what the cause was. The adjustments they make to keep the clocks in sync aren't done reactively, the necessary adjustments are predicted by GR.

 

[Paulhoff]

Read Bjarne

http://www.planetary.org/programs/p...nologies/pioneer_anomaly/update_20090209.html

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

Read Bjarne

http://www.planetary.org/programs/pr..._20090209.html

Paul

I know it is a small anomaly (resistance against motion) , - This is exactly the point.
But all together 400.000 km distance lost within 20 years are at least remarkable.

You need to be careful with your quotes, you made it look like I said things that I didn't.

Is corrected I guess.

And yes, with GPS, they do care what the cause was. The adjustments they make to keep the clocks in sync aren't done reactively, the necessary adjustments are predicted by GR.

Time is stretching the deeper inside a gravitational field you are, and so are distances, - as well as the meter stick.

Note, we actually do not know the cause of time dilation. – Try this; - it is because the meter stick also is stretching, - time must do the same.

When the meter stick too expands (which a lot of people believe could be a possibility) it also means that the Mercury orbit anomaly is not solved.

It also means that the idea that gravity counteracts the expanding Universe inside a gravitational field not is necessary.

And off course we have to rethink satellite orbits.

I guess you already have hear, the suggestions that something could be wrong to either GR, or the Newtonian understanding of Gravity (and a lot more suggestions), - because of the space probes anomalies.

"I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know if I am.
--G.S. Viereck interview, October 26, 1929, reprinted in "Glimpses of the Great" (1930).

 

[Paulhoff]

Low earth satellites are going thru the upper atmosphere as thin as it is and are slowed down over time, and the high earth satellites are slowed down by the solar wind, geezzzz.

Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

I know it is a small anomaly (resistance against motion) , - This is exactly the point.
But all together 400.000 km distance lost within 20 years are at least remarkable.

0.00416 % compared the the distance they traveled so far is not remarkable.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

Low earth satellites are going thru the upper atmosphere as thin as it is and are slowed down over time, and the high earth satellites are slowed down by the solar wind, geezzzz.

Paul

Thanks
Also here we have to ask; Are all our understandings of all these influences correct.

 

[Paulhoff]

Note, we actually do not know the cause of time dilation.

BS, we do know what the cause of time dilation is, if you knew anything about how the speed limit of light works on time when things move thru space you wouldn't say that.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

0.00416 % compared the the distance they traveled so far is not remarkable.

Paul

Call it want you want
This just mean : resistance against motion is weak.

 

[Paulhoff]

Thanks
Also here we have to ask; Are all our understandings of all these influences correct.

Geee, scientist just make BS up and go on their way.

Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

Now here is a real paper on the subject.

http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/38552/1/05-3863.pdf

You don't even begain to go into this detail.

Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

Call it want you want
This just mean : resistance against motion is weak.

THERE IS NO REISTANCE TO MOTION.

THERE IS REISTANCE TO YOU LEARNING.

Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

You know, at CERN, for one, they work at speeds that are almost at the speed of light, and they never, ever seen any resistance to speed, and of all places that would be the place to see it.

Paul

 

[Reality Check]

You know, at CERN, for one, they work at speeds that are almost at the speed of light, and they never, ever seen any resistance to speed, and of all places that would be the place to see it.

Paul

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads includes the fact that every circular particle accelerator and storage ring in the world debunks this idiotic resistance to motion fantasy:

• 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).
• Bjarne's idea (acceleration due to gravity is constant inside a sphere) is proven wrong
  First asked 2 November 2009

But since he has chosen to derail his own thread into his fantasies I may as well add the entire post.

 

[Reality Check]

Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance"

First posted 30th November 2009 and coped here to follow his derail of this thread

And this is the reason for the posts in the other thread displaying more of Bjarne's ignorance.
(Hey Bjarne - superconducting magnets need electricity to produce magnetic fields. Wow what a surprise!)

There are energy losses in the operation of particle accelerators, especially circular ones like the LHC. The known laws of physics tell us what these energy losses are. The accelerator is designed to work with these known energy losses. They are compensated for in the RF system.

Scientists know the exact energy losses. The energy that the RF system has to put into a stored beam is the exact energy loss due to the motion of the particles in the beam.

Then you run the accelerator and it works.

Accelerators do not have double* their budgeted electricity cost
To accelerate the particles you use electricity.
Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" means that more electricity is used that is designed or budgeted for. Somebody has to pay the bill. Accountants tend to scream loudly when a budgeted item doubles*.

* Bjarne is deluded enough to think that you can assign the Lorentz factor (a number without units of measurement) any units that he likes, e.g. those of acceleration. This is an arbitrary multiplication of his "kinetic resistance" equation by 1 m/s^2, KR = (y-1) * a where a = 1 m/s^2.
But we can select any value for a that we like. Including values that make accelerators consume a million times their budgeted electricity cost.

Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass. He ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units or acceleration.

1. Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
   First asked 23 October 2009
   So far the answer is no !

Accelerated particles do not hit the walls of the accelerator



This is one of the very good points that Cuddles makes http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5345407&postcount=473.

• RF systems (e.g. RF cavity resonators) are used to accelerate particles and to keep them in the ring.

If there was an extra impossible "kinetic resistance" then the accelerated particles would always hit the walls of the accelerator because the RF systems do not know about Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance".

Stored particles do not hit the walls of the accelerator



The next point is that the beams are circulated without acceleration for hours at a time. This is the accelerator acting as a storage ring. Making the beam travel in a circle is fairly basic physics. All you need are magnets and Maxwell's equations. The magnets are tuned to keep particles at a specific energy traveling in a circle.

• Known losses (e.g. synchrotron radiation) are compensated for by RF systems.
• Unknown losses such are Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" are not compensated for.

If the particles are not at that energy they escape the storage ring. They hit the walls. In the case of high energy beams as in the LHC they then proceed to destroy the system.

Accelerated particles have the energy that is predicted
Yet another (less compelling) reason is that scientists are really interested in the collisions and their products. They are so interested that they measure the energy of all of the products in calorimeters.
There is a little law of physics that you should know about: energy is conserved.
Thus the energy of the products is equal to the energy of the particles that collided.
No one has claimed a Nobel Prize by noticing that energy is not conserved in the collisions, i.e. the products have half the predicted energy of the particle beams.

 

[Bjarne]

THERE IS NO REISTANCE TO MOTION.

You can't claim that so long you even don't know why it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed.

It is not enough just to invent smart word; “inertia” , and then is that "mystery" solved.

My friend; - matter and space are connected. - Cows now this too.
A grain of sand affects the whole Universe.
Hence you should know: You can't put anything in motion without disturbing the whole universe.
You believe such disturbing is free, - I do not believe so.

Believe is all what we have

Except off cause:

• The Pioneer anomalies
• Mercury’s orbit anomaly.
• Inner stars of a galaxy are too slow.
• Stars in the centre of a galaxy falls from the sky.
• And one day my friend you will also see that retrograde satellites are losing too much altitude, more that we can account for.

THERE IS REISTANCE TO YOU LEARNING.

I would say, too few people use their right brain half.
The left brian half, - doesn’t care about coherence.

You know, at CERN, for one, they work at speeds that are almost at the speed of light, and they never, ever seen any resistance to speed, and of all places that would be the place to see it.

It always require a huge amount of energy, also to keep particles moving by constant speed.