Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

Math borrows me, - I hate it and I don’t want even to try to get it 100% correct.
Whether the period is 100 million years or 10 million years, I give a dame.
For me it is enough to have a sketch.
For me it is the overall coherent picture that matter.

OK, short un-ignore:

Bjarne, we have here two models:

Model #1 is built over several centuries, being constantly refined. Thousands of highly educated scientists compete to add new improvements and refinements, and we are at the point where we can calculate and predict infinitessimally small details. The entire edifice is supported by solid observational and experimental evidence.

Model #2 is presented by a person who disregards simple physics, cannot and will not apply proper mathematics, and cannot present the slightest bit of evidence.

Tell me quite seriously: Why should I even consider to follow Model #2?

Do you realize that ALL the "mysteries" and anomalies that you claim to explain were found and described using Model #1? If it wasn't for those scientist that you insult by calling them brainwashed and religious, you wouldn't even know about those "mysteries" you claim to solve!

If mainstream science is all wrong, how do you even know that the Mercury perihelion precession exists?

Back to ignore, unless I get a truly sensible and sober answer.
- And do try to improve your English. We all make little silly mistakes, but yours are in a class all by themselves.

Hans

 

[Paulhoff]

This thread is now UNscribed for me.

Good luck with you guys talking to the wall.

Paul

 

[phunk]

(deceleration that turns into acceleration must be calculated and implemented / modifed.)

Deceleration IS acceleration. There is no difference between them, so one can't "turn into" the other.

 

[Bjarne]

It is good that you are honest enough to admit that some of the maths is incorrect and you find it challenging.

With regards to one point (for now)...centripetal force acts TOWARDS the centre of the circle in circular motion... not away.

The stars are being pulled 'towards' the 'middle' of the galaxy .. that is why they are in that orbit and not just whizzing off in a straight line out of the galaxy.

A very common misunderstanding

Hmmm
Gravity pulls towards the centre
The centripetal force is the opposite, a kind of centrifugal force.
When orbit speed is "too large" and object will be forced outwards.
When these 2 are forces are the same, the object orbit is stable.

 

[Bjarne]

Deceleration IS acceleration. There is no difference between them, so one can't "turn into" the other.

I hear that before, but now why
When you relative speed is decreasing will you call that acceleration?
It make no sence

 

[phunk]

Acceleration is change in velocity. It doesn't matter which direction the change is.

 

[DazzaD]

I discourage the use of the word deceleration and centrifugal for precisely these reasons - my students can be easily confused if they get a little careless.

acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with time. it can be positive or negative.

centripetal force is the overall force so to speak acting towards the centre of the circle, which is responsible for that circular motion.

In the case of a star orbiting the galaxy then the gravitational force between the star and the centre of mass of the galaxy IS the.centripetal force. without that the star would not be moving in a circle.

 

[Bjarne]

"Math borrows me, - I hate it and I don’t want even to try to get it 100% correct.
Whether the period is 100 million years or 10 million years, I give a dame.
For me it is enough to have a sketch.
For me it is the overall coherent picture that matter. "


Possibly.. sometimes...

But you brought up the issue of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury...with regards to the GR 'fix' that modifies Newtonian mechanics...

The difference is on the order of 43 arc seconds per century.

An arc minute is 1/60 of a single degree
An arc second is 1/60 of an arc MINUTE

per CENTURY


The change is staggeringly small (but measurable)...

So you cannot be so blaise about the mathematics... it is all in the detail here and the maths has to be correct and precise.


Now, astrophysicists are notorious for their 'estimations'... sometimes to within a factor of 100 IS good enough.. but that is because of a simplified model or lack of data... not because of a lack of maths or willingness to engage with it.

I already have calculated arc second to orbit meter

RR must replace the old theory.
I am sure that distances are changing proportion with time dilation.
Also Sedna clearly demonstrate that RR has its own perihelion precession influence.
Ice ages are no exception. The cause of that we sometime not have any ices ages and sometime 41000 periods and sometimes 100,000 year period, is all due to that the RR perihelion precession period interacts with the perturbation perihelion precessions.'
These can either cancel out each other or reinforced each other
Again here you have a huge load of math to get that right.
But remember hundred thousand scientist will soon be un employed, they can do this right ?

The precession anomaly of mercury is not solved. Read post 5905 again
You can see that the roughly RR value is close to reality. - It is an question of experiences to get it all right. - But yes also a question of exact calculation, but this 2 aspect are connected.

 

[DazzaD]

Hmmm
Gravity pulls towards the centre
The centripetal force is the opposite, a kind of centrifugal force.
When orbit speed is "too large" and object will be forced outwards.
When these 2 are forces are the same, the object orbit is stable.

A classic misunderstanding.

In a circular orbit the direction of motion is always changing.

Therefore the velocity is changing

Therefore there is an acceleration

Therefore there must be an overall force responsible for that acceleration

A little bit of maths will tell you this force is always directed towards the centre of the circle.

 

[Bjarne]

OK, short un-ignore:

Bjarne, we have here two models:

Model #1 is built over several centuries, being constantly refined. Thousands of highly educated scientists compete to add new improvements and refinements, and we are at the point where we can calculate and predict infinitessimally small details. The entire edifice is supported by solid observational and experimental evidence.

Model #2 is presented by a person who disregards simple physics, cannot and will not apply proper mathematics, and cannot present the slightest bit of evidence.

Tell me quite seriously: Why should I even consider following Model #2?

Do you realize that ALL the "mysteries" and anomalies that you claim to explain were found and described using Model #1? If it wasn't for those scientist that you insult by calling them brainwashed and religious, you wouldn't even know about those "mysteries" you claim to solve!

If mainstream science is all wrong, how do you even know that the Mercury perihelion precession exists?

Back to ignore, unless I get a truly sensible and sober answer.
- And do try to improve your English. We all make little silly mistakes, but yours are in a class all by themselves.

Hans

Regarding the question brainwashed, try to read this thread from A to Z, and see if you can find just 1 post that is open minded
Or one post that that take the new theory as a possibility?
Try to search insane idiotic etc.
Try to read what you just wrote it is like you believe we allready know everything, right ?

But the fact is that NOTHING that moves is as you expect it too.
We have first begun to understand this.
More and more will come.

Yes we can do very fine measurement, and we are very cleaver to do a lot, but exactly this shows us now that something must have gone terribly wrong.

You shall not take it for granted that it MUST be people that never have held a hammer in their hand, that will solve the biggest mystery of the universe, but you do.

It is not always an advantage to have gone too long time in school rather that could be the reason why we do not get out of the brainwashed sump.

 

[Reality Check]

Of course there are no "exact calculations" -
...
I have come to a food of the RR Mountain.

Thnk you for admitting that the RR fantasy is useless.
You have come to the foot of the RR fantasy: It is based on your ignorance of science.

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne claimes GR is wrong because since he has a fantasy about rulers

RR must replace the old theory.
...usual ranting snipped....

873 days and the answer to Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) is still no !

Why RR is a fantasy and Bjarne debunks RR again and again!

Albert Einstein is belived to have solved the Mercury Perihelion Precession Anomaly.
But when the ruler is "stretching" proportional with time this is not the case. Hence the cause of this anomaly must be reconsidered.

Hence the case for your ignorance of GR is proved.

GR matches the Mercury Perihelion Precession Anomaly.
GR has been extensively tested and passed all of the tests.

 

[Bjarne]

Hence the case for your ignorance of GR is proved.
GR matches the Mercury Perihelion Precession Anomaly.
GR has been extensively tested and passed all of the tests.

It is not proven whether the ruler is changing proportional with time dilation or not.
If it does, the prevailing understanding of the cause of the Mercury orbit precision anomaly, - is wrong.

You claim that the Mercury orbit precision anomaly is cause by General Relativity
I also claim that the reason is relativistic, but Special Relativity.

I believe both the old and the new theory will come to the exact same result.
Then you can chose with one you "like" - but remember only one of them is the true one.

Yes Einstein discovered that clocks tick different in different space time, - but we have no way of knowing whether distance (the ruler) also is affected. I am sure it is, and this is enough to turn over that the Mercury orbit anomaly “should be” solved.

I know that it will be hard to swallow that Einstein was wrong, - but already you should see the sign on the sky. There are many, and many more to come.

Space probes Anomalies (many are too fast, this as well will cause perihelion precession anomalies.,).

The Earth orbit is far from understood, - ice ages are crystal clear evidence for that RR is the only possible explanation, - which mean periodical faster orbit speed as expected, and this mean also completely different perihelion precession anomalies as expected.

As shown above, galaxies also have such periodical – too fast orbit speed, - and hence, - these must have “precession anomalies” as well, (as I just illustrate above).

Exactly the same is the case for clusters.

Sedna is also such broad hint – that clearly shows that we must completely have misunderstood something very fundamental.

It is the fact that all arrow, the very small as well as the huge one, all point to the same direction, and this is towards a common denominator (RR)

But RC, I don’t expect you to see any connection, - because this is right brain stuff.

In the future you will see several more phenomena’s that also points to the same little fact, -that RR is true, and that this is the true cause of the all orbit disturbing you know and don’t know.

But as I wrote, the Mercury’s orbit anomaly is something of the most hardcore holy stuff in science, - so sorry, I have to throw it to where it belong, and this is to hell.
Why do you think it was Mercury that got all the attention, and not for example Sedna.
Well because of Mercury is just in front of our nose. Not because of anything else.
Shortly spoken, you seems to live in a small Universe.

Amen.

 

[Reality Check]

You claim that the Mercury orbit precision anomaly is cause by General Relativity

Wrong: The perihelion precession anomaly of Mercury is caused by gravity.
It cannot be explained by Newtonian gravity.
General Relativity explains the perihelion precession anomaly of Mercury.

I also claim that the reason is relativistic, but Special Relativity.

That is an idiotic statement. Special Relativity has nothing to do with gravity.
The perihelion precession anomaly is only observed for Mercury. It is a gravitational effect since Mercury is in a stronger gravitational field then the rest of the planets.

 

[Alex Cured]

It is not proven whether the ruler is changing proportional with time dilation or not.
If it does, the prevailing understanding of the cause of the Mercury orbit precision anomaly, - is wrong.

If the "ruler is changing proportions", wouldn't this apply to the measurement of the anomaly in the first place?

You claim that the Mercury orbit precision anomaly is cause by General Relativity
I also claim that the reason is relativistic, but Special Relativity.

It ought to be no surprise that GR and SR are related: GR is essentially the unification of SR with Newtonian gravity.

I believe both the old and the new theory will come to the exact same result.
Then you can chose with one you "like" - but remember only one of them is the true one.

Yes Einstein discovered that clocks tick different in different space time, - but we have no way of knowing whether distance (the ruler) also is affected. I am sure it is, and this is enough to turn over that the Mercury orbit anomaly “should be” solved.

Shortening of dimension in the direction of motion is part of SR

I know that it will be hard to swallow that Einstein was wrong,

(you know that you've failed to do so, so far, right?)

- but already you should see the sign on the sky. There are many, and many more to come.

Space probes Anomalies (many are too fast, this as well will cause perihelion precession anomalies.,).

The Earth orbit is far from understood, - ice ages are crystal clear evidence for that RR is the only possible explanation, - which mean periodical faster orbit speed as expected, and this mean also completely different perihelion precession anomalies as expected.

Essential a God of the Gaps argument. Wherever there is incomplete data, you think your RR can be plugged in.

As shown above, galaxies also have such periodical – too fast orbit speed, - and hence, - these must have “precession anomalies” as well, (as I just illustrate above).

Exactly the same is the case for clusters.

There are at least three mathematically robust hypotheses already. Why would we need another that isn't (mathematically robust)?

Sedna is also such broad hint – that clearly shows that we must completely have misunderstood something very fundamental.

How could the small perturbations you are presenting in your disputed maths possibly account for an orbit that goes from 1000AU to 75 AU?
Sedna being knocked into it's current orbit by a close encounter with "something" is an entirely reasonable hypothesis though, whether that something was Uranus, an unknown body in the Oort cloud or a passing star.

It is the fact that all arrow, the very small as well as the huge one, all point to the same direction, and this is towards a common denominator (RR)

I don't know what this means

But RC, I don’t expect you to see any connection, - because this is right brain stuff.

In the future you will see several more phenomena’s that also points to the same little fact, -that RR is true, and that this is the true cause of the all orbit disturbing you know and don’t know.

But as I wrote, the Mercury’s orbit anomaly is something of the most hardcore holy stuff in science, - so sorry, I have to throw it to where it belong, and this is to hell.
Why do you think it was Mercury that got all the attention, and not for example Sedna.
Well because of Mercury is just in front of our nose. Not because of anything else.
Shortly spoken, you seems to live in a small Universe.

Amen.

As the man said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So far you've only managed the extraordinary claim bit ...

 

[Reality Check]

I don't know what this means

Bjarne is probably talking about the small and largs arrows that he has drawn in his cartoons.
This is typical crank reasoning - "I draw stuff thus what I draw is real".

 

[Bjarne]

General Relativity explains the perihelion precession anomaly of Mercury.

Right

Special Relativity has nothing to do with gravity.

Speed have something with relativistic resistance to do.

The perihelion precession anomaly is only observed for Mercury. It is a gravitational effect since Mercury is in a stronger gravitational field then the rest of the planets.

Like Hans bla bla bla bla, and even denying common knowledge.

The effect is very small: the Mercurian relativistic perihelion advance excess is just 42.98 arcseconds per century, therefore it requires a little over twelve million orbits for a full excess turn. Similar, but much smaller, effects operate for other planets: 8.62 arcseconds per century for Venus, 3.84 for Earth, 1.35 for Mars
Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)

 

[MRC_Hans]

Regarding the question brainwashed, try to read this thread from A to Z, and see if you can find just 1 post that is open minded

Of your posts? No, I think not.

Or one post that that take the new theory as a possibility?

Did you even read my post? You have no evidence, you can't explain your model logically, you can't show calculations. Why on earth should anybody take you seriously?

Try to read what you just wrote it is like you believe we allready know everything, right ?

No. I grant you that you have great difficulties with the language, but there is nothing in my post that should give you the impression that I think we know everything.

But the fact is that NOTHING that moves is as you expect it too.

That is wrong. In fact everything moves virtually as we expect. There are small quirks still, but most are so small that you wouln't even know how to measure them.

Yes we can do very fine measurement, and we are very cleaver to do a lot, but exactly this shows us now that something must have gone terribly wrong.

No, it shows us that we have got it very nearly right.

You shall not take it for granted that it MUST be people that never have held a hammer in their hand, that will solve the biggest mystery of the universe, but you do.

What?

It is not always an advantage to have gone too long time in school rather that could be the reason why we do not get out of the brainwashed sump.

Bjarne, I don't give a damn about how long you have, or haven't gone to school. The problem is that you are incapable, and quite frankly I don't think any amount of schooling could change that.

You are asking for openmindedness, but you are so close minded yourself that you cannot even imagine that you could be wrong. A shool can teach science and mathematics, but it can't teach you to listen.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

How could the small perturbations you are presenting in your disputed maths possibly account for an orbit that goes from 1000AU to 75 AU?
Sedna being knocked into it's current orbit by a close encounter with "something" is an entirely reasonable hypothesis though, whether that something was Uranus, an unknown body in the Oort cloud or a passing star.
...

The is s a good question, and the answer (hopefully) is in fact what makes it all obvious logical.

First time you'll look at the orbit you will wonder how such an elongated orbit is possible, right ?

I too was wondering.

The basic point here is that too fast orbit speed (due to RR) means that RR itself create its own perihelion precession anomaly.
But because the orbit of Sedna is so big, and because there are almost no perturbation contribution (from planets) and because the orbit speed is so low (and hence also a weak RR contribution) it will take million of years to complete one " perihelion precession anomaly" round

Therefore it takes million of years to get aphelion up against the RR direction, - whereafter the anomaly will begin to will cancel out, - and this is how the anomaly in millions of years grows bigger, and then in millions of years cancel out.

The moon have a 9 years perigee perihelion precession years period, Mercury a 23000 years period , The earth a 108,000 years period , Jupiter a 200,000 years period, - all this because of strong perturbation accelerate the process .

RR also contribute strongly to these close orbits anomalies, but we have so far not discover it.
I mean ice age orbit period is not as expected. We should know better.

But Sedna's anomaly is almost only powered from RR, speed is low, and therefore the anomaly is weak and real slow.

It is so crystal clear, - now is only left to get the math right.

 

[Bjarne]

That is wrong. In fact everything moves virtually as we expect. There are small quirks still, but most are so small that you wouln't even know how to measure them.

I am not talking about what you and fools and best believe, but about reality. Nothing in the real reality moves like you or "we" expect it to. - Nothing, so long you don't implement RR math.

You are asking for openmindedness, but you are so close minded yourself that you cannot even imagine that you could be wrong. A shool can teach science and mathematics, but it can't teach you to listen.
Hans

I can only notice that there must be a complete universe as difference between the left and right brain half.
How united would the universe look like when these 2 half could cooperate. I am confident the future must be bright after cows have begun to intervene.