Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

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 ?

No, not at all. It is, in fact, more strange that so many objects have nearly circular orbits. The default orbit, when an object is 'caught' into an orbit, is exactly a very elongated ellipse. Sedna's orbit isn't even particularly extreme, compared to the long-term comets.

90% gibberish

Well, you have a small point, here: One likely reason Sedna has retained a very elliptical orbit, for a moon, is that it is so far out in the Solar system that, unlike the planets and the other moons, it has not been subjected to so many pertuberations and tidal forces as the rest.

It has nothing to do with RR, however.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

No, not at all. It is, in fact, more strange that so many objects have nearly circular orbits. The default orbit, when an object is 'caught' into an orbit, is exactly a very elongated ellipse. Sedna's orbit isn't even particularly extreme, compared to the long-term comets.



Well, you have a small point, here: One likely reason Sedna has retained a very elliptical orbit, for a moon, is that it is so far out in the Solar system that, unlike the planets and the other moons, it has not been subjected to so many pertuberations and tidal forces as the rest.

It has nothing to do with RR, however.

Hans

This just once again proves how derailed you are from the discussion
Nobody but you is talking about a captured moon.
Form which planet was that moon orbiting then?

People have accused the reason to be for example planet X or a star that once have pulled the orbit so elongated .

But you see cows knows within less than 1/253852039603407643745 second that such suggestions sound like turbo fantasy, exactly like it does when you know believe the dwarf planet is a moon.

Welcome to fantasy land Hans.
Fantasy is good here, but turbo fantasy will not last so long.

 

[MRC_Hans]

This just once again proves how derailed you are from the discussion
Nobody but you is talking about a captured moon.
Form which planet was that moon orbiting then?

Ahh, yes. The guy who cannot communicate in proper English, and who is borrowed [sic] by mathematics, must nitpick other's words. Sedna is not a planet, per the current definition (which just excluded Pluto as a planet), you can call it what you will.

...

But I can see that the short glimmer of sensibility is over, and the cows are back.

So, back on ignore you go.

Hans

 

[Alex Cured]

No, not at all. It is, in fact, more strange that so many objects have nearly circular orbits.
...
Hans

Please don't. Bjarne will shortly be staking a claim that circular orbits prove RR is true

 

[MRC_Hans]

Please don't. Bjarne will shortly be staking a claim that circular orbits prove RR is true

Why not? That will make as much sense as anything else he claims.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

But I can see that the short glimmer of sensibility is over, and the cows are back. Hans

No the glimmer of sensibility have just begun, now the perihelion pression due to RR must be calculated.

To keep it simple,
Let’s say that a satellite is moving (from apogee) towards perigee and exactly from the perigee direction there is a very strong solar wind.
The solar wind would resists the motion with let’s say exactly 1E-9 m/s

After passing perigee the opposite happens, now the e solar wind would be “following wind” and “push” the satellite 1E-9 m/s faster towards apogee.

This would force the orbit more elongated, and also would cause its own Perigee Precession Anomaly.

How can the Perigee Precession Anomaly be calculated?
We are not talking about perihelion precession due to planet perturbation

Hans before you wrote I always could ask you questions.
He is one for you and RC etc.
I think no one here knows how to calculate that right?

 

[DazzaD]

No the glimmer of sensibility have just begun, now the perihelion pression due to RR must be calculated.

To keep it simple,
Let’s say that a satellite is moving (from apogee) towards perigee and exactly from the perigee direction there is a very strong solar wind.
The solar wind would resists the motion with let’s say exactly 1E-9 m/s

After passing perigee the opposite happens, now the e solar wind would be “following wind” and “push” the satellite 1E-9 m/s faster towards apogee.

This would force the orbit more elongated, and also would cause its own Perigee Precession Anomaly.

How can the Perigee Precession Anomaly be calculated?
We are not talking about perihelion precession due to planet perturbation

Hans before you wrote I always could ask you questions.
He is one for you and RC etc.
I think no one here knows how to calculate that right?

I can do orbital mechanics...I did a solar system course at uni... I can use the equation of time and similar physics.

You cannot even answer my direct questions on very simple mathematics (the sort you learn say 15 years before you get on to orbital mechanics).

Care to answer any of the easy questions I posed first?

 

[Bjarne]

I can do orbital mechanics...I did a solar system course at uni... I can use the equation of time and similar physics.

You cannot even answer my direct questions on very simple mathematics (the sort you learn say 15 years before you get on to orbital mechanics).

Care to answer any of the easy questions I posed first?

Now show what you say you can.
Then we return to what you haven't understood, - This is still not clear to me.

 

[Alex Cured]

Now show what you say you can.
Then we return to what you haven't understood, - This is still not clear to me.

Bjarne, please read The Null Hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis then try to understand that the onus is on you (the one who is trying to move away from the null hypothesis) to prove what you claim, and if you cannot do so, then we have every right to disregard what you claim.

I don't doubt that DazzaD is easily ably to answer your questions (assuming you can present them coherently), but that is missing the point, he doesn't have to.

 

[DazzaD]

Now show what you say you can.
Then we return to what you haven't understood, - This is still not clear to me.

That is kind of my point.

You cannot even answer the simplest of maths questions I posed to you so you dont have a hope in hells chance of understanding the equation of time.

And as others have repeatedly pointed out YOU are the one with the extraordinary claim so YOU are the one who has to provide extraordinary evidence.

So far you cannot even cope with speed, distance, time, velocity, acceleration, direction, units and dimensions.

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne, Show your predictions for the perihelion advance excess of Mercury, etc.

Speed have something with relativistic resistance to do.

Wrong: "relativistic resistance" does not exist.

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)

Whoops you are right .

Now that we have some actual numbers, you can easily use your theory to match them.
Bjarne, Show your predictions for the perihelion advance excess of Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars.

Remember to

1. Get the units of measurement correct.
2. Produce results that are in arcseconds per century.

874 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!

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne debunks RR again (Sedna orbit)

Mysterious Sedna

How did Sedna get into the strange orbit?
It should be impossible.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/16mar_sedna/

The answer is again due to RR.
...
It solves the Sedna orbit Anomaly.

Firstly: the ingnorance in the post - the orbit is observed and so it is totally possible. The mystery is how Sedna got into that elongated orbit and the article mentions some posibilities.

Now your claim is that RR somehow acted only on Sedna and ignored all of the other trans-Neptunian objects !
See List of trans-Neptunian objects for a fuller list.

The fact is that Sedna has a "strange orbit" only in relationship to the other trans-Neptunian objects.
90377 Sedna

Therefore, it must have been tugged into its current eccentric orbit by a gravitational interaction with another body.[37]

 

[Bjarne]

That is kind of my point.

You cannot even answer the simplest of maths questions I posed to you so you dont have a hope in hells chance of understanding the equation of time.

And as others have repeatedly pointed out YOU are the one with the extraordinary claim so YOU are the one who has to provide extraordinary evidence.

So far you cannot even cope with speed, distance, time, velocity, acceleration, direction, units and dimensions.

If you could have calculted the Perigee Precession Anomaly you would have done it and disproven / proven the theory.
But you cannot.

 

[Bjarne]

Wrong: "relativistic resistance" does not exist.


Whoops you are right .

Now that we have some actual numbers, you can easily use your theory to match them.
Bjarne, Show your predictions for the perihelion advance excess of Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars.

You are the left brain professor that has spent 17 years at the university.
Or maybe you are just a rap duck ?

 

[MRC_Hans]

No the glimmer of sensibility have just begun, now the perihelion pression due to RR must be calculated.

No, it must not. FIRST you must show that RR exists at all. Or you must at least argue the probability that it exists.

To keep it simple,
Let’s say that a satellite is moving (from apogee) towards perigee and exactly from the perigee direction there is a very strong solar wind.

What?? Solar wind? Why do you suddenly introduce solar wind? Is this your old space wind claim?

The solar wind would resists the motion with let’s say exactly 1E-9 m/s

No. Bjarne this has been repeated to you SO many times, and you cannot possibly have missed it: a change of speed due to ANY kind of resistance must be stated in m/s². Why do you keep ignoring this? Is this some kind of childish provocation?

After passing perigee the opposite happens, now the e solar wind would be “following wind” and “push” the satellite 1E-9 m/s faster towards apogee.

This would force the orbit more elongated, and also would cause its own Perigee Precession Anomaly.

No, it would have a totally different effect. IF there is some kind of 'wind' that pushes or pulls the satellite, it will also present a friction against the satellite's own motion, so while being perhaps deflected in the direction of the 'wind', it will also be constantly slowed down. So it will not enter an elongated orbit, it will spiral downward and ultimately crash on the planet/sun it is orbiting.

This is one of the basic fault with your ideas: You cannot just imagine a resistance going only in whatever direction it pleases you.

How can the Perigee Precession Anomaly be calculated?
We are not talking about perihelion precession due to planet perturbation

Hans before you wrote I always could ask you questions.
He is one for you and RC etc.
I think no one here knows how to calculate that right?

It cannot be calculated, based on your question, because the question does not make sense. Even assuming you mean m/s², there is not enough data to calculate anything.

You are welcome to ask questions, but only sensible questions can be answered.

And you need to return the favour: You must answer the questions we ask you.


Hans

 

[DazzaD]

If you could have calculted the Perigee Precession Anomaly you would have done it and disproven / proven the theory.
But you cannot.

You dont have a theory to disprove..

And your childish attempts at evading questions and brash efforts to try and bait people are transparent, weak and sadly greatly diminish any thoughts or new ideas you think you have to offer.

Do you know the difference between perigee and perihelion?

Yet another extremely simple question I predict you will ignore.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yet another extremely simple question I predict you will ignore.

That prediction won't win you the MDC. It seems that Bjarne has some psychological block that makes him extremely reluctant to answer even truely innocent questions. He has, earlier, used many posts to evade even the simplest questions.

But, good luck.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

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

You are the left brain professor that has spent 17 years at the university.
..gibberish...

You are the crank who has spent no years in any school according to the ignorance you have written, e.g. 875 days and the answer to Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) is still no !
You are also ignorant:

1. I have a whole brain not just the left hand side.
2. I am not a professor.
3. I did not spend 17 years at the university. I spent 6 years there.

All it needs is high school science to realize that your ignorance makes RR a fantasy.

RR has been debunked by science:
Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance"
First pointed out in November 2009

RR has been debunked by you:
The Pioneer anomaly proves that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist

Bjarne disproves RR using spiral galaxies!

Bjarne shows that RR is a fantasy again (by not understanding that the Lorentz factor has a speed relative to an observer)!

Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe (due to RR)!
First pointed out on 26 November 2009

Bjarne debunks RR again (no spiral arms because of "space wind")

Bjarne confirms his ignorance of how to use units in equations (yet again)

RR is useless since no calculations can be made from it, e.g.
Bjarne, Show your predictions for the perihelion advance excess of Mercury, etc.

 

[Bjarne]

You are the crank who has spent no years in any school according to the ignorance you have written, e.g. 875 days and the answer to Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) is still no !
You are also ignorant:

1. I have a whole brain not just the left hand side.
2. I am not a professor.
3. I did not spend 17 years at the university. I spent 6 years there.

All it needs is high school science to realize that your ignorance makes RR a fantasy.

RR has been debunked by science:
Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance"
First pointed out in November 2009

RR has been debunked by you:
The Pioneer anomaly proves that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist

Bjarne disproves RR using spiral galaxies!

Bjarne shows that RR is a fantasy again (by not understanding that the Lorentz factor has a speed relative to an observer)!

Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe (due to RR)!
First pointed out on 26 November 2009

Bjarne debunks RR again (no spiral arms because of "space wind")

Bjarne confirms his ignorance of how to use units in equations (yet again)

RR is useless since no calculations can be made from it, e.g.
Bjarne, Show your predictions for the perihelion advance excess of Mercury, etc.

16 years at a University is also a long time
Why did you not become professor?

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne, Show your calculations for the orbit of Sedna using your RR fantasy

16 years at a University is also a long time
Why did you not become professor?

Your inability to to read is also a big problem. I spent 6 years there. That was how long it took to get my Masters in Physics.

I did not become a professor because I was not interested in becoming a professor.

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

Bjarne debunks RR again (Sedna orbit)!

How useless is RR?
Lets see if you can answer this: Bjarne, Show your calculations for the orbit of Sedna using your RR fantasy.