Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Reality Check]

I'm sure we all look forward to seeing that. We will hold you to that promise.

Will it have cows in it? (Hint: The less cows the better).

It has to have cows in it - the existence of cows is just about the only thing that Bjarne has got right in his rather deranged threads !

 

[Bjarne]

RC Wrote
Prediction 2: We will not see any actual mathematics, i.e. real physical equations, plugging in the numbers and getting correct results, from Bjarne

I will now very simple and very cow-logical show that all objects moving with constant spped MUST have resistance against motion.
But before that, I belive we all easy can agree that there MUST be KE lost in a orbit motion.

STEP 1

The bull transmits KE to the Horse.
The horse is using its muscles to resist to be dragged after the bull.
Also the bull use it muscle (KE) to get free from the forced orbit.
Therefore part of the KE that origin from the orbiting bull MUST be converted to secondary KE (because the bull pulls the horse and forces it to rotate) and heat (from the cow and the bulls muscles).

It doesn’t matter if there were no wire to a central fixed" point.
Even a concrete truck in a roundabout MUST lose KE when orbiting.
The KE will be converted to heat in the left side bearings, suspension and tyres etc. (and down under to the right side of the truck)

How and where the heat converts takes place is NOT important.

All what counts are:

• that the orbit motion of the (2 mentioned) objects MUST lose KE
• this MUST be converted to other kind of energies, as for example KE of the central object.
• this MUST be possible to calculate mathematical.

The math is simple;
Each time the direction of a object has change its motion direction 90 degree (for example when the object shown in the illustration above moves from A to B), the object will in that time it takes “lose” the same amount of KE as represented by its (average) speed.
When this happens 2 times (180 degree orbit change) it can be compared to the energy it takes to stop a stone from flying through the air and then throwing it in the opposite direction with the same speed.
Notice a object in orbit changes direction 2 times.
The last factor to take into consideration is time, the less time per orbit the faster KE "lost".

• The equation; (4 * KE / t) must be used to calculate how much KE are "lost" per orbit.
• The equation; (4 * KE / t^2) must be used to calculate how much KE are "lost" per Second.

Do we all agree so far?

 

[Toke]

Do we all agree so far?

No.

Try lift the front of your bicycle of the ground and spin the front wheel with your hand.
Does it stop after ½ a turn?

 

[erlando]

Do we all agree so far?

The moon is still in orbit. So.. No.

 

[Reality Check]

I will now very simple and very cow-logical show that all objects moving with constant spped MUST have resistance against motion.
But before that, I belive we all easy can agree that there MUST be KE lost in a orbit motion.
Do we all agree so far?

No: You are ignorant of the fact that KE is not lost in for an object in an orbit.

The orbital speed of an object in a circular orbit is constant. Its KE is constant. This is high school physics.
The orbital speed of an object in an elliptical orbit is chnages. It gains and loses the same amount of KE over an orbit. Its KE over the orbit is constant. This is high school physics.


This is your inane circular reasoning that your use to support your physically impossible and physically ignorant "kinetic resistance":

1. Bjarne ignores the actual physics that bodies in circular orbits (the only kind he knows about) have a constant speed and so constant KE.
2. He make up a fake "kinetic resistance".
3. He then gets that bodies in circular orbits loose KE
4. Go to step 1.

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads include ""kinetic resistance":

1. 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.
   • Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
     First asked 23 October 2009
     So far the answer is no !
2. Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
   • 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 is proven wrong (acceleration due to gravity is constant inside a sphere).
     First asked 2 November 2009
3. Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
   First asked 26 November 2009

P.S.

Where does the kinetic energy of a cow falling off a cliff come from?
First asked 20 May 2010
No answer so far except some insane gibberish and a link to a crank web site page about Quantum Mechanics !

 

[Paulhoff]

I did some quick math, and the total energy of Deimos in orbit is only about 1/20,000 the energy of Mars's rotational energy. That should be in the Ballpark.

I'm out of here again.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

Try lift the front of your bicycle of the ground and spin the front wheel with your hand.
Does it stop after ½ a turn?

This is rotation, not a orbit.
Try to weld 500 kilogram weight a certain place on that wheel, add a certain amount of KE, and let see when your wheel will stop. This is a orbit.
I am afraid that exactly at the time it begins to orbit opposite, - you wheel will brake. Like a bull escaping the cowboy.
Do NEVER underestimate cow logic.

The moon is still in orbit. So.. No.

So far we are at step 1.
The Moon is step 3.
So until then forget the moon.

No: You are ignorant of the fact that KE is not lost in for an object in an orbit.

Kinetic energy is not lost but converted , and that’s what I wrote.
If there were no resistance against orbit-motion nothing could get in orbit, but would continue straight ahead.

For example; - if a loaded concrete-mixer is too fast in a roundabout it will not have friction enough (between tyres and asphalt) and will continue straight ahead instead.
Hence the concrete mixer MUST be able to "grip" the asphalt and resist the spontaneous motion straight ahead.

In the roundabout the friction between the tyres and the road is important.
The tyres will fast become hot if the concrete-mixer continues in orbit
WHERE does the energy "used" to heat the tyres comes from.?

The law of nature that applies for the concrete truck is: that the truck have “friction” / resistance against motion. It MUST have have, - unless it can NOT orbit the roundabout.

This is third class physics..

Every bull on the planet knows that when the cowboy is only a kid, the bull can’t be hold in orbit. Simply because the RESISTANCE AGAINST MOTION IS TOO WEAK.

Bulls learns this before they are 2 years old.

Bulls also learns that the bigger the cowboy is, the more cow-KE “lost” will it be to escape the orbit.

But as I have said many times, bulls and cows are more intelligent like us. If you know some cows try to ask them to help with the math. - I think I is about to give up...

 

[Bjarne]

I did some quick math, and the total energy of Deimos in orbit is only about 1/20,000 the energy of Mars's rotational energy. That should be in the Ballpark.

I'm out of here again.

Paul

Try Phobos

 

[Paulhoff]

Try Phobos

Doesn't matter, there is no where near the energy in them to mean anything about Mars's rotation.

Learn some real math, and be a big boy and admit you're wrong.

BYE

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

Doesn't matter, there is no where near the energy in them to mean anything about Mars's rotation.

Learn some real math, and be a big boy and admit you're wrong.

BYE

Paul

You don’t need to calculate.
I have done it already
Even though Phobos have a mass 7.000.000 Smaller than our Moon, you can mathematically understand that Phobos is strong enough to cause the rotation of Mars
http://www.science27.com/english/Culcu3.htm

The site is updated to show the result of the new equation...

 

[Paulhoff]

You don’t need to calculate.
I have done it already
Even though Phobos have a mass 7.000.000 Smaller than our Moon, you can mathematically understand that Phobos is strong enough to cause the rotation of Mars
http://www.science27.com/english/Culcu3.htm

The site is updated to show the result of the new equation...

NOPE

I did the math, you are so wrong.

I will be getting no more emails, don't reply.

Paul

 

[Mister Earl]

I'm guessing Bjarne heard about tidal lock from somewhere, and decided to redefine it for some reason.

 

[Bjarne]

NOPE

I did the math, you are so wrong.

I will be getting no more emails, don't reply.

Paul

1. I hav't sent you e-mail
2. You are wrong
3. Prove the math you did
4. In the previous post you wrote you would NOT calculate Phobos
5. Now you wrote you DID

 

[Bjarne]

Use this equation to calculate the KE "lost" / transfer from our Moon and phobos to their mother planets

The equation; (4 * KE / t) must be used to calculate how much KE are "lost" per orbit.
The equation; (4 * KE / t^2) must be used to calculate how much KE are "lost" per Second.

The result is HERE >> http://www.science27.com/english/Culcu3.htm

 

[Toke]

I am not sure if it was this tread or not, but it was once determined that if your ideas of resistance is applied to a particle accelerator there would be an unaccounted for energy loss on the order of an European blackout.

 

[phunk]

Bjarne, trucks driving in circles and bulls on ropes are not orbits. They're not even analogous to orbits. You fail at making whatever point you're trying to make.

And by the way, 4*KE/t is not an equation, and you can't solve for KE. Hint: An equation has an equals sign.

 

[dafydd]

I am not sure if it was this tread or not, but it was once determined that if your ideas of resistance is applied to a particle accelerator there would be an unaccounted for energy loss on the order of an European blackout.

Bjarne doesn't let minor points like that bother him.Bulls on ropes equal planets in orbit in his fantasy world.

 

[Bjarne]

I am not sure if it was this tread or not, but it was once determined that if your ideas of resistance is applied to a particle accelerator there would be an unaccounted for energy loss on the order of an European blackout.

Particles in motion creates a magnetic field
THIS is the trace of resistance against motion
If the speed is huge, the MF is proportional stronger

 

[erlando]

Particles in motion creates a magnetic field

No. Even more accurately: Hell, no!

 

[Tim Thompson]

Phobos, Tides and Resistance to Motion

Use this equation to calculate the KE "lost" / transfer from our Moon and phobos to their mother planets ...

Oops. Phobos is not losing kinetic energy, it is gaining kinetic energy, and will eventually slam into Mars at full tilt. Unlike our moon, which is currently moving away from Earth at about 3.82±0.07 cm/year (Dickey, et al., 1994), Phobos approaches Mars at about 18.3 cm/year (e.g., Sharma, 2008). By applying straightforward dynamics, we arrive at Phobos arriving at Mars in roughly 11,000,000 years (somewhat faster than the previously estimated 50,000,000 years, at least according to Sharma).

Kinetic energy is not lost but converted , ...

There is a transfer of energy between a moon and its primary as a result of tidal forces, but this transfer is a direct result of the fact that both satellites and primaries in the real universe are both deformable and physically extended objects (i.e., they are not geometric points). See my short discussion of the topic for the Earth-Moon system here: The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System, 1999 or see Solar System Dynamics by Murray & Dermott (Cambridge University Press, 1999 & 2001 for a more detailed mathematical & physical analysis).

Earth spins on its axis faster than the moon orbits Earth. As a result, Earth pulls the moon from in front, whipping it so that it would go faster if it remained at a fixed distance from Earth. But the moon is not so constrained, and as a result of the transfer of energy from Earth to the moon, it moves into a higher orbit with a lower velocity, and therefore less kinetic energy, but rather more potential energy, with an overall gain in energy.

But Phobos is the only moon in the solar system (as far as I know) which is so close to its primary that it orbits Mars with a period that is less than the spin period of Mars on its axis; i.e., a "month" for Phobos (7.65 hours) is less than a "day" on Mars (24.63 hours). Hence, Mars pulls Phobos from behind, not in front, and so tends to slow it down. The transfer of energy is from Phobos to Mars, opposite from the transfer of energy from Earth to the moon. So Phobos would slow down if it remained at a fixed distance. But Phobos is not so constrained and drops into a lower energy orbit closer to Mars, where it must move faster. So Phobos gains kinetic energy but loses potential energy, with an overall loss of energy.

The idea that there could be any natural resistance to motion, in the absence of friction, was disposed of by Isaac Newton several hundred years ago, which I assume has already been mentioned more than once in a thread this long. Anyone who wants to argue that Isaac Newton was wrong is welcome to give it a shot. But Newton has a pretty good track record for brains, and while he might be wrong here and there, don't count on anything quite that obvious. After all, it took 218 years and Albert Einstein to make the rather small correction from Newtonian gravity to special relativity. And we are definitely not dealing with Albert Einstein on this thread.