Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[ArcturusA]

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

If you're saying that the KE lost per orbit is equal to (4*KE)/t etc., then I hate to break it to you, but that equation is completely and utterly wrong, and anyone familiar with high school physics would realise that without even seeing a derivation.

Your equation (4*KE/t) has dimensions of power, not energy. Therefore it is wrong.

Your equation (4*KE./t^2) has dimensions of power/time, not power. Therefore it is wrong.

Try again.

 

[erlando]

Tim, for your own sake - don't try to reason with Bjarne. He cannot be reached.

 

[Bjarne]

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).

I am not speaking about deceleration.
But that orbiting objects are receiving energy from gravity.
You don’t see the energy supply - but based on a deeper understanding of the principle behind orbit motion you can calculate it and conclude such supply MUST take place.

The energy constantly received from gravity is used to pull the mother planet (or star) until at certain resistance against rotation speed is reached.
You can compare this with driven a car with the handbrake not completely released.
So long there is enery supply from the engine you will maybe not disover anything, and you'll also not decelerate.

From a superficial perspective you can easy conclude that what’s goes up comes down and hence that there is a nice energy balance.

But already when asking the simple question; where the gravity potential energy is at apogee, you have a problem to point to it, or understand what it really is, since it appears to be nothing at all.

But yes there is a perfect balance, and the reason for this is that the orbiting object simply always converts the entire surplus KE to rotation speed and thereby to rotation resistance.

Therefore you’ll only see: "energy balance" and not that all orbiting objects always move with a not completely released handbrake.

If you suddenly should release that handbrake, the moon would quickly escape its orbit

We believe that resistance against motion suddenly disappears out in the big nowhere when constant speed is reached. This is not true.

The reason to that we believe this is only that we haven’t understood that gravity transfer energy to orbiting objects , and this always is used (solo or collective) to overcome motion resistance. – The rotation speed of a planet or a star reveals and fits with that model, - you easy can test it mathematical (4*KE/t^2)

If you want to follow the energy trace further, read this chapter > http://www.science27.com/english/magnetism.html

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).

Yes there is a decelerating “lost” of KE to the tidal force, but much weaker than the KE “lost” necessary to keep the moon in orbit, and hence the “lost” to resistance against the Earth rotation.

We look at the planets and moons and don’t see the fact that for example the Moon MUST have resistance to be able to keep orbiting.

Further we have no idea what this resistance is and why the energy used to that doesn’t “seems” to leave any trace.

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.

This is also true, but the effect is much weaker than the pull of the Moon, because you’ll only have an effect due to tidal or for example mountains.

To get the right proportions compared to what I claim, - try to calculate the KE involved.
There are several (small and larger) influences, for example also when planets passing by each other

Read for example what causes Venus retrograde orbit:
http://www.science27.com/english/the_space_wind.html

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.

Right
Also this is not a contradiction.
All objects in the solar system affect each other in many ways.

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.

“Friction” is in my universe a little clumsy expression.
We have no idea how matter and space is connected.
It is difficult even to imaging what “the curvature” of space really is.
Considering that matter consumes / stretch space should be easy, since we already know that such stretching space property exist (the expansive universe).
An “elastic stretching property” automatically tell us that space must resist motion of a object, naturally ALSO by constant speed.

If you're saying that the KE lost per orbit is equal to (4*KE)/t etc., then I hate to break it to you, but that equation is completely and utterly wrong, and anyone familiar with high school physics would realise that without even seeing a derivation.

Your equation (4*KE/t) has dimensions of power, not energy. Therefore it is wrong.

No the equation reflect energy in this direction > is the opposite as energy in this < direction.

Your equation (4*KE./t^2) has dimensions of power/time, not power. Therefore it is wrong.

No
You can calculate the energy required to do an opposite job.
Like the energy of the two cows with a robe between walking opposite directions.

Therefore the equation is right.

 

[Reality Check]

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads

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

1. "Bended space is Contracted Space"
   Curved space is not contracted space
   First Asked 11 November 2009
2. 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 !
3. 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
4. Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
   First asked 26 November 2009
5. Can Bjarne understand that the force of gravity is not constant within a solid sphere?
   First asked 26 October 2009
6. Can Bjarne understand the physics behind orbital resonances?
   First asked 3 December 2009
   So far the answer is no !
7. Does Bjarne understand orbital mechanics?
   First asked 3 December 2009.
   So far the answer is no !
8. Can Bjarne understand that energy is not a force and cannot "equalize" a force?
   First asked 9 December 2009 So far the answer is no !
   
   You can expend energy to create a force to equalize a force as a hovering helicopter does. But the simple facts are:
   • Forces are vectors but energy is a number.
   • The SI units of force are Newtons but the SI units of energy is Joules.
9. Bjarne asks what a particle is!
10. His simplistic knowledge of physis is betrayed by his delusion that since the force of gravity varies as 1/r^2 (e.g. a factor of 4 when r doubles) then the "speed factor “should” hence have been factor 4 as well" (plust other silly previous posts).
    The Basics of Space Flight: Circular Orbital Motion shows clearly that the mean orbital speed of objects should vary that the inverse of the square root of r. The fact that objects actually act like this in the real universe shocks Bjarne!
11. More of Bjarne's ignorance of simple physics (circular motion).
12. Bjarne asks "( What is ”radian” ? – 1 orbit)"
13. Bjarne does not understand that gravitational time dialation has been measured and matches GR. It is not "guessing".
14. Bjarne's ignorance of GR
15. Bjarne's ignorance of the electromagnetic spectrum and geometry
16. Please show your calculations that the Domus Vista data is too inaccurate to test your idea
17. What calculations did you do to show your cylinder data will be acurrate?
18. 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 !

And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):

• Does Bjarne know that the Lorentz factor does not have any units of measurement?
  First asked 22 November 2009
• Does Bjarne think that the Lorentz factor is measured in kilograms?
  First asked 23 November 2009
• Why does relativistic mass have the units of mass
  First asked 23 November 2009

 

[Reality Check]

Energy is a number not a vector

No the equation reflect energy in this direction > is the opposite as energy in this < direction.

Another bit of ignorance, Bjarne:

Energy is a number not a vector. It has no direction.
​

 

[Reality Check]

Another display of Bjarne's lack of knowledge of units of measurement

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.

Your usual ignorance of units: KE has units of energy.

• (4 * KE / t) does not have units of energy.
• (4 * KE / t^2) does not have units of energy.

 

[Reality Check]

An example of Bjarne lack of knowledge of mathematics

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.
[/quote]
First asked 25 May 2010
Bjarne,

• What is t in these "equations"?
• How did you derive these equations?

You have made the basic mistake of not stating your terms.
You have made the basic mistake of showing the derivation of your "equations".

The biggest mistake is linking to a totally insane crackpot web site !

 

[Tim Thompson]

Tides & Resistance to Orbital Motion

Tim, for your own sake - don't try to reason with Bjarne. He cannot be reached.

Oh, I know that. I have quite a few years worth of experience dealing with the Bjarne's of the world. He's not much different that Michael Mozina in his several threads. All bluff. I only do this for the lurkers & interested readers. It may not be common knowledge that Phobos is on the way in.

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

I looked at the linked webpage. I found Gibberish. A bunch of numbers in a table that seem to have no relation to one another and no "derivation" of any equation to be found. The latter is not surprising, since as has already been pointed out, the equations are dimensionally incorrect and therefore impossible. Besides, we already know what the rate of loss of kinetic energy will always be under any circumstances you can imagine: d/dt [(1/2)(mv²)] which is not consistent with the equations you wrote. So bluff all you like, but you lose & physics wins. The equations cannot be correct.

But already when asking the simple question; where the gravity potential energy is at apogee, you have a problem to point to it, or understand what it really is, since it appears to be nothing at all.

The gravitational potential energy is (-GM_moonM_planet)/r and that will never be zero unless one of the M's is zero or r becomes infinity. Now, we often set arbitrary zero levels for potential energy in Earth-based experiments, where the potential energy simply becomes mgh and we can use h ("height") to set an arbitrary zero height and therefore an arbitrary zero potential. But that does not work in orbital motion applications. The potential energy in orbit cannot ever be zero, so where you get "since it appears to be nothing at all" is quite a mystery to us all.

We believe that resistance against motion suddenly disappears out in the big nowhere when constant speed is reached. This is not true.

Nice Aristotelian reasoning. But like I said before, Newton officially set that kind of thinking aside over 300 years ago, and Galileo was doing a number on it even before that. It's not enough for you, or anyone else, to think that we must all believe whatever you say just because you say it. Claims require evidence, and extraordinary claims require equally extraordinary evidence. Random numbers on a random webpage won't do the job. Real numbers with real meaning are required. If you think there is "resistance to motion" in any pure sense you need to prove it, which you have very much not done yet.

Further we have no idea what this resistance is and why the energy used to that doesn’t “seems” to leave any trace.

So you are sure there is "resistance", but you don't know what it is. And you are sure there is "resistance", but it does not show up if you as energy anywhere? Is that what you mean? Are you suggesting that energy is not conserved? Or maybe there is "missing energy" somewhere? What are you trying to say? This does not inspire confidence. On the other hand, we already know there is no missing energy and we can account for all the energy in the usual physics of tides. Tidal dissipation of energy is the only "resistance to motion" there is, in the absence of atmospheric drag on low Earth orbiting satellites.

Read for example what causes Venus retrograde orbit:
http://www.science27.com/english/the_space_wind.html

This page claims " ... it is mainly the angular momentum of Earth and Jupiter that is responsible for Venus retrograde rotation." Sorry, but we already know that is not true. You make the claim, but support it with no physical explanation. Tidal interactions and the exchange of momentum are quantitative topics. If in fact Earth & Jupiter are responsible for the retrograde spin of Venus (the planet orbits the sun prograde, but spins retrograde), that can be directly calculated, though it is not a simple task. Nobody is going to believe you, and nobody should, unless you are prepared to show an explicit tidal calculation. I have in my library a 1904 edition of The Collected Mathematical Works of George William Hill". Already in the late 1800's he was able to compute the 1st & 2nd order perturbations of the orbits of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus & Neptune on each other; remember, there were no computers at that time, so Hill would have had only slide rules, pencil & paper to work with. If he can do it, so can you.

While we don't know where the retrograde spin of Venus comes from, we do know that it is consistent with either a collision even early in the planetary formation stage (e.g., Dormand & McCue, 1987) or the long term effects of solar tides and/or atmospheric torque (e.g., McCue & Dormand, 1993).

I did not follow the early thread to find out what any of this has to do with dark energy, which is in the thread title. However, judging from Bjarne's serious failure to understand simple solar system gravity, I would not expect any improvement on cosmological topics.

 

[Bjarne]

Energy is a number not a vector. It has no direction.

Cow A eat grass and get energy to walk to the left
Cow B eat grass and get energy to walk to the right
The energy responsible for the force of cow A and B equalize each other if you connect the 2 cows with a robe.

What is t in these "equations"?

Time in second

How did you derive these equations?

Simple logic, like demonstrated with the 2 cow example.
IF you again don’t like this, show me the right equation SIR, because I HOPE you do not deny that their is a KE" lost" for an object in an orbit.
Now SIR show us how the calculate this KE "lost" (with Unit J)

The Concrete truck will ONLY get round in the round about IF there is friction / resistance, so will the cow, and so will the Moon and the Earth.

Besides, we already know what the rate of loss of kinetic energy will always be under any circumstances you can imagine: d/dt [(1/2)(mv2)] which is not consistent with the equations you wrote. So bluff all you like, but you lose & physics wins. The equations cannot be correct.

The equations [(1/2)(mv2)] only tell you the KE relative to speed of a object.
But you have no equations to calculate how fast the resistance against motion will cause a object to decelerate.
Hence there can’t be any contradiction to the prevailing physics.

If you (or RC) believe the equations I have used to calculate: deceleration caused by resistance against motion, show me the right one.

Off course it is more comfortable just to deny that there are such resistance (also by acceleration) and then just export the whole missing understanding of what lies behind to the : fourth dimensional junkyard.
And this is the lazy solution that has been chosen.
Nothing I can do about it, except protesting and claim this is lazy stupid incoherent ridiculous physic.

The gravitational potential energy is………………

This is not a question, but only that you can’t point to that energy, and hence in fact you don’t know what you really are talking about, except that the stone will fall down on earth. Cows know that too.

It's not enough for you, or anyone else, to think that we must all believe whatever you say just because you say it.

We KNOW it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. Hence we also know there is resistance against motion (in the acceleration phase) the day you truly understands the gravity-orbit mechanism and the fact that:
NO ORBIT IS POSSIBLE UNLESS THERE IS RESITANCE,
that day will you also understand that:
THERE ARE NO RESONS TO CLAIM THAT RESISTANCE AGIANST MOTION ONLY APPLIES FOR THE ACCELRATION PERIOD AND NOT FOR THE MOTION WITH CONSTANT SPEED. THIS IS BULLS…T

So you are sure there is "resistance", but you don't know what it is.

I think it have no sense to continue discussion with you unless you READ the text in the previous post AGAIN:
“Friction” is in my universe a little clumsy expression.
We have no idea how matter and space is connected.
It is difficult even to imaging what “the curvature” of space really is.
Considering that matter consumes / stretch space should be easy, since we already know that such stretching space property exist (the expansive universe).
An “elastic stretching property” automatically tell us that space must resist motion of a object, naturally ALSO by constant speed.

And you are sure there is "resistance", but it does not show up if you as energy anywhere?

No but like deceleration if not for example gravity compensates.

Are you suggesting that energy is not conserved?

Have you honestly read more like 0.00000000000000001 % of what I have written?
If you really want to understand the point PLEASE read some of the previously post. It seems you have just dumped down from the Moon and wonder where you are.

This page claims " ... it is mainly the angular momentum of Earth and Jupiter that is responsible for Venus retrograde rotation." Sorry, but we already know that is not true

I can guarantee you it is
Exactly like it is true that a bull can not orbit without resistance.

 

[tusenfem]

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.

What is t in these "equations"?

Time in second

Wow, this could almost be HD physics!

Let's see, there is kinetic energy KE (assuming it is real energy in Joules)

Then the kinetic energy "lost" per orbit is 4*KE/t, where I assume t is the time it takes to make one orbit.

Now, does that make sense? No, not really, because you have kinetic energy (and four times that) and then you divide (!) by the time interval. If anything you have then the kinetic energy that is lost per second.

However, one may assume that the factor 4 is important and that 4 is actually a special number that combines all kinds of magical factors and is relative to the orbital period squared, so cst. * t_orb². Now, ofcourse this could be related to the surface of the ellipse of the orbit of the moon somehow, EUREKA!!.

MMM, guess I am getting as crazy as Bjarne now.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Cow A eat grass and get energy to walk to the left
Cow B eat grass and get energy to walk to the right
The energy responsible for the force of cow A and B equalize each other if you connect the 2 cows with a robe.

Simple logic, like demonstrated with the 2 cow example.

Normally I'd say you can't make up this stuff, but Bjarne did.

IF you again don’t like this, show me the right equation SIR, because I HOPE you do not deny that their is a KE" lost" for an object in an orbit.

Happy to disappoint you, sir. Two objects orbiting each other in a vacuum, with circular orbits, do not lose kinetic energy. (With elliptical orbits, there is conversion back and forth between kinetic and potential energy, but you should make an effort to understand the simpler case first before we go on.)

Off course it is more comfortable just to deny that there are such resistance (also by acceleration) and then just export the whole missing understanding of what lies behind to the : fourth dimensional junkyard.
And this is the lazy solution that has been chosen.
Nothing I can do about it, except protesting and claim this is lazy stupid incoherent ridiculous physic.

That's comforting.

I think it have no sense to continue discussion with you unless you READ the text in the previous post AGAIN:
“Friction” is in my universe a little clumsy expression.
We have no idea how matter and space is connected.

[latex]
$$
R_{\mu\nu} - \frac{R}{2}g_{\mu\nu} + \Lambda g_{\mu\nu}
& = & 8 \pi T_{\mu\nu}
$$
[/latex]

It is difficult even to imaging what “the curvature” of space really is.

Yes, but whether the universe cares about your imagination remains an open question.

Have you honestly read more like 0.00000000000000001 % of what I have written?
If you really want to understand the point PLEASE read some of the previously post. It seems you have just dumped down from the Moon and wonder where you are.

Yes, that's exactly what I was wondering.

 

[Reality Check]

Yet another example of Bjarne's lack of knowledge of mathematics and physics

Bjarne, you answered the following question

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.

First asked 25 May 2010



Bjarne,

• What is t in these "equations"?
• How did you derive these equations?

You have made the basic mistake of not stating your terms.

You have made the basic mistake of showing the derivation of your "equations".

The biggest mistake is linking to a totally insane crackpot web site !

with:

Time in second
Simple logic, like demonstrated with the 2 cow example.

This is yet another example of your lack of knowledge of mathematics and physics. You have stated that:

• (4 * KE / t) is an energy when it is actually an energy divided by time.
• (4 * KE / t^2) is an energy when it is actually an energy divided by time^2.

I could take pity on your obvious incompetence and assume that what you mean in the first "equation" is that that Moon loses 4 * KE (its total kinetic energy) per orbit. But then the moon stops in its tracks in in 1/4 of an orbit !

I could take pity on your obvious incompetence and assume that what you mean in the second "equation" is that that Moon loses 4 * KE (its total kinetic energy) per second (and ignore the idiotic squaring of time). But then the moon stops in its tracks in in 1/4 of an second !

And as for "simple logic": Wrong yet again !
I asked you how you actually derived these equations.
You cannot answer this and so I assume that you followed your usual pulling them out of thin air process as shown on your web site and every post in this forum.

Simple logic shows that these equations cannot be correct because they have different units of measurement both from each other and from energy.

 

[Reality Check]

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads

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

1. "Bended space is Contracted Space"
   Curved space is not contracted space
   First Asked 11 November 2009
2. 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 !
3. 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
4. Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
   First asked 26 November 2009
5. Can Bjarne understand that the force of gravity is not constant within a solid sphere?
   First asked 26 October 2009
6. Can Bjarne understand the physics behind orbital resonances?
   First asked 3 December 2009
   So far the answer is no !
7. Does Bjarne understand orbital mechanics?
   First asked 3 December 2009.
   So far the answer is no !
8. Can Bjarne understand that energy is not a force and cannot "equalize" a force?
   First asked 9 December 2009 So far the answer is no !
   You can expend energy to create a force to equalize a force as a hovering helicopter does. But the simple facts are:
   • Forces are vectors but energy is a number.
   • The SI units of force are Newtons but the SI units of energy is Joules.
9. Bjarne asks what a particle is!
10. His simplistic knowledge of physis is betrayed by his delusion that since the force of gravity varies as 1/r^2 (e.g. a factor of 4 when r doubles) then the "speed factor “should” hence have been factor 4 as well" (plust other silly previous posts).
    The Basics of Space Flight: Circular Orbital Motion shows clearly that the mean orbital speed of objects should vary that the inverse of the square root of r. The fact that objects actually act like this in the real universe shocks Bjarne!
11. More of Bjarne's ignorance of simple physics (circular motion).
12. Bjarne asks "( What is ”radian” ? – 1 orbit)"
13. Bjarne does not understand that gravitational time dialation has been measured and matches GR. It is not "guessing".
14. Bjarne's ignorance of GR
15. Bjarne's ignorance of the electromagnetic spectrum and geometry
16. Please show your calculations that the Domus Vista data is too inaccurate to test your idea
17. What calculations did you do to show your cylinder data will be acurrate?
18. 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 !
19. Yet another example of Bjarne's lack of knowledge of mathematics and physics!

And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):

• Does Bjarne know that the Lorentz factor does not have any units of measurement?
  First asked 22 November 2009
• Does Bjarne think that the Lorentz factor is measured in kilograms?
  First asked 23 November 2009
• Why does relativistic mass have the units of mass
  First asked 23 November 2009

 

[Bjarne]

Wow, this could almost be HD physics!

Let's see, there is kinetic energy KE (assuming it is real energy in Joules)

Then the kinetic energy "lost" per orbit is 4*KE/t, where I assume t is the time it takes to make one orbit.

Now, does that make sense? No, not really, because you have kinetic energy (and four times that) and then you divide (!) by the time interval. If anything you have then the kinetic energy that is lost per second.

However, one may assume that the factor 4 is important and that 4 is actually a special number that combines all kinds of magical factors and is relative to the orbital period squared, so cst. * torb2. Now, ofcourse this could be related to the surface of the ellipse of the orbit of the moon somehow, EUREKA!!.

MMM, guess I am getting as crazy as Bjarne now.

Still I do not talk about the KE you can observe, for example the KE represented by the Moons orbit speed 1022 km/s
The purpose of the equation is to show you the KE you can not see. It’s the KE that MUST be transferred to the central rotating body.

Per second that energy is 4KE/t^2 or in other words 2Mv^2/t^2

This equation tells you how much energy you must use to get a super tanker, a concrete truck, the Moon or a cow into orbit.

How the resistance against motion is established, is NOT important. What is important is ONLY the energy it ALWAYS requires to keep a object orbiting

• DO YOU NOT AGREE THAT THERE IS A ENERGY COST TO KEEP AN OBJECT IN ORBIT?
• IF THE SHOWN EQUATION IS WRONG – SHOW US THE RIGHT?
• DO YOU REALLY BELIVE THE MOON IS AN EXCEPTION FROM THIS (INERTIA) LAW OF NATURE?
• IF NOT – HOW- DOES THE EARTH ETABLISH THE RESISTANCE THE MOON NEEDS TO STAY IN ORBIT?]
• AND –TO WHAT KIND OF ENERGY – IS THE TRANSFERED / REQUIRED RESTISTANCE-KE CONVERTED TO ?

 

[ArcturusA]

• DO YOU NOT AGREE THAT THERE IS A ENERGY COST TO KEEP AN OBJECT IN ORBIT?

There is no energy cost to keep an object in orbit.

• IF THE SHOWN EQUATION IS WRONG – SHOW US THE RIGHT?

There is no equation, because there is no energy lost in an orbit.

Your equations are wrong because they are dimensionally incorrect. No amount of arguing or cow logic can change that. They are fundamentally wrong.

• DO YOU REALLY BELIVE THE MOON IS AN EXCEPTION FROM THIS (INERTIA) LAW OF NATURE?

There is no such law of nature, and the Moon is no exception to any of the laws of nature that do exist.

• IF NOT – HOW- DOES THE EARTH ETABLISH THE RESISTANCE THE MOON NEEDS TO STAY IN ORBIT?]

There is no resistance required to keep the Moon in orbit.
Circular motion requires only a centripetal force. For your bull, it's the tension in the rope. For your truck, it's the component of friction (and/or weight if on a banked turn) towards the centre of the turning circle. For the Moon, it's Earth's gravity. Nothing else is needed.

• AND –TO WHAT KIND OF ENERGY – IS THE TRANSFERED / REQUIRED RESTISTANCE-KE CONVERTED TO ?

In a circular orbit, no KE is lost.
In an elliptical orbit, KE is converted to gravitational potential energy and back again over the course of a full orbit.

---

Simple enough for you, Bjarne?

 

[tusenfem]

Still I do not talk about the KE you can observe, for example the KE represented by the Moons orbit speed 1022 km/s
The purpose of the equation is to show you the KE you can not see. It’s the KE that MUST be transferred to the central rotating body.

Per second that energy is 4KE/t^2 or in other words 2Mv^2/t^2

This equation tells you how much energy you must use to get a super tanker, a concrete truck, the Moon or a cow into orbit.

This is utter bunk, Bjarne, have you ever done a dimensional analysis? Let me do it for you energy per second, that would be Joules per second, right?

Now take your equabion (can't really call it an equation)

2 M v² / t² gives units of:
kg m² s^-2 s^-2 which is:
kg m² s^-4
Now a Joule is in units: kg m² s^-2The loss per second would be: kg m² s^-3
So, your equabion is wrong by one unit of seconds! Or are you redefining the Joule for some reason or other?

How the resistance against motion is established, is NOT important. What is important is ONLY the energy it ALWAYS requires to keep a object orbiting

I don't care for your imaginary friend Rebistance, I am just noting that your equations are wrong, as several peeps have already told you. Well, nothing wrong to stand by your argument, the Titanic was also unsinkable.

• DO YOU NOT AGREE THAT THERE IS A ENERGY COST TO KEEP AN OBJECT IN ORBIT? NO
• IF THE SHOWN EQUATION IS WRONG – SHOW US THE RIGHT? Well for one the energy lost per second is, assuming your magnical energy is correct 4KE/t and not t²
• DO YOU REALLY BELIVE THE MOON IS AN EXCEPTION FROM THIS (INERTIA) LAW OF NATURE? NO, but your description of the moon's behaviour is bunk.
• IF NOT – HOW- DOES THE EARTH ETABLISH THE RESISTANCE THE MOON NEEDS TO STAY IN ORBIT?] The "rebistance" is called gravitational attraction, that is the main force working on the moon, which pulls perpedicular to the orbital velocity of the moon, thus it does no work. In a Keplerian orbit the orbiting body is in free fall, but missing the Earth all the time.
• AND –TO WHAT KIND OF ENERGY – IS THE TRANSFERED / REQUIRED RESTISTANCE-KE CONVERTED TO ? Which energy must be transferred? Gravity does no work on the orbiting body. You apparently know nothing about classical mechanics. Read a introductory physics book.

 

[Bjarne]

Two objects orbiting each other in a vacuum, with circular orbits, do not lose kinetic energy.

Right, but we do not talk about the parts of KE that is left.
But about the parts that already is transferred / converted.
These parts you can’t see, unless you open you eyes and reliance that it’s used to overcome the Earth resistance against rotation.

I could take pity on your obvious incompetence and assume that what you mean in the first "equation" is that that Moon loses 4 * KE (its total kinetic energy) per orbit. But then the moon stops in its tracks in 1/4 of an orbit

The purpose with the equation is NOT the deduct energy from the present orbit speed, but rather to add the amount of KE an object need to keep orbiting.
That is the amount that already is “lost” converted to resistance.
If a such energy convert to resistance not can be establish the super tanker, the concrete truck and the cow will continue straight ahead, so would the Moon.

Remember the ADG at the surface of the Earth is 4000 times larger than the ADG in the orbit of the Moon, but the speed would only be 8 times larger. Here you’ll find the energy source, - but you cant see it, but only logical understand that the inertia-law for the bull also applies for the Moon.

I asked you how you actually derived these equations
You cannot answer this and so I assume that you followed your usual pulling them out of thin air process as shown on your web site and every post in this forum.

I have done, but I think you have used much too much glue to you anti crackpot glasses today
Tell me can you see the difference between day and night in these glasses?

Simple logic shows that these equations cannot be correct because they have different units of measurement both from each other and from energy.

So you deny that it require energy per second to keep a cow in orbit, hence you properly also denies that the energy bill from your household also counts per time (hour).

 

[Reality Check]

So you deny that it require energy per second to keep a cow in orbit, hence you properly also denies that the energy bill from your household also counts per time (hour).

The simple physics that you are ignorant of is that it does not require any energy to keep any body in orbit.

The idiocy of comparing a energy bill from any household to an object in orbit should be obvious to everyone.

 

[Reality Check]

The purpose with the equation is NOT the deduct energy from the present orbit speed, but rather to add the amount of KE an object need to keep orbiting.

Now you are claiming that the Moon increases its speed by 2 times (and so it kinetic energy by 4 times) every second (or every orbit or both)
That is insane because the Moon does not do this.

The simple physics that you are ignorant of is that it does not require any energy to keep any body in orbit.

But my guess is that you are incompetent in physics, mathematics and English. That "KE" is some weird energy that you are arbitrarily adding just because you cannot understand the real physics involved.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The purpose with the equation is NOT the deduct energy from the present orbit speed, but rather to add the amount of KE an object need to keep orbiting.
That is the amount that already is “lost” converted to resistance.
If a such energy convert to resistance not can be establish the super tanker, the concrete truck and the cow will continue straight ahead, so would the Moon.

Energy is not a force. Energy has no direction.

You appear determined to remain confused; allow me to assist. Consider the field of gravitational potential for two bodies in circular orbits about each other. Unless one of the masses is negligible compared to the other, the equipotentials of the gravitational field will not be circular, yet both masses move in circular orbits about the center of mass. How can that be? The answer has to do with the fact that the gravitational field varies with time because the bodies are in motion. The math is kind of interesting. You should first make some effort to understand the simpler case of circular orbits when one of the masses is negligible compared to the other.

So you deny that it require energy per second to keep a cow in orbit, hence you properly also denies that the energy bill from your household also counts per time (hour).

Energy divided by time is power. Power multiplied by time is energy. You should make an effort to understand that division (e.g. Joules per second) is not the same as multiplication (e.g. kilowatt-hours).