Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

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.

The gravitational attraction (or the connection) can be compared to the string between the cowboy and the bull.
This it self is not resistance, but only a connection between to bodies.
So you haven’t explained where the resistance comes from that keep the moon in orbit.
Resistance = energy consumption.
So simple is that.
So you also must explain where the energy comes from to etablish the resistance and prevent the moon to escape.

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.

No I am only claiming that 4 times so much energy PER ORBIT as presented by the KE of the objects speed MUST be converted to resistance, otherwise the orbit will not work. BUT you can not see that energy being deducted or added.

If this not was so nothing would be in orbit.

 

[tusenfem]

The gravitational attraction (or the connection) can be compared to the string between the cowboy and the bull.
This it self is not resistance, but only a connection between to bodies.
So you haven’t explained where the resistance comes from that keep the moon in orbit.
Resistance = energy consumption.
So simple is that.
So you also must explain where the energy comes from to etablish the resistance and prevent the moon to escape.

there is no reBistance
there is no missing KE that we cannot see
Earth and moon pull at eachother, don't forget that the Earth does not remain at its place, but the two are revolving around their barycentre, guess the Earth gets reBistanced too.
I see the general ATM woo lack of interest of explaining why an obviously wrong equaBion should be used.
This whole notion is absurd.

 

[dafydd]

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.


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).

You are wasting your time,Bjarne will not understand a word of that.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne wrote
IF THE SHOWN EQUATION IS WRONG – SHOW US THE RIGHT?
Tusenfem wrote
Well for one the energy lost per second is, assuming your magnical energy is correct 4KE/t and not t^2

I agree that this is able to confuse.
Two equation have been combined to one.
Using 4*Ke divided with time makes it possible to compare the energy of a orbiting object with that as (per orbit-time) is transferred to the "brake-system" (resistance system) : the Earth rotation.
So far this is only proportional calculation.

Now you can again divide with time to find the energy transfer per second.
The result will be correct and thta's why you get t^2
The problem is only you did not understood the proportional calculation in the first place.

 

[Bjarne]

there is no reBistance
there is no missing KE that we cannot see
Earth and moon pull at eachother, don't forget that the Earth does not remain at its place, but the two are revolving around their barycentre, guess the Earth gets reBistanced too.
I see the general ATM woo lack of interest of explaining why an obviously wrong equaBion should be used.
This whole notion is absurd.

This misunderstanding is build on the stupid idea what you wrote quote below:

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

This is the same as I would claim:
that all it need to keep the bull in orbit is a 10 meter robe, not even to tight the robe to something strong that is able to resist the force of the bull, as for example a horse/cowboy.

Such claim without any ground connection is in fact absurd.

A bull would immediately understand such stupid idea, - and escape the cowboy, simple because a bull know that a robe is only a robe, NOT resistance.

The quote: "gravitational attraction" ONLY and I repeat ONLY tells you how strong the "rope" is. Nothing more.
It doesn’t force anything to move in orbit, but only tries to pulls the Moon exactly downwards. Nothing more than this.

Or in other words it does in no way counteract the inertia, - resistance against motion in an orbit.

For the end of the robe you MUST have resistance...

For the end of the ""gravitational attraction" - connection you MUST also have resistance

 

[ArcturusA]

This is the same as I would claim:
that all it need to keep the bull in orbit is a 10 meter robe, not even to tight the robe to something, as for example a horse/cowboy.

If the rope isn't tight, there is no tension force, and it's even less analogous to the Earth/Moon system. So no, it's not the same. Not in the slightest.

Such claim without any ground connection is in fact absurd.

A bull would immediately understand such stupid idea, - and escape the cowboy.

Wait...what?
You can't honestly be trying to say gravity can't attract things if there isn't a physical connection. Surely not.

The quote: "gravitational attraction" ONLY and I repeat ONLY tells you how strong the "rope" is. Nothing more.
It doesn’t force anything to move in orbit, but only tries to pulls the Moon exactly downwards. Nothing more than this.

Or in other words it does in no way counteract the inertia, - resistance against motion in a orbit.

It tells you how strong the tension force from the rope is, not the strength of the rope.
But otherwise...yes. That's right, ignoring tidal effects. And since there is no such thing as resistance as motion, it's not a problem that gravity can't do anything about such a mysterious force.

 

[Bjarne]

If the rope isn't tight, there is no tension force, and it's even less analogous to the Earth/Moon system. So no, it's not the same. Not in the slightest

It is not enough to tie the robe to a cowboy and a bull.
The cowboy MUST be strong enough to resist the pull of the bull.
It is NOT enough the robe is strong.

Wait...what?
You can't honestly be trying to say gravity can't attract things if there isn't a physical connection. Surely not.

This is also not what I am saying.

It tells you how strong the tension force from the rope is, not the strength of the rope.

Now imaging you have tied the robe to Phobos and Mars, - should Mars not rotate with the same speed as the orbit speed of Phobos now ?
OR – What really do you think the “gravitational attraction does”

At least, the gravitational attraction alone does in no way force a moon into a orbit

IN NO WAY

The Moons pulls the planets rotation, therefore the moons also "feels" the resistance against rotation motion of the planet, and this is why the moons deliver exactly that amount of energy to the planet that is necessary to it can keep orbiting.

If Our Moon was the double size it would cause the Earth to rotate much faster.
And if the moon was smaller the earth would rotate less.
In this way the moons automatically pays the price for getting the necessary resistance against motion that ALWAYS is necessary to keep in an orbit.

Therefore when a fast moving objects comes close to the Earth, it will fell less resistance against it own motion, than we believe it “should have” (close to the Earth) and of that reason it will be faster as expected.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html
------

 

[tusenfem]

I agree that this is able to confuse.
Two equation have been combined to one.
Using 4*Ke divided with time makes it possible to compare the energy of a orbiting object with that as (per orbit-time) is transferred to the "brake-system" (resistance system) : the Earth rotation.
So far this is only proportional calculation.

Now you can again divide with time to find the energy transfer per second.
The result will be correct and thta's why you get t^2
The problem is only you did not understood the proportional calculation in the first place.

Welcome to bjarmathics.
Against so much weirdness nothing helps.

 

[tusenfem]

It is not enough to tie the robe to a cowboy and a bull.
The cowboy MUST be strong enough to resist the pull of the bull.
It is NOT enough the robe is strong.

Must be a drag-queen cowboy, flashing his robe.

 

[Ziggurat]

If Our Moon was the double size it would cause the Earth to rotate much faster.
And if the moon was smaller the earth would rotate less.

Nope. The moon is slowing the rotation of the earth through tidal drag. It would slow the rotation of the earth more if the moon was larger, and less if the moon was smaller.

But I don't know why I'm bothering to tell you this. You can't even keep your dimensions straight. And any equation which produces the wrong units is obviously wrong.

 

[Bjarne]

Nope. The moon is slowing the rotation of the earth through tidal drag. It would slow the rotation of the earth more if the moon was larger, and less if the moon was smaller.

Right the slowing rotation (due to tidal) allready happens and will continue to do so also even though a bigger Moon, would cause a bigger drag in the Earth rotation.

If one more Moon suddenly would be catch, the Earth would accelerate its rotation speed for short period, and then again have a stable (but faster rotation) , this do not contradict that the tidal effect also affects us and always will.

You can put a bigger engine in you car. This does not guarantee that you not will forget to release you handbrake completely.

 

[Reality Check]

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

 

[tusenfem]

Wow, you can't get this stuff at the improv!

If Our Moon was the double size it would cause the Earth to rotate much faster.
And if the moon was smaller the earth would rotate less.

Nope. The moon is slowing the rotation of the earth through tidal drag. It would slow the rotation of the earth more if the moon was larger, and less if the moon was smaller.

Right the slowing rotation (due to tidal) allready happens and will continue to do so also even though a bigger Moon, would cause a bigger drag in the Earth rotation.

If one more Moon suddenly would be catch, the Earth would accelerate its rotation speed for short period, and then again have a stable (but faster rotation) , this do not contradict that the tidal effect also affects us and always will.

So bigger moon would let Earth rotate faster
Oh no, bigger drag, so slower
But if there would be captured another bigger moon then ......

Talking about moving goal posts!

Now, I would like to see some evidence that the Earth would spin up if it would catch another (bigger) moon.

Not that I expect anything but gibberish.

 

[Bjarne]

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

Imaging you were floating in space with a stone (85 kilo) stone orbiting around you thump

• Would you not Feel anything in you thump?
• Would it not pull your thump ?
• Would the stone not try to break you thump ?
• Would a string not thicker like a hair bee enought ?
• Would the stone just keep orbiting without to lose any energy, - for ever ?.
• Would you also be able to keep the Moon in orbit around you tump ?
• If not you could keep the Moon in orbit, telll me please excactly why not ?

• How do you think this fit with the fact that you MUST use energy to get a super tanker, a concrete truck or a bull to change its path?
  
• Where does the stone tied to you thump get that energy from, to change its path?
  
• Can you not see this contradict the logical inertia teaching?

 

[Reality Check]

Answers below

Imaging you were floating in space with a stone (85 kilo) stone orbiting around you thump

• Would you not Feel anything in you thump? Your thumb will be pulled and you might feel it - Newtons laws.
• Would it not pull your thump ? Your thumb will be pulled - Newtons laws.
• Would the stone not try to break you thump ? Yes, your thumb will be pulled - Newtons laws.
• Would a string not thicker like a hair bee enought ? Gibberish
• Would the stone just keep orbiting without to lose any energy, - for ever ?. Yes
• Would you also be able to keep the Moon in orbit around you tump ? Yes but given the mass difference the orbot would be thumb around Moon.
• If not you could keep the Moon in orbit, telll me please excactly of why not ?
• How do you think this fit with the fact that you MUST use energy to get a super tanker, a concrete truck or a bull to change its path?
  Your ignorance of physics?
  Force MUST be used to to get a super tanker, a concrete truck or a bull to change its path. Energy is expended.
• Where does the stone tied to you thump get that energy from, to change its path? The stone is not tied to anything. The force of gravity changes its path.
  
• Can you not see this contradict the logical inertia teaching?
  Can you not see that this supports ths logical physics teaching.

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

 

[Ziggurat]

Would you not Feel anything in you thump?

No. My thump is nump.

 

[Skamandros]

number 1 is light energey
number 2 is gravity energey
number 3 is dark energey

just like big bang all are of the tree.

matter is protons, neurons and elecrons just like the tree of big bang.

 

[dafydd]

But I don't know why I'm bothering to tell you this.

Neither do I,but I admire your patience.

 

[dafydd]

number 1 is light energey
number 2 is gravity energey
number 3 is dark energey

just like big bang all are of the tree.

matter is protons, neurons and elecrons just like the tree of big bang.

You've mastered Bjarnespeak!

 

[Paulhoff]

For the others here that can think.

Newtonian Gravity is scalable. What do I mean be that? You can scale any system, like the earth and moon, to any size and it still works like the original.

Water is not scalable, water drops can't be any size you want them to be, this is a big problem when making miniatures ships look like the real thing moving thru water, also the waves made by the miniatures are not to scale for the speed of the miniature going thru the water. Water, air and many other things act differently at different scales.

If you make a miniature earth of the same destiny as the earth, and a miniature moon of the same destiny as the moon and scale the distances between them and the scale the speed of the moon it will work the same as the original. For instance, make a miniature earth a foot in diameter and the moon whatever size it is in inches at that scale. Put that miniature moon out the scale distance from the miniature earth. Put that system out in space so nothing else would affect it to any degree. Move the moon to the scale orbital speed and the right direction, and it will orbit the scale earth in the same period of time that the real one does, in about 27.3 days.

Paul