Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

I kinda suspected that might be the case.

If so, then perhaps another type of response, also used in the threads I indirectly referenced, might be, um, interesting.

Take a piece of Bjarne text containing an undefined (or highly idiosyncratic) term, and replace with a semantically equivalent text. Then ask for clarification.

For example: "Some of the energy goes to the asphalt etc..." becomes "Some of the !@!#$$ goes to the asphalt etc...",

and so: "Bjarne, I do not know what you mean by !@!#$$, could you clarify please? Otherwise your sentence is meaningless (to me at least, and I suspect to everyone else reading it too)."

friction = heat
And the dog use its mucles

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I kinda suspected that might be the case.

If so, then perhaps another type of response, also used in the threads I indirectly referenced, might be, um, interesting.

Take a piece of Bjarne text containing an undefined (or highly idiosyncratic) term, and replace with a semantically equivalent text. Then ask for clarification.

For example: "Some of the energy goes to the asphalt etc..." becomes "Some of the !@!#$$ goes to the asphalt etc...",

and so: "Bjarne, I do not know what you mean by !@!#$$, could you clarify please? Otherwise your sentence is meaningless (to me at least, and I suspect to everyone else reading it too)."

friction = heat
And the dog use its mucles

Thanks for the response Bjarne.

I must say that I'm totally mystified by it, however.

You see, I simply outlined a way of trying to work out what you actually mean, one that hasn't (AFAIK) been used here yet.

The example I used involved a text string by you, involving a term which you seem to use in a highly idiosyncratic way, namely energy.

And your response did not use that word!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

friction = heat
And the dog use its mucles

Yes, biological processes generate heat. Yes, the dog generates more heat when it is straining against the leash.

In orbit, however, the dog is unaware of the leash (gravity). It might be puzzled by the absence of gravity, but it won't strain against the absence of gravity, partly because there wouldn't be any preferred direction in which to strain. Hence the dog generates no more heat in orbit than it would if not in orbit; it will generate only the heat needed to keep it alive and amused, which is not really relevant to the physics here.

If that's too hard for you to understand, then you should first attempt to understand the orbital physics of sleeping or dead dogs.

All of this is a derail from DeiRenDopa's point, which was: since your definition of the word "energy" obviously differs from the textbook definition, you need to explain what you mean when you write the word "energy".

 

[Bjarne]

Yes, biological processes generate heat. Yes, the dog generates more heat when it is straining against the leash.

In orbit, however, the dog is unaware of the leash (gravity). It might be puzzled by the absence of gravity, but it won't strain against the absence of gravity, partly because there wouldn't be any preferred direction in which to strain. Hence the dog generates no more heat in orbit than it would if not in orbit; it will generate only the heat needed to keep it alive and amused, which is not really relevant to the physics here.

Since there is no gravity the dog can not get footing hence it also can not use energy.

If that's too hard for you to understand, then you should first attempt to understand the orbital physics of sleeping or dead dogs.

Even a dead dog must follow the rules of inertia, this is step 1. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5969258&postcount=761

All of this is a derail from DeiRenDopa's point, which was: since your definition of the word "energy" obviously differs from the textbook definition, you need to explain what you mean when you write the word "energy".

When I talk about energy, it is KE, and thermal energy due to friction, as well as energy to overcome resistance against motion.
This is not the main point, but rather that; to keep a object in orbit energy must be converted to another kind of energy.
But it can also just be transferred to KE in the other end of the string.
The point is that you MUST have a energy LOST and in space you even MUST create the resistance against motion, to get "footing" for staying in orbit.

A astronomic body must rotate, in order for resistance / "footing" can be established.
If the orbit speed is too low and hence the achived resistance / footing to weak, - > the result is this > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html

Off course a force is not energy.
But energy can create a force (to prevent a orbiting object to move too fast). This is what the Moon need, and this is what its own transfer of KE to the Earth provides.

A force can transfer energy; this is what the force of mass attraction does. .

The discussion we had have the last few days can mainly be simplified to how matter and space is connected. We know matter affects space so we should try to understand a bit more, at least abstract, mathematical.

The problem is that spaces seem to be nothing, this confuses us, and this leads to especially 2 HUGE wrong conclusions.

The day we will be force to accept matter consumes space, (coming soon) this day will bring light to these two historical mistakes.

One consequence is that it is much easier to understand how matter and space is connected. Hence it will also be easy to understand how the mass attraction of the Earth/Moon can pull the Earth rotation. This is easy when we understand that matter sucks space. Space stretching therefore can be used in the same sense as a (elastic) string.

Another consequence of the same simple thought is that; because of matter sucks space is: - deformed space must move when matter moves.
This cans not surprisingly only mean resistance from motion, simply because (deformed elastic) space does not want to move. Hence we are force to realize that of course resistance against motion is permanent; there is no reason to believe something else.

This conclusion will be further emphasizes when we understand and respect the simple fact that the energy lost, when a object is forced to change direction, off course also MUST comprehend motion-direction-change in a orbit. It is silly and lazy and illogical to believe orbits should be an exception from that law.

These simply & pretty innocent corrected errors is enough to understand that energy from orbiting objects MUST be “lost” / transferred / converted also even though we not see it.
The KE represented by the object in motion, is only a small part of the total KE.

As a bonus by accepting these corrected errors, the Pioneer and the gravity assist anomalies solves it self, - and we will begin to understand why planets sometimes are too close or to far from their mother stars.
For example why Jupiter’s atmosphere can’t have been created where Jupiter is now.

But yes there is a small crackpot price to pay, BUT a much more contradictions free Universe in return.

 

[steenkh]

Bjarne thinks that planets in orbit strain to escape in the same way that a rock on a leash strains to escape. The rock that you might swing on a leash is constantly added energy to keep it from being pulled down by the gravity of Earth, and the person who swings the rock do not even remotely have the gravity to keep the rock in orbit. Because of this added energy, the rock tries to shoot away and is checked by the leash.

The dog in a leash is an even worse analogy: it simply has nothing whatsoever to do with orbits.

Because Bjarne is letting himself being seduced by his own faulty imagery, he thinks that this is how gravity and orbits work too.

 

[phunk]

Hrmm let's try a different approach.

Bjarne, will a rotating object, all alone far from anything else out in space, continue to rotate indefinitely or come to a stop?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

When I talk about energy, it is KE, and thermal energy due to friction, as well as energy to overcome resistance against motion.
This is not the main point, but rather that; to keep a object in orbit energy must be converted to another kind of energy.

That is not consistent with the laws of Newtonian orbital mechanics, which have been thoroughly tested, and have passed all those tests up to the point where we must begin to use relativistic physics instead.

Speaking for no one here but myself, I'm happy to assume you haven't the foggiest idea of what you're going on about. DeiRenDopa, however, offered a more charitable interpretation: that you merely misunderstand the standard definitions of words like "energy", and that your theory might contain points of contact with reality if only we could understand what you mean when you write words such as "energy". If you are declining to define your terms, then we might as well substitute noise words for every technical term that appears in your posts.

For example, your post to which I am replying contained text that, so far as I can tell, is semantically equivalent to this:

But it can also just be transferred to ##### in the other end of the string.
The point is that you MUST have a $$$$$ LOST and in space you even MUST create the %%%%% against motion, to get "!?!?!?!?" for staying in orbit.

A astronomic body must rotate, in order for %%%%% / "!?!?!?!?" can be established.
If the orbit &&&&& is too low and hence the achived %%%%% / !?!?!?!? to weak, - > the result is this > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html

Off course a ***** is not $$$$$.
But $$$$$ can create a ***** (to prevent a orbiting object to move too fast). This is what the Moon need, and this is what its own transfer of ##### to the Earth provides.

A ***** can transfer $$$$$; this is what the ***** of mass attraction does.

Guess I get the gist of it

The discussion we had have the last few days can mainly be simplified to how matter and space is connected. We know matter affects space so we should try to understand a bit more, at least abstract, mathematical.

Ah. You're looking for a mathematical relationship, perhaps along the lines of

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

The problem is that spaces seem to be nothing, this confuses us, and this leads to especially 2 HUGE wrong conclusions.

You should take more advantage of opportunities to use first person singular pronouns.

One consequence is that it is much easier to understand how matter and space is connected. Hence it will also be easy to understand how the mass attraction of the Earth/Moon can pull the Earth rotation. This is easy when we understand that matter sucks space. Space stretching therefore can be used in the same sense as a (elastic) string.

Another consequence of the same simple thought is that; because of matter sucks space is: - deformed space must move when matter moves.

It's even worse than it appears

But yes there is a small crackpot price to pay, BUT a much more contradictions free Universe in return.

Cow is giving kerosene
Kid can't read at seventeen
The words he knows are all obscene but
It's all right.

 

[Reality Check]

Crap
5 minutes ago I meet a angry dog
No force without energy was the clear massage
...
So dogsh..t simple

Is it REALLY so difficult to understand ?

PS
The wall was not pulling in the dog, and did not give the dog more energy.
But the dog challenged the EM force in the damn wall and MUST have transferred energy to that damn wall.

Crap
The Moon is not an angry dog ! That is a really stupid analogy Bjarne.

So dogsh..t simple

Is it REALLY so difficult to understand ?

PS
The wall was pulling in the dog, and did not give the dog more energy.
But the dog challenged the EM force in the damn wall and MUST NOT have transferred energy to that damn wall.

 

[Reality Check]

Do you think that a dead cow has no mass and so no gravity

It was a bit of a joke originally but you ignoring it makes me think again so:

• Do you seriously think that a dead cow has no mass and so no gravity?

or is it just a "thump" that no mass and no gravity.
Otherwise I will add it toThe fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads!

​

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne thinks that planets in orbit strain to escape in the same way that a rock on a leash strains to escape.

This is what the inertia teaching tells you..

The dog in a leash is an even worse analogy: it simply has nothing whatsoever to do with orbits.

If the dog was tied to a 2 kilo stone it would drag the stone and transfer energy to the other end of the string, that would be a better example.

Hrmm let's try a different approach.
Bjarne, will a rotating object, all alone far from anything else out in space, continue to rotate indefinitely or come to a stop?

It would not rotate unless if it have something to power it, - for example a orbiting objects or by passing by other objects (planets).
To keep rotating require energy, unless that it will fast stop because of resistance again motion (rotation) also applies for constant speed.

I really don't understand how we totally blind can except that that resistances agiants motion, just "vups" - "should" - disappear out in the blue when constant speed is reach.
Then better believe in this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlLN...A1977EA26&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=1

The Moon is not an angry dog! That is a really stupid analogy Bjarne

The point is only that energy creates a force, and that force can be used to transfer energy, for example rotation energy to planet. You can not deny that.

Do you seriously think that a dead cow has no mass and so no gravity?

Don’t put word in my mouth I haven’t said

I have today done some simple calculation to see how much the Moon decelerate per ½ orbit, - it is 0.000061m/s^2 - but the acceleration due to gravity in that orbit (from the Earth) is 0.0027 m/s^2 (actual 44 times stronger) - This is only a beginning, the moon is in a area where it do not "use" the total pull from the Earth, so far I see it. ( energy must be transfered)

I will in the coming time try to figure if it futher can be mathematical demonstrated that the Moon transfer KE to the earth’s rotation.

Already I have shown that Phobos can be responsible for Mars rotation even though it is 7.000.000 times smaller than our Moon.

This can easy be calculated based on 4KE/t^2

 

[phunk]

It would not rotate unless if it have something to power it, - for example a orbiting objects or by passing by other objects (planets).
To keep rotating require energy, unless that it will fast stop because of resistance again motion (rotation) also applies for constant speed.

Then I suggest you take your equations, and measurements from a pulsar, and go get yourself a Nobel Prize. It should be easy to see them slowing over time at a rate predicted by your formula.

 

[Reality Check]

Do you think that a dead cow has no mass and so no gravity

Don’t put word in my mouth I haven’t said

What you said was:

Originally Posted by Bjarne
CRAP
The thump could be a dead cow
It can't pull anything
So only the rock pulls my dear.

(emphasis added)
You have stated that only the rock pulls my dear.
This means that the thump does not pull my dear.
This means that the dead cow thgat the thump could be does not pull my dear.
Thus my question my dear:
First asked 26 May 2010
Bjarne,
Do you think that a dead cow has no mass and so no gravity?

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

 

[Bjarne]

Then I suggest you take your equations, and measurements from a pulsar, and go get yourself a Nobel Prize. It should be easy to see them slowing over time at a rate predicted by your formula.

Good idear..
This rotation slows down over time as electromagnetic power is emitted. When a pulsar's spin period slows down sufficiently, the radio pulsar mechanism is believed to turn off (the so-called "death line"). As this seems to take place after ~10-100 million years, but neutron stars have been formed throughout the ~13.6 billion year age of the universe, more than 99% of neutron stars are thought to no longer be pulsars.[6] To date, the slowest observed pulsar has a period of 8 seconds.
Sourse >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar
So where do I get excact observation of the rotaion decrease ?

Do you think that a dead cow has no mass and so no gravity?

Gravity pulls , but a dead cow can’t, also not a dead thump.

 

[erlando]

Good idear..
This rotation slows down over time as electromagnetic power is emitted.

So, now we're talking power all of a sudden?! Are you sure this is what you meant to say?

Gravity pulls , but a dead cow can’t, also not a dead thump.

So... There should be a lot of dead animals floating around as there is no gravity to hold them down?!

Are you feeling ok?

 

[Reality Check]

Gravity pulls , but a dead cow can’t, also not a dead thump.

So a dead cow or dead thump pulls using gravity and you are just being your usual insanely nutty self about cows and thumps using their muscles to pull when this is nothing to do with the actual physics or this thread.

The actual physics that you are still ignorant of is that it does not take any energy to keep an object in orbit.

But then there is so much you do not know :
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads!

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well, we have made progress. Sort of. Bjarne seems to have replaced his cows with dogs.

Or has he just gone to the dogs?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Well, we have made progress. Sort of. Bjarne seems to have replaced his cows with dogs.
Or has he just gone to the dogs?
Hans

It was Hans that first ask me: Who is paying the energy bill.
Now finally I have the final answer ready. It is in fact very simple:

The resistance against the Moons orbit motion is 5.77E-12 meter per second.
To prevent a deceleration to take place a force must counteract with the opposite speed.
Which mean that it is enough to force the Moon away from the Earth 0.00018 meter (or only 0.1 millimetres) per year, to prevent it to decelerate.
In other words: if the tidal force is only 0,38 % stronger than we believed.´, -this would be enough to overcome the Moons resistance against motion.
(The Moon is due to the tidal effect moving 38 mm away from the Earth every year).

The Tidal effect is slowing the Earth's rotation at a rate of 2.2 seconds per 100.000 years.
This mean the rotation at the surface (by the equator) of the Earth after 100.000 years is 1014 meter slower per 24 hour than today.
The resistance against the Earth rotation is (calculated to) 7.61E-13 meter per second.
After 100.000 years this is only 2.4 meter slower (due to resistance against motion).
Therefore if the tidal affects of the Earths rotation only is 0,42 % weaker than we believe, this is enough to explain where the energy to maintain the Earth rotation comes from.

The tidal force off course also affects satellites, and it doesn’t matter which way these are orbiting.
We can calculate that less than 1 % of the tidal effects is enough to prevent the Moon to to reveal its resistance against motion.
Hence there should be no problem to understand that even a very weak tidal force can prevent satellite to decrease.

This means that weak positive gravity anomalies is enough for satellites to gain enough energy to overcome resistances against motion. For example when moving over mountains or tidal waves.

When it comes to the Sun and the motion of the planets, the principals are the same.
But SpaceWind, (which mean deformed space in motion) also plays a role to make it possible to transfer energy back to the planets.

As shown above, - the Earth rotation pays the energy bill.
In the same way we shall expect the Suns rotation to decrease, simple because the suns rotation is paying the energy bill for its own resistance against rotation as well for the planet motion.
The resistance of motion is in fact a weak "force" / phenomena , - so long no acceleration or deceleration takes place, the discovery probability is almost insignificant.

We cannot deny that all this is a FACT, therefore the idea that resistance against motion only “should” apply by acceleration is in fact a silly stupid idear -, invented without any necessary objective reason at all.
---

 

[Paulhoff]

Funny, didn't this guy say that the moon kept the earth from slowing down in its rotation. Now he is trying to get the earth to kept the moon from slowing down in it orbit?

Just so funny.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

Funny, didn't this guy say that the moon kept the earth from slowing down in its rotation. Now he is trying to get the earth to kept the moon from slowing down in it orbit?

The Moons pulls the Earth rotation, and yes this powers the Earth rotation.
I have never denied that the tidal affect play a (oppesite) role .
This opposite effect hid where the energy to keep it all going comes from,
We are only speaking about less than 0.5 % of the tidal effect that is misunderstood.
The funny thing is that "we" (not me) collective can be so naive to accept that resistance against motion disappears when constant speed is reached.
Try to be quite....
Can you hear it ?
Even the Moon is laughing of that stupid idea.
(and the cows too)....

 

[dlorde]

... To keep rotating require energy, unless that it will fast stop because of resistance again motion (rotation) also applies for constant speed.

I really don't understand how we totally blind can except that that resistances agiants motion, just "vups" - "should" - disappear out in the blue when constant speed is reach.
...

Phew, for a moment there, I thought he was denying Newton's First Law

Oh wait...