Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

Simple, that matter and energy that makes the earth has always disturb (so-called by you) the whole universe. If the curving of space would take energy, that was already paid for from the being of the universe when that energy and matter where made.
If you want to play games with this idea of yours (which is wrong), an object that would have to put energy into curving space has it went thru it, would have that energy returned after it left that space it curved, else where was that energy going. Into the space, and why doesn't that show up
Your idea does not hold up.
Paul

I think you are confusing yourself.
You do not need to mix gravity into this parts of the discussion.
Resistance against motion is only caused by the connection between space and matter; - “gravity resistance” comes in addition to that.

It is. I notice you have adapted the 'curved' space notion, now.

Off course, you can’t close your eyes for the fact that space and matter is connected, the curvature os space proves that.
But it is not just to “adapt the curved space” – the cause of Mass Attraction is not explained by Einstein / GR, but by Newton.
That (none GR) parts you MUST adapt too, - which make the logic that much clearer: Space and matter is connected – both seen from on a relativistic as well as classic perspective.

The deformation moves, not space. Like if you roll a ball on a rubber sheet.

Ohh progress.
BUT, - First at all, the deformation IS space.
It is space itself that deforms.
There is NOTHING else out there that deforms except space. (and the dust)
There are no difference between the "deformation" and "space".
You can impossible distinguish? because there is nothing to distinguish between..

A grain of sand (strictly spoken) affects the whole universe, so what you are saying is: YES you agree to that “deformed space around the grain of sand” moves when the grain of sand moves. Which means you finally accept the: "Deformed Space in motion concept"

I think we must understand space for example around the sun as a “gliding clutch” - Space resist the rotation and deformed space can even break / snap. – You do normally refer to that phenomena like: the magnetic field at the sun “snap / breaks” - it is the elastic / deformed nature of space that are so (strange).

Depends on what is the cause and what is the action, gravity or curved space.

So you really believe it is possible that curved space could be the cause of the Earth, and stars creation, and that it except this is no connection??. Ohh yehh, we have freedom of believe..but I think even not farmers would buy this.

The problem with that is, - it still does not explain the cause of mass attraction, - so you are still forces to admit that matter/ space are connected. Otherwise a heavy stone on your feet would not be heavy. You wouldn’t be able to feel it, because WHAT is the cause of the heavy weight you feel? ( = Mass attraction and this also works with space between)

What makes you think I believe that? I just explained to you that it requires energy to set something in motion

This wouldn’t happen without a reason, and this is the point....
You don’t know that reason, - I believe I do.
Cows and bulls worldwide all agree to that simple point that space must resist motion, otherwise you should not use increeasing amount of energy to get a a diminishing increase in speed..
But, - I know "we" human can be VERY different from cows, - without I really can understand the logical reason to that silly difference, - even though I try hard to understand that (illogical) difference.
I guess it must have something to do with all the strange dimension and parallel universes that now have been invented. I wonder if the next news is that also people lives in these strange worlds. I am at least sure there are no (logical thinking) cows flying these altitudes. .

 

[Reality Check]

Moo cow!

​

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think you are confusing yourself.
You do not need to mix gravity into this parts of the discussion.
Resistance against motion is only caused by the connection between insulin space and matter; - “gravity resistance” comes in addition to that.


Off course, you can’t close your eyes for the fact that space and matter is connected, the curvature os space proves that.
But it is not just to “adapt the curved insulin space” – the cause of Mass Attraction is not explained by Einstein / GR, but by Newton.
That (none GR) parts you MUST adapt too, - which make the logic that much clearer: Space and matter is connected – both seen from on a relativistic as well as classic insulin perspective.

*Snip* .

This is total gibberish. From start to end. I will use this as an experimental honeypot for kumarbot, however. Just ignore for the purpose of this particular thread.

Hans

 

[DeiRenDopa]

So, what is "KE"?

And how do you determine the KE of something, an object say?

What is "thermal energy due to friction"?

And how do you determine the thermal energy due to friction in a particular process, or environment, say?

What is "energy to overcome resistance against motion"?

And how do you determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?

In physic we talk about different kind of energy.
Energy can convert from one kind to another, but it should not be possible that it can be lost..

Therefore it is always important to be able to track which path energy follows.

• KE (kinetic energy) is motion energy
• Thermal energy is heat

These are the most simple and known we have used.

For example when a planet or a moon emits more energy (heat) as we can account for, - we must try to understand the "path" that energy possible could have taken, - to become thermal heat. – For example simple motion / friction due to gravity, but that motion could also come from the electromagnetic or even the atomic level. – For example at that level where the curvature of space is “created”, and therefore a part of that process.

Since there are several possibility we must be carefully which option we believe in, and especially carefully to take on the anti crackpot glasses when we self are on very thin ice. .

I mean if we for example do not know if the strong force and gravity is a united, we could very easy be blindfolded, and even teaching “truth” we self have completely failed to understand.

We can also not on the one hand conclude that energy never can disappear, but when it comes to the ((“apparently”)) lost of photon energy, it is “suddenly” a possible all right option…… (due to the expanding Universe). Also when it comes to such silly conclusions it is important NOT to compromise: Energy can NOT disappear. Either can photon frequencies. - It is obviously that there is something serious wrong.

You can say the path energy moves always is a smoking gun, - it MUST be.
But because of all the incoherent crap science now a days are dealing with, things get very easy worse, when first the carrier already is derailed.

Very suddenly it is also “necessary” even to event new dimension where energy and even gravity possible can disappear.
And that is also not enough also new universes have now been invented, in the name of science / energy. I mean are there any higher (sick) bid?

Such only demonstrate desperate ideas, that we much too often witnesses, and that much too often leads to that we (all) MUST accept / believe, - and from that completely nuts foundation things very easy escalates out in plenty of dimension, and even worse; also mass hypnotizing such wrong conclusions into innocent brains do also become necessary, - Off course instead of asking the simple question: is the ground connection all right, and have something pretty simple been overlooked?

I asked six questions, and you answered two, maybe.

Here are the unanswered questions again. Would you please answer them?

-> How do you determine the KE of something, an object say?

-> How do you determine the thermal energy due to friction in a particular process, or environment, say?

-> What is "energy to overcome resistance against motion"?

-> And how do you determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?

Now for some new questions.

You say that "KE (kinetic energy) is motion energy". Let's think about the ISS, the International Space Station. If you're in the right place at the right time, you can see this as it moves across the sky. If you have the right instruments, and a partner who watches the ISS from a different location, you can work out how high it is, and how fast it is moving. So, by your definition, it has KE.

Now let's think about some astronauts who blast off from Florida, in a space shuttle, and eventually end up docking with the ISS. Once they dock, those astronauts can see that the ISS is not moving. So, by your definition, it has no KE.

Where did the KE go?

 

[Paulhoff]

I think you are confusing yourself.
You do not need to mix gravity into this parts of the discussion.
Resistance against motion is only caused by the connection between space and matter; - “gravity resistance” comes in addition to that.

Me confused, that is funny. There is no resistance to motion, I and other have shown you why it becomes harder to move an object has speed is increased. The energy used to move an object becomes part of the mass of that object. If this was not true and you where right, CERN would not work the way it was made to work. CERN works Bjarne, IT WORKS, so you are WRONG, Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

Me confused, that is funny. There is no resistance to motion, I and other have shown you why it becomes harder to move an object has speed is increased. The energy used to move an object becomes part of the mass of that object. If this was not true and you where right, CERN would not work the way it was made to work. CERN works Bjarne, IT WORKS, so you are WRONG, Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
The fact that KE is mass makes no difference.

It is the process that is the point. “We” really know don’t why there is resistance against motion.

Here are the unanswered questions again. Would you please answer them?

-> How do you determine the KE of something, an object say?

-> How do you determine the thermal energy due to friction in a particular process, or environment, say?

This is basic physis. You can read about it plenty places at the internet.

-> What is "energy to overcome resistance against motion"?

The Joule you need to get >> km/h. ( or M increase) it’s the same . (Almost, minus the price all motion pays to disturbs space, and this = a MF) Read more > http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

-> And how do you determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?

Read more
http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

You say that "KE (kinetic energy) is motion energy". Let's think about the ISS, the International Space Station. If you're in the right place at the right time, you can see this as it moves across the sky. If you have the right instruments, and a partner who watches the ISS from a different location, you can work out how high it is, and how fast it is moving. So, by your definition, it has KE.

Now let's think about some astronauts who blast off from Florida, in a space shuttle, and eventually end up docking with the ISS. Once they dock, those astronauts can see that the ISS is not moving. So, by your definition, it has no KE.

Where did the KE go?

Answer
Both the ISS and the space shuttle visiting have increased their KE.
There is not strange or hocus pocus in this.
The spin of a particle sucks / consumes / contract space.
The “spin” of the Sun does the same, the Earth too.
Any motion does the same.
The whole universe comes from nothing.
Matter = contracted space.
Energy = is only a question to support that process, and this is what speed does.
Energy (matter/mass) is ALWAYS – and ONLY; how much space matter contracts. - Speed contributes to that process.

Pualhoff
There is no resistance to motion

Prove it. Or don't support such fantasy conclution.

CERN works Bjarne

Off course it works. Why should it not.
But it is not a perpetual motion machine.
The faster a particle moves, the stronger its MF will be
The MF increase = the energy “lost”.
This "lost" of KE is what distrups the hole universe with the speed "c" - forever..

This is total gibberish. From start to end. I will use this as an experimental honeypot for kumarbot, however. Just ignore for the purpose of this particular thread.
Hans

No it is not
Mass attraction shows that matter and space is connected.
This have nothing to do with GR.
We don’t know the cause of Mass Attraction.
All we have is the higgs religion, and so on bla la bla la la la science....
Anyway – matter and space is connected, - you should know that, and cannot use GR as an stupid excuse for exporting that fact to a rubbish dimension.
--

 

[Reality Check]

Answer
Both the ISS and the space shuttle visiting have increased their KE.
...snipped-Bjarne's usual gibberish...-

Answer: A complete inability to read the question.
The ISS has not changed is speed. Its KE has not changed.

 

[Paulhoff]

It is the process that is the point. “We” really know don’t why there is resistance against motion.

There is a so-called resistance to STOPPING, or any change in speed, Daaaaaaaa.

Are haven't you noticed that when you put on the brakes or push on the gas pedal.

Paul

 

[W.D.Clinger]

This is basic physis. You can read about it plenty places at the internet.

How do we know which places present well-established science...

Read more > http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

Read more
http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

...as opposed to the work of crackpots?

Pualhoff
There is no resistance to motion

Prove it. Or don't support such fantasy conclution.

Paulhoff's conclusion is supported by more than three hundred years of evidence. You can read about it on the Internet.

No it is not
Mass attraction shows that matter and space is connected.
This have nothing to do with GR.

R_μν - ½Rg_μν + Λg_μν = 8πT_μν (geometrized units)

 

[Little 10 Toes]

So am I the only one who is pissed off that Bjarne photoshopped a picture and never answered my questions?

 

[Toke]

So am I the only one who is pissed off that Bjarne photoshopped a picture and never answered my questions?

The only thing that surprised me is his ability to photoshop.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Here are the unanswered questions again. Would you please answer them?

-> How do you determine the KE of something, an object say?

-> How do you determine the thermal energy due to friction in a particular process, or environment, say?

This is basic physis. You can read about it plenty places at the internet.

Thanks for your responses.

However, they were not answers to my questions.

You see, I did not ask "How does one [i.e. anybody] determine the KE of something, an object say?"

I asked "How do you [i.e. Bjarne] determine the KE of something, an object say?"

I am interested in what you think, not what I can read in a physics textbook.

Care to try again?

-> How do you, Bjarne, determine the KE of something, an object say?

-> How do you, Bjarne, determine the thermal energy due to friction in a particular process, or environment, say?

-> What is "energy to overcome resistance against motion"?

The Joule you need to get >> km/h. ( or M increase) it’s the same . (Almost, minus the price all motion pays to disturbs space, and this = a MF) Read more > http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

-> And how do you determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?

Read more
http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

Thanks for the responses. I'll read more, and get back to you later.

You say that "KE (kinetic energy) is motion energy". Let's think about the ISS, the International Space Station. If you're in the right place at the right time, you can see this as it moves across the sky. If you have the right instruments, and a partner who watches the ISS from a different location, you can work out how high it is, and how fast it is moving. So, by your definition, it has KE.

Now let's think about some astronauts who blast off from Florida, in a space shuttle, and eventually end up docking with the ISS. Once they dock, those astronauts can see that the ISS is not moving. So, by your definition, it has no KE.

Where did the KE go?

Answer
Both the ISS and the space shuttle visiting have increased their KE.
There is not strange or hocus pocus in this.
The spin of a particle sucks / consumes / contract space.
The “spin” of the Sun does the same, the Earth too.
Any motion does the same.
The whole universe comes from nothing.
Matter = contracted space.
Energy = is only a question to support that process, and this is what speed does.
Energy (matter/mass) is ALWAYS – and ONLY; how much space matter contracts. - Speed contributes to that process.

OK, I don't understand this at all.

Let's say you, together with your partner, have estimated that the ISS is 340 km* above the surface of the Earth, and that it is moving at 7.7 km/s*. From published data, you learn that its mass is 340 tonnes, or 3.4 x 10^5 kg*.

What is the KE of the ISS, according to you (and your partner)?

* these are realistic values, but not all that accurate

 

[DeiRenDopa]

-> What is "energy to overcome resistance against motion"?

The Joule you need to get >> km/h. ( or M increase) it’s the same . (Almost, minus the price all motion pays to disturbs space, and this = a MF) Read more > http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

-> And how do you determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?

Read more
http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

OK, I've now read that webpage.

Unfortunately, I didn't find an answer to either of my questions.

Take the first one first.

That webpage uses the word "energy" four times (I've bolded the word):

"Dark Energy" - this is a link; clearly, it is not a definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion"

"Resistance due to motion is already known. It requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed." - this is, clearly, not a definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion" (though it might be an ambiguous, implicit reference to that idea).

"In the equation above, (y-1) expresses the transformation factor but it must naturally reflect the value of resistance as well, (negative velocity) not only a factor which is able to show an object’s required energy necessary for acceleration and an object’s increase of mass due to higher velocity." - this is, clearly, not a definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion"

"Extra rotation energy (Space Wind) from a planets rotation" - this is, clearly, not a definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion" (it actually refers to "rotation energy"!)

So, once again if I may:

-> What is "energy to overcome resistance against motion"? A definition, please.

-> And how do you, Bjarne, determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?

 

[erlando]

Prediction of Bjarnes answer: "This cannot be shown by math, only logic"

 

[steenkh]

So am I the only one who is pissed off that Bjarne photoshopped a picture and never answered my questions?

What did you expect? That he made a coherent answer?

When he feels cornered, he never replies directly but tries to divert attention by introducing new elements or making what he thinks is a joke. You can regard your post as a "victory", because he felt compelled to do something drastic in order to avoid answering.

 

[Bjarne]

The ISS has not changed is speed. Its KE has not changed.

Not change it speed, but it IS moving..

There is a so-called resistance to STOPPING, or any change in speed, Daaaaaaaa

Off course, - this is not the point.

How do we know which places present well-established science...

When it not violent cow logic, it should be OK

Paulhoff's conclusion is supported by more than three hundred years of evidence.

There is no evidence at all, the 300 years naive believe doesn’t make a lie more true. Amen.

So am I the only one who is pissed off that Bjarne photoshopped a picture and never answered my questions?

You know we are here discussion dark matter, dark energy, dark logic, and dark humor.

You see, I did not ask "How does one [i.e. anybody] determine the KE of something, an object say?"
I asked "How do you [i.e. Bjarne] determine the KE of something, an object say?"
I am interested in what you think, not what I can read in a physics textbook.

Care to try again?

-> How do you, Bjarne, determine the KE of something, an object say?

-> How do you, Bjarne, determine the thermal energy due to friction in a particular process, or environment, say?

The same way like all others, and like you can read in a textbox.
I agree to 90% of the prevailing teaching and theories, but just not the orthodox illogical and incoherent religious parts of the book.

Let's say you, together with your partner, have estimated that the ISS is 340 km* above the surface of the Earth, and that it is moving at 7.7 km/s*. From published data, you learn that its mass is 340 tonnes, or 3.4 x 10^5 kg*.
What is the KE of the ISS, according to you (and your partner)?

Several examples demonstrate this here> http://www.science27.com/english/Culcu3.htm

PS 1 !
Did you know an experiment have confirmed that time thick slower when a clock moves anticlockwise compared to clockwise around the Earth.
The same thing would happen clockwise/anticlockwise around the Sun, the galaxy or the cluster of galaxy.
According to my understanding GR and SR are not so different to each other like these appear to be.

PS 2 !
According to the theory I represent; all clusters of galaxies are also orbiting a central huge black hole of the Universe. That whole is not easting anything because of the expending universe, but it is there. MUST be.

"In the equation above, (y-1) expresses the transformation factor but it must naturally reflect the value of resistance as well, (negative velocity) not only a factor which is able to show an object’s required energy necessary for acceleration and an object’s increase of mass due to higher velocity." - this is, clearly, not a definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion"

"Extra rotation energy (Space Wind) from a planets rotation" - this is, clearly, not a definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion" (it actually refers to "rotation energy"!)

So, once again if I may:

-> What is "energy to overcome resistance against motion"? A definition, please.

-> And how do you, Bjarne, determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?

(y-1) is part of the equation that starts that chapter, you must read the whole chapter, not just 2 minutes a random place.
You can also used Mv^2/2 to calculated the KE instead, the result is the same.

And how do you, Bjarne, determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?

Several examples demonstrate this here> http://www.science27.com/english/Culcu3.htm
I suggest you to read the abstract, and the complete chapter http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

 

[steenkh]

According to the theory I represent; all clusters of galaxies are also orbiting a central huge black hole of the Universe. That whole is not easting anything because of the expending universe, but it is there. MUST be.

So the universe has a centre in your cosmology? Would that not mean that we would see more galaxies when we look in the direction of the centre?

A black hole that can make the whole universe orbit around it must be truly something. Have you calculated how big a distance matter must have to this black hole in order for the expansion of the universe to be faster than the attraction of the black hole. Normal galaxies, and even galaxy clusters are not expanding because their gravity is able to overcome the expansion of the universe. So there must truly be huge distances from the nearest matter to the central black hole. You must realise that such a black hole would be easy to spot because of the lack of nearby galaxies, and because light would be distorted in for anything that lies in its direction.

In other words, you must realise that your new claim has failed even before you got it off the ground.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You see, I did not ask "How does one [i.e. anybody] determine the KE of something, an object say?"
I asked "How do you [i.e. Bjarne] determine the KE of something, an object say?"
I am interested in what you think, not what I can read in a physics textbook.

Care to try again?

-> How do you, Bjarne, determine the KE of something, an object say?

-> How do you, Bjarne, determine the thermal energy due to friction in a particular process, or environment, say?

The same way like all others, and like you can read in a textbox.
I agree to 90% of the prevailing teaching and theories, but just not the orthodox illogical and incoherent religious parts of the book.

Sorry Bjarne, that is singularly unhelpful.

Please provide me with a link to online physics material that explains, in detail:
1) how the KE of something can be determined
2) how the thermal energy due to friction can be determined,
with the essential requirement that you explicitly state that you agree with it 100% (not 90%, not 95%, not 99%, but 100%).

Let's say you, together with your partner, have estimated that the ISS is 340 km* above the surface of the Earth, and that it is moving at 7.7 km/s*. From published data, you learn that its mass is 340 tonnes, or 3.4 x 10^5 kg*.
What is the KE of the ISS, according to you (and your partner)?

Several examples demonstrate this here> http://www.science27.com/english/Culcu3.htm

PS 1 !
Did you know an experiment have confirmed that time thick slower when a clock moves anticlockwise compared to clockwise around the Earth.
The same thing would happen clockwise/anticlockwise around the Sun, the galaxy or the cluster of galaxy.
According to my understanding GR and SR are not so different to each other like these appear to be.

PS 2 !
According to the theory I represent; all clusters of galaxies are also orbiting a central huge black hole of the Universe. That whole is not easting anything because of the expending universe, but it is there. MUST be.

There is nothing on that page about the ISS, and the only references to "KE" are clearly for quite different objects.

Also, I did not ask for "examples"; I asked a very simple, direct, easy question.

Here it is again: "What is the KE of the ISS, according to you (and your partner)?"

Would you care to answer this?

"In the equation above, (y-1) expresses the transformation factor but it must naturally reflect the value of resistance as well, (negative velocity) not only a factor which is able to show an object’s required energy necessary for acceleration and an object’s increase of mass due to higher velocity." - this is, clearly, not a definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion"

"Extra rotation energy (Space Wind) from a planets rotation" - this is, clearly, not a definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion" (it actually refers to "rotation energy"!)

So, once again if I may:

-> What is "energy to overcome resistance against motion"? A definition, please.

-> And how do you, Bjarne, determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?

(y-1) is part of the equation that starts that chapter, you must read the whole chapter, not just 2 minutes a random place.
You can also used Mv^2/2 to calculated the KE instead, the result is the same.

But Bjarne, that's not the answer you gave me when I first asked the question!

You said, and I'm quoting your exact words, "The Joule you need to get >> km/h. ( or M increase) it’s the same . (Almost, minus the price all motion pays to disturbs space, and this = a MF) Read more > http://www.science27.com/english/the...r_anomaly.html" and "Read more
http://www.science27.com/english/the...r_anomaly.html"

So, once more, what is the definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion"?

With your clear, unambiguous, objective answer (i.e. a definition, not an example, or a theory) in hand, I will be able to re-ask my second question.

And how do you, Bjarne, determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?

Several examples demonstrate this here> http://www.science27.com/english/Culcu3.htm
I suggest you to read the abstract, and the complete chapter http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

I'm sure you'd be among the first to agree that, in the absence of a clear, unambiguous, objective definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion", there's not much point me even reading this, is there?

 

[Paulhoff]

Here it is again: "What is the KE of the ISS, according to you (and your partner)?"

Would you care to answer this?

Well I'm not in anyway his partner. But I come up with.

About 1/5 of the energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

So the universe has a centre in your cosmology? Would that not mean that we would see more galaxies when we look in the direction of the centre?

It depends on where you are, and how far you can see, + see motions.

A black hole that can make the whole universe orbit around it must be truly something. Have you calculated how big a distance matter must have to this black hole in order for the expansion of the universe to be faster than the attraction of the black hole.

We don’t know where we are and not the size either.
It is not only the expansion that is “faster” . Properly the expansion is not important at all (as I wrote before) . - but rather the force keeping us away from the black hole , the space wind, which mean inner galaxies must move “too slow” and transfer energy to galaxies further out.
This also mean inner cluster of galaxies can be on their way into the black hole of the Universe. Like inner stars always are on their way to the center of a galaxy. This can be very difficult to observe because the expansion of the Universe will deform that picture, because this too will look like motion too.

Normal galaxies and even galaxy clusters are not expanding because their gravity is able to overcome the expansion of the universe.

This is misunderstood. Everything expands proportional to everything else. This is why you can’t see any difference, since any reference points will look the same, even also 2 dots on the same meter stick..

So there must truly be huge distances from the nearest matter to the central black hole. You must realize that such a black hole would be easy to spot because of the lack of nearby galaxies, and because light would be distorted in for anything that lies in its direction.

Yes, if you are close enough. We might be able to discover that this is the case, when the new space telescope is ready. Remember it is not long ago we even did not know we where living in the Milkyway. A galaxy must behave very most like the matter of the whole Universe, it is the same law. - And if there are multi universes, these to must behave so as well. - Nature of space sets the rules.

In other words, you must realize that your new claim has failed even before you got it off the ground.

No
We are not sure how big (our) universe really is, and we can’t see it all.
But don’t be surprised the day this prediction gets confirmed. Also this is not something I believe; it is a consequence of the nature of gravity. Simply because central space is affected gradually stronger, and hence motion everywhere must reveal exactly that. We talk about the central nature of gravity.

Please provide me with a link to online physics material that explains, in detail:
1) how the KE of something can be determined
2) how the thermal energy due to friction can be determined,…..
As written this is certain knowledge, you can find thousand of internet pages regarding these questions.
There is nothing on that page about the ISS, and the only references to "KE" are clearly for quite different objects.

The principles are the same.

Here it is again: "What is the KE of the ISS, according to you (and your partner)?"

I have shown you 2 equations, - calculate it yourself, such is good training to understand what all this is about.

So, once more, what is the definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion"?

If let say the resistance (deceleration) can be calculated to 1e-10 m/s^2 – you can overcome that resistance by a opposite force/acceleration, same size , but “forward”. (acc) , and the result is zero.
You can also calculate the KE lost per second, - first based on the starting speed (Mv^2/2) Now reduce the speed v – (minus) 1e-10 m/s (the first second) and calculate KE again (Mv^2/2). The difference between the 2 KE results is the KE lost per / the first second. And this is also the necessary KE requirement you need to prevent suck lost.
Pretty simple right?