THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

[Bjarne]

-----------------
We can measure a gravitational anomaly (in space) above the Earth.
This means that (deformed) space (around an astronomic object) is rotating together with the rotation of the object.

We also know that matter close to a rotating astronomic object is affected by a forces that seems to be a kind of “centrifugal force” www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411

We have good reason to assume that space not only follows the motion / rotation of matter, but matter also is affected by space in motion/rotation of space. (Probably because matter and space mutual are connected).

Some space probes are affected by an accelerating force that seems to be a kind of centrifugal force transmitted from a rotation astronomic object. (a fly-by anomaly).

Other space probes (Pioneer 10 and 11) were affected by a (opposite) decelerating force.

It is very strange that many space probes are affected by these two opposite forces, but planet (in our solar system) doesn’t seem to be.

But wait a minute:

ACCELERATION PHENOMENA’s
1.) As motioned, some space are too fast..
2.) We have found planets more as 15 billion km. away from their mother stars..
3.) The outer stars of a galaxy are too fast. (We believe in “dark matter”. But dark matter isn’t knowledge but rather a “woops suggestion”).
4.) Few weeks ago a new mystery occurred: Wasp-18b - A planet that should have demised for approximately 500.000.000 years ago, but is still alive. The tidal force “should” for long ago had forces Wasp-18b to demise. Where have Wasp-18b been hidden so long?

DECELERATION PHENOMENA’s
1.) Some space probes are too slow.
2.) We have found gas planets too close their mother stars. If the star was created so close to a star the gas atmosphere should had been blown out in space, when their mother stars ignited.
3.) The atmosphere of Jupiter seems to have been created much more fare away from the Sun.
4.) We don’t know why most of the matter is moving towards the centre of a proto-planetary disc. Which force drives the matter inwards?
5.) In the centre of galaxies stars “fall from the sky”, - we don’t know why.
6.) The inner stars of a galaxy are too slow.

Are these mysteries related? - Try to allow you self the thought that:

1.) the decelerating force that affected the Pioneer probes - and -
2.) the accelerating force that affected many other space probes

both also affects the planets too and even equalize with each other’s (in our solar system but not in the most of the solar systems around us).

If we compares stars rotations velocity with the (average) distance to their planets, we actually can see a pattern: The rotation velocity of a star seems to be decisive for the (average) distance from the mother star to the planets of the star.

If we look at the planets in our solar system, we will see their orbit seems to be stable. But only because these two opposite forces (accelerating and decelerating) equalize each other. It hasn’t always been so; the stable orbit of the planets is not accidentally and will be covered further if you follow the link below.

The opposite (decelerating) force is also not so strange that we may think. Resistance due to motion is already known. It requires more and more energy to get a diminishing velocity increase.
Normally we would call this "inertia," but this expression is misleading as inertia only applies to acceleration. (This is really an medieval idea, that never have been proven, and only based on that the planets in our solar system apparently only is affected by gravity)

Resistance due to motion also applies to any object moving with constant velocity. We have misunderstood this simple point. Look up and you will see that the proff is "written in the stars"

We are not dealing with insignificant forces, but rather with two huge opposite forces that affect everything in space and even are responsible for the fact that the inner stars of galaxies are: too slow, and the other stars, too fast. (so called dark matter). ...

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

-----------------

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

By now it should be painfully obvious to anyone who has followed the "Is bended space = contracted space"-thread that Bjarne is a particular nasty crackpot, who readily jumps to self contradiction, obfuscation and downright lies to gain even a slight amount of attention.

You might argue that further demolishing of his posts are childish and unnecessary, but the debunk of his "space wind" and "space drag" concepts are so disturbingly hilarious that they just have to be posted, so forgive me:

Bjarne has proposed to new properties of space, which he claims also follows from his "space contracs" nonsense:

1) There is an intrinsic drag acceleration associated with a body of mass m moving though space at constant velocity v:

[latex]$$\vec{a}_\mathrm{sd}=-\left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\right)\hat{v}$$[/latex]

The observant reader will immediately notice that there is a problem with the units here; but for the sake of argument, lets forgive Bjarne that slip and throw in a factor of a₀ = 1 m/s² to sort that out:

[latex]$$\vec{a}_\mathrm{sd}=-a_{0}\left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\right)\hat{v}$$[/latex]

2) For a body of mass M rotating in space with an angular velocity [latex]$$\omega$$[/latex], there is an associated "space wind" which exerts a tangential acceleration on a test mass at a distance r. If the angular momentum vector is aligned to the polar axis, this force is given as:

[latex]$$\vec{a}_\mathrm{sw}=\omega\frac{M}{Qr}\hat{\phi}$$[/latex]

(the "R" in Bjarnes own formula is simply the tangential "velocity" of the space wind; such that [latex]$$R=\omega r$$[/latex]. Q is a constant - a "skinner's constant", as it turns out in a moment)

Now, the core of Bjarnes claim is that a stable orbit of a celestial body can only occur if these two accelerations (Again, complete lack of understanding from Bjarne; Forces are balanced, accelerations are not) are of equal magnitude and opposite direction. Well, then, assuming a circular orbit in the [latex]$$\hat{\phi}$$[/latex]-direction, we have:

[latex]$$\omega\frac{M}{Qr}=a_{0}\left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}\right)$$[/latex]

This gives us a constraint on v and r which should be fairly easy to check. Solving for v:

[latex]$$v=\frac{c \sqrt{M} \sqrt{\omega } \sqrt{-2-\frac{M \omega }{a_0 Q r-M \omega }}}{\sqrt{a_0 Q r-M \omega }}$$[/latex]

Inserting some rough numerical values we see that Bjarnes idea predicts orbital velocities starting from the speed of light and dropping to zero between 0 and 400 m from the center of the sun! Beyond 400 m the solution is undefined and stable orbits should be impossible

That stands in blatant contradiction to what is observed in the solar system!

Bjarne, who is completely oblivious to even the most elementary algebra and mathematical physics, will within a few hours post a reply, denying the validity of this argument and claiming that subjection of his ideas to mathematical scrutiny is nothing more than malicious obfuscation and manipulation of his delightfully simple picture.

Instead he will point us to the numerical values he has produced by laborious punching on his pocket calculator and say "See, they match, therefore I'm right"

Well there are two problems with this:

Firstly, Bjarne has produced some numbers which cannot be measured. We can't hook a force gauge to a planet to measure the forces acting on it. Therefore Bjarne can produce these numbers until he turns blue, they are irrelevant! When it comes to planets, we are forced to observe to things: Its distance from the sun and it's orbital velocity. And as shown above, when you extract these numbers from Bjarnes ideas, it simply leads to an absurdity.

The second problem is that Bjarne is using the known orbital orbital velocities to calculate their alleged acceleration. Thereby he has already implicitly assumed the validity of Kepler's Law, which we already know gives the correct velocities! The Skinner's constant Q takes care of the details.

Sensation of Physics

 

[MRC_Hans]

Welcome to the forums. Looking forward to your contribitions in the future.

Hans

 

[steenkh]

[latex]$$v=\frac{c \sqrt{M} \sqrt{\omega } \sqrt{-2-\frac{M \omega }{a_0 Q r-M \omega }}}{\sqrt{a_0 Q r-M \omega }}$$[/latex]

Bjarne's reply to these calculations when presented to him earlier was to mumble something about them being "wrong", that they are made by someone who does not know anything about Bjarne's theories, and then to try to shift the subject.

It will be interesting to see his reaction this time :

 

[Leviath]

The observant reader will immediately notice that there is a problem with the units here; but for the sake of argument, lets forgive Bjarne that slip

Oh, but it isn't a "slip". He has argued on a norwegian forum that the Lorentz factor should have the same units as acceleration because it, according to him, expresses an acceleration.

Maybe he will elaborate further on this.

 

[Bjarne]

I have replied to these manupulation once, and refuce to repeat it all here
Every one can read this HERE

and HERE

 

[MRC_Hans]

I have replied to these manupulation once, and refuce to repeat it all here
Every one can read this HERE

and HERE

Translation: I was dumbfunded by this refutation earlier. I hate when facts go against my ideas, and I don't want to talk about it.

Hans

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

Bjarne, who is completely oblivious to even the most elementary algebra and mathematical physics, will within a few hours post a reply, denying the validity of this argument and claiming that subjection of his ideas to mathematical scrutiny is nothing more than malicious obfuscation and manipulation of his delightfully simple picture.

I have replied to these manupulation once, and refuce to repeat it all here

Apart from the fact that Bjarne's reply was almost 12 hours overdue, it seems that my predictions were fairly correct

I rest my case

 

[Bjarne]

Apart from the fact that Bjarne's reply was almost 12 hours overdue, it seems that my predictions were fairly correct

I rest my case

I suggest read all the text and all the links here


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

before you criticizes..

 

[Dancing David]

Hmmmm........

Welcome Sensation of Physics

 

[Bjarne]

Please read this and ALL the links, then you will know what this is about:
http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

READ MORE HERE

and HERE

 

[Reality Check]

Read your web page up to your first major mistake.
You state

γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)

and then

When travelling 12240 m/s (as pioneer 10 space probe did):
(y - 1) = 8.33 × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s²

Everyone can see that this is wrong.
You have defined y as a numeric quantity. It is just a number. It is not a velocity or an acceleration or a force or anything else with units of measurement.
You then subtract 1 from a numeric quantitiy. The result is obviously not a velocity or an acceleration or a force or anything else with units of measurement.
You arbitarily make this into an acceleration by adding units of measurement to the result.

You make this mistake worse by implying that (1-y) is a velocity when it is actually a number. This is probably a fault with your lack of knowledge of English.

Can you tell us where Sensation_of_physics went wrong with his equations?

 

[Reality Check]

If we compares stars rotations velocity with the (average) distance to their planets, we actually can see a pattern: The rotation velocity of a star seems to be decisive for the (average) distance from the mother star to the planets of the star.

Can you cite the scientific papers that state this?
Or just provide a table of

• the average distance of extra-solar planets from their star
• the rotation velocity of the star

I would be interested in how you calculated the average distance of extra-solar planets from their star by summing over the distance of all of their planets (including the ones that have not been discovered! ).

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

Oh, but it isn't a "slip". He has argued on a norwegian forum that the Lorentz factor should have the same units as acceleration because it, according to him, expresses an acceleration.

Maybe he will elaborate further on this.

Nope, he'll just repeat his nonsens:

In the equation above, (y-1) expresses the transformation factor but it must naturally reflect the value of resistance as well, 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.

Which, essentialy boils down to "it must be an acceleration, because I need it to be so"

Like I said, completely oblivious to even the most basic physics.

 

[Bjarne]

Everyone can see that this is wrong.
You have defined y as a numeric quantity. It is just a number. It is not a velocity or an acceleration or a force or anything else with units of measurement.
You then subtract 1 from a numeric quantitiy. The result is obviously not a velocity or an acceleration or a force or anything else with units of measurement.
You arbitarily make this into an acceleration by adding units of measurement to the result.

In the equation above, (y-1) expresses the transformation factor but it must naturally reflect the value of resistance as well, 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.

Do you deny that we here talk about negative velocity comrade?
And if not what is the deceleration according to your opinion comrade?

You know it's easy to claim that I am wrong, and you are right, but then you must show the right answer
Can you do that comrade?
Or will you lie and say that we do not speak about negative velocity comrade?

Can you cite the scientific papers that state this?
Or just provide a table of
• the average distance of extra-solar planets from their star
• the rotation velocity of the star

http://exoplanet.eu

And you can search more info stars by stars like that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fomalhaut

Can you tell us where Sensation_of_physics went wrong with his equations?

He claims that according to my “centrifugal force” (space wind) equation RM/Qr^2 compared to the opposite force 1/√(1 - v²/c²) these 2 force will only equalize in one certain orbit. This is either a HUGE misunderstanding showing that he doesn’t understand math or a HUGE load of manipulation.

Since he do not admit his mistake it’s seems to be conscious attempt only to confuse the stupid’s and derail the discussion.
-------------------------------------
There is something rotten in the State of Denmark
Shakespeare.
--------------------------------------

 

[steenkh]

He claims that according to my “centrifugal force” (space wind) equation RM/Qr^2 compared to the opposite force 1/√(1 - v²/c²) these 2 force will only equalize in one certain orbit. This is either a HUGE misunderstanding showing that he doesn’t understand math or a HUGE load of manipulation.

So the problem is that he has demonstrated your equations to be garbage, and this in itself must be either a misunderstanding or manipulation, because it is inconceivable that you have actually got it wrong? Please go to the relevant thread and show exactly where he has misunderstood or manipulated the equations.

-------------------------------------
There is something rotten in the State of Denmark
Shakespeare.
--------------------------------------

You do realise that as long as you live in Denmark, many people could actually agree on this?

There would not be so much unpleasantness in your threads if you stuck to the subject and refrained from calling on mother cows, comrade, and so on. You only harvest what you sow.

 

[Bjarne]

So the problem is that he has demonstrated your equations to be garbage, and this in itself must be either a misunderstanding or manipulation, because it is inconceivable that you have actually got it wrong? Please go to the relevant thread and show exactly where he has misunderstood or manipulated the equations.

No I have illustrated that it is easy to manipulate lazy and stupid people
Just read the thread.
A man with a IQ 50 % larger than mother Cow can easy see I got it right.

You do realise that as long as you live in Denmark, many people could actually agree on this?

More nasty proofs that Shakespear was right

 

[steenkh]

No I have illustrated that it is easy to manipulate lazy and stupid people
Just read the thread.

I have read the thread, and you have not pointed to any kind of error or manipulation.

A man with a IQ 50 % larger than mother Cow can easy see I got it right.

Perhaps your local cow herd may agree with you, but here it impresses nobody.

It seems that we got it right when we predicted that you would not address technical criticism, apart from unsubstantiated claims.

 

[Bjarne]

So the problem is that he has demonstrated your equations to be garbage, and this in itself must be either a misunderstanding or manipulation, because it is inconceivable that you have actually got it wrong? Please go to the relevant thread and show exactly where he has misunderstood or manipulated the equations..

No I have illustrated that it is easy to manipulate lazy and stupid people
Just read the thread.
A man with a IQ 50 % larger than mother Cow can easy see I got it right.

You do realise that as long as you live in Denmark, many people could actually agree on this?

Especially when part of the theory is proven. What will yu do that day camarade ?
Shame right ?

 

[steenkh]

No I have illustrated that it is easy to manipulate lazy and stupid people
Just read the thread.

You have entered denial mode?

Especially when part of the theory is proven. What will yu do that day camarade ?
Shame right ?

On that day you get an apology. Now will you in the meantime show us where your equations were manipulated?