THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

[kuroyume0161]

Now, can someone explain what observed phenomena Bjarne is trying to describe with his formula?

From a cursory reading of this thread, he appears to be trying to resurrect the long-dead 'luminiferous aether' that was killed by the Michelson-Morley experiment (and subsequently resuscitated and rekilled just to be sure).

You can't even quote John Lennon correctly.

I thought is was "Imagine there is no ether, it's easy if you try." or something like that.

 

[dafydd]

I am asking for the cause of that resistance Sir.
WHAT is that resistance / inertia comrade?
And WHY?
WHAT is the cause of it?
and WHY only by acceleration ?

I mean: you do not answer my question: “resistance against change in motion”, - is not the cause, it's the effect.
WHAT is the cause of that comrades?

Just admit it, none of you know that answer right?.

We do not know the answer because your question is meaningless nonsense,if I may risk a tautology.

 

[dafydd]

From a cursory reading of this thread, he appears to be trying to resurrect the long-dead 'luminiferous aether' that was killed by the Michelson-Morley experiment (and subsequently resuscitated and rekilled just to be sure).

I thought is was "Imagine there is no ether, it's easy if you try." or something like that.

''Imagine bendy space,it's easy if you're Bjarne....

 

[Toke]

Michelson-Morley experiment

Interesting read.
Radio is sometimes refered to as waves in the aether, but I was not aware what experiments were done on the subject.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I am asking for the cause of that resistance Sir.
WHAT is that resistance / inertia comrade?
And WHY?
WHAT is the cause of it?
and WHY only by acceleration ?

I mean: you do not answer my question: “resistance against change in motion”, - is not the cause, it's the effect.
WHAT is the cause of that comrades?

Just admit it, none of you know that answer right?.

I repeat my answer to that question:

Because it is only resistance against change. The 'resistance' is really the energy transferred to the particle, where it is stored as kinetic energy (= m x v^2). The moment you don't accelerate it anymore, you don't transfer more energy, and the resistance is no more. Basic physics; you should read about it sometimes.

Don't worry, Bjarne, I can repeat it as many times as you need.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Let's try taking this from the top, again.

Now, can someone explain what observed phenomena Bjarne is trying to describe with his formula? I don't need the formula restated, Just the basic premise. And following that, give me some data points, if available. Body "X" with mass "M" was observed Doing something that current scentific theory does not predict, that kind of thing. or something like Scientific theory would predict the body at Position 1, when it was observed to be at position 2.

Well, Bjarne points at two phenomenon:

1) Discrepancies in the orbits of some space-probes (we are talking about tiny deviations somewhere beyond the ninth decimal).

2) The discrepancy between the amount of visible matter in galaxies and the amount that can be calculated from orbital motions (70% of the matter needed for orbital motions cannot be accounted for visually, hence the dark matter thesis).

Re #1, there already exists several plausible hypotheses, and the difference is so small anyway that we certainly don't need some revolutionary physics to understand it.

Re #2, this is indeed a whopping big difference, but Bjarne has not been able to explain the inner logic of his thesis. More precisely, to function, his thesis implies a massive transfer of energy between the inner and outer parts of a galaxy. Since this can only be in the form of kinetic energy transferred from the inner stars to the outer, the whole inner part of a galaxy would soom come to a grinding halt. - Which is far from what we observe.

Thank you for bringing this up. We need to look at the basics, while Bjarne, like many others of his kind, is quite apt at moving focus to more obscure areas.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

QUOTE]From a cursory reading of this thread, he appears to be trying to resurrect the long-dead 'luminiferous aether' that was killed by the Michelson-Morley experiment (and subsequently resuscitated and rekilled just to be sure).[/QUOTE]
Space is “something# - not nothing
Space has properties, - it can expand, and hence off course also contract. – And someone (many) believes it also can bend.

I thought is was "Imagine there is no ether, it's easy if you try." or something like that.

No rather:
"Imagine there is no nothing, it's easy if you try."

Because it is only resistance against change.

And once again. That’s a effect.
You can observe that you’ll have resistance against acceleration.
WHAT causes this resistance ?

The 'resistance' is really the energy transferred to the particle

HOW does that happens
WHAT has resistance with acceleration to do?
WHY is the resistance increasing none proportional?

The moment you don't accelerate it anymore, you don't transfer more energy, and the resistance is no more. Basic physics; you should read about it sometimes.

Forget you energy talk, it's empty words, if you can not more than cover that phenomena with a almost empty expression. I am asking what causes resistance to occur ?
Why ?
What have that with change of motion to do ?
I am asking about the underlying cause

Don't worry, Bjarne, I can repeat it as many times as you need.

You don’t need to because its only irrelevant talk and it will always be so, until the day you understand how matter and space is connected.

1)Discrepancies in the orbits of some space-probes (we are talking about tiny deviations somewhere beyond the ninth decimal).

Per second or e.g; for Pioneer 11 total lost after 25 years is 500.000.000 meter

Re #1, there already exists several plausible hypotheses, and the difference is so small anyway that we certainly don't need some revolutionary physics to understand it.

Buts seen from a overall perspective a lot more is not as we expect, e.g;

• Less that 5% of the stars velocities are as expected
• Many planets orbits are “strange” e.g; we have found planets more as 15 billion km. away from their mother stars.. We have found gas-planet much to close to a star. Jupiter atmosphere must have come from a much cooler place... etc...
• We don’t know why most of the matter is moving towards the centre of a proto-planetary disc. ( or galaxies) - which force drives the matter inwards? - You must understand this as: What was thicker the creation of solar systems and galaxies ?
• In the centre of galaxies stars “fall from the sky”
• Some planets denies to die in more than 500.000.000 years.

ARE ALL THESE MYSTERIES CONNECTED?

 

[Reality Check]

QUOTE]

Buts seen from a overall perspective a lot more is not as we expect, e.g;

• Less that 5% of the stars velocities are as expected
• Many planets orbits are “strange” e.g; we have found planets more as 15 billion km. away from their mother stars.. We have found gas-planet much to close to a star. Jupiter atmosphere must have come from a much cooler place... etc...
• We don’t know why most of the matter is moving towards the centre of a proto-planetary disc. ( or galaxies) - which force drives the matter inwards? - You must understand this as: What was thicker the creation of solar systems and galaxies ?
• In the centre of galaxies stars “fall from the sky”
• Some planets denies to die in more than 500.000.000 years.

ARE ALL THESE MYSTERIES CONNECTED?

NO.

• "Less that 5% of the stars velocities are as expected" is possibly the galactic rotation curves which are well explained by dark matter.
  There is strong evidence that dark matter exists other than galactic rotation curves, e.g.
  • Gravitational lensing maps of galactic clusters that show most of the mass is not in the galaxies.
  • Motions of galaxies in galactic clusters that need more mass in them them is visible.
  • The observation that the universe is flat but we can only find 4% of the mass & energy needed to make it flat.
  • The large scale structure of the universe fits models that include dark matter.
• The orbits of extra-solar planets are not "strange". The techniques to detect extra-solar planets are biased toward heavy planets and planets that are close to their stars. They are really good at detecting heavy planets that are close to their stars!
• Gravity is the force that creates proto-planetary discs and drives the movement of matter in them. I do not know what you mean by "most of the matter is moving towards the centre of a proto-planetary disc. ( or galaxies)"
  • Little matter is moving to the center of galaxies. Most of the matter in a galaxy is orbiting the center of the galaxy.
  • Protoplanetary disks form around a young star. Once again most of the matter is orbiting the center - not falling into the center.
    Perhaps you are thinking of solar nebula. In that case the answer is gravity.

So we have

1. Dark matter.
2. Observation techniques.
3. Gravity.

The other two points are nonsense, possibly due to your bad English.

• In the centre of galaxies stars “fall from the sky”":
  There is no sky in the center of the galaxy. Are you refering to the observation of the supermassive black hole in the center of the galaxy?
• "Some planets denies to die in more than 500.000.000 years.":
  How do planets die?
  Where does 500.000.000 years come from, e.g. is it a calculation of yours for the "lifetime" of a planet?

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

In the centre of galaxies stars “fall from the sky”

And we know why: Orbital decay due to gravitational radiation explains this quite accurately

 

[MRC_Hans]

Space is “something# - not nothing

That is possible,

Space has properties, - it can expand, and hence off course also contract. – And someone (many) believes it also can bend.

The opposite of the expansion of space you are referring to is not the kind of contraction you use in your hypothesis. The expansion of space that we can observe has no local effect on bodies in that space. You are claiming a local effect of contraction.

And once again. That’s a effect.
You can observe that you’ll have resistance against acceleration.
WHAT causes this resistance ?

The transfer of energy to kinetic energy. You apply a force of some kind, and it is transformed into kinetic energy. Thus the energy account balances: Energy in = energy stored.

HOW does that happens

See above.

WHAT has resistance with acceleration to do?

Resistance means that energy is taken away from something. The resistance against acceleration means that energy is taken away from the driving force and added to the KE store of the accelerated body.

WHY is the resistance increasing none proportional?

Because of relativity (e=mc^2).

Forget you energy talk, it's empty words, if you can not more than cover that phenomena with a almost empty expression. I am asking what causes resistance to occur ?
Why ?
What have that with change of motion to do ?
I am asking about the underlying cause

Why do I have to explain the underlying cause? You can't explain the underlying causes of your thesis? Why the double standard?

You don’t need to because its only irrelevant talk and it will always be so, until the day you understand how matter and space is connected.

And till that day, I will have to make do with observed data. Which do not support your thesis.

Per second or e.g; for Pioneer 11 total lost after 25 years is 500.000.000 meter

Which is still somewhere out on the ninth decimal.

Buts seen from a overall perspective a lot more is not as we expect, e.g;

So what? We don't know everything, and we don't pretend to know everything.

ARE ALL THESE MYSTERIES CONNECTED?

Sure they are. They are all somehow connected to the laws of physics in this universe. And if you want to find out something about them, you need to learn physics, starting with basic physics, so you don't have to have the difference between resistance due to inertia and resistance due to friction explained to you all the time.

Hans

 

[edd]

And we know why: Orbital decay due to gravitational radiation explains this quite accurately

It's only really a significant effect at extreme proximity to the hole. I have no idea what Bjarne is talking about with 'stars falling out of the sky' though, maybe he does mean that.

 

[MRC_Hans]

It's only really a significant effect at extreme proximity to the hole. I have no idea what Bjarne is talking about with 'stars falling out of the sky' though, maybe he does mean that.

What Bjarne says does not necessarily make any sense. He is quite fond of grandiose statements with little reference to fact. Obviously Bjarne knows no more about the conditions around the centre of the galaxy than anybody else, probably he knows less, since research is not really his thing.

Hans

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

I have no idea what Bjarne is talking about with 'stars falling out of the sky' though, maybe he does mean that.

Well neither do I, though I suspect he means "the orbits of central stars are decaying so the stars eventually are consumed by the central black hole". I'd leave it an open question whether this is actually the case.

It's only really a significant effect at extreme proximity to the hole.

It was more like a preventive strike to Bjarnes inevitable speech about how there is no possible mechanism in known physics that could explain such an orbital decay, and that we therefore have to invoke his kinetic resistance. Well, orbital decay due to gravitational radiation is a possible mechanism.

But after all, I'm not well versed in astrophysics and there may be many other known possibilities

 

[dafydd]

It's only really a significant effect at extreme proximity to the hole. I have no idea what Bjarne is talking about with 'stars falling out of the sky' though, maybe he does mean that.

The Chicken Little Theory?

 

[Bjarne]

There is strong evidence that dark matter exists

This is only crap, fantasy and creeds

Gravitational lensing maps of galactic clusters that show most of the mass is not in the galaxie.
Motions of galaxies in galactic clusters that need more mass in them them is visible.

It only shows misunderstood central gravity properties.

The orbits of extra-solar planets are not "strange". The techniques to detect extra-solar planets are biased toward heavy planets and planets that are close to their stars. They are really good at detecting heavy planets that are close to their stars!

Planets shouldn’t be so close or so fare away that we often find them.

I do not know what you mean by "most of the matter is moving towards the centre.

I mean how was galaxies and solar systems created.

Bjarne
In the centre of galaxies stars “fall from the sky”":
RC
There is no sky in the center of the galaxy. Are you refering to the observation of the supermassive black hole in the center of the galaxy?

No, - Stars are dragged towards the black hole, we don’t know why

Bjarne
Some planets denies to die in more than 500.000.000 years,
RC
How do planets die?

This demonstrate how little you know.
Read e.g; about WASP-8b or HD 102272

 

[Reality Check]

This is only crap, fantasy and creeds

That is only crap, fantasy and creeds from a position of ignorance.




The scientific evidence is:

• Gravitational lensing maps of galactic clusters that show most of the mass is not in the galaxies.
• The motion of galaxies in galactic clusters that need more mass in them them is visible. This has been known since the 1940's!
• The observation that the universe is flat but we can only find 4% of the mass & energy needed to make it flat.
• The large scale structure of the universe fits models that include dark matter.

Try learning some actual science.

Planets shouldn’t be so close or so fare away that we often find them.

Why?

This
I mean how was galaxies and solar systems created.

Essentially the same way - clouds of gas collapsing through gravity.
This is basic astronomy.

No, - Stars are dragged towards the black hole, we don’t know why

What stars are dragged toward which black hole?

If you mean Sagittarius A* then where is your evidence?

If you have evidence then what what is so special about this?

This demonstrate how little you know.
Read e.g; about WASP-8b or HD 102272

WASP-8b is a planet that is close to its star.
WASP-18b is a planet that is really close to its star.
HD 102272 is a star with a couple of extrasolar planets.
There are lots of extrasolar planets.

So what?

What is magic about number 500.000.000 years so that whatever you mean by "Some planets denies to die in more than 500.000.000 years" is important?

ETA
You may be ignorant of a nice bit of physics: Tidal acceleration


This means that

1. A secondary object that orbits faster than the primary object's rotation will have a positive tidal acceleration. An example of this is the Moon which used to be closer to the Earth.
2. A secondary object that orbits slower than the primary object's rotation will have a negative tidal acceleration. All satellites in retrograde orbits will get closer to their primary object, e.g. Triton.

Wasp-18b is orbiting close enough to its star that it should be orbiting faster than the star's rotation. Wasp-8b is unikely to be in a retrograde orbit due to how stellar systems form.
Thus astronomers expect Wasp-18b to get closer to the star and eventually break up. The discovery of an exoplanet that may be doing this is not that great a surprise. The light curve technique of detecting exoplanets is good at finding big planets that are close to their star. In fact all 14 of the WASP exoplanets have orbital periods of days (most are closer to their star than Wasp-8b) of which Wasp-18b is the closest.

 

[Reality Check]

We have some fundemental errors in Bjarne's idea:

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unitless quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  (First asked 23 October 2009)
• Experimental proof that Bjarne idea is wrong
  (First asked 2 November 2009)

Another problem with his idea:
First asked 13 November 2009
Bjarne only does his "calculations" for planets. Stellar formation means that planets are likley to orbit in the same direction as the rotation of their star. This is true for the 8 planets of the Solar System.
His "space wind" is caused by the rotation of the Sun. The reason that it accelerates the 8 planets is because they orbit in the same direction as the rotation.

But what about retrograde orbits, e.g that of Triton or Halley's Comet or the dwarf planet Pluto?

N.B. Bjarne does not have Pluto on his web site for some strange reason - maybe because his equation for "space wind" fails completely for Pluto.

Bjarne:
Why do objects in retrograde orbits that have "space wind" and "kinetic resistance" in the same direction have stable orbits?

 

[Bjarne]

The scientific evidence is:

And so it goes: dark meter here, - dark matter there, - and dark matter everywhere
BUT tell me now comrade
WHAT is dark (matter excepts invisible stuff in you fantasy) ?
What is it made of?
Why does it also seeks to the pherefery of galaxies, exactly the way it always “seems to do” ? - and to the oppesite direction in clusters of galaxies ?
Where does it come from
How dose it moves, I mean how is it “hunting” the galaxies and the centre of the clusters.
Don’t worry comrade, it’s Ok to be a dreamer, you are not the only one .

Bjarne
Planets shouldn’t be so close or so fare away that we often find them.
RC
Why?

Bjarne
Because this doesn’t fit with what we know. The gas atmosphere would have been blown away when the starts ignited. And 15 billion km is simply to fare. If you would had claim that this was possible for 20 years ago people would had believed you was mad.

Bjarne
I mean how was galaxies and solar systems created.
Essentially the same way - clouds of gas collapsing through gravity.
RC
This is basic astronomy.

Bjarne
Crap
There was no gravity that could pull a cloud together.

Bjarne
Stars are dragged towards the black hole, we don’t know why
RC
What stars are dragged toward which black hole?

Bjarne’
This is basic astronomy.

So what?

Wasp-18b and HD-102272-b "should" not exist.
Both these planet should have been dismissed billion and billion and billion years ago.

But what about retrograde orbits, e.g that of Triton or Halley's Comet or the dwarf planet Pluto?

N.B. Bjarne does not have Pluto on his web site for some strange reason - maybe because his equation for "space wind" fails completely for Pluto.

Bjarne:
Why do objects in retrograde orbits that have "space wind" and "kinetic resistance" in the same direction have stable orbits?

Let’s look at the basis space wind principle.
If this is not enough try to be more specific regarding your question(s) ( prefer one at the time)

Let's imaging a satellite orbiting over both poles in the altitude 35790 metre.

The SW velocity in that altitude is 5,26* 10-11 m/s hence we can easy calculate that this satellite will be affected by the SW, - per year = 0.00166 Metre.
(if the SW did have the same strenght everywhere in that orbit, but it have in fact not, so the real effect is probaly only 1/4)
This is insignificant and hence not enough to be discovered in few decades.

A such satellite would not have support from the space wind to overcome the resistance against motion and would hence (not decelerate but rather) be affected by "negative velocity" (5.26* 10-11 m/s in that altitude).

Both when the satellite "falls" and "climbs" it will lose altitude (per second 5.26* 10-11 m/s and on a yearly basis = 0.00166 Metre). When the satellite would move opposite the space wind, it would lose altitude double so fast.

So both the space wind as well as the resistance against motion are basic constant velocity or negative velocity.

But space probes on their way away from the Solar System will also only lose a certain velocity per second (e.g; the Pioneer probes 8.74 × 10−10 m/s² ) But the result is different, because the space probes (Pioneer probes) was continuing to lose velocity, (e.g; after 25 years the total velocity lost per second was 0,69 m/s compared to the expected velocity). Orbiting object does only lose altitudes. It's a big difference.

 

[The Man]

Let’s look at the basis space wind principle.
If this is not enough try to be more specific regarding your question(s) ( prefer one at the time)

[qimg]http://www.science27.com/images/EarthSatt.jpg[/qimg]

Let's imaging a satellite orbiting over both poles in the altitude 35790 metre.

Is that image suppose to represent that your “space wind” is in an orthogonal orbit to that of the satellite?

The SW velocity in that altitude is 5,26* 10-11 m/s hence we can easy calculate that this satellite will be affected by the SW, - per year = 0.00166 Metre.
(if the SW did have the same strenght everywhere in that orbit, but it have in fact not, so the real effect is probaly only 1/4)
This is insignificant and hence not enough to be discovered in few decades.

Velocity is a vector and that requires the direction be considered.

A such satellite would not have support from the space wind to overcome the resistance against motion and would hence (not decelerate but rather) be affected by "negative velocity" (5.26* 10-11 m/s in that altitude).

Deceleration is a "negative velocity", the result being a change in velocity which requires a force.

Both when the satellite "falls" and "climbs" it will lose altitude (per second 5.26* 10-11 m/s and on a yearly basis = 0.00166 Metre). When the satellite would move opposite the space wind, it would lose altitude double so fast.

Climbing is gaining altitude. If you are referring to when the satellite is moving in opposition to your “space wind” and when it is moving with it then it should experience a deceleration moving against that “wind” and acceleration moving with it, such that the net effects cancel out. However you image tends to show your “wind” perpendicular to the orbit of the satellite (as well as apparently orbiting itself) which would simply shift the orbit of the satellite. Again being a change in velocity requiring a force.

So both the space wind as well as the resistance against motion are basic constant velocity or negative velocity.

Well which is it? If it is a “constant velocity” then it does not change in magnatude or direction, if it is a “negative velocity” then it depends on what directions are considered positive in the coordinate system being used.

But space probes on their way away from the Solar System will also only lose a certain velocity per second (e.g; the Pioneer probes 8.74 × 10−10 m/s² ) But the result is different, because the space probes (Pioneer probes) was continuing to lose velocity, (e.g; after 25 years the total velocity lost per second was 0,69 m/s compared to the expected velocity). Orbiting object does only lose altitudes. It's a big difference.

Losing altitude just means getting closer to some gravitational body, an orbiting spacecraft de-orbits or loses altitude by decelerating its orbital (or tangential) velocity.




Please see orbital decay


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay

 

[Reality Check]

And so it goes: dark meter here, - dark matter there, - and dark matter everywhere
BUT tell me now comrade
WHAT is dark (matter excepts invisible stuff in you fantasy) ?

No fantasy comrade.
In case you are still ignorant of what dark matter is then:
Dark matter is a placeholder term for whatever explains the evidence, i.e.

• Gravitational lensing maps of galactic clusters that show most of the mass is not in the galaxies.
• The motion of galaxies in galactic clusters that need more mass in them them is visible. This has been known since the 1940's!
• The observation that the universe is flat but we can only find 4% of the mass & energy needed to make it flat.
• The large scale structure of the universe fits models that include dark matter.

What is it made of?

Nobody knows. The observations of Bullet Cluster, MACS J0025.4-1222 and Abell 520 are strong evidence that dark matter is

1. Matter.
2. Dark, i.e. does not interact electromagnetically.

Dark matter composition has a list of candidates.

Why does it also seeks to the pherefery of galaxies, exactly the way it always “seems to do” ? - and to the oppesite direction in clusters of galaxies ?

It does not. The distribution is roughly constant out to the halo radius and then varying as 1/r^2 (Distribution of Dark Matter in the Milky Way).

The distribution is different in galactic clusters because galactic clusters are not galaxies. They are cluster of galaxies.

Where does it come from

It came from wherever everything else came from. That is why it is important in establishing the large scale structure of the universe.

How dose it moves, I mean how is it “hunting” the galaxies and the centre of the clusters.

Gravity.

Don’t worry comrade, it’s Ok to be a dreamer, you are not the only one .

Don’t worry comrade, it’s Ok to be a dreamer and have no idea about science - so long as you are not idiotic enough to claim otherwise !