THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

[Reality Check]

"Space wind" makes retrograde orbits,around rotating primaries unstable

We have some fundamental errors in Bjarne's idea:

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less 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 (updated on 16 November to make it clearer to Bjarne):
First asked 13 November 2009
Bjarne only does his "calculations" for planets. Stellar formation means that planets are likely 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 around rotating objects like the Sun or Saturn, 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 around rotating objects (so that their "space wind" and mythical "kinetic resistance" are in the same direction) have stable orbits?


What about the spacecraft that are orbiting the Earth in retrograde orbits.

• Why are they not falling from the sky?
• Why have scientists not noticed the effect of "space wind" on their orbits?
  They can detect the flyby (~13 mm/s !)and Pioneer anomalies.

To clear up your ignorance Bjarne, I suggest you read Retrograde motion:

Of Jupiter's 55 moons, 48 have retrograde orbits. Of Saturn's 26 moons, 18 have retrograde orbits, and the particles in Saturn's Phoebe ring are thought to have a retrograde orbit because they originate from the irregular moon Phoebe. Of Neptune's 9 moons, 8 have a retrograde orbit.
...
Halley's Comet has a retrograde orbit around the sun.
The first Kuiper belt object discovered to have a retrograde orbit is 2008 KV42. The dwarf planet Pluto has retrograde rotation. Pluto's axial tilt is approximately 120 degrees.
...
The sun's motion about the centre of mass of the solar system is complicated by perturbations from the planets. Every few hundred years this motion switches between prograde and retrograde.
...
Exoplanets
Astronomers have discovered some exoplanets with retrograde orbits. WASP-17b is the first exoplanet that was discovered to be orbiting its star opposite to the direction the star is rotating] HAT-P-7b also has a retrograde orbit. The retrograde motion may be the result of gravitational interactions with other celestial bodies (See Kozai mechanism.) or a collision with another planet.

 

[steenkh]

I think you must have slept in history lessons. 300 years ago science and religion was one and the same thing. If you do not believe this who do you believe was hanging and burning disbelievers. The professors or the church?

300 years ago? That must be around 1709. Can you please mention a "disbeliever" that was burned at the stake from that time?

I doubt that you can find evidence that "science and religion was one and the same thing", at that time or any other time. Mind you, I am talking about real science, as practised today, not something that was called science at the time but which was not based on formulation of evidence-based testable theories.

Your claim that science today is spreading superstition is ludicrous. You are after all demonstrating that you have not the slightest understanding of science, and you think that something is only science if you yourself is able to understand it.

You are a religious believer in your own fantasy reality, and you have closed your mind to the evidence.

 

[Bjarne]

Such matter exists in huge quantities

Huge ! – Can you define HUGE
We “should” should be totally surrounded / bombarded everywhere in the Milky Way.
But the problem is that NOTHING have been detected in deep mines etc. etc. etc.

The reflection of electromagnetic radiation is related to the electronic properties of solid or plasma matter. Dark matter is niether hypothesized to form solid matter nor charged plasma. It is part of it's very nature that it doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation, or at least interacts very weakly - that is the "dark" part. And yes, matter with such properties are known to exist.

How can you KNOW comrade Troels
When there is NO way of detecting it.

Part of not interacting with electromagnetic radiation is being unable to be detected by the naked human eye, ie. invisible.

Exactly like the invisible elephants. There is billion and billion and billion of such. Did you really not know that?

As it has been stated numerous times in this very thread, the only way dark matter does make its pressense known is through gravitonic interaction with the surrounding space. This statement that dark matter does not interact gravitationally appearently came from the nether orifice of Bjarnes body, in a rather pathetic attempt to riddicule that which he absolutely refuses to understand.

So why does the so-called dark matter exsist in places WITHOUT matter e.g; in the centre of clusters of galaxies. And you do probably also except it to flowing Keplerian orbits. No comrade Troels, this is the biggest joke in history.

The Sun rotates. Pluto orbits the Sun in a retrograde orbit. According to you Pluto should not be orbiting because your "space wind" and mythical "kinetic resistance"

Misunderstood comrade. I haven’t calculated it, but Pluto is losing much less than 1 meter altitude per year.

We already know that "kinetic resisttance" does not exist because

Fanatic believes, nothing else

How much will you bet ?

One day you will wake up comrade.

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

Huge ! – Can you define HUGE

There is currently a menagerie of well over a hundred elementary particles, only three of which make up the elements of the periodic table. To claim that it is "unbelieveable" to have other matter than the native elements, is nothing less than riddiculous.

We “should” should be totally surrounded / bombarded everywhere in the Milky Way. But the problem is that NOTHING have been detected in deep mines etc. etc. etc.

Who has said anything about being bombarded by dark matter? That would indeed seem very unlikely seeing as most of it exists outside the galaxies and is expected to not move about very much.

And of course, abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

Reality Check has already compiled a fine list of the reasons for proposing dark matter.

How can you KNOW comrade Troels
When there is NO way of detecting it.

To claim that electromagnetic interaction is the only way of detecting matter is yet another load of nonsensical crap!

Neutrinos do not interact with electromagnetic radiation, but once we figured out how to do it, we detected them.


(Invisible elephant-rant cut - that is just too childish)

So why does the so-called dark matter exsist in places WITHOUT matter e.g; in the centre of clusters of galaxies.

The reason Dark matter is theorized to be at these places is because the gravitational influence on the surrounding space requires that there be matter there. I should think that was obvious to anyone who has bothered to read the list of evidence for dark matter by Reality Check

 

[Reality Check]

Misunderstood comrade. I haven’t calculated it, but Pluto is losing much less than 1 meter altitude per year.

One day you will wake up comrade.

You will never wake up comrade.

Now you are admitting that according to you, all objects in retrograde orbits around rotating objects have unstable orbits.

What about the spacecraft that are orbiting the Earth in retrograde orbits.

• Why are they not falling from the sky?
• Why have scientists not noticed the effect of "space wind" on their orbits?
  They can detect the flyby (~13 mm/s !)and Pioneer anomalies.

What about WASP-17b (see this paper)?

• WASP-17b is in a 3.7-day orbit
• Its mass is 0.49 that of Jupiter.
• Its semi-major axis is 0.051 AU.
• The best fitting period for the rotation of the star (WASP-17) is 24.7 days.

You do the math.

 

[Reality Check]

Who has said anything about being bombarded by dark matter? That would indeed seem very unlikely seeing as most of it exists outside the galaxies and is expected to not move about very much.

Not quite right.
We are constantly bombarded by dark matter particles, just like we are constantly bombarded by neutrinos. Dark matter is not restricted to being outside of galaxies. It's density within galaxies needed to produce the flat galaxy rotation curves is basically constant out to the halo and then dropping off as 1/r^2 from there.


Bjarne is wrong as usual about there being no way of detecting dark matter. It has been detected.

• There are dozens of observations that have measured dark matter using gravitational lensing.
• There are dozens of experiments ongoing here on Earth that may detect dark matter.
• There is one experiment (actually two but the same faculty: DAMA/NaI, DAMA/LIBRA) that may have already detected dark matter.
• There is data from the Fermi gamma ray observatory that is indirect evidence for dark matter (given that there is no other unknown source of gamma rays that could explain the data).

Bjarne seems to like pretty pictures so here is an scientific pretty picture (based on real data) of the surface density of a galactic cluster.
Have a look at The Camera that Changed the Universe: Part 4

What can you learn from this? Well, other than all sorts of things about the lensed galaxies, you can learn about dark matter! You see, gravitational lensing only cares about mass, and so we can figure out where -- in a cluster like this -- the mass is distributed. The results are breathtaking.

What this shows you is that yes, there are spikes where the individual galaxies are. But the cluster is dominated by this giant spherically-distributed mass that's present everywhere, both where there are galaxies and where there aren't. And that has got to be dark matter.

The Bullet Cluster, MACS J0025.4-1222 and Abell 520 observations show dark matter separated from normal matter.

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

Not quite right.
We are constantly bombarded by dark matter particles,*snip*

Excuse me?
Until we detect a dark matter particle here on earth, let alone a significant flux, the statement "We are being bombarded", is out of bounds. Sorry, I am an experimental physicist after all.

You expect what we may be bombarded by dark matter, but that's your problem

just like we are constantly bombarded by neutrinos.

Well there is the subtle difference that we are actually able to measure the neutrino flux.

Dark matter is not restricted to being outside of galaxies. It's density within galaxies needed to produce the flat galaxy rotation curves is basically constant out to the halo and then dropping off as 1/r^2 from there.

The most compelling argument for dark matter is the gravitational lensing measurements that clearly show distributions of matter where no visible matter can be seen as well as the motion of galaxies relative to each other.

Detecting dark matter inside galaxies is a wee bit more difficult. There are after all other ways to sort out the galaxy rotation problem.

Now, I don't dispute that there has to be matter out there that is "dark", the observational evidence is quite strong. I likewise do not dispute that there is no principal problem with such matter within our current understanding

However I'm not accepting statements such as "we are constantly being bombarded by dark matter" without positive evidence for it or even a formal proposal as to what exactly dark matter is. To that end you have to come up with an idea to test such a bombardment hypothersis. If you know of any peer rewieved work on the issue please do point me to it

 

[Reality Check]

Excuse me?
...snipp...

Change all the bombarding stuff to:
If dark matter is weakly interacting massive particles as all of the evidence suggests then it bombards us as much as neutrinos bombard us. There will be a lag between the hypothesis of dark matter = WIMPs and its detection (if the hypothesis is correct) in a similar way to the lag between the hypothesis of solar neutrinos and their detection.


If dark matter is weakly interacting massive particles as all of the evidence suggests then they will be everywhere and we may as well use them to explain galaxy rotation curves. Otherwise we need

• A mechanism to exclude them from galaxies (but not galactic clusters).
• Another mechanism to explain galaxy rotation curves, e.g. a MOND theory that has an unusual scale of application. It would be Newtonian on scales smaller then galaxies, add in a velocity component for galactic scales and then be Newtonian again for larger scales (galactic clusters).

Since you are an experimental phycists you will like the paper announcing the detection of DM in the DAMA experiment:
First results from DAMA/LIBRA and the combined results with DAMA/NaI
You will also know that this is a preliminary result until it is reproduced. There are other problems with the experiment, e.g. the results are not really compatible with WIMPs because of the low energy of the recoils recorded.

Also: Dark Matter - Detection

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

Thank you for your clarification

[/LIST]Since you are an experimental phycists you will like the paper announcing the detection of DM in the DAMA experiment:
First results from DAMA/LIBRA and the combined results with DAMA/NaI

Yes, most engaging - thank you.

 

[Bjarne]

There is currently a menagerie of well over a hundred elementary particles, only three of which make up the elements of the periodic table. To claim that it is "unbelieveable" to have other matter than the native elements, is nothing less than riddiculous.

We are talking about M A T T E R
You have no evidence what so ever at that there exist M A T T E R that we do not know.
One days this load of crap will turn over, and even that day sect-member will fight against proves to preserve their ridiculous fanatic statements.
Even the day the cause of socalled “dark matter” is disproven it will takes decade to get rid of this stupid unsound idea.

Reality Check has already compiled a fine list of the reasons for proposing dark matter.

Reality Check have finally been honest and admitted that we belives.
Gravity is a property of space.
We do not know how and why space bend.
Until we undersood that fundamentally property we are completely blindfolded.
The expression: “Dark Matter” fundamentally only reflects a stage of space and NOTHING ELSE.WHAT causes this stage of space WE DO NOT KNOW? This is what we know.

Even a cow can see how thin the different “dark matter” hypotheses really are.

To claim that electromagnetic interaction is the only way of detecting matter is yet another load of nonsensical crap!
Neutrinos do not interact with electromagnetic radiation, but once we figured out how to do it, we detected them.

And what ?
This proves NOTHING, and can in NO WAY be connected with objective FACT, that PROVES that you KNOW what e.g; causes central deformation of space in clusters of galaxies.

It’s all only a question of what is it possible to get the majority to believe in. - NOT based on cool objective facts so far.

Invisible elephant-rant cut - that is just too childish

So are dark matters.
Soon all (except the DM sect) will laugh of this headlong superstition crap
Do you also believe in dark galaxies?

Ha ha ha how funny….

Now you are admitting that according to you, all objects in retrograde orbits around rotating objects have unstable orbits.

I do not know what you mean by “unstable”
These will lose altitude, no doubt about it.

What about WASP-17b
• WASP-17b is in a 3.7-day orbit
• Its mass is 0.49 that of Jupiter.
• Its semi-major axis is 0.051 AU.
• The best fitting period for the rotation of the star (WASP-17) is 24.7 days.

What about it.
I am not thought-reader
What is the problem comrade?

There are dozens of observations that have measured dark matter using gravitational lensing.

They have measured unknown gravity and that's it.
Tell WHAT is dark matter
WHERE are you objective PROVE ?
I DO NOT ACCEPT THAT THE EVIDENCE ONLY IS: THAT THERE IS MORE GRAVITY AS WE CAN ACCOUNT FOR.
BUT I WANT TO KNOW: WHAT KIND OF MATTER?

There are dozens of experiments ongoing here on Earth that may detect dark matter.

Or may not
NONE have so far proven ANYTHING comrade.

There is one experiment (actually two but the same faculty: DAMA/NaI, DAMA/LIBRA) that may have already detected dark matter.

Lie. ONLY more gravity as we can account for, - is detected.

There is data from the Fermi gamma ray observatory that is indirect evidence for dark matter (given that there is no other unknown source of gamma rays that could explain the data).

WHAT have “dark matter” with this gamma to do?
If space is strongly contracted this it self will change EM valves.
And what about the X-ray around us. WE DON’T KNOW why there is more xray as we can account for, but this does not proves that Santa Claus exist.
Such can be compared to that I claim, that the sky is blue, and the only way this is possible is because it is oxygen in the air.. Dot.

 

[Toke]

Bended space makes no sense in a 3 dimensional world.

That does obviously not stop physicists from making useful models with it.
As far as I can tell the contracted space does not work as a model.

 

[dafydd]

We are talking about M A T T E R
You have no evidence what so ever at that there exist M A T T E R that we do not know.
One days this load of crap will turn over, and even that day sect-member will fight against proves to preserve their ridiculous fanatic statements.
Even the day the cause of socalled “dark matter” is disproven it will takes decade to get rid of this stupid unsound idea.


Reality Check have finally been honest and admitted that we belives.
Gravity is a property of space.
We do not know how and why space bend.
Until we undersood that fundamentally property we are completely blindfolded.
The expression: “Dark Matter” fundamentally only reflects a stage of space and NOTHING ELSE.WHAT causes this stage of space WE DO NOT KNOW? This is what we know.

Even a cow can see how thin the different “dark matter” hypotheses really are.


And what ?
This proves NOTHING, and can in NO WAY be connected with objective FACT, that PROVES that you KNOW what e.g; causes central deformation of space in clusters of galaxies.

It’s all only a question of what is it possible to get the majority to believe in. - NOT based on cool objective facts so far.


So are dark matters.
Soon all (except the DM sect) will laugh of this headlong superstition crap
Do you also believe in dark galaxies?

Ha ha ha how funny….


I do not know what you mean by “unstable”
These will lose altitude, no doubt about it.


What about it.
I am not thought-reader
What is the problem comrade?



They have measured unknown gravity and that's it.
Tell WHAT is dark matter
WHERE are you objective PROVE ?
I DO NOT ACCEPT THAT THE EVIDENCE ONLY IS: THAT THERE IS MORE GRAVITY AS WE CAN ACCOUNT FOR.
BUT I WANT TO KNOW: WHAT KIND OF MATTER?


Or may not
NONE have so far proven ANYTHING comrade.


Lie. ONLY more gravity as we can account for, - is detected.


WHAT have “dark matter” with this gamma to do?
If space is strongly contracted this it self will change EM valves.
And what about the X-ray around us. WE DON’T KNOW why there is more xray as we can account for, but this does not proves that Santa Claus exist.
Such can be compared to that I claim, that the sky is blue, and the only way this is possible is because it is oxygen in the air.. Dot.

Your posts are becoming incomprehensible,funny though.Keep 'em coming comrade.

 

[Reality Check]

We are talking about M A T T E R
You have no evidence what so ever at that there exist M A T T E R that we do not know.
One days this load of crap will turn over, and even that day sect-member will fight against proves to preserve their ridiculous fanatic statements.
Even the day the cause of socalled “dark matter” is disproven it will takes decade to get rid of this stupid unsound idea.

Are you really that ignorant?
We have lots of evidence that there exist M A T T E R that we do not know. We measure it! Dark matter has been detected.

• There are dozens of observations that have measured dark matter using gravitational lensing.
• There are dozens of experiments ongoing here on Earth that may detect dark matter.
• There is one experiment (actually two but the same faculty: DAMA/NaI, DAMA/LIBRA) that may have already detected dark matter.
• There is data from the Fermi gamma ray observatory that is indirect evidence for dark matter (given that there is no other unknown source of gamma rays that could explain the data).

Have a look at The Camera that Changed the Universe: Part 4 which has an image of the surface density of a galactic cluster.

What can you learn from this? Well, other than all sorts of things about the lensed galaxies, you can learn about dark matter! You see, gravitational lensing only cares about mass, and so we can figure out where -- in a cluster like this -- the mass is distributed. The results are breathtaking.

What this shows you is that yes, there are spikes where the individual galaxies are. But the cluster is dominated by this giant spherically-distributed mass that's present everywhere, both where there are galaxies and where there aren't. And that has got to be dark matter.

The Bullet Cluster, MACS J0025.4-1222 and Abell 520 observations show dark matter separated from normal matter.


The other evidence for dark matter is

• 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 flatness of galaxy rotation curves (they should decrease at large distances).
• Gravitational lensing maps of galactic clusters that show most of the mass is not in the galaxies.
• 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.

Reality Check have finally been honest and admitted that we belives.

I have stated what is obvious: The evidence leads intelligent, knowledgeable people to believe that dark matter exists.
This is the same process of evaluating the evidence and:

• believing that electrons exist.
• believing that light exists.
• believing that neutrinos exist.
• etc.

Do you have any problem with believing that electrons exist, Bjarne?

 

[Bjarne]

We have lots of evidence that there exist M A T T E R that we do not know. We measure it! Dark matter has been detected.

1.) W H A T kind of ** D A R K M A T T E R ** have been detected comrade?
2.) Do you believe in dark galaxies comrade?

 

[Reality Check]

1.) W H A T kind of ** D A R K M A T T E R ** have been detected comrade?
2.) Do you believe in dark galaxies comrade?

1) All kinds of ** D A R K M A T T E R ** have been detected, i.e. anything that is dark and made of matter.

2) Comrade, there has an observation that could be a dark matter galaxy where the majority of the matter in the galaxy is dark matter. So, comarade, I believe that dark galaxies could exist.

 

[Reality Check]

Retrograde orbits around rotating primaries are unstable

First asked 13 November 2009
Bjarne only does his "calculations" for planets. Stellar formation means that planets are likely 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 around rotating objects like the Sun or Saturn, 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, i.e. it gives a positive value when the value is negative. The actual value for "space wind" is so low that Pluto might not change orbit by much.

Bjarne:
Why do objects in retrograde orbits around rotating objects (so that their "space wind" and mythical "kinetic resistance" are in the same direction) have stable orbits?


What about the spacecraft that are orbiting the Earth in retrograde orbits.

• Why are they not falling from the sky?
• Why have scientists not noticed the effect of "space wind" on their orbits?
  They can detect the flyby (~13 mm/s !)and Pioneer anomalies.

What about WASP-17b (see this paper) and similiar objects?

• WASP-17b is in a 3.7-day orbit.
• Its mass is 0.49 that of Jupiter.
• Its semi-major axis is 0.051 AU.
• The best fitting period for the rotation of the star (WASP-17) is 24.7 days.

To clear up your ignorance Bjarne, I suggest you read Retrograde motion.

 

[Reality Check]

Orbits are not circular

First asked 18 November 2009
Are you aware that orbits are not circular (they are ellipses)?
This means that orbiting objects like planets

1. are not at a constant distance from their primary ("space wind" changes).
2. their velocity varies during the orbit, i.e. your impossible "kinetic resistance" varies.
   Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
   (First asked 23 October 2009)

This leads back to Retrograde orbits around rotating primaries are unstableand the fact that "space wind" and your impossible "kinetic resistance" are not numerically equal.

The instability in this case is not that the orbits decay - it is that they become more and more elliptical.

Bjarne:
Why do many planets, moons and other objects in the Solar System have low eccentricity orbits?
All orbits should have high eccentricity since there have been ~4.6 billion years of unmatched forces to stretch out the elliptical orbits.

Bjarne:
Why do scientists not see that satellites (which can be launched into highly elliptical orbits) have their orbits get more and more elliptical?

 

[steenkh]

We are talking about M A T T E R

Are you aware that the particles referred to are all M A T T E R?

 

[Bjarne]

Comrade, there has an observation that could be a dark matter galaxy where the majority of the matter in the galaxy is dark matter.
So, comarade, I believe that dark galaxies could exist.

Quote from the article:
"The unknown material that is thought to hold these galaxies together is known as 'dark matter', but scientists still know very little about what that is.?"
Only after reading few lines, it's clear that we talk about pure speculations.
I like the article is honest to admit this.

All kinds of ** D A R K M A T T E R ** have been detected, i.e. anything that is dark and made of matter.

Try to mention the 3 most important on start with these you believe is responsible for the dark matter in clusters and galaxies.
And tell we why do you exactly exactly this kind of MATTER to be responsible?

First asked 18 November 2009
Are you aware that orbits are not circular (they are ellipses)?
This means that orbiting objects like planets
are not at a constant distance from their primary ("space wind" changes).
their velocity varies during the orbit, i.e. your impossible "kinetic resistance" varies.

Of course I am aware of this
But since we seen from a overall perspective talk about a equalizes environment, its not important, because the forces anyway equalize each other.

Bjarne:
Why do many planets, moons and other objects in the Solar System have low eccentricity orbits?
All orbits should have high eccentricity since there have been ~4.6 billion years of unmatched forces to stretch out the elliptical orbits

Here you can see how much the Moon of Jupiter is affected by both it's own space wind as well as the space wind from the Sun. The more the space wind from the Sun interacts, the more the moons eccentricity increases.

Bjarne:
Why do objects in retrograde orbits around rotating objects (so that their "space wind" and mythical "kinetic resistance" are in the same direction) have stable orbits?

What about the spacecraft that are orbiting the Earth in retrograde orbits.
Why are they not falling from the sky?

They will do, BUT slowly, - very slowly…

Why have scientists not noticed the effect of "space wind" on their orbits?
They can detect the flyby (~13 mm/s !) and Pioneer anomalies.
What about WASP-17b (see this paper) and similar objects?
WASP-17b is in a 3.7-day orbit.
Its mass is 0.49 that of Jupiter.
Its semi-major axis is 0.051 AU.
The best fitting period for the rotation of the star (WASP-17) is 24.7 days.

Let’s now try to keep all this separated.

1.) The pioneer Anomalies are anomalies that occurs because motion away from the solar system mean lost of space wind.
2.) The Fly-By anomalies are very much related to the Pioneer Anomalies. These occurs by fast velocity (fly-by / gravity assist), and hence also increasing resistance against motion will occur, - more than the space wind can equalize.
3.) If a object travels in a direction against the space wind it be affected by both the space wind as well as the resistance against motion, and yes these object will “fall from the sky” – VERY slowly.

I have already answered you that; retrograde objects will lose altitude e.g: read thread 258
But I think there is a mistake
I need to know if the way to calculate this is correct.
Let's do that together, then you'll have the answers you are asking for.

So far are In understand the equation to calculate the deceleration is as below:

The example is to calculate the Earth's deceleration (if we assume it would have no space wind) .

If this is not the right way, or a more easy way exist, then let me know.

 

[dafydd]

Sigh!!!