THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

[Reality Check]

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.

That is riight . All scientists agree that we do not know what dark matter is. All we know is that there is strong evidence that it exists and enough of its properties (dark, massive, weakly interacting, abundance) to list the candidate for what it might be.

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?

Dark matter composition.

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.

Thta is wrong. Your own numbers state that the do not cancel out. Your own equations state that they will never cancel out except (possibly) for 1 specific orbit.

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.

But you just stated that "space wind" and the impossible "kinetic resistance" cancel out. Make your mind up!
Also eccentricity does not match up with "space wind".

They will do, BUT slowly, - very slowly…

Do you really think that scientists are too dumb to detect this but can detect the really, really small flyby and Pioneer anomalies?

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.

Do you really think that scientists are too dumb to detect this lose of altitude?

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

There are the numbers. You do the math.

 

[Bjarne]

All we know is that there is strong evidence….

I do agree, there is strong hypothesises….

Dark matter composition.

And the first line I read is:
"Although dark matter was inferred by gravitational lensing in August 2006,[10][11][12] many aspects of dark matter remain speculative….."Again I like when science tells the truth…..And not dig trenches…

Thta is wrong. Your own numbers state that the do not cancel out. Your own equations state that they will never cancel out except (possibly) for 1 specific orbit.

We have been that through, it’s insignificant and will anyway be distributed, just in a different way.

RC
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
But you just stated that "space wind" and the impossible "kinetic resistance" cancel out. Make your mind up!

Every planets have it’s own space wind, closed to these the planets space wind dominate, but at a certain distance the space wind from the Sun “takes over” . This is what the eccentricity must reflect.

Also eccentricity does not match up with "space wind".

This is not only reflecting “today” but the total influence the past 4.5 billion years., and as mentioned Jupiter too could had lost many heavy moons.

Do you really think that scientists are too dumb to detect this but can detect the really, really small flyby and Pioneer anomalies?

I never had claimed that, but only that it often seems to be “forbidden” even to think loudly that the book can content (small) part > crap. Omniscience, intolerance, infallibility is TOO STUPID.

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

I have ask you several times, what about this planet.
I see nothing strange?
Why mention it ?
I can not see anything strange, except that all planets are thrown out in space and comes back again several times.
This extends the lenght of all planets live - also WASP-17b.
I don't now if this was you "question" ??

You do the math.

I have done it.
Do you accept it?
I mean you are reality Check right ???
So does that math reflect reality ?

I guess you already have discovered that it’s a small force.
The value I mention in post 258 is too weak. – Let’s now first agree with the math and the see if the effect is totally nuts, OR if this is the new guide able to reduce the numbers of grey hairs by NASA etc…..

In the future we will be much better to understand and encircle the two unknown forces. Much more are affected as anyone would dream about.

Today you can write history, by assisting to reality check the reality of the math. ( I mean if you are clever enought to math)

 

[dafydd]

I do agree, there is strong hypothesises….


And the first line I read is:
"Although dark matter was inferred by gravitational lensing in August 2006,[10][11][12] many aspects of dark matter remain speculative….."Again I like when science tells the truth…..And not dig trenches…



We have been that through, it’s insignificant and will anyway be distributed, just in a different way.


Every planets have it’s own space wind, closed to these the planets space wind dominate, but at a certain distance the space wind from the Sun “takes over” . This is what the eccentricity must reflect.


This is not only reflecting “today” but the total influence the past 4.5 billion years., and as mentioned Jupiter too could had lost many heavy moons.


I never had claimed that, but only that it often seems to be “forbidden” even to think loudly that the book can content (small) part > crap. Omniscience, intolerance, infallibility is TOO STUPID.

I have ask you several times, what about this planet.
I see nothing strange?
Why mention it ?
I can not see anything strange, except that all planets are thrown out in space and comes back again several times.
This extends the lenght of all planets live - also WASP-17b.
I don't now if this was you "question" ??


I have done it.
Do you accept it?
I mean you are reality Check right ???
So does that math reflect reality ?

[qimg]http://www.science27.com/forum/decel.jpg[/qimg]
I guess you already have discovered that it’s a small force.
The value I mention in post 258 is too weak. – Let’s now first agree with the math and the see if the effect is totally nuts, OR if this is the new guide able to reduce the numbers of grey hairs by NASA etc…..

In the future we will be much better to understand and encircle the two unknown forces. Much more are affected as anyone would dream about.

Today you can write history, by assisting to reality check the reality of the math. ( I mean if you are clever enought to math)

LOL!!!!

 

[Reality Check]

I have ask you several times, what about this planet.
I see nothing strange?
Why mention it ?
I can not see anything strange, except that all planets are thrown out in space and comes back again several times.
This extends the lenght of all planets live - also WASP-17b.
I don't now if this was you "question" ??

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

• WASP-17b is in a retrograde 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

Emphasis added.

I have done it.
Do you accept it?
I mean you are reality Check right ???
So does that math reflect reality ?

http://www.science27.com/forum/decel.jpg

Your math in the image is gibberish and does not reflect reality.

• You have not explained what this equation in the image actually is. Is it the number of pixies that it takes to create the "kinetic resistance"?
• You have not added the "space wind" and "kinetic resistance" together. For a retrograde orbit the accelerations are in the same direction.
• Why are you multiplying by the acceleration due to gravity of the planet?
• Why are you dividing by the orbital velocity of the planet (assuming a circular orbit)?
• y is unit-less, thus (y-1) is unit-less. Therefore your equaton is has units of something like inverse seconds.

FYI: mass of the star WASP-18 is 2.386704 × 10^30 kilograms.

Try again.

 

[Reality Check]

LOL!!!!

LOL indeed.

Just between you and me D) the next question is going to be about double pulsar systems, e.g. PSR J0737-3039

The pulsars
Property Pulsar A Pulsar B
Spin period 23 milliseconds 2.8 seconds
Mass 1.337 solar masses 1.250 solar masses
Orbital period 2.4 hours PropertyPulsar APulsar BSpin period23 milliseconds2.8 secondsMass1.337 solar masses1.250 solar massesOrbital period2.4 hours

This system is especially interesting since it provided precise tests of GR

A "double pulsar" discovered in 2003, J0737−3039, has a perihelion precession of 16.90o per year; unlike the Hulse-Taylor binary, both neutron stars are detected as pulsars, allowing precision timing of both members of the system. Due to this, the tight orbit, the fact that the system is almost edge-on, and the very low transverse velocity of the system as seen from Earth, J0737−3039 provides by far the best system for strong-field tests of general relativity known so far. Several distinct relativistic effects are observed, including orbital decay as in the Hulse-Taylor system. After observing the system for two and a half years, four independent tests of general relativity were possible, the most precise (the Shapiro delay) confirming the general relativity prediction within 0.05%.[37]

As far as I can see Bjarne's "space wind" and nonexistent "kinetic resistance" would be detected in that system and invalidate GR.

Bjarne: You do the math and win a Nobel Prize .

 

[Bjarne]

• WASP-17b is in a retrograde 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

Wonderbar.
This would be the perfect planet to watch, as it would lose altitude much faster as something seen so far.

Your math in the image is gibberish and does not reflect reality.
• You have not explained what this equation in the image actually is. Is it the number of pixies that it takes to create the "kinetic resistance"?
• You have not added the "space wind" and "kinetic resistance" together. For a retrograde orbit the accelerations are in the same direction.
• Why are you multiplying by the acceleration due to gravity of the planet?
• Why are you dividing by the orbital velocity of the planet (assuming a circular orbit)?
• y is unit-less, thus (y-1) is unit-less. Therefore your equaton is has units of something like inverse seconds.

That's why I ask you to check. If not you do not deserve you name "Reality Check"
Hence it should be "Limit Reality Check"

Well let's get serious

(y-1) = 4.93 * 10-9 m/s2
√GM/r = 29.790
GM/r^2 = 9,8 m/s

The question is simple:
How fast would the Earth lose altitude if it would decelerate 4.93 * 10-9 m/s - that’s all.

But I can understand none of the fellows here are sure how to calculate it. - I am not either.

So far I understand we must off course look at the forces (or velocities) affecting the Earth.

• Deceleration (y-1) = 4.93 * 10-9 m/s2
• Average Orbit Velocity: √GM/r = 29.790
• ADG: GM/r^2 = 9,8s m/s

The proportional between the deceleration and orbit velocity is 4.93 * 10-9 m/s / 29790 m/s
This must (so fare I understand) be same proportions affecting the altitude (and hence AGD 9,8s m/s )

This is what the equation shows.
I guess it’s a much easier way to calculate this.

Now: - are you a real "Reality Check" ?
Is this equation correct ? - if not what is wrong ?

This system is especially interesting since it provided precise tests of GR

If you believe that anything contradicts that I claims, try to be specific.
I am not thought-reader

As far as I can see Bjarne's "space wind" and nonexistent "kinetic resistance" would be detected in that system and invalidate GR.

If you believe that anything contradicts that I claims, try to be specific.
What is the problem ?
I am not thought-reader

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

I am not thought-reader

Now, there's the problem

 

[MRC_Hans]

Wonderbar.
This would be the perfect planet to watch, as it would lose altitude much faster as something seen so far.

Problem is: You have been using it's apparant longevity as an argument FOR your ideas. Try to keep your story straignt, OK.

That's why I ask you to check. If not you do not deserve you name "Reality Check"
Hence it should be "Limit Reality Check"

The 'do my homework for me' fallacy. Bjarne: NOBODY has to do the slightest to check and confirm YOUR calculations. It is entirely YOUR duty to support your claims.

But I can understand none of the fellows here are sure how to calculate it. - I am not either.

So far I understand we must off course look at the forces (or velocities) affecting the Earth.

So you admit that you don't really know what you are talking about?

If you believe that anything contradicts that I claims, try to be specific.
I am not thought-reader

The things that contradict your claims have been spelled out in considerable detail, repeatedly, in this thread. You dont have to be a thought reader, all you need is to READ.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Problem is: You have been using it's apparant longevity as an argument FOR your ideas. Try to keep your story straignt, OK.

I do not see this as a problem.
A retrograde planet (or Moon) is to my opinion most likely a object that have returned from far out from the solar system .

The cause of a moon gets retrograde is that the space wind from the Sun is to blame.
The cause of a planet gets retrograde is that it have been very fare away from a star where the space wind rules stronger.

Before that the objects could have been thrown out and in of a solar system (or from the planet) many times, - each time a planet (or moon) have been lost.

The 'do my homework for me' fallacy. Bjarne: NOBODY has to do the slightest to check and confirm YOUR calculations. It is entirely YOUR duty to support your claims.

But Reality Check is properly not satisfied with the new title: Mr. Limit Reality Check.
I mean if he do not have the ability to check that equation, how can we then trust all the others "abilities", it “seems” that he have?

I mean if you can not tell me if 2+3 = 7 ( or not), - how can I then believe if his view of dark matter, - relativity, - and accelerators, is reality, - or just reflect the same narrow limited lack of judgement. .

So you admit that you don't really know what you are talking about?

No, but just that I am not sure. As you probably know I like scientist to be honest.

The things that contradict your claims have been spelled out in considerable detail, repeatedly, in this thread. You don’t have to be a thought reader, all you need is to READ.

In no way

• We do not KNOW if dark matter exists
• Accelerators are NOT build to measure resistance against motion, also not by constant velocity. And you is too afraid to bet.
• A spoon can bend, space can not. – This is and will always be a clumsy expression.

 

[Reality Check]

Well let's get serious

(y-1) = 4.93 * 10-9 m/s2

Still wrong. (y-1) has no units (left hand side) and you have units on the right hand.
Try again.

Herre arre some simple examples of doing math with physical quantities:

• If you have a distance of d meters and a time of t seconds and divide them them you get d/t meters/seconds. This is a speed.
• If you have a distance of d meters and another distance of e meters and divide them then you get d/e. Note that the meters have cancelled out. This is a number.

 

[Reality Check]

In no way

• We do not KNOW if dark matter exists
• Accelerators are NOT build to measure resistance against motion, also not by constant velocity. And you is too afraid to bet.
• A spoon can bend, space can not. – This is and will always be a clumsy expression.

In every way

• We KNOW that dark mater exists. Gravitational lensing of galactic clusters alone tells us that it exists.
• Accelerators ARE built to accelerate. They are monitored. If your "kinetic resistance" existed then it would be detected.
• A spoon can bend, space can bend . – This is and will always be a mathematically exact expression.

 

[Reality Check]

Can Bjarne backup his assertion that dark matter does not exist

First asked 20 November 2009
Bjarne, You assert that dark matter does not exist. But there are several observations that demonstrate that dark matter does exist.

You obvioulsy must have evidence that these observations are wrong.

Please list your evidence that the observations supporting the existence of dark matter are wrong.

I suggest that we do this in historical order, e.g. start with the motions of galaxies in galactic cluster as observed by Zwicky in the 1940's.

The evidence fo dark matter is repeated (yet again!) below.
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.

 

[Bjarne]

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 you believe this is "dark matter"

What this really is: central naturally gravity.

Galaxies sucks space from both a outwards as well from a inwards direction. (from all directions)

This means that central space between galaxies is "surrounded" or "encircled".

Therefore the "pressure" on space in these central areas will increase because of space delivery to the galaxies consumption must be delivered from all direction, also even though the access and amount of space is limited and under "pressure"

It’s so dam naturally simple, the day you underatnd that bended space = contracted space.

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

[qimg]
What this really is: central naturally gravity....

... a concept which is completely unproven, inconsistent with everything we know about gravity and physcially unsound, one might reasonably add...

Dark matter is neiher inconsistent with what weknow about gravity nor physically unsound.

1-0 to dark matter.

 

[Reality Check]

http://scienceblogs.com/startswitha...ra_that_changed_the_u4/mass_recon0024_500.jpg
And you believe this is "dark matter"

What this really is: central naturally gravity.

Galaxies sucks space from both a outwards as well from a inwards direction. (from all directions)

This means that central space between galaxies is "surrounded" or "encircled".

Therefore the "pressure" on space in these central areas will increase because of space delivery to the galaxies consumption must be delivered from all direction, also even though the access and amount of space is limited and under "pressure"

It’s so dam naturally simple, the day you underatnd that bended space = contracted space.

What a load of gibberish, Bjarne.

Anyone who knows anything about physics know that the gravitational lensing (good old GR!) tells us about the distribution of the matter that bent the light. Astronomers then use the bending of the light to measure the distribution of the matter in galactic clusters. They find that most of the matter is not in the galaxies. It is between them and in a great big ball in the middle.

 

[Reality Check]

Curved space is not contracted space

It’s so dam naturally simple, the day you underatnd that bended space = contracted space.

It is so darn simple, once you understand that bended space is not contracted space.

Curved space is not contracted space
First asked 11 November 2009:

Bjarne:
Have you grasped the simple fact that curved space is not contracted space yet?

In flat space the sum of the angles inside a triangle is 180 degrees.
This is no longer true in curved space.
Uniform contraction of space does not produce any curvature of space since it is uniform and preserves shapes. Thus a triangle in flat space which has a sum of 180 degrees still has the same sum after uniform contraction.

Uniform contraction of space does not produce forces when compared to flat space (no GR gravity). This is because straight paths in it remain as straight paths. Newton's laws then show that there is no force.

Nonuniform contraction of space needs sinks and sources of space which has other problems as sol victus has mentioned.

My objection to nonuniform contraction of space is more physical (and perhaps wrong). As I see it a point mass acting as a drain of spacetime will create an infinite curvature at its position. In other words it will be a black hole with all the consequences, e.g. instantly exploding because of Hawking radiation.

So far the answer is:
Bjarne cannot understant the simple fact that curved space is not contracted space

 

[dafydd]

central naturally gravity

I love the way you invent these terms as you go along.

 

[Reality Check]

Please list your evidence invalidates that observations of dark matter

First asked 20 November 2009
Bjarne, You assert that dark matter does not exist. But there are several observations that demonstrate that dark matter does exist.

You obviously must have evidence that these observations are wrong.

Bjarne,
Please list your evidence that the observations supporting the existence of dark matter are wrong.

If your last post is anything to go by all we are going to get from you is unsupported assertions and gibberish caused by your ignorance of science (and bad English). But maybe you can surprise us with some actual science or even mathematics !

I suggest that we do this in historical order, e.g. start with the motions of galaxies in galactic cluster as observed by Zwicky in the 1940's.

The evidence for dark dark matter is (repeated yet again and again and again!) below.
Have a look at The Camera that Changed the Universe: Part 4 which has an image of the surface density of a galactic cluster.

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.

 

[Bjarne]

What this really is: central naturally gravity....

Look at the giant spherically-distributed mass that's present everywhere.
Now imaging the distances between all these galaxies were 1000 times larger.
Now the “giant spherically-distributed mass” would stretch 1000 times.

What you are doing is NOT stretching the: “dark matter” - BUT you are stretching the central area from where all galaxies SUCKS space.

That is why the idea of dark matter is the biggest (and most expensive) unsound joke in history.

It’s all only to understand that space is flexible and that the expansion of the universe, as well as gravity in many ways reveals exactly that.

Anyone who knows anything about physics know that the gravitational lensing (good old GR!) tells us about the distribution of the matter that bent the light.

Centrally space is stronger contracted / deformed, this must cause: gravitational lensing

Astronomers then use the bending of the light to measure the distribution of the matter in galactic clusters. They find that most of the matter is not in the galaxies. It is between them and in a great big ball in the middle.

You and too many are very M A T T E R fixated.
Try to allow you self to be S P A C E fixated at least 10 minutes.
Gravity does NOT only depend on matter, - BUT also on the “density” of space.

If 100 hungry people all especially want to eat (half of their) spaghetti in the centre of the cafeteria, spaghetti confusion will come under the biggest “pressure” exactly in the centre, and everybody exactly here will smash together in a spaghetti orgy.
WHY make this more difficult than it is: “dark spaghetti” doesn’t exist.

In a flat space the sum of the angles inside a triangle is 180 degrees.

Exactly like central space between galaxies is under larger “pressure” so are central space between clusters of galaxies, and so are central spaces in the Universe.

I ‘am sure that everything orbits around a central point of the Universe as well, - You can’t see that because all you reference points are all into orbit motion. If more universes exist, also these must orbit around a central point.

Like the Earth, the Sun and Galaxies, also Cluster of Galaxies also creates space wind, the whole Universe must produce that as well.

The force responsible for the “Flat Universe” is hence the space wind of the universe, and not caused by “dark matter”.

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

Centrally space is stronger contracted / deformed, this must cause: gravitational lensing

When reading this, I find myself wondering why this "Centrally space is stronger contracted / deformed" must casue gravitational lensing, seeing as we have yet to be presented with a formal (=mathematical) argument that show this.

You and too many are very M A T T E R fixated.
Try to allow you self to be S P A C E fixated at least 10 minutes.
Gravity does NOT only depend on matter, - BUT also on the “density” of space.

I find it really amusing that Bjarne will tell us, with - I presume - a straight face, that space itself can spontaneously create a gravity field... encore:

Gravity does NOT only depend on matter

Yeah right, now gravity can originate from little green space-santas, it seems.

Also, this concept of space density... It seems Bjarne, in playing the sorcerers apprentice, forgot to define that little term. But then again, how can we define a "space density" if we don't even know what space is?

Remember, Bjarnes premise for his absurd crusade on General relativity is that we cannot know if space really curves if we don't know what space is. Well Bjarne seemingly ignores what each and every physical properties he would assign to space, likewise lack even a heuristic definition and is meaningless without a proper definition of space. The blatant absurdity in this position is so obvious.

General relativity does not suffer such fate, after all Curved space is a purely mathematical construct, but it reproduces the reality with such great accuracy that we cannot dismiss that physical space - whatever it is - in fact curves.