THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

[Reality Check]

-------
Why should I

Because otherwise you cannot defend your idea. He is right and your idea is wrong.
Scientists defend their ideas against adverse analysis.
Crackpots just presume that their idea is correct and so all analysis that shows otherwise is wrong.

Which are you?

-------
His concluded the planets according to my equation “should” all be in the same orbit . This is wrong.

Why is it wrong?

-------
And this is not what my equation shows.

What do your 2 equations (which you state have to be equal) show what they are actually put equal to each other (as Sensation_of_physics did).

 

[Bjarne]

Crazy crackpots, who actually manage to give evidence for their claims, stop being seen as crazy crackpots. Worth thinking about, perhaps?

Just wait and see why see.
The problem as I see it is that people do not take the time to read the whole theory, or to consider.
A complete understanding makes a big different rather just reading 5 minutes here and there. You can not understand in short time.
What I mean: we have so many unanswered questions regarding gravity. Today we tries to answer these by hundred of theories all pointing in many directions.

You do not need anything else as: Space contract, - that’s a key to all these secrets.
But if you even do not try if it fits somewhere or even to all the locks, you will never understand anything.

Because otherwise you cannot defend your idea. He is right and your idea is wrong.
Scientists defend their ideas against adverse analysis.
Crackpots just presume that their idea is correct and so all analysis that shows otherwise is wrong.

You do not refer to any analyse but pure manipulation.

Bjarne
His concluded the planets according to my equation “should” all be in the same orbit . This is wrong.
RC ( Reality Check)
Why is it wrong?

Because this is not what my equations show and the not the from Sensation of Physics (SOF)
It’s only words.

What do your 2 equations (which you state have to be equal) show what they are actually put equal to each other (as Sensation_of_physics did).

I have answered all that above already.

 

[Dorfl]

Just wait and see why see.

I will. If, in a couple of years, I learn that your theory is revolutionising physics, I will of course mail you and apologise. I'm afraid it's very unlikely that will ever happen, though. It definitely won't unless you get your theory fit to make quantifiable predictions with. So I suggest that you start doing the hard work—mathematics—now, and leave speculations about what your theory might explain for later. It's up to you. I have said all I intend to about this subject.

 

[Reality Check]

Because this is not what my equations show and the not the from Sensation of Physics (SOF)
It’s only words.

No - it is mathematics. It is what your equations show mathematically.

But here is an idea:
Since you are obseessed with arithemtic, you will find it really easy to prove SOF is wrong. Just update your calculations web page to contain 4 decimal place numbers.
Or better yet make SOF totally wrong and update it to 8 decimal place numbers!

 

[steenkh]

I even do not want time to understand it.
My equation is OK

There it is: People who actually understand math show you have made an error, and your religious conviction tells you that your equations are OK so that you do not even want to take the time to understand your errors. Brilliant!

How stupid do you think I am?

I do not need to think about how stupid you are when you make posts like this.

 

[Reality Check]

In principle we are done here. But Bjarne seems obsesed with numbers so let do a few:

Constants (from Bjarnes webpage):

M=2 10³⁰omega=2Pi/2.592.000
Q=6.52 10²¹c=2.99 10⁸
(yes I omitted the units - including them would cause major incompatibility)

And The Gravitational constant:

G=6.67428 10^-11
Mercury:

r=5.8 10¹⁰

Whoops! Discrepancy already on third decimal place... So much for the "exact equlity" - perhaps this goes to explain why Bjarne chose to stop at second decimal place.

There is another big discrepancy. Bjarne has 1.27 10^-8 for Mercury's "space wind" and "kinetic resistance".

So the options are:

1. He is not actually using the numbers on the web page to do his calculations.
2. He is doing the calculatons incorrectly (maybe he has a 2 decimal place calculator!).
3. He has faked his results.

So lets look at his equation and his calculation of space wind for Mercury:
Sun Mass (M) = 2 * 10³⁰Rotation (R) = 140,432
Distance (r) = 0.58 * 10¹¹ m
Constant (Q) = 6.52* 10²¹His result = 1.27 * 10^-8
Enter the above numbers into his equation (RM/Qr^2) into a calculator to get 1.2805 * 10^-8. Explicitly (without units):
R*M = 2.80864 * 10³⁵R*M/Q = 4.3077 * 10¹³R*M/Qr = 7.42712 * 10²R*M/Qrr = 1.2805 * 10^-8Whoops!

Try plugging his numbers into his equation for " "kinetic resistance". I get 1.2878 * 10^-8.
Whoops again!

I vote for option 3 - he has faked his results.

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

There is another big discrepancy. Bjarne has 1.27 10^-8 for Mercury's "space wind" and "kinetic resistance".

So the options are:

1. He is not actually using the numbers on the web page to do his calculations.
2. He is doing the calculatons incorrectly (maybe he has a 2 decimal place calculator!).
3. He has faked his results.

So lets look at his equation and his calculation of space wind for Mercury:
Sun Mass (M) = 2 * 10³⁰Rotation (R) = 140,432
Distance (r) = 0.58 * 10¹¹ m
Constant (Q) = 6.52* 10²¹His result = 1.27 * 10^-8
Enter the above numbers into his equation (RM/Qr^2) into a calculator to get 1.2805 * 10^-8. Explicitly (without units):
R*M = 2.80864 * 10³⁵R*M/Q = 4.3077 * 10¹³R*M/Qr = 7.42712 * 10²R*M/Qrr = 1.2805 * 10^-8Whoops!

Try plugging his numbers into his equation for " "kinetic resistance". I get 1.2878 * 10^-8.
Whoops again!

I vote for option 3 - he has faked his results.

Nicely exposed!

I had noticed that he got 1.27... but my point was more to show that you need to be very careful with the word "exact" then it comes to arithemtic.

And we still need Bjarne to answer for his little overstatement that his idea should solve - among other things - the Galaxy Rotation Problem (and thus rendering Dark Matter more or less obsolete), seeing as he will predict more or less the same rotation curve as Kepler in such large distance limit.

Anyways, more pressing matters require my attention elsewhere, so I'll say thank you for the ride here. It's been mighty hilarious and I hope to attend other discussions on the forum in the future

 

[Bjarne]

So lets look at his equation and his calculation of space wind for Mercury:
Sun Mass (M) = 2 * 1030
Rotation (R) = 140,432
Distance (r) = 0.58 * 1011 m
Constant (Q) = 6.52* 1021
His result = 1.27 * 10-8

Enter the above numbers into his equation (RM/Qr^2) into a calculator to get 1.2805 * 10-8. Explicitly (without units):
R*M = 2.80864 * 1035
R*M/Q = 4.3077 * 1013
R*M/Qr = 7.42712 * 102
R*M/Qrr = 1.2805 * 10-8
Whoops!

And that’s exactly what I mentioned above
Yes Mercury (Venus and Earth) are affected with a tiny larger space wind force.
Hence thes planet “”should”” be thrown faster out in space than e.g; Jupiter etc…
But NO it doesn’t happen. At least not right now. It could had happen in the present. The overall picture is that the forces automatically can equalize and the planets are able to find their stable orbit levels, elso even though these tiny divations..
These divations "is part of the game".

Because of Mercury (and the other inner planets) also pulls space around the Sun exact like the Suns rotation does the result is that BOTH the Suns rotation and Mercury’s orbit (and all other inner planets orbit) all sets space into motion around the Sun. And hence drives the same space wind “crankshaft” (All the inner planets pulls that crank and the planets closer to the Sun pulls harder because here is space stronger contracted) (Also notice the inner planets are much faster)

Its all explained at the Danish forum (see the link above) .
So its no Whoops at all, - but only reflect the exactly same principle that transmit KE from a galaxies inner area to its outer. In a galaxy the space wind is MUCH stronger compared to a solar system. Here you find the law of nature that’s is responsible for the so called “”dark matter” “ – It’s simple KE transmission and VERY simple to understand.

I will make this clearer at the home page.
It was before but I dropped it since I do not now all the exact data anyway.

If this what SOF tries to explain with his big load of Math, it’s really not necessary, because it is and have never been a secret that the transition of KE in our solar system is much more complex when you look at the overall picture.

To get that all clear it will need advanced software.

This also demonstrate how dark matter works in a galaxy as well..

All the inner planets as well as stars, are doing a harder work the closer these are to the gravitational centre.
That's why inners stars are slower then they "should" be according to Kepler. And that’s why starts in the inner galaxy continue to fall from the sky.
I can not believe that SOF still not have got this point, but rather that he only is a trouble maker.

You can read more
HERE

This is the whole climax and something I thought would be easy understood and that many of the Danes here at this forum should have understood long ago.
Hence it's rather seems that they do not want to understand but instead to make noise out of nothing, by repeating a unnecessary load of confusion math, the most fellows not will understand anyway.
So long all have the dark crackpot glasses on, and don’t read with a open mind it will be difficult to understand anything.

It is also mentioned at the site, that the constant is only temporary. Hence it’s not necessary to used exact distance, mass or rotation.
The principle behind the new equation will be unchanged. A refined constant is a task for the future to clarify exactly.

I can not do more than showing the principles.

Its up to NASA , ESA Cern etc. etc to refine the constant...

 

[steenkh]

If this what SOF tries to explain with his big load of Math, it’s really not necessary, because it is and have never been a secret that the transition of KE in our solar system is much more complex when you look at the overall picture.

Ah, the "I am right but it is much too complex to explain"-excuse!

It has been shown by "cold mathematics" (using a favourite expression of Bjarne's on the Danish forum) that you are wrong, and that you get wrong and contradictory results. At best, you get the same results as Kepler, in which case GR gives a better match to the facts.

Your evasions make it clear that you do not have the ability to come up with the necessary equations, or to correct the mistakes you have made. You are only sustained by your belief in your own infallibility - a religious attitude that you so readily accuse others of.

And that’s why starts in the inner galaxy continue to fall from the sky.

Name one? We have yet to observe a single star fall from the sky (which probably is your bovine term for the stars falling into the central Black Hole).

I can not do more than showing the principles.

You do not show any principles but only empty words. You use ill-defined terms like "pulling space", "setting space in motion" or "space wind “crankshaft”" that have no meaning because you have not defined them and you cannot define them. You simply invent new concepts as you go along when you think that they sound impressive.

Its up to NASA , ESA Cern etc. etc to refine the constant...

How can they refine something that cannot even be shown to exist?

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
How can they refine something that cannot even be shown to exist?

And why should they even try?

Hans

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

And then again - when I read this tidbit I just had to make a cameo appearance:

And that’s exactly what I mentioned above
Yes Mercury (Venus and Earth) are affected with a tiny larger space wind force.
Hence thes planet “”should”” be thrown faster out in space than e.g; Jupiter etc…

Actually, it is the space drag force which is the greater (1.2878 * 10^-8 vs 1.2805 * 10^-8 for the space wind)

Hence, mercury (and venus and earth and supposedly every other planet as well) should be falling inward.

It seems that Bjarne still hasn't quite grasped what he really is claming, but has spend the past to years convincing himself of what he think he is claiming. The breakdown is complete...

 

[Bjarne]

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

Actually, it is the space drag force which is the greater (1.2878 * 10-8 vs 1.2805 * 10-8 for the space wind)

Hence, mercury (and venus and earth and supposedly every other planet as well) should be falling inward.

EXCACTLY NOT, because the space wind is affecting the inner planets stronger.
Therefore the inner planet have more KE than they need for equalizing own resistance.
And this extra KE is used to support planets further out. It’s a UNITY that always (automatically) tries to go hand in hand.

Ah, the "I am right but it is much too complex to explain"-excuse

The confusion is not my credit.
Instead of a HUGE load of so called math can be blamed.
You could have had ask why: why this tiny little deviation? - And I would have answered like I did ½ year ago...
Everything is explained ½ year ago to Troels (SOP).
He certainly must have understood. His goal doesn’t seem to understand (or even try to) but rather to derail a discussion.
Properly because he have lost several discussions long ago and don't want to admit it. And so have you.

HERE

It has been shown by "cold mathematics" (using a favourite expression of Bjarne's on the Danish forum) that you are wrong, and that you get wrong and contradictory results. At best, you get the same results as Kepler, in which case GR gives a better match to the facts.

And so it goes. If you can not bit him, - manipulate what he says.
Or call him crackpot mental ill liar and hope that the admin accept such dirt.

Your evasions make it clear that you do not have the ability to come up with the necessary equations, or to correct the mistakes you have made.

There is nothing to correct except: authoritarian superstition fanatic religion..

Name one? We have yet to observe a single star fall from the sky (which probably is your bovine term for the stars falling into the central Black Hole).

This reveals that you don't know what you are talking about.
Billion of stars fall from the sky inside galaxies. We do not know why ...
All what we have is authoritarian religion and those that not accept this crap can chose between to be hanged or put down,.
No my dear the world is crazy have always been and will properly always be…
Its unfortunately many times easier for people to be negative than positive. This is a fact.

You do not show any principles but only empty words.

You mean like: - dark matter, - higgs boson, - 11 dimentions - gravity that ""should" disappear into unknown dimensions etc etc etc etc..?

You use ill-defined terms like "pulling space", "setting space in motion" or "space wind “crankshaft”" that have no meaning because you have not defined them and you cannot define them.

Can you define “bended space” camrade?
Ok camrade, - you can not, - this is what I thought, - then don’t through stones if it is a obviously fact that you self live in a glass house.
For those with open minds and the wish to understand more because they not is satisfied with haft truths, hundreds of confusion incoherent hypothesis and religion, they have no right to discuss alternatives, because of overwhelming negativity always prevent this to happen. This is why we talk about Science = fanatic religion, It have always been so, and it will always be so. It’s a shame.

How can they refine something that cannot even be shown to exist?

Tell me now do you still don’t know how to define: Bended space ? Dark Energy ? Dark Matter ? 11 dimensions ? Higgs boson?

(except based on fantasy off course) ...etc. etc.

Ahh you do not, - this is also what I thought.

Expanding space is observed (hence "automatically" also the opposite contracted space) - but never "bended space" , - this is only fantasy..

I fundamentally only claims what we know about properties of space, not what we believes.

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

 

[steenkh]

EXCACTLY NOT, because the space wind is affecting the inner planets stronger.

Yes you claim this, but SOP has just shown that you are wrong, using your own equations! Care to show where he goes wrong? Whoops, you have been asked about this several times, but then you just wave your hands and mutter "load of math", as if that somehow makes your equations valid.

The confusion is not my credit.

Indeed, very little in this thread is to your credit.

Instead of a HUGE load of so called math can be blamed.

A huge load of correct math can never be blamed for errors. The blame lies squarely on you.

He certainly must have understood. His goal doesn’t seem to understand (or even try to) but rather to derail a discussion.

He is probably the one here who has done the most to understand your ideas, otherwise he would not be able to savage your equations like he does. But it is typical for you to believe that pointing out that you are wrong is to "derail" the discussion.

Properly because he have lost several discussions long ago and don't want to admit it. And so have you.

It is really funny how cranks who have lost every argument they ever proposed, walk away thinking that they did well!

And so it goes. If you can not bit him, - manipulate what he says.

Please show where I have done this.

Or call him crackpot mental ill liar and hope that the admin accept such dirt.

And you accuse others of manipulation? I have not called you either of this.

There is nothing to correct except: authoritarian superstition fanatic religion..

Nobody accuses you of being authoritarian ...

This reveals that you don't know what you are talking about.
Billion of stars fall from the sky inside galaxies. We do not know why ...

Really? Is this something a friend has seen in TV?

 

[Bjarne]

Care to show where he goes wrong?
?

Copy paste, ------and this is third time.......

This has already been pointed out to Troels (Sensation_of_physics's ) ½ year ago, and still he does what he can ONLY to confused and misunderstand, and try to show that I am wrong doesn’t matter what I say.

At the Danish Forum: "Sensation of Physics" use the name Troels I suppose.
HERE everybody can read the essence of the “equation” repeated at this Forum.

The essence of the exact same equation was quote:

In Danish
Hvis Bjarne havde ret skulle vi med andre ord se alle planeter søge mod samme afstand fra Solen.

Google Translation
If Bjarne was right we should, in other words to see all planets move to the same distance from the Sun. We do not!

This is what Troels “”equation”” above “should” reveal.

Such conclusion is manipulation.


and LAST TIME camrade Stenkh..

 

[Reality Check]

And that’s exactly what I mentioned above
Yes Mercury (Venus and Earth) are affected with a tiny larger space wind force.
Hence thes planet “”should”” be thrown faster out in space than e.g; Jupiter etc…
But NO it doesn’t happen. At least not right now. It could had happen in the present. The overall picture is that the forces automatically can equalize and the planets are able to find their stable orbit levels, elso even though these tiny divations..
These divations "is part of the game".

These "divations" show that you have faked your data to make your "space wind" equal to your "kinetic pressure" as you state that they are.

The fact that "space wind" is not equal to "kinetic pressure" means that your idea predicts that there are no stable orbits and that the Solar System does not exist.

 

[dafydd]

I like reading stuff from these crackpots,it's so funny.

 

[Bjarne]

These "deviations" show that you have faked your data to make your "space wind" equal to your "kinetic pressure" as you state that they are.

The deviation is NOT a secret and has never been

For a half year ago these was shown to Troels (SOP) in Newton
But is more correct only to show these as acceleration..Hence it was changed.
I did not again show the diavation agian because
1.) I was busy searching stars details such as rotation and planet distances etc,
2.) because I did anyway not have the excact planet data.
3.) because we anyway only speak about "a rought" work hypotesis" all the data (and the eqation) is only temperary.
4.) Its a huge work to refine all that and reach a perfect picture. - ( it will reqiure advanced software anyway)

But this do not change the overall picture.
Inner starts pull the outer stars and off course the same applies to planets in the solar systems, - inner planets transmit KE to the outer.
This as well is no secret, but the whole point the whole climac, that eliminate the need for dark matter in galaxies...
As you can see also the constant was changed

This is what SOP say for 1/2 year ago.

He KNEW these deviations already ½ year ago.

So no camarade I am not faking, - WHO was faking, and WHO does it still today do you think ?

Read it you self HERE

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

There is something rotten in the State of Denmark
Shakespeare.

 

[Dancing David]

These "divations" show that you have faked your data to make your "space wind" equal to your "kinetic pressure" as you state that they are.

The fact that "space wind" is not equal to "kinetic pressure" means that your idea predicts that there are no stable orbits and that the Solar System does not exist.

Ooops.

 

[steenkh]

Copy paste, ------and this is third time.......

Copying an old evasion will still not make it clearer what SOP did wrong. It reinforces our opinion that SOP got it right.

The essence of the exact same equation was quote:

In Danish
Hvis Bjarne havde ret skulle vi med andre ord se alle planeter søge mod samme afstand fra Solen.

Google Translation
If Bjarne was right we should, in other words to see all planets move to the same distance from the Sun. We do not!

This is what Troels “”equation”” above “should” reveal.

Such conclusion is manipulation.

Yes, you claim that, but you have not shown it. SOP seems to have done a proper job of evaluating your equations, and according to those equations, all planets should end up in the same orbit after a while. You seem to have made a grave error, and you claim that pointing this out is manipulation.

 

[Reality Check]

The bad arithemetic on Bjarne's web page one more time

The deviation is NOT a secret and has never been
...snipped usual rant...

I know your calculations are not a secret - the numbers and equations that you used are on your web page. If the equations or numbers have changed then you need to update your web page or tell us where we can find the new numbers & equations.
Your web page has a calculation of "space wind" for Mercury:

• Sun Mass (M) = 2 * 10³⁰
• Rotation (R) = 140,432
• Distance (r) = 0.58 * 10¹¹ m
• Constant (Q) = 6.52* 10²¹
• Your result = 1.27 * 10^-8

Anyone can enter your numbers (as above) into your equation (RM/Qr^2) to get a result of 1.2805 * 10^-8.

In really simple steps (without units):

• R*M = 2.80864 * 10³⁵
• R*M/Q = 4.3077 * 10¹³
• R*M/Qr = 7.42712 * 10²
• R*M/Qrr = 1.2805 * 10^-8

Now round (or even truncate) 1.2805 * 10^-8 to 2 decimal places to get 1.28 * 10^-8 for the "space wind" for Mercury.

Anyone can enter your numbers from the web page into your equation for the "kinetic resistance" for Mercury. I get 1.2878 * 10^-8
Now round 1.2878 * 10^-8 to 2 decimal places to get 1.29 * 10^-8
Bjarne:
Do you agree that 1.28 * 10^-8 is not equal to 1.27 * 10^-8?
Do you agree that 1.29 * 10^-8 is not equal to 1.27 * 10^-8?
I know that the answer has to be yes (the numbers are different). Thus your web page has at least two simple arithmetic errors on it.
Since these are really basic errors to make there is the possibility that you faked your results. My guess is that you selected Q so that Earth's "space wind" is exactly equal to "kinetic resistance" and did not even bother to do the calculations for the other planets.

The consequence of you making these errors is that your conclusion that "space wind" is exactly equal to "kinetic resistance" is wrong.

In Bjarne's universe, the Solar System does not exist !