THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

[Reality Check]

I too have in years (naïve) accepted that time really runs slower in a gravity field. But why should it? – We have in fact no argument that proves it, but only guessing. The holistic theory I present shows what Mercury really does, not based on blind guessing, but based on consequence of the same innocent thought: matters contracts space.

To add to your demonstration of your ignorance:
That time really runs slower in a gravity field is not "accepted". It is a fundamental experimental test of GR that time dilation happens in a gravitational field. The GPS system would not work if gravitational time dilation was not accounted for in its design.

(I will add this to the list of your ignorance really soon now )
First asked 7 January 2010
Bjarne,
Do you understand that gravitational time dilation actually happens since it has been seen in experiments?

First asked 7 January 2010
Bjarne,
The "The Mercury Perihelion Anomaly" section of your web site is obviously wrong since you totally ignore the perihelion.
Are you smart enough to realize this and remove the section?

 

[MRC_Hans]

No it's not.
The increasing KE and mass reflects accumulated energy. This will be lost if the force that drives the particles will stop.

No, they will not.

An accelerator uses a pretty large amount of energy to keep the particles in motion, - also by constant speed.

It does, because there are losses, but we know what they are, and they are not resistance to movement.

You believe that energy (from the accelerator) is lost as magnetism, but you don’t know what magnetism is.

No I don't believe that. Yes, I know what magnetism is.

In my world magnetism is; space in motion, - the exact same as happen when a planet moves, - this as well sets space in motion.

Nobody else lives in your world.

I too believe that the energy form an accelerator is lost as magnetism. But don’t forget that there is an interacting process running between particle and magnetic field. So I am talking about a much more complex interacting / entangle magnetic field that: lose energy.

So, in your world, where does that energy go? Remember, energy is never 'lost', it just goes somewhere else.

It is already well known that a magnetic field interacts with particles, and opposite; particles in motion created a magnetic field, - think for example about a transformer.

Induction? I happen to be an expert in that field.

But in fact we don’t know exactly what’s a magnetic field really is, and hence we can mainly discuss; what we believe.

No, we discuss how it behaves. And we have a very extensive knowledge of how it behaves. In fact, we don't know what anyting really is, but that does not keep us from finding out how it works.

This also applies for the relation between particles/magnetic field in an accelerator.

Yes, that is how it works. And that is why wy know there is no resistance to motion.

Furthermore I have not time to discuss this issue further. It’s a dead end.

I take that as an admission of defeat.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

------

It does, because there are losses, but we know what they are, and they are not resistance to movement.

No you don’t, you can not see how particles entangle with a magnetic field, or how the magnetic field pulls the particles. This as well creates a magnetic field. You can not separate the way a magnetic field entangles with particles..

I know what magnetism is.

You don’t and if you did, you could explain how it works through space, how it attracts particles etc… You can’t explain, because you don’t know.

So, in your world, where does that energy go? Remember, energy is never 'lost', it just goes somewhere else.

All motion sets space in motion this is also what a magnetic field is.
Particles in motion is (at the same time) also space in motion..
Space will always resists that space moves, - doesn’t matter how much "particle-entangled" … your magnetic field is.

No, we discuss how it behaves.

Not me, I am always digging deeper and trying seeing phenomena from a coherent perspective. right brained.......

And we have a very extensive knowledge of how it behaves

But not what it is, and that’s a problem if you really want to understand: WHAT resistance against motion is.

To add to your demonstration of your ignorance:
That time really runs slower in a gravity field is not "accepted". It is a fundamental experimental test of GR that time dilation happens in a gravitational field. The GPS system would not work if gravitational time dilation was not accounted for in its design.

The Pound-Rebka experiment
In 1959, the Pound-Rebka experiment verified the redshift of light travelling out of a gravitational field.
We have no problems accepting cosmological redshift as a reflection of the expanding universe.
This is only natural as this must be an indication of the condition of the universe.
Therefore, it “shouldn’t” cause problems in understanding that the gravitational blue shifting and redshifting are also indicators that distance deformation occurs in and out of a gravitational field.
This experiment doesn’t proves that time is running differently in a field of gravity, but rather that distance is different.
Space stretches in a field of gravity. That’s what this experiment reveals.

The atomic clock & Airplanes Experiment
Distances are NOT definitive; ignoring that fact makes the validity of the experiment nothing worth .

Global Positioning System
The GR deviation is not caused by “time” deviation but rather by: distance deviation. (and affected by SR)

Furthermore
Our belief that time stops by the event horizon seems to be contradicted by the assumption itself.
Light contains information which cannot disappear .
Stephen Hawking therefore recently stated that two parallel universes must exist, one universe with black holes and one universe without black holes and that light is passing from the one universe to the other. (what do you think, does that sounds logical?)

The assertion that time stops at a black hole has not been proven.
Nothing seems to indicate that gravitation really is so extreme that this is the case. Rather, it will cause no problems understanding this phenomenon like this: Light approaching a black hole will turn ultraviolet after having passed the event horizon, i.e. invisible, simply because space in that direction is contracting.

Light (and the information contained by it) will not disappear, but in the end transform to x-rays and gamma rays, and later escape right angled out of the black hole (because gravity / space deformation in that direction is weaker).
------

 

[dafydd]

------
No you don’t, you can not see how particles entangle with a magnetic field.
Or how the magnetic field pulls the particles. This as well creates a magnetic field. You can not separate the way a magnetic field entangles with particles..

You don’t and if you did, you could explain how it works through space, how it attraks particles etc… You can’t explain, because you don’t know.

All motion sets space in motion this is also what a magnetic field is.
Particles in motion is (at the same time) also space in motion..
Space will always resists that space moves, - doesn’t matter how much "particle-entangled" … your magnetic field is.


Not me, I am always digging deeper, and trying seeing phenomena from a coherent perspective. right brained.......

But not what it is, and that’s a problem if you really want to understand: WHAT resistance against motion is.


The Pound-Rebka experiment
In 1959, the Pound-Rebka experiment verified the redshift of light travelling out of a gravitational field.
We have no problems accepting cosmological redshift as a reflection of the expanding universe.
This is only natural as this must be an indication of the condition of the universe.
Therefore, it “shouldn’t” cause problems in understanding that the gravitational blue shifting and redshifting are also indicators that distance deformation occurs in and out of a gravitational field.
This experiment doesn’t proves that time is running differently in a field of gravity, but rather that distance is different.
Space stretches in a field of gravity. That’s what this experiment reveals.

The atomic clock & Airplanes Experiment
Distances are NOT definitive; ignoring that fact makes the validity of the experiment nothing worth .

Global Positioning System
The GR deviation is not caused by “time” deviation but rather by: distance deviation. (and affected by SR)

Furthermore
Our belief that time stops by the event horizon seems to be contradicted by the assumption itself.
Light contains information which cannot disappear.
Stephen Hawking therefore recently stated that two parallel universes must exist, one universe with black holes and one universe without black holes and that light is passing from the one universe to the other. ( what do you think, does that sounds logical?)

The assertion that time stops at a black hole has not been proven.
Nothing seems to indicate that gravitation really is so extreme that this is the case. Rather, it will cause no problems understanding this phenomenon like this: Light approaching a black hole will turn ultraviolet after having passed the event horizon, i.e. invisible, simply because space in that direction is contracting.

Light (and the information contained by it) will not disappear, but in the end transform to x-rays and gamma rays, and later escape right angled out of the black hole (because gravity / space deformation in that direction is weaker).
------

All wrong.

 

[MRC_Hans]

------
No you don’t, you can not see how particles entangle with a magnetic field, or how the magnetic field pulls the particles. This as well creates a magnetic field. You can not separate the way a magnetic field entangles with particles..

Of course I can. Bjarne, you need to realize that just because there is something you don't understand or know, it does not mean that nobody else knows or understands it. The interaction between particles and electromagnetic fields is very well understood.

You don’t and if you did, you could explain how it works through space, how it attracts particles etc… You can’t explain, because you don’t know.

Yes, I can. I can explain exactly how it attracts particles and which laws apply.

All motion sets space in motion this is also what a magnetic field is.

No. [tm]

Particles in motion is (at the same time) also space in motion..
Space will always resists that space moves, - doesn’t matter how much "particle-entangled" … your magnetic field is.

No. [tm]

Not me, I am always digging deeper and trying seeing phenomena from a coherent perspective. right brained.......

No, you are not. What you are doing is that you take your very sketchy idea of physics, and then you fill in the many blank spots with pure fantasy and crappy math. Then you make believe that you are smarter than the assembled scientific community.

But not what it is, and that’s a problem if you really want to understand: WHAT resistance against motion is.

I understand that resistance against motion is: Nonexistent.

.... the rest of your nonsense is (also) not worthy of comment.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Yes, I can. I can explain exactly how it attracts particles and which laws apply.

and why ?

 

[steenkh]

and why ?

We have been thorugh this before: There is always a "why" and a "how". When prompted you had no explanations at all. You could not even tell us what you meant by "contracted" or "bent" space. All you have are words, and no understanding.

Real science, on the other hand, is able to describe all of this very accurately.

 

[Bjarne]

We have been through this before: There is always a "why" and a "how".

And so long this is the case, be careful to believe everything your hear and all you read in the (holly) scientific books. Also even the majority have chosen to believe this and that.

In the last posts I have added one more consequence of this theory. – That gives reason to still one more consequence: - The Universe is not expanding proportional everywhere.

Because of space inside a gravitational field ( e.g; a galaxy) already is thinning out, - and space here already is stretching much more like out in open space, the result is that places with strong gravity will not be able to contribute equally to the Universe expansion, simply because the “density” of space is “thinner” inside a field of gravity.

This is why it doesn’t seem like space close to us expands. In fact it does, but much less as in open empty space.

Deep inside the Earth space is already much more stretched as at the surface, - so when background gravity change, there will not be a proportional expansion going on. – not around us and also not inside astronomic bodies.

Deep in the Earth the expansion is insignificant. At the surface of the Earth a little more and fare away from the Milky way much more.

In other words EVERYTHING around us expands none proportional. - ALSO planet Earth.

And yes Niel Adams is right, the Earth is expanding, no doubt. – Why should it not?

We can’t understand this, - because we have blinded us self and each other with; gravity depended time deviation entertainment, - and turn facts and fantasy upside down.

It all started because Einstein denied to accept that space is flexible, - also even he was the first to calculate exactly that, - therefore he forces himself instead to invent : time deviation.
We can used the same old equation, but just replace time with - speed/distance dilation

A revolution is coming….

 

[dafydd]

And so long this is the case, be careful to believe everything your hear and all you read in the (holly) scientific books. Also even the majority have chosen to believe this and that.

In the last posts I have added one more consequence of this theory. – That gives reason to still one more consequence: - The Universe is not expanding proportional everywhere.

Because of space inside a gravitational field ( e.g; a galaxy) already is thinning out, - and space here already is stretching much more like out in open space, the result is that places with strong gravity will not be able to contribute equally to the Universe expansion, simply because the “density” of space is “thinner” inside a field of gravity.

This is why it doesn’t seem like space close to us expands. In fact it does, but much less as in open empty space.

Deep inside the Earth space is already much more stretched as at the surface, - so when background gravity change, there will not be a proportional expansion going on. – not around us and also not inside astronomic bodies.

Deep in the Earth the expansion is insignificant. At the surface of the Earth a little more and fare away from the Milky way much more.

In other words EVERYTHING around us expands none proportional. - ALSO planet Earth.

And yes Niel Adams is right, the Earth is expanding, no doubt. – Why should it not?

We can’t understand this, - because we have blinded us self and each other with; gravity depended time deviation entertainment, - and turn facts and fantasy upside down.

It all started because Einstein denied to accept that space is flexible, - also even he was the first to calculate exactly that, - therefore he forces himself instead to invent : time deviation.
We can used the same old equation, but just replace time with - speed/distance dilation

A revolution is coming….

The revolution will not be televised because it's not coming.

 

[Reality Check]

------
...snip...
The Pound-Rebka experiment
In 1959, the Pound-Rebka experiment verified the redshift of light travelling out of a gravitational field.
..snip...
Space stretches in a field of gravity. That’s what this experiment reveals.

Space curves in a field of gravity. That’s what this experiment reveals.

------
The atomic clock & Airplanes Experiment
Distances are NOT definitive; ignoring that fact makes the validity of the experiment nothing worth .

Gibberish.

------
Global Positioning System
The GR deviation is not caused by “time” deviation but rather by: distance deviation. (and affected by SR)

Ignorance.
SR is accounted for as well as GR.

------
...snip...
Light (and the information contained by it) will not disappear, but in the end transform to x-rays and gamma rays, and later escape right angled out of the black hole (because gravity / space deformation in that direction is weaker).
------

More ignorance .

• Time does not stop at an event horizon.
• x-rays and gamma rays are light!

 

[Reality Check]

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two threads include:

1. "Bended space is Contracted Space"
   Curved space is not contracted space
   First Asked 11 November 2009
2. Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass. He ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units or acceleration.
   • Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
     First asked 23 October 2009
     So far the answer is no !
3. Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
   • Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
     First asked 2 November 2009
   • Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).
   • Bjarne's idea is proven wrong (acceleration due to gravity is constant inside a sphere).
     First asked 2 November 2009
4. Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
   First asked 26 November 2009
5. Can Bjarne understand that the force of gravity is not constant within a solid sphere?
   First asked 26 October 2009
6. Can Bjarne understand the physics behind orbital resonances?
   First asked 3 December 2009
   So far the answer is no !
7. Does Bjarne understand orbital mechanics?
   First asked 3 December 2009.
   So far the answer is no !
8. Can Bjarne understand that energy is not a force and cannot "equalize" a force?
   First asked 9 December 2009.
   
   
   You can expend energy to create a force to equalize a force as a hovering helicopter does. But the simple facts are:
   • Forces are vectors but energy is a number.
   • The SI units of force are Newtons but the SI units of energy is Joules.
9. Bjarne asks what a particle is!
10. His simplistic knowledge of physis is betrayed by his delusion that since the force of gravity varies as 1/r^2 (e.g. a factor of 4 when r doubles) then the "speed factor “should” hence have been factor 4 as well" (plust other silly previous posts).
    The Basics of Space Flight: Circular Orbital Motion shows clearly that the mean orbital speed of objects should vary that the inverse of the square root of r. The fact that objects actually act like this in the real universe shocks Bjarne!
11. More of Bjarne's ignorance of simple physics (circular motion).
12. Bjarne asks "( What is ”radian” ? – 1 orbit)"
13. Bjarne does not understand that gravitational time dialation has been measured and matches GR. It is not "guessing".

And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):

• Does Bjarne know that the Lorentz factor does not have any units of measurement?
  First asked 22 November 2009
• Does Bjarne think that the Lorentz factor is measured in kilograms?
  First asked 23 November 2009
• Why does relativistic mass have the units of mass
  First asked 23 November 2009

 

[Bjarne]

Space curves in a field of gravity. That’s what this experiment reveals.

Some time ago, I was very optimistic, and believed that people down under would be the first to understand that it is something seriously wrong with our understanding of gravity. I thought down under people would be the first to realize that: "curvature of space" is a uncompleted and misleading "picture" of what gravity is and does.

I mean I thought that people down under would realize that gravity sucks and that this has not much with curvature space to do.
But maybe I was wrong. People are maybe not so quick to get the point, also not down under.

If I really have misunderstood that point, - this is the only place where the theory is wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

Some time ago, I was very optimistic, and believed that people down under would be the first to understand that it is something seriously wrong with our understanding of gravity.
...snip....

Your personal opinion means nothing.

The fact is that the universe tells us that gravity acts as if it is caused by curvature of spacetime.

The fact is that Curved space is not contracted space as any one with a brain cell can see.

However "curvature of space" is just another demonstration of your ignorance. It is curvature of spacetime that causes gravity. Without time you cannot have moving objects.

 

[Bjarne]

Your personal opinion means nothing.

The fact is that the universe tells us that gravity acts as if it is caused by curvature of spacetime.

OK
I can easy accept that times change propotional with distance change.
But still an orbit is an orbit, only the proportional between time and distance are no longer the same.
In other words the change of the time/distance proportional do not disturb a orbit, - and do not cause the Mercury anomaly.

The fact is that Curved space is not contracted space as any one with a brain cell can see.

Notice I claim that matter sucks/ contracts space, and the result is that this affect the "space-density" Hence space is stretching, exactly like the The Pound-Rebka experiment shows.

 

[MRC_Hans]

A revolution is coming….

I doubt it. A revolution would be if you would start to educate yourself instead of making up fantasies, but I seriously doubt that will happen. But you are not even unusual in that; we have several members here, who live in their own made-up version of reality. Why don't you go over to this http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75565 thread and discuss universe models with Dutch? You two should have a great time.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

I doubt it. A revolution would be if you would start to educate yourself instead of making up fantasies..

You mean educate my self to believe that dark matter, higgs, plenty more dimension, subduction, the (unnecessary) geodynamo, dark matters, gravity disappears into unknown dimensions, - that time dilation change Mercury’s orbit, -etc….etc…etc.. all is a real ?

And one day I will believe that RC will not fall off the earth because of: “space bends” (not because of matter sucks so that the cows see it ).

Ohh yeahh, - but I prefer a religious cult; in this case I maybe (for a while) will know its all only fantasy and brain wash.
Regarding: “science” you never know what is fact and what is fiction . Suddenly without you know you swallow the poison.

And by the way a 35 years long education will anyway not solve the mysteries I am dealing with, (but propaly only make it all worse).

Measurement will show my friend, - the scientific method is the way out of the jungle

 

[MRC_Hans]

You mean educate my self to believe that dark matter, higgs, plenty more dimension, subduction, the (unnecessary) geodynamo, dark matters, gravity disappears into unknown dimensions, - that time dilation change Mercury’s orbit, -etc….etc…etc.. all is a real ?

No, you should educate yourself to actually understand what you are talking about. For instance you should learn about thermodynamics, why friction is not meassured in m/s, and such. Then you can form your own opinion instead of just dreaming.

And by the way a 35 years long education will anyway not solve the mysteries I am dealing with,

No, that will probably require meds.

Measurement will show my friend, - the scientific method is the way out of the jungle

Bah. You wouldn't recognize the scientific method if it peed in your morning tea.

If you are about to make a scientific experiment to prove your point, you will have a protocol. Please show it.


Hans

 

[ArcturusA]

Measurement will show my friend, - the scientific method is the way out of the jungle

Ah, right...there's the problem.

For this past century of research into relativity we should have been using the scientific method.

Who'd have thought?

 

[steenkh]

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two threads include:

Now you can add that Bjarne thinks that gamma rays and x-rays are not light, and that they can escape from a black hole simply by going out at "right angles" because gravity is weaker in that direction

And do remember that he also dismisses the principle of superposition!

 

[steenkh]

For this past century of research into relativity we should have been using the scientific method.

Yes, in Bjarne's mind, we have entered the dark ages since Newton.