Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

MRC_Hans · May 2, 2011

Bjarne said:
you have not shown the sourse that shows that the the orbit of the Earth now is getting more circular.

In the post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7095488&postcount=3707

there was 2 link ;

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

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

There are no such information here

From the first link:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Eccentricity_rocky_planets.jpg

So we can now add "unable to read data" to your many 'qualifications'.

Hans

MRC_Hans · May 2, 2011

Bjarne said:
We do yes, but we are looking for long terms anomalies .

Even The long term anomaly, already known (but not understood) that have been just in front of our noose every day, - showing the eccentricity increasing 5mm every year, - has for decades been hidden even though measurement have taken place - 30 years * 5 mm = 150 mm
How could that much have hide do you think, -?
Even though it was there all the time and increasing ?

It tells you something about what we really measure, and also what we NOT are measuring.

Data are not compared based on few month measurements.

I have reason to believe this is not the case.
To check whether an anomaly occurs and cancel out within a year would require very complicated calculation.

No one wants a do such without reason.
What I mean; Tell me would begin to do very complicated probability calculation, showing how likely it is to find a cow in your bed tonight?
I mean without first having a reason to believe that really is realistic to believe so ... and therefore to use time on such "mad" calculation.
I guess you would not be stupid enough to spend time on that, - would you?
And I guess Scientist are logical too and exactly so lazy like you.

Why should scientist spend time to check for a short time anomaly occurs and cancel out every year? It is not easy to make exact calculation. – So fare I remember there are more than 70 influences that affect the Moon.

Bjarne, for crying out loud, have you absolutely no idea how things are done?

The laser ranging concists of taking repeated 'soundings' of the precise distance to the moon, and making statistics on them. Of course, long term trends can inly be distinguished, well after a long time. However, if the individual measurements were varying +-900mm over a year, it would be very obvious, and in fact they would not be able to discern the much smaller variations till they had worked out the system in the large ones.

So, no, there is not a non-discovered 0.9m variation.

Hans

Paul · May 2, 2011

Bjarne said:
To check whether an anomaly occurs and cancel out within a year would require very complicated calculation.

Or you could just look at several yhears worth of data and say "Have you noticed there's a cyclical anomaly with a frequency of around a year? That's probably worth having a look at, send for a graduate student".

No one wants a do such without reason.

Hence the data gathering.

What I mean; Tell me would begin to do very complicated probability calculation, showing how likely it is to find a cow in your bed tonight?

It is, for all practical purposes, zero.

I mean without first having a reason to believe that really is realistic to believe so ... and therefore to use time on such "mad" calculation.

Some people are fascinated by unusual or plain odd questions, I'm sure you could find several statisticians who would enjoy such an exercise.

I guess you would not be stupid enough to spend time on that, - would you?

I wouldn't be stupid enough to arrogantly dismiss the idea because my tiny mind couldn't conceive of a reason to do it.

Bjarne · May 2, 2011

MRC_Hans said:
Bjarne, for crying out loud, have you absolutely no idea how things are done?

The laser ranging concists of taking repeated 'soundings' of the precise distance to the moon, and making statistics on them. Of course, long term trends can inly be distinguished, well after a long time. However, if the individual measurements were varying +-900mm over a year, it would be very obvious, and in fact they would not be able to discern the much smaller variations till they had worked out the system in the large ones.

So, no, there is not a non-discovered 0.9m variation.

Hans

Hans you are so transparent - only guessing…

We KNOW for sure (today) that the Moon do have a 5 mm eccentricity anomaly increasing everyr year (*30 years =150mm) .
This was NOT discovered in 30 years.

This eccentricity anomaly was there all the time…… And were NOT discovered.
The anomaly of 900 mm is canceling out all the time.

If you cannot discover a 150 Kg cow that is in your bed , even though the cow is there all the time, how can you expect to discover a 900 kg cow that only is in you bed sometimes for short term periods? ?

If you not are focused on “sometime” and that this is possible, - you will now discover .

You must measure, + calculate + compare, - and you must do it at the correct time.

There are no such day by day, or week by week or month by month analytically program, except in your fantasy.

The orbit of the Moon is much much much more complex as you belive.

Bjarne · May 2, 2011

Correction

double

Paul · May 2, 2011

Bjarne said:
Hans you are so transparent - only guessing…

I know reality is something you only have a passing aquaintance with, but even for you this is a very silly post.

We KNOW for sure (today) that the Moon do have a 5 mm eccentricity anomaly increasing everyr year (*30 years =150mm).

For a start, 5mm isn't a measure of eccentricity; even if it was, eccentricity must be less than 1 or you have a parabolic or hyperbolic trajectory.

Secondly, as we still have a moon you might reconsider your constantly increasing eccentricity nonsense.

This was NOT discovered in 30 years.

I'm sure that means something to you.

This eccentricity anomaly was there all the time…… And were NOT discovered.

Well done, you've noticed, while using the word 'discovered' that to discover something it must be previously unknown.

The anomaly of 900 mm is canceling out all the time.

And how did you discover this?

If you cannot discover a 150 Kg cow that is in your bed , even though the cow is there all the time, how can you expect to discover a 900 kg cow that only is in you bed sometimes for short term periods? ?

Your use of analogy is spectacularly inept.

If you not are focused on “sometime” and that this is possible, - you will now discover .

Ahh, we have to believe for it to be true...

You must measure, + calculate + compare, - and you must do it at the correct time.

You first.

There are no such day by day, or week by week or month by month analytically program, except in your fantasy.

Are you claiming that no one is regularly analysing LLR data?

The orbit of the Moon is much much much more complex as you belive.

I thought everything was really simple. That's what you keep saying.

Reality Check · May 2, 2011

The Moon does not have a short time 0.9 m eccentricity anomaly

Bjarne said:
The Moon does also have a short time eccentricity anomaly.
This will reach about 0,9 meter within a ½ year and then cancel out again the next ½ year that follows.
This anomaly is still not discovered by the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment.

That is totally ignorant, Bjarne.
Lunar Laser Ranging experiment
Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation
make many measurements of the distance to the Moon each month - no such anomaly reported.

MRC_Hans · May 3, 2011

Bjarne said:
Hans you are so transparent - only guessing…

We KNOW for sure (today) that the Moon do have a 5 mm eccentricity anomaly increasing everyr year (*30 years =150mm) .
This was NOT discovered in 30 years.

This eccentricity anomaly was there all the time…… And were NOT discovered.
The anomaly of 900 mm is canceling out all the time.

Bjarne, you have now abundantly demonstrated that you have absolutely no idea how to treat measured data, or how statistics are made on them.

- That is OK; we can't all be specialists, but it so happens that I am a professional specialist in this area.

So you can either take my word for it: There is no way an annual variation of 900mm could go unnoticed, even if it was not looked for specifically.

Or you can continue to believe your own fantasies.

I don't really care either way.

Hans

Bjarne · May 3, 2011

The eccentricity of the Moons orbit is increasing more as expected
(9 ± 3) × 10−12 yr−1

This is certian knoglege.

If anyone (or I) would have claimed that before it recently was discovered, I guess people would have said;

Bjarne, you have now abundantly demonstrated that you have absolutely no idea how to treat measured data, or how statistics are made on them.
- That is OK; we can't all be specialists, but it so happens that I am a professional specialist in this area.

The Moon do have a long term eccentricity anomaly....
Today we know this is true, and experts gawp what is this now about ? -
We just thought we knew everything so exact.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.0212v3.pdf

The naked fact is that you cannot measure exactly where the planets are relative to the Sun, simply because the sun does not reflect radar.
This is a fact for 100 years ago, and this is a fact today.

We can calculate distances based on known mathematic in combination with observations.
But this is from the start stillborn because the mathematical parts of it are incomplete so long RR is ignored.

Measurement based on planets observation cannot be calculated exact enough to that we can calculate exactly where the Moon MUST be.
If this was the case NASA woul never had left mirrors there, and the lunar laser Measurement experiment (LLME) never born.

All we can do is measure the distance to the Moon, and use this data to as contributions to imagination how exact distances to planets etc ...“must be” .

But the fact is the planets are not exact where we believe these to be.
We are cheating us self to believe the distance to the Sun and planets MUST be so and so.

Tell me honestly do you really believe you can observe/calculate within centimeters precision where the Moon MUST be ?

Hans if this is the true you are dreaming.

The data from the LLME can only be used to calculate excact the average orbit distance from time to time.
Based on that you can very exact compare & calculate if the orbit of the Moon based on long term meassurement is increasing .

Notice the anomaly I am talking about (caused by RR) do NOT extend the orbit, it do only push perigee and apogee forward and backwards.
Off course you can messure that now is perigee this and that distance to the Earth, but how can you know what it MUST be?

The anomaly period is not 1 year as I wrote before it is 4,5 year where after it cancels out again.

I am not saying we cannot discover this.
I am saying we have done NOTHING to analyze it, as well as we also have done nothing to search if there should be a specific black cow with white spots on the dark side of the Moon.

But Hans the day apogee/perigee data are analyze, you will see that anomaly.

I promise you.

steenkh · May 3, 2011

Bjarne said:
If this was the case NASA woul never had left mirrors there, and the lunar laser Measurement experiment (LLME) never born.

But now the mirrors are on the Moon, and they tell us that your fantasies were disproved long before you thought of them. It is ridiculous that you cannot make a theory that is not even in accordance with well-known and reliable data that we have collected regularly for more than 40 years!

Paul · May 3, 2011

Bjarne said:
The eccentricity of the Moons orbit is increasing more as expected
(9 ± 3) × 10−12 yr−1

Do you have any idea what that means?

This is certian knoglege.

But I thought nobody had been looking at the LLR data.

If anyone (or I) would have claimed that before it recently was discovered, I guess people would have said;

They would have asked if you had a genuine reason to make such a speculation or if you were merely an ego-maniacal science-illiterate troll-fool.

Today we know this is true, and experts gawp what is this now about ? -

Really, you think actual experts behave that way? You shouldn't judge people with genuine knowledge by your standards.

We just thought we knew everything so exact.

Who's this we?

We can calculate distances based on known mathematic in combination with observations.

Which seems to be working pretty well for everyone but you.

But this is from the start stillborn because the mathematical parts of it are incomplete so long RR is ignored.

It's ignored because it is nonsense that you made up.

Have you discovered what a plane is yet?

Measurement based on planets observation cannot be calculated exact enough to that we can calculate exactly where the Moon MUST be.

That must be why we can't land a craft on the moon, hit a retroreflector or point a telescope automatically.

If this was the case NASA woul never had left mirrors there, and the lunar laser Measurement experiment (LLME) never born.

Another addition to the list of ignorance:

"The Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) experiment was originally a part of the NASA Apollo program. It has been active for more than 30 years. The data provide for varied, multi-disciplinary science results. Analyses exist in areas of solid Earth sciences, geodesy and geodynamics, solar system ephemerides, terrestrial and celestial reference frames, lunar physics, general relativity and gravitational physics. Combined with other observing techniques, LLR expands our understanding of the precession of the Earth’s axis in space, the induced lunar nutation, Earth orientatation, the Earth’s obliquity to the ecliptic, the intersection of the celestial equator and the ecliptic, lunar and solar solid body tides, lunar tidal deceleration, lunar physical and free librations, the structure of the moon and energy dissipation in the lunar interior. LLR provides input into lunar surface cartography and surveying. It helps determine Earth station and lunar surface retroreflector locations and motions, mass of the Earth-Moon system, lunar and terrestrial gravity harmonics and Love numbers, relativistic geodesic precession, and the equivalence principle of general relativity."
A Summary of LLR Activity and Science Results

But the fact is the planets are not exact where we believe these to be.
We are cheating us self to believe the distance to the Sun and planets MUST be so and so.

You have evidence of this, given that you claim it is impossible to know exactly where they are?

Tell me honestly do you really believe you can observe/calculate within centimeters precision where the Moon MUST be ?

Yes

Hans if this is the true you are dreaming.

Perhaps you could explain to us all why, exactly, it cannot be true.

The data from the LLME can only be used to calculate excact the average orbit distance from time to time.

You seems to be seriously deluded about how an average is calculated and what data are required.

Based on that you can very exact compare & calculate if the orbit of the Moon based on long term meassurement is increasing .

Actually, according to your ideas, you could only say if there were any variations in the average.

Notice the anomaly I am talking about (caused by RR) do NOT extend the orbit, it do only push perigee and apogee forward and backwards.

OK. It doesn't change the orbit, it just changes the orbit.

Off course you can messure that now is perigee this and that distance to the Earth, but how can you know what it MUST be?

And how, precisely would one measure these exact parameters?

The anomaly period is not 1 year as I wrote before it is 4,5 year where after it cancels out again.

So you were spectacularly wrong before, but know we should believe you are correct?

I am not saying we cannot discover this.

Now you're claiming everything you've just said is idle speculation.

But Hans the day apogee/perigee data are analyze, you will see that anomaly.

Perhaps you should stop being so lazy and do it youself for a change.

I promise you.

Is that like all the other promises you make about proving, demonstrating, explaining or calculating something?

Bjarne · May 3, 2011

But I thought nobody had been looking at the LLR data.

In more than 30 years, yes nobody can obviously serious have been analyzing the eccentricity of the Moon.
Furthermore we have more data today, it is important to have long term data.....

But why should someone use time on research the eccentricity anomaly (before) (we today know it exists) ? ?

Nobody have either looking for cows on the dark side of the Moon because nobody would expect to find some.

And therefore nobody also has used time being analyzing any short term perigee / apogee anomaly, - we simply had have have no reason to mis-trust the orbit math we already have .

EXCACTLY LIKE YOU TODAY DO NOT BELIVE THERE IS ANYTHING HIDDEN ELSE HERE.

This is not a method to check GR and SR either, - so there have been no reason to analyze data that way.

Tell me have you ever try to dig a big hole and fill it again, -. I mean using for example ½ year on doing this ?
Was it funny?
How funny?
Why did you do it ?

MRC_Hans · May 3, 2011

Bjarne said:
The eccentricity of the Moons orbit is increasing more as expected
(9 ± 3) × 10−12 yr−1

This is certian knoglege.

And?

If anyone (or I) would have claimed that before it recently was discovered, I guess people would have said;

Bjarne, you have now abundantly demonstrated that you have absolutely no idea how to treat measured data, or how statistics are made on them.
- That is OK; we can't all be specialists, but it so happens that I am a professional specialist in this area.

False analogy. You are claiming a short-term variation much greater than the long-term variation now found. That is the silly part.

The naked fact is that you cannot measure exactly where the planets are relative to the Sun, simply because the sun does not reflect radar.
This is a fact for 100 years ago, and this is a fact today.

The naked fact is that you are so ignorant that you think there is only one way to measure those distances.

Measurement based on planets observation cannot be calculated exact enough to that we can calculate exactly where the Moon MUST be.
If this was the case NASA woul never had left mirrors there, and the lunar laser Measurement experiment (LLME) never born.

Nonsense. Nasa placed the laser mirrors on the moon because they could give us even MORE precise information than the geometrical methods. And it was a relatively cheap and simple method. BTW, scientist have been bouncing signals off the moon before that.

All we can do is measure the distance to the Moon, and use this data to as contributions to imagination how exact distances to planets etc ...“must be” .

Wrong. In fact someone linked to an article on how the distances to planets were found using trigonometry, earlier in this thread. I suggest you do NOT read it, as you might learn something.

Tell me honestly do you really believe you can observe/calculate within centimeters precision where the Moon MUST be ?

We can MEASURE where it is, within centimeters precision.

The data from the LLME can only be used to calculate excact the average orbit distance from time to time.
Based on that you can very exact compare & calculate if the orbit of the Moon based on long term meassurement is increasing .

We can measure the distance to the moon every day, if we please.

Notice the anomaly I am talking about (caused by RR)

RR does not exist.

I am not saying we cannot discover this.
I am saying we have done NOTHING to analyze it,

You have absolutely no idea of this. You don't know what has been analyzed. You are simply fabulating.

Hans

Paul · May 3, 2011

Bjarne said:
In more than 30 years, yes nobody can obviously serious have been analyzing the eccentricity of the Moon.

They've been analysing the data for more than 30 years, if there's something to see they would see it.

As they did in this case because the first line of the abstract from your pdf is "A recent analysis of a Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) data record spanning 38.7 yr"

Furthermore we have more data today, it is important to have long term data.....

You don't say, do you mean that the longer we study something the more data we gather?

But why should someone use time on research the eccentricity anomaly (before) (we today know it exists) ? ?

You can't research something you don't at least have good reason to believe exists. Unless you're Bjarne.

However, in this case, someone looked through the data and found the anomaly, no doubt through patient and meticulous analysis.

And therefore nobody also has used time being analyzing any short term perigee / apogee anomaly, - we simply had have have no reason to mis-trust the orbit math we already have .

How do you know what people have been analysing.

"An Analysis of the Complete Lack of Anomalous Findings in Lunar Orbital Parameter Data" is probably not awaiting peer review as we speak.

EXCACTLY LIKE YOU TODAY DO NOT BELIVE THERE IS ANYTHING HIDDEN ELSE HERE.

Nonsense.

This is not a method to check GR and SR either, - so there have been no reason to analyze data that way.

Are you claiming that NASA do not know what the LLR data is used for?

Tell me have you ever try to dig a big hole and fill it again...

I know it seems unbelievable to you but there are people who spends decades on research projects.

Your complete inability to comprehend the nature of real scientific study appears to be colouring your argument from incredulity.

Bjarne · May 3, 2011

They've been analysing the data for more than 30 years, if there's something to see they would see it.

Except reality

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.0212v3.pdf

This anomaly was the easiest one to discover, based on analysing allready done..

The perigee / apogee anomaly (I am talking about) is also easy to discover, but first when we pay attention to the possibility that RR could be true, and hence also the consequences.
Not before...

Reality Check · May 3, 2011

Is the Moon immune to RAM/RR/whatever your fantasy called today

Bjarne said:
Except reality

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.0212v3.pdf

This anomaly was the easiest one to discover, based on analysing allready done..

So what?
They used the LLR data ("LLR data record spanning 38.7 yr (16 March 1970-22November 2008)") to find that the shape of the Moon's orbbit is changing its eccentricity by (9 ± 3) × 10−12 yr−1

Bjarne said:
The perigee / apogee anomaly (I am talking about) is also easy to discover, but first when we pay attention to the possibility that RR could be true, and hence also the consequences.
Not before...

That is idiotic, Bjarne.

The perigee / apogee anomaly you are taling about of 0.9 m would have been found by the analysis you cite !
The Moon does not have a short time 0.9 m eccentricity anomaly
RR is seems to be your renamed RAM and so is a delusion.
What is the formula for RR?
We do not have to pay any attention to your delusional RR - we can measure the distance to the Moon and see where it actually is!

Is the Moon immune to RAM/RR/whatever your fantasy called today?

P.S.
Bjarne, show us "the equation hat unite gravity and the strong force"
Asked on 16 March 2011
Over a month now and no equation. So I think that you were lying or just deluded, Bjarne :jaw-dropp

!

RAM is a fantasy due to Bjarne's ignorance of simple science:

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 !

From The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)

Paulhoff · May 4, 2011

What does he think, that we know the exact orbits of everything in the Solar System, and all the exact orbits of everything unknown in the system and outside the too.

Paul

MRC_Hans · May 4, 2011

Bjarne said:
Except reality

You are not the right one to talk about reality.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.0212v3.pdf

This anomaly was the easiest one to discover, based on analysing allready done..

You have no idea. Do you know how to analyze statistical data? :dio:

.... I thought not. :nope:

The perigee / apogee anomaly (I am talking about) is also easy to discover,

It is not only easy to discover, it is impossible to overlook. An annual 900mm fluctuation would show up as noise in the data set, and it would be absolutely impossible to discern the millimeter variances we have found until the pattern of this fluctuation was figured out. ^*)

but first when we pay attention to the possibility that RR could be true, and hence also the consequences.
Not before...

Bjarne, we have worked with stuff at relativistic speeds for a long time now. If there was RR, we would have known.

.......

^*)I expect this is hopeless, but I'll try:

Bjarne, imagine you wanted to measure the wear on the front wheel tire on your Puch Maxi moped. Unfortunately, you can only measure the diameter of the whole wheel, but if you measure that exactly enough, you will find the wear of the tire.

There is a small problem, though: Who ever tightened the spokes didn't make the wheel perfectly round; it is a little oval. Just a few mm, but enough to hide the change in diameter due to tire wear. Whenever you measure the diameter, you get a different result.

So what do you do? - You take a lot of measurements, and map the exact shape of the wheel. Now you can deduct these differences from your measurements, and get the much smaller differences that are due to the tire being worn.

Back to the moon: Over the last 30 years, several research centers have been making tens of thousands of soundings of the distance to the moon. Each sounding gives a very precise reading of the time between sending and receiving the signal, down to a picosecond or so, in the moment of measuring.

However, when you look at the data set over several measurements, you will find that those values vary over quite a range, so to get the precise distance, with millimeter precision, you need to identify and filter out noise sources.

There are many such noise sources:

- Thermal disturbances in the atmosphere; very short term.
- Tidal variations in Earth's crust; day length.
- Orbital perturbations from Earth's orbit; annual length.
- Orbital perturbations from the Earth-Moon system; month length.
- Etc., etc., etc. .......

Some of these are known, others are the ones we want to discover, but only by accumulating thousands of measure points (actually, they even collect them in clusters, to filter out short-term noise) and weeding through them statistically can you discern all the different contributions.

You have to do this layer by layer: First you find the shortest term, and largest variations, and when you have discovered the pattern in those, you can filter them out and look for ever smaller, ever more long-term patterns.

It doesn't matter at all what you expect to find or are looking for. This is simply the only way to get through this kind of data: You have to find what there IS, not what you expect or want to see.

Therefore, I can tell you with absolute certainty that since they have come down to variations that happen over centuries, in the millimeter range, they would have discovered an annual variation in the meter range, long ago.

Hans

Bjarne · May 4, 2011

Bjarne, imagine you wanted to measure the wear on the front wheel tire on your Puch Maxi moped. Unfortunately, you can only measure the diameter of the whole wheel, but if you measure that exactly enough, you will find the wear of the tire.

There is a small problem, though: Who ever tightened the spokes didn't make the wheel perfectly round; it is a little oval. Just a few mm, but enough to hide the change in diameter due to tire wear. Whenever you measure the diameter, you get a different result.

Here is analogy to the Moons orbit and how "we" to solve the diameter problem you just mention?
The Sun, Venus, Saturn. Jupiter etc... pull differently in the Puch Maxi wheel , therefore you can now accuse these influences for exactly what you want.

You got wrong started in the first place.
Imaging LLM would start today, you would today measure exactly 384788987,732 meter – as you can see within millimeter precision.
NOW you ask you self how does that fit with reality. –

Well the distance to the Sun MUST be so and so
The Distance to Venus MUST be so and so
The distance to Jupiter must be so and so
The distance to Saturn so and so.
The distance to planet X maybe so and so
And plenty other influences.

But what if you never did the calculations to check if the moon really was affected exactly so???
And what about the distances to the Sun and planets, - these are never like you believe.
The distance to the Sun cannot be measured because the Sun do not reflects radar.
Planet distances are far from accurate - you know this

RR is cheating you not few times BUT all the time.

Stars , Space-probes, Moons our Moon and OFF COURSE all other moons too, as well as ALL planet are all the time affected by RR.

Did you know that when running computer model for the solar system they try not one but plenty of models depending on this and that and blap blap blap.

In some models Earth crash with this and that after so and so many years, in other models in do not happen.

Hans we only like a big cow on an icy lake.
But I do not expect you to understand that analogy either..

It is not only easy to discover, it is impossible to overlook. An annual 900mm fluctuation would show up as noise in the data set, and it would be absolutely impossible to discern the millimeter variances we have found until the pattern of this fluctuation was figured out

In fact the 4½ year short terms perigee / apogee anomaly is much larger 11,7 meter during a 4,5 year period where after it cancel out.

Yes this is almost like an elephant on the Moon, we should have discovered it.

BUT notice this anomaly is NOT extending the orbit of the Moon 1 single millimeter.

The other well known anomaly is very different; it is an eccentricity extension anomaly.

More than 30 years we believed we knew everything about how the orbit was extending and what caused it.

The new knowledge (should be) a bigger chock as I believe you have understood.
It could force us to rethink the whole tidal effect theory. (!) - do you understand this. ?

It seems we are dealing with a completely different unknown force.

This in fact proves; that everybody was happy in 30 years to know the average extension of the orbit of the Moon.

Nobody did worry about anything else.

Today we have more data, and something looks like we recently have asked computers to do more advance analyzing and WUPS suddenly discover that the eccentricity not is what we thought.

This theory suggest the cause of the known Moon eccentricity Anomaly is partly a side effect due to a consequence of the perigee/apogee anomaly (4½ years period) , and partly due to that the perihelion aphelion distance anomaly of the Earth .

http://www.science27.com/english/Mercury.html

Right now the orbit of the Earth get more circular this affect the eccentricity of the Moon too, But opposite , which mean the known orbit anomaly of the Moon is now much weaker as in these period where RR is forcing the Earth more elliptical. It will be stronger when RR forces the orbit more elliptical.

MRC_Hans · May 4, 2011

Bjarne said:
You got wrong started in the first place.

No.

Imaging LLM would start today, you would today measure exactly 384788987,732 meter – as you can see within millimeter precision.

No. - I thought I had explained it in a rather comprehensive way. Is it that you can't understand it, or is it that you won't?

If you measure the distance to the moon with a laser, you will not get a value like that. - Well you may get that value, but next time you measure, you get another value. And next time, yet another, etc. If you measure the distance over a couple of years, you will get values spreading over several kilometers.

So how do you figure out the real distance? - Well I explained that, above.

NOW you ask you self how does that fit with reality. –

Well the distance to the Sun MUST be so and so

The Distance to Venus MUST be so and so

The distance to Jupiter must be so and so

The distance to Saturn so and so.

The distance to planet X maybe so and so

And plenty other influences.

No we do not do that. Of course, we can see which effects are due to, say Venus, because they will fit the cycle of Venus. But we can't, and don't need to, infer the exact position of Venus, because, .... well there happens to be only one planet with that particular cycle.

But what if you never did the calculations to check if the moon really was affected exactly so???

But what if real scientist were not as lazy and sloppy as you?

The distance to the Sun cannot be measured because the Sun do not reflects radar.

We do not need radar to measure the distance to the sun.

Planet distances are far from accurate - you know this

Wrong. They are quite accurate.

RR is cheating you not few times BUT all the time.

RR does not exist.

More than 30 years we believed we knew everything about how the orbit was extending and what caused it.

Ahh, so that was the reason they kept on measuring, right? Because they thought they knew everything?

... That makes sense. :nope:

The new knowledge (should be) a bigger chock as I believe you have understood.
It could force us to rethink the whole tidal effect theory. (!) - do you understand this. ?

Bjarne, it is a tiny difference. That is the reason it took so long to find. In another 30 years, we will find yet another, even more tiny difference.

It seems we are dealing with a completely different unknown force.

Nonsense. It proves that our model is getting ever more precise.

Nobody did worry about anything else.

No, they just kept those measuring stations going for fun.

Hans

Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Philosopher

Philosopher

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

You can't expect perfection.

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Share this page

ISF - Join now!