Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reality Check said:
[*]The Pioneer anomaly was explained in March 2011:
Click to expand...
Yeaahh mann
I notice this image http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/files/60373/Pioneer anomaly.png

Wooow ... so this is how the heat escape.

It seems to me very similar to the great famous Danish scientist Storm P.

Here are some of his advanced technical inventions;

http://wegame.dk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/stormp.gif
http://pegasus.dk/tegneserier/037971
http://www.dfi.dk/layouts/dfi/rightcolumn/imagegallery.aspx?type=nffilm&id=31747&filter=stills
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTkJ34sR8Q82a7jhgOJvV8SEUKxSdOOYltccTGcL4S5p7xJCED2
http://www.stormp-museet.dk/billeder/Smilefrembringeren.jpg

It is obvious that the "scientist" from Portugal must have been inspired, don't you think
Take one more look;

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/files/60373/Pioneer anomaly.png
 
MRC_Hans said:
You should know by now that when I ask questions like that, then there is a trick behind it. ;)

The speed you use there is the speed of the Pioneer probes, with respect to the Sun. However, as we have discussed before, the Sun is zipping along on its orbit of the galaxy at a speed of 250,000m/s. Don't you think you should take that into account when calculating the direction and magnitude of your RR? :D

Hans
Click to expand...
No not at all, because the probe follows the speed of the Solar system, from it's started.
When moving in the direction towards the Sun's motion direction it is also towards the RR direction, in that direction RR will apply / increase, - but when moving opposite there are decreasing resistance.
It is all explained here www.sceince27.com

You can compare it to when you jump 1 meter away from the Earth; still you are rotating 1600 m/h together with air molecules etc. follow the galaxy etc...
There are a lot of motion that affects us, galaxies are also affected and do also not follows Keplerian orbits.
I am sure that also clusters are in motion too, - around the Universe.

Give you self time, and honestly ask you self, do you REALLY believe everything once come from NOTHING.
Hans this is RELIGION, not science.
The god particle (highs) speculation necessary for the BigBang is so good as DEAD
Time to rethink is yet started
Don't miss the starting gun.
 
Last edited:
The Pioneer anomaly proves that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist

Bjarne said:
Where is the nobel price and the EVIDENCE
Click to expand...
How forgetful. You gave me the evidence: The Pioneer anomaly proves that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!

(8.74±1.33)×10^−10 ms^−2 is the actual value of the Pioneer anomaly. You agree with the 8.74×10^−10 ms^−2 part.
Thus your value of 8.33 × 10-10 m/s² is wrong because it is not 8.74x10^−10 ms^−2.

Please tell me that you can tell the difference between the digits '8.74' and '8.33' :jaw-dropp!

You might argue that your value is close to the Pioneer anomaly but then there is the error limits of ±1.33×10^−10 ms^−2. Your value of 8.33 × 10-10 m/s² is wrong because it is outside of the error limits.

Scientists then looked at whether the heat radiation from the spacecraft could account for the Pioneer anomaly. It turns out that this accounted for 67% of the anomaly (before March 2011). This leaves (2.88±1.33)×10^−10 ms^−2 to be accounted for. Your value is even more wrong :eye-poppi !

And then we have March 2011 when the Pioneer anomaly was explained :jaw-dropp
In particular, Phong shading has allowed the Portuguese team to include for the first time the effect of heat emitted from a part of the spacecraft called the main equipment compartment. It turns out that heat from the back wall of this compartment is reflected from the back of the spacecraft's antenna (see diagram above).
Click to expand...
 
Bjarne said:
Wooow ... so this is how the heat escape.
Click to expand...
Wooow ... so this is how you prove that you cannot understand what you read :D.
"Pioneer Anomaly Solved By 1970s Computer Graphics Technique"
In particular, Phong shading has allowed the Portuguese team to include for the first time the effect of heat emitted from a part of the spacecraft called the main equipment compartment. It turns out that heat from the back wall of this compartment is reflected from the back of the spacecraft's antenna (see diagram above).
Click to expand...

The Pioneer anomaly proves that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!
 
Reality Check said:
How forgetful. You gave me the evidence: The Pioneer anomaly proves that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!

(8.74±1.33)×10^−10 ms^−2 is the actual value of the Pioneer anomaly. You agree with the 8.74×10^−10 ms^−2 part.
Thus your value of 8.33 × 10-10 m/s² is wrong because it is not 8.74x10^−10 ms^−2.

Please tell me that you can tell the difference between the digits '8.74' and '8.33' :jaw-dropp!

You might argue that your value is close to the Pioneer anomaly but then there is the error limits of ±1.33×10^−10 ms^−2. Your value of 8.33 × 10-10 m/s² is wrong because it is outside of the error limits.

Scientists then looked at whether the heat radiation from the spacecraft could account for the Pioneer anomaly. It turns out that this accounted for 67% of the anomaly (before March 2011). This leaves (2.88±1.33)×10^−10 ms^−2 to be accounted for. Your value is even more wrong :eye-poppi !

And then we have March 2011 when the Pioneer anomaly was explained :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

There are lot of loads of slurry out there to explain the Pioneer Anomaly.

Coherence is the force of the theory I represent;

RR is causing a long list of phenomena’s.

 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
WHERE are the EVIDENCE
Click to expand...
Try undersatnding what you read.
Spiral galaxies prove that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist! is WHERE the EVIDENCE IS.

The winding problem means that spiral arms are not stars arranged permanently in a spiral shape. If that was the case then basic orbital mechanics means that it takes a few galactic rotations to wind up the arms into the central bulge. But we see spiral arms in galaxies that are billions of years old (1000 rotations).
 
Reality Check said:
Try undersatnding what you read.
Spiral galaxies prove that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist! is WHERE the EVIDENCE IS.
Click to expand...

Ohh wait Evidence will come, so sure as Xmast eve.

The winding problem means that spiral arms are not stars arranged permanently in a spiral shape. If that was the case then basic orbital mechanics means that it takes a few galactic rotations to wind up the arms into the central bulge. But we see spiral arms in galaxies that are billions of years old (1000 rotations).
Click to expand...

Arms are half of the orbit thrown outwards of the centripetal force, and half of the orbit collapsing inwards due to RR
Also gravity (size) of a galaxy is a factor.
It is not mission to go in details, but to prove the theory
So certain that Rom was not drunk at one day, - I will do this
Still looking for a astrophysicist able to program the orbit of the Moon'
Still building
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
No not at all, because the probe follows the speed of the Solar system, from it's started.
When moving in the direction towards the Sun's motion direction it is also towards the RR direction, in that direction RR will apply / increase, - but when moving opposite there are decreasing resistance.
It is all explained here www.sceince27.com
Click to expand...

Yes, and therefore you should not calculate RR from the speed relative the the sun, as you did, but from the total speed, including that of the sun, since RR implies an absolute reference frame.

Bjarne, it's so sad when I have to explain your own theories to you. :rolleyes:

Give you self time, and honestly ask you self, do you REALLY believe everything once come from NOTHING.
Click to expand...

No. What gave you that idea?

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Yes, and therefore you should not calculate RR from the speed relative the the sun, as you did, but from the total speed, including that of the sun, since RR implies an absolute reference frame.
Hans
Click to expand...

Both (all) references frames are true.
You would have understood that if you have understood (and answered the simple questions) mentioned here;http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7593789&postcount=4385

Distances are not the same in different reference frames.
An observer not affected by the gravity of the Universe (due to mass and mass increase due to speed) - do measure 1 meter to be longer than yours, and time to be faster.
Now answer these questions and you will begin to understand....
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7593789&postcount=4385
 
Bjarne said:
Both (all) references frames are true.
You would have understood that if you have understood (and answered the simple questions) mentioned here;http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7593789&postcount=4385

Distances are not the same in different reference frames.
An observer not affected by the gravity of the Universe (due to mass and mass increase due to speed) - do measure 1 meter to be longer than yours, and time to be faster.
Now answer these questions and you will begin to understand....
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7593789&postcount=4385
Click to expand...

We already addressed your questions in that post.

Now, don't try to run away: The pioneer probes are moving with a speed and direction relative to the sun, but the sun is moving through space with them at a different, and much higher, speed. So the real speed and direction of the probes is not the one you used in your calculation of RR.

How do you explain this?

Reply with an answer, not with questions.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
We already addressed your questions in that post.
Click to expand...
You cannot answer the questions ?.
Are you and RC afraid to do so?
Hans are you and RC runaway-cissies ?

Here are the poisons questions again try concrete to REPLY to these.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7593789&postcount=4385

Now, don't try to run away: The pioneer probes are moving with a speed and direction relative to the sun, but the sun is moving through space with them at a different, and much higher, speed. So the real speed and direction of the probes is not the one you used in your calculation of RR.
How do you explain this?
Reply with an answer, not with questions.
Hans
Click to expand...

I have discover it Hans. You want to change subject right ?
OK no problem >>>

Hans I think ( I am sure) this is much too complicated to yours complicated head.
But well let me give it a try...

Imaging you (A) was driving 10 meter in one second

An outsider (of the Universe) (B) (not affected by the gravity of the Universe) would not agree.
B would say it not took 1 second, but 10 seconds.
B would also say that you (A) not have moved 10 meter but 100 (of B’s) meters.
As a paradox B would agree that the speed “seems” to be the same.
If (B’s) meter-stick would be compared with yours meter-stick (A), - B’s meter-stick would be 10 times shorter, (because B’s meter stick not is stretched so much by gravity. )

So if you see a star moving 250 km in one second
B would not agree, he would say it took 10 second, distance of motion was seen from B not 250 km in that period, but 2500 km (in that 10 seconds) and speed was the “same” as you saw it, - 250 km per second.

So what happens when gravity of the Universe increases due to speed, is that the meter stick is stretching further and further and further,- and thereby distances gets shorter and shorter and shorter - the meter stick longer, - and time ticking slower.

We on Earth are already involved in such reality, - how deep ? - we don’t know, since we don’t know the total speed affecting us.

Our understanding of meters, distances and time, is not the same as seen from a larger perspective.

The problem you now have is that you cannot mix 2 realities.
You can compare them but not mix them.

When you are adding the speed of this and that, you are in reality mixing time/distances/meters-stick propotionals, - that not is proportional the same as those seen from yours reference frame.
This will give you an incorrect picture.
You must keep the proportions to the reference frame these belong too, - for example you cannot mix the rate of time near the event horizon with time rate in Copenhagen.
I think you shall not worry, - nature will automatically stretch or shrink, all proportional’s, so that our meter also are valid, - BUT still not “absolute” proportional’s allowed to mix.

Hans you have demonstrated that you refuse to understand these principles on the simple level by not concrete and serious answering these simple questions >> http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7593789&postcount=4385
Therefore I know I (again) have wasted my time, - this is over your head and will always be.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
You cannot answer the questions ?.
Are you and RC afraid to do so?
Hans are you and RC runaway-cissies ?

Here are the poisons questions again try concrete to REPLY to these.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7593789&postcount=4385
Click to expand...

We already answered the questions. If there is more you don't understand about relativity, read a book.

I have discover it Hans. You want to change subject right ?
OK no problem >>>
Click to expand...

You don't have a subject.

Imaging you (A) was driving 10 meter in one second

An outsider (of the Universe) (B) (not affected by the gravity of the Universe) would not agree.
B would say it not took 1 second, but 10 seconds.
B would also say that you (A) not have moved 10 meter but 100 (of B’s) meters.

As a paradox B would agree that the speed “seems” to be the same.
If (B’s) meter-stick would be compared with yours meter-stick (A), - B’s meter-stick would be 10 times shorter, (because B’s meter stick not is stretched so much by gravity. )
Click to expand...

Your numbers are silly, because they refer to relativistic speeds, but anyway, what is the relevance of all this? Are you trying to teach me relativity? :p I'm afraid you are not qualified for that. :rolleyes:

So what happens when gravity of the Universe increases due to speed, is that the meter stick is stretching further and further and further,- and thereby distances gets shorter and shorter and shorter - the meter stick longer, - and time ticking slower.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. There is no universal speed, and there is not energy enough in the universe to accelerate all the matter in it to relativistic speeds.

We on Earth are already involved in such reality, - how deep ? - we don’t know, since we don’t know the total speed affecting us.
Click to expand...

Then how can you claim it is happening?
The problem you now have is that you cannot mix 2 realities.
You can compare them but not mix them.
Click to expand...

There is only one reality, but our way of perceiving it is different.

Now, when will you answer my questions?

The pioneer probes are moving with a speed and direction relative to the sun, but the sun is moving through space with them at a different, and much higher, speed. So the real speed and direction of the probes is not the one you used in your calculation of RR.

How do you explain this?

Reply with an answer, not with questions.

Hans
 
Bjarne said:
You cannot answer the questions ?.
Are you and RC afraid to do so?
Hans are you and RC runaway-cissies ?

Here are the poisons questions again try concrete to REPLY to these.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7593789&postcount=4385
Click to expand...
Yoiu are lying. I have given a REPLY to these.
There is no need to waste my time doing the math for this single example because relativity tells us that for every example:
20th September 2011
Reality Check said:
The Earth orbits the Sun in a different orbit from Mercury. The Sun orbits the MW. Thus the actual orbits of Mercury and Earth are different around the center of the MW. They go around in the same time (ignoring relativity) and travel different distances.
This has nothing to do with the size of the MW.

GR means that the clocks on Mercury tick at a slighty different rate than those on Earth. Without doing the very complex claculations involved we have no idea what this means for the period of an orbit as measured at Mercury (with its different orbit from Earth around the MW) compared to the period of an orbit as measured at Earth. Once again this is all to do with the orbits of the 2 planets about the MW.
This has nothing to do with the size of the MW.


Now if you really wanted to waste your time, you could
  • Work out the total distance that Mercury travels in its helical orbit around the MV (an eliptical orbit around the Sun + the Sun's orbit around the MV).
  • Work out the total distance that Earth travels in its helical orbit around the MV (an eliptical orbit around the Sun + the Sun's orbit around the MV).
and guess what - they would be different because of the simple fact that Mercury and Earth are in different orbits around the Sun :jaw-dropp !


On average the planets have the same speed as the Sun in its orbit around the Sun. So you could go another way: Use this as an orbital speed and then the distance can be calculated from this speed and the orbital period. But the 2 clocks will measure a slightly different orbital period due to gravitational time dilation. So an observer on Mercury would calculate a slightly different length of the orbit from an observer on Earth. That should be a slightly different radius of the orbit. But...
This has nothing to do with the size of the MW...
Until you move the Sun out to the outskirts of the MV. Then gravitational time dilation will cause the 2 observers to measure a slightly different size
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
Yoiu are lying. I have given a REPLY to these.
There is no need to waste my time doing the math for this single example because relativity tells us that for every example:
20th September 2011
Click to expand...

Either you don't want or you cannot understand the point:

The point is only; the motion of the Sun , - and how two different space-time observers can agree about that.

How much Mercury or the Earths travels in their orbits have NOTHING with that the point to do.

We are ONLY discussing the GR influence NOT the SR influence.
 
MRC_Hans said:
There is only one reality, but our way of perceiving it is different.
Click to expand...
If you would not percept it, what would that reality then be, except NOTHING?
Nothing because all you know about “that reality” is NOTHING.
Hans you are dreaming about something no one ever have seen, and something you have no idea of what is.
All what you possible can know anything about are objective observable realities.
I thought you know that. But now I understand you believe in a “certain reality” .
I believe this is why we are so far from each other.,
Well this is also the essence of religion. There is not much difference.

Even the reality by your feed is different from the relaity by your nose.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
The point is only; the motion of the Sun , - and how two different space-time observers can agree about that.
Click to expand...
You were asking about the gravitational time dilation caused by the different gravitational fields. That could cause the 2 observers to calculate a different orbit for the Sun. The calculated motion of the Sun differs for the 2 observers.

20th September 2011
Originally Posted by Reality Check
On average the planets have the same speed as the Sun in its orbit around the Sun. So you could go another way: Use this as an orbital speed and then the distance can be calculated from this speed and the orbital period. But the 2 clocks will measure a slightly different orbital period due to gravitational time dilation. So an observer on Mercury would calculate a slightly different length of the orbit from an observer on Earth. That should be a slightly different radius of the orbit. But...
This has nothing to do with the size of the MW...
Until you move the Sun out to the outskirts of the MV. Then gravitational time dilation will cause the 2 observers to measure a slightly different size
Click to expand...

If you want them to calculate the same orbit for the Sun than just put them in the same gravitational field :jaw-dropp!


This is what GR states. Even special relativity states similar things, e.g. 2 observers at different speeds will
  • Measure that the other observer's clock is ticking slower than theirs.
  • Measure that the other observer's length is less than theirs.
 
Bjarne said:
If you would not percept it, what would that reality then be, except NOTHING?
Click to expand...
How about I make it really simple for you:

Is reality any different because blind people can not see it, deaf people not hear it, quadriplegics not move their limbs or because synesthetes might think the word cow is blue and tastes like strawberries?
 
Reality Check said:
You were asking about the gravitational time dilation caused by the different gravitational fields.
Click to expand...
NEVER
Also the calculation I did shows that we are ONLY talking about the influence of the Suns gravitional field. (the orbit of Earth and Mercury) so forget the different mass of the planets.

That could cause the 2 observers to calculate a different orbit for the Sun.
Click to expand...
Only you did understood it as influences of different gravity fields.
Even if that was the case it really doesn’t matter. Two clock ticks different, that’s what matter and that mean two different realities, and that mean that these observers not can't agree about the orbit of the Sun. So simple is that.

The calculated motion of the Sun differs for the 2 observers.
Click to expand...
Exactly, since the clocks tick differently, - due to different GR influence.


If you want them to calculate the same orbit for the Sun than just put them in the same gravitational field :jaw-dropp!
Click to expand...
It change nothing.

But if you prefer put the one clock inside the Sun and the other at the Surface. - The problem, - with the Suns orbit is still a problem, until you realize that distances must change proportional.


This is what GR states. Even special relativity states similar things, e.g. 2 observers at different speeds will

  • Measure that the other observer's clock is ticking slower than theirs.
  • Measure that the other observer's length is less than theirs.
Click to expand...

Rubbish
Every cow know that the further you get to the Sun, the Earth or any mass,or inside it , - the slower is a clock ticking
Inside the Earth or the Sun etc. is time also ticking gradually slower.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
NEVER
Also the calculation I did shows that we are ONLY talking about the influence of the Suns gravitional field. (the orbit of Earth and Mercury) so forget the different mass of the planets.
...usual gibbierish and inability ro read snipped....
Click to expand...
LIAR: The post where you gave your example starts with gravitational time dilation.

Your calculation is even dumber now - you have to show that the different gravitational fields of the planets at the surface (where the clocks are) is negligible in comparison with the solar gravitational field.
I suspect that it is the solar gravitational field that is negligible. After all we are not pulled off the surface of the Earth by it :D.

In actual fact it is your obsession with Mercury and the Earth thst is the dumb part. You should have expressed the problem more generally:
Take an star that is in an orbit in a galaxy.
Let there be a observer Alice with a clock orbiting that star at a distance r1.
Let there be a observer Bob with a clock orbiting that star at a different distance r2.
Alice and Bob measure the time taken for one orbit of the star in the galaxy. Thsi is the orbital period.
According to GR the clocks tick at different rates (gravitational time dilation). Alice will measure a different orbital period from Bob.

Kepler's third law is: "The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit."

Thus Alice will calculate a different semi-major axis of the star's orbit from what Bob will calculate.
​
Scientists have no problem with this because there are many examples of different measurements from different observers in relativity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom