ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Allais Effect , Dark Flow , relativity , Theory of Relativity

Reply
Old 2nd December 2019, 01:17 PM   #1641
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,018
Exclamation Deluded gibberish about his imaginary force, etc.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
...
3 December 2019 Bjarne: Deluded gibberish about his imaginary force, etc.

Ending with the insanity that calculations he has not made and is incapable of making from his almost math-less delusions will match the existing data for 'Oumuamua that he is ignorant about and the existing and future data for 2I/Borisov that he is abysmally ignorant about.
'Oumuamua's data has been available for about 2 years and he given no calculations or even displayed any understanding of what that non-gravitational acceleration was. The 1 number he has quoted is referenced as if it were a constant acceleration!
He is abysmally ignorant about 2I/Borisov being below the below the elliptic for over a month now.
His RR, DFA, ASAM, "RR release", imaginary "force" delusions have (as I recall) a single equation for RR ! He can make me wrong very easily - list all of the physics equations in his "theory".
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 01:22 PM   #1642
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,378
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
3 December 2019 Bjarne:
His RR, DFA, ASAM, "RR release", imaginary "force" delusions have (as I recall) a single equation for RR ! He can make me wrong very easily - list all of the physics equations in his "theory".
A single equation which he has yet to show fits ANY of his claims. -Or any other part of observed reality. I'm sad to say that this story, while showing some style at the start, many years ago, has gone consistently downhill and is now too pathetic to contemplate.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 01:30 PM   #1643
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,018
Exclamation The stupidity of a deluded number without any working

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
...
3 December 2019 Bjarne: The stupidity of a deluded number without any working !

This is high school science - no work = no real answer because no one know where the number came from. Did he include RR and how? Did he include DFA and how? Did he include ASAM and how? Did he include his "RR release" and how? Did he include his imaginary "force" and how?

His delusion is that "0.432m/24 per orbit" is an undetectable speed. We have satellites that have been in operation for decades and have thousands of orbits.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 02:28 PM   #1644
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,018
Exclamation A deluded, paranoiac rant that a lot of things affect satellites

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
...
3 December 2019 Bjarne: A deluded, paranoiac rant that a lot of things affect satellites.
He has spewed out this paranoiac rant about spacecraft anomalies before.
Limiting Future Collision Risk to Spacecraft: An Assessment of NASA's Meteoroid and Orbital Debris Programs (2011) has this chapter Spacecraft Anomalies, which is the simple fact that satellites are not the only things in space ! Space around the Earth is full of junk such as meteoroids and actual junk from other spacecraft. Sometimes a satellite is hit by this junk and that causes an anomaly. Why not all of these are not normally reported to the public is clearly stated
Quote:
However, it is not normal procedure to provide information on these anomalies to the public or even to other offices within the same organization, for to a variety of reasons: limited staff for reporting and analysis, concerns about system reputation, desire to protect proprietary information, uncertainty in the meaning or cause of the events, national security, and so on. Depending on their severity, a program operations philosophy, and an available staff, anomalies are recorded and analyzed to some degree. Individual operational satellite programs, such as Iridium, Defense Meteorological Satellites Program, and others, use such information as a means to (1) assess system performance, (2) determine potential changes in operations, or (3) diagnose the cause of an event.
This is not his "no politics to share sucxh anomaly information" delusion. It is practical matters such as resources that limit the sharing of just spacecraft anomalies caused by impacts.

Last edited by Reality Check; 2nd December 2019 at 02:38 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 02:34 PM   #1645
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,018
Question Gibberish implying that his delusions have no measurable effects on polar satellites

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
As you should have understood, these polar acc/dec anomalies is cancelling out each other. It all happens when these satellits are is down under. ...
3 December 2019 Bjarne: Gibberish implying that his delusions have no measurable effects on polar satellites?

He may be writing a lie or is very confused or writing incoherent nonsense. He gives a number out of thin air of "0.432m/24 per orbit. for prediction 2" in his previous post. But now he says it has to be zero because "these polar acc/dec anomalies is cancelling out each other"?

Last edited by Reality Check; 2nd December 2019 at 02:36 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 03:14 PM   #1646
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,011
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
What data will you use to confirm this, say from 8th December until 31st December?
Bjarne, You didn't answer this before, what data are you going to use to confirm that Borisov will be decelerating after perihelion?

For example, if we plot the distance from the Sun from 8th December to 31 December then if you are right we should be seeing this as a concave down curve rather than the concave up curve we get from NASA projections?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 04:10 PM   #1647
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,018
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Bjarne, You didn't answer this before, what data are you going to use to confirm that Borisov will be decelerating after perihelion?
Borisov will be decelerating after perihelion because it is climbing out of the Sun's gravitational field. It will also be accelerating because it is a comet and outgassing but I think that is quite small.
So the question should be "Bjarne: what data are you going to use to confirm that Borisov will be decelerating differently than mainstream science predicts after perihelion".
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 04:14 PM   #1648
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,011
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Borisov will be decelerating after perihelion because it is climbing out of the Sun's gravitational field. It will also be accelerating because it is a comet and outgassing but I think that is quite small.
So the question should be "Bjarne: what data are you going to use to confirm that Borisov will be decelerating differently than mainstream science predicts after perihelion".
Yes, I wasn't sure what the relative effect of gravity and outgassing was, however I am watching this one just for my own interest to see what the trajectory is like and in the meantime I am finally learning about co-ordinate systems for bodies in the Solar System.

As long as I am learning something I don't mind if he is serious or a Viking singing "Luvverly Spam!"
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2019, 05:20 PM   #1649
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,011
I am using http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi for the NASA projections (assuming it survives perihelion)

Target body: Comet C/2019 Q4 (Borisov)
Observer location: @sun

This should be enough to confirm any deviation between the projections and the observational data.

Date__(UT)__HR:MN R.A._(ICRF/J2000.0)_DEC T-mag N-mag delta deldot S-O-T S-T-O
************************************************** ************************************************** *******
$$SOE
2019-Dec-01 00:00 09 29 57.98 -02 18 54.2 16.49 n.a. 2.01369084949081 -3.2160632 0.0000 0.0084
2019-Dec-02 00:00 09 31 22.50 -02 56 33.1 16.48 n.a. 2.01195548669979 -2.7930877 0.0000 0.0084
2019-Dec-03 00:00 09 32 47.26 -03 34 15.2 16.48 n.a. 2.01046474878671 -2.3689918 0.0000 0.0084
2019-Dec-04 00:00 09 34 12.26 -04 11 59.9 16.48 n.a. 2.00921923402020 -1.9439425 0.0000 0.0084
2019-Dec-05 00:00 09 35 37.48 -04 49 46.5 16.48 n.a. 2.00821944358200 -1.5181089 0.0000 0.0084
2019-Dec-06 00:00 09 37 02.94 -05 27 34.5 16.48 n.a. 2.00746578060166 -1.0916615 0.0000 0.0084
2019-Dec-07 00:00 09 38 28.63 -06 05 23.1 16.47 n.a. 2.00695854937711 -0.6647719 0.0000 0.0084
2019-Dec-08 00:00 09 39 54.55 -06 43 11.8 16.47 n.a. 2.00669795478449 -0.2376127 0.0000 0.0084
2019-Dec-09 00:00 09 41 20.71 -07 20 59.8 16.47 n.a. 2.00668410187992 0.1896431 0.0000 0.0084
2019-Dec-10 00:00 09 42 47.10 -07 58 46.5 16.47 n.a. 2.00691699569504 0.6168221 0.0000 0.0084
2019-Dec-11 00:00 09 44 13.73 -08 36 31.3 16.48 n.a. 2.00739654122703 1.0437514 0.0000 0.0084
2019-Dec-12 00:00 09 45 40.60 -09 14 13.5 16.48 n.a. 2.00812254362350 1.4702582 0.0000 0.0084
2019-Dec-13 00:00 09 47 07.70 -09 51 52.5 16.48 n.a. 2.00909470856100 1.8961709 0.0000 0.0084
2019-Dec-14 00:00 09 48 35.04 -10 29 27.7 16.48 n.a. 2.01031264281578 2.3213186 0.0000 0.0084
2019-Dec-15 00:00 09 50 02.62 -11 06 58.3 16.48 n.a. 2.01177585502411 2.7455324 0.0000 0.0084
2019-Dec-16 00:00 09 51 30.43 -11 44 23.9 16.49 n.a. 2.01348375662870 3.1686447 0.0000 0.0084
2019-Dec-17 00:00 09 52 58.49 -12 21 43.6 16.49 n.a. 2.01543566300718 3.5904904 0.0000 0.0084
2019-Dec-18 00:00 09 54 26.77 -12 58 57.0 16.50 n.a. 2.01763079477750 4.0109065 0.0000 0.0083
2019-Dec-19 00:00 09 55 55.30 -13 36 03.4 16.50 n.a. 2.02006827927468 4.4297330 0.0000 0.0083
2019-Dec-20 00:00 09 57 24.06 -14 13 02.2 16.51 n.a. 2.02274715219241 4.8468126 0.0000 0.0083
2019-Dec-21 00:00 09 58 53.07 -14 49 52.8 16.51 n.a. 2.02566635938250 5.2619914 0.0000 0.0083
2019-Dec-22 00:00 10 00 22.31 -15 26 34.7 16.52 n.a. 2.02882475880455 5.6751190 0.0000 0.0083
2019-Dec-23 00:00 10 01 51.78 -16 03 07.2 16.53 n.a. 2.03222112261768 6.0860486 0.0000 0.0083
2019-Dec-24 00:00 10 03 21.50 -16 39 29.8 16.53 n.a. 2.03585413940566 6.4946376 0.0000 0.0083
2019-Dec-25 00:00 10 04 51.44 -17 15 42.0 16.54 n.a. 2.03972241652641 6.9007474 0.0000 0.0083
2019-Dec-26 00:00 10 06 21.63 -17 51 43.2 16.55 n.a. 2.04382448257651 7.3042438 0.0000 0.0082
2019-Dec-27 00:00 10 07 52.05 -18 27 32.9 16.56 n.a. 2.04815878996099 7.7049971 0.0000 0.0082
2019-Dec-28 00:00 10 09 22.71 -19 03 10.6 16.57 n.a. 2.05272371755858 8.1028824 0.0000 0.0082
2019-Dec-29 00:00 10 10 53.60 -19 38 35.9 16.58 n.a. 2.05751757347228 8.4977794 0.0000 0.0082
2019-Dec-30 00:00 10 12 24.72 -20 13 48.1 16.59 n.a. 2.06253859785529 8.8895730 0.0000 0.0082
2019-Dec-31 00:00 10 13 56.07 -20 48 46.9 16.60 n.a. 2.06778496580195 9.2781531 0.0000 0.0081
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 2nd December 2019 at 05:23 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 01:32 AM   #1650
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Borisov will be decelerating after perihelion because it is climbing out of the Sun's gravitational field. It will also be accelerating because it is a comet and outgassing but I think that is quite small.
So the question should be "Bjarne: what data are you going to use to confirm that Borisov will be decelerating differently than mainstream science predicts after perihelion".
Borisov will decelerate unexpected as I explained
I am 19972134453 % sure every Mother C have understood
Bjarne is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 01:36 AM   #1651
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
is that an hour in the bjarneverse? i think an hour has 3600 seconds ...
I already have comment this. Yes 3600, divide with 24 and you have the result for satellites in 20 km altitude, it is a bit more as NEAR
Bjarne is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 01:47 AM   #1652
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
3 December 2019 Bjarne: Deluded gibberish about his imaginary force, etc.

Ending with the insanity that calculations he has not made and is incapable of making from his almost math-less delusions will match the existing data for 'Oumuamua that he is ignorant about.
My mission is not to get lost in details, - but just to tell where our paradigm is too narrow minded and why. After that scientist can use their rocket science computers and universities to test if it was true that we had have 114 years of concrete brainwash – or not.

Last edited by Bjarne; 3rd December 2019 at 02:05 AM.
Bjarne is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 01:49 AM   #1653
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
3 December 2019 Bjarne: The stupidity of a deluded number without any working !

This is high school science - no work = no real answer because no one know where the number came from. Did he include RR and how? Did he include DFA and how? Did he include ASAM and how? Did he include his "RR release" and how? Did he include his imaginary "force" and how?

His delusion is that "0.432m/24 per orbit" is an undetectable speed. We have satellites that have been in operation for decades and have thousands of orbits.
you have a deceleration and acceleration period, - of release of dark flow related tension...…..these are cancelling out each orbit
Bjarne is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 01:53 AM   #1654
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,378
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
I already have comment this. Yes 3600, divide with 24 and you have the result for satellites in 20 km altitude, it is a bit more as NEAR
Craft in 20 km altitude are called airplanes. Do yourself a favor and think before clicking submit.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 01:55 AM   #1655
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
3 December 2019 Bjarne: A deluded, paranoiac rant that a lot of things affect satellites.
He has spewed out this paranoiac rant about spacecraft anomalies before.
Limiting Future Collision Risk to Spacecraft: An Assessment of NASA's Meteoroid and Orbital Debris Programs (2011) has this chapter Spacecraft Anomalies, which is the simple fact that satellites are not the only things in space ! Space around the Earth is full of junk such as meteoroids and actual junk from other spacecraft. Sometimes a satellite is hit by this junk and that causes an anomaly. Why not all of these are not normally reported to the public is clearly stated

This is not his "no politics to share sucxh anomaly information" delusion. It is practical matters such as resources that limit the sharing of just spacecraft anomalies caused by impacts.
YES YES YES RC, we all know it , we all know it.
There are 325215983458734561562346346 billion BIG BIG BIG BIG LIARS on this planet
ALSO the people that wrote the report are INSANE, DELECUDED. IDIOTIC LIARS - right (????)
https://www.nap.edu/read/13244/chapter/12#75

Last edited by Bjarne; 3rd December 2019 at 01:57 AM.
Bjarne is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 02:02 AM   #1656
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Bjarne, You didn't answer this before, what data are you going to use to confirm that Borisov will be decelerating after perihelion?

For example, if we plot the distance from the Sun from 8th December to 31 December then if you are right we should be seeing this as a concave down curve rather than the concave up curve we get from NASA projections?
I am not going to calculate if the acceleration due to release of the full potentiel Dark Flow related tension is the approximated calculation other scientist already have calculated 5e-6m/s^2 - or only 1e-6m/s^2 or even 1e-5m/s^2 etc.

There are a lot of factors to take into consideration to get this right , and really rocket science when worse. - We are ONLY speaking about unexpected acceleration and unexpected deceleration here
Bjarne is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 02:04 AM   #1657
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Craft in 20 km altitude are called airplanes. Do yourself a favor and think before clicking submit.

Hans
I have other thing to do today, yes 20.000 km as written first time
Bjarne is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 05:54 AM   #1658
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,011
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
I am not going to calculate if the acceleration due to release of the full potentiel Dark Flow related tension is the approximated calculation other scientist already have calculated 5e-6m/s^2 - or only 1e-6m/s^2 or even 1e-5m/s^2 etc.

There are a lot of factors to take into consideration to get this right , and really rocket science when worse. - We are ONLY speaking about unexpected acceleration and unexpected deceleration here
It is just that you said earlier that many expected it to accelerate out of the solar system.

Do you accept that no-one expects it to accelerate out of the solar system?

From what I have been reading it will reach about 44 km/s at perihelion and slow down from there so that it will leave the solar system at around 32 km/s.

So unexpected deceleration would be further deceleration outside of the standard error as stated in the model. And even that could simply be due to more mundane factors not included in the model.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 06:01 AM   #1659
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,011
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
My mission is not to get lost in details, - but just to tell where our paradigm is too narrow minded and why. After that scientist can use their rocket science computers and universities to test if it was true that we had have 114 years of concrete brainwash – or not.
But you haven't even provided any kind of high level explanation of how your theory works.

You give no indication of what your predictions are based on.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 06:12 AM   #1660
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,959
Talking

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Borisov will decelerate unexpected as I explained
I am 19972134453 % sure every Mother C have understood
That's right ladies and gentlemen. Bjarne insists there will be an "unexpected" deceleration but he has NO idea how to test his hypothesis against real-world data.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
My mission is not to get lost in details, - but just to tell where our paradigm is too narrow minded and why. After that scientist can use their rocket science computers and universities to test if it was true that we had have 114 years of concrete brainwash – or not.
So your mission is to piss and moan while accomplishing nothing. You literally set yourself the goal of being the old man yelling at a cloud.



Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
YES YES YES RC, we all know it , we all know it.
There are 325215983458734561562346346 billion BIG BIG BIG BIG LIARS on this planet
ALSO the people that wrote the report are INSANE, DELECUDED. IDIOTIC LIARS - right (????)
https://www.nap.edu/read/13244/chapter/12#75
Sometimes you yell at clouds a bit more literally.

I have never before seen anyone dedicate this much energy to calculated and determined futility.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
I am not going to calculate if the acceleration due to release of the full potentiel Dark Flow related tension is the approximated calculation other scientist already have calculated 5e-6m/s^2 - or only 1e-6m/s^2 or even 1e-5m/s^2 etc.

There are a lot of factors to take into consideration to get this right , and really rocket science when worse. - We are ONLY speaking about unexpected acceleration and unexpected deceleration here
In other words, you will do nothing, achieve nothing, and advance no fields of science. You will yell at clouds and be happy with that.

Well, at least you're clear about intending to accomplish nothing.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!

Last edited by halleyscomet; 3rd December 2019 at 06:18 AM.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 06:20 AM   #1661
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,407
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
But you haven't even provided any kind of high level explanation of how your theory works.

You give no indication of what your predictions are based on.
What predictions?
I haven't seen any.

Just saying something will unexpectedly decelerate, does not count.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 06:29 AM   #1662
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,694
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
As you should have understood, these polar acc/dec anomalies is cancelling out each other. It all happens when these satellits are is down under.
And, as we well know, people down under do not use GPS ...
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 06:31 AM   #1663
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,407
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
And, as we well know, people down under do not use GPS ...
Of course not. We on the Northern hemisphere need our GPS in order to navigate through our cities.
In Australia you do not need this. Just follow the single road through the desert and you can't go wrong.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 09:06 AM   #1664
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,064
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Borisov will decelerate unexpected as I explained
I am 19972134453 % sure every Mother C have understood
If your theory predicts it, it's not unexpected, and you should be able to tell us how much.

But what I think you're ACTUALLY planning is to wait and see how it deviates, ignore the fact that there is always a margin of error and some deviation is expected, especially from an outgassing comet, and then claim that whatever deviation is seen is because of your theory.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 09:08 AM   #1665
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,064
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
I already have comment this. Yes 3600, divide with 24 and you have the result for satellites in 20 km altitude, it is a bit more as NEAR
I thought the 20km satellites comment earlier was probably a typo, but you're repeating it. Do you really believe there are satellites at 20km?
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 09:24 AM   #1666
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,959
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
I thought the 20km satellites comment earlier was probably a typo, but you're repeating it. Do you really believe there are satellites at 20km?
It would appear that he does.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 09:35 AM   #1667
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
If your theory predicts it, it's not unexpected, and you should be able to tell us how much.

But what I think you're ACTUALLY planning is to wait and see how it deviates, ignore the fact that there is always a margin of error and some deviation is expected, especially from an outgassing comet, and then claim that whatever deviation is seen is because of your theory.
Borisov C/2019 Q4, - is a comet, it is expected it will accelerate are due to outgassing.
We will see an unexpected deceleration that cannot be explained, unless using such Aliens bla bla bla explanation and similar bla bla bla BS...
To fine tune our understanding of how is strong the maximum release of Dark Flow related tension / release / acceleration really is, we need to have a lot of exact orbit and trajectory data, right software , and people knowing how to use it. - Dont worry, - smoke a cigar, - no problem, - this can be done later , by million of brainwashed scientist and innocent students that sooner or later must be reprogrammed..

Last edited by Bjarne; 3rd December 2019 at 09:36 AM.
Bjarne is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 09:39 AM   #1668
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
And, as we well know, people down under do not use GPS ...
As you should have understood, these polar acc/dec anomalies is cancelling out each other. It all happens when these satellits are is down under. Serveral time we have discuss that there are no politics to share sucxh anomaly information also not reveal anything public, - so even if some of these are discovered, - politic in this area is tys tys

Read carefully below

A lot of factors affect a satellite
Space weather
Artic Ice variation
Baltic Sea mass variation
Tidal variation
Planet , Sun Moon perturbation
Sun & Moon tidal variation
Atmospheric collision
And a lot more fare about my head.
Many are variants, and therefore impossible to predict.
Furthermore read this copy Paste

Spacecraft Anomalies
Whether the NASA MMOD programs focus on protecting the space environment or the spacecraft, monitoring, reporting, and analysis of satellite anomalies are of vital importance.
Particulate-induced anomalies could provide valuable validation of environment characterization of objects within critical size ranges (5 mm to 10 cm for debris and 10–11 g for meteoroids) and velocities (7 km/s for debris, up to 72 km/s for meteoroids if in bound solar orbit), as well as a better understanding of operational effects owing to particulate impacts.

Satellite anomalies are mission-degrading or mission-terminating events affecting on-orbit operational spacecraft.
However, it is not normal procedure to provide information on these anomalies to the public or even to other offices within the same organizationn, for to a variety of reasons: limited staff for reporting and analysis, concerns about system reputation, desire to protect proprietary information, uncertainty in the meaning or cause of the events, national security, and so on.
Depending on their severity, a program operations philosophy, and an available staff, anomalies are recorded and analyzed to some degree.
Individual operational satellite programs, such as Iridium, Defense Meteorological Satellites Program, and others, use such information as a means to (1) assess system performance, (2) determine potential changes in operations, or (3) diagnose the cause of an event.

There is no standard nomenclature for describing system symptoms associated with anomalies or how they are recorded, shared, resolved, or stored.
There is no standard approach to prioritizing steps in a process for addressing an anomaly, including recording, resolution, and/or determination of cause.
Many system operators are much more concerned about getting their satellite back into operation than about determining the cause of a failure. Repeat failures often get examined much more rigorously.


Typically, the following causes of anomalies are considered: routine failures of parts, electrostatic discharge, single-event upset, command error, particulate impact, and unknown.

Unfortunately, there is no standard resolution process to determine the cause of an anomaly. The process of determining a cause is unreliable, and the degree of confidence applied to any one cause is minimal.
“Unknown” is attributed to the vast majority of anomaly cases, since it is so difficult to determine exactly what happens in space without dedicated instrumentation to provide insights from on-orbit encounters that adversely affect satellite operations.
There may be times when an “unknown” is erroneously attributed to a meteoroid or orbital debris event. Or there may other times when additional data indicates a high probability that the failure was caused by an MMOD event (see Box 10.1).
From a flight safety perspective (i.e., protecting the spacecraft), determining the cause of anomalies in space is important to better assess how the system will continue to function and how future systems might perform.
[size="5"]

Read more
https://www.nap.edu/read/13244/chapter/12#75

Last edited by Bjarne; 3rd December 2019 at 09:42 AM.
Bjarne is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 09:47 AM   #1669
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,459
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
My mission is not to get lost in details facts, - but just to tell where our paradigm is too narrow minded and why. After that scientist can use their rocket science computers and universities to test if it was true that we had have 114 years of concrete brainwash – or not.

FTFY

Scientists won't do diddly-squat until you provide hard evidence there's a problem. Which we all, including you, know will never happen. If you had real evidence you would have provided it years ago.

Oh, and my GPS is still working just fine. Is yours?
__________________
"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.”-Fran Lebowitz
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 10:03 AM   #1670
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,459
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
A lot of factors affect a satellite
Space weather
Artic Ice variation
Baltic Sea mass variation
Tidal variation
Planet , Sun Moon perturbation
Sun & Moon tidal variation
Atmospheric collision
And a lot more fare about my head.

Bjarne, scientists and engineers, who have done the hard work you haven't done, know which factors are important and have compensated for them. That's why satellites work.
__________________
"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just don’t.”-Fran Lebowitz
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 11:23 AM   #1671
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,959
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
As you should have understood, these polar
acc/dec anomalies is cancelling out each other. It all happens when these satellits are is down under. Serveral time we have discuss that there are no politics to share sucxh anomaly information also not reveal anything public, - so even if some of these are discovered, - politic in this area is tys tys

Read carefully below

A lot of factors affect a satellite
Space weather
Artic Ice variation
Baltic Sea mass variation
Tidal variation
Planet , Sun Moon perturbation
Sun & Moon tidal variation
Atmospheric collision
And a lot more fare about my head.
Many are variants, and therefore impossible to predict.
Furthermore read this copy Paste

Spacecraft Anomalies
Whether the NASA MMOD programs focus on protecting the space environment or the spacecraft, monitoring, reporting, and analysis of satellite anomalies are of vital importance.
Particulate-induced anomalies could provide valuable validation of environment characterization of objects within critical size ranges (5 mm to 10 cm for debris and 10–11 g for meteoroids) and velocities (7 km/s for debris, up to 72 km/s for meteoroids if in bound solar orbit), as well as a better understanding of operational effects owing to particulate impacts.

Satellite anomalies are mission-degrading or mission-terminating events affecting on-orbit operational spacecraft.
However, it is not normal procedure to provide information on these anomalies to the public or even to other offices within the same organizationn, for to a variety of reasons: limited staff for reporting and analysis, concerns about system reputation, desire to protect proprietary information, uncertainty in the meaning or cause of the events, national security, and so on.
Depending on their severity, a program operations philosophy, and an available staff, anomalies are recorded and analyzed to some degree.
Individual operational satellite programs, such as Iridium, Defense Meteorological Satellites Program, and others, use such information as a means to (1) assess system performance, (2) determine potential changes in operations, or (3) diagnose the cause of an event.

There is no standard nomenclature for describing system symptoms associated with anomalies or how they are recorded, shared, resolved, or stored.
There is no standard approach to prioritizing steps in a process for addressing an anomaly, including recording, resolution, and/or determination of cause.
Many system operators are much more concerned about getting their satellite back into operation than about determining the cause of a failure. Repeat failures often get examined much more rigorously.


Typically, the following causes of anomalies are considered: routine failures of parts, electrostatic discharge, single-event upset, command error, particulate impact, and unknown.

Unfortunately, there is no standard resolution process to determine the cause of an anomaly. The process of determining a cause is unreliable, and the degree of confidence applied to any one cause is minimal.
“Unknown” is attributed to the vast majority of anomaly cases, since it is so difficult to determine exactly what happens in space without dedicated instrumentation to provide insights from on-orbit encounters that adversely affect satellite operations.
There may be times when an “unknown” is erroneously attributed to a meteoroid or orbital debris event. Or there may other times when additional data indicates a high probability that the failure was caused by an MMOD event (see Box 10.1).
From a flight safety perspective (i.e., protecting the spacecraft), determining the cause of anomalies in space is important to better assess how the system will continue to function and how future systems might perform.
[size="5"]

Read more
https://www.nap.edu/read/13244/chapter/12#75
Yep, just yelling at clouds. Do you really not understand how you provide EVIDENCE to support your claims are are you just too damn lazy to bother?



Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Borisov C/2019 Q4, - is a comet, it is expected it will accelerate are due to outgassing.

We will see an unexpected deceleration that cannot be explained, unless using such Aliens bla bla bla explanation and similar bla bla bla BS...
To fine tune our understanding of how is strong the maximum release of Dark Flow related tension / release / acceleration really is, we need to have a lot of exact orbit and trajectory data, right software , and people knowing how to use it. - Dont worry, - smoke a cigar, - no problem, - this can be done later , by million of brainwashed scientist and innocent students that sooner or later must be reprogrammed..
Yep. Vague claims that can't be tested and as a result can't be confirmed or falsified.

Keep yelling at those clouds Bjarne. It amuses us. Here's a fresh target for you to use:

__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!

Last edited by halleyscomet; 3rd December 2019 at 11:32 AM.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 11:29 AM   #1672
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,378
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
My mission is not to get lost in details, - but just to tell where our paradigm is too narrow minded and why. After that scientist can use their rocket science computers and universities to test if it was true that we had have 114 years of concrete brainwash – or not.
Bjarne, I think you are playing your cards very poorly (provided you have anything like a full deck of cards). Even in the unlikely case that you did have some kind of point, with this lack of engagement, you would never get even a bit of credit for it.

You need to make at least ONE precise prediction, using your model, and PUBLISH it, showing the details. Otherwise, others will run with all the honor.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 11:31 AM   #1673
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,959
Originally Posted by ferd burfle View Post
Bjarne, scientists and engineers, who have done the hard work you haven't done, know which factors are important and have compensated for them. That's why satellites work.
Doing actual math to work out concrete predictions would take away from Bjarne's critical cloud yelling time. I have yet to see evidence that he values accomplishment over excuses to yell at clouds.

Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
What predictions?
I haven't seen any.

Just saying something will unexpectedly decelerate, does not count.
And yet he persists.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 11:54 AM   #1674
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,959
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Bjarne, I think you are playing your cards very poorly (provided you have anything like a full deck of cards). Even in the unlikely case that you did have some kind of point, with this lack of engagement, you would never get even a bit of credit for it.

You need to make at least ONE precise prediction, using your model, and PUBLISH it, showing the details. Otherwise, others will run with all the honor.
This has been pointed out to him in the past. His response amounted to insisting that his posts in places like this would result in his eventual vindication. Regardless of if he actually believes science works this way, he is conducting himself as if arguing on Internet forums is how science gets done.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 12:04 PM   #1675
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Bjarne, I think you are playing your cards very poorly (provided you have anything like a full deck of cards). Even in the unlikely case that you did have some kind of point, with this lack of engagement, you would never get even a bit of credit for it.

You need to make at least ONE precise prediction, using your model, and PUBLISH it, showing the details. Otherwise, others will run with all the honor.

Hans
In such a case they have to steal the MTR theory, otherwise they have nothing.
To get 100% prediction you have to do lab test, the problem is to get the Earth or the Sun into the Lab.

So all we can do now is:
Measure and re-analyses A LOT of date
  • ISS data
  • Polar satellite data
  • Flyby anomalies already discovered.
  • Borisov C/2019 Q4.
  • Oumuamua,
    - think about we even don’t know there was an unexpected deceleration period right before the acceleration period of Oumuamua (which mean bad measurement / calculation) . Which mean A LOT is wrong, - orbits are never what we believe these to be, so long a long list of forces is not fully understood AND measured. ( ASAM , RR, EDFA + release of some or total DFA related tension)
    You shall not expect ANYONE can calculate what the full potential of release of DFA related release of tension / resistance / acceleration really is, - it must all be measured, - then you will also know what the Dark Flow speed impacting us really is – This is not a job for a single person or even a team. And think about many anomalies is cancelling out each orbit, cheating you completely. - This is rocket science when it is absolutely worse

Last edited by Bjarne; 3rd December 2019 at 12:14 PM.
Bjarne is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 01:08 PM   #1676
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,959
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
In such a case they have to steal the MTR theory, otherwise they have nothing.
To get 100% prediction you have to do lab test, the problem is to get the Earth or the Sun into the Lab.

So all we can do now is:

(List of things Bjarne needs to do trimmed for brevity.)
It's your theory. Get to work. If you want to promote your theory YOU have to do all those calculations. Nobody else is going to do it for you unless you PAY them to do it.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 01:19 PM   #1677
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,064
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Borisov C/2019 Q4, - is a comet, it is expected it will accelerate are due to outgassing.
Acceleration in any direction, even slowing down, is still acceleration. Do not mistake scientists saying something will accelerate as being the opposite of deceleration.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 01:59 PM   #1678
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,378
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
In such a case they have to steal the MTR theory, otherwise they have nothing.
And since you have done nothing to claim it officially, it's up for grabs. That's the world for you.

Quote:
To get 100% prediction you have to do lab test, the problem is to get the Earth or the Sun into the Lab.
Nonsense. You have to do the math and make a prediction. Notice it won't have to be a prediction of the future. If you can show your formula works for existing observations, it will mean something.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 02:09 PM   #1679
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,018
Exclamation Deluded, paranoiac gibberish and the Spacecraft Anomalies chapter again

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
...
4 December 2019 Bjarne: Deluded, paranoiac gibberish and the Spacecraft Anomalies chapter again.

And yes we read your post and you did write: 3 December 2019 Bjarne: A deluded, paranoiac rant that a lot of things affect satellites.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd December 2019 at 02:11 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2019, 02:14 PM   #1680
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,018
Exclamation Delusion that anything that cannot be explained must be explained by his delusion

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
We will see an unexpected deceleration that cannot be explained...
4 December 2019 Bjarne: An ignorant delusion that anything that cannot be explained must be explained by his delusions.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:28 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.