Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: Show your calculations that RR is the cause of Sedna's orbit

...incogerent gibberish...
Could misunderstood relativist resistance be an answer ?

Only an idiot would think that "relativist resistance" is an answer rather than a permanent record of a continuing display of ignorance of basic science:

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
• Why is your multiplier 1 m/s^2? Why is X not 2 m/s^2? Why not 300,000 m/s^2? Why not 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s^2?

And you displaying a persistent delusion that RR exists when it does not match reality:

• Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance"
  11th December 2009
• The Pioneer anomaly proves that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!
• Spiral galaxies prove that Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" does not exist!

P.S.
Bjarne: Cite your 'loads of contradictions' for the Big Bang
First asked 21st October 2011 (25 days and counting!)
Or is this just another fantasy of yours?

Your assertion about 90377 Sedna is either just a another fantasy or yet another failure of RR:
Bjarne: Show your calculations that RR is the cause of Sedna's orbit

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Or maybe the incoherent speculation blab bla bla bla or bla bla bla bla or bla bla bla or maybe the incoherent speculation blab bla bla bla or bla bla bla bla or bla bla bla

Hmmmm
Could misunderstood relativist resistance be an answer ?

Thanks for translating the endless incoherent blab bla.

...
Could misunderstood relativist resistance be an answer ?

Your 'relativist resistance' fits perfectly in between the brown cows and the dark elephants.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Hmmmm
Could misunderstood relativist resistance be an answer ?

Hmmmm
The god 'relativist resistance' of the gaps fallacy.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hmmmm
Could misunderstood relativist resistance be an answer ?

No.

Speaking of temperature, Bjarne: If you place something hot in a perfectly insulated container, what will happen to the temperature?

Just answer the question. Come on, Einstein, show us how smart you are. Is it the relative term 'hot' that bothers you? Fine, temperature is 300degC. OK?

Isn't it funny that Bjarne constantly spouts questions, but can't even answer one as simple as the one above?

Hans

 

[Daylightstar]

...

Isn't it funny that Bjarne constantly spouts questions, but can't even answer one as simple as the one above?

Hans

This, I noticed also.

 

[Bjarne]

Speaking of temperature, Bjarne: If you place something hot in a perfectly insulated container, what will happen to the temperature?

Depend on
- how hot “something is”
- how big “something is”
– how big the container is
– how hot container is
- and that you realize that “perfect insulated” doesn’t exist, except in yours fantasy.

Just answer the question. Come on, Einstein, show us how smart you are. Is it the relative term 'hot' that bothers you? Fine, temperature is 300degC. OK?

What is the hottest temperature that exist ,…. then?

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1775/why-is-there-no-absolute-maximum-temperature

Isn't it funny that Bjarne constantly spouts questions, but can't even answer one as simple as the one above?

I was asking you whether extreme speed could cause heat to rise ?

Sorry it was wrong to ask you, all you can say is almost no, no, no, no
or wrong, wrong, wrong wrong.

It would off course have been better to discuss such advanced philosophical question with mother cow.

Anyway the question is not important so just forget it.

 

[Paul]

Depend on

Do you understand the concept of a perfectly insulated container?

- how hot “something is”

Why?

- how big “something is”

Why?

– how big the container is

Why?

– how hot container is

Why?

- and that you realize that “perfect insulated” doesn’t exist, except in yours fantasy.

A bit like RR really.

What is the hottest temperature that exist ,…. then?

What does that have to do with your inability to even attempt a guess at the possibility of considering taking a stab at the approximate region of an inkling about the vaguest glimmer of cognisance concerning the original question?

I was asking you whether extreme speed could cause heat to rise ?

Yet you insist that you understand relativity.

Anyway the question is not important so just forget it.

Which question is unimportant and why?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Depend on
- how hot “something is”

Not really, but I told you it was 300degC

- how big “something is”

No, that is irrelevant, but let's say it is one kg of iron.

– how big the container is

No, that is irrelevant, but let us say it can contain one litre.

– how hot container is

No, not really, but let us say it is 300degC on the inside and 20 on the outside.

- and that you realize that “perfect insulated” doesn’t exist, except in yours fantasy.

We will come to that, but I'm saying perfect to make it easier for you.

Now answer the question.

What is the hottest temperature that exist ,…. then?

That is not an answer. Come on, answer the question.

I was asking you whether extreme speed could cause heat to rise ?

And I answered: No. Not in itself.

Sorry it was wrong to ask you, all you can say is almost no, no, no, no
or wrong, wrong, wrong wrong.

That is because the answers to most of your questions is: No.
And all of your ideas are wrong.
I'm simply telling you the truth.

It would off course have been better to discuss such advanced philosophical question with mother cow.

I'm sure you have much greater success discussing with cows.

Anyway the question is not important so just forget it.

No, the question is very important, and I'm not going to let you forget it:

Speaking of temperature, Bjarne: If you place something hot in a perfectly insulated container, what will happen to the temperature?

Hans

 

[steenkh]

Depend on
- how hot “something is”
- how big “something is”
– how big the container is
– how hot container is
- and that you realize that “perfect insulated” doesn’t exist, except in yours fantasy.

Your squirming is entertaining!

I think I have psychic abilities: I just knew you would not answer the question, and I also knew you would do it by making a barrage of irrelevant questions!

What is the hottest temperature that exist ,…. then?

Here I must admit that you surpassed my abilities! I did not expect that the statement that the "temperature is 300 degrees" would result in the question "what is the hottest temperature that exists".

Presumably you are toying with the idea that the object in the container will increase its temperature from 300 degrees until it reaches the hottest temperature that exists ... this is going to be fun!

 

[Bjarne]

Speaking of temperature, Bjarne: If you place something hot in a perfectly insulated container, what will happen to the temperature?

Hans

It is irrelevant according to this thread, but well....

Let's assume you would place a warm cow in the container.
After few days the cow would still be warm
But after 1 week she could be cold, (when you forget to give here food and water.)
And the heat from the cow, - where is that now ?'
As I wrote "perfect insulated" is fantasy, - if we assume perfect insulated exsist, - the cow would still be warm, - but still dead.

So the answer to the question is; that you will after 1 week have a warm dead cow, (that only can exist in your fantasy).

(The cow is only 30 degree not 300, - who told you the cow was 300 degree Celsius Einstein ?)

 

[Reality Check]

It is irrelevant according to this thread, but well....

Let's assume you would place a warm cow in the container.
After few days the cow would still be warm
But after 1 week she could be cold, (when you forget to give here food and water.)

That mistake makes this relevant to this thread and the ignorance of physics you have displayed.
The container is perfectly insulated by definition. No heat can escape from it. So the cow cools a little as it and the container come into equilibrium but does not become 'cold'.

We can always construct a real insulated container so that the cow remains cool for weeks, months or even years.

 

[MRC_Hans]

It is irrelevant according to this thread, but well....

Let's assume you would place a warm cow in the container.
After few days the cow would still be warm
But after 1 week she could be cold, (when you forget to give here food and water.)

Bjarne, your obsession with cows is pathetic.

And the heat from the cow, - where is that now ?'
As I wrote "perfect insulated" is fantasy, - if we assume perfect insulated exsist, - the cow would still be warm, - but still dead.

So the answer to the question is; that you will after 1 week have a warm dead cow, (that only can exist in your fantasy).

So you agree that in a perfectly insulated container, and object will retain its temperature, right?

(The cow is only 30 degree

37, actually.

not 300, - who told you the cow was 300 degree Celsius Einstein ?)

You are incredibly childish for a grown man. Can you read at all? So, for your benefit, as you can't seem to imagine anything but cows, I listed exactly what was in the container: 1kg iron, 300 deg.

So Bjarne, how come an object in a perfectly insulated container does not loose heat? After all, heat is molecules vibrating. What about your preciouss RR?

Hans

 

[Toke]

I assume the point of the calorimetric exercise involves the energy loss/gain from bjarnes resistance to motion idea?

Why is he not more grateful for people going through the real world implications with him?

 

[Bjarne]

We can always construct a real insulated container so that the cow remains cool for weeks, months or even years.

So you can keep the cow warm or cold for exsample 800 billion year after it is dead?, without energy use / "lost" ?

 

[Bjarne]

. What about your preciouss RR?

Hans

There will come some small modifications soon.

I must know how Newton can be converted to energy.
At least approximately...

For example let's say a crankshaft transfer a force, - exactly 100000 Newton - How much energy would be transferred be per second, - included all what is "lost" to heat etc..

 

[Toke]

That would kind of depend on the RPM.

 

[MRC_Hans]

So you can keep the cow warm or cold for exsample 800 billion year after it is dead?, without energy use / "lost" ?

Why do you always use these wildly exaggerated examples?

We can't build a perfectly insulated container, but we can do nearly as well:

We can measure the heat lost through the walls of the container, and we can measure the energy we need to add to keep the temperature constant. If the two numbers are the same (and they are), we know what happens in a perfect container.

I know that deep down you seriously want to do science (otherwise I would have given up on you long ago), but to do this you need to drop all these crazy numbers you throw around, and you need to drop all the cow nonsense. Then you need to study and listen to people who know better than you.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

There will come some small modifications soon.

Again. Bjarne, you will find that once you have modified your RR till it fits reality, it will be zero.

I must know how Newton can be converted to energy.
At least approximately...

For example let's say a crankshaft transfer a force, - exactly 100000 Newton - How much energy would be transferred be per second, - included all what is "lost" to heat etc..

Newton is a force. It does not transfer to energy.

Here is an example: Tighten a bolt till it pulls 1000N. Leave it there. This bolt will pull 1000N 'forever', but no energy is involved, it is a static force.

Now to your crankshaft (that is a silly value, btw.; no normal engine provides that kind of torque, let us say 250N instead).

Actually this should be 250N/m, meaning that in a radius of 1m from the centre of the shaft the torque is 250N (that will be a common value for a family car). However, it is still a static value. We need to know the RPM. If we are still looking at some modern family car, this torque will probably be developed at 3500 rpm. Now we can calculate the power:

Dividing on the left by 60 seconds per minute and by 1000 watts per kilowatt gives us the following.

where rotational speed is in revolutions per minute (rpm).

(From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque )



But power is not energy. How much energy does a 100kW engine produce? Well, if it is not running, it produces nothing.


So we need to factor in time. If you calculate your horsepower with the formula above, you have the power in kW. Now multiply by the time and you have kW/h. THIS is energy. A 100kW engine produces 100kW/h per hour.



Capisco?


Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Again. Bjarne, you will find that once you have modified your RR till it fits reality, it will be zero.


Newton is a force. It does not transfer to energy.

Here is an example: Tighten a bolt till it pulls 1000N. Leave it there. This bolt will pull 1000N 'forever', but no energy is involved, it is a static force.

Now to your crankshaft (that is a silly value, btw.; no normal engine provides that kind of torque, let us say 250N instead).

Actually this should be 250N/m, meaning that in a radius of 1m from the centre of the shaft the torque is 250N (that will be a common value for a family car). However, it is still a static value. We need to know the RPM. If we are still looking at some modern family car, this torque will probably be developed at 3500 rpm. Now we can calculate the power:



(From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque )



But power is not energy. How much energy does a 100kW engine produce? Well, if it is not running, it produces nothing.


So we need to factor in time. If you calculate your horsepower with the formula above, you have the power in kW. Now multiply by the time and you have kW/h. THIS is energy. A 100kW engine produces 100kW/h per hour.



Capisco?


Hans

'

Si Señor, - but why do yu divide with 60,000

The reason why I ask is not that I believe that energy = force, - but because I want to know how much energy can be transferred between a “mass attraction connection”.. per / a certian time..

I mean; - for example between the Earth and the Moon, there is ”a force" - you could compared that to a; big elastic wire, - some kind of space-tension, - or whatever expression you prefer.

During the moon's orbit, it hence has all what it need to pull the Earth rotation.

Off course the Earth is rotating faster as the Moons orbit (the moon is not geostatic), -ignore that, - instead imaging the Earth was not rotating at all.
How much energy could the moon (due to it's orbit) transfer trough that connection / per time? – (“2E20 Newton) .

I know you will say nothing because of bal blab bla. – but remember;

1. We don’t know what mass-attraction really is, - and hence also not what that "“force-connection” really is, - and hence also not to understand what happens between the Moon and the earth, except that space is curving bla bla bla bla
2. I also know you would say that since there is no resistances no energy is transferred, - so what you could do is ; assume there where resistances.
3. Etc..

Anyway, try to forget the brainwashed world you live in, - and only focus on that "mass attraction connection" - where a force really exist, - how can energy transfer be related to it ??

 

[Reality Check]

'

Si Señor, - but why do yu divide with 60,000
...usual insane gibberish snipped...

Si Señor, - but why can you not read?

Dividing on the left by 60 seconds per minute and by 1000 watts per kilowatt gives us the following.

where rotational speed is in revolutions per minute (rpm).

(From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque )