Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[DeiRenDopa]

Please provide me with a link to online physics material that explains, in detail:
1) how the KE of something can be determined
2) how the thermal energy due to friction can be determined,…..
As written this is certain knowledge, you can find thousand of internet pages regarding these questions.
There is nothing on that page about the ISS, and the only references to "KE" are clearly for quite different objects.

The principles are the same.

Sorry, Bjarne, I have literally no idea what your response means.

Can you clarify please?

What "principles" are you referring to?

And they are "the same" as what (or in what sense)?

Here it is again: "What is the KE of the ISS, according to you (and your partner)?"

I have shown you 2 equations, - calculate it yourself, such is good training to understand what all this is about.

You have?!?!?!?

I must have missed them; what, specifically, are the "two equations"?

So, once more, what is the definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion"?

If let say the resistance (deceleration) can be calculated to 1e-10 m/s^2 – you can overcome that resistance by a opposite force/acceleration, same size , but “forward”. (acc) , and the result is zero.

I don't understand this at all; can you clarify please?

For example, you seem to be equating "force" and "acceleration"; are you? If not, then what does "by a opposite force/acceleration" mean?

You can also calculate the KE lost per second, - first based on the starting speed (Mv^2/2) Now reduce the speed v – (minus) 1e-10 m/s (the first second) and calculate KE again (Mv^2/2). The difference between the 2 KE results is the KE lost per / the first second.

So, in simple, clear, unambiguous, objective terms, the "energy to overcome resistance against motion" is just a difference in KE, in a situation where something (what?) is decelerating?

In the above, what is "M"?

And can you confirm that "v" is, indeed, "the speed"?

And this is also the necessary KE requirement you need to prevent suck lost.
Pretty simple right?

Sorry, no.

You see, you've introduced a completely new term ("suck"), possibly two ("lost"). Neither term seems to have been defined.

But, on the bright side, I think there is some, modest, progress.

 

[Bjarne]

DRP wrote:
Please provide me with a link to online physics material that explains, in detail:
1) how the KE of something can be determined
2) how the thermal energy due to friction can be determined,…..
As written this is certain knowledge, you can find thousand of internet pages regarding these questions.
There is nothing on that page about the ISS, and the only references to "KE" are clearly for quite different objects.
Bjarne
The principles are the same.
DRP wrote:
Sorry, Bjarne, I have literally no idea what your response means.
Can you clarify please?
What "principles" are you referring to?
And they are "the same" as what (or in what sense)?

1. How the KE of something can be determined. >> KE = Mv²/2 or KE = (y - 1) mc²- where γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
2. Try to google: “how the KE of something can be determined”, - it has not much with this thread to do. This is basic physic.

You have?!?!?!?
I must have missed them; what, specifically, are the "two equations"?

Look above

DPR
So, once more, what is the definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion"?
Bjarne
If let say the resistance (deceleration) can be calculated to 1e-10 m/s² – you can overcome that resistance by a opposite force/acceleration, same size , but “forward”. (acc) , and the result is zero.
DPR
I don't understand this at all; can you clarify please?
For example, you seem to be equating "force" and "acceleration"; are you?

No
Only equating deceleration and acceleration, in both cases the necessary force or KE to counteract is the same, - if you prefer to see it that way.

If not, then what does "by a opposite force/acceleration" mean?

That I wrote above.

Bjarne
You can also calculate the KE lost per second, - first based on the starting speed (Mv^2/2) Now reduce the speed v – (minus) 1e-10 m/s (the first second) and calculate KE again (Mv^2/2). The difference between the 2 KE results is the KE lost per / the first second.
DPR
So, in simple, clear, unambiguous, objective terms, the "energy to overcome resistance against motion" is just a difference in KE, in a situation where something (what?) is decelerating?

The point there are no deceleration, it stops before it begin, - because the tidal force affects the Moon/ Earth system less than 0.5 % stronger + weaker than believed.
If you do not understand the “contradiction” – read this http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6004837&postcount=797

In the above, what is "M"?

Mass

And can you confirm that "v" is, indeed, "the speed"?

Yes.

Bjarne
And this is also the necessary KE requirement you need to prevent suck lost.
Pretty simple right?
DRP
Sorry, no.
You see, you've introduced a completely new term ("suck"), possibly two ("lost"). Neither term seems to have been defined.

Try to suck “such”

But, on the bright side, I think there is some, modest, progress.

Good.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

So, with Bjarne's answers in hand, here's my attempt to apply his definition of KE to calculate the KE of ISS, per the estimates I provided earlier*, based on what Bjarne and partner observe.

We have KE = Mv^2/2,
where M is the mass of the ISS, and v is its speed.

So KE = 3.4 x 10^5 x (7.7 x 10^3)^2 / 2 = 1 x 10^13 J
(please check my arithmetic Bjarne).

Now to the astronauts who came aboard the ISS, having docked their space shuttle with it, the ISS is not moving. So the KE of the ISS is:

KE = 3.4 x 10^5 x (0)^2 / 2 = 0 J

But the ISS is the same, no matter who looks at it!

How come the ISS can have two different KE's Bjarne?

* the ISS is 340 km above the surface of the Earth, and that it is moving at 7.7 km/s. From published data, you learn that its mass is 340 tonnes, or 3.4 x 10^5 kg.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Bjarne, you still haven't answered my question about how the thermal energy due to friction can be determined.

Here it is again: Please provide me with a link to online physics material that explains, in detail how the thermal energy due to friction can be determined, with the essential requirement that you explicitly state that you agree with it 100% (not 90%, not 95%, not 99%, but 100%).

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Bjarne
You can also calculate the KE lost per second, - first based on the starting speed (Mv^2/2) Now reduce the speed v – (minus) 1e-10 m/s (the first second) and calculate KE again (Mv^2/2). The difference between the 2 KE results is the KE lost per / the first second.
DPR
So, in simple, clear, unambiguous, objective terms, the "energy to overcome resistance against motion" is just a difference in KE, in a situation where something (what?) is decelerating?

The point there are no deceleration, it stops before it begin, - because the tidal force affects the Moon/ Earth system less than 0.5 % stronger + weaker than believed.
If you do not understand the “contradiction” – read this http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6004837&postcount=797

I'm sure you'd be the first to agree that you have not provided a clear, unambiguous, objective definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion".

Would you care to try again?

It seems to me this is important; it seems to me that your ideas depend critically upon this concept. Without a clear, unambiguous, objective definition of this key term, how do you expect anyone to understand what you are saying?

 

[Bjarne]

So, with Bjarne's answers in hand, here's my attempt to apply his definition of KE to calculate the KE of ISS, per the estimates I provided earlier*, based on what Bjarne and partner observe.

We have KE = Mv^2/2,
where M is the mass of the ISS, and v is its speed.

So KE = 3.4 x 10^5 x (7.7 x 10^3)^2 / 2 = 1 x 10^13 J
(please check my arithmetic Bjarne).

Now to the astronauts who came aboard the ISS, having docked their space shuttle with it, the ISS is not moving. So the KE of the ISS is:

KE = 3.4 x 10^5 x (0)^2 / 2 = 0 J

But the ISS is the same, no matter who looks at it!

How come the ISS can have two different KE's Bjarne?

* the ISS is 340 km above the surface of the Earth, and that it is moving at 7.7 km/s. From published data, you learn that its mass is 340 tonnes, or 3.4 x 10^5 kg.

There are no such relative KE differences.
You cannot ignore the speed relative to everything else.
Did you read what I wrote here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6018603&postcount=856
And especially this :
PS 1 !
Did you know an experiment have confirmed that time ticks slower when a clock moves anticlockwise compared to clockwise around the Earth.
The same thing would happen clockwise/anticlockwise around the Sun, the galaxy or the cluster of galaxy.
According to my understanding GR and SR are not so different to each other like these appear to be.

PS 2 !
According to the theory I represent; all clusters of galaxies are also orbiting a central huge black hole of the Universe. That hole is not eating anything because of (edith: the space wind) , but it is there. MUST be.

Imaging you was living in the center if the Universe, this would be a perfect place, to determinate the motion KE and maybe not completely because we could be parts of a moving multi universe as well.

Let me mention a concrete example.
You can calculate the KE of the Earth rotation, but this doesn’t mean that the KE due to its orbit speed is a illusion.

The ant have its own reality, but this doesn’t mean that our reality is wrong.
On the other hand the cow has also it own reality too and in this case our reality is very often wrong.

Edit
Yes it can confuse that we don’t know how fast we are moving, since we can only compare our speed to different speed of many objects around us.
BUT this is an incomplete perspective.
You must always see our speed and speed related KE, compared to the speed of light.
But the way we calculated it is relative to something else, - of course.

 

[ArcturusA]

There are no such relative KE differences.
You cannot ignore the speed relative to everything else.

Oh dear. That's a can of worms if I ever saw one.

Then again, your resistance against motion idea does require a single preferred and stationary frame of reference for the Universe, so I guess it does sort of follow. I mean, it breaks down all of modern physics (and some basic physics, in fact), but it does follow.

The best thing about this is, assuming the Milky Way, Local Group or Virgo Cluster (and so on) aren't stationary, the Lorentz factor probably isn't negligible on Earth any more, and it should be a piece of cake to measure your resistance against motion.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

So, with Bjarne's answers in hand, here's my attempt to apply his definition of KE to calculate the KE of ISS, per the estimates I provided earlier*, based on what Bjarne and partner observe.

We have KE = Mv^2/2,
where M is the mass of the ISS, and v is its speed.

So KE = 3.4 x 10^5 x (7.7 x 10^3)^2 / 2 = 1 x 10^13 J
(please check my arithmetic Bjarne).

Now to the astronauts who came aboard the ISS, having docked their space shuttle with it, the ISS is not moving. So the KE of the ISS is:

KE = 3.4 x 10^5 x (0)^2 / 2 = 0 J

But the ISS is the same, no matter who looks at it!

How come the ISS can have two different KE's Bjarne?

* the ISS is 340 km above the surface of the Earth, and that it is moving at 7.7 km/s. From published data, you learn that its mass is 340 tonnes, or 3.4 x 10^5 kg.

There are no such relative KE differences.
You cannot ignore the speed relative to everything else.
Did you read what I wrote here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6018603&postcount=856
And especially this :
PS 1 !
Did you know an experiment have confirmed that time ticks slower when a clock moves anticlockwise compared to clockwise around the Earth.
The same thing would happen clockwise/anticlockwise around the Sun, the galaxy or the cluster of galaxy.
According to my understanding GR and SR are not so different to each other like these appear to be.

PS 2 !
According to the theory I represent; all clusters of galaxies are also orbiting a central huge black hole of the Universe. That hole is not eating anything because of (edith: the space wind) , but it is there. MUST be.

Imaging you was living in the center if the Universe, this would be a perfect place, to determinate the motion KE and maybe not completely because we could be parts of a moving multi universe as well.

Let me mention a concrete example.
You can calculate the KE of the Earth rotation, but this doesn’t mean that the KE due to its orbit speed is a illusion.

The ant have its own reality, but this doesn’t mean that our reality is wrong.
On the other hand the cow has also it own reality too and in this case our reality is very often wrong.

Edit
Yes it can confuse that we don’t know how fast we are moving, since we can only compare our speed to different speed of many objects around us.
BUT this is an incomplete perspective.
You must always see our speed and speed related KE, compared to the speed of light.
But the way we calculated it is relative to something else, - of course.

Thanks for this response.

However, as I'm sure you'll be the first to agree, it is exceedingly confusing!

Let's take this one step at a time, shall we?

I asked you for your definition of KE, and, after many repeated attempts to get you to provide one, you did.

That definition is KE = Mv^2/2, where M is the mass of the object, and v is its speed.

I applied your definition, to the specific example of the ISS, and found two different answers.

Your response, that I'm quoting in full, does nothing - that I can see - to explain how come the ISS can have two different KEs.

Yet, as I understand it, KE is an essential part of your idea (or "the theory I represent").

If one (a person, anyone) cannot get a clear, unambiguous answer to what the KE of an object is, in your idea, how can this KE be of any use?

So, why not provide your own answer?

What, in your idea (or according to "the theory I represent") is the KE of the ISS?

How do you (Bjarne) determine the ISS's speed?

 

[Bjarne]

Oh dear. That's a can of worms if I ever saw one.

Then again, your resistance against motion idea does require a single preferred and stationary frame of reference for the Universe, so I guess it does sort of follow.

Yes, but and even this would maybe not be perfect, if we live in a multi orbiting universe etc..

I mean, it breaks down all of modern physics (and some basic physics, in fact), but it does follow

No, because we have far from understood the dynamic forces in the Universe, these are completely misunderstood and replaces with silly dark matter.

The best thing about this is, assuming the Milky Way, Local Group or Virgo Cluster (and so on) aren't stationary, the Lorentz factor probably isn't negligible on Earth any more, and it should be a piece of cake to measure your resistance against motion.

I am not so sure.
The resistance in the Moon/Earth system is so weak, less than ½ % of the tidal effect.
It is certainly much stronger around the Sun, so a test probes orbiting the sun retrograde would be good to get that experience, what would happen to it. - We must learn to distinguish between SpaceWind and Tidal Force, to better understand the dynamic.

Further out in the MilkyWay the SpaceWind is much stronger, but we have only math to take us further, but first we off course must get rid of the crazy dark matter.

Notice the “Edit” in the previous post:
This theory will extend GR.
SR and GR is not 2 separates and independent laws of nature, but two side of the same coin.
First understand the true nature of space (GR), and then realize that when you increase speed (SR) you’ll also increase gravity (GR), and therefore speed (SR) also change space (what you normally understand as GR) around you. This is why SR and GR in fact is the same story, and only 2 different angles to see the same reality.
Let's for example imaging the speed of the Earth is MUCH larger, this would change gravity (GR) , earth would simply “suck” / contract/ consume more space, because it has more speed/energy (SR) . Therefore also time would change here, as well as distances, and this is why speed (SR) is changing time as well as gravity (GR) does.

If you read this > http://www.science27.com/english/Culcu3.htm you can see that I wonder why the Moon is transferring double so much “unnecessary” KE to the earth, - relative to Phobos/Mars.

The main reason could very easy be that we must calculate KE in a completely difference perspective. This is a task for mathematician of the future to solve, at least to get it as exact as possible

So it is a good point DeiRenDopa have.
To make a long story short, we must know how fast we are moving relative to light, this must be the basis.

 

[erlando]

To make a long story short, we must know how fast we are moving relative to light, this must be the basis.

What is your frame of reference for measuring this relative speed?

 

[Reality Check]

SR and GR is not 2 separates and independent laws of nature, but two side of the same coin.
...snipped usual Bjarne ignorance...

This just illustrates your ignorance of SR and GR.
They are not two separate and independent laws of nature or two sides of the same coin. GR includes SR !
What it does is add gravitation to SR.

As for your fantasy extending GR that is a laugh.
You have little mathematics in your fantasy. What tiny bit there is pulled out of thin air (to put it politely) and so wrong that a high school student can see it.


According to Bjarne's fantasy, physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass. Bjarne ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units of acceleration.

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
  So far the answer is no !

​

 

[Bjarne]

This just illustrates your ignorance of SR and GR.
They are not two separate and independent laws of nature or two sides of the same coin. GR includes SR !
What it does is add gravitation to SR.

Right, -there is overlap, not a completely unity.

What is your frame of reference for measuring this relative speed?

On the one hand;
Consider; - that the earth already is already moving with for example 0.5% of the speed of light. If you want to accelerate the Earth to almost c, you can off course not ignore the KE the Earth already must have. It would be completely illogical to do so.
That speed of the Earth of course also affect the Moon. ( and the ISS, mother cow and etc.)
On the other hand
Every new motion process ( for example on the earth) , it could be the rotation of you wash machine what about this?.
If you want it to rotate with almost cm can you ignore that this too is already moving with 0.5% of c?
I am not sure how to deal with this, I have already done some consideration, but not much, I think it is too early to determinate anything, because we first need objective test if our calculation fits to reality.
I will keep it in mind and try to understand if anything must change.

Bjarne ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units of acceleration.

No, I am only trying to understand GR in its full range and in a way so simple and logical that I know Mother Cow would agree. I am not violent anything.

You have a problem because you know you must you huge amount of energy to accelerate the Earth. The solution (according to you) is to deny that this only can be because space must resist motion.
Not a single cow or bull thinks this sound logical.

Even though you don’t believe that resistance reflect negative speed, now try to drill just a 1/100 mm hole in your ½ meter thick anti crackpot glasses, and ask you self the question; what if this was true, - what then ?

And ask;
How must faster must acceleration be, to prevent a deceleration?

You pretend to be good to math, - now calculate how much acceleration is lost due to the fact that you it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. ?

Even though you do not believe that this is what happens, you should show us all how good you are, and CULCULATED IT RIGHT MAN.

I mean it is much very easy just to bla la bla la bla, - he is stupid and he is wrong, - so long you can’t show us all; - how to calculate how much acceleration you car would lose if this too was effected in a way where it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. ?

If you really can calculate it, - why then not show us how much slower would you car, or anything else, decelerate, if you allow you self the thought that the exact same RESISTANCE against motion would apply after your “engine stops”. (?)

What I mean; show everybody how the right deceleration must should be, and how much I am wrong. PROVE IT MAN; NOW PROVE MATHEMATICAL HOW STUPID I AM.

IF YOU DON’T , CAN YOU NOT SEE; - YOU HAVE A PROBLEM?

Mother cow is on my side and you have nothing except empty air on your side.

Unfortunately I am very afraid that the day you seriously would try to calculate it, you would come to the same results as me, - so better don’t, -- -- right?
And just bla la la la bla - right ? - this is much better--- right ?

 

[Paulhoff]

You pretend to be good to math, - now calculate how much acceleration is lost due to the fact that you it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. ?

Once again, because the energy put into an object to move it becomes part of the objects mass, it will take more energy to move it. Energy has MASS.

Once again, if your idea was right CERN would not work, CERN is working using Einstein's equations not yours.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

Once again, because the energy put into an object to move it becomes part of the objects mass, it will take more energy to move it. Energy has MASS.

Once again, if your idea was right CERN would not work, CERN is working using Einstein's equations not yours.

Paul

Once again
One steep is missing, what happens before the mass increase?
What is the cause > effect ?
How does that process works?
Why does it require more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed.

Once again
The mass increase is a secondary part of the phenomena; the process whereby this happens is the primary to understand...
It can be compared to I say, the car can move because the wheels is turning.
Or if I say the car moves because it's mass increses. (Even though this too is true) , - both answer would be a stupid irrelevant answer.

When I ask how it is possible you probably should know I am asking about how the ENGINE ("the process") get the car to move.
Because the way the ENGINE works explains how the MAIN part of the process to move the car is possible.

The turning wheels are very secondary parts of the phenomena, and not part the mystery.

So the point is WHY does the mass increase and WHY does it require more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. THIS is the mystery. - The PROCESS that make this possible, - Capito ?

Once again
Einstein haven’t made any equations to calculate the "lost" of KE due to particle magnetism.

 

[Paulhoff]

Why does it require more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed.

Because is has more MASS. DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

Once again
Einstein haven’t made any equations to calculate the "lost" of KE due to particle magnetism.

So.

Paul

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Thanks for this response.

However, as I'm sure you'll be the first to agree, it is exceedingly confusing!

Let's take this one step at a time, shall we?

I asked you for your definition of KE, and, after many repeated attempts to get you to provide one, you did.

That definition is KE = Mv^2/2, where M is the mass of the object, and v is its speed.

I applied your definition, to the specific example of the ISS, and found two different answers.

Your response, that I'm quoting in full, does nothing - that I can see - to explain how come the ISS can have two different KEs.

Yet, as I understand it, KE is an essential part of your idea (or "the theory I represent").

If one (a person, anyone) cannot get a clear, unambiguous answer to what the KE of an object is, in your idea, how can this KE be of any use?

So, why not provide your own answer?

What, in your idea (or according to "the theory I represent") is the KE of the ISS?

How do you (Bjarne) determine the ISS's speed?

Are you going to answer my questions, Bjarne?

 

[Paulhoff]

ERGS = ((1/((1-((V/C)^2))^0.5))-1)M*C²

The above equation will take relativity into account for any speed of the ISS.

V is the speed ISS in Centimeters per second, C is the speed of light in Centimeters per second M is the mass of the ISS in grams. One can take that answer and divide it by 10,000,000 to get joules.

At slow speeds the equation given by DeiRenDopa works will, but at very high speed it starts to fall short of the mark.

Go for it Bjarne.

This is called MATH. And no one the Scientific world will take you serious if you don't have the math for your idea all worked out.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

Are you going to answer my questions, Bjarne?

ERGS = ((1/((1-((V/C)^2))^0.5))-1)M*C²

The above equation will take relativity into account for any speed of the ISS.

V is the speed ISS in Centimeters per second, C is the speed of light in Centimeters per second M is the mass of the ISS in grams. One can take that answer and divide it by 10,000,000 to get joules.

At slow speeds the equation given by DeiRenDopa works will, but at very high speed it starts to fall short of the mark.

Go for it Bjarne.

This is called MATH. And no one the Scientific world will take you serious if you don't have the math for your idea all worked out.

Are you going to answer my questions, Bjarne?

I have already done that......

My calculation is based on the current (equations as mentioned above) so like we normally calculate KE.
This mean each new motion process always starts from KE=zero. -Whether this is right? – I am not sure.
If a such local-framework is correct, is must be part of a overall-framework we so fare not have.

You can compare the ISS with our Moon, and you can see how I have calculated the KE.
It is the exact same principle for the ISS.

I am sure we at least (in additional to the existing framework) need a new overall-framework to be able to calculate the total KE increase and decrease due to total speed (relative to “c”) of a object.

This must include the speed of :

• Orbiting the Earth
• Orbiting the Sun
• Orbiting the Milky Way
• Orbiting the local cluster
• Orbiting the Universe

Seen from that perspective it doesn’t matter if you live on board on the ISS or on the Earth, the way to calculate your total KE would always be based on how fast you move relative to light, and therefore the same result everywhere.

Possible conflict
The existing “local-framework” ( that means; in every local motion process, - the KE increase starts from zero,) could be OK.
It could also be wrong.
Can the existing local-framework “connect” with an overall framework?
Or are these two completely independent?

Maybe the prevailing local-framework is wrong, and must be replaces with a new-local-framework where the local KE always is an integrated part of the overall framework.

In both cases the overall-framework means that; - The Mass and KE reality is the same for everybody doesn’t matter where they are.

In both cases time and distances dilation would be untouched.
Each local-process are off course always self responsible for maintaining own local respectively KE.

In the “worse case” it only means we properly must understand and see any local process of motion relative to the total speed of light, as a implemented part of a overall framework, and not relative to zero.
Which mean before we exact can calculate any possible deceleration due to resistance against motion, we must first know (for example) the total speed of the earth (relative to c) ( I don’t think this option is the case)

But I also don’t believe the nuts idea that reality just above you head, is that much stranger than here and that the KE and M increase just is reality for ghosts.

Off course distances and time is relative-different from place to place, - but not KE.

KE-increase must be seen in a complete overall perspective, - unless logic is completely lost.

But this doesn’t mean that the local-framework must be wrong.
So you can’t accuse me for totally ignoring the Lorenz Transformation, but rather to try to understand a full logic range of it.
I haven’t put much effort in this part.
It must also be work to do for the dark matter and dark energy sect, when they soon will be unemployed.

....

 

[Paulhoff]

I have already done that......

No you haven't, stop lying.

Give me the ergs for ISS at 10kps and 340 tonnes.

Paul