Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

[steenkh]

The first link is ONLY a HUGE load of manipulation

Interesting claim. Can you show us where it has been manipulated? Or will we just have to take your word for it?

 

[Reality Check]

The first link is ONLY a HUGE load of manipulation

What is wrong with the HUGE load of manipulation?

In the equation above, (y-1) expresses the transformation factor but it must naturally reflect the value of resistance as well, not only a factor which is able to show an object’s required energy necessary for acceleration and an object’s increase of mass due to higher velocity.

Do you deny that we here talk about negative velocity comrade?
And if not what is the deceleration according to your opinion comrade?

You know it's easy to claim that I am wrong, and you are right, but then you must show the right answer
Can you do that comrade?
Or will you lie and say that we do not speak about negative velocity comrade?

We can talk about velocity, acceleration, force or energy (positive, zero or negative) if you like comrade. This is not a discussion about the values that you have. It is a discussion about the ignorance of basic physics that that web page displays.

1 is a number. v²/c² is a number. Taking the square root of a number gives you a number.

(1-y) is a number comrade!

Thus (1-y) is thus not an deceleration comrade! It does not have units of m/s^2.
In addition (1-y) is not an negative velocity comrade! It does not have the units of m/s.
If you showed that web page to your high school science teacher then you would be flunked for the basic mistake of putting a number equal to an acceleration. It would be just as valid to have in your web page "(y - 1) = 8.33 × 10⁻¹⁰ kilogram*Coulombs/Kelvin*Amperes" - you would still be funked.

Do you accept that Sensation_of_physics equations are correct?
Or can you show us where Sensation_of_physics went wrong?

 

[Bjarne]

What is wrong with the HUGE load of manipulation?


We can talk about velocity, acceleration, force or energy (positive, zero or negative) if you like comrade. This is not a discussion about the values that you have. It is a discussion about the ignorance of basic physics that that web page displays.

1 is a number. v²/c² is a number. Taking the square root of a number gives you a number.

(1-y) is a number comrade!

Thus (1-y) is thus not an deceleration comrade! It does not have units of m/s^2.
In addition (1-y) is not an negative velocity comrade! It does not have the units of m/s.
If you showed that web page to your high school science teacher then you would be flunked for the basic mistake of putting a number equal to an acceleration. It would be just as valid to have in your web page "(y - 1) = 8.33 × 10⁻¹⁰ kilogram*Coulombs/Kelvin*Amperes" - you would still be funked.

Do you accept that Sensation_of_physics equations are correct?
Or can you show us where Sensation_of_physics went wrong?

He claims that according to my “centrifugal force” (space wind) equation RM/Qr^2 compared to the opposite force 1/√(1 - v²/c²) these 2 force will only equalize in one certain orbit. This is either a HUGE misunderstanding showing that he doesn’t understand math or a HUGE load of manipulation.

Since he do not admit his mistake it’s seems to be conscious attempt only to confuse the stupid’s and derail the discussion.
-------------------------------------
There is something rotten in the State of Denmark
Shakespeare.
--------------------------------------


Edit did you see the question to you in post 200 ?

 

[steenkh]

Since he do not admit his mistake it’s seems to be conscious attempt only to confuse the stupid’s and derail the discussion.

You have not yet pointed to any mistakes. Please enlighten us, where has he misunderstood or manipulated the equations?

 

[Bjarne]

You have not yet pointed to any mistakes. Please enlighten us, where has he misunderstood or manipulated the equations?

Its DONE
-------------------------------------
There is something rotten in the State of Denmark
Shakespeare.
--------------------------------------

 

[steenkh]

Its DONE

Do not keep it secret. Show it!

 

[Dancing David]

That might not be true, if the thoughts themselves have no coherence. On the other hand, Incoherent thoughts and incoherent presentation aren't mutually exclusive.

Fair enough.

 

[Tricky]

Some posts moved to AAH for incivility. Please discuss the topic and do not include evaluations of fellow members.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Reality Check]

He claims that according to my “centrifugal force” (space wind) equation RM/Qr^2 compared to the opposite force 1/√(1 - v²/c²) these 2 force will only equalize in one certain orbit. This is either a HUGE misunderstanding showing that he doesn’t understand math or a HUGE load of manipulation.

He does not claim that.
In the inital post, he shows that your claim that the "space wind" and "opposite force" equalize results in objects that move with a defined velocity in orbits less than 400 meters from the Sun.

Try reading and understanding the post:
Sensation_of_physics points out that your arbitrary equations leads to "orbital velocities starting from the speed of light and dropping to zero between 0 and 400 m from the center of the sun!".
It is quite simple mathematics.

Edit did you see the question to you in post 200 ?

Yes.

 

[Bjarne]

In the inital post, he shows that your claim that the "space wind" and "opposite force" equalize results in objects that move with a defined velocity in orbits less than 400 meters from the Sun.

Try reading and understanding the post:
Sensation_of_physics points out that your arbitrary equations leads to "orbital velocities starting from the speed of light and dropping to zero between 0 and 400 m from the center of the sun!".
It is quite simple mathematics.

Notice what Sensation_of_physics claims is that "all planets" should orbit the same orbit.
This can only mean he have got it all wrong. . Hence such statement or math can I not take seriously.
We talk about a insignificant deviation that e.g: maybe could explain the last unexplain mystery of Mercury's orbit.
This also mean that this could maybe cause Mercury VERY slowly to be thrown out in space.
If this was Sensation_of_physics wanted to say, its a different story.
Everybody can participate to check that out.
I can do that in the future but I will need a lager calculator, mine (10 digits is too small) .
What make all these difficult to calculate is that the inner planets transmit KE to the outer and KE is use to maintain the rotation as well.

A friend told me ½ year ago, that all the inner planets doesn’t seems to be where they should be.
He had seen this in TV
I do know more than this.
It could be nice to hear from you comrades what is this about.

Hopefully the internet can be used not only to tear to pieces people that thinks differently than the authoritarian want us to think
Hopefully somebody can see that this is maybe a track to discover a lot more of the law of the universe.

 

[Reality Check]

Notice what Sensation_of_physics claims is that "all planets" should orbit the same orbit.

As far as I can see Sensation_of_physics does not claim this.
Please quote his statement that "all planets" should orbit the same orbit.

He does state "Bjarnes Claim is now that the above equlity holds exactly for each planet distance, r, in the solar system and that a slight discrepancy would mean that said planet is in an unstable orbit."
Each = for each individual planet.
Each does not equal all.

 

[Reality Check]

We talk about a insignificant deviation that e.g: maybe could explain the last unexplain mystery of Mercury's orbit.
This also mean that this could maybe cause Mercury VERY slowly to be thrown out in space.

Do you know that the Solar System has been around for about 5 billion years? That is a VERY long time. Anything happening "VERY slowly" will probably happen.
Thus Mercury has been thrown out in space and the Soar System does not exist!

What is the "last unexplain mystery of Mercury's orbit"?
If you mean it's perihelion advance then you are 96 years out of date. That was the first thing explained by General Relativity.

A friend told me ½ year ago, that all the inner planets doesn’t seems to be where they should be.
He had seen this in TV
I do know more than this.
It could be nice to hear from you comrades what is this about.

As far as I know, your friend was wrong.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne
Notice what Sensation_of_physics claims is that "all planets" should orbit the same orbit.
Realety Check
As far as I can see Sensation_of_physics does not claim this.
Please quote his statement that "all planets" should orbit the same orbit.

It’s done already several times
I suggest only using this thread concerning this question >>> HERE

Do you know that the Solar System has been around for about 5 billion years?
That is a VERY long time. Anything happening "VERY slowly" will probably happen.
Thus Mercury has been thrown out in space and the Soar System does not exist!

This shows that you haven’t read the whole chapter and all the links in the chapter: “”The Pioneer Anomaly””.

What is the "last unexplain mystery of Mercury's orbit"?
If you mean it's perihelion advance then you are 96 years out of date.
That was the first thing explained by General Relativity.

Not completely

As far as I know, your friend was wrong.

As far as I know him this is impossible.

 

[Ziggurat]

A friend told me ½ year ago, that all the inner planets doesn’t seems to be where they should be.

Where they should be according to whom or what? According to Newtonian gravity? Why yes, that's correct: the orbits of the inner planets do not match the predictions of Newtonian gravity. They do match the predictions of general relativity, however. Since general relativity is our most accurate theory of gravity, the inner planets are exactly where they should be.

He had seen this in TV
I do know more than this.
It could be nice to hear from you comrades what is this about.

How the hell would we know what your friend saw on TV? Maybe he saw something about the limits of Newtonian gravity in a good science documentary. Maybe he saw something about alien abductions, Atlantis, the face on Mars, and other nonsense. If you want more information, you'll have to ask your friend, there's very little we can tell yyou about what he might have seen based on what you've told us.

 

[sol invictus]

Where they should be according to whom or what? According to Newtonian gravity? Why yes, that's correct: the orbits of the inner planets do not match the predictions of Newtonian gravity. They do match the predictions of general relativity, however. Since general relativity is our most accurate theory of gravity, the inner planets are exactly where they should be.



How the hell would we know what your friend saw on TV? Maybe he saw something about the limits of Newtonian gravity in a good science documentary. Maybe he saw something about alien abductions, Atlantis, the face on Mars, and other nonsense. If you want more information, you'll have to ask your friend, there's very little we can tell yyou about what he might have seen based on what you've told us.

Oh come on, Zig. Clearly some half-forgotten thing Bjarne's friend saw on TV is more credible than all the physics text books, NASA documents, scientific papers, and instructional websites out there (not to mention the knowledge base of the posters here). After all, we have it on Bjarne's authority that it's "impossible" that his friend is wrong (even though he doesn't remember what he said).

 

[Bjarne]

Where they should be according to whom or what?

It was discovered when to travelling to other planets.
Try to google something like: problems gravity Juno planets mysteries etc.....
Let me know what you can find
( One of Juno's task is so far I understand to research this mystery)
ITS A FACT

Space wind ???
Hmmm?

 

[Ziggurat]

It was discovered when to travelling to other planets.
Try to google something like: problems gravity Juno planets mysteries etc.....
Let me know what you can find
( One of Juno's task is so far I understand to research this mystery)
ITS A FACT

Space wind ???
Hmmm?

When someone makes a claim, the burden is generally upon the person making that claim to provide evidence to support it. Frequently people make claims without providing evidence to support it, claiming that others should find evidence regarding the claims they make. You, however, have managed to outdo those underachievers: you have somehow managed to not even present a claim. Sorry, Bjarne, but I won't find your claim for you.

 

[Reality Check]

This shows that you haven’t read the whole chapter and all the links in the chapter: “”The Pioneer Anomaly””.

I have read read the whole chapter and all the links in the chapter: “”The Pioneer Anomaly””.
What shows that I have not?

Not completely

Yes completely.

As far as I know him this is impossible.

As far as I know him this is possible (imaginary friends are always wrong ).

 

[Reality Check]

It was discovered when to travelling to other planets.
Try to google something like: problems gravity Juno planets mysteries etc.....
Let me know what you can find
( One of Juno's task is so far I understand to research this mystery)
ITS A FACT

Space wind ???
Hmmm?

I Goggled: problems gravity Juno planets mysteries
Which of the 3,040,000 results is a FACT?

 

[Bjarne]

When someone makes a claim, the burden is generally upon the person making that claim to provide evidence to support it. Frequently people make claims without providing evidence to support it, claiming that others should find evidence regarding the claims they make. You, however, have managed to outdo those underachievers: you have somehow managed to not even present a claim. Sorry, Bjarne, but I won't find your claim for you.

Take you comrade.
This is not a secret...
So fare I have understood could it also be the spacecraft that was out of course.
A star compass (invented in Denmark DTU) should be able to encircle what causes the mystery. (Space probe Juno 2011) Something is wrong.