THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

[Bjarne]

Mad Cow Disease.

If you forget to release the handbrake you'll have resistance as well as deceleration. Doesn’t matter if you accelerate, or drive with constant velocity.

Mooeeuuuhh Cow logic.


And that's it.

 

[edd]

How can you maintain a constant velocity while decelerating?

 

[The Man]

No deceleration in a change in velocity. So if a body is in motion it will stay in motion until acted upon by a force.

Inertia applies both ways because it is a property of changes in motion.
Inertia does not equal deceleration.

Indeed and to try and put it more succinctly for Bjerne, when a vector of velocity changes direction (say as in a circular orbit) the body is accelerating in one direction while it is decelerating in an orthogonal direction. Any “resistance” to the acceleration equates directly to a “resistance” to the orthogonal deceleration.

 

[Reality Check]

As I read this he denies that we speak about resistance.

We are not talking about resistance to motion. That does not exist. Inertia is the resistance to changes in motions.

Well I guess now we (or some) ""should"" be ready to step 2.
WHY : increasing resistance by acceleration of a object ?
What is the underlying cause to that?
Well honesty we don’t know, and that’s the point.
And hence it’s also a challenge to understand WHY.

We do not know the source of inertia.

Step 3.
When we have resistance then we also have deceleration right ?

If you have a force than you have an acceleration or deceleration.

Step 4
If I should have calculated that deceleration wrong
How is then the right way to calculate it ?

The right way to calculate inertia is either:

• P/v=m where P is the momentum of the object, v is the velocity of the object and and m is the inertia of the object.
• F/a=m where F is the force applied to the object, a is the resulting acceleration and m is the inertia of the object.

There is no "should" in your calculation of deceleration. Your equation is wrong as any high school science student can tell you: the Lorentz factor is a number without units, you get acceleration out of it somehow.

 

[Reality Check]

Have I missed your reply to Does Bjarne know basic physics? (first asked 23 October 2009)?
(5 days and counting)

 

[Dancing David]

So when the cow resists to come with the farmer home "in the acceleration phase" is not resistance and hence no deceleration
More Crap

Sorry, I do not speak your language, so your rudeness is slightly excusable. but your inability to undersatnd concepts and then being rude is not.

I have explained myself the best that I can, and if you were polite I would continue the conversation with you.

Resistance to change in motion is different from deceleration.

When the cow is traveling at a constant rate of speed towards home from MooCentauri, how does it slow down? Bu firing her rockets in a direction opposite to het motion or direction of travel.

Why doe the cow need to do that to slow down, assuming they do not wish to slam into the earth at a high rate of speed?

Are you going to say that that is not acceleration as well, the cow is going to apply force to reduce speed and momentum, correct? Once at a constant speed the cow must apply force to change motion vectors or slow down, yes?

What is your specific complaint, other than showing you can type the word crap.

 

[steenkh]

Sorry, I do not speak your language, so your rudeness is slightly excusable. but your inability to undersatnd concepts and then being rude is not.

I speak his language, and he comes out just as rude in translation as in Danish.

 

[Dancing David]

I speak his language, and he comes out just as rude in translation as in Danish.

I appreciate that,and your comment. I mean I am not able to surmount the language barrier in discussion. There is a certain pattern here that is being made very obvious.

The confusion about inertia and broad general statements that are meant about GR, the refusal to answer direct questions.

I do wonder what the word for troll is in many languages. Troll=Troll?

 

[Toke]

Trold

 

[steenkh]

Trold

Yes, we do use that word, but we do not have the double meaning that makes it so amusing in English. We only have it as a kind of mythological creature, and the meaning of a method of fishing is lost.

Still, even if we do get the idea of Bjarne trolling for replies, it is gratifying to imagine him as a kind of troll!

 

[Dancing David]

Yeah the bit about fishing is great, throw a line off a moving boat.

 

[Reality Check]

It has just got to 30 October here in NZ so:
Bjarne, have I missed your reply to Does Bjarne know basic physics? (first asked 23 October 2009)?
(7 days and counting)

I will further emphasis the basic error that Bjarne has made.
He defines a quantity called "resistance against motion" which he extracts from this made up equation:
KE = (y - 1) mc² - where γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²) (the Lorentz factor)
as (y - 1).

His error is obvious. KE looks like an energy (but you never know with Bjarne). "mc²" is also energy. Bjarne should know a certain equation E=mc² and that "mc²" is energy.
He should realize that he has energy on both sides of his equation and so (y - 1) cannot have any units of measurement. Otherwise his equation is putting an energy (KE) equal to something else. That something else can be anything since Bjarne thinks he is free to assign any units to (y - 1), e.g. let the units be charge per energy and the right hand side is charge!

Bjarne must think that you can subtract quantities with different units, e.g. subtract a time from a length to get a something.
Otherwise he would know that subtracting 1 from y means that y is a number (like 1) and the result is also a number.

Then he goes completely wrong by assigning the units of acceleration to what he must know is a quantity without units.

Bjarne please notice 2 things:

1. The Lorentz factor is called a factor. It is not called an acceleration. There is a reason for this - it is not an acceleration.
2. You are the only person in the world ignorant enough to assign the Lorentz factor units of measurement. Here is a nice table of values. Note the absence of units, even for v/c.

 

[edd]

I will further emphasis the basic error that Bjarne has made.
He defines a quantity called "resistance against motion" which he extracts from this made up equation:
KE = (y - 1) mc² - where γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²) (the Lorentz factor)
as (y - 1).

Erm, Bjarne is wrong about just about everything, but that equation is not made up.

He completely misuses and abuses it, but that alone is not incorrect.

 

[tsig]

How can you maintain a constant velocity while decelerating?

Remove that funny little 2 over the s and it's all good.

 

[Bjarne]

Inertia is the resistance to changes in motions.

If you mean according to what we believe, yes then you are right.
But when you mean according to what we know, you are off course wrong.

When the cow is traveling at a constant rate of speed towards home from MooCentauri, how does it slow down? Bu firing her rockets in a direction opposite to het motion or direction of travel.

It’s a build in process
If the cow wouldn’t so stubborn it would move faster.
Mathematically the cow is hence decelerating.

Why doe the cow need to do that to slow down, assuming they do not wish to slam into the earth at a high rate of speed?

Ask the cow why it is stubborn

So are the Earth but at the same time it’s accelerating due to the opposite force. So all the cows at the Earth are in fact both accelerating and decelerating at the same time. – And you to.

 

[The Man]

If you mean according to what we believe, yes then you are right.
But when you mean according to what we know, you are off course wrong.

Just according to what we can demonstrate. Can you demonstrate that inertia causes deceleration or even acceleration without changes in motion or the application of some force?

It’s a build in process
If the cow wouldn’t so stubborn it would move faster.
Mathematically the cow is hence decelerating.

Mathematically the cow is just accelerating in a different direction. However, this does not detract from the fact that your consideration of resistance to constant motion would require the continual application of force in order to maintain a constant velocity in complete contradiction to the established and demonstrated laws of motion and inertia.

Ask the cow why it is stubborn

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you are so stubborn.

So are the Earth but at the same time it’s accelerating due to the opposite force. So all the cows at the Earth are in fact both accelerating and decelerating at the same time. – And you to.

Yet the tangential velocity of a circular orbit remains the same, under your consideration there should be some resistance to that constant tangential velocity, yet none can be demonstrated.

 

[Reality Check]

If you mean according to what we believe, yes then you are right.
But when you mean according to what we know, you are off course wrong.

No you are wrong: We are not talking about resistance to motion. That does not exist. Inertia is the resistance to changes in motion. That is the definition of inertia.

P.S.
Bjarne, have I missed your reply to Does Bjarne know basic physics? (first asked 23 October 2009)?
(8 days and counting)

Or are you so ignorant that you still think that (y-1) is an acceleration?

 

[Reality Check]

Another symptom of Bjarne's crack-pottery

First asked 31 October 2009:
Another symptom of crack-pottery: Not exploring the full consequences of their idea.

Consider a proton in a particle accelerator like the LHC (or several other accelerators). It is traveling at a speed very close to the speed of light. This proton is moving (has " kinetic resistance") and in an orbit (has a "space wind").
Let us use a proton where u = 0.999c. Then (y-1) = 22.366 - 1 = 21.366.
This is actually a bit slow. The LHC when operating at 14 TeV will have protons moving at about 99.9999991% of c, i.e. y ~7,500.

Bjarne's "space wind" (SW) is = RM/Qr^2
For a 10 kilometer ring we have r = 10,000 meters. R = 0.999c (angular velocity), Q = 6.52 x 10²¹, M =1.672621637(83)×10^-27 kilograms.
Thus SW = 7.6831 x 10^-51 m/s^2.

Let us make that same mistake that Bjarne makes and set the" kinetic resistance" (KR) to (y-1) as m/s^2)

Therefore
SW = 7.6831 x 10^-51 m/s^2.
KR = 21.366. m/s^2

Bjarne: Can you see a slight difference between these 2 values?

 

[steenkh]

Let us make that same mistake that Bjarne makes and set the" kinetic resistance" (KR) to (y-1) as m/s^2)

Therefore
SW = 7.6831 x 10^-51 m/s^2.
KR = 21.366. m/s^2

Bjarne: Can you see a slight difference between these 2 values?

I have seen Bjarne's replies to previous posts of this type: Mathematics, Schmathematics! You do not know what you are talking about! Before you can make such calculations, you need to understand what you are dealing with.

Bajrne, was I close enough?

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne's "space wind" (SW) is = RM/Qr^2
For a 10 kilometer ring we have r = 10,000 meters. R = 0.999c (angular velocity), Q = 6.52 x 1021, M =1.672621637(83)×10-27 kilograms.
Thus SW = 7.6831 x 10^-51 m/s^2.
Can you see a slight difference between these 2 values?

Yes a load of fanatic manipulated crap as well.