THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

[Reality Check]

Yes a load of fanatic manipulated crap as well.

Thank you Bjarne for confirming that your "equations" are a load of fanatic manipulated crap .
But you did not need to do this. Anyone who reads your threads or web page can see this clearly!

 

[MRC_Hans]

Let's face it, Bjarne: You are WAY out of your league here. Your argumentation worked so much better when you tried it on the cows, right?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

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

Comrade this is manipulated & abuse of my equation.
Centrally you have no rotating mass in you exsample, hence you abuse of “r” is nonsense.
You can also not use the equation: RM/Qr^2 to calculate the space wind due to a planet’s orbit.
Only to calculate rotating space wind around rotating a planet. You wrote R = 0.999c – that mean the rotation should be nearly the speed of light. Mathematically you have just proven you are a manipulator.

 

[Dancing David]

Bjarne, you didn't read very carefully , in the example you respond to
"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")."

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, you didn't read very carefully , in the example you respond to
"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")."

Correct
But you have NO VALUE for R

 

[Reality Check]

Comrade this is manipulated & abuse of my equation.
Centrally you have no rotating mass in you exsample, hence you abuse of “r” is nonsense.
You can also not use the equation: RM/Qr^2 to calculate the space wind due to a planet’s orbit.
Only to calculate rotating space wind around rotating a planet. You wrote R = 0.999c – that mean the rotation should be nearly the speed of light. Mathematically you have just proven you are a manipulator.

Comrade this is a plugging of numbers into your equation.

But you are right - there is no rotating mass in a circular particle accelerator to create your impossible "space wind".
There is a further consequence from this - your Q is not a constant! It at least depends on the mass of the rotating object. In the center of a particle accelerator there is matter, e.g. all the earth, rock and soil in the center of the LHC ring. There will be at least one atom or molecule that rotates in that matter.

So we are left with an unbalanced "kinetic resistance".
In my example of a slowish proton this is: KR = 21.366. m/s^2
Circular particle accelerator are very carefully designed and monitored to work with specific accelerations of the particles. Too much or too little and the particles crash into the walls of the ring.
Your "kinetic resistance" means that every particle accelerator in the world does not work.
Since this is not true your idea is wrong.

 

[Bjarne]

Comrade this is a plugging of numbers into your equation.

But you are right - there is no rotating mass in a circular particle accelerator

If you want to calculate e.g; how much KE Venus transmit to the Earth due to its orbit you’ll need a much more advanced equation. This must comprehend all the mass and distribution of the Solar system all the time. As I wrote this require very advanced software.

 

[Dancing David]

As you write this require formula, which you don't have.

 

[Reality Check]

Experimental proof that Bjarne idea is wrong

If you want to calculate e.g; how much KE Venus transmit to the Earth due to its orbit you’ll need a much more advanced equation. This must comprehend all the mass and distribution of the Solar system all the time. As I wrote this recourse very advanced software.

That still leaves the fact that your idea is wrong because "kinetic resistance" is not observed. You obviously did not read my post so here it is again as a question:

First asked 2 November 2009:
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 and so has Bjarne's "kinetic resistance".

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.

Let us make the same basic mistake that Bjarne makes and set the "kinetic resistance" (KR) to (y-1) as m/s^2.
Thus KR = 21.366. m/s^2

So we now have an easily measured "kinetic resistance". As particles are accelerated faster and faster they require about twice the force to keep them going as expected from Special Relativity.
Circular particle accelerator are very carefully designed and monitored to work with specific accelerations of the particles. Too much or too little and the particles crash into the walls of the ring.
Your "kinetic resistance" means that every particle accelerator in the world does not work.

Exactly where did I go wrong in using your equation for "kinetic resistance"?

If you have no answer then "kinetic resistance" does not exist and your idea is wrong.

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

 

[Bjarne]

That still leaves the fact that your idea is wrong because "kinetic resistance" is not observed. You obviously did not read my post so here it is again as a question:

First asked 2 November 2009:
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 and so has Bjarne's "kinetic resistance".

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.

Let us make the same basic mistake that Bjarne makes and set the "kinetic resistance" (KR) to (y-1) as m/s^2.
Thus KR = 21.366. m/s^2

So we now have an easily measured "kinetic resistance". As particles are accelerated faster and faster they require about twice the force to keep them going as expected from Special Relativity.
Circular particle accelerator are very carefully designed and monitored to work with specific accelerations of the particles. Too much or too little and the particles crash into the walls of the ring.
Your "kinetic resistance" means that every particle accelerator in the world does not work.

Exactly where did I go wrong in using your equation for "kinetic resistance"?

If you have no answer then "kinetic resistance" does not exist and your idea is wrong.

I don't think that the equation can be used on photons. if so photons would have infinety mass en KE.
I don't understand why you are using such example.

 

[TjW]

I don't think that the equation can be used on photons. if so photons would have infinety mass en KE.
I don't understand why you are using such example.

He's not talking about photons. He's talking about protons. They're different things. The photon has no rest mass and cannot travel at other than C. The proton is an elementary particle with positive charge found in atomic nuclei. It has rest mass. They are two very different things.

 

[Bjarne]

He's not talking about photons. He's talking about protons. They're different things. The photon has no rest mass and cannot travel at other than C. The proton is an elementary particle with positive charge found in atomic nuclei. It has rest mass. They are two very different things.

Sorry I was too fast to read…

As particles are accelerated faster and faster they require about twice the force to keep them going as expected from Special Relativity.

Why twice ?
The requirement of KE is continuously increasing, - to get diminishing increase of speed.

Circular particle accelerator are very carefully designed and monitored to work with specific accelerations of the particles

Wrong
You can adjust this as easy as the speed of you car or the metro.
The accelerator must be build to handle the maximum level of resistance.

Too much or too little and the particles crash into the walls of the ring.

The brain automatically knows where the particles are and what to do.

Your "kinetic resistance" means that every particle accelerator in the world does not work.

No, but only that you don’t know what you are speaking about.

 

[TjW]

A particle accelerator is not like the accelerator on your car.
The path of a near-lightspeed particle is calculated using physics that do not have a "kinetic resistance" term. If such a particle exhibited such a phenomena as "kinetic resistance", the calculations would calculate the wrong path, and the accelerator would not work.

However, the accelerators do work. So the particles are not exhibiting any effects of "kinetic resistance".

 

[Bjarne]

A particle accelerator is not like the accelerator on your car.
The path of a near-lightspeed particle is calculated using physics that do not have a "kinetic resistance" term. If such a particle exhibited such a phenomena as "kinetic resistance", the calculations would calculate the wrong path, and the accelerator would not work.

However, the accelerators do work. So the particles are not exhibiting any effects of "kinetic resistance".

The accelerator is build to handle the full range of acceleration, the full range of velocity, and the full range of resistance as well.
My theory ONLY means that when the wanted velocity is reached the “brain” (of accelerator) doesn’t reduce the energy consumption required to overcome the particles resistance against motion..

We are talking about a reduction of insignificant part of that energy that the accelerator consumes to overcome the resistances against constant velocity, - compared to that what the accelerator anyway must use to keep the particles in orbit.

You can compare the energy consumption like this:
To overcome resistance against constant velocity, - can be compared to that as is used by a coffee machine use, - relative to that energy it require to keep the particles in orbit require a complete power station.

And as I wrote: the accelerator adjusts the required energy automatically. No one is watching the energy bill or analysing how the brain is adjusting the energy.

BUT if we want, - an accelerator can be used to confirm this theory.
The problem so fare is: no accelerator is build for such purpose.

 

[Toke]

So your theory makes only little difference to particle accelerators, and physicists are not paying attention to what goes on in it anyway.

Somehow I am not convinced.

 

[Toke]

My physic teacher in high school were rather obsessed with getting us to use correct units for everything and include them in every calculation as a way to catch errors. (Like calculating a speed and get a result in meters)

He also insisted that we pay attention to the number of significant digits used.
The result were to be rounded off to the lowest accuracy of the numbers used in the calculation.

One of the things we did were using statistic to figure out the accuracy of a geiger counter at different radiations levels, and using lead plates to get the most accurate reading.
It blanked out for a short time after each read/photon and the blind time had to be accounted for, also the radiation got more randomised with less readings, so we had to find the best balance.

I guess the physicist working at a particle accelerator pay close attention to energy levels, speeds of their pet protons and what happens when they impact.

 

[Reality Check]

Why twice ?
The requirement of KE is continuously increasing, - to get diminishing increase of speed.

Your "kinetic resistance" is in addition to and gets closer and closer to the relativistic increase in mass as speed increase. To make it simple for you: as speed increases y becomes much larger larger than 1. For example

• u = 0.999c, y = 22.366
• u = 0.999999991c, y ~7,500.

Thus y and (y-1) get closer together.

Your next claim will probably be that SR is wrong despite all of the experimental evidence for it. That still leaves the problem that circular particle accelerators are designed to work only if SR is correct (Application in cyclotrons - cyclotrons are circular particle accelerators).

Wrong
You can adjust this as easy as the speed of you car or the metro.
The accelerator must be build to handle the maximum level of resistance.

Wrong. Try driving your car around a circular race track. Too fast and you hit the wall on the outside. Too slow and you go into the infield.
P.S. just in case you did not know - in order to go in a circle you have to continuously accelerate.

The brain automatically knows where the particles are and what to do.

Now particles have brains!

No, but only that you don’t know what you are speaking about.

Since you could not understand my post, here it is again. This time read it and see if you can understand it. I added links to circular particle accelerators and SR since you obviously know nothing about them.

First asked 2 November 2009:
Consider a proton in a circular 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 and so has Bjarne's "kinetic resistance".

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.

Let us make the same basic mistake that Bjarne makes and set the "kinetic resistance" (KR) to (y-1) as m/s^2.
Thus KR = 21.366. m/s^2

So we now have an easily measured "kinetic resistance". As particles are accelerated faster and faster they require about twice the force to keep them going as expected from Special Relativity.
Circular particle accelerator are very carefully designed and monitored to work with specific accelerations of the particles. Too much or too little and the particles crash into the walls of the ring.
Your "kinetic resistance" means that every particle accelerator in the world does not work.

Exactly where did I go wrong in using your equation for "kinetic resistance"?

If you have no answer then "kinetic resistance" does not exist and your idea is wrong.

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

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne
The brain automatically knows where the particles are and what to do.
RC
Now particles have brains

Its that so funny?
Computer brain dummy
We used such expression on these latitude comrade.

So your theory makes only little difference to particle accelerators, and physicists are not paying attention to what goes on in it anyway.

I guess the physicist working at a particle accelerator pay close attention to energy levels, speeds of their pet protons and what happens when they impact..

Why should they?
You do also not keep an eye on you RAM or you processor right now do you?
You have confidence that you do not need to, right.
Then better relax and drink a cup of coffee

 

[Toke]

Why should they?
You do also not keep an eye on you RAM or you processor right now do you?
You have confidence that you do not need to, right.
Then better relax and drink a cup of coffee

The accelerators are built for studying particles and collisions, the whole point is to keep a close eye on them.

My laptop is not built for studying processors.

 

[Bjarne]

The accelerators are built for studying particles and collisions, the whole point is to keep a close eye on them. .

Hence you will need HIM, the only human fast enought

My laptop is not built for studying processors.

And so are accelerators not build to meassure deceleration