THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

I have reconsidered the chapter “Satellites”, www.science27.com/english/Sattelites.htm and have also come to the conclusion that all the rotation astronomic objects must have their own constant.
Hence the deviations velocities in satellites orbit are now insignificant.

To understand the KE transmission correctly we must look at the forces involved.

Between the Moon and the Earth space is stronger contracted. The space wind from the Earth's rotation transmit KE to the Moon through the "matter-space" (contracted space) connection, between the Earth and the Moon.
This make it possible for the the Moon to overcome its own resistance against orbit motion. But this also gives the Earth angular momentum.

The angular momentum causes the rotation of the Earth, and make it possible for the Earths to overcome the resistance against rotation. This is possible also even though the obit velocity of the Moon is slower than the rotation velocity of the Moon.

The stronger contracted space between the Earth and the Moon is also affected by "friction" against rotation, because the Moon pulls matter in the direction away from the Earth (and towards the Moon). This causes weak resistance against the Earth's rotation, but much weaker than the opposite forces (angular momentum) that causes the Earths rotation.

This phenomenon is already known, but only according to friction at the ocean bottoms. The friction force also applies for matter because the Moon to a certain (weak) degree resists matter to follow the Earth's rotation. Resistance against rotation only applies for Moons with orbit velocity slower than the planets rotation velocity.

It's important to notice: - that the force (used to overcome resistances against orbit motion) transmitted to the secondary orbiting objects (e.g; the Moon around the Earth) is properly always 50%. - the last 50% is used to overcome resistance against rotation of the primary rotating object.

The energy used to overcome the resistance against motion and rotation, comes from the strong force. Gravity and the strong force is united. (read the chapter: Quantum Physics).
Shortly spoken: The force of gravity spins space together. The strong force (Interaction) keeps space together.

Exsample:
Jupiter's moons Io have volcanic activity and Europa probably water within.
Astronomer believes the inner heat is caused by stretching the moon due to the strong gravity (tidal effect) between the Moon and Jupiter. This is fare from the whole truth.

According to this theory the elementary particle is working harder, simply because space must be harder contracted.

Space between two object contracts space stronger. This mean that the force of interaction does a harder job (use more energy) to keep space contracted. This explains why heat also occurs when gravity does a strong work..

Chrank2.jpg

The rotation of the Sun (or the Earth) etc. is always inseparable connected with the orbiting objects.
 
Last edited:
MoonEarth7.jpg

Maybe this image will help to understand the angular momentum crankshaft.
Also this assumption is a consequence of the simple assumption > that matters contracts space.
 
Con´trate
Having cogs or teeth projecting parallel to the axis, instead of radiating from it.
 
That picture in #223, won't a space probe risk bending the celestial crankshaft with it's unplanned for gravity?
 
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".

For that matter we could also look at linear particle accelerators.

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.



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"?

Do you really think that all the scientists that tested SR kinematics (Tests of Relativistic Kinematics) faked their results?

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

On a more practical basis you have to use electricity to power the equipment that accelerates the particles. To get the particles to a certain velocity you have to use a certain amount of electricity. Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" means that twice as much electricity is used. Somebody has to pay the bill. Accountants tend to scream loudly when a budgeted item doubles.

P.S.
Bjarne, have I missed your reply to Does Bjarne know basic physics? (first asked 23 October 2009)?
 
Reality Check said:
*snip*
Do you really think that all the scientists that tested SR kinematics (Tests of Relativistic Kinematics) faked their results?

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

On a more practical basis you have to use electricity to power the equipment that accelerates the particles. To get the particles to a certain velocity you have to use a certain amount of electricity. Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" means that twice as much electricity is used. Somebody has to pay the bill. Accountants tend to scream loudly when a budgeted item doubles.

P.S.
Bjarne, have I missed your reply to Does Bjarne know basic physics? (first asked 23 October 2009)?
Click to expand...

Another point about accelerators, which will of course be entirely lost on Bjarne (who is ready to rush out and measure microgravity in a building without any previous studies and calculations), is that the large accelerators are basic research projects, and extremely expensive ones. It follows that even if kinetic resistance might not affect the main experiment, all such projects have dozens, if not hundredes, of secondary experiments and research projects built into them. Some such projects will include extracting confirmation for already accepted theories.

On another side-line, all kinds of data is extracted and recorded, for later analysis. Decades after a big experiment, you may see articles from researchers all over the world analyzing various aspects of the data.

Accelerators have been with us for half a century. It is impossible that a phenomenon like kinetic resistance should have gone unnoticed.

Hans
 
Having cogs or teeth projecting parallel to the axis, instead of radiating from it.
Click to expand...
I didn’t got the point

That picture in #223, won't a space probe risk bending the celestial crankshaft with it's unplanned for gravity?
Click to expand...
No a satellite (or probe) will speed up the Earth’s rotation. The closer to the Earth and the heavier it is, the more it will affects (speed up) the Earths rotation.
And at the same time it will speed up the orbit velocity of the planets (throwing these further out in space).
But it will not affect e.g; the rotation velocity of e.g; Jupiter. ( Each rotating object is a independent phenomena)

Linear particle accelerator
Click to expand...
As the name says, the device is for acceleration purpose, in that process everybody agree that you have resistance against motion, This devise isn’t used or build for constant velocity experiments or measurements.

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.
Click to expand...
In the whole acc. process the brain knows exactly what to do.
After the particle has reached the wanted velocity the bran also knows what to do.
The brain controls every particle motion as with the same precision as lycky luck controls his gun and bullets.
The brain doesn’t ask anybody, it does what it is told to, BANG exactly here, and that’s it. – Exactly like Lucky first shot exactly where it hearts and then ask questions.

To brain controls the energy from a whole power stating. All what the brain knows is: what is timing.

BUT if you want to trace what these particle are up against, also by constant velocity. YES you can do it, and then YES you will trace that resistance against motion does NOT disappear the moment you have reached constant velocity.

Now ask you self, Do some serious contemplation: WHY should resistance suddenly disappear? – WHY?

Do you really think that all the scientists that tested SR kinematics (Tests of Relativistic Kinematics) faked their results?
Click to expand...
Our believes is; that resistance suddenly “should” disappears out the blue. It's haven't been any reason to test.

On another side-line, all kinds of data is extracted and recorded, for later analysis. Decades after a big experiment, you may see articles from researchers all over the world analyzing various aspects of the data.
Click to expand...
Yes according to what particle does AFTER the BANG...........
Nobody have ever recorded or analysed: if the brain adjust the energy consumption (a tiny bit) exactly when the constant velocity is reached.
If someone would trace if that was the case, the answer would be NO, the brain does not. – Bet a yacht ? - Come on cissies

Accelerators have been with us for half a century. It is impossible that a phenomenon like kinetic resistance should have gone unnoticed.
Click to expand...
If our believes are strong enough why measure?
Why measure if 1 billion cars in Tokyo lose gasoline? - So long nobody believes this is possible.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
As the name says, the device is for acceleration purpose, in that process everybody agree that you have resistance against motion, This devise isn’t used or build for constant velocity experiments or measurements.
Click to expand...

If the particles received less KE than expected, it would be noticeable.

In the whole acc. process the brain knows exactly what to do.
After the particle has reached the wanted velocity the bran also knows what to do.
Click to expand...

No. The early generations of accelerators did not have a control computer. The control systems were very simple, and any disrepancy in energy transfer would have shown up, clear as the day.

The brain controls every particle motion as with the same precision as lycky luck controls his gun and bullets.
The brain doesn’t ask anybody, it does what it is told to, BANG exactly here, and that’s it. – Exactly like Lucky first shot exactly where it hearts and then ask questions.
Click to expand...

A computer does only what it is programmed to do. If it is not programmed to allow for kinetic resistance, it will not do so.

To brain controls the energy from a whole power stating. All what the brain knows is: what is timing.
Click to expand...

Bjarne, you haven't the foggiest idea about how an accelerator is built.

BUT if you want to trace what these particle are up against, also by constant velocity. YES you can do it, and then YES you will trace that resistance against motion does NOT disappear the moment you have reached constant velocity.

Now ask you self, Do some serious contemplation: WHY should resistance suddenly disappear? – WHY?
Click to expand...

Because it is only resistance against change. The 'resistance' is really the energy transferred to the particle, where it is stored as kinetic energy (= m x v^2). The moment you don't accelerate it anymore, you don't transfer more energy, and the resistance is no more. Basic physics; you should read about it sometimes.

Our believes is; that resistance suddenly “should” disappears out the blue. It's haven't been any reason to test.
Click to expand...

Yes, there has. Science tests even the obvious.

Hans
 
Sorry, I give up on this tar baby.
Click to expand...
Clever, don’t fight against law of nature.

If the particles received less KE than expected, it would be noticeable.
Click to expand...
Yes but ONLY the day you start to measure exactly that.

No. The early generations of accelerators did not have a control computer. The control systems were very simple, and any disrepancy in energy transfer would have shown up, clear as the day.
Click to expand...
If the dog wasn’t ******** it “would” have catch the hare.
Bet ?
Or are you really a cissy?

A computer does only what it is programmed to do. If it is not programmed to allow for kinetic resistance, it will not do so.
Click to expand...
It’s only programmed to: control the velocity exactly like the computers in the metro are.

Bjarne, you haven't the foggiest idea about how an accelerator is built.
Click to expand...
Bet ?
Or are you a cissy?

Because it is only resistance against change.
Click to expand...
OK lets try again: WHY only resistance against change?
PS!
Happy you now are willing to used the expression “resistance”
A big step forward ... continue to progress comrade..

Yes, there has. Science tests even the obvious.
Click to expand...
I am not the only dreamer..........:alien009:
 
Bjarne said:
OK lets try again: WHY only resistance against change?
PS!
Happy you now are willing to used the expression “resistance”
A big step forward ... continue to progress comrade..
Click to expand...
Bjarne, I just explained. Are you very slow, or something?

Well, since you are too thick to understand the concept of inertia, I have to try to use words you understand. Just like using baby language when talking to small children.

Doesn't work with you, apparantly. :nope:

Hans
 
Last edited:
Anyone else thinking back to the opening credits of "Bill Nye, The Science Guy" with the voice stating "Inertia is a property of matter"? (or was it "Beakman's World"? Can't recall now).

Let's try taking this from the top, again.

Now, can someone explain what observed phenomena Bjarne is trying to describe with his formula? I don't need the formula restated, Just the basic premise. And following that, give me some data points, if available. Body "X" with mass "M" was observed Doing something that current scentific theory does not predict, that kind of thing. or something like Scientific theory would predict the body at Position 1, when it was observed to be at position 2.
 
Bjarne, I just explained. Are you very slow, or something?

Well, since you are too thick to understand the concept of inertia, I have to try to use words you understand. Just like using baby language when talking to small children.
Doesn't work with you, apparantly
Click to expand...

I am asking for the cause of that resistance Sir.
WHAT is that resistance / inertia comrade?
And WHY?
WHAT is the cause of it?
and WHY only by acceleration ?

I mean: you do not answer my question: “resistance against change in motion”, - is not the cause, it's the effect.
WHAT is the cause of that comrades?

Just admit it, none of you know that answer right?.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom