THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

[Bjarne]

Double

 

[Bjarne]

Where have all of the scientists in the world gone wrong in the last 104 years?

A question of perspective.
I mean the universe is somewhat bigger than 8 planets of our solar system, and this is all you have that shows that resistance against motion ONLY should apply to acceleration and not constant velocity.
Other claims you have alleged should "prove" this, - only exist in you imagination. .....where are you sourse ??? and why not bet?

Still you have no idea, WHY resistance ONLY should apply to acceleration.....
Even a cow can see such a unsound idea not only is illogical, and beyond possible imagination, but also 200 % nuts...

Your calculation "is" wrong.

Then show the right comrade, - Limit Reality Check

Your equation has no units. You quote quantiites with units. Any idiot can see that this is wrong.

And any idiot can see you can not spell to: quantities
When I am right (even though you can't imaging). - How stupid would you feel you self, on a scale from 1 to 10 ?

 

[TjW]

Still you have no idea, WHY resistance ONLY should apply to acceleration.....

Actually, yes, we do. And you have been informed of this. But to recap:

Acceleration is change in velocity. The kinetic energy in an object is one half its mass times the square of its velocity. kE = (mV²)/2

So when you change the velocity, you change the kinetic energy. You will have to supply that same amount of energy to change the velocity, or energy will not be conserved.

 

[Reality Check]

Then show the right comrade, - Limit Reality Check

There is no right comrade for "kinetic resistance" beacuse it does not exist as you have it. But if you want a right then: Special relativity.

Your calcuation is wrong. Your equation has no units. You quote quantiites with units. Any idiot can see that this is wrong.

Give me an equation for "kinetic resistance" that results in an actual acceleration and I wil plug the numbers in.

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
• Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
  First asked 2 November 2009

 

[Reality Check]

AAnd any idiot can see you can not spell to: quantities
When I am right (even though you can't imaging). - How stupid would you feel you self, on a scale from 1 to 10 ?

When you are so obviously wrong (even though you can't imaging). - How stupid do you feel you self, on a scale from 1 to 10 ?

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009 Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
First asked 2 November 2009

 

[Bjarne]

Actually, yes, we do. And you have been informed of this. But to recap:

Acceleration is change in velocity. The kinetic energy in an object is one half its mass times the square of its velocity. kE = (mV2)/2

So when you change the velocity, you change the kinetic energy. You will have to supply that same amount of energy to change the velocity, or energy will not be conserved.

Imaging you car had double diameter wheels on the rear.
Now I ask you, why are you car moving?
And the answer is:
That this is because if the rear wheel turns 1 time, then the front wheel turns 2 times. And the opposite would be if it was a front wheel drive.

Ever hear that a car have an engine? - used gasoline,? and what about the electromagnetic force responsible for the hole possess ?

How superficially it possible to be?

Once again, -

Still you have no idea, WHY resistance ONLY should apply to acceleration.....
Even a cow can see such an unsound idea not only is illogical, and beyond possible imagination, but also 200 % nuts...

 

[dafydd]

Imaging you car had double diameter wheels on the rear.
Now I ask you, why are you car moving?
And the answer is:
That this is because if the rear wheel turns 1 time, then the front wheel turns 2 times. And the opposite would be if it was a front wheel drive.

Ever hear that a car have an engine? - used gasoline,? and what about the electromagnetic force responsible for the hole possess ?

How superficially it possible to be?

Once again, -

Still you have no idea, WHY resistance ONLY should apply to acceleration.....
Even a cow can see such an unsound idea not only is illogical, and beyond possible imagination, but also 200 % nuts...

You ought to see a pyschiatrist about this cow obsession of yours.Cows have no idea about physics.

 

[Bjarne]

You ought to see a pyschiatrist about this cow obsession of yours. Cows have no idea about physics.

I afraid you are wrong.
Cows and especially bulls know that a resistance against motion doesn’t stop just because constant velocity is reached.

 

[Bjarne]

Cows have no idea about physics.

Ahhhh
I think especially bulls knows many of Newtons law.
I mean have you try to drag a bull home, when it doesn’t want.
And as mention a bull cow is not so stupid that it believe it only must resist the acceleration.
Think twice comrade.

 

[dafydd]

Ahhhh
I think especially bulls knows many of Newtons law.
I mean have you try to drag a bull home, when it doesn’t want.
And as mention a bull cow is not so stupid that it believe it only must resist the acceleration.
Think twice comrade.

You have never even thought once.Bulls know about Newton's laws? I've never seen one reading the Principia Mathematica.Maybe they do in the Bjarneivers.You are quite welcolme to try and drag a bull home,I would pay to see that.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Imaging you car had double diameter wheels on the rear.
Now I ask you, why are you car moving?
And the answer is:
That this is because if the rear wheel turns 1 time, then the front wheel turns 2 times. And the opposite would be if it was a front wheel drive.

What ARE you babbling about?

Ever hear that a car have an engine? - used gasoline,? and what about the electromagnetic force responsible for the hole possess ?

Electromagnetic force - gas engine?? Are you insane?

How superficially it possible to be?

Well, apparantly superficial enough that, after having it explained carefully to you, repeatedly, and in quite simple terms, you will still repeat:

Once again, -

Still you have no idea, WHY resistance ONLY should apply to acceleration.....
Even a cow can see such an unsound idea not only is illogical, and beyond possible imagination, but also 200 % nuts...

Just for old times' sake, Bjarne, tell me honestly: Do you REALLY, REALLY, not understand this simple concept, or are you just pretending?

Hans

 

[Cuddles]

Please remember your membership agreement and do not engage in personal attacks.

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

 

[Bjarne]

Do you REALLY, REALLY, not understand this simple concept, or are you just pretending?

I haven't ever seen or hear any explanation that explain the underlying cause if that, no.

WHY “should” resistance ONLY apply to acceleration.....

 

[Toke]

I haven't ever seen or hear any explanation that explain the underlying cause if that, no.

WHY “should” resistance ONLY apply to acceleration.....

Because the terms acceleration and deceleration are sometimes interchangeable.

 

[steenkh]

WHY “should” resistance ONLY apply to acceleration.....

Because resistance to acceleration and deceleration can be observed. Resistance to movement itself has not been observed, and even you seem to partly accept this, because you have been forced to invent a fictional force called "space wind" that largely cancels out your fictional resistance to movement.

The only evidence you can drum up for your resistance to movement is an anomaly so small that it is barely measurable, and which can easily be explained by conventional means.

And another thing: you think yourself very clever when you clamour for an explanation of the "underlying" causes of gravity and other concepts, but you must be aware that your own ideas are subject to the same problem. You can always ask another "why"-question when you have been given an explanation. In your case, we could ask why does matter contract space? And if you have an answer to that, we can ask again, why is it so? And so on.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I haven't ever seen or hear any explanation that explain the underlying cause if that, no.

WHY “should” resistance ONLY apply to acceleration.....

Well, seing that it has already been explained to you at least five times, I don't suppose yet another time will help you. So I guess you'll just have to stay ignorant.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Please remember your membership agreement and do not engage in personal attacks.

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

We can try. Tell me, how many times can Bjarne plug his homepage before he gets a warning for spamming?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Resistance to movement itself has not been observed

Not so fare we knows
But this is in fact the”force" all the space probes (that have reveals both accelerating as well as decelerating anomalies) have been affected by.
All what is very good hidden is not the decelerating force, but rather the space wind.
We have reached a point where these two "unknown" mysteries have limit time left to remain as mysteries.

Resistance to movement itself has not been observed

Not so fare we knows
But this is in fact the”force" all the space probes (that have reveals both accelerating as well as decelerating anomalies) have been affected by.
All what is very good hidden is not the decelerating force, but rather the space wind.
We have reached a point where these two "unknown" mysteries have limit time left to remain as mysteries.

You can always ask another "why"-question when you have been given an explanation.
In your case, we could ask why does matter contract space?
And if you have an answer to that, we can ask again, why is it so? And so on.

Off course.
But learn from Oppenheimer and Einstein.
ALWAYS keep asking WHY
WHY does resistance do against motion not apply for constant velocity.
WHY do we have a STUPID answer to the question?
Remember it IS possible to prove. Just fire up under the scientist e.g; in CERN
It’s maybe simple and fast to make down to Earth test.

 

[steenkh]

Not so fare we knows

Exactly: it has not been observed.

 

[Toke]

I wonder about those space probe anomalies.
If they were real and fell outside measuring error, there would be plenty of people at nasa cuing up to write articles about it, right?