THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

[Bjarne]

Very easily. There is no such thing as "kinetic resistance", so all energy lost is due to something else.
What do you mean?

Do you deny there is resistance against acceleration, proportional to the increasing energy consumption?

Temperature is a statistical thermodynamic concept and does not really apply to particles in an accelerator. You could work out a value, but it's not something anyone actually cares about. And again, it will depend entirely on the accelerator.

I mean: is the temperature of the particles VERY cold ?

 

[steenkh]

Right now I do not see it that way. It’s rather a question of understanding several other factors.

I knew it! In Bjarne's world, math is dependent on "how you see it"!

How is the resistance due to motion inside a rotation body?

It does not exist.

This is properly far more complicated that previously thought, because of the mass that lays “in front” of other mass, will drag space after it self, and that space will drag mass after it self.

Real physics have no problems with rotating bodies.

In the same way when you truck drive behind a big truck you’ll save energy and a whole convoy will too.
The point is here the energy that possible can be transmitted also depend on how is the mutual resistance.
A rotating body can only transmit that energy it not need.
On the other hand it also get energy back to maintain its resistance against rotation, doesn’t matter how slow the circulating object(s) are.

It is amazing how much you can pull out of your rear end. Have you ever considered performing as a magician?

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Galilean_moon_Laplace_resonance_animation.gif[/qimg]
We have much more to learn, and have only seen the foot of gravity mountain.

Why do you show a picture of something that is completely explained by real physics? In what way will that support your ideas?

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

In the same way when you truck drive behind a big truck you’ll save energy and a whole convoy will too.

While not exactly untrue, the short distance needed to be kept for any beneficial effect pose an extreme hazard to traffic safety and it should not be attempted.

THe physics behind this effect is a part of fluid mechanics and it is well understood.

We don't know what space is and we cerntainly don't know if it is a fluid and hence we cannot know if space has such fluid propterties. So until such time that Bjarne procudes some actual evidence that space is a fluid, he's simply talking yet more crap.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne
How is the resistance due to motion inside a rotation body?
Steenkh
It does not exist.

So why does it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed?
Because of inertia. I have heard it before.
Just invent a nice expression and belive the question is is “solved”..
Smart.

Real physics have no problems with rotating bodies.

Right, but instead only problems with 97% of the rest of the Universe (so called Dark Matter and Dark Energy) as a result of ignorance.

Why do you show a picture of something that is completely explained by real physics?

Tell me what is the explanation?

In what way will that support your ideas?

Many wonders about the cause of this phenomena as well as a related , e.g here.
And many more related observation that also support the idea that KE can be transmitted through the matter/space connection. I think you know what I mean.

 

[Bjarne]

We don't know what space is and we certainly don't know if it is a fluid and hence we cannot know if space has such fluid properties.

Don’t know + don’t know = blindfolded.
I am introducing a working hypothesis.
Maybe this could be the small little light that would lead us out of almost total darkness.

So until such time that Bjarne produces some actual evidence

I will measure central gravity.
If the result will be as expected, this is not just a small little light, but rather a spotlight.

Furthermore I am sure that we will discover much more “strange moons, planet and objects deceleration and acceleration in the coming years, because the technological development is really fast now. New instruments, new and better space telescopes etc.

 

[steenkh]

So why does it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed?
Because of inertia. I have heard it before.
Just invent a nice expression and belive the question is is “solved”..
Smart.

This is what is observed. It is just too bad that the real world does not conform to your ideas.

Right, but instead only problems with 97% of the rest of the Universe (so called Dark Matter and Dark Energy) as a result of ignorance.

Why? Dark matter as such is not a problem.

Tell me what is the explanation?

Really? And you would understand it with your level of math? The orbital system of Jupiter is not posing any particular problem, but you will have to look it up yourself, because like you, I am unable to understand math, but unlike you, I can accept that others can do it.

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

I will measure central gravity.
If the result will be as expected, this is not just a small little light, but rather a spotlight.

While revalation that the principle of superposition is wrong in case of forces (make no mistake, it isn't! no matter how brilliant Bjarne think he is), would indeed cause raised eyebrows around the table, it would hardly go as far at to prove that space is a fluid.

I have for some time now been quite intriqued by Bjarnes nonsense as it have quite many similarities with the now-discredited aether hypothesis. Introduced as a medium for EM waves to travel, it too had an "aether wind" and could too be dragged along by matter in motion (one of the original attempts to explain the outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment; the earth dragged the aether along, such that it was at rest relative to the earth).

The aether hypothesis is of course discredited by modern science, seeing as it has utterly failed to make any correct predictions. Simply replacing "aether" with "space" and extend it to include gravity is not gonna change that! Of couse such ideas isn't new. There are suggestions that even Einstein had thoughts along this line.

Seeing as Bjarne has not come up with something new, but simply resurrected a headache that science burried 100 years ago, simply goes to prove that all this has abolutely nothing to do with science or "deeper understanding" - it's all about Bjarne and his infantile addiction to attention. Where it not that knowingly sprouting nonsense is a downright undecent way of getting it, one just might feel sorry for him.

May I suggest hypnosis? It is really effective in lifting the burden of childhood traumas, if you do it with a trained professional in a private session and not in front 300 people and a scam artist..

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne
So why does it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed?
Because of inertia. I have heard it before.
Just invent a nice expression and belive the question is is “solved”..
Smart.
Steenkh
This is what is observed.

You mean based on narrowing observations of few planets and moons.
And at the same time totally ignoring more and more facts showing this old mossy believes very well could be wrong:, because of the ignorance of:

• That billions of stars doesn’t seem to follow such pattern.
• That planet obviously seems to be thrown far out in the solar system and logical later pulled back again.
• That more and more space probes also not follows such stable pattern.
• That this statement: that resistance due to motion only applies to acceleration, and suddenly of a unknown reason “should” disappear (like a UFO): is heaven screaming idiotic (illogical and beyond imagination) ….
  

Even Wikipedia agrees to we speak about resistance: quote: Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

Why? Dark matter as such is not a problem.

We don’t know what it is, and that’s it….

Steenkh
Why do you show a picture of something that is completely explained by real physics?
Bjarne
Tell me what is the explanation?
Stenkh
Really? And you would understand it with your level of math? The orbital system of Jupiter is not posing any particular problem, but you will have to look it up yourself, because like you, I am unable to understand math, but unlike you, I can accept that others can do it.

The cause of that phenomena is not solve, - OK ?

May I suggest hypnosis? It is really effective in lifting the burden of childhood traumas, if you do it with a trained professional in a private session and not in front 300 people and a scam artist..

In certain countries, the best you can do is to be stupid, lazy, drunk and believe you is a zero, hence you are no threat to anyone, - and you will certainly survive any system and any dictator to any time. .
The motive is envy. It’s is almost 4 times stronger than the sex drive.
Envy can also be part of the collective sub-consciousness, if so it’s almost 25 as strong as the sex drive. This is the case here. We call it “Jantelov” and this is the main parts of the Danish basic law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is something rotten in the State of Denmark, - comrades.
Shakespeare.

 

[ArcturusA]

I mean: is the temperature of the particles VERY cold ?

You can't define a temperature of a single particle, it's meaningless.
Temperature is related to the average kinetic energy of particles in a system, so I guess the analogue for single particles is just their own energy. That would make particles in the LHC very, very 'hot'.

The cause of that phenomena is not solve, - OK ?

That's news to me. Orbital resonance is very well understood.
How can you take an image from an article that goes into depth about the phenomenon and then claim its a problem?

 

[Bjarne]

How can you take an image from an article that goes into depth about the phenomenon and then claim its a problem?

No one goes into "depth".
You can off course say it is a coincidence.
If so it's a strange one.

I don’t believe so, but rather that: no motion in a solar system or in a planet moon/systems are coincidently /except foreign objects. Any orbiting object will affects the mutual energy balance and distribution.
Keep asking why, - finding connections e.g: mathematical, trying to connect similar unexplained motion is so fare see it the only passable road. – Off course also attach on weak illogical assumptions is necessary.

 

[ArcturusA]

No one goes into "depth".
You can off course say it is a coincidence.
If so it's a strange one.

I don’t believe so, but rather that: no motion in a solar system or in a planet moon/systems are coincidently /except foreign objects. Any orbiting object will affects the mutual energy balance and distribution.
Keep asking why, - finding connections e.g: mathematical, trying to connect similar unexplained motion is so fare see it the only passable road. – Off course also attach on weak illogical assumptions is necessary.

No one is saying orbital resonances are coincidences.

The biggest clue is in the name: resonances. They're not 'orbital coincidences'.

Anyway, they're caused by interactions between orbiting bodies. You get orbital resonances between the Galilean moons because there is a gravitational interaction between them, as well as with Jupiter. It's small, but enough to lead to that kind of system.
You can show it using Newtonian mechanics and perturbation theory. The mathematics can take time to work through, but it's not too difficult to do for three bodies.

 

[Tubbythin]

You can't define a temperature of a single particle, it's meaningless.
Temperature is related to the average kinetic energy of particles in a system, so I guess the analogue for single particles is just their own energy. That would make particles in the LHC very, very 'hot'.

Essentially.

You could say something like "if this particle were in a gas and had an "average" energy for that temperature what temperature would it be?" To which the answer is something like:

T ~ E/k_B .

where k_B is the Boltzmann constant.

The corresponding temperature for an LHC proton would thus be around 10¹⁷ K. Which, as you say, would make it very very hot indeed.

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

No one goes into "depth".
You can off course say it is a coincidence.
If so it's a strange one.

Oh what a pathetic and dishonerst strawman!

The reason the moons orbit in the given ratios is not and have never been claimed to be a coincedence!

Orbital resonance! It is energetically favorable for the planets to orbit in this exact pattern. The article states that, right up front:

In celestial mechanics, an orbital resonance occurs when two orbiting bodies exert a regular, periodic gravitational influence on each other, usually due to their orbital periods being related by a ratio of two small integers. Orbital resonances greatly enhance the mutual gravitational influence of the bodies. In most cases, this results in an unstable interaction, in which the bodies exchange momentum and shift orbits until the resonance no longer exists. Under some circumstances, a resonant system can be stable and self correcting, so that the bodies remain in resonance. Examples are the 1:2:4 resonance of Jupiter's moons Ganymede, Europa, and Io

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance

Check the article, the math's all there, it is no mystery and if Bjarne continues to claim so, well then it's just another lie added to the list.

Let me just give a heads up, for Bjarne will undobtely quote another part of the article, for containing the word "coincidence", namely:

Coincidental 'near' ratios of mean motion

As the article clearly states, some system "apear" to orbit with integer ratios on shorter timescales, but when viewed in actual astronomical timescales the true random nature of these orbits become quite appearant.

 

[Bjarne]

Oh what a pathetic and dishonerst strawman!

Tell that to NGC, - if that phenomena really is proven.
And so fare I read above it it’s is only a "clue".
But well it could be the right explanation.

 

[Bjarne]

While revalation that the principle of superposition is wrong…………

I can not see why super position is a problem to my hypothesis, try to explain?

Introduced as a medium for EM waves to travel, it too had an "aether wind" and could too be dragged along by matter in motion (one of the original attempts to explain the outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment; the earth dragged the aether along, such that it was at rest relative to the earth).

It’s something completely different I am mention, and it is not something I believe or claims but something we know.
It’s pretty simple: - we know gravity is caused by a property: deformed space, and since a gravity anomaly can be measured from satellites, deformed space must rotate together with the earth.
This mean we know or should know that deformed space moves in sapce. So simple is that. – Not nonsense or hypothesis, - but ice-cold logical fact.

There are suggestions that even Einstein had thoughts along this line.

Yes Einstein wondered about the nature of space, but he did never made any conclusion except the well known geometric/mathematical expression: Curvature of space.
Later in his life he admitted not to have believed that space either was contracting or expanding, also not even though his own calculation showed that this was the nature of space..

Seeing as Bjarne has not come up with something new, but simply resurrected a headache that science burried 100 years ago, simply goes to prove that all this has absolutely nothing to do with science or "deeper understanding" - it's all about Bjarne and his infantile addiction to attention.

You are mixing potatoes and diesel oil. These exsamples have nothing with each other to do.

Where it not that knowingly sprouting nonsense is a downright undecent way of getting it, one just might feel sorry for him.

It’s your own cocktail of miskmask nonsense that make no sence...

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

I can not see why super position is a problem to my hypothesis, try to explain?

The cancellation of gravity in the center of a symmetric and homogeneous mass follows directly from the principle of superposition

Bjarne claims that gravity in the center of a symmetric and homogeneous mass does not cancel

Hence, Bjarne denies the principle of superposition, where he knows it or not.

 

[Bjarne]

The cancellation of gravity in the center of a symmetric and homogeneous mass follows directly from the principle of superposition

Bjarne claims that gravity in the center of a symmetric and homogeneous mass does not cancel

Hence, Bjarne denies the principle of superposition, where he knows it or not.

I agree that excactly in the center of a symmetric and homogeneous mass ADG is zero..

 

[Reality Check]

I agree that excactly in the center of a symmetric and homogeneous mass ADG is zero..

How did you calculate that exactly in the center of a symmetric and homogeneous mass ADG is zero?
If you used Newton's law and mathematics then you used the principle of superposition. If you did not then please show your working.

Of course you have just admitted that your "ADG is constant inside a symmetric and homogeneous mass" idea is really "ADG is zero inside a symmetric and homogeneous mass" snce your constant must be zero at the center.

 

[Bjarne]

How did you calculate that exactly in the centre of a symmetric and homogeneous mass ADG is zero?

This is simple logic rather than calculation.
This is based on that when you measure ADG you will measure the: space stretch level per distance.
This mean, you do not measure the "density" of space, but rather the density difference per distance,
A stable ADG the whole way to the centre indicated that the space consumption per distance is stable the whole way to the centre. You can compare this to an errand boy that brings crusty rolls to each house on the street Sunday Morning. The inner core density (none homogeneous mass) can be compared with that: for the end of the road people have order 4 crusty rolls each. ADG reflect the space consumption, per distance. In the excact center there is now mass, and hence no ADG. It's a strange little point.

 

[MRC_Hans]

So why does it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed?
Because of inertia. I have heard it before.

No. Because of relativity. It applies when reaching speeds that are a considerable fraction of c. (Of course, it applies to all speeds, but at low speeds, the effect is infinitesimal)

Hans