THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries
- Thread starter Bjarne
- Start date
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Bjarne,which part of this don't you understand?
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
I did not believe my friend.
What about WASP-18b.
The planet WASP-18b is nearly 6 times faster than the rotation of the star WASP-18.
The angel velocity 1.2 Mio km from that star (WASP-18) is 15.000 m/s
BUT the planet WASP-18b, - that orbiting that distance is moving with 234.000 m/s .
The stars rotation speed is stable and hence according to you and other believers there “should” be no resistance......
So why did the rotation speed of WASP-18 – in the past not change it’s speed, completely proportional with the orbit speed of WASP-18B ? - Because the stars rotation is always almost stable.
Ohh - you may say there was not time enough ?
But what about the moon : probe orbiting Mars. – It's the same problem.
Probe is 2 times so fast than the orbit speed of Mars.
If Mars rotation is stable, (as it seem to be), - there “should” not be any orbit resistance and hence Mars rotaion speed “should” according to the prevailing understanding continue to accelerate I suppose.
WHY is that evidently not the case?
Why can Mars not receive the energy that Probe properly in 4.500.000.000 years have tries to deliver?
Can anyone PROVE what happens here?
I mean not only: bla bla bla and export the problem to a meaningless expression or a unknown dimension.
BUT PROVE what happens?
How can motion in space increase the KE, what is the process. What does space have to do with that?
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
So what about this fact about WASP-18b is significant?
The closer an object orbits any object the faster it orbits. At some point most orbiting objects will orbit faster then any rotation of their primary. The only exception that I can think of is when the primary is a neutron star whose rotation periods in usually below a second.
Where did you get these figures?
WASP-18b is approximately 3.1 million kilometres from WASP-18.
So what?
There is no "resistance" as you have defined it beacuse of your ignorance of basic physics is obvious to the world:
- 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 - Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).
Learn some physics, Bjarne.
Angular momentum is conserved. Thus WASP-18 did change its rotation speed proportionally to the change in rotation speed of WASP-18b.
WASP-18 has a mass of 1.25 solar masses.
WASP-18b has a mass of about 10.3 Jupiter masses.
WASP18 is about 1000 times more massive than WASP-18b.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
n
This really doesn’t matter, and has nothing with my point of view to do.
You are talking about the total KE, of the particles. - This is not a question.
I am talking about declaration / acceleration (resistance) per second.
What you are doing can be compared to that I suddenly talk about the deceleration / acceleration per 1/1.000.000 of a second, just to confused the stupid’s.
Even after billion years the rotating star (or planet) refuses to absorb the energy that is transmitted to it.
WHAT CAUSES THIS RESISTANCE ?:
Well you can say:
that this is because inside the rotating object there is a: Ersplitten Ladenburmer in the fourth dimension, > and that’s why.
This is a beautiful complex hyperexposed expression and we can be sure that no one will ever understand the underlying cause and effect.
Or you can say:
that at certain point the KE from the orbiting object is too weak to affect the rotating object further, (to increase its rotation speed) because the energy (that is transmitted) is too weak to overcome the rotating objects increasing resistance against motion.
Why do we have that resistance against motion?
Its simple because we know matter and space is connected.
We know that the amount of MASS is connected with a proportional effect on space.
If the KE and mass increases more space must be affected/ deformed too.
THIS causes resistance agianst motion.
This is down to Earth.
But Ahhh, - what have science to do down on Earth, - right?
So long it is possible to export so much science as possible to the strange unknown Ladenburmer dimension it’s off course much better...
n
This really doesn’t matter, and has nothing with my point of view to do.
You are talking about the total KE, of the particles. - This is not a question.
I am talking about declaration / acceleration (resistance) per second.
What you are doing can be compared to that I suddenly talk about the deceleration / acceleration per 1/1.000.000 of a second, just to confused the stupid’s.
And this is the point: why do you think that the stars don’t rotate with the same velocity than the orbiting object.
Even after billion years the rotating star (or planet) refuses to absorb the energy that is transmitted to it.
WHAT CAUSES THIS RESISTANCE ?:
Well you can say:
that this is because inside the rotating object there is a: Ersplitten Ladenburmer in the fourth dimension, > and that’s why.
This is a beautiful complex hyperexposed expression and we can be sure that no one will ever understand the underlying cause and effect.
Or you can say:
that at certain point the KE from the orbiting object is too weak to affect the rotating object further, (to increase its rotation speed) because the energy (that is transmitted) is too weak to overcome the rotating objects increasing resistance against motion.
Why do we have that resistance against motion?
Its simple because we know matter and space is connected.
We know that the amount of MASS is connected with a proportional effect on space.
If the KE and mass increases more space must be affected/ deformed too.
THIS causes resistance agianst motion.
- Space will resist to be further contracted
- Space will resist velocity
This is down to Earth.
- Do you belive this force on space is free?
But Ahhh, - what have science to do down on Earth, - right?
So long it is possible to export so much science as possible to the strange unknown Ladenburmer dimension it’s off course much better...
n
Last edited:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Would this Landenburmer dimension be anywhere near the Land Of Oz and Narnia? Are the stupids anyone who disagrees with you? With each post you look more foolish and and expose your ignorance of even the basic principles of physics.Give it up,go out out and have a drink,find a girlfriend,get laid and enjoy life.
Your back-tracking is really ridiculous! But it was expected
Because the stars have a lot more mass than the planet. It is a common phenomenon that smaller bodies acquire a rotation period identical to the orbital period. This is called tidal locking and is the case for our moon.
What nonsense is this? The star is of course affected just like the planet, but because of the great mass of the star, the effect is very small. It is not "refusing" anything.
There is no such resistance, so there is nothing that causes it.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Learn some physics, Bjarne.
Stars have most of the angular momentum of the original cloud that formed the stellar system. Their rotational speed remains basically constant.
Planet have the rest of the angular momentum and orbit at various distances from the star. This means that they have different rotational speeds not only from the star but from each other.
Ditto for planets and moons, e.g. Jupiter and its moons.
Learn some physics, Bjarne.
No energy is being is being "transmitted" to the planet. Energy is not a physical thing that can be transmitted like light.
Energy can be transfered, e.g. heat energy is transfered by contact.
Energy can be transformed, e.g. potental energy is transfered int kinetic energy.
Read about: Tidal acceleration and deceleration
No energy is being "refused". The tidal forces between Wasp-18b and Wasp-18 means that both the planet and star have changed rotational speed over the last bilion years.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
This is not the point, but rather what is causing the resistance:
This is not the point, but rather what is causing the resistance:
Only If the believe that no resistance exist is correct.
You know that mass increased due to motion
Hence you also know the effect on space increases too:
Qestion:
- Do you belive that the increasing effect on space is free?
- Now when you know that matter in motion affect/deforms space, what make you believe that it is "free of charge" for instance to pull deformed space, -for example with the speed of light.
- Do you really deny that matter is connected to space?
- Do you believe that the connection to space doesn’t matter also even though the process of motion creates more mass, and hence gradually increases the connection - to space, propotional - to the increasing KE and mass ?
- Why is science so illogical and ignorant?
Try now seriously to use 5 minutes of you life to consider the facts that it is the motion that causes gradually increasing mass.
How can you be sure that it is resistance free to deform / pull gradually more and more space, proportional to the speed increase?
Last edited:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Have you ever consulted a psychiatrist about this bovine fixation of yours?
What resistance? No resistance to static movement has ever been observed, and your own calculations for the LHC has shown that if this resistance did exist, the energy loss would be so huge that it would have been noticed.
So there is no resistance.
It is a pity that your life's dream of a Nobel Prize has just got busted.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Can Bjarne understand the physics behind orbital resonances?
First asked 3 December 2009
You posted a diagram from an Wikipedia article about orbital resonances in this post:
Bjarne,
Do you understand now that orbital resonances are a well understood summit of the gravity mountain and the rotation of the primary has nothing to do with them?
First asked 3 December 2009
You posted a diagram from an Wikipedia article about orbital resonances in this post:
The article explains the resonances and it has nothing to do with "a rotating body".
Bjarne,
Do you understand now that orbital resonances are a well understood summit of the gravity mountain and the rotation of the primary has nothing to do with them?
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
I do not have to believe it. The evidence shows that it does not exist.
- Your ignorance of the basics of physics means that you canot even define it correctly.
- "kinetic resistance" has been proven to not exist.
- "Bended space is Contracted Space"
Curved space is not contracted space
First Asked 11 November 2009 - Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass.
- Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
- Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
- Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
- Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
First asked 2 November 2009 - Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).
- Bjarne's idea is proven wrong (acceleration due to gravity is constant inside a sphere).
First asked 2 November 2009
- Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
- Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
First asked 26 November 2009 - Pending: an inability to understand orbital resonances?
- Does Bjarne know that the Lorentz factor does not have any units of measurement?
First asked 22 November 2009 - Does Bjarne think that the Lorentz factor is measured in kilograms?
First asked 23 November 2009 - Why does relativistic mass have the units of mass
First asked 23 November 2009
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
That is entirely YOUR problem.
There IS not time enough. We have only been observing it for a short time.
Phoebe. Again, not time enough. Phoebe is very small. Its effect on Mars, through tidal force, is very small. Especially as Mars has no oceans. It will take centuries before the difference is measurable.
What was Mars' rotational period 4.500.000.000 years ago?
Or 500 years ago?
It has been proved. Basic physics. You should read about it some day.
It can't. Acceleration can.
Hans
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
No, the total KE is well over 750MJ.
You calculated the energy loss per particle, according to your own thesis. I calculated the total loss, based on the number of particles, still according to your thesis. The result was about 600MJ. Now I ask you:
Will you explain how 600MJ can be overlooked, or are you retracting your calculation? You can only choose one.
Why should they?
How many stars have we observed for a billion years?
For your info: Using bold, uppercase, colored typefaces is one good way to loose credibility.
To your question: Which resistance? Bjarne, you are the one claiming that there is resistance to motion. So why are you suddenly using the alleged stability of rotational periods as an argument FOR your case? If there was resistance to constant motion, we should expect rotations to slow down.
Are you now arguing against your own case?
Hans
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
It is not free. To achieve motion, you have to apply energy. Once the energy is applied, it stays till something affects it.
Hans
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
I do not know where you get the last 150MJ - ?
Regarding the 600 MJ you have calculated total KE, - only suitable to confused people.
This is NOT relevant according to the question: if protons in an accelerator decelerate or not at the moment you cut the power supply.
My friend we are not speaking about a bomb more powerful that a atom bomb where you release all the KE in split seconds, but we talk about slowly deceleration Ok? – So just stop this manipulation.
Enough to that you can say something is seriusly wrong with out undertand of solar systems, and planets motions.
No we should not.
Because of angular momentum between the e.g; the Earth and the Moon, - rotation KE from the Earth is transferred to the orbiting objects (the Moon). And the orbiting object pulls the planets and causes the rotation. Also even though the moon is slow. – It’s just a question to understand the laws for the mutual KE transfer.
Only according to believes...
Øøhh you forgot the question regarding increasing mass.
I mean this statement is almost the same as claiming: that there where the fat cow once stood, space bends, also even the cow long ago had walk away from that place, - the space will still bend there where the cow once was, - because it is totally free to bend/deform space.
And so it goes: > Space will not resist being bended and that’s why space is totally entangled / deformed everywhere where once especially cows (and elephants) once was walking around.
Stupid, silly, illogical statement ??
No ! - This must be a consequence if it is a fact that space doesn’t resist to be bended.
If its not a facts that space resists to be bended. ...
Can anyone guess the right answer: - to what will happen to: space bended because of motion (increasing mass) ?
I mean if space resist to be bended it will resists agains matter that causes space to bend.
BUT (in this case) where the cause of gravity (increasing mass) is motion - what could space then resist - still resisting matter or resiting motion ???
------
Last edited:
No, the point is that the extra 600MJ is not being added, and the protons still run for hours and the two beams meet each other at the exact right positions.
We are not talking about a slow deceleration, but about a non-existent deceleration. Nobody are spending the energy that you have calculated, and yet the LHC works.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Someone should tell them at the LHC that Bjarne has proved that it doesn't work,that should come as a surprise to them.Any news on the Nobel Prize Bjarney boy?