THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

[Cuddles]

I do not know where you get the last 150MJ - ?
Regarding the 600 MJ you have calculated total KE, - only suitable to confused people.

Bjarne, this really is very simple. You claimed that the amount of energy required to overcome your "kinetic resistance" was so small that it would not be noticed in particle accelerators. You have now been shown, via your own calculations, that in an accelerator like the LHC it would actually require megawatts of power to overcome, and would in fact be one of the most significant drains on power.

So which is it? Will you stand by your previous claim that it is insignificant and say that your current claim must be wrong? Or will you go with the new claim and agree that this should be easily visible in any particle accelerator?

if protons in an accelerator decelerate or not at the moment you cut the power supply.

It depends what you mean by "moment". The RF cavities are placed together in one part of the ring. Obviously any particles not currently in the cavities will not notice the power has been turned off until they have time to travel around to them. So if you mean to ask if they decelerate the very instant you hit the switch, then no. If, however, you mean to ask the more sensible question of whether they decelerate significantly within a turn or two then the answer is yes.

The thing is, that question doesn't actually have anything to do with your nonsense. Whether your kinetic resistance exists or not, particles in an accelerator will always decelerate without being provided with additional power because they lose energy through various processes. You kinetic resistance would simply be an addition to that which would make them decelerate more rapidly and, more importantly, require a lot of extra energy be constantly provided to stop them decelerating.

Edit: I should note for the information of the more sane people here that we would never actually refer to particles decelerating in an accelerator. At the energies involved, all particles are travelling so close to the speed of light that it's really impossible to tell any difference, so you never talk about the velocity at all. All that matters is the energy, and losing energy is simply referred to as, amazingly enough, losing energy.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I do not know where you get the last 150MJ - ?
Regarding the 600 MJ you have calculated total KE, - only suitable to confused people.

The ~750 comes from the article I have told you to read.

The 600MJ comes from YOUR figure. How long does it take for you to realize it? I asked you to calculate the energy lost to your hypothetical resistance to movement by one protron taking one round in the Hadron Collider.

You replied:

KE = 0,000001064J

Modstand 7070 m/s dersom den altså ikke får denne millionte del J.

Bjarne says that if each protron is not compensated 0,000001064J, it will loose 7070 m/s, (presumably per round, since m/s is a speed, not a deceleration).

So I found the total number of protrons, and multiplied with your value for each protron to find the energy that the Hadron Collider needed to add to keep the particle beam in place and on time. And that comes to 687,173,760J

So according to your own info, my calculation is correct. Do you now want to change your basic statment about the energy loss of a single protron in the Hadron Collider?

This is NOT relevant according to the question: if protons in an accelerator decelerate or not at the moment you cut the power supply.

It is because it shows the amount of energy the power supply would have to yield to keep them from decelerating. All still according to your own calculation. Do you now want to change your calculation?

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.

The energy still has to be supplied.

– It’s just a question to understand the laws for the mutual KE transfer.

But you don't.


Only according to believes...

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 ??

Totally.

No ! - This must be a consequence if it is a fact that space doesn’t resist to be bended.

Of course it isn't. Quite the contrary! If spase resists bending, why should the bending stop when the object moves? If you walk in mud, you leave footprints, but you don't leave footprints in space.

Hans

 

[Toke]

Have there been any explanation for where all the energy lost to kinetic resistance goes?
(Last I checked energy cannot just disappear)

 

[MRC_Hans]

Have there been any explanation for where all the energy lost to kinetic resistance goes?
(Last I checked energy cannot just disappear)

Thermodynamics is entirely over Bjarne's head.

We have tried to touch on that, because If you try to figure in thermodynamics, Bjarnes hypothesis falls even more apart, but he simply ignores such questions.

Perhaps we should start a game of MTC here, too (there is one in Kumar's thread)?

Hans

 

[dafydd]

Why not,talking to Bjarne is a waste of bandwidth.Piccadilly.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Why not,talking to Bjarne is a waste of bandwidth.Piccadilly.

Ahh, the Grandjean extension rule set!

Very bold, even under Granjean, to OPEN with a whole line.

OK,

Oxford Circus

And, of course, DLR is then wild for the remainder of the game (you know this, but according to appendix 12a, I must announce it).

Hans

 

[dafydd]

Mmmm...... parallel moves are ruled out.......Goodge Street.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Deleted, moderator's request.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

We are not talking about a slow deceleration, but about a non-existent deceleration.

Right, - you and other fellows, - not me.

Bjarne, this really is very simple. You claimed that the amount of energy required to overcome your "kinetic resistance" was so small that it would not be noticed in particle accelerators..

Right.

You have now been shown, via your own calculations, that in an accelerator like the LHC it would actually require megawatts of power to overcome.

No this I haven’t shown, but only the total KE per proton moving at almost c.

....and would in fact be one of the most significant drains on power.

This I have also not shown.
Tell me first:
How many Joules does it require to get X number (you can decide) of particles for the accllerator to circulate with the mention speed? (99.9999991% af c = 2.99999997E8) included all the lost ?

So which is it? Will you stand by your previous claim that it is insignificant……

I am not speaking about a suddenly lost of the total KE of the particles.
Everything is relative, the expression “insignificant” too.
I am talking of a insignificant lose of: “deceleration-KE” based on the Lorenz Transformation equation. – I do know other do not agree to that there is a such deceleration. BUT this is what I am talking about.

Whether your kinetic resistance exists or not, particles in an accelerator will always decelerate without being provided with additional power because they lose energy through various processes.

You kinetic resistance would simply be an addition to that which would make them decelerate more rapidly and, more importantly, require a lot of extra energy be constantly provided to stop them decelerating..

Right but the deceleration I talking about is suspected to be relative weak.

At the energies involved, all particles are travelling so close to the speed of light that it's really impossible to tell any difference, so you never talk about the velocity at all.

I have understood the difference, but here we have only one word for velocity/speed.

The ~750 comes from the article I have told you to read.
The 600MJ comes from YOUR figure
The 600 MJ is the total KE due to the total acceleration in time.

This is not what we primary discuss, but rather of secondary importance.
Still I have (so fare I see) not get an answer to what: - is the last 150 MJ is about, - still waiting

So according to your own info, my calculation is correct. ?

The single protons KE will be lost over time, that’s what is important, because we speak about what would happen per second when all power was cut of. – A such experiment is so fare I understand of the discussion here: not possible, and therefore we have several factors, - so fare I see it, - difficult to distinguish; what is what.

Bjarne
It’s just a question to understand the laws for the mutual KE transfer.
Hans
But you don't.

I try at least, and continue to do so.
I will soon come back with a new (I mean 300 years old) very tricky “mystery” and see if you fellows can explain what happens.

Of course it isn't. Quite the contrary! If space resists bending, why should the bending stop when the object moves?

Bended space follows the moving object.
This is a well known and “no mystery”
BUT when bended space is causes by motion, (and if you admit that space resists to be bended), - the resistance of course must be connected (pointed) to the object and the motion that caused that gravity..

How sure can you be: - that space will not draw back its belonging, (bended space) so soon the energy caused space to bend (motion), - suddenly stops.
Please seriously consider that question......

Have there been any explanation for where all the energy lost to kinetic resistance goes?
(Last I checked energy cannot just disappear)

Everywhere where gravity does a “work” – (bended space), - you have heat release.
Inside galaxy clusters, inside the centre of the Milky Way, inside the Earth, inside the hot moon of Jupiter. Jupiter and so fare I remember Saturn also emits more heat as understood. Why ? – Because gravity and the strong force is united. When gravity works harder; - it is because it is harder to contracts space. Then the push/pull (elementary spin up down) is more difficult. – The heat is caused by atomic activity.

Where that energy does goes.

Every motion disturbs space.
If you drive your car you disturbs space here today (VERY WEAK), - and after 75.000 years in the periphery of the galaxy, and after 2 million years it have reached Andromeda. Etc.
The energy used to disturb space will continue through space and time.
Every motion affects the hole Universe. I think no one really series can deny this.
The only question is: whether it is energy free to deform / bend space or not.
In my mind there is no doubt, it’s not free.
Gravity is a force. – united with the strong force. ……..
Newton was right.
And Einstein too, >> gravity and the strong force is united, - no doubt

 

[Cuddles]

No this I haven’t shown, but only the total KE per proton moving at almost c.

No, you haven't. It's really rather sad that you apparently don't even understand your own words. You gave MRC_Hans the amount of energy lost by every particle every turn due to your claimed kinetic resistance. He has simply multiplied that by the number of particles involved to get the total. You cannot simply pretend that this hasn't happened. Your own words and calculations clearly state that a massive amount of energy should be lost every turn and would need to be compensated for.

In fact, I think matters are actually even worse than was previously stated. If I am correct, it appears that you may have been talking about the energy loss per turn not per second, which means that instead of being close to doubling the power requirements, it would actually increase it by at least a couple of orders of magnitude.

I have understood the difference, but here we have only one word for velocity/speed.

Which demonstrates that, amazingly, you didn't understand a word I typed. The whole point was that we do not talk about velocity, speed, or any similar concept when discussing highly relativistic particles. They're all travelling so close to the speed of light that it is impossible to tell the difference. What we talk about is the energy, or momentum depending on context, of the particles.

The single protons KE will be lost over time, that’s what is important, because we speak about what would happen per second when all power was cut of

I've already told you what will happen. It takes less than a millisecond for all the particles to lose all their energy.

A such experiment is so fare I understand of the discussion here: not possible, and therefore we have several factors, - so fare I see it, - difficult to distinguish; what is what.

But the problem here is that you don't understand. Anything. Worse, most of the time when you don't understand something you simply pretend it never happened. Such as here with your claims about experiments being difficult to do, despite it being repeatedly pointed out to you that such "experiments" actually happen every single time a particle accelerator is operated.

I try at least, and continue to do so.

No, you don't. If you were trying you'd stop posting crap on the internet and try reading some books on basic physics, maybe take some classes. What you're doing is desperately trying to force your lack of understanding on others in the strange hope that if you repeat it enough times everyone will suddenly agree with you.

I will soon come back with a new (I mean 300 years old) very tricky “mystery” and see if you fellows can explain what happens.

Please don't. Without even knowing what you're thinking of, I can guarantee that it's not a mystery, but that you will simply refuse to accept any answers you are given.

 

[steenkh]

No this I haven’t shown, but only the total KE per proton moving at almost c.

You back-pedalling fast now! You were asked to calculate the resistance per proton, and now you are telling us that you delivered the wrong answer?

This I have also not shown.

So you made a colossal miscalculation?

Tell me first:
How many Joules does it require to get X number (you can decide) of particles for the accllerator to circulate with the mention speed? (99.9999991% af c = 2.99999997E8) included all the lost ?

Why is it important to know how much is needed to speed up the particles? We were talking about particles that go round for hours without any new energy added (except the energy needed to make them follow the ring). (And what does "included all the lost" mean? Resistance to motion does not exist, so nothing is lost).

I am not speaking about a suddenly lost of the total KE of the particles.

Neither do we. We are talking about what is needed to make the particles keep the exact speed they have, because otherwise they will not collide at the exact spot where they are intended to collide.

 

[TjW]

Have there been any explanation for where all the energy lost to kinetic resistance goes?
(Last I checked energy cannot just disappear)

Apparently, hand-waving is a tremendous energy sink (and source, in over-unity threads).

 

[Toke]

Ok, so the 600MJ is pr turn not pr second, so instead of one extra power plant to run the thing (600MW) it takes lots, as in turns/s*600MW. And nobody have noticed that.

And if you turn off the thing the particles will continue in a strait line, hit the wall and release 700MJ. Diesel is 38,6MJ/L ~ 18L of diesel.
That is a bad thing and will make a big hole.

ETA: TNT holds 4,6 MJ/Kg ~ 150kg

 

[steenkh]

And if you turn off the thing the particles will continue in a strait line, hit the wall and release 700MJ.

Well, Bjarne is clearly not talking about turning off all the power, but only the power necessary to prevent the protons from being braked by his imaginary resistance to motion. This means that the protons will not go into the wall, but continue around the ring until they stop completely.

Of course, in this way it will be impossible to get the two proton beams to meet at the exact moment and at the exact place where they are supposed to collide.

 

[ArcturusA]

Everywhere where gravity does a “work” – (bended space), - you have heat release.
Inside galaxy clusters, inside the centre of the Milky Way, inside the Earth, inside the hot moon of Jupiter. Jupiter and so fare I remember Saturn also emits more heat as understood. Why ? – Because gravity and the strong force is united. When gravity works harder; - it is because it is harder to contracts space. Then the push/pull (elementary spin up down) is more difficult. – The heat is caused by atomic activity.

I was hoping you'd say that!

Tell me - if the kinetic energy is changed to heat, what happens to a single proton traveling through space (or a particle accelerator)?

Single particles don't have heat. It's utterly meaningless at worst, and at best is equivalent to kinetic energy.

The only way for a particle to lose energy like that is to release another particle, usually a photon. This means you kinetic resistance theory makes a testable prediction: emission of a very specific frequency photon, that should be easily detectable.

 

[Toke]

I am not sure how a particle accelerator control the beam, but have no problem believing that there are some resistance to overcome, magnetic whirl currents or some such.

I seems quite difficult to convince Bjarne that since his theory have giganormus effect on accelerators and it have not been noticed, there is most likely something wrong with his theory.

New discoveries from accelerators do after all, have physicist lining up to write about them.

 

[Bjarne]

I will come back to questions later

In the meantime consider this:

We can see here that when gravity radius of a orbiting satellites change from factor 4 to 1, then ADG increases 16 times. But the velocity only 2 times.

This mean that ADG is 8 times so strong compared to the satellites orbit velocity in orbit with radius 4..

Question 1.
WHY

When the satellites orbit speed increases from factor 1 to 2, its KE increased from factor 1 to 4.
This can explain that ADG must be factor +8 when the radius change from factor 4 to factor 1.
BUT ADG is in fact 2 times so strong > factor +16
Why is ADG now double so strong, as necessary, - in this case?
The question is not correct, it must rather be > Why does the is the speed increase only factor 2, when ADG is 16 times so stromg ?

Question 2
Gravity continues to "bend" the course of the satellites into a circular motion.
Normally this will require Force and Energy

It’s many times repeated everywhere: that energy can not disappear.

BUT it must require energy to bend the course of an orbiting object.
It seems to appear from nowhere?
How can energy emerge, from nowhere ?

We can off course accused “bended space” for that, without to know what that really is.
Think about that energy used in the Universe every single second to bend orbiting objects.

Could this not be a problem for the prevailing understanding?
Can we say this is certainly understood.?

I mean without knowing much about what bended space is, the “problem” has been exported to the fourth dimension.
Space-time has become a scientific rubbish dump already filled up.
And hence recently 21 new dimension have been invented..
Really smart how this continues on the same track.

My opinion is: let’s try to solve the problem down to Earth, - if this is possible.

 

[Toke]

Why should it require energy to get a object to orbit?

If you play pole tennis the ball will rotate all the way up or down the pole without loosing energy that cannot be explained by friction.
It takes force, not energy.
(my chair is exerting an upward force on me to keep me in position, but there is no energy involved)

Bended space is a excellent model to explain why satellites move in a strait line around planets.

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.science27.com/forum/g2.jpg

We can see here that when gravity radius of a orbiting satellites change from factor 4 to 1, then ADG increases 16 times. But the velocity only 2 times.

This mean that ADG is 8 times so strong compared to the satellites orbit velocity in orbit with radius 4..

Question 1.
WHY

Answer 1: Your ignorance of physics.

F = ma = MmG/r^2. Thus a = MG/r^2. Thus ADG varies as the inverse radius squared.

http://www.science27.com/forum/g1.jpg
When the satellites orbit speed increases from factor 1 to 2, its KE increased from factor 1 to 4.
This can explain that gravity must be factor +8 when the radius change from factor 4 to factor 1.
BUT gravity is in fact 2 times so strong > factor +16
Why is gravity now double so strong, as necessary, - in this case?

Answer: Your ignorance of physics - see above.

Question 2
Gravity continues to "bend" the course of the satellites into a circular motion.
Normally this will require Force and Energy

It’s many times repeated everywhere: that energy can not disappear.

BUT it must require energy to bend the course of an orbiting object.
It seems to appear from nowhere?
How can energy emerge, from nowhere ?
...snip...

Answer 2: Your ignorance of physics.

There is a Force. There is Energy. No Energy is required to bend the paths of objects into orbits. A force is required.

No Energy disappears or emerge, from nowhere. KE is converted into gravitational potential energy and vice versa.

 

[Reality Check]

Here is the growing list of the flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas

1. "Bended space is Contracted Space"
   Curved space is not contracted space
   First Asked 11 November 2009
2. 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
3. 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
4. Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
   First asked 26 November 2009
5. Can Bjarne understand the physics behind orbital resonances?
   First asked 3 December
   So far the answer is no !
   

And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):

• 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