THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

[Bjarne]

Resistance to movement as m/s ?

This is with reference to the Lorenz transformation and hence to the asumption that this works both way, both when accelerating and decelerating.
For those that did not follow the whole discussion could not know that.
BUT this was mentioned at the Danish forum where the guys involved should know that, and hence that we are talking about what happens in the first second, when it comes to especially high speed…

 

[Dancing David]

More special pleading, have a banana Bjarne. Your theory is incohernet, that is your fault, but you sure dance when its flaws are handed to you on a silver platter.

 

[Toke]

Why does your theory apply different on the first second than the 27'th?
And where do you start counting?

 

[Reality Check]

4.) Resistance 7070 m/s

What is resistance?

 

[Bjarne]

More special pleading, have a banana Bjarne. Your theory is incohernet, that is your fault, but you sure dance when its flaws are handed to you on a silver platter.

The prevailing theory is incoherent too.
I get a bad feeling in my stomach when I hear, that Einstein was triumphing over Newton because suddenly gravity was no longer: “a force” - because that space bends….

I can’t see that space “bends” and even not imaging, also not even though the math is showing so.
The math does not show e.g: what is mass attraction, what is bended space really and a lot more.
The decisions just to through away Newton’s point of view, that” “a force is involved” was to naïve.
The problem was in the past that we could not see or understand the nature of : “that force”, but we can also not see or understand: what is “bended” space really.
The force could very well be the strong force that is connected with space.
We know that a matter space connection is a fact.
Hence a possible connection through space and to the strong force is also a possibility.
“Don’t through out the dirty water before you have some clear”
“Bended space” is not clean water, - but muddy, so muddy you even can not imaging what it is.
Science is only what the majority believes. Disbelievers or different thinkers are mad.

Why does your theory apply different on the first second than the 27'th?
And where do you start counting?

The theory is based on that the Lorenz transformation in reality reflect resistance due to motion. So soon the energy is cut off a (relative slowly) deceleration will begin.
This will not be a stable deceleration but opposite to the acceleration and hence gradually slower.

I don’t know what you mean with the 27'th?

I think it was mentioned that the orbit of a accelerator was 27 km.

If the total KE (of the number of particles mention above) is 600MJ - I think the KE to keep these in one orbit must be 4 times so much, because so fare I can understand it takes twice the particles velocity KE to turn the direction of these opposite (still with same speed), this happens twise per orbit = 2400MJ

In a 27km orbit the particles can orbit about 11000 times per second.

This mean the KE that is required to keep the particles in motion in one second is about: 11000 * 2400MJ = 26.400.000MJ per second.

But this energy is not absorbed of the particles but only required because the particles not move in a straight direction.

It could be very interesting to compare that energy with the energy the accelerator used per second; hence we (easy) can calculated the total lost of energy (per second).

Where do you think the energy 26.400.000MJ disappears, - (it’s not absorbed by the particles) ?

 

[Toke]

Bjarne, take a good look at this page.

26.400.000MJ pr second is a lot.
Denmark is currently using 4024MJ pr second.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, take a good look at this page.

26.400.000MJ pr second is a lot.
Denmark is currently using 4024MJ pr second.

Right...
If the KE of the moving particles is 600MJ (in one direction) I would expect at least the same amount of energy required to change that direction opposite
I wonder how the particles can change motion direction 2 times per orbit that means * 11000 times per second..... with much less energy consumption than mentioned ??

How is it possible to understand and calculate the required KE?

 

[Reality Check]

The prevailing theory is incoherent too.
I get a bad feeling in my stomach when I hear, that Einstein was triumphing over Newton because suddenly gravity was no longer: “a force” - because that space bends….

The prevailing theory is very coherent.
The fact that you cannot understand the theory is your problem.

I get a great feeling in my stomach when I hear that Einstein has triumphed over Newton because his theory matches the real world better than Newton's theory.

This mean the KE that is required to keep the particles in motion in one second is about: 11000 * 2400MJ = 26.400.000MJ per second.

KE is not required to keep the particles in motion.
Kinetic energy is energy due to the speed of the particles. Classically this is KE = 1/2 mv^2 where m is the mass of the particle and v is the speed of the particle.
In special relativity the kinetic energy of a body that starts from rest is KE= (γ − 1)mc2.

There is no energy required to keep the particles in an circular particle accelerator in motion (e.g. the LHC when storing particles for timescales of hours ) other than that needed to replaces losses due the the known laws of physics. There are energy losses in the operation of particle accelerators, especially circular ones like the LHC. The known laws of physics tell us what these energy losses are. The accelerator is designed to work with these known energy losses. They are compensated for in the RF system.

Scientists know the exact energy losses. The energy that the RF system has to put into a stored beam is the exact energy loss due to the motion of the particles in the beam.

Then you run the accelerator and it works.

Accelerators do not have double their budgeted electricity cost
To accelerate the particles you use electricity.
Bjarne's impossible "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.

Accelerated particles do not hit the walls of the accelerator
This is one of the very good points that Cuddles makes http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5345407&postcount=473.

• RF systems (e.g. RF cavity resonators) are used to accelerate particles and to keep them in the ring.

If there was an extra impossible "kinetic resistance" then the acceleratparticles would always hit the walls of the accelerator because the RF systems do not know about Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance".
Stored particles do not hit the walls of the accelerator

The next point is that the beams are circulated without acceleration for hours at a time. This is the accelerator acting as a storage ring. Making the beam travel in a circle is fairly basic physics. All you need are magnets and Maxwell's equations. The magnets are tuned to keep particles at a specific energy traveling in a circle.

• Known losses (e.g. synchrotron radiation) are compensated for by RF systems.
• Unknown losses such are Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" are not compensated for.

If the particles are not at that energy they escape the storage ring. They hit the walls. In the case of high energy beams as in the LHC they then proceed to destroy the system.

Accelerated particles have the energy that is predicted
Yet another (less compelling) reason is that scientists are really interested in the collisions and their products. They are so interested that they measure the energy of all of the products in calorimeters.
There is a little law of physics that you should know about: energy is conserved.
Thus the energy of the products is equal to the energy of the particles that collided.
No one has claimed a Nobel Prize by noticing that energy is not conserved in the collisions, i.e. the products have half the predicted energy of the particle beams.

 

[Bjarne]

KE is not required to keep the particles in motion.

Yes, - the particles is not absorbing KE because of the orbit motion.
BUT the accelerator use energy to force the particle into a circular motion.
Otherwise the particles would continue straight ahead.
How much energy , exactly must be used to keep particles in a orbit.

There must exist a simple equation to calculate that too.

There is no energy required to keep the particles in an circular particle accelerator in motion (e.g. the LHC when storing particles for timescales of hours ) other than that needed to replaces losses due the the known laws of physics. There are energy losses in the operation of particle accelerators, especially circular ones like the LHC

Are you saying it doesn’t matter if the particles are in orbit or not
The accelerator doesn’t care, and used the same amount of energy doesn't mattere whether there is particle s in orbit or not?

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, - the particles is not absorbing KE because of the orbit motion.

The particles are not absorbing KE at all.
KE = kinetic energy.

BUT the accelerator use energy to force the particle into a circular motion.
Otherwise the particles would continue straight ahead.
How much energy , exactly must be used to keep particles in a orbit.

There must exist a simple equation to calculate that too.

Accelerator physics (and no it is not simple)
Particle accelerator.
Storage ring.

Are you saying it doesn’t matter if the particles are in orbit or not
The accelerator doesn’t care, and used the same amount of energy doesn't mattere whether there is particle s in orbit or not?

What I am saying is the magnetic fields of the magnets means that the particles move in an orbit. If there were no losses then in a storage ring no energy is needed. There are losses due to the known laws of physics and they are compensated for.

Any unknown laws of physics result in accelerators not working.

Accelerators do not have double their budgeted electricity cost
To accelerate the particles you use electricity.
Bjarne's impossible "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.

Accelerated particles do not hit the walls of the accelerator

This is one of the very good points that Cuddles makes http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5345407&postcount=473.

• RF systems (e.g. RF cavity resonators) are used to accelerate particles and to keep them in the ring.

If there was an extra impossible "kinetic resistance" then the acceleratparticles would always hit the walls of the accelerator because the RF systems do not know about Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance".

Stored particles do not hit the walls of the accelerator

The next point is that the beams are circulated without acceleration for hours at a time. This is the accelerator acting as a storage ring. Making the beam travel in a circle is fairly basic physics. All you need are magnets and Maxwell's equations. The magnets are tuned to keep particles at a specific energy traveling in a circle.

• Known losses (e.g. synchrotron radiation) are compensated for by RF systems.
• Unknown losses such are Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" are not compensated for.

If the particles are not at that energy they escape the storage ring. They hit the walls. In the case of high energy beams as in the LHC they then proceed to destroy the system.

Accelerated particles have the energy that is predicted
Yet another (less compelling) reason is that scientists are really interested in the collisions and their products. They are so interested that they measure the energy of all of the products in calorimeters.
There is a little law of physics that you should know about: energy is conserved.
Thus the energy of the products is equal to the energy of the particles that collided.
No one has claimed a Nobel Prize by noticing that energy is not conserved in the collisions, i.e. the products have half the predicted energy of the particle beams.

 

[Reality Check]

How much energy , exactly must be used to keep particles in a orbit.

We do not need to know how "much energy , exactly".
Your stupid equation for "kinetic resistance" is complete nonsense.
Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
Answer so far - a resounding NO !

We could act as ignorant of physics as you and say "kinetic resistance" = (y-1)*1 m/s^2. This would be truly stupid. Not only are we pulling an equation (y-1) out out of someone's nether regions but we are multiplying it be an arbitrary constant. Why 1 m/s^2? Why not 300,000,000 m/s^2?

But...

"kinetic resistance" thus slows particles down if not compensated for. It is not because the scientists and engineers are not ignorant enough to think that a unit-less physical quantity like (y-1) can be arbitrarily assigned units. The consequences would be:

• Accelerators have double their budgeted electricity cost.
• Accelerated particles hit the walls of the accelerator.
• Stored particles hit the walls of the accelerator.
• Accelerated particles do not have the energy that is predicted.

Since this does not happen only an idiot would thnk that "kinetic resistance" exists.

 

[Bjarne]

------

If there were no losses then in a storage ring no energy is needed.

Wrong you’ll all the time have electric resistance / heat lost.

1.) Do you know how much, if the conditions is the same as below / point 2 ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning the example above:

• 2,808 bunches
• 1,15 X 10^11 protons per bunch
• Speed 99.9999991% of c = 2.99999997E8

2.) How much is the total energy consumption used by the accelerator (J)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accelerator physics (and no it is not simple)

OK, then let’s keep it simple
3.) How much energy would it require (per second or per orbit) to keep the moon in orbit, if gravity did not exist ?
- Speed 1000 m/s
- KE 3.3E29 J
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you can not answer these questions above, - may I ask :

4.) Does Realety Check know basic physics ?

------

 

[TjW]

The prevailing theory is incoherent too.
I get a bad feeling in my stomach when I hear, that Einstein was triumphing over Newton because suddenly gravity was no longer: “a force” - because that space bends….

Einstein didn't "triumph" over Newton. He refined the theory somewhat. Einstein's equations predict the same observable behavior of particles as Newton as long as the particles are moving at a slow speed relative to the observer.

Most of the criticism of your bizarre ideas here has been because they do NOT predict the same results as Newton, even at the low speeds where we know from many, many, many successful engineering projects that Newton's results are accurate.

 

[Bjarne]

Most of the criticism of your bizarre ideas here has been because they do NOT predict the same results as Newton, even at the low speeds where we know from many, many, many successful engineering projects that Newton's results are accurate.

I am not denying that, and hence NOT that Einstein’s GR theory was a huge step forward, but only that we still do not know if gravity is a force or not.

Normally behind a force there is energy.
Think about the energy that every second keep the moon in it’s orbit around the Earth, (still I am waiting for someone to approve my attempt to calculated this) .

Never the less, it’s a huge force, and it’s a huge energy if rocket engines should keep the moon in place in its orbit, if we pretend gravity would disappear.

Think about if we could used such “gravity orbit energy” ?
This would be a perpetual motion machine. ( I do not belive we can, but only that the energy is there)..
In principal gravity is such machine.
The only problem is we believe that the force (“energy”) “pops op” in a 4 dimension > “bended space” > completely impossible to imaging – what really is.

Energy can not disappear, but it can “pop up” – from no where or more correctly spoken: from the bended space dimension. – Confused, ? - You should be.

Even at Einstein’s deathbed he tried mathematical to unify the 4 forces, and hence gravity and the strong force.
What would happen the day this is possible?
Will the understanding of gravity also that day only be: “bended space”? - Or also unified with a huge force?

So better ask twice: - can gravity be a force?
Strange heat release is discovered more and more “strange places” – why?

I understand the problem: How should a big empty space could produce energy, this sound impossible?
But we can not just throw that question to rubbish so long we do not know how matter (elementary particles and hence indirectly: the strong force) is connected to space.

The force is to my opinion not; out there is the blue, - but rather space (“out in the blue”) is connected to matter, we know that, - and hence easy to imaging also connected to the strong force that is part of matter.

 

[Reality Check]

Does Bjarne know basic physics

------


Wrong you’ll all the time have electric resistance / heat lost.

Learn to read

If there were no losses then in a storage ring no energy is needed

4.) Does Realety Check know basic physics ?[/quote]
Reality Check knows basic physics. I am not so ignorant that I ignore simple dimensional analysis and come up with a really wrong equation fro an acceleration.

This is where you make your worst mistake.
The units of the an equation depends on the units of the variables in the equation (dimensional analysis has been around for 200 years).
An equation does not magically produce numbers with certain units just because you want it to.
An equation produces physical quantities with the units that it produces from its inputs. It does not produce the units of measurment that you want.

First asked 23 October 2009:
Here is an equation: x = v/c
Speed goes into v. Speed is measured in m/s.
c is the speed of light. c is measured in m/s.

Bjarne: What are the units of x?

Here is an equation: y = v*c
Bjarne: What are the units of y?

Here is an equation: z = c*c
Bjarne: What are the units of z?

In the first example a high school student will see that the units cancel out and you get a number without units.
That high school student would look at (1-y) and see that there are no units because it divides v by c and the rest is numbers.
That high school student would look at your values and see that there are units.
They would immediately know that there is something missing from your equation. Only an primary school student would think that an equation that has no units of measurement can produce numbers that have units of measurement.

Bjarne: Has your education gone beyond primary or high school?

 

[TjW]

I am not denying that, and hence NOT that Einstein’s GR theory was a huge step forward, but only that we still do not know if gravity is a force or not.

Normally behind a force there is energy.

This isn't true under either Newtonian or Einsteinian physics.
A C-clamp, once it's tightened, will exert force on whatever it happens to be clamping. It does not require energy to continue to do this.

 

[Reality Check]

------
2.) How much is the total energy consumption used by the accelerator (J)

Power consumption of the LHC: "between 220 and 300 megawatts of electricity".


3.) How much energy would it require (per second or per orbit) to keep the moon in orbit, if gravity did not exist ?
- Speed 1000 m/s
- KE 3.3E29 J
[/quote]
What kind of stupid question is this?

 

[The Man]

I am not denying that, and hence NOT that Einstein’s GR theory was a huge step forward, but only that we still do not know if gravity is a force or not.

Normally behind a force there is energy.

No technically energy is a force applied though some distance. Forces in equilibrium are still forces, but because they are balanced and opposing no net force is applied through any distance.

Think about the energy that every second keep the moon in it’s orbit around the Earth, (still I am waiting for someone to approve my attempt to calculated this) .

A common misconception, technically an orbit is a bound state and energy must be added to separate the orbiting bodies.

Never the less, it’s a huge force, and it’s a huge energy if rocket engines should keep the moon in place in its orbit, if we pretend gravity would disappear.

The Coriolis force can be a “huge force” on a rapidly rotating planet, yet it is still a fictitious or inertial force.

Think about if we could used such “gravity orbit energy” ?

We do use gravitational energy in hydroelectric plants.

This would be a perpetual motion machine. ( I do not belive we can, but only that the energy is there) ..
In principal gravity is such machine.
The only problem is we believe that the force (“energy”) “pops op” in a 4 dimension > “bended space” > completely impossible to imaging – what really is.

No more then a body traveling in a straight line with out any forces acting on it is a “perpetual motion machine”.

Energy can not disappear, but it can “pop up” – from no where or more correctly spoken: from the bended space dimension.

Energy can only be transformed from one form into another.

– Confused, ? - You should be.

– We aren’t, but you certainly appear to be.

Even at Einstein’s deathbed he tried mathematical to unify the 4 forces, and hence gravity and the strong force.

Yes those would be two of those four forces.

What would happen the day this is possible?
Will the understanding of gravity also that day only be: “bended space”? - Or also unified with a huge force?

We would undoubtedly have a better understanding of those four forces, what that might entail would only be speculative until we have such a better understanding of those four forces.

So better ask twice: - can gravity be a force?

Ask twice if you want but you will get the same answer, yes it can be a force in some reference frames.

Strange heat release is discovered more and more “strange places” – why?

Don’t know, I guess it depends on what you would characterize as a “Strange heat release” and ““strange places””.

I understand the problem: How should a big empty space could produce energy, this sound impossible?
But we can not just throw that question to rubbish so long we do not know how matter (elementary particles and hence indirectly: the strong force) is connected to space.

The force is to my opinion not; out there is the blue, - but rather space (“out in the blue”) is connected to matter, we know that, - and hence easy to imaging also connected to the strong force that is part of matter.

Again until we gain that better understanding of those four forces exactly what that better understanding might entail is mostly speculative.

 

[Bjarne]

----
INTRODUCTION

Let's only talk about:

• The 27 km ring - (I don’t know whether this is the storage ring)?)
• 2,808 bunches
• 1,15 X 10^11 protons per bunch
• Speed 99.9999991% of c = 2.99999997E8

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.) RESISTANCE DUE TO HEAT IN THE CABLES & MAGNETS ETC...
Reality Check
If there were no losses then in a storage ring no energy is needed.
I am not talking about losses of KE in the storage ring,
BUT I am talking about that even though the particles have reached top speed - you must used electricity, to bend the particle to follow a circular motion, - and hence you will also have electric resistance > heat lose . ( try to shows as J per second.)
Q1) How big are the losses, - to heat (etc), > in the 27 km ring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.) TOTAL ENERGY REQIREMENT
How much energy per second is required for the BRUTTO for the accelerator to get the particles mention above to orbit the 27 km accelerator? You can not just answer: “between 220 and 300 megawatts of electricity”. According to you own words it’s a very exact amount of electricity that powers the accelerator.
Q2) So what do you mean 220 or 300 MW?
Q3) I guess you mean per second?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.) BASIC PHYSICS – NETTO ENERGY TO KEEP AN OBJECT IN ORBIT
Q4) How much energy is required NETTO to keep the particles mentioned above in orbit. - If no energy was used, the particels would hit the wall.......
Q5) Where does that energy ends? - e.g: as a magnetic feilds that continues to the end of the world ?

Below is a more simple Question, but related to the one above: It’s NOT a stupid question. I will later let you know the purpose with that.
Q6) How much energy would it require (per second or per orbit) to keep the moon in orbit, if gravity did not exist?
- Speed 1000 m/s
- KE 3.3E29 J
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q7.) Does Reality Check really know the basic of Accelerator physics, and then easy able to answer these 4 (to my opinion) easy question relative precisely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q8.) Can someone else answer, I begin to doubt Realety check really can...
----

 

[The Man]

[Below is a more simple Question, but related to the one above: It’s NOT a stupid question. I will later let you know the purpose with that.
Q5) How much energy would it require (per second or per orbit) to keep the moon in orbit, if gravity did not exist?
- Speed 1000 m/s
- KE 3.3E29 J

We already “know the purpose with that”, so you can support you misconception that an orbit requires energy input. To keep the moon in orbit about the earth without gravity we would not require energy, but simply some structural attachment (like a rope or cable) that could withstand the forces involved. In a circular orbit no energy is gained or lost (ideally) as the bodies get no closer together and no further apart. In an elliptical orbit the gravitational potential energy at some point in the orbit can be greater than or less than the gravitational potential energy at some other point in the orbit (as the bodies get closer and further from each other). However the net change is still generally 0 for an entire orbit. This too can be accomplished with an elastic structural element (like a bungee cord or spring) that can withstand the applied forces. Again no input of energy is required unless you a separating the bodies.