THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

[Bjarne]

How can you show that all is wrong when you do not have the figures? We already know you do not understand the physics that you criticize, so why should any "calculations" on your part make an impression on us?

Answer the question

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5400102&postcount=614

and I shall prove it.

 

[Dancing David]

What kind of evidence are there ?

Question
Please let me know the approximated energy consumption of the accelerator when the particles is moving with for example 2.98E8 m/s and 2.97E8 m/s and 2E8m/s

Please mention the energy consumption in % relative to the top speed (mention above - 2.99999997 m/s) or in MW relative to the 220-300 MW and the numbers of particles ,mentioned in the example above.

And again, as Cuddles said the proton's are brought to relativistic speed before they are inserted in the collider ring at CERN.

And as Cuddles stated clearl, the motion of the protons is not measured in the fraction of the speed of light that they are travelling at but as the total energy level. Most likely because the difference in velocity of of 99.990% of c and 99.995% of c is going to be small in terms of velocity and high in terms of energy as represented by the relativistic mass of the proton.

And while you may not like it, Cuddles said that is costs very little energy to keep them moving at teh constant speed, it takes energy to accelerate them beyong that constant speed and to cool the magnets.

So maybe you should reread what Cuddles and others have writteen and then ask:
What fraction of the electricity at CERN is used to keep the protons moving at a constant velocity?

 

[ArcturusA]

Answer the question

and I shall prove it.

Why do you need our figures, anyway?

Why do you even need figures at all?

Show us your formulae, they're far more useful if we want to understand what you mean.

 

[Bjarne]

And again, as Cuddles said the proton's are brought to relativistic speed before they are inserted in the collider ring at CERN.

And as Cuddles stated clearl, the motion of the protons is not measured in the fraction of the speed of light that they are travelling at but as the total energy level. Most likely because the difference in velocity of of 99.990% of c and 99.995% of c is going to be small in terms of velocity and high in terms of energy as represented by the relativistic mass of the proton.

And while you may not like it, Cuddles said that is costs very little energy to keep them moving at teh constant speed, it takes energy to accelerate them beyong that constant speed and to cool the magnets.

So maybe you should reread what Cuddles and others have writteen and then ask:
What fraction of the electricity at CERN is used to keep the protons moving at a constant velocity?

I can only show what I mean if I can get some kind of answer to my question, and hence able to compare the total energy consumption of the accelerator with different particles speed.

Show us your formulae, they're far more useful if we want to understand what you mean.

I like the element of surprise.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I am not asking about how much energy the particles are losing but how much the accelerator is using by different constant particles motion.

So soon I have this info I will show you all what is wrong....

Question
Please let me know the approximated energy consumption of the accelerator when the particles is moving with for example 2.98E8 m/s and 2.97E8 m/s and 2E8m/s

Please mention the accelerators energy consumption in % relative to the top speed (mention above - 2.99999997 m/s) or in MW relative to the 220-300 MW and the numbers of particles ,mentioned in the example above.

Find out for yourself, Einstein. You have access to the same data as the rest of us. Why should we spend time digging up information for you? Do you imagine we are your servants?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

You have access to the same data as the rest of us.

Not these I ask for

Why should we spend time digging up information for you? Do you imagine we are your servants?

The claims regarding the accelerator was yours idea.

 

[Dancing David]

Yup, and in at least five posts if not more it has already beene xplained how your theory that a constant velocity is not possible because of somethingorother and that extra force is needed to maintain a constant velocity, it was clearly discussed in those multiple posts why your theory is incorrect.

Or do you now believe that an object traveling at a constant velocity will maintain that velocity unless acted upon by a force?

 

[Bjarne]

------

Yup, and in at least five posts if not more it has already beene xplained how your theory that a constant velocity is not possible because of somethingorother and that extra force is needed to maintain a constant velocity, it was clearly discussed in those multiple posts why your theory is incorrect.

Or do you now believe that an object traveling at a constant velocity will maintain that velocity unless acted upon by a force?

If it really is true that resistance against motion also applies by constant speed, it should be easy to either confirm or disconfirm, by analysing the energy and speed velocity in several planet/moon and or solar systems.

Hence let's start to take a look at the Earth / Moon system.

By analysing the energy in our planet/moon system, the fist that strikes is that the Acceleration Due to Gravity (ADG) is almost 4000 times so strong at the surface of the Earths compared to the orbit of the Moon. But the speed difference between the orbits of the moon and near the surface is only 8 times stronger.

Q A
The cause of the Moons (and satellites) orbit speed, is off course only ADG, so why is the speed and ADG not equal-proportional?.

OPTION 1
When the radius decreases with factor 2, - the ADG increased with factor 16, (8 times so strong).
But the resistance to acceleration (Inertia) only increases four times.
Hence we can easy based on the proportional’s see that inertia (resistance against acceleration) can't account for the strange none proportional speed/energy lost.

OPTION 2
Each time you halve radius, time to keep an object in orbit also halve.
This makes it double so difficult to keep an object in orbit: proportional radius / orbit resistance : 1:1.
Also this can't explain that force and speed is not proportional.

Q B
Where does that speed/energy disappear, or why is the input “ADG” not proportional to the output: orbit speed ?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NEW THEORY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The illustration above shows, that if an object would circulate around the bearing connected with a robe, it would cause the bearing to rotate.

Now Imaging the bearing is rusty and weakly resists rotating.
The faster the object rotates the faster it transfers energy to the bearing.

When the bearing would begin to rotate stronger, this would "push" the circulating objects into motion and hence force the objects further out.

The above illustrated (classics physic) mechanism is main responsible for the rotating of all astronomic bodies, and even the main cause of the rotation of galaxies. .

This should be "easy" to either prove or disprove.

Let's compare the 2 most simple and nearby systems possible:

• The Earth/moon system
• Mars/moon system.

To do that we need a new equation:

This results is only as proportional’s.
The results shows that the moon of Mars "Probes" (that is almost 7 million times smaller than our Moon) can transfer enough energy to overcome the resistance against the rotation of Mars, as hence power Mars with the same rotation speed than: our Moon transfer to the Earth. (Who should believe it was possible to show that mathematical? - it's hereby done..., not perfect but clear enough that you can see we have a point here.)

Off course many things affects, for instant the tidal force, the moons orbit relative to the planet tilt, the orbit ellipse, the acceleration period, rotation and orbit velocity and probably a lot more.
But at least this could be a beginning to a new understanding.

Q C
Anyway, - Do you think this is coincident?
If so try to check out other rotating objects systems. – If a star is very fast without you can find a reason, the reason could be a lost planet – recently.

And don't forget to ask you self, why are there no proportionally between ADG and speed.
Something seems clearly to be VERY wrong. Ignoring such facts and contradictions can't be satisfying (for real critical scientists)

------

 

[ArcturusA]

That whole post is a soup of misunderstanding, so I don't really know where to start with it.

The best place seems to be with the most fundamental one:

There is no reason at all that speed and acceleration should be linearly proportional. They are different things entirely.
Having acceleration increase at a different rate to orbit speed is not a problem in the slightest.

 

[The Man]

<Preceding nonsense snipped>

And don't forget to ask you self, why are there no proportionally between ADG and speed.
Something seems clearly to be VERY wrong. Ignoring such facts and contradictions can't be satisfying (for real critical scientists)

Indeed something is wrong and it is just you ignoring the facts. The proportion of the acceleration due to gravity (A_gravity) and the orbital velocity (V_orbit) is the same as the proportion of the orbital velocity (V_orbit) and the radius ( R)



A_gravity / V_orbit = V_orbit / R

Or to put it more succinctly the proportion of the acceleration due to gravity (A_gravity) and the square of the orbital velocity (V²_orbit) is the inverse of the radius.

A_gravity / V²_orbit = 1/R

 

[Dancing David]

Indeed something is wrong and it is just you ignoring the facts. The proportion of the acceleration due to gravity (A_gravity) and the orbital velocity (V_orbit) is the same as the proportion of the orbital velocity (V_orbit) and the radius ( R)



A_gravity / V_orbit = V_orbit / R

Or to put it more succinctly the proportion of the acceleration due to gravity (A_gravity) and the square of the orbital velocity (V²_orbit) is the inverse of the radius.

A_gravity / V²_orbit = 1/R

You the man, The Man!

 

[Reality Check]

This was not what i was asking for.

You asked:

What kind of evidence are there ?

Question
Please let me know the approximated energy consumption of the accelerator when the particles is moving with for example 2.98E8 m/s and 2.97E8 m/s and 2E8m/s

Please mention the energy consumption in % relative to the top speed (mention above - 2.99999997 m/s) or in MW relative to the 220-300 MW and the numbers of particles ,mentioned in the example above.

The answer is:
The approximated energy consumption of the LHC when the particles is moving with for example 2.98E8 m/s and 2.97E8 m/s and 2E8m/s is 120 MW relative to the 180 MW.

The number of protons in the LHC beams is about 600 trillion.

We know that you are incapable of the simplest physical calculation so what are you going to do with this?

 

[Aitch]

We know that you are incapable of the simplest physical calculation, so what are you going to do with this?

I suspect that Bjarne is trying to run some form of dialogue (Socratic?) whereby he keeps asking questions until he gets one which has a teeny mistake in it, at which point he will shout "A-ha - that's a mistake - therefore everything you say is wrong and I am right!"

The fact that he doesn't seem to understand any of the answers he gets doesn't seem to make any difference.

 

[Reality Check]

Is Bjarne physics of gravitational forces and orbital speed

I suspect that Bjarne is trying to run some form of dialogue (Socratic?) whereby he keeps asking questions until he gets one which has a teeny mistake in it, at which point he will shout "A-ha - that's a mistake - therefore everything you say is wrong and I am right!"

The fact that he doesn't seem to understand any of the answers he gets doesn't seem to make any difference.

Actually he does not enter in a dialogue.
His posts just display his absysmal ignorance of physics. For example

First asked 14 December 2009
Force due to gravity by a body of mass m on a body of mass M:
F = GmM/r^2 (ie an acceleration of GM/r^2)
The orbital mean orbital speed is:

Taking into account the mass of the orbiting body,

where

is now the mass of the body under consideration,

is the mass of the body being orbited,

is specifically the distance between the two bodies (which is the sum of the distances from each to the center of mass), and

is the gravitational constant. This is still a simplified version; it doesn't allow for elliptical orbits, but it does at least allow for bodies of similar masses

As any one who can read see:

• Acceleration varies as the inverse square of r.
• Orbital speed varies as the inverse square root of r.

Bjarne,
Are you ignorant of the physics of gravitational forces and orbital speed?

 

[Bjarne]

[*]Acceleration varies as the inverse square of r.

Excactly

[*]Orbital speed varies as the inverse square root of r.

Exactly and why with the : square root of r?.

You are dealing with that piece of the cake that has been left over, after the mouse has eaten the most of the cake, - my friend.

As shown the closer even a small moon (notice the moon Probes is only a big rock) are to a planet, the more it pulls / transfer a gradually huger amount of KE to the planet (Mars) .

The GRAVITY /orbit velocity of the moon: Probes does the job to rotate Mars, and what’s remain to the moons orbit velocity is only crumbs: or in a mathematically language the square root of r of that energy.

Bravo Reality Check begins seriously to understand the basic of the basic of real physics, he has now (hopefully) realized the orbits velocities he deals with only are “crumbs” of that energy what orbit gravity really is.

 

[steenkh]

I suspect that Bjarne is trying to run some form of dialogue (Socratic?) whereby he keeps asking questions until he gets one which has a teeny mistake in it, at which point he will shout "A-ha - that's a mistake - therefore everything you say is wrong and I am right!"

Actually, it is worse than that: he will trawl through the answers in order to find something he and the cows do not understand, and then he will think he has demonstrated that science is all wrong.

 

[The Man]

Excactly


Exactly and why with the : square root of r?.

Because the proportion of the gravitational acceleration to the square of the velocity is equal to the inverse of the radius.

You are dealing with that piece of the cake that has been left over, after the mouse has eaten the most of the cake, - my friend.

Actually it seems you were a few slices short of a cake to start with.

As shown the closer even a small moon (notice the moon Probes is only a big rock) are to a planet, the more it pulls / transfer a gradually huger amount of KE to the planet (Mars) .

What ‘KE transfer’ are you referring to? As a bound state energy must be added to the system to separate the bodies. The closer the bodies are the less gravitational potential energy the orbiting body has.

The GRAVITY /orbit velocity of the moon: Probes does the job to rotate Mars, and what’s remain to the moons orbit velocity is only crumbs: or in a mathematically language the square root of r of that energy.

What ‘energy’ are you referring to? As a bound state energy must be added to the system to separate the bodies, the closer the bodies are the less gravitational potential energy the orbiting body has.

Bravo Reality Check begins seriously to understand the basic of the basic of real physics, he has now (hopefully) realized the orbits velocities he deals with only are “crumbs” of that energy what orbit gravity really is.

Again what ‘energy’ are you referring to?

The gravitational binding energy of an object consisting of loose material, held together by gravity alone, is the amount of energy required to pull all of the material apart, to infinity. It is also the amount of energy that is liberated (usually in the form of heat) during the accretion of such an object from material falling from infinity.

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



Your rodent problem not with standing, a few crumbs of understanding does not let you have your cake and eat it too.

 

[The Man]

If we use the approximation for mean orbital speed, as provided by Reality Check (apparently tomorrow), that takes into account the mass of the orbiting body, we have the ratio of acceleration to mean orbital speed (V_orbit) as follows.

A_gravity / V_orbit = V_orbit(m₁ + m₂) / (m₁R)

 

[Bjarne]

Because the proportion of the gravitational acceleration to the square of the velocity is equal to the inverse of the radius.

This is the mathematical law that shows how strong ADG is .

What ‘KE transfer’ are you referring to?

The KE that “should” have been there, - if “really” there were proportionally between force/energy input and speed output.

The closer the bodies are the less gravitational potential energy the orbiting body has.

Proportional to the ADG> correct.
And why do you think?
Shall we guess?
My only guess is: resistance due to orbit motion + transfer of KE to the planet, to overcome rotation resistance.
Now it is your turn to guess
It can’t be so difficult, or?

 

[The Man]

This is the mathematical law that shows how strong ADG is .

No it was specifically the proportion of acceleration to velocity that you asked for. “how strong ADG is” would be equal to the velocity squared over the radius (not taking into account the mass of the orbiting body).

The KE that “should” have been there, - if “really” there were proportionally between force/energy input and speed output.

Force/energy would be the inverse of distance and speed is distance over time. Your proportionality is there (and thus whatever “KE that “should” have been there”) you just don’t understand what your looking at or for.

Proportional to the ADG> correct.
And why do you think?
Shall we guess?
My only guess is: resistance due to orbit motion + transfer of KE to the planet, to overcome rotation resistance.
Now it is your turn to guess
It can’t be so difficult, or?

Here is a clue for your guessing game; stop guessing. Learn some math and some physics, use them. You will find they overcome the resistance of your guesses by showing that you guessed, well, wrong.