Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Last edited:
THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries
- Thread starter Bjarne
- Start date
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two threads
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two threads include:
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two threads include:
- "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
So far the answer is no
!
- 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 - Can Bjarne understand that the force of gravity is not constant within a solid sphere?
First asked 26 October 2009 - Can Bjarne understand the physics behind orbital resonances?
First asked 3 December 2009
So far the answer is no! - Does Bjarne understand orbital mechanics?
First asked 3 December 2009.
So far the answer is no! - Can Bjarne understand that energy is not a force and cannot "equalize" a force?
First asked 9 December 2009
You can expend energy to create a force to equalize a force as a hovering helicopter does. But the simple facts are:- Forces are vectors but energy is a number.
- The SI units of force are Newtons but the SI units of energy is Joules.
- Bjarne asks what a particle is!
- 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
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
Let’s say that a force on you cars propeller shaft is 10 N = 10 km/h
What would happen if we now increase the force 16 times to 160 N and that there (really) is no resistance?
How fast would you car now be? - I logically “guess” / expect 160 km/h
What would you say if it only would run 20 km/h with that 16 times larger force?
And what would you say if you really want to drive 100 km/h - the force on your propeller shaft should be increased not 10 times but 16 * 16 * 16 * 4 times = 163840 Newton.
Wold it make sense if I told you: I guess you handbrake isn’t released?
Or would if make better sense that I told you that this properly have something to do with the distance square of the road (that you haven’t understood) proportional to the inverse radius of the difference between the front and rear wheel (that you also not have understood).
I mean it’s pretty simple isn’t it?
The force (responsible for the orbit speed) is gradually increasing dramatically but the orbit speed almost insignificant.
We are talking about the: force input - and the speed output.
I have not seen any logical explanation that could explain that.
It obviously seems to be increasing resistance against motion when approaching a planet (or star), both agianst rotation as well as orbit speed resistance.
It’s not enough that we know a lot about how the “rest energy” behaves. – This is not a question. The question is: what is really going on here ?
Well I have tries to get you to open you yes. Resistance against motion is a fact, - it reveals everywhere.
The prevailing theory screams to heaven for help, lauder and lauder, year by year.
And believe me it will continue to do exactly so, (from every corner of our Universe, and also from the old mossy physics books).
-----
Last edited:
You can't equate force and speed. You little "10 N = 10 km/h" equation makes no sense at all. Learn some basic physics and you'd understand that.
If there is no resistance (as you suggest below), the car will accelerate. It won't stay at 10km/h.
The car would accelerate.
With no resistance, the speed would continue to increase forever, reaching the speed of light after infinite time.
Then your "logic" has many, many flaws.
If that car was at a constant speed at first, that means there is 10N of resistance on the car. The forces balance, and we have the constant 10km/h speed. It doesn't have to be 10km/h, though. We could apply a force to accelerate to 30km/h, then drop it back down to 10N to balance that resistance again and we'd remain at 30km/h. So 10N to 30km/h. Or 50km/h, or 100, or 1000. Assuming the resistance is constant, of course. If its dependent on speed, the force WILL increase to maintain a constant speed, but it doesn't have to be linearly proportional.
I would suggest there is a significant resistance related to the speed.
I know I'm going to regret saying that, because you'll misunderstand it to mean your resistance to motion is right.
It's a sensible explanation, yes, if the resistance from the handbrake increases with speed. (There I go again!)
If the proportionality is explained perfectly by basic mechanics without the need to invoke extra forces or unknown physics, then yes, I would accept that as the better explanation.
Yes.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Cars do not have a propeller shaft - they have a drive shaft. Boats have propellers and propeller shafts.
Forces create acceleration not velocity. Acceleration is a change in velocity.
So you are still guessing and still wrong.
The correct statement of the situation is:
Newton's second law of motion: F = ma.
A car is stationary.
Push it with a force of 10 N and it gets a velocity of 10 km/hr.
Push it with a force of 160 N and it gets a velocity of 160 km/h.
Big surprise - that is exactly what a high school student would get from Newton's laws.
Not so big surprise - Bjarne does not know this! That deserves a laughing dog - you are so funny Bjarne.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
I would say or more precisely ask, so your response and intention is to learn no math or physics, but just to keep guessing?
By the way what would be applied to a driveshaft (what you call propeller shaft) is a torque which has the SI units of Newton Meters. You will note that it has similar units to energy, but is distinct from energy and since you so enjoy guessing, I’ll let you guess how.
I would say exactly what I said before and you quoted above, Stop guessing, learn some math and physics, use them.
That’s got to be one heck of a hand brake. That force applied though 27.8 meters (distance traveled at 100 km/h in one second) for 1 second works out to about 6103.1 horsepower (about 71 times that of my 1984 Honda VF700S Sabre motorcycle).
It might actually make better sense, even to you, if you just applied some basic math and physics, instead of guessing and assuming that everyone else just guesses as well.
Yes very simple, Math + Physics = understanding = good. Guessing = no understanding = often wrong answers and assertions = bad.
I gave you the proportion you requested, with some very simple math and physics you could have worked that out for yourself.
It obviously seems you still prefer your wrong guessing to actually understanding some very simple math and physics.
“what is really going on here” is that you are just guessing and that is certainly “not enough” for you to understand “what is really going on here”.
I and others here have tried to get you to open you to learning, yes. Unfortunately your physics books remain old and mossy from lack of use as they scream to heaven “read me Bjarne, please read me” louder and louder, year by year, while you just keep guessing and I believe you will continue to do exactly so since you apparently know no better, I guess.
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Well, for the information of the people here, Bjarne has not the slightest idea about the difference between a force and energy, or of how they are releated. - As demonstrated by the question he asks below.
If there was no resistance, it would keep accelerating on the 10N. It would eventually reach 160kph (kph is the international abbreviation for km/h). In fact, if there was really no resistance, it would also reach 1600kph, and more ...
So what would happen if you applied 160N? - It would accelerate 16 times faster.
There is no direct connection between the force applied and the speed. Only the acceleration (but you need to know the mass, then).
No.
I think so, but it still seems to be over your head.
It is because the force is not the sole parameter.
No, it is acceleration, not speed.
Nope.
The thing that is going on is that you are not playing with a full deck. We have, all together now, told you about 9 times what the explanation is. You seem to be either unable or unwilling to grasp it.
Actually, I fear it is you screaming for help. Unfortunately, it is a kind of help we cant offer here.
Hans
If there was no resistance, it would keep accelerating on the 10N. It would eventually reach 160kph (kph is the international abbreviation for km/h). In fact, if there was really no resistance, it would also reach 1600kph, and more ...
So what would happen if you applied 160N? - It would accelerate 16 times faster.
There is no direct connection between the force applied and the speed. Only the acceleration (but you need to know the mass, then).
No.
I think so, but it still seems to be over your head.
It is because the force is not the sole parameter.
No, it is acceleration, not speed.
Nope.
The thing that is going on is that you are not playing with a full deck. We have, all together now, told you about 9 times what the explanation is. You seem to be either unable or unwilling to grasp it.
Actually, I fear it is you screaming for help. Unfortunately, it is a kind of help we cant offer here.
Hans
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
I guess you know that the”car” is only a stupid ”picture”
Planets and moons accelerated every day.
EXCACTLY
EXCACTLY
EXCACTLY
THIS is what the math shows.
EXCACTLY
(Never believe the book, even not these with the best name….(Gyldendals))
EXCACTLY
EXCACTLY….
And so should the planets…
Or more correctly: if there were no gradually increasing resistance against motion towards a planet or star, objects could not orbit, but would in a inwards direction be blown out in space with gradually increasing force.
And that’s enough. I will demonstrate below:::::
And that’s enough. I will demonstrate below:::::
We are in fact talking about simple math.
What is the difference of the force that affects the two objects above. ( In the outer and inner orbit).
To keep a moon in orbit in the inner orbit require 4 times so strong force (inwards acceleration) compared to the force/acceleration in the outer orbit, - simple because the circumstance in the inner orbit is 4 times shorter, whereby a object must be attracted exactly 4 times stronger.
But the speed of the object in the inner orbit is always 2 times faster.
So the math is simple and clear:
Each time radius (and a circles circumstance) decreases 4 times the force that affect a orbiting orbit is (4*2) = 8 times so strong.
BUT ---- WHY 8 times ,- the FORCE is fact 16 times so strong each time this happens..
WHAT could be responsible for that:
1. That 4 * 2 is not 8 – but 16 ?
2. That Newton was wrong the AGD difference is not 16 but 8 ?
3. That the half of the force/acceleration/energy disappear to the bended space time dimension?
4. That the half of the force/acceleration/energy disappear because of the distance square and inverse bla bla bla bla even though anyone can see this have nothing with energy losses to do.....
5. That Pixy hats playing games with us ?
6. That sometimes simple math simple just; brakes down without reason ?
7. That the law of heaven is not the same as the law on Earth. The church (for 300 years ago) was right ?
There should have been the double speed (due to stronger acceleration ) – WHERE does haft of speed disappear ?
Or rather why do the force only affects with haft force, - (each time radius decreases with factor 4) .
The mathematical language is clear. There MUST be resistance. Otherwise a orbit could not work. What happens is that even though gravity pulls with the full * 16 force, something resist speed to increase proportional..
What on earth could be resisting? – except the motion it self and except the obviously facts that the object pulls the central object (The Earth's or Planet's) resistance against rotation.
The mathematical language should be VERY clear for even 10 years old schoolboys.
You can laugh, disbelieve and call me nuts. – This doesn’t change the fact that we are speaking about a energy/acceleration/ force “lost”
Such CAN NOT BE LOST. Energy or force can not be lost – It MUST be there. – So if you do not believe me: FIND IT.
When I for just 2 weeks started to analyse the moon/planet systems, I told my self. Here you MUST find that something is not fully understood regarding the energy/force/speed. AND I FOUND IT…
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
All that needs to be said in reply is: Here Bjarne MUST find that something is not fully understood regarding the energy/force/speed.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Show us the results of your masterly analysis,including the maths and excluding cows and cars.
Funny to see this from somebody who is incapable of expreesing anything in mathematical language.
Well, prove us wrong, and show in mathematical terms that the conventional physics is wrong!
Last edited:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I don't suppose it would help to point out that the planets moves because of momentum and that they accelearte because of gravity to stay in the orbit?
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
No,that would be beyond Bjarne,remember that you are dealing with someone who lacks even a basic understanding of physics.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Does Bjarne understand the difference between linier and rotational motion
One of the problems, Bjarne, is that you seem to lack the understanding of even introductory physics. Most physics introduction starts with linier motion then moves on to rotational motion and it is specifically the difference between the two that you seem to lack. Your force to speed proportion is different for linier motion than it is for rotational motion.
For linier motion the best place to start is with momentum.
F = Force applied
T = Time force is applied
M = Mass
V = Finial speed
The relationship for momentum (at non-relativistic speeds) is
FT = MV
Giving your speed over force proportion for linier motion as..
V/F = T/M
However for rotational motion the relation between force and velocity is different as the tangential velocity (or speed) is perpendicular to the applied force. The radius of rotation becomes important and the time the force is applied becomes meaningless as the centripetal force is constant and required to maintain the centripetal acceleration.
R = Radius
The force speed relationship (at non-relativistic speeds) for rotational motion is
FR = MV2
Making your speed over force proportion for rotational motion as..
V2/F = R/M
So the formulas are similar but the important differences to note are Radius with V squared in rotational motion and Time with just V in liner motion. The difficulty you are encountering is not due to the relations of gravity, but simply a lack of understanding about the differences between linier and rotational motion. A topic covered in most introductory physics classes and texts.
ETA:
If we change the formula to equate to acceleration we have.
V/T = F/M
For linier acceleration (starting from rest)
And
V2/R = F/M
For centripetal acceleration.
One of the problems, Bjarne, is that you seem to lack the understanding of even introductory physics. Most physics introduction starts with linier motion then moves on to rotational motion and it is specifically the difference between the two that you seem to lack. Your force to speed proportion is different for linier motion than it is for rotational motion.
For linier motion the best place to start is with momentum.
F = Force applied
T = Time force is applied
M = Mass
V = Finial speed
The relationship for momentum (at non-relativistic speeds) is
FT = MV
Giving your speed over force proportion for linier motion as..
V/F = T/M
However for rotational motion the relation between force and velocity is different as the tangential velocity (or speed) is perpendicular to the applied force. The radius of rotation becomes important and the time the force is applied becomes meaningless as the centripetal force is constant and required to maintain the centripetal acceleration.
R = Radius
The force speed relationship (at non-relativistic speeds) for rotational motion is
FR = MV2
Making your speed over force proportion for rotational motion as..
V2/F = R/M
So the formulas are similar but the important differences to note are Radius with V squared in rotational motion and Time with just V in liner motion. The difficulty you are encountering is not due to the relations of gravity, but simply a lack of understanding about the differences between linier and rotational motion. A topic covered in most introductory physics classes and texts.
ETA:
If we change the formula to equate to acceleration we have.
V/T = F/M
For linier acceleration (starting from rest)
And
V2/R = F/M
For centripetal acceleration.
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Not in the way you think they are. They are, however, accelerated in a new direction all the time.
Because the angular speed is higher.
Because the angular speed is higher.
That the angular speed is higher
No, we have establiched empirically that 4 * 2 is indeed 8 (for most values of 4).
No, that has also turned out to be correct.
There is no energy involved. No, the force is as expected. No, the acceleration is also as expected.
No, there are no losses. The system retains its total energy all the time.
I do suspect they might be having the better of you.
The only reason your math breaks down is because you leave out some of the numbers.
Oh, the laws of the Heavens are quite different. But the moon is not in the Heavens.
Into higher angular speed.
It doesn't. It is due to angular speed.
Angular speed.
Psssst, Bjarne: If the moon lost half its speed all the time, how long do you think it would take for it to crash down on Earth?
So, you're 9?
Let me see .... Ahhh! Did you account for angular speed?
Frankly, Bjarne, I expect that no matter what you analyze, there will be something you don't understand. - It has worked so far ....
Hans
Last edited:
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
It's really so simple
If you accelerate a distance 400 meter with 1 m/s^2 your speed must be 400 m/s
If you accelerate a distance 100 meter with 16 m/s^2 you speed must be 1600 m/s
This mean you speed should increase speed 4 times in the above illustrated inner orbit.
But this doesn’t happen with the moon and billion other examples, even though the force of gravity increases 16 times orbit speed only increases 2 times.
WHAT is wrong?
That the acceleration happens in an orbit means NOTHING
A motorcycles that accelerate in a orbit is losing NOTHING
Planets and Moons are loosing, or rather "cheated" for the haft force, and hence losing the half energy these object should have had.
The math is cow simple and clear.
I have got no explanation…only loser’s laughter