THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

[Reality Check]

Yes that's right, - and still the proportional’s are still 1:4 – that’s the point.

The point is that your example is useless for this thread. It gives a proportion of 1:4 between the final speeds. So what?

• If you accelerate from rest for 400 seconds at 1 m/s2 your final speed after that 400 seconds would be 400 m/s.
• If you accelerate from rest for 300 seconds at 3 m/s2 your final speed after that 300 seconds would be 900 m/s.

Now the proportion is 400:900 or 1:2.25.
Big wow !

 

[Toke]

I am going through back number of Questionable Content, there were one quote "The sharpest bulb in the box is the broken one"
Not sure why I think of it here.

 

[Reality Check]

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:

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
     So far the answer is no !
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 that the force of gravity is not constant within a solid sphere?
   First asked 26 October 2009
6. Can Bjarne understand the physics behind orbital resonances?
   First asked 3 December 2009
   So far the answer is no !
7. Does Bjarne understand orbital mechanics?
   First asked 3 December 2009.
   So far the answer is no !
8. 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.
9. Bjarne asks what a particle is!
10. His simplistic knowledge of physis is betrayed by his delusion that since the force of gravity varies as 1/r^2 (e.g. a factor of 4 when r doubles) then the "speed factor “should” hence have been factor 4 as well" (plust other silly previous posts).
    The Basics of Space Flight: Circular Orbital Motion shows clearly that the mean orbital speed of objects should vary that the inverse of the square root of r. The fact that objects actually act like this in the real universe shocks Bjarne!

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

The conclusion is that he is is in the lowest tier of the many internet cranks that we see . The only guy I know of who is "crankier" is TimeCube guy.

 

[Reality Check]

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.-----

You are lying Bjarne - you have seen a logical explanation for the fact that gravitation force ("force input") produces a certain mean orbital speed ("speed output").
Basics of Space Flight: Circular Orbital Motion explains it qute clearly.

[SIZE=+1]Uniform Circular Motion[/SIZE]

In the simple case of free fall, a particle accelerates toward the center of the Earth while moving in a straight line. The velocity of the particle changes in magnitude, but not in direction. In the case of uniform circular motion a particle moves in a circle with constant speed. The velocity of the particle changes continuously in direction, but not in magnitude. From Newton's laws we see that since the direction of the velocity is changing, there is an acceleration. This acceleration, called centripetal acceleration is directed inward toward the center of the circle and is given by

where v is the speed of the particle and r is the radius of the circle. Every accelerating particle must have a force acting on it, defined by Newton's second law (F = ma). Thus, a particle undergoing uniform circular motion is under the influence of a force, called centripetal force, whose magnitude is given by

The direction of F at any instant must be in the direction of a at the same instant, that is radially inward.
A satellite in orbit is acted on only by the forces of gravity. The inward acceleration which causes the satellite to move in a circular orbit is the gravitational acceleration caused by the body around which the satellite orbits. Hence, the satellite's centripetal acceleration is g, that is g = v²/r. From Newton's law of universal gravitation we know that g = GM /r². Therefore, by setting these equations equal to one another we find that, for a circular orbit,

 

[The Man]

ArcturusA the “s” in that equation represents displacement not time.

Sorry ArcturusA upon review I see that both you and Bjarne refer to distances in that case. Between that and the other error noted by Myraid in post 676, I guess I should stop trying to post when working and just go back to posting when drunk.

 

[Bjarne]

You are lying Bjarne - you have seen a logical explanation for the fact that gravitation force ("force input") produces a certain mean orbital speed ("speed output").

But not why the force / speed account is non-proportional... except if you admit that resistance is a reality...

F must be propotional to : Circle radius * speed - it's so simple math....

4 x 2 = 8 - not 16

That's a problem.
But do like everyone else in the last 300 years, -ignore it and the problem is "solved"

YES you can calculate excactly how a object is orbiting, BUT NOT WHY

That's a problem

 

[The Man]

But not why the force / speed account is non-proportional... except if you admit that resistance is a reality...

They are "proportional" and you have been specifically given those proportions. That those proportions are not limier, because that motion is not linier, is essentially the basis of your misunderstanding. That you simply can not admit that your misunderstanding is a reality is the only real resistance you are encountering.

 

[The Man]

But not why the force / speed account is non-proportional... except if you admit that resistance is a reality...

F = Circle radius * speed - it's so simple math....

4 x 2 = 8 - not 16

That's a problem.
But do like everyone else in the last 300 years, -ignore it and the problem is "solved"

YES you can calculate excactly how a object is orbiting, BUT NOT WHY

That's a problem

It is generally customary to specificaly note significant additions or edits to your posts.


Again

FR = MV²
Thus

F= MV²/R

Force is measured in Newtons (for SI units)

Radius times speed gives you Meter² / Second not Newtons (for SI units)

Again

Your R1 body has 16 (not 8) times the angular speed of your R4 body.

The ignorance and problems remain simply yours.

 

[Reality Check]

But not why the force / speed account is non-proportional... except if you admit that resistance is a reality...

F = Circle radius * speed - it's so simple math....

That is simple ignorance Bjarne. You are ignoring reality....
Force is not a distance * speed

• Wrong dimensions. The ignorance continues !
  Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
• Force is a vector.

And once again for the simple minded:
The gravitational force is F = GMm/r^2.
The object is orbiting with an centripetal force of F = ma = mv^2/r.
These forces are equal (otherwise the object would not be orbiting).
So GMm/r^2 = mv^2/r.
Thus the "proportionality" between the gravitational force and orbital speed is given by v^2/r = GM/r^2.

 

[Reality Check]

First answered 13 December 2009

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?

Where is yiour world shattering calculation now that you know the answer to:

Originally Posted by Bjarne
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.

 

[Bjarne]

They are "proportional" and you have been specifically given those proportions. That those proportions are not limier, because that motion is not linier, is essentially the basis of your misunderstanding. That you simply can not admit that your misunderstanding is a reality is the only real resistance you are encountering.

Only words
My simple logical and proportional calculation: (4*2=8 not 16) shows the opposite

That is simple ignorance Bjarne. You are ignoring reality....
Force is not a distance * speed

This is also not what was written when you did your replied, but:

F must be proportional to : Circle radius * speed - it's so simple math....

F= MV2/R

It’s useless in this regards, because the speed of the moon is because of acceleration, (caused by a indirectly force) not because of a (direct) “force” in that sense you try to impress..

Where is your world shattering calculation now that you know the answer to:

I have some hours before your answer ask the same question to CERN, lets see if they reply.
If not I will give you my answers....

 

[Reality Check]

This is also not what was written when you did your replied, but:

F must be proportional to : Circle radius * speed - it's so simple math....

The force on an object in a circular object is never proportional to circle radius multiplied by speed ("Circle radius * speed") - it's so simple math....

There is a relationship between force, circle radius, speed and mass for circular motion which is:

F = mv^2/r

where
m = mass of the body in a circular orbit
v = the orbit speed
r = the circle radius
"v^2/r" is the acceleration of a body moving in a circular orbit.
​

This is true for any body in a circular orbit under any force, e.g.

• A ball on a string.
• A satellite in an circular orbit.
• An proton in a magnetic field.

Put F = the gravitational force (F=GMm/r^2).

As any one who can read (that might include you Bjarne ?), this means that if you double r then

• Gravitational force decreases by a factor of 4.
• Orbital speed decreases by a factor of the square root of 2 (1.4142).

What is really amazing is that is what is actually observed in the real world (as opposed to your mythical, imaginary world).

It’s useless in this regards, because the speed of the moon is because of acceleration, (caused by a indirectly force) not because of a (direct) “force” in that sense you try to impress..
[/qoute]
What does this gibberish mean?

I have some hours before your answer ask the same question to CERN, lets see if they reply.
If not I will give you my answers....

You ask CERN - this is your obsession not mine.

What is your "answers"?

 

[The Man]

Only words
My simple logical and proportional calculation: (4*2=8 not 16) shows the opposite

Only nonsense

You were given those proportions, that you simply ignore them is your problem

This is also not what was written when you did your replied, but:

F must be proportional to : Circle radius * speed - it's so simple math....

Just whom are you quoting and addressing now?

It is generally customary to include the name of the person you are quoting in that quote.

It’s useless in this regards, because the speed of the moon is because of acceleration, (caused by a indirectly force) not because of a (direct) “force” in that sense you try to impress..

The centripetal acceleration is caused by a centripetal force directed at the, well, center of the rotation.

I have some hours before your answer ask the same question to CERN, lets see if they reply.
If not I will give you my answers....

Well while you’ve got some hours, try looking up rotational motion or rotational mechanics.

To use your own examples from before and we will use 1 as the mass for each of the orbiting bodies.

w represents angular speed in radian per second

V₁ = 1 Meter / Second
R₁ = 4 Meter
M₁=1 kg
Thus
F₁ = V²₁M₁/R₁= 0.25 Newton
w₁ = V₁/R₁ = 0.25 Radian / Second

V₂ = 2 Meter / Second
R₂ = 1 Meter
M₂ = 1 kg

Thus
F₂ = V²₂M₂/R₂= 4 Newton
w₂ = V₂/R₂ = 2 Radian / Second


So

V₂ / V₁ = 2/1 = 2
w₂ / w₁ = 2/0.25 = 8
F₂ / F₁ = 4/0.25 = 16

Since mass is the same in both cases and F = MV²/R as well as w = V/R we can rewrite the F₂ / F₁ proportion as…

F₂ / F₁ = V₂w₂ / V₁w₁ = (2 * 2) / (1 *0.25) = 4/0.25 = 16

Or F₂ / F₁ = (V₂/V₁) * (w₂/w₁) = 2 * 8 = 16

Is the point starting to get through to you yet?

 

[dafydd]

Is the point starting to get through to you yet?

No,it will not get through to him.I would love to be a fly on the wall at CERN when they get his email.

 

[The Man]

No,it will not get through to him.I would love to be a fly on the wall at CERN when they get his email.

Unfortunately I'm inclined to agree with you dafydd. I imagine they must get all sorts of crank E-mails at CERN and I also imagine that their policy on dealing with them are about the same as the ones they might receive from the purported relative of a Nigerian prince.

 

[dafydd]

At the very least it will give them a good laugh.

 

[The Man]

Na, they’ll be too busy trying to overcome that resistance that everyone has been ignoring of the past 300 years, but someone without even an introductory understanding of physics guesses they found in just two weeks.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

This is fascinating.

I'm trying to read along even though I'm far from a physics or math buff, but it's clear even to me that Bjarne has built an entire pseudo-theory on an inability to grasp non-linear relationships.

I wish I had that kind of stubbornness, confidence and determination! I'd put it to use with something more productive, though.

 

[The Man]

This is fascinating.

I'm trying to read along even though I'm far from a physics or math buff, but it's clear even to me that Bjarne has built an entire pseudo-theory on an inability to grasp non-linear relationships.

I wish I had that kind of stubbornness, confidence and determination! I'd put it to use with something more productive, though.

Obviously, you already have.

ETA:

Now if I could just spell linier correctly.

Dang, did it agian.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I must admit I find it slightly fascinating, in a sick sort of way to watch someone like Bjarne. I mean, there are others who ramble about their fantasy universe, but they usually don't really communicate with others, they just ramble.

Bjarne OTOH, gives all the appearance of communicating, he even asks questions. But his receiver is not switched on, or he is studiously ignoring anything that comes in.

He reminds me a lot of Kumar.

I am always wondering how such people manage to survive:

"Hey, I'll cross this street here, because this is the right place."

- "But the pedestrian crossing is down there, that is much safer."

"Pedestrian crossings are just conventional belief, white stripes don't make a road safer, I'll cross here, because my theory says it's the right place."

- "But, the cars drive much faster here!"

"You believe that speed is important, but you don't really know what speed is. My maths clearly and logically shows that this is the right place."

...etc

Hans