THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

Reality Check said:
Yet more ignorance from you Bjarne.
  1. Dark matter is not a tool - it is a large set of observations that show that there is mass that does not interact electromagnetically in the universe, e.g. the motion of galaxies in galactic clusters.
  2. The Higgs boson is not a tool - it is a hypothetical particle that has not been detected yet.
Click to expand...

Right, as I thought, only wild one track minded matter fixated guessing…
 
Could we close this thread? It has been going nowhere for quite some time, now.

Hans
 
Bjarne said:
How much?
Click to expand...

An atomic particle loosing energy can only expell this energy in the form of ratiation. If a flying rock encounters friction, e.g. air resistance, it can heat up. It may later release the heat in the form of heat radiation or heat conduction. However, a particle does not have a temperature. If a speeding particle meets friction, the lost energy is radiated away immidiately, in the form of electromagnetic radiation.

This fact is important for understanding why particle accelerators provide proof that there is no universal resitance to movement (as Bjarne claims). Since such a resistance would cause the very fast particles to loose energy, there would be some radiation from them. As mentioned in DD's post, radiation from the particles is detected and accounted for. The whole purpose of particle colliders is to detect radiations from the events happening in them, and they are virtually lined with multiple kinds of radiation detectors.

It is impossible that a considerable portion of radiation should remain undiscovered and unaccounted for.

The exact amount of radiation that a speculative resistance to movement should produce depends on the magnitude of the resistance. It would be exactly proportional to the resistance.

Since Bjarne, inspite of having been asked repeatedly, has failed to produce an estimate of what he thinks this resistance will be, the amount of radiation is equally blowing in the wind, but we can make a rough esimate:

Since Bjarne claims that his resistance to motion is responsible for the Pioneer Anomaly, we can infer that the speculative resistance must be at least equal to the Pioneer Anomaly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly

The Pioneer Anomaly constitues an acceleration of (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10−10 m/s2 towards the sun.

If we assume the effect is linear, we can get a rough estimate of the energy loss in the Hadron collider. IIRR, we earlier found that the energy in the particles was in the order of 750MJ. This indicates a minimum radiated energy of 0.6J. This in the vicinity of detectors that can detect single particle events.

Hans
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
It is impossible that a considerable portion of radiation should remain undiscovered and unaccounted for.
Click to expand...

It may be worth mentioning neutrinos at this point. They were discovered precisely because some energy and momentum appeared to be missing from certain reactions. They were first proposed in 1930, and observed around a decade or two later. That is, 80 years ago people noticed exactly the kind of thing that Bjarne claims no-one has ever looked for, and in doing so discovered one of the varieties fundamental particles.
 
This fact is important for understanding why particle accelerators provide proof that there is no universal resistance to movement (as Bjarne claims).
Click to expand...
No it's not.
The increasing KE and mass reflects accumulated energy. This will be lost if the force that drives the particles will stop.
An accelerator uses a pretty large amount of energy to keep the particles in motion, - also by constant speed.
You believe that energy (from the accelerator) is lost as magnetism, but you don’t know what magnetism is.
In my world magnetism is; space in motion, - the exact same as happen when a planet moves, - this as well sets space in motion.
I too believe that the energy form an accelerator is lost as magnetism. But don’t forget that there is an interacting process running between particle and magnetic field. So I am talking about a much more complex interacting / entangle magnetic field that: lose energy.

It is already well known that a magnetic field interacts with particles, and opposite; particles in motion created a magnetic field, - think for example about a transformer.

But in fact we don’t know exactly what’s a magnetic field really is, and hence we can mainly discuss; what we believe. This also applies for the relation between particles/magnetic field in an accelerator. Furthermore I have not time to discuss this issue further. It’s a dead end.
 
Bjarne said:
No it's not.
The increasing KE and mass reflects accumulated energy. This will be lost if the force that drives the particles will stop.
An accelerator uses a pretty large amount of energy to keep the particles in motion, - also by constant speed.
You believe that energy (from the accelerator) is lost as magnetism, but you don’t know what magnetism is.
In my world magnetism is; space in motion, - the exact same as happen when a planet moves, - this as well sets space in motion.
I too believe that the energy form an accelerator is lost as magnetism. But don’t forget that there is an interacting process running between particle and magnetic field. So I am talking about a much more complex interacting / entangle magnetic field that: lose energy.

It is already well known that a magnetic field interacts with particles, and opposite; particles in motion created a magnetic field, - think for example about a transformer.

But in fact we don’t know exactly what’s a magnetic field really is, and hence we can mainly discuss; what we believe. This also applies for the relation between particles/magnetic field in an accelerator.
Click to expand...

Try looking up Quantum Field Theory and Quantum Electrodynamics if “you don’t know what magnetism is” and think “we don’t know exactly what’s a magnetic field really is”.

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


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


Bjarne said:
Furthermore I have not time to discuss this issue further. It’s a dead end.
Click to expand...

You’ll get no argument from me there.
 
Bjarne said:
No it's not.
The increasing KE and mass reflects accumulated energy. This will be lost if the force that drives the particles will stop.
An accelerator uses a pretty large amount of energy to keep the particles in motion, - also by constant speed.
You believe that energy (from the accelerator) is lost as magnetism, but you don’t know what magnetism is.
...snipped...
Click to expand...
Look up Newton's laws. A moving object remains in motion unless a force acts on it. The KE is not lost of the force that drives the particles will stop.
An circular accelerator uses a pretty large amount of energy to keep the particles under acceleration in a circle.
No "energy (from the accelerator) is lost as magnetism". The magnetic fields are used to keep the particles moving in a circle.
 
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. He ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units or acceleration.
  3. Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
  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 :eye-poppi!
  7. Does Bjarne understand orbital mechanics?
    First asked 3 December 2009.
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
  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!
  11. More of Bjarne's ignorance of simple physics (circular motion).
  12. Bjarne asks "( What is ”radian” ? – 1 orbit)"
And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):
 
The Mercury Perihelion Anomaly

Few weeks ago I claimed that the energy to overcome resistance against motions is possible if the planets orbits closer to the rotating atronomic object as we believe.

Surprisingly this statement has lead to one more consequence, and this time a more seriously one:

Einstein’s Statement that times runs slower in a field of gravity is wrong.
The cause of the Mercury Perihelion Anomaly is not that times runs slower, but that the orbit distance is shorter as we believe.

Mercury is simple just about 3000 meter closer to the Sun as we believe. This is necessary to gain enough energy to overcome the resistance against motion, and is shown mathematically here. Furthermore it corresponds to the 0.069 arc second that Mercury is gaining (per orbit).

I too have in years (naïve) accepted that time really runs slower in a gravity field. But why should it? – We have in fact no argument that proves it, but only guessing. The holistic theory I present shows what Mercury really does, not based on blind guessing, but based on consequence of the same innocent thought: matters contracts space.
 
The Mercury Perihelion Anomaly - resolved by GR since 1905

Bjarne said:
The Mercury Perihelion Anomaly

Few weeks ago I claimed that the energy to overcome resistance against motions is possible if the planets orbits closer to the rotating atronomic object as we believe.

Surprisingly this statement has lead to one more consequence, and this time a more seriously one:

Einstein’s Statement that times runs slower in a field of gravity is wrong.
The cause of the Mercury Perihelion Anomaly is not that times runs slower, but that the orbit distance is shorter as we believe.

Mercury is simple just about 3000 meter closer to the Sun as we believe. This is necessary to gain enough energy to overcome the resistance against motion, and is shown mathematically here. Furthermore it corresponds to the 0.069 arc second that Mercury is gaining (per orbit).

I too have in years (naïve) accepted that time really runs slower in a gravity field. But why should it? – We have in fact no argument that proves it, but only guessing. The holistic theory I present shows what Mercury really does, not based on blind guessing, but based on consequence of the same innocent thought: matters contracts space.
Click to expand...
You need to learn some physics.

There is no Mercury Perihelion Anomaly - the orbit of Mercury matches the prediction of General Relativity.

The resolution of the original discrepancy between the measured perihelion of Mercury and Newtonian mechanics has little to to with time dilation in GR. The explanation is complex (Kepler problem in general relativity) but basically soving GR for two bodies orbiting each other gives extra terms that are significant for a massive primary body and short distance from the primary object.


You obviously have no idea what the perihelion anomoly was. Your web page shows this clearly.
It is not that Mercury is moving in a circular orbit and that orbit changes radius. That is stupid because Mercury like all planets has an elliptical orbit.
The situation is actually that the perihelion precession of Mercury does not match what we expect from Newtonian mechanics. That predicts that the perihelion is fixed in position. Adding the gravitational effects from other planets means that the perihelion rotates around the Sun.

The calculation in your web page is especially stupid since it totally ignores the perihelion.

This means that you cannot use your simplistic assumption of circular orbits. You have to repeat your dumb idea for elliptical orbits. Given your ignorance of the basics this will never happen:
And you still are unable to grasp that Curved space is not contracted space.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
The Mercury Perihelion Anomaly

Few weeks ago I claimed that the energy to overcome resistance against motions is possible if the planets orbits closer to the rotating atronomic object as we believe.

Surprisingly this statement has lead to one more consequence, and this time a more seriously one:

Einstein’s Statement that times runs slower in a field of gravity is wrong.
The cause of the Mercury Perihelion Anomaly is not that times runs slower, but that the orbit distance is shorter as we believe.

Mercury is simple just about 3000 meter closer to the Sun as we believe. This is necessary to gain enough energy to overcome the resistance against motion, and is shown mathematically here. Furthermore it corresponds to the 0.069 arc second that Mercury is gaining (per orbit).

I too have in years (naïve) accepted that time really runs slower in a gravity field. But why should it? – We have in fact no argument that proves it, but only guessing. The holistic theory I present shows what Mercury really does, not based on blind guessing, but based on consequence of the same innocent thought: matters contracts space.
Click to expand...

You haven't got a clue about this.Learn some basic physics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom