THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

[Bjarne]

PS

Lets say you forget to release you handbrake..

The result is that you will have increasing resistance

By 50km/h = 10 %
By 100 km/ = 40 %
By 200 km = 200 % resistance and the car will stop.

You will also have the same proportional larger gasoline consumption.
When you normally use 10 litre per X distance (100km/h) you will vow use 14 litre.
Its simple math because of 40% * 10 litre = total 14 litre.
In the same way you brakes will reflect the same proportional heat increase.

This all happens because of resistance/deceleration.
The deceleration factor for instance 40% resistance (when driving 100 km/h).

If you now want to figure out what is you deceleration, it’s easy.
When you drive 60% per hour the resistance is 40% and this mean 40 km/h.

As you see what you thought only was a proportion is in reality a deceleration and off course includes: km/h.

 

[ferd burfle]

Notice math is a combination of different values e.g; distance * velocity = m/s

Bjarne, to this point I've been content to lurk and let others who know far more physics and math than I do point out your errors. But even I know that distance times velocity does not give units of velocity. Even a typo can't square this.

But on a lighter note, it completely made my day when I went to section 12 of your web site and read about the relationship between the space wind and the rotation of Uranus.

ferd

 

[Jocce]

Bjarne, why do you waste your time with these fools? There's the Nobel committee, for example. Just think, when they hear your theories, it won't be very long before you can denounce all your detractors from the podium in Stockholm!

And welcome to Uppsala Bjarne! Each year the Nobel laurates come here for public lectures at the university. Looking forward to attend yours next year.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Bjarne, for Pete's sake proof-read your posts. It is bad enough that you are using Gollum English, but you could at least show your readers so much respect that you try to correct the simple typos.

4.) You can rather put it the other way around and ask what has gradually KE and M to do with deceleration / resistance, and why are these values proportional with resistance against motion ?

They are not, unless you arbitrarily insert a value that equals them.

Notice the result is a "transformation factor" that proportional MUST reflect both - KE + M + (minus) v.

What happens when you put matter into motion?

You you apply a force to it, which is stored as KE.

What you really are doing is that you put elementary particles into motion.

Evidently.

What would happen when you would through a tornado through space let’s sat with 10.000 km/h ?
It would spin like a football and suck more air right ?

No. First of all, there is no air in space. Also, a tornado is not an object. It is the course that the air stream between a high pressure and a low pressure takes, due to the rotation of Earth. In space, with no gravity, there will be no tornado.

It’s the same that happens with the elementary particles if speed increases, - we say the inner KE increases.

No.

Translated to the "human mind" it means that the small tornadoes (particles) sucks (contracts) more space = proportional more KE and proportional more M because M is contracted space.

No. That they suck space is an unsupported claim, and even if we accept that it does not follow that they should suck more space when in motion.

You premise is imaginary and your conclusion does not follow from the premise. Double fail.

This all happens because of ”negative velocity” (or resistances) against motion // deceleration.

There is no such thing as negative velocity. Resistance is a force.

So te deceleration ARE the transformation factor (1-y) – ( and it do remember what it really is = deceleration // m/s^2) .

Incomprehensible.

If you do not agree let the let the math genius crack the fact that you also must have deceleration. And should I be arong telle me the correct value ???

The onus of proof is on you.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

PS

Lets say you forget to release you handbrake..

The result is that you will have increasing resistance

By 50km/h = 10 %
By 100 km/ = 40 %
By 200 km = 200 % resistance and the car will stop.

Bjarne, that is complete nonsense, on several levels. First of all 200km/h -100% is zero. You cannot subtract 200% from anything.

Secondly, you assume some speed to resistance curve, but that can never achieve over unity. In other words, you cannot have a fiction that means that more speed gives less speed.

Bjarne, please make a better effort.

This all happens because of resistance/deceleration.

No, it does not. It happens because some of the energy applied to the car is diverted to resistance, instead of to KE.

You will have to get to grips with the fact that resistance and inertia are two very different things. Otherwise you will continue to make silly mistakes.

The deceleration factor for instance 40% resistance (when driving 100 km/h).

If you now want to figure out what is you deceleration, it’s easy.
When you drive 60% per hour the resistance is 40% and this mean 40 km/h.

Complete nonsense. You cannot even guess at the resultant velocity unless you have the applied force. And if you want to know the deceleration, you must also know the time.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

----------------

But even I know that distance times velocity does not give units of velocity

When you use 1 hour to drive 100 km is that not 100km/h ?

But on a lighter note, it completely made my day when I went to section 12 of your web site and read about the relationship between the space wind and the rotation of Uranus.

All what I am saying is only that the inclination of the planets rotation axis is not coincidently. The planets are forces to tip over, to give space for neighbour planets space rotation.

According to Uranus it's rotation axis is of course very strange. I am not writing what certainly must have happen. - Notice the word maybe, is used. Uranus could very well also have been hidden hard.

Bjarne, for Pete's sake proof-read your posts.

Hans, for Pete's sake proof-read your posts
e.g: resulyt. - what is resulyt
You you apply a force to it, which is stored as KE.

You cannot even guess at the reultaant – what is reultaant ?

In other words, you cannot have a finction – what is finction

Etc……………….

It is bad enough that you are using Gollum English, and bla la bla

Bjarne, that is complete nonsense, on several levels. First of all 200km/h -100% is zero. You cannot subtract 200% from anything.

Right 200 % means 100% Ithought you knew that.

Secondly, you assume some speed to resistance curve

Crap

In other words, you cannot have a finction that means that more speed gives less speed.

Complain to the Lord, not to me.

You will have to get to grips with the fact that resistance and inertia are two very different things.

Inertia is a misunderstood expression since it also applies to constant velocity, - doesn’t matter that you believe the opposite.

Resistance is a force

Crap

Also, a tornado is not an object

What then ?
A none object maybe ?

It is the course that the airstream between a high pressure and a low pressure takes, due to the rotation of Earth

More crap
A tornado has nothing to do with the coriolis and the coriolis is also not “a force” - if is this is what you think.

You you apply a force to it, which is stored as KE.

And do you have not the slightest idea how / why ?
Except a misty explanation fare out in a unknown dimension nobody anyway ever will understand ?

Notice the result is a "transformation factor" that proportional MUST reflect both - KE + M + (minus) v.

Completely correct. Bravo Hans have got the point.

Bjarne
This all happens because of resistance/deceleration.
Hans
No, it does not. It happens because some of the energy applied to the car is diverted to resistance

Bravo !!! you have got the point again Hans.

Bjarne
If you now want to figure out what is you deceleration, it’s easy.
When you drive 60% per hour the resistance is 40% and this mean 40 km/h.
Hans
Complete nonsense. You cannot even guess at the reultaant velocity unless toy have the applied force.

Off course you can comrade.
If 40% of the velocity of the car (40km/h). - is forcing the car ("pulling") in one direction (because of resistance again motion) and 100 km/h in the opposite direction, the net result 60 km/h forward. This is simple Newtonian (and cow) logic.
Why do you continue to make silly mistakes?

Now if I really show be wrong , please reply to these questions:
1.) Do you it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. ?
2.) Is this not resistance against accelleration ?
3.) If you can answer yes to the two first question, and we assumes that resistance also applies to constant velocity. How fast would you would you decelerate when moving 12240 km/h ? (use the eqaution 1-y)
4.) Don’t you think it’s silly to claim I am wrong without to show what is then then the correct answer?

----------------

 

[Leviath]

Just when I thought it couldn't get any sillier....it did.

Lets say you forget to release you handbrake..

Yes

The result is that you will have increasing resistance

I think that is correct, yes. When you speed up the force from the braking system acting on your wheels will increase.

By 50km/h = 10 %
By 100 km/ = 40 %
By 200 km = 200 % resistance and the car will stop.

And here we go, this makes no sense. First of all have the decency to put a minimal effort into proof-reading your posts.
Second, are you saying that at 200 km/h your car will stop? Just how is that supposed to happen? Either you have done some serious typing errors here, or you have an understanding of pretty basic physics that really needs some explaining.
(Of course you are probably right that the car would stop if you go at 200 km/h with the handbrake on, but for totally different reasons.)

This all happens because of resistance/deceleration.

Oh for the sake of all that is holy. When you go from 50 to 100 km/h you are not decelerating, that's just incredibly wrong.
When you accelerate from 50 to 100 the resistance (or force) acting on your brakes gets bigger. You have to compensate this by giving the car more energy, ie fuel. So even if the resistance becomes larger as you come closer to 100 km/h you are still accelerating. The acceleration may be smaller depending on how how much energy you supply, but there's no decelleration until the amounts of energy you supply becomes to small to overcome the resistance (ie force) from the brakes.

Simply put, less fuel consumption would give you decelleration (and you won't reach 100 or 200 km/h)

Seriously...

 

[ferd burfle]

----------------
When you use 1 hour to drive 100 km is that not 100km/h ?

Which is not at all what you said. You said distance times velocity equals velocity.

All what I am saying is only that the inclination of the planets rotation axis is not coincidently. The planets are forces to tip over, to give space for neighbour planets space rotation.

According to Uranus it's rotation axis is of course very strange. I am not writing what certainly must have happen. - Notice the word maybe, is used. Uranus could very well also have been hidden hard.

Seriously, I should know that humor doesn't translate. But even if you didn't get the cheap joke, I thought you would notice the smiley, Bjarne.


Good luck to you and your cows.

ferd

 

[MRC_Hans]

----------------
When you use 1 hour to drive 100 km is that not 100km/h ?

Yes, that is a unit of distance * a unit of time.

All what I am saying is only that the inclination of the planets rotation axis is not coincidently. The planets are forces to tip over, to give space for neighbor planets space rotation.

You are saying it, but that doesn't make it so.

Hans, for Pete's sake proof-read your posts
e.g: resulyt. - what is resulyt
*snip*
It is bad enough that you are using Gollum English, and bla la bla

Yes, I was warned that you would react like that. But you don't have to proof-read my posts, I'll try my best to do that, just take care of your own. All in all it was just friendly advice; I assume you want people be able to understand your posts.

Right 200 % means 100% I thought you knew that.

I see. So I don't take your figures seriously hereafter? OK.

Inertia is a misunderstood expression since it also applies to constant velocity, - doesn’t matter that you believe the opposite.

Inertia is misunderstood by you. And yes, it applies to constant velocity. Even to zero velocity (unlike resistance).

A tornado has nothing to do with the coriolis and the coriolis is also not “a force” - if is this is what you think.

Not? Then what makes it rotate? Do you have a grand alternative hypothesis for that too?

Now if I really show be wrong , please reply to these questions:
1.) Do you it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. ?

You are talking relativistic speeds, right? Then yes, as per e=mc^2.
As an object gets nearer c, its mass is increased, so its inertia increases.

2.) Is this not resistance against accelleration ?

No, it is inertia.

3.) If you can answer yes to the two first question, and we assumes that resistance also applies to constant velocity.

We don't assume that the resistance also applies to constant velocity, because it is not resistance, it is inertia. Inertia is the tendency of a mass to not change its speed or direction. If we accelerate a mass, we need to supply energy to overcome its inertia. That energy is stored in the object as kinetic energy. If we stop supplying energy, the mass will continue at constant speed, and retain its KE. If we start tapping KE from it, it will loose speed.

How fast would you would you decelerate when moving 12240 km/h ? (use the eqaution 1-y)

We would not decelerate, assuming no external forces was acting on us.

4.) Don’t you think it’s silly to claim I am wrong without to show what is then then the correct answer?

The correct answer is the one you can find in any high-school physics book. I am not obliged to educate you on high-school physics.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

I think the hair splitting is enought for today

Shall we get back on the track ?

Now if I really show be wrong , please reply to these questions:
1.) Do you it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. ?
2.) Is this not resistance against accelleration ?
3.) If you can answer yes to the two first question, and we assumes that resistance also applies to constant velocity. How fast would you would you decelerate when moving 12240 km/h ? (use the eqaution 1-y)
4.) Don’t you think it’s silly to claim I am wrong without to show what is then then the correct answer?

 

[LissaLysikan]

Right 200 % means 100% Ithought you knew that.

Kay, that has to be absolute proof, even to yourself, that you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

 

[edd]

I think the hair splitting is enought for today

Shall we get back on the track ?

Now if I really show be wrong , please reply to these questions:
1.) Do you it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. ?

Yes

2.) Is this not resistance against accelleration ?

No. 3 becomes irrelevant.

4.) Don’t you think it’s silly to claim I am wrong without to show what is then then the correct answer?

No. If you stated 2+2=27 I think it's entirely justifiable to say that's wrong without having to mention the number 4.

 

[Bjarne]

-------------

Bjarne
How fast would you would you decelerate when moving 12240 km/h ? (use the eqaution 1-y)
Hans
We would not decelerate, assuming no external forces was acting on us.

Remember the ""evidence"" for that it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed, and that it only ""should”” apply for acceleration is ONLY based on that the orbit of 7 - 8 planets seems to be stable.

EVEN though it at the same time is completely ignored that the orbit of billion of stars evidently not follows known laws of physics. And even though the exactly same paradox applies for many space probes. And as already mention even though several other phenomena’s support the fact that we can not be sure of nearly anything.

That’s why the phenomena: “resistance against motion” (doesn’t matter what name we give it) very well could be based on an ignorant foundation and hence only the half truth.

If we assumes that resistance also applies to constant velocity. How fast would you would you decelerate when moving 12240 km/h ? (use the equation1-y) ??????

I am waiting for someone that shows: both that my calculation is wrong, - and at the same time what the correct “”should” be.

So long nobody are man and serious enough (not only to blab la bla + hairsplitting) but also to answer this question. I see no reason to continue to paticipate in this thread.

-------------

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think the hair splitting is enought for today

Shall we get back on the track ?

Now if I really show be wrong , please reply to these questions:
1.) Do you it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. ?
2.) Is this not resistance against accelleration ?
3.) If you can answer yes to the two first question, and we assumes that resistance also applies to constant velocity. How fast would you would you decelerate when moving 12240 km/h ? (use the eqaution 1-y)
4.) Don’t you think it’s silly to claim I am wrong without to show what is then then the correct answer?

Answered in post #109. /Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Answered in post #109. /Hans

This answer was not a answer as it did not show the ""correct"" deceleration and was based on what you (and many others) believe.. Not based on facts.

 

[MRC_Hans]

----
Remember the ""evidence"" for that it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed, and that it only ""should”” apply for acceleration is ONLY based on that the orbit of 7 - 8 planets seems to be stable.

Explained through conventional physics. There is plenty of empirical evidence. It is general knowledge, so look it up yourself.

EVEN though it at the same time is completely ignored that the orbit of billion of stars evidently not follows known laws of physics.

No, it is not ignored. The current thesis is 'dark matter'. Tha fact that you don't like that thessis is not evidence against it.

And even though the exactly same paradox applies for many space probes.

No, that is a different phenomenon. The irregularities of space-probe orbits are extremely small, and there exists several plausible explanations.

That’s why the phenomena: “resistance against motion” (doesn’t matter what name we give it) very well could be based on an ignorant foundation and hence only the half truth.

Even granted your premises, you are really saying that since A is an unfounded assuption, unfounded assuption B must be true. That is obviously nonsense.

If we assumes that resistance also applies to constant velocity. How fast would you would you decelerate when moving 12240 km/h ? (use the equation1-y) ??????

Since we don't know the resistance factor, that cannot be calculated. You can assume a factor, but it will remain an assumption.

I am waiting for someone that shows: both that my calculation is wrong, - and at the same time what the correct “”should” be.

Things don't work that way. You made the claim, so you have the duty of proving it.

So long nobody are man and serious enough (not only to blab la bla + hairsplitting) but also to answer this question. I see no reason to continue to paticipate in this thread.

Promises, promises.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

This answer was not a answer as it did not show the ""correct"" deceleration and was based on what you (and many others) believe.. Not based on facts.

The correct deceleration of what?

 

[steenkh]

Not? Then what makes it rotate? Do you have a grand alternative hypothesis for that too?

Don't get him started ... :

 

[MRC_Hans]

Don't get him started ...

Well, when he claims outright that the Coriolis effect is not the cause for the rotation of tornadoes, then he needs to explain himself.

I think it might be fun to see his explanation.

So how about it, Bjarne? Why do tornadoes rotate?

Hans

ETA: Also, I only need 12 more posts to reach 10,000

 

[Bjarne]

Explained through conventional physics. There is plenty of empirical evidence. It is general knowledge, so look it up yourself.

Crap

Things don't work that way. You made the claim, so you have the duty of proving it.

Bad excuse
or if you will: a losers excuse.