THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

[Bjarne]

Only in your head.
You have an equation: (y-1) where y is the relativistic gamma factor. This is a number without any units of measurement.
You have a web page that is termally confused and totally wrong.
It states "The result of (y-1) (negative velocity) can bee seen below in the table with blue text."
It lists specific values of (y-1) with units of m/s^2, e.g. "1.27 * 10^-8 m/s^2"

The fundamental mistake is the high school error of not realizing that a number does not have units of measurement. This that number can never be a velocity or an acceleration.

The even sillier mistake is saying that (y-1) is a negative velocity (it is not - it does not have units of measurement and so is a number) and then putting it into a table as an acceleration. Your grasp of English seems good enough to tell the difference between velocity and acceleration.

P.S.
Are you ever going to answer my questions in Does Bjarne know basic physics? (first asked 23 October 2009).

Now , Steep 1.
Seriously ask you self: Why does it take increasing amount of energy to get a diminishing increase in speed (acceleration)?

Please don’t reply in a ghostly way, - or in a way that you even not self do understand.

Can you do that?

And if you can not, how can you talk about a phenomena that you (or anybody else) not have understood?

 

[Reality Check]

Now , Steep 1.
Seriously ask you self: Why does it take increasing amount of energy to get a diminishing increase in speed (acceleration)?

Please don’t reply in a ghostly way, - or in a way that you even not self do understand.

Can you do that?

And if you can not, how can you talk about a phenomena that you (or anybody else) not have understood?

Special Relativity means that it takes "increasing amount of energy to get a diminishing increase in speed (acceleration)".


I have understood. You are either:

• So ignorant of physics that you seriously think that a number (y-1) is an acceleration.
• A victim of your own delusions. You are so obsessed with your idea that you are consciously ignoring basic physics.
• A victim of a mental disorder (Dunning-Kruger etc. etc.)
• You're seeking attention and don't really believe what you're saying.

I will be charitable and assume it is one of the first 2 cases. In either case you are just making a fool of yourself by not realizing that a quantity without units of measurement is not a velocity or an acceleration

P.S.
Are you ever going to answer my questions in Does Bjarne know basic physics? (first asked 23 October 2009).
(4 days and counting)

 

[MRC_Hans]

Bjarne, why do you keep repeating these questions? They have all been answered. Perheps you didn't like the answers?

Do you deny that it require increasing amount of energy to get a diminishing increase in speed?

Correct, in SR.

Do you deny that the way to express that is: - resistance?

Yes. It is inertia.

Do you deny resistance against velocity must be expresses as deceleration?

Yes. It must be expressed as energy loss.

Why do you still ignore to show everybody the correct deceleration “velocity”, - If the one I have shown "really should" be wrong. ?

There is no deceleration without loss. There is no loss to constant motion in a loss-free environment (e.g empty space).

One cannot compute the deceleration due to resistance without knowing:

- The mass in question.
- The resistance in question.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

There is no deceleration without loss. There is no loss to constant motion in a loss-free environment (e.g empty space).
One cannot compute the deceleration due to resistance without knowing:

- The mass in question.
- The resistance in question.

Crap

 

[dafydd]

Crap

What a well reasoned answer.You do realise that there are people here who are qualified in the subject.Please list your qualifications.

 

[dafydd]

Now , Steep 1.
Seriously ask you self: Why does it take increasing amount of energy to get a diminishing increase in speed (acceleration)?

Please don’t reply in a ghostly way, - or in a way that you even not self do understand.

Can you do that?

And if you can not, how can you talk about a phenomena that you (or anybody else) not have understood?

The answer was concrete,not ghostly.So you are the only person in the world who understands this? Typical crackpot behaviour.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne
Do you deny that it require increasing amount of energy to get a diminishing increase in speed?
Hans
Correct, in SR.

One Step forward for mankind.

Bjarne
Do you deny that the way to express that is: - resistance?
Hans
Yes. It is inertia.

Inertia is only cover-name for something we haven’t understood right ?
We could also have call it: Ein Erspliten Ladenburmer, right ?

Does that make any difference?

I mean, now we at least have one more expression.
We can be pretty sure that also the new expression express: "a dead end", - right ?

We are used to understand physical phenomena’s based on: cause >>> effect.
The cause to the increasing amount of energy it takes to get a diminishing increase in speed (acceleration) we don’t know, - but we know it happens when something moves (in space).

Hmmmm is it really so difficult ?
Could intertia (in this case) mean resistance against motion?
If yes, why then only against acceleration ?
Is such and "conclusion" not really beyond common sense ? - Missing "something". (at least logic sense) ?

WHAT is really the differences between the expression “resistance again motion" - (acceleration) - ” and ”inertia” in this case. ?

Try seriously to consider WHAT is : “intertia” and WHAT is causing such resistance against acceleration (and constant velocity) ?

The expression : “Ein Erspliten Ladenburmer” does that make us wiser right ? - we will remain on the same (silly) ignorant level as before, - right?

Are we pretending we are so dam all-knowing just because we have invented a smart (more or less) meaningless expression? - "inertia"

Is that not too silly, too lazy and a half done work don’t you think?

Wake up DONG – DONG – DONG, - this is the big bell that is ringing not in 1921 but in 2009.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.
J. Robert Oppenheimer

 

[edd]

The cause to the increasing amount of energy it takes to get a diminishing increase in speed (acceleration) we don’t know, - but we know it happens when something moves (in space).

We do know. It's because work done is force times distance, and force is mass times acceleration.

It's not a resistance to acceleration - the acceleration for a given force is still exactly the same.

 

[Bjarne]

We do know. It's because work done is force times distance, and force is mass times acceleration.
It's not a resistance to acceleration - the acceleration for a given force is still exactly the same.

Put it quit simple why does it at all require energy to accelerate e.g.; the Earth?
It’s not enough to claim because of the ghostly GR or because of the ghostly inertia. Such answers are really empty dead ends as well as it would be if you say it is because of the Erspliten Ladenburmer effect.

Why does it require energy to accelerate the Earth?
Why does it require increasing amount of energy to get a diminishing increase in speed?

Why make it unnecessary difficult ?

 

[Reality Check]

Why does it require energy to accelerate the Earth?
Why does it require increasing amount of energy to get a diminishing increase in speed?

Why make it unnecessary difficult ?

It does not take energy to accelerate the Earth - it takes force. You obviously have never heard of this force. It is called gravity.

Special Relativity (for the third time from me).

Why do you ask these inane questions over and over again?

 

[Bjarne]

It does not take energy to accelerate the Earth - it takes force. You obviously have never heard of this force. It is called gravity.
Special Relativity (for the third time from me).
Why do you ask these inane questions over and over again?

I mean if you want to accelerate the Earth as was it a spacecraft, and hence faster than it moves right now.

Why does it require energy to accelerate the Earth?
Why does it require increasing amount of energy to get a diminishing increase in speed?

It’s not enough to claim because of the ghostly GR or because of the ghostly inertia

 

[Reality Check]

I mean if you want to accelerate the Earth as was it a spacecraft, and hence faster than it moves right now.

Why does it require energy to accelerate the Earth?
Why does it require increasing amount of energy to get a diminishing increase in speed?

It’s not enough to claim because of the ghostly GR or because of the ghostly inertia

If you want to accelerate the Earth asif it was a spacecraft then you need a force not an energy. This force will increase the kinetic energy of the Earth. Very simple Newtonian mechanics.
Nothing to to with the experimentally confirmed and solid GR. Nothing to do with the experimentally confirmed and solid inertia.

Special Relativity (for the fourth time) places a limit on the speed of material objects. This means that as you get to higher velocities, the same force produces a smaller change in velocity.

First asked 27 October 2009:
Why do you ask these inane questions over and over again?

 

[Bjarne]

If you want to accelerate the Earth asif it was a spacecraft then you need a force not an energy.

Crap
How do you accelerate a spacecraft , do you use energy or "a force" ? (or both)

Special Relativity (for the fourth time) places a limit on the speed of material objects.

How comrade, - how ?

This means that as you get to higher velocities, the same force produces a smaller change in velocity.

You are so funny

 

[edd]

Put it quit simple why does it at all require energy to accelerate e.g.; the Earth?
It’s not enough to claim because of the ghostly GR or because of the ghostly inertia. Such answers are really empty dead ends as well as it would be if you say it is because of the Erspliten Ladenburmer effect.

Have you ever met a kid that answers every answer with the question "why?"

 

[Toke]

Put it quit simple why does it at all require energy to accelerate e.g.; the Earth?
It’s not enough to claim because of the ghostly GR or because of the ghostly inertia. Such answers are really empty dead ends as well as it would be if you say it is because of the Erspliten Ladenburmer effect.

Why does it require energy to accelerate the Earth?
Why does it require increasing amount of energy to get a diminishing increase in speed?

Why make it unnecessary difficult ?

Bjarne does have a point here, the current physics theories makes space travel really difficult, or at least impractically time consuming.

Where is the FLT drive and the reactionless jet propulsion for spacecrafts?

 

[Reality Check]

Crap
How do you accelerate a spacecraft , do you use energy or "a force" ? (or both)

Crap - your ignorance is showing yet again.
Not only do you not know that a quantity without units of measurement is not an quantity with units of measurement (i.e. a number is not an acceleration) but you have never heard of Newton:
F=ma where a is acceleration.

How comrade, - how ?

How what comerade - how?

ETA:
Special Relativity (for the fifth time) places a limit on the speed of material objects.
The "how" is that the universe acts as if the speed of light is a constant.
Adding the requirement that the laws of physics are the same in inertial reference frames give SR. We then test the theory using experiments and find that it describes the universe.
Experimental Basis of Special Relativity.

You are so funny

You are so strange.

 

[dafydd]

Crap - your ignorance is showing yet again.
Not only do you not know that a quantity without units of measurement is not an quantity with units of measurement (i.e. a number is not an acceleration) but you have never heard of Newton:
F=ma where a is acceleration.


How what comerade - how?

ETA:
Special Relativity (for the fifth time) places a limit on the speed of material objects.
The "how" is that the universe acts as if the speed of light is a constant.
Adding the requirement that the laws of physics are the same in inertial reference frames give SR. We then test the theory using experiments and find that it describes the universe.
Experimental Basis of Special Relativity.


You are so strange.

So Special Relativity is yet another subject that Bjarne knows nothing about.Follow the link Bjarne,and then you'll find out why we find you so amusing.

 

[Reality Check]

So Special Relativity is yet another subject that Bjarne knows nothing about.Follow the link Bjarne,and then you'll find out why we find you so amusing.

I would say that Bjarne knows about Special Relativity. He knows about the Lorentz factor (he denotes it as y rather than gamma) and cheerfully abuses it in his bad idea of kinetic resistance.

He displays little understanding of SR - thus his silly repeating of the questions about it. However this could be the mental equivalent of the physical behaviour of obsessive–compulsive disorder .

 

[MRC_Hans]

Inertia is only cover-name for something we haven’t understood right ?

No. It is the established name for somethng YOU don't understand. The rest of us understand it quite well.

We could also have call it: Ein Erspliten Ladenburmer, right ?

I suppose we could, but 'inertia' is much more useful.

Does that make any difference?

Yes.

I mean, now we at least have one more expression.
We can be pretty sure that also the new expression express: "a dead end", - right ?

'We'? I agree you seem to be at a dead end, but the rest of us are just on the road forward.

Could intertia (in this case) mean resistance against motion?

No.

If yes, why then only against acceleration ?

Because that is what it is.

Is such and "conclusion" not really beyond common sense ? - Missing "something". (at least logic sense) ?

No, it is simple and logical.

WHAT is really the differences between the expression “resistance again motion" - (acceleration) - ” and ”inertia” in this case. ?

Inertia can be termed as 'resistance against change in motion'. But it remains inertia.

Try seriously to consider WHAT is : “intertia” and WHAT is causing such resistance against acceleration (and constant velocity) ?

Done.

The expression : “Ein Erspliten Ladenburmer” does that make us wiser right ? - we will remain on the same (silly) ignorant level as before, - right?

We will not. YOU will, if you keep refusing to learn anything.

Are we pretending we are so dam all-knowing just because we have invented a smart (more or less) meaningless expression? - "inertia"

No. YOU are pretinding you are damn know-all, just because you have invented a smart-ass and totally meaningless expression: Space wind.

Is that not too silly, too lazy and a half done work don’t you think?

Yes I agree you are silly and lazy.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Reality Check
It does not take energy to accelerate the Earth - it takes force
Bjarne
Crap
How do you accelerate a spacecraft , do you use energy or "a force" ? (or both)
Reality Check
Crap - your ignorance is showing yet again.
Not only do you not know that a quantity without units of measurement is not an quantity with units of measurement (i.e. a number is not an acceleration) but you have never heard of Newton:
F=ma where a is acceleration

I assume you have read post 151 where I wrote:
"I mean if you want to accelerate the Earth as was it a spacecraft, and hence faster than it moves right now"
I also assume you know E=M*c^2 and agree to the great amount of energy would be released when Sun was exploding.
So now imaging the Sun would explode - Would the Earth now be forces to accellerate out in space. ?
According to Reality Check, quote: It does not take energy to accelerate the Earth - it takes force
How funny - It this a special NZ down under humour cocktail ?

Reality Check
Special Relativity (for the fourth time) places a limit on the speed of material objects.
Bjarne
How comrade,- how
Reality Check
Special Relativity (for the fifth time) places a limit on the speed of material objects.
The "how" is that the universe acts as if the speed of light is a constant.
Adding the requirement that the laws of physics are the same in inertial reference frames give SR. We then test the theory using experiments and find that it describes the universe.

You could have wrote:
The Ersplitten Ladenburmer place a limit on the speed.
This give the exact same insight to the question HOW and WHY does this resistance emerge.
Or you could have been honest and wrote: We simply don’t know.

I mean, If I was asking: Why is Jeppe drinking?
And you would answered: this is this is because he is lifting the bottle and the alcohol runs into his stomach.
What a flow of wisdom right?

You are so strange.

Ohh yeh and you sooooo superficial

No. It is the established name for something YOU don't understand. The rest of us understand it quite well.

Ohh really so WHY does the Earth not just move with 100.000 km/h – when using just a very tiny little weak force.
And why does it reqiure increasing amount of energy to get a diminishing increase in speed?
Because of intertia.
Allrigt but what is intertia (except a cover name) ?
We could have use the expression : Erspillten Ladenburder or just bla bla bla bla bla bla bla. - Same meaning right ?
No no no please stop, - this is not what i want to hear, - BUT only WHY does it resist motion? - And HOW does it resist.
Tell me please the connection between the CAUSE and >> EFFECT, - well you can not, but only bla bla bla...
Why can you guys not just be honest and admit: We dont know the underlaying cause ? - because this is the fact.
And since it’s a fact we don't know anything, - how can someone claim travelling through space is resistance free ?

Bjarne
If yes, why then only against acceleration ?
Hans
Because that is what it is.

The answer is extremely intelligence exactly when I ask: Why is Jeppe Drinking? - And the answer is: - because this is what he do.
I guess Hardward could improve the answer and have added: It is because Jeppe is thirsty.
But even though the answer is from Hardward, it doesn’t need to be true. Because is Jeppe really thirsty ? - or why does he need alcohol?

Ohhh man - What a great wisdom flow at this forum. I am really, really really really surprised.
I think I have got enough superficial superstition omniscients creeds answers this week.