THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

[MRC_Hans]

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

Bjarne
The answer is extremely intelligence exactly when I ask: Why is Jeppe Drinking? And the answer is: - because this is what he do.

When you keep asking silly questions ....

The point is that inertia is defined as resistance to change in motion. Therefore it only applies to change in motion. It is a distinct phenomenon that has to do with transfer of KE.

If you would try to understand this quite elementary part of physics, instead of playing dumb, we might get somewhere.

Hans

 

[sol invictus]

Forgot about special relativity, that's way too advanced for this thread. Energy can be a tricky concept even in Newtonian mechanics.

A spaceship is floating in space, at rest. It fires a blast on its rockets, expending some fuel (and chemical energy). As a result it's moving with some speed v, and has kinetic energy (1/2)Mv².

After a bit it fires an identical blast on its rockets in the same direction, expending exactly the same amount of fuel. It now has speed 2v and therefore four times as much kinetic energy as it did after the first blast, even though it expended exactly the same amount of fuel and chemical energy.

Bjarne, how is that possible? Where did that "extra" energy come from?

 

[Bjarne]

When you keep asking silly questions ....

It’s not silly to ask why Jeppe drinks. (or why you need KE to accelerate a body in space)
But it is silly to keep answering superficial silly.
You don’t like to admit the truth: You don’t know the answer.- and that's it.

Therefore it only applies to change in motion

Crap
It applies to change in acceleration as well.
This is known facts.

It is a distinct phenomenon that has to do with transfer of KE.

The Earth is moving..............

• How do you: - quote: “transfer KE” and from where? e.g: we (the Earth) is moving right now.
• How is KE “accumulated” inside the Earth / Mass?
• Why does that increase Mass?

Now be honest to you self and others not more: Ladenburmery - OK ?

Forgot about special relativity, that's way too advanced for this thread.

You can not “just forget” , GR is what this thread is about.

A spaceship is floating in space, at rest.
It fires a blast on its rockets, expending some fuel (and chemical energy).
As a result it's moving with some speed v, and has kinetic energy (1/2)Mv2.

After a bit it fires an identical blast on its rockets in the same direction, expending exactly the same amount of fuel. It now has speed 2v and therefore four times as much kinetic energy as it did after the first blast, even though it expended exactly the same amount of fuel and chemical energy.

According to GR, this is not possible.

 

[sol invictus]

You can not “just forget” , GR is what this thread is about.


According to GR, this is not possible.

It's true that according to Einstein relativity, the velocity of the ship will not be quite 2v after the second blast. It will be less by some incredibly tiny and undetectable amount which is totally irrelevant to my question.

So I ask again: where did the "extra" energy come from, Bjarne? If you can't answer even such a simple question about Newtonian dynamics, do you really understand energy?

 

[Reality Check]

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 ?

How funny - Bjarne insists in displaying his ignorance to everyone in this forum (and to the world at large in his web site). .

• E = mc^2 is for a body at rest. m = the rest mass of the body. The energy of a moving body is different. KE = 1/2 mv^2 in Newtonian mechanics. It is more complicated in SR but you obviously do not understand SR.
• F = ma means it takes force to accelerate.
• If you accelerate the Earth as was it a spacecraft then it will move faster than it moves right now. That is the meaning of the word accelerate.
• If the Sun were to vanish then the Earth would not "forces to accelerate out in space". In simple terms that you probably cannot understand:
  • A velocity is a speed in a direction. It is a vector physical quantity, i.e. needs both speed and direction to define it.
  • An acceleration is a change in velocity. A velocity can change its speed or direction. Either or both changes are an acceleration.
  • The Earth's velocity is always changing because the direction of its velocity is always changing.
  • The Earth's velocity is always changing because it is travelling in an elliptical orbit. This means that it moves faster whan it is closer to the Sun.
  • The cause of the acceleration is the force of the Sun's gravity.

...snipped the usual crackpot ranting...

Is this rant about the fact that you cannot understand physics?
Inertia. Inerti.

My point is that the universe acts as if Special Relativity is correct. That is what science is about - modeling how the universe acts when we observe it. Science is the process of finding ever more accurate models that match what the universe tells us.
Special Relativity (for the sixth 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.

 

[Dancing David]

You can not “just forget” , GR is what this thread is about.


According to GR, this is not possible.

You can't just forget that most of what you are discussing happens at way less than relatavistic speeds. You want to pretend that the vast majority of the universe does not occur at way less than relatavistics sppeds, that is your problem.

You have made all these very broad and general statements, now you want to say "but of course I am talking about relatavistics speeds", well we happen tp have all your posts, where you do not reference the rate of velocity at all, you do not give examples.

You make these huge balnket statements, page after page, now you want to say you are talking about GR, why so late?

 

[Bjarne]

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

Reality Check How funny - Bjarne insists in displaying his ignorance to everyone in this forum (and to the world at large in his web site). .

• E = mc^2 is for a body at rest. m = the rest mass of the body. The energy of a moving body is different. KE = 1/2 mv^2 in Newtonian mechanics. It is more complicated in SR but you obviously do not understand SR.
• F = ma means it takes force to accelerate.
• If you accelerate the Earth as was it a spacecraft then it will move faster than it moves right now. That is the meaning of the word accelerate.
• If the Sun were to vanish then the Earth would not "forces to accelerate out in space". In simple terms that you probably cannot understand:
  • A velocity is a speed in a direction. It is a vector
    physical quantity, i.e. needs both speed and direction to define it.
  • An acceleration is a change in velocity. A velocity can change its speed or direction. Either or both changes are an acceleration.
  • The Earth's velocity is always changing because the direction of its velocity is always changing.
  • The Earth's velocity is always changing because it is travelling in an elliptical orbit. This means that it moves faster whan it is closer to the Sun.
  • The cause of the acceleration is the force of the Sun's gravity.

• 
  and ?
  
  

  Is this rant about the fact that you cannot understand physics?
  Inertia. Inerti.

  Ohhh what is I now reading at Wikipedia
  Quote
  Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion.
  
  So I am not the only dreamer.
  
  

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

  
  But as we can see Hans have a different "religion" than Wikipedia
  I mean Hans deny that that…………… resistance = inertia ?
  But so far I read at Wikipedia………… inertia = resistance.
  
  This was the second big joke for today.
  Well it is funny joking with you guys, but sorry I have more important things to do.
  
  -----------------------

 

[Reality Check]

Ohhh [/B]what is I now reading at Wikipedia
Quote
Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion.
----------------------

That is what everyone hae been telling you: Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion.

In even simpler terms, inertia means that an object will always continue moving at its current speed and in its current direction until some force causes its speed or direction to change. This would include an object that is not in motion (velocity = zero), which will remain at rest until some force causes it to move.

Inertia is only cover-name for something we haven’t understood right ?
Try seriously to consider WHAT is : “intertia” and WHAT is causing such resistance against acceleration (and constant velocity).
WHAT is really the differences between the expression “resistance again motion" - (acceleration) - ” and ”inertia” in this case.

• We understand it really well.
• We know what it really is.
• The difference is that “resistance again motion" does not exist. “resistance again motion" is not inertia. Inertia as you now agree is resistance against changes in motion.

Inertia is a Newtonian concept that is retained in Special Relativity, but is redefined in General Relativity.
It looks like “resistance again motion" is a delusion that you have come up because you do not understand Special Relativity. Perhaps you are under the mistaken impression that because an material object cannot get to the speed of light that there is a force stopping it (and so a "resistance").
There is no force needed. It is simply a consequence of the Lorentz invariance of SR that observer A in an inertial frame looking at another observer B in another inertial frame always mesaures their velocity as below the speed of light. This is also true for observer B looking at observer A.

Consequences
Inertia and momentum – as an object's speed approaches the speed of light from an observer's point of view, its mass appears to increase thereby making it more and more difficult to accelerate it from within the observer's frame of reference

Of course from the object's frame of reference, there is no "resistance" - it is the rest of the universe that is acting weird.

 

[Bjarne]

That is what everyone hae been telling you: Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion.

Not Hans so fare I read it:
Read below:

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

As I read this he denies that we speak about resistance.

Well I guess now we (or some) ""should"" be ready to step 2.
WHY : increasing resistance by acceleration of a object ?
What is the underlying cause to that?
Well honesty we don’t know, and that’s the point.
And hence it’s also a challenge to understand WHY.

Step 3.
When we have resistance then we also have deceleration right ?

Step 4
If I should have calculated that deceleration wrong
How is then the right way to calculate it ?

 

[steenkh]

As I read this he denies that we speak about resistance.

He denies that there is resistance against motion, not resistance against a change in motion.

Well I guess now we (or some) ""should"" be ready to step 2.
WHY : increasing resistance by acceleration of a object ?
What is the underlying cause to that?
Well honesty we don’t know, and that’s the point.
And hence it’s also a challenge to understand WHY.

It has been told to you many times before: this is something we know quite well, and you can deduce the underlying causes from Eistein's equations. There is no challenge in this particular are.

Step 3.
When we have resistance then we also have deceleration right ?

Wrong. When we have resistance against a change in motion, we do not get a deceleration as a result. Inertia is resistance against deceleration and acceleration.

 

[Bjarne]

He denies that there is resistance against motion, not resistance against a change in motion.

Here once again the question
Bjarne
1.) Do you it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. ?
Hans
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.

Quote:
2.) Is this not resistance against acceleration ?
No, it is inertia.

So Stenkh,. - Hans denies that resistance applies to acceleration.

It has been told to you many times before: this is something we know quite well, and you can deduce the underlying causes from Eistein's equations. There is no challenge in this particular are.

We do not know the cause of it and that's the point.

Wrong. When we have resistance against a change in motion, we do not get a deceleration as a result. Inertia is resistance against deceleration and acceleration
Bjarne
'When we have resistance then we also have deceleration right ?
Stenkh
Wrong. When we have resistance against a change in motion, we do not get a deceleration as a result. Inertia is resistance against deceleration and acceleration. .

So when we have resistance against acceleration then we also have deceleration right?

Step 4
If I should have calculated that deceleration wrong
How is then the right way to calculate it?

 

[steenkh]

So Stenkh,. - Hans denies that resistance applies to acceleration.

Perhaps Hans has let himself be carried away here. You are still dead wrong on practically every account.

We do not know the cause of it and that's the point.

We do not know why the forces of nature are the way they are. If your hypotheses were true, the same would be valid for those: we would not know why things are that way.

So when we have resistance against acceleration then we also have deceleration right?

Wrong. I cannot understand how you can continue asking such stupid questions when it has already been pointed out to you several times that it is not so. We do not have deceleration because inertia is also resistance against deceleration! Instead we have steady, unchanging motion, which is the only kind of motion that will not encounter this resistance.

It may be very difficult to make a freight car run by pushing it, but it is just as difficult to make it stop, once it moves (we ignore friction).

 

[MRC_Hans]

-----------------------
Ohhh what is I now reading at Wikipedia
Quote
Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion.

So I am not the only dreamer.

Probably not.

But as we can see Hans have a different "religion" than Wikipedia
I mean Hans deny that that…………… resistance = inertia ?
But so far I read at Wikipedia………… inertia = resistance.

Not at all. However, language is not very precise, and Wiki is mainly aimed at lay people.

But here we are not lay people, right Bjarne? We are scientists who have web pages and who try to explain how the universe functions, right?

So, as scientists, we cannot afford to be imprecise, we must express things very precisely. We can use the word resistance, if you like, but then inertia is not resistance, inertia is just what the Wiki says; it is resistance against change.

However, the resistance YOU are talking about is resistance against motion. I assume that even you will admit that it is important to know what a resistance is against.

Resistance against change (=inertia) is something different from resistance against motion (=friction).

Now try to grasp that, and perchance we might be able to move on.

Well it is funny joking with you guys, but sorry I have more important things to do.

-----------------------
You should have, but you don't seem to be doing them

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Perhaps Hans has let himself be carried away here. You are still dead wrong on practically every account.

Not carried away at all. It is just that Bjarne is trying to claim that resistance against acceleration is the same as resistance against motion. It is not. Bjarne claims he wants to make things easy to understand, but when you try to hold him to unambiguous terms, he refuses.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

So Stenkh,. - Hans denies that resistance applies to acceleration.

Already explained.

So when we have resistance against acceleration then we also have deceleration right?

No. The resistance is against change. Once the change stops, the resistance also stops.

If I should have calculated that deceleration wrong
How is then the right way to calculate it?

There is no way to calculate that resistance, because it does not exist.

If there is resistance to movement (=friction) you can calculate the resultant deceleration, provided you know the resistance/friction coefficient, the speed, and the mass.

It is really not very complicated, but you must want to understand it.


Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Not at all. However, language is not very precise, and Wiki is mainly aimed at lay people

.
So whole worlds of scientist building Wikipedia are wrong and Hans is right. And soon my ears are falling of.

But here we are not lay people, right Bjarne?
We are scientists who have web pages and who try to explain how the universe functions, right?

Yes, - blab la blab bla bla

So, as scientists, we cannot afford to be imprecise, we must express things very precisely.

If possible yes.
But before we call something science it must have past not a kind of believe test, but rather the scientifically methods. And that’s fare from always the case. Fanatic and even authoritarian believes, and entertainments take over, more and more, in the name of Science.
This is not even a catastrophic it’s disgracing.

Resistance against change (=inertia) is something different from resistance against motion (=friction).
No. The resistance is against change. Once the change stops, the resistance also stops.

Forget friction and make you self ready for the old believe will die before you believe it.

Bjarne
If I should have calculated that deceleration wrong
How is then the right way to calculate it?
Hans
There is no way to calculate that resistance, because it does not exist.

More crap.....
Inertia is according to Wikipedia = resistance.
And off course also resistance against acceleration.
Off course we are talking about deceleration.
Even a stupid stubborn cow would agree.

The “problem” is that nobody here are man enough to admit that we off course talk about deceleration, because if someone accept this, - the next questions is: please calculate it.
And the result can only show the same values as (y-1).
This mean calculating the resistance = the discussion is lost
Then better deny it.

Better try to see if it is possible to get a way with denying, first that we speak about resistance (even though it is obviously can Wikipedia doesn’t agree) – Next to get away with accusing the authors behind Wikipedia to be silly or confused. And thirdly try to get away with that resistance doesn’t mean deceleration.

Dear fellows, this is all so childlike and ridiculously that I don’t want to spend time on it.

 

[Dancing David]

So when we have resistance against acceleration then we also have deceleration right?

No deceleration in a change in velocity. So if a body is in motion it will stay in motion until acted upon by a force.

Inertia applies both ways because it is a property of changes in motion.
Inertia does not equal deceleration.

 

[Dancing David]

.


And off course also resistance against acceleration.
Off course we are talking about deceleration.
Even a stupid stubborn cow would agree.

Nope resistance to changes in motion, is the same. There is no deceleration, it is all acceleration. A change in motion is a change in motion. The intertia is the same in all cases.

What are you trying to say.

 

[Bjarne]

No deceleration in a change in velocity. So if a body is in motion it will stay in motion until acted upon by a force.. .

So when the cow resists to come with the farmer home "in the acceleration phase" is not resistance and hence no deceleration
More Crap

 

[dafydd]

So when the cow resists to come with the farmer home "in the acceleration phase" is not resistance and hence no deceleration
More Crap

Mad Cow Disease.