THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

Does Bjarne know basic physics

No response to this yet
Reality Check said:
I take it that you are using (1-y). This makes all of the numbers in your table wrong since (1-y) has no units and the numbers do.

This is where you make your worst mistake.
The units of the an equation depends on the units of the variables in the equation (dimensional analysis has been around for 200 years).
An equation does not magically produce numbers with certain units just because you want it to.
An equation produces numbers with the units that it wants.

Another mistake is obvious in your post. velocity is not acceleration . Your resistance is an acceleration. According to you (1-y) must produce an acceleration. But it does not!

First asked 23 October 2009:
Here is an equation: x = v/c
Speed goes into v. Speed is measured in m/s.
c is the speed of light. c is measured in m/s.

Bjarne: What are the units of x?

Here is an equation: y = v*c
Bjarne: What are the units of y?

Here is an equation: z = c*c
Bjarne: What are the units of z?

In the first example a high school student will see that the units cancel out and you get a number without units.
That high school student would look at (1-y) and see that there are no units because it divides v by c and the rest is numbers.
That high school student would look at your values and see that there are units.
They would immediately know that there is something missing from your equation. Only an primary school student would think that an equation that has no units of measurement can produce numbers that have units of measurement.

I can fix this for you by doing what you do - introduce an arbitrary number. My equation for resistance is:
R = g*(1-y)
where g is the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the planet.
​
This has the advantage over your equation that it actually produces acceleration.
Click to expand...
The silly equation I made up to fix Bjarne even sillier equation is not quite right. The number that I pulled out of thin air should be related to the star so make g= the acceleration due to the star's gravity at the position of the planet.
 
Reality Check said:
No response to this yet

The silly equation I made up to fix Bjarne even sillier equation is not quite right. The number that I pulled out of thin air should be related to the star so make g= the acceleration due to the star's gravity at the position of the planet.
Click to expand...


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.

-------------
 
I can't answer simple questions, don't like it when people point out my errors, I don't know waht I expected from a sceptic's forum.

I am taking my ball and going home.
 
Bjarne said:
I am waiting for someone that shows: both that my calculation is wrong, - and at the same time what the correct “”should” be.
Click to expand...
Here is the correct demonstration that your "calculation": The equation that you used to do the calculation is wrong because the equation has no units and your result does have units. This is something a high school student knows.

There is no correct calculation from your equation.

See my post: Does Bjarne know basic physics?
 
The equation that you used to do the calculation is wrong because the equation has no units and your result does have units
Click to expand...

Do you deny that it require increasing amount of energy to get a diminishing increase in speed?
Do you deny that the way to express that is: - resistance?
Do you deny resistance against velocity must be expresses as deceleration?
Why do you still ignore to show everybody the correct deceleration “velocity”, - If the one I have shown "really should" be wrong. ?

If you claim I am wrong you are right, at least you should show the right deceleration velocity otherwise you are not serious, don’t you think ?

So come on comrade show everybody the correct deceleration………….

I think you can not since you do not know the basic os physisc and math, right ? ( and because I am right ) ?
 
Last edited:
Bjarne - you have been shown where you are wrong. In math, in words, and in logic. You need to get a grip on reality and start actually reading the posts that respond to you.
 
Bjarne said:
Do you deny that it require increasing amount of energy to get a diminishing increase in speed?
Click to expand...

So when I step on the gas pedal in my car,it should slow down? Maybe it does in the Bjarnevers.
 
Bjarne said:
Do you deny that it require increasing amount of energy to get a diminishing increase in speed?
Click to expand...
In special relativity yes.
But not in your theory:
The equation that you used to do the calculation is wrong because the equation has no units and your result does have units.

You have decided what the units are just beacuse thsy are the units that you want them to be..
If I was very ignorant then I could say that (1-y) does not give what it actually gives (numbers without units).

In fact I will be that ignorant: (1-y) gives results in the units of mass, e.g. kilograms.
Now either disprove my obviously correct statement or change your web page to show the correct units :rolleyes: !

P.S.
Are you ever going to answer my questions in Does Bjarne know basic physics?
 
Reality Check said:
In special relativity yes.
But not in your theory:
The equation that you used to do the calculation is wrong because the equation has no units and your result does have units.

You have decided what the units are just beacuse thsy are the units that you want them to be..
If I was very ignorant then I could say that (1-y) does not give what it actually gives (numbers without units).

In fact I will be that ignorant: (1-y) gives results in the units of mass, e.g. kilograms.
Now either disprove my obviously correct statement or change your web page to show the correct units :rolleyes: !

P.S.
Are you ever going to answer my questions in Does Bjarne know basic physics?
Click to expand...

I think you "forgot" to answer some questions

Do you deny that the way to express that is: - resistance?
Do you deny resistance against velocity must be expresses as deceleration?
Why do you still ignore to show everybody the correct deceleration “velocity”, - If the one I have shown "really should" be wrong. ?

If you claim I am wrong you are right, at least you should show the right deceleration velocity otherwise you are not serious, don’t you think ?

So come on comrade show everybody the correct deceleration………….
 
It's quite obvious that Bjarne does not know basic physics.Why are crackpots always so insulting?
 
Bjarne said:
Do you deny that it require increasing amount of energy to get a diminishing increase in speed?
Click to expand...
Are you talking about relativistic speeds or what, please give an example.
Do you deny that the way to express that is: - resistance?
Click to expand...
This is a very vague statement, please give an example.
Do you deny resistance against velocity must be expresses as deceleration?
Click to expand...
This makes even less sense, what do you mean? A body in motion will stay in motion until acted upon an outside force, there is no inate resisitance to coninuing motion, IE velocity. Please give an example.
Why do you still ignore to show everybody the correct deceleration “velocity”, - If the one I have shown "really should" be wrong. ?
Click to expand...
Why don't you give examples of exactly what you mean, your lack of ability to express ideas coherently is your issue.
If you claim I am wrong you are right, at least you should show the right deceleration velocity otherwise you are not serious, don’t you think ?
Click to expand...
Give an example, what are you talking about, what change in velocity, where, what?
So come on comrade show everybody the correct deceleration………….
Click to expand...

Meet your own standard, give an example of what you are talking about.
I think you can not since you do not know the basic os physisc and math, right ? ( and because I am right ) ?
Click to expand...

Because you are not expressing yourself clearly.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
It can't be more clear
Click to expand...
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).
 
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