THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

I wonder about those space probe anomalies.
If they were real ...............

Click to expand...

Very reel
Pioneer 10 have lost totally 500.000.000 meter, and was out of course.



Added

• 1 more Earth satellite
• Wasp-17b (retrograde)
• Moon of Jupiter (retrograde)

We will in the coming years hear much more to: too fast moons, planet, satellites, space probes.

I withdraw all prediction regarding Wasp-18b, according to predicted fast/late demise.
These were based on wrong calculation.

Bjarne said:

Very reel
Pioneer 10 have lost totally 500.000.000 meter, and was out of course.

[qimg]http://www.science27.com/forum/17b.jpg[/qimg]

Added

• 1 more Earth satellite
• Wasp-17b (retrograde)
• Moon of Jupiter (retrograde)

We will in the coming years hear much more to: too fast moons, planet, satellites, space probes.

I withdraw all prediction regarding Wasp-18b, according to predicted fast/late demise.
These were based on wrong calculation.

Click to expand...

We will hear nothing about this in the coming years.

Toke said:

I wonder about those space probe anomalies.
If they were real and fell outside measuring error, there would be plenty of people at nasa cuing up to write articles about it, right?

Click to expand...

Oh, they are real enough (only just above the measuring uncertainty, but - real). There are articles. In fact there are numerous plausible hypotheses as to the cause of the anomalies. But since this is a tad expensive to experiment with, the exact cause has not been pinpointed yet.

Hans

Bjarne said:

I withdraw all prediction regarding Wasp-18b, according to predicted fast/late demise.
These were based on wrong calculation.

Click to expand...

OK, great, Bjarne; you admitted an error. A small step for a man, but in the right direction.

.. Now to continue??

Hans

MRC_Hans said:

OK, great, Bjarne; you admitted an error. A small step for a man, but in the right direction.

.. Now to continue??

Hans

Click to expand...

If he's going to admit to all his errors,it will be a very long post.

First asked 2 November 2009
(Updated 25 November 2009)
Consider a proton in a circular particle accelerator like the LHC (or several other accelerators). It is traveling at a speed very close to the speed of light. This proton is moving and so has Bjarne's "kinetic resistance".

For that matter we could also look at linear particle accelerators.

Let us use a proton where u = 0.999c. Then (y-1) = 22.366 - 1 = 21.366.
This is actually a bit slow. The LHC when operating at 14 TeV will have protons moving at about 99.9999991% of c, i.e. y ~7,500.

Let us make the same basic mistake that Bjarne makes and set the "kinetic resistance" (KR) to (y-1) as m/s^2.
Thus KR = 21.366. m/s^2

So we now have an easily measured "kinetic resistance". As particles are accelerated faster and faster they require about twice the force to keep them going as expected from Special Relativity.

Particle accelerator are very carefully designed and monitored to work with specific accelerations of the particles. Too much or too little and the particles crash into the walls of the ring.
Your "kinetic resistance" means that every particle accelerator in the world does not work!

Exactly where did I go wrong in using your equation for "kinetic resistance"?

Do you really think that all the scientists that tested SR kinematics (Tests of Relativistic Kinematics) faked their results?

If you have no answer then "kinetic resistance" does not exist and your idea is wrong.

On a more practical basis you have to use electricity to power the equipment that accelerates the particles. To get the particles to a certain velocity you have to use a certain amount of electricity. Bjarne's "kinetic resistance" means that twice as much electricity is used. Somebody has to pay the bill. Accountants tend to scream loudly when a budgeted item doubles.

The next point is that the beams are circulated without acceleration for hours at a time. This is the accelerator acting as a storage ring. Making the beam travel in a circle is fairly basic physics. All you need are magnets and Maxwell's equations. The magnets are tuned to keep particles at a specific energy traveling in a circle. If the particles are not at that energy they escape the storage ring.

You are probably unaware of this but the force on a charge traveling through a magnetic field depends on the field, charge and velocity of the particle: F= q ( v X B ).
In a storage ring the magnetic field is constant.
In a storage ring q is constant.
Add in "kinetic resistance" to decrease v and the force decreases. The beam therefore spiral out into the walls of the ring.

Storage rings work thus "kinetic resistance" does not exist.

Yet another (less compelling) reason is that scientists are really interested in the collisions and their products. They are so interested that they measure the energy of all of the products in calorimeters.
There is a little law of physics that you should know about: energy is conserved.
Thus the energy of the products is equal to the energy of the particles that collided.

No one has claimed a Nobel Prize by noticing that energy is not conserved in the collisions, i.e. the products have half the predicted energy of the particle beams.

Too much or too little and the particles crash into the walls of the ring.

Click to expand...

This is where you wwnt wrong...
The computer would automatically just adjust the energy, and that's the end of that story.

I am ready to bet, so just come on cissies...

Bjarne said:

This is where you wwnt wrong...
The computer would automatically just adjust the energy, and that's the end of that story.

I am ready to bet, so just come on cissies...

Click to expand...

Now you are being intentionally obtuse. I have explained to you that it is physically impossible to make a closed-loop regulation of the Hadron collider. You also ignored the fact that the old accelerators functioned without any computer at all.

And you can do your betting in the local pub, here we try to conduct serious debates.

Hans

MRC_Hans said:

Now you are being intentionally obtuse. I have explained to you that it is physically impossible to make a closed-loop regulation of the Hadron collider. You also ignored the fact that the old accelerators functioned without any computer at all.

And you can do your betting in the local pub, here we try to conduct serious debates.

Hans

Click to expand...

Yes Bjarne,oh Wise One,how did the old accelerators work without computers.Your disciples await upon your golden words of wisdom.Enlighten us Master!

MRC_Hans said:

Oh, they are real enough (only just above the measuring uncertainty, but - real). There are articles. In fact there are numerous plausible hypotheses as to the cause of the anomalies. But since this is a tad expensive to experiment with, the exact cause has not been pinpointed yet.

Hans

Click to expand...

Thank you.
I take it that space wind, kinetic resistance, and contracted space are not among the hypotheses.

Toke said:

Thank you.
I take it that space wind, kinetic resistance, and contracted space are not among the hypotheses.

Click to expand...

Not among the ones considered by Nasa. I think someone suggested to Bjarne that he sends his thesis to Nasa, but he declined. ... Don't ask me why.

Hans

MRC_Hans said:

Not among the ones considered by Nasa. I think someone suggested to Bjarne that he sends his thesis to Nasa, but he declined. ... Don't ask me why.

Hans

Click to expand...

And let Nasa run away with his Nobel Prize?

Bjarne said:

This is where you wwnt wrong...
The computer would automatically just adjust the energy, and that's the end of that story.

I am ready to bet, so just come on cissies...

Click to expand...

The computer would not know that the beam hit the wall. There is nothing there to tell it that the beam hit the wall.
And that's the end of that story.

I bet $1, so just come on cissy...
(easy money here folks )

ETA
Actually there is a way the computer could detect that the beam is hitting the wall of the accelerator. It would probably record the loss of power from the the magnets in that section of the wall as they blow up.
I guess that according to you the scientists, engineers and all the other people at the LHC would be too dumb to notice !

Ever wonder what happens to a beam in the LHC when the scientists are finished recording and analyzing every little thing that happens with it?
In the Bjarne universe, the cheap option would to just let the beam hit the wall because that will have absolutely no effect on the wall.
In the real universe, people know that the beams are at a high energy and would destroy the walls if they impacted. So they take the real world option and install a system where the beam can be safely dumped. This is the Beam Dumping System.

Ever wonder what happens if even part of the beam hits a magnet in the LHC?
Protecting the LHC from itself

Together the LHC’s magnets store even more energy than the proton beams do—a whopping 10,000 megajoules, compared to 362 megajoules for the beams. Most of this energy is contained in 1232 superconducting dipole magnets, which do most of the work of beam steering.

While a beam of particles by itself creates very little heat, beam particles straying from the core of the beam will heat up surrounding material. It takes just a small number of beam particles hitting a magnet in one spot to raise the magnet’s temperature above a critical point, causing it to suddenly change from superconducting to “normal” conducting. This change, called a quench, releases the stored energy of the magnet and its neighbors; it can heat a small part of the magnet from -271 to 700°C (-456 to 1300°F) in less than one second.

“If we don’t do anything, all the stored energy will go into one magnet, and that magnet will be destroyed,” says CERN’s Rudiger Schmidt, coordinator of LHC machine protection. “We have to detect a quench and take action to put the energy somewhere that it’s not dangerous.”
When a quench begins, the beams are shut down and power to the affected magnet is immediately cut. Then heaters fire up, quickly raising the temperature of the whole 14.3-meter-long, 35-ton magnet and dissipating the energy.

Each dipole magnet is connected to 153 neighbors, and their energy also has to be immediately removed. A switch sends the energy into large resistors, where it heats eight tons of steel to a temperature of 300°C (570°F) in less than two minutes.

Click to expand...

(emphasis added)

The computer would not know that the beam hit the wall. There is nothing there to tell it that the beam hit the wall.

Click to expand...

You have a combination between

1.) Calculation / Equations
2.) Measurements
3.) Experience
4.) Possible mistakes e.g that heat/energy lost is overestimated

For example if you want to know the energy lost due to electric resistances and resistance against resistance.
How can you be sure you know that exactly what is what?
When the accelerator runs with full power, how can you distinguish between electric resistance (heat) lost) and resistance against motion.

I also think Cuddles have good very goods points > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5345407&postcount=473

I think no scientist at CERN etc…would dream about that it could be something wrong with ours understanding of resistance against motion, Remember resistance against motion require in a pretty low amount of energy.

If unexpected circumstances have been detected I do not belive hat anyone would think about if something was wrong with our understanding of physics. But rather related to the facilities. .

It’s properly a more complicated a process, and with many more aspects as we think and discuss here.

I believe if you really want an accelerator to either (beyond possible doubt) to prove or disprove if velocity also applies to constant velocity, this it self would require maybe years, of rebuilding, preparation and new software.

Time will show, - there are so many ways to finally either prove or disprove this theory. NOTHING so fare shows it’s wrong. Rather a lot shows that we have much more to learn, - especially WHAT is the nature of space. But also much more on many levels of the gravity phenomena, e.g what is powering hurricanes on ice-cold planets? – Misunderstood naturally central gravity?

So far we are only at the foot of a mountain. – Space is not a big nothing, but rather a big everything.

I know this theory is too “spacy” for many of yours. But what do you guys expect, space must be spacy.

Well, I've been lurking this thread for long enough...about time I threw my hat into the ring!

Two questions for Bjarne:

1) What frame of reference are you calculating your kinetic resistance in?

A force that is dependent only on velocity, which arises only from passage through space, would define an absolute rest frame of the universe.
Imagine a stationary test particle travelling through uniform space and subject to no external forces. Now transform to a frame travelling at speed 'v' in any given direction. Does the particle suffer "kinetic resistance" (1-y)? It can't, of course, because then it'd start moving in the stationary frame.

So take the satellites or planets. In order to calculate the kinetic resistance on those bodies you can't just take their velocity around the star or planet they're orbiting, you need their absolute speed. Have fun calculating that! Don't forget the speed of the Sun around the galactic centre, and the galaxy's orbit in the local group, etc.

2) Can you transform your equations in cgs units rather than SI?

I'm particularly interested in what happens to the kinetic resistance (1-y) term under that transform!

Bjarne said:

You have a combination between

1.) Calculation / Equations
2.) Measurements
3.) Experience
4.) Possible mistakes e.g that heat/energy lost is overestimated

For example if you want to know the energy lost due to electric resistances and resistance against resistance.
How can you be sure you know that exactly what is what?
When the accelerator runs with full power, how can you distinguish between electric resistance (heat) lost) and resistance against motion.

Click to expand...

Really easily.
You use the known and working laws of physics to design the accelerator. You ignore any "kinetic resistance" that is defined by someone with a pre-high school knowledge of physics.

This tells you the parameters under which the accelerator will operate, including "electric resistance (heat) lost". This also tells you how much energy you have to put into the system to accelerate the particles and keep them in the system.

Then you run the accelerator and it works.

Accelerators do not have double their budgeted electricity cost
To accelerate the particles you use electricity.
Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" means that twice as much electricity is used. Somebody has to pay the bill. Accountants tend to scream loudly when a budgeted item doubles.

Accelerated particles do not hit the walls of the accelerator
This is one of the very good points that Cuddles makes http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5345407&postcount=473.

• RF systems (e.g. RF cavity resonators) are used to accelerate particles and to keep them in the ring.

If there was an extra impossible "kinetic resistance" then the acceleratparticles would always hit the walls of the accelerator because the RF systems do not know about your impossible "kinetic resistance".

Stored particles do not hit the walls of the accelerator
The next point is that the beams are circulated without acceleration for hours at a time. This is the accelerator acting as a storage ring. Making the beam travel in a circle is fairly basic physics. All you need are magnets and Maxwell's equations. The magnets are tuned to keep particles at a specific energy traveling in a circle.

• Known losses (e.g. synchrotron radiation) are compensated for by RF systems.
• Unknown losses such are your impossible "kinetic resistance" are not compensated for.

If the particles are not at that energy they escape the storage ring. They hit the walls. In the case of high energy beams as in the LHC they then proceed to destroy the system.

Accelerated particles have the energy that is predicted
Yet another (less compelling) reason is that scientists are really interested in the collisions and their products. They are so interested that they measure the energy of all of the products in calorimeters.
There is a little law of physics that you should know about: energy is conserved.
Thus the energy of the products is equal to the energy of the particles that collided.
No one has claimed a Nobel Prize by noticing that energy is not conserved in the collisions, i.e. the products have half the predicted energy of the particle beams.

Bjarne said:

I know this theory is too “spacy” for many of yours. But what do you guys expect, space must be spacy.

Click to expand...

You idea is not “spacy”. It is just a display of a basic ignorance of physics.

Why does relativistic mass have the units of mass

First asked 23 November 2009
Relativistic mass M = ym where m is the rest mass and y is the Lorentz factor that Bjarne uses in his pulled out of his nether regions "kinetic resistance" formula of (y-1).
Bjarne states that (y-1) has units of acceleration, e.g. m/s^s.
The number 1 has no units.
Thus Bjarne is stating that y has units of acceleration.
Therefore in Bjarne's universe y*m must have units of mass * acceleration.

Bjarne,
Why does relativistic mass have the units of mass?
According to you it should have units of force (i.e. mass * acceleration).
Where have all of the scientists in the world gone wrong in the last 104 years in assigning relativistic mass the units of mass?

(Expanded and asked again because Bjarne obvioulsy did not understand the question with his "A question of perspective." answer")

Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe

First asked 26 November 2009

Bjarne:
Do you realize that energy is not conserved in your universe while it is conserved in the real universe?

Now lets have a look at energy:

In physics, energy (from the Greek ἐνέργεια - energies, "activity, operation", from ἐνεργός - energies, "active, working"[1]) is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law. Different forms of energy include kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, sound, light, elastic, and electromagnetic energy. The forms of energy are often named after a related force.

Click to expand...

Note that energy is not a physical thing. It is an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law. You cannot have a lump of energy sitting somewhere.

Consider the empirical law of the conservation of energy:

It states that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The only thing that can happen to energy in a closed system is that it can change form, for instance chemical energy can become thermal energy.

Click to expand...

Think about a closed system that contains an object moving with velocity v with respect to a given frame of reference and a rest mass m. The energy and momentum of this object in special relativity is:
The energy of this object does not change with time because its velocity does not change (there are no forces to cause acceleration).

Bjarne's equation for "kinetic resistance" is (y-1) where y is the Lorentz factor (gamma above).
This is obviously wrong to anyone with a high school education since it does not have any units (y is a number, so y-1 is a number) and a "resistance" should be a force. Bjarne wants it to be an acceleration so he arbitrarily assigns m/s^2 to it.

What if we ignore the question of Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) (First asked 23 October 2009)

And what if we ignore the fact that there is Experimental evidence that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is does not exist (First asked 2 November 2009)

That is: Some sort of deceleration due to an object's speed exists but not as Bjarne defines his equation.
The consequence is that the speed of the object that we are considering decreases. Eventually it stops moving altogether.

The law of conservation of energy is broken. The object starts off with a certain energy and ends up with none.

Reality Check said:

First asked 26 November 2009

Bjarne:
Do you realize that energy is not conserved in your universe while it is conserved in the real universe?

Now lets have a look at energy:


Note that energy is not a physical thing. It is an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law. You cannot have a lump of energy sitting somewhere.

Consider the empirical law of the conservation of energy:


Think about a closed system that contains an object moving with velocity v with respect to a given frame of reference and a rest mass m. The energy and momentum of this object in special relativity is:

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/b/1/4b139e7478b8c00ba5551c20874c4c73.png[/qimg]
​

The energy of this object does not change with time because its velocity does not change (there are no forces to cause acceleration).

Bjarne's equation for "kinetic resistance" is (y-1) where y is the Lorentz factor (gamma above).
This is obviously wrong to anyone with a high school education since it does not have any units (y is a number, so y-1 is a number) and a "resistance" should be a force. Bjarne wants it to be an acceleration so he arbitrarily assigns m/s^2 to it.

What if we ignore the question of Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) (First asked 23 October 2009)

And what if we ignore the fact that there is Experimental evidence that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is does not exist (First asked 2 November 2009)

That is: Some sort of deceleration due to an object's speed exists but not as Bjarne defines his equation.
The consequence is that the speed of the object that we are considering decreases. Eventually it stops moving altogether.

The law of conservation of energy is broken. The object starts off with a certain energy and ends up with none.

Click to expand...

You're flogging a dead horse mate.I've given up in his other fantasy thread and I'm giving up here.Good luck!