THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

Bjarne said:
This is simple logic rather than calculation.
This is based on that when you measure ADG you will measure the: space stretch level per distance.
This mean, you do not measure the "density" of space, but rather the density difference per distance,
A stable ADG the whole way to the centre indicated that the space consumption per distance is stable the whole way to the centre. You can compare this to an errand boy that brings crusty rolls to each house on the street Sunday Morning. The inner core density (none homogeneous mass) can be compared with that: for the end of the road people have order 4 crusty rolls each. ADG reflect the space consumption, per distance. In the excact center there is now mass, and hence no ADG. It's a strange little point.
Click to expand...
Simple logic:
If the "space consumption per distance is stable" then the ADG is not zero at the center and you are wrong.

This does not depend on how many crust rolls the inner core people eat.:jaw-dropp

If you are basing your "logic" on you analogy then you are doubly wrong. The errand boy drops 4 crusty rolls off at each house. So he loses 4 crusty rolls per house. The ADG is consumed by 4 crusty rolls per house. He gets to the end of the road with some crusty rolls. Thus the ADG is not zero at the center and you are wrong yet again.
 
Last edited:
Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance"

There are energy losses in the operation of particle accelerators, especially circular ones like the LHC. The known laws of physics tell us what these energy losses are. The accelerator is designed to work with these known energy losses. They are compensated for in the RF system.

Scientists know the exact energy losses. The energy that the RF system has to put into a stored beam is the exact energy loss due to the motion of the particles in the beam.

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 Bjarne's 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.
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.[/quote]
 
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas:
  1. "Bended space is Contracted Space"
    Curved space is not contracted space
    First Asked 11 November 2009
  2. Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass.
  3. Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
  4. Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
    First asked 26 November 2009
And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):
 
Because of relativity
Click to expand...
What have resistance with resistance to do ?
Why does it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed.?

Simple logic:
If the "space consumption per distance is stable" then the ADG is not zero at the center and you are wrong.
Click to expand...
It must be zero because every direction points to the center.

This does not depend on how many crust rolls the inner core people eat.
Click to expand...
You will know that after measurement. This is what science is about.


Let say the errand boy start with 100 crusty rolls at the beginning at the street, and drop 2 per meter, but the last 2 meter of the street he drops 4 per meter.
The 100 crusty bolls reflect the density of space when he started. 2 crusty rolls per meter, reflect ADG the most opf the distance. Nothing (zero) reflects that there is no more pull (per distance), because in the centre the street stops, and exactly here he runs out of crusty rolls.
 
Bjarne said:
What have resistance with resistance to do ?
Why does it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed.?
Click to expand...

Because, according to relativity and as confirmed in experiments, the mass of an object increases when the speed increases.

The resistance to acceleration is caused by kinetic energy being transferred to the object. As speed increases, the mass increases, so the same amount of kinetic energy gives a smaller increase in speed.

Quite simple, really.

Hans
 
Bjarne said:
Let say the errand boy start with 100 crusty rolls at the beginning at the street, and drop 2 per meter, but the last 2 meter of the street he drops 4 per meter.
The 100 crusty bolls reflect the density of space when he started. 2 crusty rolls per meter, reflect ADG the most opf the distance. Nothing (zero) reflects that there is no more pull (per distance), because in the centre the street stops, and exactly here he runs out of crusty rolls.
Click to expand...
This begs two questions:

1) In which way will this influence the cows?

2) Now will he keep 100 crusty rolls from going soggy before he has delivered the last one?

Hans
 
Bjarne said:
You will know that after measurement. This is what science is about.
Click to expand...

Bjarne, your measurement will not show anything useful. Your protocol is too primitive (= non-existent). Please understand that this is simply friendly advice; personally I don't give a damn, but I feel sorry for you for wasting time and money on a useless experiment.

Hans
 
Because, according to relativity and as confirmed in experiments, the mass of an object increases when the speed increases.
Click to expand...

In which experiment has increased mass been discovered?
Now imaging you accelerate and the mass and KE increases, now constant velocity is reached, the mass disappear” out in the blue? – Almost like a UFO ? – Do you really blind believe in this ?

Why does motion through space create more mass?
How do you think the process: matter + velocity = mass – works? – How is the cause / effect connected?

The resistance to acceleration is caused by kinetic energy being transferred to the object
Click to expand...
Try to explain, how does the object “absorb that KE? what happens ? – and how is more mass the result to that ?
 
Last edited:
It looks like relativistic mass is causing confusion. Increasing relativistic mass doesn't create matter.

Relativistic mass is just the sum of the rest mass and the kinetic energy/c^2 - since kinetic energy increases as a particle speeds up, so too does the relativistic mass. But the rest mass (the intrinsic property) is preserved.

Once you understand that, Bjarne, you'll see your questions are like asking why a charged particle has an electric field associated with it.
 
Bjarne said:
In which experiment has increased mass been discovered?
Click to expand...
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
Electron Relativistic Mass Variations


In the early 20th century there was an alternative theory by Abraham that is now little known, because these experiments rejected it in favor of SR. A critical review of the experimental evidence concerning the Lorentz model compared to the Abraham model was given in: Farago and Jannossy, Il Nuovo Cim. Vol5, No 6, pg 1411 (1957).
  • W. Kaufmann, Nachr. K. Ges. Wiss. Goettingen 2, pg 143 (1901) W. Kaufmann, Nachr. K. Ges. Wiss. Goettingen 3, pg 291 (1902); W. Kaufmann “Die elektromagnetische Masse des Elektrons”, Phys. Zeitschr. 4, pg 54 (1902) W. Kaufmann, Nachr. K. Ges. Wiss. Goettingen 4, pg 90 (1903) W. Kaufmann, “Uber die Konstitution des Elektrons”, Ann. Physik 19 ,495 (1906) and Nachtrag 20, 639–640 (1906); W. Kaufmann, “Uber die Konstitution des Elektrons”, Sitzungsberichte der preussichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1905, Part 2. W. Kaufmann, “Uber die Konstitution des Elektrons” Ann. Physik 19 ,495 (1906); W. Kaufmann, “Uber die Konstitution des Elektrons”, Sitzungsberichte der preussichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1915, Part 2. There were several discussions about the conclusions from Kaufmann's experiments and his data analysis. See for instance: M. Planck, “Die Kaufmannschen Messungen der Ablenkbarkeit der beta-Strahlen in ihrer Bedeutung fur die Dynamik der Electron”, Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft, 8, 1906; and M. Planck, “Nachtrag zu der Besprechung der Kaufmannschen Ablenkungsmessungen”, Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft, 9, 1907.
  • A.H. Bucherer, Phyz. Zeitschr. 9 (1908), pg 755; Ber. d. deutschen Phys. Ges. 6 (1908), pg 688. A. Bucherer, “Die experimentelle Bestatigung des Relativitatsprinzips”, Annalen der Physik, 28, 1909. -
  • E. Hupka, Ann. Phys. 31 (1910), pg 169. -
  • Cl. Schaefer and G. Neumann, Phys. Zeitschr. 14 (1913), pg 1117. G. Neumann, “Die träge Masse schnell bewegter Elektronen”, Ann. Phys. 45, pg 529 (1914). -
  • Ch.E. Guye and Ch. Lavanchy, Comptes rendus 161 (1915), pg 52. -
  • Zahn and Spees, Phys. Rev. 53 (1938), pg 511. -
  • Rogers et al., Physical Review 57 (1940), pg 379. Measurement of m/e and v for three beta-particles (electrons) from Radium. Supports the Lorentz model over the Abraham model by > 10 σ.
  • Meyer et al., Helv. Physica Acta 36 , pg 981 (1963). -
  • W. Bertozzi, Am. J. Phys. 32, 551 (1964). Measurements of speed vs. energy for 0.5–15 MeV electrons.
  • Geller and Kollarits, Am. J. Phys. 40 (1972), pg 1125. -
Proton Relativistic Mass Variations

  • Zrelov, Tiapkin, Farago Soviet Physics JETP, Vol. 34, pg 384 (1958).
Click to expand...
 
Relativistic mass is just the sum of the rest mass and the kinetic energy/c^2 - since kinetic energy increases as a particle speeds up, so too does the relativistic mass. But the rest mass (the intrinsic property) is preserved.

Once you understand that, Bjarne, ............
Click to expand...

I can't disagree to that, and I never did.
I never have heard or read that a particle would speed up, but I thought years ago this is what must happen.
As you maybe know I claims that the particle spin causes particles to "sucks/contracts" space, - and naturally if the spin energy increased the amount of space consumption increases too, and that’s why also mass increased.

I also claim that the particles will get increasing resistance against motion, that too is simple, because the particles spins more space together when the KE increases.

You can say a particle hence spins itself deeper into space, this is off course is pulling "the space brake", - and hence off course the resistance increases too.
So to my opinion it's all simple and naturally to understand the whole range of the proportionality between both:
  • Increasing resistance
  • Increasing KE
  • Increasing mass.
We are talking about a simple down to Earth resistance (likewise: cow & bull resistance).
We do not need to export any of these aspects to unknown dimension; it's all down to Earth to understand.
But facing these simple facts also lead to the same simple logical conclusion: that resistance due to motion, (that just mean an increasing attachment/connection to space), of course is connected to constant velocity too, -and not only to the acceleration phase.

I have nothing else as words to support this claims:

  • Simplicity
  • Coherence
  • Logical sense
  • Possible to imaging.
  • Down to Earth.
  • No heaven screaming WHYYYYY so STRANGE
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
I can't disagree to that, and I never did.
I never have heard or read that a particle would speed up, but I thought years ago this is what must happen.
As you maybe know I claims that the particle spin causes particles to "sucks/contracts" space, - and naturally if the spin energy increased the amount of space consumption increases too, and that’s why also mass increased.

I also claim that the particles will get increasing resistance against motion, that too is simple, because the particles spins more space together when the KE increases.

You can say a particle hence spins itself deeper into space, this is off course is pulling "the space brake", - and hence off course the resistance increases too.
So to my opinion it's all simple and naturally to understand the whole range of the proportionality between both:
  • Increasing resistance
  • Increasing KE
  • Increasing mass.
We are talking about a simple down to Earth resistance (likewise: cow & bull resistance).
We do not need to export any of these aspects to unknown dimension; it's all down to Earth to understand.
But facing these simple facts also lead to the same simple logical conclusion: that resistance due to motion, (that just mean an increasing attachment/connection to space), of course is connected to constant velocity too, -and not only to the acceleration phase.

I have nothing else as words to support this claims:

  • Simplicity
  • Coherence
  • Logical sense
  • Possible to imaging.
  • Down to Earth.
  • No heaven screaming WHYYYYY so STRANGE
Click to expand...

Hilarious.What a heap of male bovine excretia.Stundie material,and no mistake.
 
Bjarne said:
I have nothing else as words to support this claims:
Click to expand...
Yes, you are right, you have only words, and none of them are related to your ideas. It is really pathetic.

On the Danish forum Bjarne has recently made the mistake of calculating the resistance to movement for a proton going at close to the speed of light in the LHC to be 0,000001064J. MRC_Hans pointed out that there are 6,4584 X 10^14 protons involved, so that makes the energy lost to "resistance to motion" at 687,173,760J!

Bjarne's comment to this was "I am not convinced"!

Well, at least he has a theory that to him is more coherent, easier to imagine and down to Earth! What a pity that it is not related to the real world.
 
Bjarne said:
In which experiment has increased mass been discovered?
Click to expand...

Numerous. See Reality Check's post.

Now imaging you accelerate and the mass and KE increases, now constant velocity is reached, the mass disappear” out in the blue? – Almost like a UFO ? – Do you really blind believe in this ?
Click to expand...

What on earth gives you the idea that it disappears? It stays there as kinetic energy.

Why does motion through space create more mass?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Acceleration to high speed does.

How do you think the process: matter + velocity = mass – works? – How is the cause / effect connected?
Click to expand...

That is not the process. It is matter X velocity = energy = mass.

Try to explain, how does the object “absorb that KE? what happens ? – and how is more mass the result to that ?
Click to expand...

You wouldn't understand the explanation. It is too complicated to explain to cows. (Note: I'm not calling Bjarne a cow, however, he has repeatedly claimed that things should be understandable to the cows).

Hans
 
Bjarne said:
I can't disagree to that, and I never did.
Click to expand...

Yes, you did. On the Danish forum you claimed that if a nuclear bomb was moving at high speed, it would be bigger and give a bigger bang.

I never have heard or read that a particle would speed up, but I thought years ago this is what must happen.
Click to expand...

No. That was not what was said. When it is speeded up, it gets bigger mass.

As you maybe know I claims that the particle spin causes particles to "sucks/contracts" space, - and naturally if the spin energy increased the amount of space consumption increases too, and that’s why also mass increased.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You need to read up on thermodynamics.

I also claim that the particles will get increasing resistance against motion, that too is simple, because the particles spins more space together when the KE increases.
Click to expand...

However, I just proved to you that the resistance does not exist.

You can say a particle hence spins itself deeper into space, this is off course is pulling "the space brake", - and hence off course the resistance increases too.
Click to expand...

No. You can't account for the energy exchange. Thermodynamics.


So to my opinion it's all simple and naturally to understand the whole range of the proportionality between both:
  • Increasing resistance
  • Increasing KE
  • Increasing mass.
Click to expand...

You missed:
  • Not in this universe
But facing these simple facts also lead to the same simple logical conclusion: that resistance due to motion,
Click to expand...
- does not exist.

(that just mean an increasing attachment/connection to space), of course is connected to constant velocity too, -and not only to the acceleration phase.
Click to expand...

It does not apply at all. Not even to the acceleration phase. That part is inertia.

I have nothing else as words to support this claims:
Click to expand...

And even your words don't lend much support.

Hans
 
On the Danish forum Bjarne has recently made the mistake of calculating the resistance to movement for a proton going at close to the speed of light in the LHC to be 0,000001064J. MRC_Hans pointed out that there are 6,4584 X 10^14 protons involved, so that makes the energy lost to "resistance to motion" at 687,173,760J!
Click to expand...
There are no mistakes but only a question of how many protons that circulates.

What on earth gives you the idea that it disappears?
It stays there as kinetic energy.
Click to expand...
The resistance "must" disappears according to the prevailing theory.
But of course not if you deny we are talking about resistance.

According to Wikipedia > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia first line:
Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion

So you believe the resistance disappear but the increase KE and mass not?
How ridiculous. The resistance is the cause of the mass and KE increase.

It does not apply at all. Not even to the acceleration phase. That part is inertia.
Click to expand...
Just invent a smart expression and the question: what causes that resistance is “solved”..

You wouldn't understand the explanation
Click to expand...
Arcturusa already explained it .

However, I just proved to you that the resistance does not exist.
Click to expand...
Proved ? - Where?
 
Bjarne said:
There are no mistakes but only a question of how many protons that circulates.
Click to expand...

And that is not a question. We know the number.

The resistance "must" disappears according to the prevailing theory.
But of course not if you deny we are talking about resistance.

According to Wikipedia > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia first line:
Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion
Click to expand...

Exactly! Resistance to change. I'll repeat it for you: Resistance to change. Got it? Resistance to CHANGE.

This means that there is resistance as long as there is change. When there is no change (=constant motion), there is no resistance.

Now read the above carefully, take notes, and tell me which part you don't understand.

So you believe the resistance disappear but the increase KE and mass not?
Click to expand...

I know it is so. Theory predicts it, experiments confirm it. Bjarne, right now you need to go to the library, find a book about thermodynamics, and read it. Once the energy is transferred to an object, it stays there, until you do something to remove it.

The resistance is the cause of the mass and KE increase.
Click to expand...

The inertia, you might say, is. The transfer of energy to the accelerated object is the cause for the KE (and mass) increase. It is also cause for the resistance. Once you stop transferring energy, the KE no longer increases, the speed no longer increases, and the resistance is no longer there.

Proved ? - Where?
Click to expand...

On the Danish forum, I proved conclusively, using your own figures, that the Hadron Collider would nearly double its energy consumption if there was kinetic resistance. I can transfer the figures to here (Steen already did), but I think you are the only one who needs convincing. Over 600MJ.

Hans
 
Last edited:
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