THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

Bjarne said:
Correct.
But you can also do the same job (Equalize a force) with energy, and if doing that you must have proportionally between energy and force.
Click to expand...
You cannot equalize a force with energy. You have to have a force to equalize a force. Energy is not a force.
FYI:
  • Force is a vector quantity. Energy is a scalar quantity.
  • Force is measured in the SI units of Newtons. Energy is measured in the SI units of joules.
 
Bjarne said:
Notice I am only talking about equalizing a force, - there is no gearing in that case.
Click to expand...
So lets talk about equalizing a force:
There is a rock on the ground. It is not moving. Newton's laws tell us that the net force on the rock must be zero (the forces have been equalized).
What are these forces? They are:
  1. The force of gravity that is directed toward the center of the Earth.
  2. The electromagnetic forces between the atoms of the rock and the atoms of the ground that prevents the rock from ending up at the center of the Earth.
 
You cannot equalize a force with energy
Click to expand...

img_78.jpg


Off course you can...
 
Can Bjarne understand that energy is not a force

Bjarne said:
http://www.science27.com/images/img_78.jpg

Off course you can...
Click to expand...
Of course you cannot despite your pretty picture. That is what we see from really dumb cranks - they draw a picture and are deluded into thinking that is science.
You can expend energy to create a force to equalize a force. For example that is how aircraft work.
There is a rock on the ground. It is not moving. There is no energy being expended. There is no work being force.
Newton's laws tell us that the net force on the rock must be zero (the forces have been equalized).



What are these forces? They are:
  1. The force of gravity that is directed toward the center of the Earth.
  2. The electromagnetic forces between the atoms of the rock and the atoms of the ground that prevents the rock from ending up at the center of the Earth.
First asked 9 December 2009

Bjarne,
Can you understand that energy is not a force and so it cannot equalize a force?

You cannot equalize a force with energy. You have to have a force to equalize a force. Energy is not a force.


FYI:
  • Force is a vector quantity. Energy is a scalar quantity.
    • A vector quantity has both direction and magnitude.
    • A scalar quantity just has a magnitude (it is a number).
    • You cannot put a vector quantity equal to a scalar quantity.
  • Force is measured in the SI units of Newtons. Energy is measured in the SI units of joules.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Of course you cannot despite your pretty picture. That is what we see from really dumb cranks - they draw a picture and are deluded into thinking that is science.
You can expend energy to create a force to equalize a force. For example that is how aircraft work.
There is a rock on the ground. It is not moving. There is no energy being expended. There is no work being force.
Newton's laws tell us that the net force on the rock must be zero (the forces have been equalized).



What are these forces? They are:
  1. The force of gravity that is directed toward the center of the Earth.
  2. The electromagnetic forces between the atoms of the rock and the atoms of the ground that prevents the rock from ending up at the center of the Earth.
First asked 9 December 2009

Bjarne,
Can you understand that energy is not a force and so it cannot equalize a force?

You cannot equalize a force with energy. You have to have a force to equalize a force. Energy is not a force.


FYI:
  • Force is a vector quantity. Energy is a scalar quantity.
    • A vector quantity has both direction and magnitude.
    • A scalar quantity just has a magnitude (it is a number).
    • You cannot put a vector quantity equal to a scalar quantity.
  • Force is measured in the SI units of Newtons. Energy is measured in the SI units of joules.
Click to expand...

You have the patience of a saint.
 
There is a rock on the ground
Click to expand...

As already written
1.) You can maintain a force, without energy, - like Tore already wrote.
2.) But you can also use energy to maintain a force.
3.) Energy can equalize a force.
4.) How much energy you would lose by equalizing or maintain a force is irrelevant.
5.) That this not always need to used energy is irrelevant too.
6.) Hence the point is: you can equalize a force with energy, also even you don't like this or like me.
7.) And it is obviously, that when you maintain a force with use of energy, there will be proportionality between these two factors: Energy and Force ( losses doesn't count) e.g: the energy and force of a 1 ton bomb is the double of a 2 ton bomb.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
As already written
1.) You can maintain a force, without energy, - like Toe already wrote.
2.) But you can also use energy to maintain a force.
3.) Energy can equalize a force.
4.) How much energy you would lose by equalizing or maintain a force is irrelevant.
5.) That this not always need to used energy is irrelevant too.
6.) Hence the point is: you can equalize a force with energy, also even you don't like this or like me.
7.) And it is obviously, that when you maintain a force with use of energy, there will be proportionality between these two factors: Energy and Force ( losses doesn't count) e.g: the energy and force of a 1 ton bomb is the double of a 2 ton bomb.
Click to expand...

As already written:
1.) You can maintain a force, without expending energy, - like Toke already wrote.
2.) But you can also expend energy to to create a force, e.g. a rocket engine.
3.) Energy can never equalize a force. A force can equalize a force.
4.) Ok so we will ignore it.
5.) Ok so we will ignore it.
6.) Hence the point is: you can equalize a force with by creating another force by expending energy.
7.) And it is obviously that there is a relationship between two factors: Change in Energy and Force.

For example:
You apply a force F for a time t to to a body with mass m and initial velocity v. That means that the body accelerates by a = F/m.
Thus the body ends up with a velocity of u = v - Ft/m
The change in kinetic energy = 1/2 m (v^2 - u^2).
 
Last edited:
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two threads

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two threads include:
  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
  5. Can Bjarne understand that the force of gravity is not constant within a solid sphere?
    First asked 26 October 2009
  6. Can Bjarne understand the physics behind orbital resonances?
    First asked 3 December 2009
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
  7. Does Bjarne understand orbital mechanics?
    First asked 3 December 2009.
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
  8. Can Bjarne understand that energy is not a force and cannot "equalize" a force?
    First asked 9 December 2009
    You can expend energy to create a force to equalize a force as a hovering helicopter does. But the simple facts are:
    • Forces are vectors but energy is a number.
    • The SI units of force are Newtons but the SI units of energy is Joules.
And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):
 
Last edited:
Hence the point is: you can equalize a force with by creating another force by expending energy.
Click to expand...
Then we finally agreed.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
Notice I am only talking about equalizing a force, - there is no gearing in that case.
Click to expand...

Bjarne said:
Correct.
But you can also do the same job (Equalize a force) with energy, and if doing that you must have proportionally between energy and force.
Click to expand...

Thats nice, now give an example, see you throw around concepts but don't explain them. Certainly part of the issue. So give an example that is not contracted space.

That will help a lot.
 
Bjarne said:
That there is one way of calculating energy, - does not necessary excluded that there also are others, - or should be.
Click to expand...

Of course there are others, but the one you keep asking about is the one that is calculated as force X distance. Ask a different question, and you will get a different answer.
http://www.science27.com/images/img_78.jpg

Every second it requires energy (J) to equalize a certain force (F).
Click to expand...

No, it does not require enery to equalize a force, but it requires energy to make a rocket excert a force.

If the force of gravity was the double, the energy (J) to equalize that gravity (F) also should.
Click to expand...

No. The force required to equalize gravity is doubled. Not energy.

Hence there is a clear proportion between the force (F) and energy it requires to achieve it (J).
Click to expand...

No.

Distance is not needed
Click to expand...

Yes, distance is needed.

Is it really not is possible to say how much energy it require to equalizes a certain force? - It sounds unbelievable.
Click to expand...

It is: Zero energy is needed. Many of the ways we use to excert a force (such as rockets) DO require energy, but that is only due to their inefficiency.

Hans
 
Bjarne said:
Hence the point is: you can equalize a force with by creating another force by expending energy.
Then we finally agreed.
Click to expand...
No, you don't. ;)

In the case of moving Bjarnes' 10Newton cow (1N is about 100g, so it is a mighty small - or slippery - cow), the energy is proportional to the distance you need to move the cow, hence N X d. Or force X distance.

In the case of Bjarne's hovering rocket, the energy is proportional to the time we want it to hover. Hence N X t, or force X time. And, of course, times the efficiency of the rocket engine.

So again, there is no direct conversion between force and energy. You always need an additional scalar.

Hans
 
Bjarne said:
I am still speaking about the netto energy to create a force.
Click to expand...
And we are still telling you that there is no such conversion.

Tell me, Bjarne, why is it you ask all these questions when you don't want to accept the answers?

Hans
 
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