Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
There will always be some left...
THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries
- Thread starter Bjarne
- Start date
There will always be some left...
The idea of space wind or your personal redefinition of centrifugal force, require that it is possible to detect if a body is spinning or not from a distance.
If that was the case there would be a name for the effect and plenty of lengthy papers on the subject. Someone would already have buildt huge gyroscopes to measure the effect of rotation at a distance.
If that was the case there would be a name for the effect and plenty of lengthy papers on the subject. Someone would already have buildt huge gyroscopes to measure the effect of rotation at a distance.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Some left from what? Is that remark intended as your excuse for you simply steeping yourself in confusion, like some fortress of solitude, and just making guesses? Certainly if you simply guess about things, I’m sure there is going to be a lot of confusion left. Stop guessing, stop leaving yourself confused, learn some math and some physics, use them.
But a scientist needs a big toolbox, too, full of tools to use on the ideas he has. That way, he can tell which ones to put in the bin.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Exactly TjW.
Bjarne, what difference does it make how big your bin is if you never use it or just guess at what you should put in it? For several pages you have been arguing that what you guess the forces involved in rotational motion should be somehow supersedes the actually physics involving rotational motion. As yet I have seen no indication from you that you are prepared or even willing to throw your guesses in that bin. So as far as I have seen on this thread, and as long as you keep just guessing that your guess are correct, you have no such bin as remarked by Einstein.
No Bjarne, you will never know because you are simply guessing.
Really.
Actually I have no idea if there is such an effect, but I have never heard of one and find it hard to believe it would not have been discovered by now if existing.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
---
Is like a puzzle, so soon you discover one piece fits nowhere, - you can throw it.
The problem is rather that the prevailing “science” produces more and more completely incoherent “pieces” - that everybody can see doesn’t fits nowhere, - but things get worse, because we are not always asked to believe such very often completely “fantastic” ideas, - but the education system often “brainwashes” student’s to a such level that many no longer distinguishes between what is true and what is bogus, - but rather student uncritical believes that this what the majority believes, this must be the truth…
What I am doing is to collect a puzzle; - pieces clearly seem to fit to each other. The problem right now, with regards to the (unknown) forces that transfer energy to maintain / overcome resistance against orbit motion and rotation, - is not that such force or energy is not there, - but only exactly to find the “tools” to be able to exactly describe cause and effect. – I am closing in..
Take it easy my friend, - this theory will be proven, - right now the only (best) Danish gravimeter is on its way to USA, it will be back in February, I am sure measurement will turn over a huge load of bogus.
Further more; Peoples brains works differently, must people are left brained. Those are often good to mathematic and to see details, but they can’t see the whole or how things are connected.
In other word:
Left brained doesn’t see the wood because there are too many threes around.
Right brained peoples are opposite (many times musicians, artists etc..) they see the whole wood not so much each single threes.
Ask you self: if you clearly could see how 30 pieces puzzle fits exactly together (and not many other could see that) why should you throw one single of these pieces?
According to the last few weeks’ discussion, few days ago I succeeded to understand; - from where the energy comes, (to overcomes the resistances against rotation / motion).
Few week ago I have at least succeed to make it logical how a rock (the moon Probes) 70 million times smaller than our moon can transmit enough energy to Mars, to overcome the resistance against Mars rotation.
Still there are some challenges to understand according to the complicated mutual and entangled (unknown) energy transfer between Planets/Moons and Stars/planets.
Don’t worry; these "codes" will be precisely cracked, if not of by me, then by a strong left brained person.
---
Ohh it is used many times….
It’s not difficult.
Is like a puzzle, so soon you discover one piece fits nowhere, - you can throw it.
The problem is rather that the prevailing “science” produces more and more completely incoherent “pieces” - that everybody can see doesn’t fits nowhere, - but things get worse, because we are not always asked to believe such very often completely “fantastic” ideas, - but the education system often “brainwashes” student’s to a such level that many no longer distinguishes between what is true and what is bogus, - but rather student uncritical believes that this what the majority believes, this must be the truth…
What I am doing is to collect a puzzle; - pieces clearly seem to fit to each other. The problem right now, with regards to the (unknown) forces that transfer energy to maintain / overcome resistance against orbit motion and rotation, - is not that such force or energy is not there, - but only exactly to find the “tools” to be able to exactly describe cause and effect. – I am closing in..
If you are collecting a puzzle and were 75% finish, why should you “be willing to throw in the bin” ?
Take it easy my friend, - this theory will be proven, - right now the only (best) Danish gravimeter is on its way to USA, it will be back in February, I am sure measurement will turn over a huge load of bogus.
I am not “just” “guessing” – but had shown several ways whereby this theory objective can be verified.
Further more; Peoples brains works differently, must people are left brained. Those are often good to mathematic and to see details, but they can’t see the whole or how things are connected.
In other word:
Left brained doesn’t see the wood because there are too many threes around.
Right brained peoples are opposite (many times musicians, artists etc..) they see the whole wood not so much each single threes.
Ask you self: if you clearly could see how 30 pieces puzzle fits exactly together (and not many other could see that) why should you throw one single of these pieces?
According to the last few weeks’ discussion, few days ago I succeeded to understand; - from where the energy comes, (to overcomes the resistances against rotation / motion).
Few week ago I have at least succeed to make it logical how a rock (the moon Probes) 70 million times smaller than our moon can transmit enough energy to Mars, to overcome the resistance against Mars rotation.
Still there are some challenges to understand according to the complicated mutual and entangled (unknown) energy transfer between Planets/Moons and Stars/planets.
Don’t worry; these "codes" will be precisely cracked, if not of by me, then by a strong left brained person.
Scientist have discovered many "threes" ............
- Planets far away from their stars, and sometime much too close, where these not can have been created.
- Space probes anomalies
- Jupiter’s atmosphere that must have been created much far out in the solar system
- Connection between stars rotation speed and distance to the planets
- What is mass attraction and how does it connect space/matter
- The missing logic: why should resistance against motion suddenly disappear out in the blue so soon constant speed is reached?
- The missing logic; why is there (increasing) resistance against motion?
- Why are stars in a periphery too fast and inner stars to slows (when we ignore the dominating fanatic believe and creeds)?
- And much more…..
---
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
As I said by just guesing what you should put in it.
So your, say, 500 piece puzzle just becomes a three piece puzzle. You’re right that isn’t difficult, it is also not smart, effective or representative of the accrual puzzle, but certainly not difficult.
Ah the typical crank claim since it seems “incoherent” to you obviously “everybody can see doesn’t fits nowhere”. Try to educate yourself and you will find many thing you perceived to be “incoherent” actually are extremely coherent.
Ah yes the standard follow up crank claim of that ‘scientific brainwashing’ needed to support the ‘scientific dogma’, that train is never late. So to defend your lack of education that results in so many basic concepts seeming incoherent to you, you manufacture some bizarre fear of education as “brainwashing”? You have pretty much backed yourself into a corner in that case, as the tools required for you to see and understand the coherence you apparently lack, somehow represent, to you, some diabolical plan to turn you into some kind of S-zombie (Science – zombie).
So you’ve just already made up your mind “that such force or energy” must be there even though you assert yourself you lack the tools able to describe it. So not only do you just throw away pieces to the puzzle you also simply invent other pieces without even being able to look at the picture that puzzle is suppose to represent.
Because you are no longer working on the puzzle, just your imagination and guesses of what pieces you think should be there after you’ve thrown away the pieces that come with the puzzle because you simply refuse to acquire the tools that would have helped you assemble them.
I am not your friend; I am your complete and total internet stranger. You can refer to me as The Man or simply Dan, if a more personable approach suits you better, but make no assumptions of my being in any way friendly.
What theory is that, that you simply do not understand the basics of rotational motion? That theory has already been proven. You don’t have a theory all you have are guesses and most of them have already proven to be simply wrong.
Yes you are, you assert yourself that many aspects of science seem incoherent to you, that you lack the tools to even determine the force or energy you have already decided “is there” and have clearly show that you lack even the most fundamentally understanding of the dynamics of rotational motion. All you have is just guessing.
Fortunately physics doesn’t work differently for different brains, much that you might whish it did.
Pseudo- neurological nonsense
Ask yourself how you are going to put together a puzzle when you claim a lot of the required pieces are simply incoherent to you?
Clearly you do not understand if you are still claiming “resistances against rotation / motion” that you have never been able to define or show.
The only thing that worries me is that your bizarre fear of brainwashing will continue to prevent you from actually learning anything and restrict you only to your guesses and delusional puzzles, but even that doesn’t worry me much.
Well I’m not fimilar with that particular issue so I will have to deffer to someone more experience in astrophysic, but just off hand I would say things move.
Which are currently being investigated
I have no idea what that is even suppose to mean.
Again I will have to differ to someone with more experience in astrophysics
See general relativity.
Because it wasn’t there in the first place. It is just one of your incoherence manufactured ‘puzzle pieces’. That is the logic that simply you are missing.
You have demonstrated no “(increasing) resistance against motion”. Again that is the logic that simply you are missing.
Well some say ignorance is bliss and you certainly seem to be full of it.
A wood that you apparently can not navigate as you simply bang your head against your trees. So get a map, stop guessing, learn some physics and math, use them. With all the crap that is apparently in your brain, it could certainly use a little washing up.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
----------
Fundamentally this theory only claims that that; bended space = stretches space.
From here it is only to follow the main thread and discover the consequences of such simple assumption, that really only was an innocent play with an expression.
For instance:
What stops me?
In fact nothing except scientific dogmas…and the idea: impossible this can not be sooooo simple…… BUT it is soooooo simple, Get used to it.
Why make it more difficult as it is ?
The risk for unemployment?
Entertainment?
Too many uninspired left brained?
----------
Wrong
Fundamentally this theory only claims that that; bended space = stretches space.
From here it is only to follow the main thread and discover the consequences of such simple assumption, that really only was an innocent play with an expression.
For instance:
- Hence matter must contract / consume space.
- Hence “stretches space” is the cause of mass attraction and ADG
- Hence matter is connected to space - and off course space is also connected to matter
- Hence matter must move when space (connected to matter) moves.
- Hence the Moon must be affected by rotation / centrifugal force.
- Hence space probes must be affected by rotation / centrifugal force.
- Hence matter must resist motion because it will drag space behind (affect the whole Universe).
- Hence planets is thrown far outwards of a solar system when a planet dismiss.
- Hence a planets will return when resistance again calm down a star
- Hence resistance of motion must also apply for constant speed.
- Hence space in motion can make a planet and a moon retrograde.
- Hence dark matter is misunderstood central gravity and hence a dark joke.
- Hence dark energy is the opposite of gravity
- Hence the expansion Universe is a gravity explosion
- Hence gravity and the strong force must be united.
- Hence Reality Check is almost “glued” to the Earth, - not so much because space “bends”, - but more exact expressed because matter - "sucks" - space.
What stops me?
In fact nothing except scientific dogmas…and the idea: impossible this can not be sooooo simple…… BUT it is soooooo simple, Get used to it.
Why make it more difficult as it is ?
The risk for unemployment?
Entertainment?
Too many uninspired left brained?
----------
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Guess #1
Guess #2
Guesses 3 through 17.
Guess #18 (and so far they all suck)
I have no doubts that you will just continue guessing
Your guesses being wrong.
Ok so maybe it is also that persecution and messiah complex that stops you.
Sure, fantasizing is always “soooooo simple”
Trust me on this forum we are more than used to it.
A question you should well ask yourself.
Are you employed?
You certainly seem to be entertaining yourself.
Well, not everyone can be as inspiringly half brained as you.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Lol!
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Or to avoid confusion call it: stupidity and ignorance.
centrifugal force is a force inward from any object in circular motion.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Which makes this theory totally wrong since bended space does not "stretches space" as any one with a brain cell can see.
First asked 11 November 2009:
Bjarne:
Have you grasped the simple fact that curved space is not contracted space yet?
In flat space the sum of the angles inside a triangle is 180 degrees.
This is no longer true in curved space.
Uniform contraction of space does not produce any curvature of space since it is uniform and preserves shapes. Thus a triangle in flat space which has a sum of 180 degrees still has the same sum after uniform contraction.
Uniform contraction of space does not produce forces when compared to flat space (no GR gravity). This is because straight paths in it remain as straight paths. Newton's laws then show that there is no force.
Nonuniform contraction of space needs sinks and sources of space which has other problems as sol victus has mentioned.
My objection to nonuniform contraction of space is more physical (and perhaps wrong). As I see it a point mass acting as a drain of spacetime will create an infinite curvature at its position. In other words it will be a black hole with all the consequences, e.g. instantly exploding because of Hawking radiation.
So far the answer is:
Bjarne cannot understant the simple fact that curved space is not contracted space.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
More of Bjarne's ignorance of simple physics (circular motion)
F = ma
where F = the force vector, m = inertial mass, a = the accelerating vector.
For any body in circular motion a is a vector pointing to the center of rotation with a magnitude of v^2/r where v is the velocity of the body and r is the distance from the center.
Thus the magnitude of the force is:
F = mv^2/r
In your simplistic example r has increased by a factor of 4, v is constant, m is constant.
Therefore the unknown force F (a string?) keeping the objects in circular motion has decreased by a factor of 4.
This is nothing to do with what we are talking about - the orbits of bodies due to gravity.
Wrong - this is just your ignorance of circular motion and basic physics.
F = ma
where F = the force vector, m = inertial mass, a = the accelerating vector.
For any body in circular motion a is a vector pointing to the center of rotation with a magnitude of v^2/r where v is the velocity of the body and r is the distance from the center.
Thus the magnitude of the force is:
F = mv^2/r
In your simplistic example r has increased by a factor of 4, v is constant, m is constant.
Therefore the unknown force F (a string?) keeping the objects in circular motion has decreased by a factor of 4.
This is nothing to do with what we are talking about - the orbits of bodies due to gravity.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Bjarne asks "( What is ”radian” ? – 1 orbit)"
Bjarne then claims:
So what is radian in Danish?
So radian is the same in Danish.
First asked 21 December 2009
Bjarne,
Are you lying or just ignorant of a standard unit of mathematics and physics?
I asked: Why you do not know about radians?Originally Posted by Bjarne
( What is ”radian” ? – 1 orbit)..
measurement in all areas of mathematics beyond the elementary level.
Bjarne then claims:
So what is radian in Danish?
Radian er en enhed for en SI-afledt vinkel. Det angiver forholdet mellem en given buelængde og den dertil hørende cirkels radius.
Der går 2π (omkring 6,283185) radianer på en hel cirkel. Én radian er lig med 180/π grader eller ca. 57,29578°. Buen på cirkelperiferien der udspændes af en radian er lig radius af cirklen (se figur).
Konvertering af grader til radianer kan gøres ved at anvende følgende formel:
Radian var tidligere en SI supplementerende enhed, men denne kategori blev fjernet fra SI-systemet i 1995.
Om mål for rumvinkel, se steradian (sr).
So radian is the same in Danish.
First asked 21 December 2009
Bjarne,
Are you lying or just ignorant of a standard unit of mathematics and physics?
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
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:
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two threads include:
- "Bended space is Contracted Space"
Curved space is not contracted space
First Asked 11 November 2009 - 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. He ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units or acceleration.
- Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no
!
- Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
- Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
- Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
First asked 2 November 2009 - Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).
- Bjarne's idea is proven wrong (acceleration due to gravity is constant inside a sphere).
First asked 2 November 2009
- Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
- Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
First asked 26 November 2009 - Can Bjarne understand that the force of gravity is not constant within a solid sphere?
First asked 26 October 2009 - Can Bjarne understand the physics behind orbital resonances?
First asked 3 December 2009
So far the answer is no! - Does Bjarne understand orbital mechanics?
First asked 3 December 2009.
So far the answer is no! - 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.
- Bjarne asks what a particle is!
- His simplistic knowledge of physis is betrayed by his delusion that since the force of gravity varies as 1/r^2 (e.g. a factor of 4 when r doubles) then the "speed factor “should” hence have been factor 4 as well" (plust other silly previous posts).
The Basics of Space Flight: Circular Orbital Motion shows clearly that the mean orbital speed of objects should vary that the inverse of the square root of r. The fact that objects actually act like this in the real universe shocks Bjarne! - More of Bjarne's ignorance of simple physics (circular motion).
- Bjarne asks "( What is ”radian” ? – 1 orbit)"
- Does Bjarne know that the Lorentz factor does not have any units of measurement?
First asked 22 November 2009 - Does Bjarne think that the Lorentz factor is measured in kilograms?
First asked 23 November 2009 - Why does relativistic mass have the units of mass
First asked 23 November 2009
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Yet more ignorance from you Bjarne.
- Dark matter is not a tool - it is a large set of observations that show that there is mass that does not interact electromagnetically in the universe, e.g. the motion of galaxies in galactic clusters.
- The Higgs boson is not a tool - it is a hypothetical particle that has not been detected yet.