That link of yours doesn't even begin to address the question.
Forces are not energy.
I want you to point to kinetic energy, not the forces which cause an object to gain KE.
Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.
- Thread starter Bjarne
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dark energy
- Status
That link of yours doesn't even begin to address the question.
Forces are not energy.
I want you to point to kinetic energy, not the forces which cause an object to gain KE.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
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:
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.
First asked 9 December 2009
Thank you for confirming that the answer after 5 months is still no
!
Gravity is a force. A falling object in a gravitational field gains kinetic energy and loses gravitational potential energy.Thank you for confirming that the answer after 5 months is still no
!
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
Before I start adding to this list from Bjarne's posts in this thread, here is the existing list.
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads include:
Before I start adding to this list from Bjarne's posts in this thread, here is the existing list.
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his 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
So far the answer is no!
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)"
- Bjarne does not understand that gravitational time dialation has been measured and matches GR. It is not "guessing".
- Bjarne's ignorance of GR
- Bjarne's ignorance of the electromagnetic spectrum and geometry
- Please show your calculations that the Domus Vista data is too inaccurate to test your idea
- What calculations did you do to show your cylinder data will be acurrate?
- 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
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
Gravity sucks, elementary particle sucks (space) .. and that's it.
Back on the track
Try serious to think about that the Moon MUST transfer KE to the Earth
And that the Earth MUST *** R E S I S T *** the moons “attempt to escape”
There is no different law of nature that applies for the Moon/Earth than for the Cow/Bull.
This is the main door to a deeper understanding of the nature of gravity.
Gravity PAYS all the motion-resistance BILLs, - OBVIOULY – for the Earth’s resistance against constant rotation, as well as for the resistance against the moons orbit.
It token me some time really to understand these simple PRINCIPLE, - it was the husband to Caroline Cow (the Bull) that told med in a dream.
I prefer to enter from the backdoor; measurement of central gravity, - because here is a possible potential prove.
Anyway everyone can easy see that there is something wrong with out understanding of energy distribution in a gravity-orbit.
SPACEWIND (is a bit clumsy expression)
It does only mean that:
- The orbiting objects does NOT transfer the energy they need to overcome own resistance against own orbit motion.
- When a planet gets lost (due to tidal pull) the Sun rotates faster, this mean that the planet not “feels” the same resistance from the Sun’s rotation, simply because a dying planets does the work to pull the Sun, this gives less ORBIT-RESISTANCE , and hence throws planets into orbit further out.
- Retrograde planets etc, does also “feel” the orbit resistance, these must rotate the central object opposite, but have not enough force, but they try, and that’s enough to that these also “feel” the Suns rotation resistances.
Think about that ADG by the surface of the Earth is 4000 stronger than in the orbit of the Moon. But the moons speed at the surface of Earth would only be 8 times so fast.
Gravity is USING energy to keep things going, it is crystal clear.
erlando
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 2,432
Were you on any kind of medication, drugs or alcohol when you had this dream?
That would explain quite a lot..
Well no, it's not it. What is kinetic energy, Bjarne?
Why?
Actually, there is.
The major difference between the cowboy/bull and Earth/Moon picture is how the force changes with distance.
For example, it we perturb the bull such that it is a little further away from the cowboy, then the tension in the rope increases, resisting the bull getting further away.
However, if the Moon moves a little further away from the Earth, the force on it decreases. There is no resistance to the Moon moving further away from the Earth.
I think that's where you're getting confused with wanting the Earth to resist the Moon's escape.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
Not what I know.
But it could maybe have been the potential gravity energy relative to the black hole of the MW.
Because of gravity sucks space things moves in a GF
Try to think how you can stop a super tanker or how you can force it into a orbit, - without resistance.
I believer that would be a problem.
And I believe every bull on Earth aggress to that (and cowboys too)
Right the connection whereby energy can be transferred is changing.
But this in not the point, it only mean more or less force / resistance.
I didn’t got that point, the bull does what it can to escape all the time.
Right…
It is, - gravity will prevent that. …
I am not confused, without resistances it will not work for the bull/cowboy and also not for the Earth/Moon.
Mister Earl
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 3,504
Taken one by one, those words are comprehensible and obviously English. But stung together in the way you are doing, Bjarne, and it might as well be martian.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Where does the kinetic energy of a cow falling off a cliff come from
The gibberish that came from Bjarne in response to Bjarne, where does the kinetic energy of a ball thrown upward go suggests that he cannot think about a ball being thrown. So lets get simpler and put it in his "cow logic" terms.
First asked 20 May 2010
Bjarne,
Consider a cow that walks over the edge of a cliff. It now has only air below it.
So now we have a cow falling off a cliff. The downward speed of the cow now non- zero when before it was zero. This speed increases as it is accelerated by gravity.
The cow has gained speed and continues to gain speed as it falls.. Its mass is the same.The kinetic energy of the cow has increased and continues to increase.
The gibberish that came from Bjarne in response to Bjarne, where does the kinetic energy of a ball thrown upward go suggests that he cannot think about a ball being thrown. So lets get simpler and put it in his "cow logic" terms.
First asked 20 May 2010
Bjarne,
Consider a cow that walks over the edge of a cliff. It now has only air below it.
Do you agree that it will fall downward?
I do hope that you know enough about the real world to say yes.
So now we have a cow falling off a cliff. The downward speed of the cow now non- zero when before it was zero. This speed increases as it is accelerated by gravity.
OK with the observation that things (a cow) fall downward from the edge of a cliff and their speed increases as time passes Bjarne?
I do hope that you know enough about the real world to say yes.
The cow has gained speed and continues to gain speed as it falls.. Its mass is the same.The kinetic energy of the cow has increased and continues to increase.
Bjarne, you do know that kinetic energy is one half times mass times speed times speed?
And now the big question:
Where does the kinetic energy of a cow falling off a cliff come from?
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
No
cows are not so stupid to get so close to the cliff.
No
you have not..
Right now there is no cow falling of that cliff.
I can only happen if you have pushed it.
Let us say you are so evil, - yes it would accelerate.
First in that moment ENERGY pop op from the big blue, it was NOT KE before that process.
Agree.
No it is not
You KNOW when a object speed increases, - its mass as well as KE does the same.
Right and the mass too.
Yes.
As you see it is a process right here and now, in that process energy pops up from what seems to be nowhere.
Unless you understand (or tries to understand) this process,- you off course never will know where that energy comes from.
Between clusters of galaxies, central in galaxies, inside the Earth, inside Jupiter, insides many moons is it warmer as previously believed, and we can’t explain (even though we tries)...
You need to understand that gravity is dancing the same dance as the strong force.
It’s a unity. In THAT process energy “pops up”.
The potential gravity energy was NOT inside the cow, NOT inside space around the cow, - but rather EVERWHERE, and mainly inside matter, but not limited to the cow.
The strong force is a universal ocean of frequencies caused by the dance of particle.
Understand the strong force and how gravity only is a by-product of that united force is the first step.
http://www.science27.com/english/quantum_physics.html
The energy is always there, it is that what keep cosmos together, - you can reveal the united force and this is exactly what gravity always is about.
The strong force / interaction is responsible for spinning space together and keeping it together.
Therefore it also tries to pull the Moon down on Earth.
This is also what gravity is. And this is where the “potential gravity energy is”
So according to the example; if you want to point to where the potential gravity energy is, then it is mainly inside the Earth, but also inside the moon, as well as between. (And it also inside the whole universe) You therefore can’t point at it, unless you can point to all these “directions”.
Shortly, the universe is a multi-vibrating elastic soup, the elastic dance (interaction) of particles.
Gravity is as a result vacuums in that soup. All this is the potential gravity energy ..
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
What is the big blue?
Is it different from the little blie?
You KNOW that when an object speed increases its mass increases (special relativity), as well as KE does the same.
What you do not know is that the cow is dropping at a speed very much less than the speed of light and so we can ignore its increase in mass. But if you want to do the math feel free.
Right and its mass by a very, very tiny bit that we can ignore for now.
But if you want to do the math feel free.
So you have no idea except your usual gibberish and a link to a crazy crackpot web page about quantum mechanics.
I will add this to the list.
P.S.
As any high school student knows the answer is: gravitational potential energy.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his 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 So far the answer is no!
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)"
- Bjarne does not understand that gravitational time dialation has been measured and matches GR. It is not "guessing".
- Bjarne's ignorance of GR
- Bjarne's ignorance of the electromagnetic spectrum and geometry
- Please show your calculations that the Domus Vista data is too inaccurate to test your idea
- What calculations did you do to show your cylinder data will be acurrate?
- Where does the kinetic energy of a cow falling off a cliff come from?
First asked 20 May 2010
No answer so far except some insane gibberish and a link to a crank web site page about Quantum Mechanics!
- 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
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
"Almost" - speed doesn’t matter how slow it is = mass. You can not ignore that.
The expression “Gravity potential Force” is not wrong
The point was (and still is) that you can’t point to where that energy is before the falls / process has begun.
Of course I agree to what superficial can be observed.
Gravity is a vacuum in space, - if something fall into that it gain KE, but when a object deep inside it do not move, you can no longer point to that energy. Either after climbing you also can not point to where the energy has gone. This was the point. And therefore also where that energy is now and where it came from. ??
We only see the surface of the ocean, and it is hard even to imaging what happens in the deep, especially for a left brained, - sorry both this is a fact. .
We should at least try to understand that better.
Mister Earl
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 3,504
For Bjarne: Let's say the cow weighs 1,000 pounds. The cow falls off a cliff. The cliff is 1,000 feet in height. Given Earth normal gravity and special relativity, how much will the mass of the cow increase as it accelerates? Quarter way down? Half? Just before hitting?
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
erlando
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 2,432
Nonononononono... You don't get to do that! You're questioning both SR and GR remember.
Show us the math using YOUR hypothesis.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
I am not changing the way to calculate the increase of KE or M due to speed, but only explain what lies behind.
Apparently trying to get you to reason to reality yourself isn't working (and probably never will), so I'll be more explicit:
You can't 'point' to gravitational potential energy.
You can't 'point' to kinetic energy.
You can't 'point' to any energy.
Energy does not work that way!
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Wrong Bjarne: Mister Earl is asking you to do the math.
P.S.
In order for the mass of a 100o pound cow to increase by 0.5% it will have to drow at a speed of 0.1c
!Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
We can neglect the increase in mass for a cow falling off a cliff on Earth.
In order for the mass of a cow to increase by 0.5% it will have to drop at a speed of 0.1c
! Now a cow falling off a cliff on a neutroin star is another matter
!The expression “Gravity potential Force” is wrong - it is gravitational potential energy.
The point is that you do not understand what energy is. It is not a thing like a rock or cow. It is a property of a system like mass or charge.
But if you want to "point" to it before the gravitational potential energy of the cow converts to the kinetic energy of the cow then you can say that the gravitational potential energy is contained ... in the cow
!- Status