ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Allais Effect , Dark Flow , relativity , Theory of Relativity

Reply
Old 8th October 2019, 01:34 PM   #1041
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,440
Thumbs down Idiocy of calling facts "bla bla bla bla bla bla"

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Yes RC you is absolutely right...
9 October 2019 Bjarne: Idiocy of calling facts "bla bla bla bla bla bla" and usual "mystery" stupidity.

The fact is that Sedna has a measured orbit that is exceptionally long and elongated. This has lead to debate about its classification. Sedna is currently classified as a scattered disc object since an elongated orbit suggests it has been perturbed by Neptune? Maybe Sedna is the first known member of the inner Oort cloud? There are speculations of a new class of object (orbit perturbed by a passing star, captured interstellar object). Or maybe the orbit is evidence of a large outer planet.

Any "mysteries" have the potential of being explained by science. They can never be explained by ignorant delusions.

8 October 2019 Bjarne: A "the north/south axis" delusion followed by a list of "cause of" lies !
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
[*]example, - Mysterious Sedna, - an orbit that should be impossible.
A lie that Sedna has an impossible orbit.
8 October 2019 Bjarne: What is your explanation of the spiral arms of a face on spiral galaxy and an edge on spiral galaxy? What abut elliptical galaxies?

Last edited by Reality Check; 8th October 2019 at 01:50 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 01:37 PM   #1042
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,440
Thumbs down Delusion about his RR delusion in the LHC - he has no idea what the force is

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
to counteract RR you just need a tine little extra force.
9 October 2019 Bjarne: Delusion about his RR delusion in the LHC - he has no idea what this "extra force" is .
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 02:09 PM   #1043
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,654
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
?
It was your claim. The clock on the platform at -5cs shows 5s at A right?

But you appear to be claiming that this clock was at t=0 at the start of your green arrow.

The beginning of your green line is not t=0 in platform, so you are assigning two different values for the start of the interval in the same frame.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 02:14 PM   #1044
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,654
SDG

How about you put the world lines for the ends of the rods you are talking about and also show events for the start and end of any intervals you are referring to.

Then you can show the co-ordinates of each event in both frames. That would make your claim a little clearer.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2019, 07:37 PM   #1045
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,654




So, for a clock on the train, the duration 6.1237 dilates to 6.25

For a clock on the platform, the duration 6.25 dilates to 6.3789. All consistent as long as you remember which duration was measured by a stationary clock.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 8th October 2019 at 07:42 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 08:36 AM   #1046
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,765
SDG, why do you think your ideas are generating no traction?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 10:15 AM   #1047
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,348
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Lots of rubbish fantasy that does not answer simple questions:
7 October 2019 Bjarne: How long before Earth's orbital velocity is zero and the Earth falls into the Sun?

Or
8 October 2019 Bjarne: What is the effect of your RR on the LHC (can the LHC work at all?)?

My guess is that your RR delusion makes the LHC not work (v = 0.999999990 c is a large deceleration) and kills us (a small deceleration over billions of years).
In the 3rd kindergarten astro lesson, I learn that ; to maintained a certain relativistic acceleration you gradually need more and more energy..
Did you miss that lesson ?

Or explained in a language (you don’t understand), - E and M follows the Lorentz Equation exactly as acc and acc. does, - o or if you prefer: exactly like F and F’ does.

So what’s really the problem ?
All the relativistic energy, in the LHC is already there, all the time..

I know you have understood nothing about what I just wrote.. OK, don’t worry, let me then ask you:

Why in heck do you need gradually need more and more energy to maintain a certain (relativistic) acceleration.
WHY ?
  1. because of bla bla bla bla bla ??
  2. Or becvause of RR ?
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 10:31 AM   #1048
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,863
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
In the 3rd kindergarten astro lesson, I learn that ; to maintained a certain relativistic acceleration you gradually need more and more energy..
Did you miss that lesson ?

Or explained in a language (you donít understand), - E and M follows the Lorentz Equation exactly as acc and acc. does, - o or if you prefer: exactly like F and Fí does.

So whatís really the problem ?
All the relativistic energy, in the LHC is already there, all the time..

I know you have understood nothing about what I just wrote.. OK, donít worry, let me then ask you:

Why in heck do you need gradually need more and more energy to maintain a certain (relativistic) acceleration.
WHY ?
  1. because of bla bla bla bla bla ??
  2. Or becvause of RR ?
Seriously?

Your core equation lies in tatters, bleeding out, and all you can do is lob around some insults? You don't have a leg to stand on until you address the fact that your own equation contradicts your claims. Your claims of math competency have been debunked by your own equation.

Perhaps a calculator would help.


__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 10:36 AM   #1049
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,863
Here's a basic math lesson for you Bjarne, that may help you understand WHY your equation is crap:

https://imgur.com/gallery/KH5zm








Your inputs don't work out the way you claim they do. This has been pointed out in great detail by multiple people yet all you can do is babble about kindergarten and try to change the subject.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!

Last edited by halleyscomet; 9th October 2019 at 10:37 AM.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 10:38 AM   #1050
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 15,444
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Why in heck do you need gradually need more and more energy to maintain a certain (relativistic) acceleration.
WHY ?
  1. because of bla bla bla bla bla ??
  2. Or becvause of RR ?

You need more and more energy per unit time (power) to maintain any linear acceleration. Relativistic speeds aren't required. It applies just as much to a slow freight train or a bicycle as it does to some hypothetical body accelerating in space.

It's because kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity. So you need to transfer an increasing amount of energy for each increment of velocity. If applying a constant force to achieve a constant acceleration, that force must be applied over a greater distance per time increment as acceleration continues. Since energy is force times distance, the energy applied per time increment to maintain the force increases.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 9th October 2019 at 10:40 AM.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 12:01 PM   #1051
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,274
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
In the 3rd kindergarten astro lesson, I learn that ; to maintained a certain relativistic acceleration you gradually need more and more energy..
Did you miss that lesson ?
No, unlike you, we understood it.

Quote:
Why in heck do you need gradually need more and more energy to maintain a certain (relativistic) acceleration.
WHY ?
Because e=mc2
In other words, as you get closer to c the energy and mass grows exponentially.

This has nothing to do with your silly "RR" which is alternately a huge power or a tiny one according to what happens to fit the situation.

It is not a resistance at all, because a resistance is a loss, and e=mc2 is not a loss, it is more and more energy stored, as velocity increases, which has been experimentally proven in, among other things, particle accelerators.

But, for you to understand this, Bjarne, you need to first abandon all your nonsense ideas, and then read up on physics from scratch, and hope to be able to understand most of it.

Alternatively, continue to ramble on and make a fool of yourself.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 12:12 PM   #1052
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,863
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
for you to understand this, Bjarne, you need to first abandon all your nonsense ideas, and then read up on physics from scratch, and hope to be able to understand most of it.

Alternatively, continue to ramble on and make a fool of yourself.
I think I can make an educated guess on which path they will choose by extrapolating past performance.

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
continue to ramble on and make a fool of yourself.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!

Last edited by halleyscomet; 9th October 2019 at 12:14 PM.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 12:58 PM   #1053
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,440
Thumbs down Ignorant gibberish, insulting himself? and delusions instead of answers

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
In the 3rd kindergarten astro lesson,...
10 October 2019 Bjarne: Ignorant gibberish, insulting himself? and delusions instead of answers.

If this was "kindergarten astro " then not answering the questions suggests he is incapable of kindergarten astronomy !

It is in fact high school science level astronomy. The Earth is in orbit around the Sun. This orbit has a speed. We call that speed orbital speed. Changing orbital speed changes the orbit. A change in speed is an acceleration. His RR is an acceleration and it changes the Earth's orbital speed !

My questions are still unanswered.
7 October 2019 Bjarne: How long before Earth's orbital velocity is zero and the Earth falls into the Sun? [Your RR slows the Earth's orbital speed]

The Earth losing energy through his RR and spiraling toward the Sun is what his RR equation predicts. The question is whether his RR over 4.6 billion years makes the Earth fall into the Sun. Or just kills us by moving out of the habitable zone. Or something else.

8 October 2019 Bjarne: What is the effect of your RR on the LHC (can the LHC work at all?)?

Last edited by Reality Check; 9th October 2019 at 01:08 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 10:22 PM   #1054
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,348
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
No, unlike you, we understood it.

Because e=mc2
In other words, as you get closer to c the energy and mass grows exponentially.

This has nothing to do with your silly "RR" which is alternately a huge power or a tiny one according to what happens to fit the situation.

It is not a resistance at all, because a resistance is a loss, and e=mc2 is not a loss, it is more and more energy stored, as velocity increases, which has been experimentally proven in, among other things, particle accelerators.

But, for you to understand this, Bjarne, you need to first abandon all your nonsense ideas, and then read up on physics from scratch, and hope to be able to understand most of it.

Alternatively, continue to ramble on and make a fool of yourself.

Hans
You got it all wrong, so long a force is preventing deceleration, yes the energy is stored as M, - So soon as F vanish that relativistic M converts to release of contracted space (release of M). ( a contribution to dark energy ) Very simple.
By huge speed: M is of course relative significant, so are the energy consumption, to keep that mass at that speed.
Normally, in cosmos, or by space travelling relativistisk M is relative small.

You have to ask what would happen with the particles from the LHC if these was shot out in empty space, and the force from the LHC no longe could maintain the speed.

Last edited by Bjarne; 9th October 2019 at 10:32 PM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2019, 10:28 PM   #1055
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,348
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
So long you don't understand (or accept) absolute motion, hence absolute RR - and all forces acting on Earth,, then also not where the resulting force is pointing, - it make no sense to take to a steep higher as the 3rd kindergarten astro-lesson.
Sorry
You should try to ask where the resulting force in a earth orbit is pointing
Next where is the RR due to earth orbit pointing ?
Could that be direct to the earth ? - and hence just mean smaller centrepedal force ? - and mean the same as if the M of earth just was tiny bit smaller, ------------ as expected.... ?
I know RC to answer these question it is required to take 23 year more at a brain death university.
After that Education is completed, one can now try to change the orbit inclination of Earth (etc) parallel to the DFA axis.
Ohhh boy , now again 37 year at a new brain death University is required.
And when that brainwash is completed, it is possible to understand why galaxies orbits sometimes looks so collapsing weird, and what quasars is about, why hot Jupiters can exist billion years after these should have been demised, - why quasars are aligned with each other, - and 1000263 other mysterious things in cosmos.

But dont go further, because there is a HUGE price to pay
A fanatic paradigm must be given up, and that price is simple to high.
Amen

Last edited by Bjarne; 9th October 2019 at 10:51 PM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2019, 05:36 AM   #1056
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,863
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
You got it all wrong
Then provide the equations to prove it. Create ones that work this time.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
So long you don't understand (or accept) absolute motion, hence absolute RR - and all forces acting on Earth
Your own equation contradicts you. You can't even cook up equations to support your claims! Even CREATIONISTS have been able to manage that!

I love how you've abandoned all pretense at supporting your crap equation to try and change the subject. It's a disingenuous yet effective means of you conceding the point.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!

Last edited by halleyscomet; 10th October 2019 at 05:38 AM.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2019, 06:43 AM   #1057
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,274
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
You got it all wrong, so long a force is preventing deceleration, yes the energy is stored as M, - So soon as F vanish that relativistic M converts to release of contracted space (release of M). ( a contribution to dark energy ) Very simple.
Gibberish. Which force is preventing deceleration at constant speed?

Quote:
You have to ask what would happen with the particles from the LHC if these was shot out in empty space, and the force from the LHC no longe could maintain the speed.
They would continue at constant speed.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2019, 12:53 PM   #1058
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,440
Thumbs down Usual insults and insane gibberish about his RR, etc delusions

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
So long you don't understand...
11 October 2019 Bjarne: Usual insults and insane gibberish about his RR, etc delusions.

"where is the RR due to earth orbit pointing" insanity when he knows his RR delusion has no direction. RR has no vectors. RR has a scalar speed v. RR is a resistance to speed in any direction, e.g. orbital speed.
His RR due to earth orbit is a deceleration of the orbital speed of the Earth !

My questions are still unanswered.
7 October 2019 Bjarne: How long before Earth's orbital velocity is zero and the Earth falls into the Sun? [Your RR slows the Earth's orbital speed].
8 October 2019 Bjarne: What is the effect of your RR on the LHC (can the LHC work at all?)?

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th October 2019 at 12:59 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 09:31 AM   #1059
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,348
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Gibberish. Which force is preventing deceleration at constant speed?

Hans
The force of the magnetic field
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 09:34 AM   #1060
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,863
Talking

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
The force of the magnetic field
And where is THAT in your equation?
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 10:04 AM   #1061
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,274
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
The force of the magnetic field
Which magnetic field?

(My question was general, not related to the LHC)

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 12:49 PM   #1062
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,348
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Which magnetic field?

(My question was general, not related to the LHC)

Hans
The be specific
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 12:54 PM   #1063
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,274
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
The be specific
An object moving with no forces acting on it, except its own inertia.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 12:58 PM   #1064
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,274
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
*snip*
Why in heck do you need gradually need more and more energy to maintain a certain (relativistic) acceleration.
WHY ?
*snip*
You don't. If you have something being accelerated at, say 10 m/s2, then the same force will keep it accelerating at that rate. Indefinitely.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 02:16 PM   #1065
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,348
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
An object moving with no forces acting on it, except its own inertia.

Hans
To be able to answer, - which force, - you must be specifik ?
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 02:19 PM   #1066
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,348
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
You don't. If you have something being accelerated at, say 10 m/s2, then the same force will keep it accelerating at that rate. Indefinitely.

Hans
So you really believe it would reach c, - and hence represent infinity amount of energy ?
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 02:24 PM   #1067
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,348
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
An object moving with no forces acting on it, except its own inertia.

Hans
F = ma
In that process, - m Ė will increase, - which mean F also must
Very simple..
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th October 2019, 03:16 PM   #1068
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,863
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
To be able to answer, - which force, - you must be specifik ?


Wow. That may be the single most pathetic attempt at evading the question Iíve ever seen you engage in.

Have you considered applying for a position in the Trump administration? Youíre exhibiting the combination of hubris and ignorance Trump appears to value in his acolytes.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2019, 06:02 AM   #1069
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,274
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
So you really believe it would reach c, - and hence represent infinity amount of energy ?
No. It would follow relativity.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2019, 06:04 AM   #1070
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,274
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
F = ma
In that process, - m Ė will increase, - which mean F also must
Very simple..
No. An object moving at constant speed. So a = 0.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2019, 12:32 PM   #1071
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,440
Question What is the effect of your RR on the LHC (can the LHC work at all?)

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
The force of the magnetic field
You have what fantasy about which magnetic field?

For the LHC: The LHC has multiple magnets that are designed to bend a proton beam into a circle. The point is that these magnets were designed without any of your RR delusion. That means that either the proton beam will hit the walls of the LHC pipe or if there is automatic centering, the magnets will need extra energy to keep the beam centered. But CERN pay for the electricity to run the magnets. They would soon see that their bills are too big land question it like any householder getting an excessive electricity bill !

My questions are still unanswered.
7 October 2019 Bjarne: How long before Earth's orbital velocity is zero and the Earth falls into the Sun? [Your RR slows the Earth's orbital speed].
8 October 2019 Bjarne: What is the effect of your RR on the LHC (can the LHC work at all?)?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2019, 12:42 PM   #1072
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,440
Exclamation Extreme ignorance abuut Newton's second law where mass is constant

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
F = ma
In that process, - m – will increase,....
Extremely wrong, Bjarne.

F = ma is Newton's second law where m is a constant mass. What is worse is that your RR delusion includes that at least 1 of Newton's laws are wrong and so you should not use them!
Newton's laws of motion
Quote:
First law: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.[2][3]
Second law: In an inertial frame of reference, the vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object: F = ma. (It is assumed here that the mass m is constant – see below.)
Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Emphasized the RR delusion of velocity decreasing with no force acting and what the second law you quoted actually says.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2019, 12:44 PM   #1073
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,011
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
This is total rubbish
You can calculated that you car with the handbrake on will decelerate 52m/s when driving 100 km/h
This is a snapshot. dot.
False. Everyone who drives has driven with the handbrake on at some time. In fact I had a business partner who totalled his car by driving on a motorway at 120 kmh with the handbrake on. Sure, things melted catastrophically, but he had to accellerate from zero to achieve that ignominy.

(Note: It took him some time to admit the egregious error)
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2019, 08:08 PM   #1074
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,348
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
You have what fantasy about which magnetic field?

For the LHC: The LHC has multiple magnets that are designed to bend a proton beam into a circle. The point is that these magnets were designed without any of your RR delusion. That means that either the proton beam will hit the walls of the LHC pipe or if there is automatic centering, the magnets will need extra energy to keep the beam centered. But CERN pay for the electricity to run the magnets. They would soon see that their bills are too big land question it like any householder getting an excessive electricity bill !

My questions are still unanswered.
7 October 2019 Bjarne: How long before Earth's orbital velocity is zero and the Earth falls into the Sun? [Your RR slows the Earth's orbital speed].
8 October 2019 Bjarne: What is the effect of your RR on the LHC (can the LHC work at all?)?

RR is an expression of a process for how energy is conserved as M, which is not an additional consumption. But knowledge already known, but not understood. Which idiotic deluded brainwashed brain-death insane university has told you that addition RR equals energy consumption BS you just wrote?

Last edited by Bjarne; 15th October 2019 at 08:13 PM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2019, 08:10 PM   #1075
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,348
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Extremely wrong, Bjarne.

F = ma is Newton's second law where m is a constant mass. What is worse is that your RR delusion includes that at least 1 of Newton's laws are wrong and so you should not use them!
Newton's laws of motion

Emphasized the RR delusion of velocity decreasing with no force acting and what the second law you quoted actually says.
M cannot be constant, due to that speed will increase, - so will m, - hence also F, - this was the 5th kindergarden astro-lesson. - was you sick that day ? - First law is BS, the only "small" mistake Newton did.
Which idiotic deluded brainwashed brain-death insane university forgot to tell you that v will increase in that process, - so will m and F - due to relativistic consequences. ??

Last edited by Bjarne; 15th October 2019 at 08:21 PM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2019, 08:13 PM   #1076
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,348
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
No. An object moving at constant speed. So a = 0.

Hans
Still what is your point ?
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2019, 08:22 PM   #1077
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,440
Question You have what fantasy about which magnetic field

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
RR ...
More utter gibberish about his RR delusion and lies about my post !

15 October 2019 Bjarne: You have what fantasy about which magnetic field?

A lie of RR "consumption" in my post.
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
For the LHC: The LHC has multiple magnets that are designed to bend a proton beam into a circle. The point is that these magnets were designed without any of your RR delusion. That means that either the proton beam will hit the walls of the LHC pipe or if there is automatic centering, the magnets will need extra energy to keep the beam centered. But CERN pay for the electricity to run the magnets. They would soon see that their bills are too big land question it like any householder [b]getting an excessive electricity bill !
That is the simple physics that any sizable deceleration from anything will either make the LHC not work or consume extra power .

My questions are still unanswered.
7 October 2019 Bjarne: How long before Earth's orbital velocity is zero and the Earth falls into the Sun? [Your RR slows the Earth's orbital speed].
8 October 2019 Bjarne: What is the effect of your RR on the LHC (can the LHC work at all?)?]

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th October 2019 at 08:30 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2019, 08:27 PM   #1078
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,440
Exclamation Cannot understand basic physics in my post about Newton's second law

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
M ...
16 October 2019 Bjarne: Cannot understand basic physics in my post about Newton's second law so answers with more delusions about his RR delusion.

15 October 2019 Bjarne: Extreme ignorance about Newton's second law where mass is constant.
That is the high school textbook physics that the m in F = ma is constant.

"First law is BS, the only "small" mistake Newton did." stupidity when Newton's laws have been tested for over 300 years.

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th October 2019 at 08:31 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2019, 08:30 PM   #1079
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,348
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
More utter gibberish about his RR delusion and lies about my post !

15 October 2019 Bjarne: You have what fantasy about which magnetic field?

A lie of RR "consumption" in my post.

That is the simple physics that any sizable deceleration from anything will either make the LHC not work or consume extra power[/b].

My questions are still unanswered.
7 October 2019 Bjarne: How long before Earth's orbital velocity is zero and the Earth falls into the Sun? [Your RR slows the Earth's orbital speed].
8 October 2019 Bjarne: What is the effect of your RR on the LHC (can the LHC work at all?)?]
in the 9th kindergarten astro-lesson we learned that when m increases (due to increasing speed) in the LHC, so must F.
Was you also sick that day ?
Or did a idiotic deluded brainwashed brain-death insane university told you big big big big brainwashed lies again ?

Last edited by Bjarne; 15th October 2019 at 08:35 PM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2019, 08:34 PM   #1080
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 25,440
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
...
A spate of insults irrelevant to your ignorance of Newton's second law (m is constant in F=ma) or my questions.

7 October 2019 Bjarne: How long before Earth's orbital velocity is zero and the Earth falls into the Sun? [Your RR slows the Earth's orbital speed].
8 October 2019 Bjarne: What is the effect of your RR on the LHC (can the LHC work at all?)?
15 October 2019 Bjarne: You have what fantasy about which magnetic field?

Special relativity has relativistic mass. The designers of the LHC knew basic physics ! The LHC magnets are designed for the relativistic effects of accelerating relativistic particles. The LHC is not deigned for your RR delusion. Your RR delusion either breaks the LHC or has measurable effects on the LHC. Or worse has no measurable effects for anything not moving at 0.999999c - you have RR claims for v a lot less than that on objects massively heavier than a few protons !

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th October 2019 at 08:47 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.