Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Paulhoff

Simple, that matter and energy that makes the earth has always disturb (so-called by you) the whole universe. If the curving of space would take energy, that was already paid for from the being of the universe when that energy and matter where made.
If you want to play games with this idea of yours (which is wrong), an object that would have to put energy into curving space has it went thru it, would have that energy returned after it left that space it curved, else where was that energy going. Into the space, and why doesn't that show up
Your idea does not hold up.
Paul

I think you are confusing yourself.
You do not need to mix gravity into this parts of the discussion.
Resistance against motion is only caused by the connection between space and matter; - “gravity resistance” comes in addition to that.

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

It is. I notice you have adapted the 'curved' space notion, now.

Off course, you can’t close your eyes for the fact that space and matter is connected, the curvature os space proves that.
But it is not just to “adapt the curved space” – the cause of Mass Attraction is not explained by Einstein / GR, but by Newton.
That (none GR) parts you MUST adapt too, - which make the logic that much clearer: Space and matter is connected – both seen from on a relativistic as well as classic perspective.

Quote:

The deformation moves, not space. Like if you roll a ball on a rubber sheet.

Ohh progress.
BUT, - First at all, the deformation IS space.
It is space itself that deforms.
There is NOTHING else out there that deforms except space. (and the dust)
There are no difference between the "deformation" and "space".
You can impossible distinguish? because there is nothing to distinguish between..

A grain of sand (strictly spoken) affects the whole universe, so what you are saying is: YES you agree to that “deformed space around the grain of sand” moves when the grain of sand moves. Which means you finally accept the: "Deformed Space in motion concept"

I think we must understand space for example around the sun as a “gliding clutch” - Space resist the rotation and deformed space can even break / snap. – You do normally refer to that phenomena like: the magnetic field at the sun “snap / breaks” - it is the elastic / deformed nature of space that are so (strange).

Quote:

Depends on what is the cause and what is the action, gravity or curved space.

So you really believe it is possible that curved space could be the cause of the Earth, and stars creation, and that it except this is no connection??. Ohh yehh, we have freedom of believe..but I think even not farmers would buy this.

The problem with that is, - it still does not explain the cause of mass attraction, - so you are still forces to admit that matter/ space are connected. Otherwise a heavy stone on your feet would not be heavy. You wouldn’t be able to feel it, because WHAT is the cause of the heavy weight you feel? ( = Mass attraction and this also works with space between)

Quote:

What makes you think I believe that? I just explained to you that it requires energy to set something in motion

This wouldn’t happen without a reason, and this is the point....
You don’t know that reason, - I believe I do.
Cows and bulls worldwide all agree to that simple point that space must resist motion, otherwise you should not use increeasing amount of energy to get a a diminishing increase in speed..
But, - I know "we" human can be VERY different from cows, - without I really can understand the logical reason to that silly difference, - even though I try hard to understand that (illogical) difference.
I guess it must have something to do with all the strange dimension and parallel universes that now have been invented. I wonder if the next news is that also people lives in these strange worlds. I am at least sure there are no (logical thinking) cows flying these altitudes. .

[Reality Check]

Moo cow!

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Bjarne plus my subtle alterations

I think you are confusing yourself.
You do not need to mix gravity into this parts of the discussion.
Resistance against motion is only caused by the connection between insulin space and matter; - “gravity resistance” comes in addition to that.


Off course, you can’t close your eyes for the fact that space and matter is connected, the curvature os space proves that.
But it is not just to “adapt the curved insulin space” – the cause of Mass Attraction is not explained by Einstein / GR, but by Newton.
That (none GR) parts you MUST adapt too, - which make the logic that much clearer: Space and matter is connected – both seen from on a relativistic as well as classic insulin perspective.

*Snip* .

This is total gibberish. From start to end. I will use this as an experimental honeypot for kumarbot, however. Just ignore for the purpose of this particular thread.

Hans

[DeiRenDopa]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Quote:

So, what is "KE"?

And how do you determine the KE of something, an object say?

What is "thermal energy due to friction"?

And how do you determine the thermal energy due to friction in a particular process, or environment, say?

What is "energy to overcome resistance against motion"?

And how do you determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?

In physic we talk about different kind of energy.
Energy can convert from one kind to another, but it should not be possible that it can be lost..

Therefore it is always important to be able to track which path energy follows.

• KE (kinetic energy) is motion energy
• Thermal energy is heat

These are the most simple and known we have used.

For example when a planet or a moon emits more energy (heat) as we can account for, - we must try to understand the "path" that energy possible could have taken, - to become thermal heat. – For example simple motion / friction due to gravity, but that motion could also come from the electromagnetic or even the atomic level. – For example at that level where the curvature of space is “created”, and therefore a part of that process.

Since there are several possibility we must be carefully which option we believe in, and especially carefully to take on the anti crackpot glasses when we self are on very thin ice. .

I mean if we for example do not know if the strong force and gravity is a united, we could very easy be blindfolded, and even teaching “truth” we self have completely failed to understand.

We can also not on the one hand conclude that energy never can disappear, but when it comes to the ((“apparently”)) lost of photon energy, it is “suddenly” a possible all right option…… (due to the expanding Universe). Also when it comes to such silly conclusions it is important NOT to compromise: Energy can NOT disappear. Either can photon frequencies. - It is obviously that there is something serious wrong.

You can say the path energy moves always is a smoking gun, - it MUST be.
But because of all the incoherent crap science now a days are dealing with, things get very easy worse, when first the carrier already is derailed.

Very suddenly it is also “necessary” even to event new dimension where energy and even gravity possible can disappear.
And that is also not enough also new universes have now been invented, in the name of science / energy. I mean are there any higher (sick) bid?

Such only demonstrate desperate ideas, that we much too often witnesses, and that much too often leads to that we (all) MUST accept / believe, - and from that completely nuts foundation things very easy escalates out in plenty of dimension, and even worse; also mass hypnotizing such wrong conclusions into innocent brains do also become necessary, - Off course instead of asking the simple question: is the ground connection all right, and have something pretty simple been overlooked?

I asked six questions, and you answered two, maybe.

Here are the unanswered questions again. Would you please answer them?

-> How do you determine the KE of something, an object say?

-> How do you determine the thermal energy due to friction in a particular process, or environment, say?

-> What is "energy to overcome resistance against motion"?

-> And how do you determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?

Now for some new questions.

You say that "KE (kinetic energy) is motion energy". Let's think about the ISS, the International Space Station. If you're in the right place at the right time, you can see this as it moves across the sky. If you have the right instruments, and a partner who watches the ISS from a different location, you can work out how high it is, and how fast it is moving. So, by your definition, it has KE.

Now let's think about some astronauts who blast off from Florida, in a space shuttle, and eventually end up docking with the ISS. Once they dock, those astronauts can see that the ISS is not moving. So, by your definition, it has no KE.

Where did the KE go?

[Paulhoff]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

I think you are confusing yourself.
You do not need to mix gravity into this parts of the discussion.
Resistance against motion is only caused by the connection between space and matter; - “gravity resistance” comes in addition to that.

Me confused, that is funny. There is no resistance to motion, I and other have shown you why it becomes harder to move an object has speed is increased. The energy used to move an object becomes part of the mass of that object. If this was not true and you where right, CERN would not work the way it was made to work. CERN works Bjarne, IT WORKS, so you are WRONG, Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Paul

[Bjarne]

Quote:

Me confused, that is funny. There is no resistance to motion, I and other have shown you why it becomes harder to move an object has speed is increased. The energy used to move an object becomes part of the mass of that object. If this was not true and you where right, CERN would not work the way it was made to work. CERN works Bjarne, IT WORKS, so you are WRONG, Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
The fact that KE is mass makes no difference.

It is the process that is the point. “We” really know don’t why there is resistance against motion.

Quote:

Here are the unanswered questions again. Would you please answer them?

-> How do you determine the KE of something, an object say?

-> How do you determine the thermal energy due to friction in a particular process, or environment, say?

This is basic physis. You can read about it plenty places at the internet.

Quote:

-> What is "energy to overcome resistance against motion"?

The Joule you need to get >> km/h. ( or M increase) it’s the same . (Almost, minus the price all motion pays to disturbs space, and this = a MF) Read more > http://www.science27.com/english/the...r_anomaly.html

Quote:

-> And how do you determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?

Read more
http://www.science27.com/english/the...r_anomaly.html

Quote:

You say that "KE (kinetic energy) is motion energy". Let's think about the ISS, the International Space Station. If you're in the right place at the right time, you can see this as it moves across the sky. If you have the right instruments, and a partner who watches the ISS from a different location, you can work out how high it is, and how fast it is moving. So, by your definition, it has KE.

Now let's think about some astronauts who blast off from Florida, in a space shuttle, and eventually end up docking with the ISS. Once they dock, those astronauts can see that the ISS is not moving. So, by your definition, it has no KE.

Where did the KE go?

Answer
Both the ISS and the space shuttle visiting have increased their KE.
There is not strange or hocus pocus in this.
The spin of a particle sucks / consumes / contract space.
The “spin” of the Sun does the same, the Earth too.
Any motion does the same.
The whole universe comes from nothing.
Matter = contracted space.
Energy = is only a question to support that process, and this is what speed does.
Energy (matter/mass) is ALWAYS – and ONLY; how much space matter contracts. - Speed contributes to that process.

Quote:

Pualhoff
There is no resistance to motion

Prove it. Or don't support such fantasy conclution.

Quote:

CERN works Bjarne

Off course it works. Why should it not.
But it is not a perpetual motion machine.
The faster a particle moves, the stronger its MF will be
The MF increase = the energy “lost”.
This "lost" of KE is what distrups the hole universe with the speed "c" - forever..

Quote:

This is total gibberish. From start to end. I will use this as an experimental honeypot for kumarbot, however. Just ignore for the purpose of this particular thread.
Hans

No it is not
Mass attraction shows that matter and space is connected.
This have nothing to do with GR.
We don’t know the cause of Mass Attraction.
All we have is the higgs religion, and so on bla la bla la la la science....
Anyway – matter and space is connected, - you should know that, and cannot use GR as an stupid excuse for exporting that fact to a rubbish dimension.
--

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Answer
Both the ISS and the space shuttle visiting have increased their KE.
...snipped-Bjarne's usual gibberish...-

Answer: A complete inability to read the question.
The ISS has not changed is speed. Its KE has not changed.

[Paulhoff]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

It is the process that is the point. “We” really know don’t why there is resistance against motion.

There is a so-called resistance to STOPPING, or any change in speed, Daaaaaaaa.

Are haven't you noticed that when you put on the brakes or push on the gas pedal.

Paul

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

This is basic physis. You can read about it plenty places at the internet.

How do we know which places present well-established science...

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Read more > http://www.science27.com/english/the...r_anomaly.html

Read more
http://www.science27.com/english/the...r_anomaly.html

...as opposed to the work of crackpots?

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Quote:

Pualhoff
There is no resistance to motion

Prove it. Or don't support such fantasy conclution.

Paulhoff's conclusion is supported by more than three hundred years of evidence. You can read about it on the Internet.

Originally Posted by Bjarne

No it is not
Mass attraction shows that matter and space is connected.
This have nothing to do with GR.

R_μν - ½Rg_μν + Λg_μν = 8πT_μν (geometrized units)

[Little 10 Toes]

So am I the only one who is pissed off that Bjarne photoshopped a picture and never answered my questions?

[Toke]

Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes

So am I the only one who is pissed off that Bjarne photoshopped a picture and never answered my questions?

The only thing that surprised me is his ability to photoshop.

[DeiRenDopa]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Quote:

Here are the unanswered questions again. Would you please answer them?

-> How do you determine the KE of something, an object say?

-> How do you determine the thermal energy due to friction in a particular process, or environment, say?

This is basic physis. You can read about it plenty places at the internet.

Thanks for your responses.

However, they were not answers to my questions.

You see, I did not ask "How does one [i.e. anybody] determine the KE of something, an object say?"

I asked "How do you [i.e. Bjarne] determine the KE of something, an object say?"

I am interested in what you think, not what I can read in a physics textbook.

Care to try again?

-> How do you, Bjarne, determine the KE of something, an object say?

-> How do you, Bjarne, determine the thermal energy due to friction in a particular process, or environment, say?

Quote:

Quote:

-> What is "energy to overcome resistance against motion"?

The Joule you need to get >> km/h. ( or M increase) it’s the same . (Almost, minus the price all motion pays to disturbs space, and this = a MF) Read more > http://www.science27.com/english/the...r_anomaly.html

Quote:

-> And how do you determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?

Read more
http://www.science27.com/english/the...r_anomaly.html

Quote:

Thanks for the responses. I'll read more, and get back to you later.

Quote:

You say that "KE (kinetic energy) is motion energy". Let's think about the ISS, the International Space Station. If you're in the right place at the right time, you can see this as it moves across the sky. If you have the right instruments, and a partner who watches the ISS from a different location, you can work out how high it is, and how fast it is moving. So, by your definition, it has KE.

Now let's think about some astronauts who blast off from Florida, in a space shuttle, and eventually end up docking with the ISS. Once they dock, those astronauts can see that the ISS is not moving. So, by your definition, it has no KE.

Where did the KE go?

Answer
Both the ISS and the space shuttle visiting have increased their KE.
There is not strange or hocus pocus in this.
The spin of a particle sucks / consumes / contract space.
The “spin” of the Sun does the same, the Earth too.
Any motion does the same.
The whole universe comes from nothing.
Matter = contracted space.
Energy = is only a question to support that process, and this is what speed does.
Energy (matter/mass) is ALWAYS – and ONLY; how much space matter contracts. - Speed contributes to that process.

OK, I don't understand this at all.

Let's say you, together with your partner, have estimated that the ISS is 340 km* above the surface of the Earth, and that it is moving at 7.7 km/s*. From published data, you learn that its mass is 340 tonnes, or 3.4 x 10^5 kg*.

What is the KE of the ISS, according to you (and your partner)?

* these are realistic values, but not all that accurate

[DeiRenDopa]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Quote:

-> What is "energy to overcome resistance against motion"?

The Joule you need to get >> km/h. ( or M increase) it’s the same . (Almost, minus the price all motion pays to disturbs space, and this = a MF) Read more > http://www.science27.com/english/the...r_anomaly.html

Quote:

-> And how do you determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?

Read more
http://www.science27.com/english/the...r_anomaly.html

OK, I've now read that webpage.

Unfortunately, I didn't find an answer to either of my questions.

Take the first one first.

That webpage uses the word "energy" four times (I've bolded the word):

"Dark Energy" - this is a link; clearly, it is not a definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion"

"Resistance due to motion is already known. It requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed." - this is, clearly, not a definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion" (though it might be an ambiguous, implicit reference to that idea).

"In the equation above, (y-1) expresses the transformation factor but it must naturally reflect the value of resistance as well, (negative velocity) not only a factor which is able to show an object’s required energy necessary for acceleration and an object’s increase of mass due to higher velocity." - this is, clearly, not a definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion"

"Extra rotation energy (Space Wind) from a planets rotation" - this is, clearly, not a definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion" (it actually refers to "rotation energy"!)

So, once again if I may:

-> What is "energy to overcome resistance against motion"? A definition, please.

-> And how do you, Bjarne, determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?

[erlando]

Prediction of Bjarnes answer: "This cannot be shown by math, only logic"

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes

So am I the only one who is pissed off that Bjarne photoshopped a picture and never answered my questions?

What did you expect? That he made a coherent answer?

When he feels cornered, he never replies directly but tries to divert attention by introducing new elements or making what he thinks is a joke. You can regard your post as a "victory", because he felt compelled to do something drastic in order to avoid answering.

[Bjarne]

Quote:

The ISS has not changed is speed. Its KE has not changed.

Not change it speed, but it IS moving..

Quote:

There is a so-called resistance to STOPPING, or any change in speed, Daaaaaaaa

Off course, - this is not the point.

Quote:

How do we know which places present well-established science...

When it not violent cow logic, it should be OK

Quote:

Paulhoff's conclusion is supported by more than three hundred years of evidence.

There is no evidence at all, the 300 years naive believe doesn’t make a lie more true. Amen.

Quote:

So am I the only one who is pissed off that Bjarne photoshopped a picture and never answered my questions?

You know we are here discussion dark matter, dark energy, dark logic, and dark humor.

Quote:

You see, I did not ask "How does one [i.e. anybody] determine the KE of something, an object say?"
I asked "How do you [i.e. Bjarne] determine the KE of something, an object say?"
I am interested in what you think, not what I can read in a physics textbook.

Care to try again?

-> How do you, Bjarne, determine the KE of something, an object say?

-> How do you, Bjarne, determine the thermal energy due to friction in a particular process, or environment, say?

The same way like all others, and like you can read in a textbox.
I agree to 90% of the prevailing teaching and theories, but just not the orthodox illogical and incoherent religious parts of the book.

Quote:

Let's say you, together with your partner, have estimated that the ISS is 340 km* above the surface of the Earth, and that it is moving at 7.7 km/s*. From published data, you learn that its mass is 340 tonnes, or 3.4 x 10^5 kg*.
What is the KE of the ISS, according to you (and your partner)?

Several examples demonstrate this here> http://www.science27.com/english/Culcu3.htm

PS 1 !
Did you know an experiment have confirmed that time thick slower when a clock moves anticlockwise compared to clockwise around the Earth.
The same thing would happen clockwise/anticlockwise around the Sun, the galaxy or the cluster of galaxy.
According to my understanding GR and SR are not so different to each other like these appear to be.

PS 2 !
According to the theory I represent; all clusters of galaxies are also orbiting a central huge black hole of the Universe. That whole is not easting anything because of the expending universe, but it is there. MUST be.

Quote:

"In the equation above, (y-1) expresses the transformation factor but it must naturally reflect the value of resistance as well, (negative velocity) not only a factor which is able to show an object’s required energy necessary for acceleration and an object’s increase of mass due to higher velocity." - this is, clearly, not a definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion"

"Extra rotation energy (Space Wind) from a planets rotation" - this is, clearly, not a definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion" (it actually refers to "rotation energy"!)

So, once again if I may:

-> What is "energy to overcome resistance against motion"? A definition, please.

-> And how do you, Bjarne, determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?

(y-1) is part of the equation that starts that chapter, you must read the whole chapter, not just 2 minutes a random place.
You can also used Mv^2/2 to calculated the KE instead, the result is the same.

Quote:

And how do you, Bjarne, determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?

Several examples demonstrate this here> http://www.science27.com/english/Culcu3.htm
I suggest you to read the abstract, and the complete chapter http://www.science27.com/english/the...r_anomaly.html

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

According to the theory I represent; all clusters of galaxies are also orbiting a central huge black hole of the Universe. That whole is not easting anything because of the expending universe, but it is there. MUST be.

So the universe has a centre in your cosmology? Would that not mean that we would see more galaxies when we look in the direction of the centre?

A black hole that can make the whole universe orbit around it must be truly something. Have you calculated how big a distance matter must have to this black hole in order for the expansion of the universe to be faster than the attraction of the black hole. Normal galaxies, and even galaxy clusters are not expanding because their gravity is able to overcome the expansion of the universe. So there must truly be huge distances from the nearest matter to the central black hole. You must realise that such a black hole would be easy to spot because of the lack of nearby galaxies, and because light would be distorted in for anything that lies in its direction.

In other words, you must realise that your new claim has failed even before you got it off the ground.

[DeiRenDopa]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Quote:

You see, I did not ask "How does one [i.e. anybody] determine the KE of something, an object say?"
I asked "How do you [i.e. Bjarne] determine the KE of something, an object say?"
I am interested in what you think, not what I can read in a physics textbook.

Care to try again?

-> How do you, Bjarne, determine the KE of something, an object say?

-> How do you, Bjarne, determine the thermal energy due to friction in a particular process, or environment, say?

The same way like all others, and like you can read in a textbox.
I agree to 90% of the prevailing teaching and theories, but just not the orthodox illogical and incoherent religious parts of the book.

Sorry Bjarne, that is singularly unhelpful.

Please provide me with a link to online physics material that explains, in detail:
1) how the KE of something can be determined
2) how the thermal energy due to friction can be determined,
with the essential requirement that you explicitly state that you agree with it 100% (not 90%, not 95%, not 99%, but 100%).

Quote:

Quote:

Let's say you, together with your partner, have estimated that the ISS is 340 km* above the surface of the Earth, and that it is moving at 7.7 km/s*. From published data, you learn that its mass is 340 tonnes, or 3.4 x 10^5 kg*.
What is the KE of the ISS, according to you (and your partner)?

Several examples demonstrate this here> http://www.science27.com/english/Culcu3.htm

PS 1 !
Did you know an experiment have confirmed that time thick slower when a clock moves anticlockwise compared to clockwise around the Earth.
The same thing would happen clockwise/anticlockwise around the Sun, the galaxy or the cluster of galaxy.
According to my understanding GR and SR are not so different to each other like these appear to be.

PS 2 !
According to the theory I represent; all clusters of galaxies are also orbiting a central huge black hole of the Universe. That whole is not easting anything because of the expending universe, but it is there. MUST be.

There is nothing on that page about the ISS, and the only references to "KE" are clearly for quite different objects.

Also, I did not ask for "examples"; I asked a very simple, direct, easy question.

Here it is again: "What is the KE of the ISS, according to you (and your partner)?"

Would you care to answer this?

Quote:

Quote:

"In the equation above, (y-1) expresses the transformation factor but it must naturally reflect the value of resistance as well, (negative velocity) not only a factor which is able to show an object’s required energy necessary for acceleration and an object’s increase of mass due to higher velocity." - this is, clearly, not a definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion"

"Extra rotation energy (Space Wind) from a planets rotation" - this is, clearly, not a definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion" (it actually refers to "rotation energy"!)

So, once again if I may:

-> What is "energy to overcome resistance against motion"? A definition, please.

-> And how do you, Bjarne, determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?

(y-1) is part of the equation that starts that chapter, you must read the whole chapter, not just 2 minutes a random place.
You can also used Mv^2/2 to calculated the KE instead, the result is the same.

But Bjarne, that's not the answer you gave me when I first asked the question!

You said, and I'm quoting your exact words, "The Joule you need to get >> km/h. ( or M increase) it’s the same . (Almost, minus the price all motion pays to disturbs space, and this = a MF) Read more > http://www.science27.com/english/the...r_anomaly.html" and "Read more
http://www.science27.com/english/the...r_anomaly.html"

So, once more, what is the definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion"?

With your clear, unambiguous, objective answer (i.e. a definition, not an example, or a theory) in hand, I will be able to re-ask my second question.

Quote:

Quote:

And how do you, Bjarne, determine the energy to overcome resistance against motion of a particular object in motion?

Several examples demonstrate this here> http://www.science27.com/english/Culcu3.htm
I suggest you to read the abstract, and the complete chapter http://www.science27.com/english/the...r_anomaly.html

I'm sure you'd be among the first to agree that, in the absence of a clear, unambiguous, objective definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion", there's not much point me even reading this, is there?

[Paulhoff]

Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa

Here it is again: "What is the KE of the ISS, according to you (and your partner)?"

Would you care to answer this?

Well I'm not in anyway his partner. But I come up with.

About 1/5 of the energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

Paul

[Bjarne]

Quote:

So the universe has a centre in your cosmology? Would that not mean that we would see more galaxies when we look in the direction of the centre?

It depends on where you are, and how far you can see, + see motions.

Quote:

A black hole that can make the whole universe orbit around it must be truly something. Have you calculated how big a distance matter must have to this black hole in order for the expansion of the universe to be faster than the attraction of the black hole.

We don’t know where we are and not the size either.
It is not only the expansion that is “faster” . Properly the expansion is not important at all (as I wrote before) . - but rather the force keeping us away from the black hole , the space wind, which mean inner galaxies must move “too slow” and transfer energy to galaxies further out.
This also mean inner cluster of galaxies can be on their way into the black hole of the Universe. Like inner stars always are on their way to the center of a galaxy. This can be very difficult to observe because the expansion of the Universe will deform that picture, because this too will look like motion too.

Quote:

Normal galaxies and even galaxy clusters are not expanding because their gravity is able to overcome the expansion of the universe.

This is misunderstood. Everything expands proportional to everything else. This is why you can’t see any difference, since any reference points will look the same, even also 2 dots on the same meter stick..

Quote:

So there must truly be huge distances from the nearest matter to the central black hole. You must realize that such a black hole would be easy to spot because of the lack of nearby galaxies, and because light would be distorted in for anything that lies in its direction.

Yes, if you are close enough. We might be able to discover that this is the case, when the new space telescope is ready. Remember it is not long ago we even did not know we where living in the Milkyway. A galaxy must behave very most like the matter of the whole Universe, it is the same law. - And if there are multi universes, these to must behave so as well. - Nature of space sets the rules.

Quote:

In other words, you must realize that your new claim has failed even before you got it off the ground.

No
We are not sure how big (our) universe really is, and we can’t see it all.
But don’t be surprised the day this prediction gets confirmed. Also this is not something I believe; it is a consequence of the nature of gravity. Simply because central space is affected gradually stronger, and hence motion everywhere must reveal exactly that. We talk about the central nature of gravity.

Quote:

Please provide me with a link to online physics material that explains, in detail:
1) how the KE of something can be determined
2) how the thermal energy due to friction can be determined,…..
As written this is certain knowledge, you can find thousand of internet pages regarding these questions.
There is nothing on that page about the ISS, and the only references to "KE" are clearly for quite different objects.

The principles are the same.

Quote:

Here it is again: "What is the KE of the ISS, according to you (and your partner)?"

I have shown you 2 equations, - calculate it yourself, such is good training to understand what all this is about.

Quote:

So, once more, what is the definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion"?

If let say the resistance (deceleration) can be calculated to 1e-10 m/s^2 – you can overcome that resistance by a opposite force/acceleration, same size , but “forward”. (acc) , and the result is zero.
You can also calculate the KE lost per second, - first based on the starting speed (Mv^2/2) Now reduce the speed v – (minus) 1e-10 m/s (the first second) and calculate KE again (Mv^2/2). The difference between the 2 KE results is the KE lost per / the first second. And this is also the necessary KE requirement you need to prevent suck lost.
Pretty simple right?

[DeiRenDopa]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Quote:

Please provide me with a link to online physics material that explains, in detail:
1) how the KE of something can be determined
2) how the thermal energy due to friction can be determined,…..
As written this is certain knowledge, you can find thousand of internet pages regarding these questions.
There is nothing on that page about the ISS, and the only references to "KE" are clearly for quite different objects.

The principles are the same.

Sorry, Bjarne, I have literally no idea what your response means.

Can you clarify please?

What "principles" are you referring to?

And they are "the same" as what (or in what sense)?

Quote:

Quote:

Here it is again: "What is the KE of the ISS, according to you (and your partner)?"

I have shown you 2 equations, - calculate it yourself, such is good training to understand what all this is about.

You have?!?!?!?

I must have missed them; what, specifically, are the "two equations"?

Quote:

Quote:

So, once more, what is the definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion"?

If let say the resistance (deceleration) can be calculated to 1e-10 m/s^2 – you can overcome that resistance by a opposite force/acceleration, same size , but “forward”. (acc) , and the result is zero.

I don't understand this at all; can you clarify please?

For example, you seem to be equating "force" and "acceleration"; are you? If not, then what does "by a opposite force/acceleration" mean?

Quote:

You can also calculate the KE lost per second, - first based on the starting speed (Mv^2/2) Now reduce the speed v – (minus) 1e-10 m/s (the first second) and calculate KE again (Mv^2/2). The difference between the 2 KE results is the KE lost per / the first second.

So, in simple, clear, unambiguous, objective terms, the "energy to overcome resistance against motion" is just a difference in KE, in a situation where something (what?) is decelerating?

In the above, what is "M"?

And can you confirm that "v" is, indeed, "the speed"?

Quote:

And this is also the necessary KE requirement you need to prevent suck lost.
Pretty simple right?

Sorry, no.

You see, you've introduced a completely new term ("suck"), possibly two ("lost"). Neither term seems to have been defined.

But, on the bright side, I think there is some, modest, progress.

[Bjarne]

Quote:

DRP wrote:
Please provide me with a link to online physics material that explains, in detail:
1) how the KE of something can be determined
2) how the thermal energy due to friction can be determined,…..
As written this is certain knowledge, you can find thousand of internet pages regarding these questions.
There is nothing on that page about the ISS, and the only references to "KE" are clearly for quite different objects.
Bjarne
The principles are the same.
DRP wrote:
Sorry, Bjarne, I have literally no idea what your response means.
Can you clarify please?
What "principles" are you referring to?
And they are "the same" as what (or in what sense)?

1. How the KE of something can be determined. >> KE = Mv²/2 or KE = (y - 1) mc²- where γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)
2. Try to google: “how the KE of something can be determined”, - it has not much with this thread to do. This is basic physic.

Quote:

You have?!?!?!?
I must have missed them; what, specifically, are the "two equations"?

Look above

Quote:

DPR
So, once more, what is the definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion"?
Bjarne
If let say the resistance (deceleration) can be calculated to 1e-10 m/s² – you can overcome that resistance by a opposite force/acceleration, same size , but “forward”. (acc) , and the result is zero.
DPR
I don't understand this at all; can you clarify please?
For example, you seem to be equating "force" and "acceleration"; are you?

No
Only equating deceleration and acceleration, in both cases the necessary force or KE to counteract is the same, - if you prefer to see it that way.

Quote:

If not, then what does "by a opposite force/acceleration" mean?

That I wrote above.

Quote:

Bjarne
You can also calculate the KE lost per second, - first based on the starting speed (Mv^2/2) Now reduce the speed v – (minus) 1e-10 m/s (the first second) and calculate KE again (Mv^2/2). The difference between the 2 KE results is the KE lost per / the first second.
DPR
So, in simple, clear, unambiguous, objective terms, the "energy to overcome resistance against motion" is just a difference in KE, in a situation where something (what?) is decelerating?

The point there are no deceleration, it stops before it begin, - because the tidal force affects the Moon/ Earth system less than 0.5 % stronger + weaker than believed.
If you do not understand the “contradiction” – read this http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=797

Quote:

In the above, what is "M"?

Mass

Quote:

And can you confirm that "v" is, indeed, "the speed"?

Yes.

Quote:

Bjarne
And this is also the necessary KE requirement you need to prevent suck lost.
Pretty simple right?
DRP
Sorry, no.
You see, you've introduced a completely new term ("suck"), possibly two ("lost"). Neither term seems to have been defined.

Try to suck “such”

Quote:

But, on the bright side, I think there is some, modest, progress.

Good.

[DeiRenDopa]

So, with Bjarne's answers in hand, here's my attempt to apply his definition of KE to calculate the KE of ISS, per the estimates I provided earlier*, based on what Bjarne and partner observe.

We have KE = Mv^2/2,
where M is the mass of the ISS, and v is its speed.

So KE = 3.4 x 10^5 x (7.7 x 10^3)^2 / 2 = 1 x 10^13 J
(please check my arithmetic Bjarne).

Now to the astronauts who came aboard the ISS, having docked their space shuttle with it, the ISS is not moving. So the KE of the ISS is:

KE = 3.4 x 10^5 x (0)^2 / 2 = 0 J

But the ISS is the same, no matter who looks at it!

How come the ISS can have two different KE's Bjarne?

* the ISS is 340 km above the surface of the Earth, and that it is moving at 7.7 km/s. From published data, you learn that its mass is 340 tonnes, or 3.4 x 10^5 kg.

[DeiRenDopa]

Bjarne, you still haven't answered my question about how the thermal energy due to friction can be determined.

Here it is again: Please provide me with a link to online physics material that explains, in detail how the thermal energy due to friction can be determined, with the essential requirement that you explicitly state that you agree with it 100% (not 90%, not 95%, not 99%, but 100%).

[DeiRenDopa]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Quote:

Bjarne
You can also calculate the KE lost per second, - first based on the starting speed (Mv^2/2) Now reduce the speed v – (minus) 1e-10 m/s (the first second) and calculate KE again (Mv^2/2). The difference between the 2 KE results is the KE lost per / the first second.
DPR
So, in simple, clear, unambiguous, objective terms, the "energy to overcome resistance against motion" is just a difference in KE, in a situation where something (what?) is decelerating?

The point there are no deceleration, it stops before it begin, - because the tidal force affects the Moon/ Earth system less than 0.5 % stronger + weaker than believed.
If you do not understand the “contradiction” – read this http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=797

I'm sure you'd be the first to agree that you have not provided a clear, unambiguous, objective definition of "energy to overcome resistance against motion".

Would you care to try again?

It seems to me this is important; it seems to me that your ideas depend critically upon this concept. Without a clear, unambiguous, objective definition of this key term, how do you expect anyone to understand what you are saying?

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa

So, with Bjarne's answers in hand, here's my attempt to apply his definition of KE to calculate the KE of ISS, per the estimates I provided earlier*, based on what Bjarne and partner observe.

We have KE = Mv^2/2,
where M is the mass of the ISS, and v is its speed.

So KE = 3.4 x 10^5 x (7.7 x 10^3)^2 / 2 = 1 x 10^13 J
(please check my arithmetic Bjarne).

Now to the astronauts who came aboard the ISS, having docked their space shuttle with it, the ISS is not moving. So the KE of the ISS is:

KE = 3.4 x 10^5 x (0)^2 / 2 = 0 J

But the ISS is the same, no matter who looks at it!

How come the ISS can have two different KE's Bjarne?

* the ISS is 340 km above the surface of the Earth, and that it is moving at 7.7 km/s. From published data, you learn that its mass is 340 tonnes, or 3.4 x 10^5 kg.

There are no such relative KE differences.
You cannot ignore the speed relative to everything else.
Did you read what I wrote here http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=856
And especially this :
PS 1 !
Did you know an experiment have confirmed that time ticks slower when a clock moves anticlockwise compared to clockwise around the Earth.
The same thing would happen clockwise/anticlockwise around the Sun, the galaxy or the cluster of galaxy.
According to my understanding GR and SR are not so different to each other like these appear to be.

PS 2 !
According to the theory I represent; all clusters of galaxies are also orbiting a central huge black hole of the Universe. That hole is not eating anything because of (edith: the space wind) , but it is there. MUST be.

Imaging you was living in the center if the Universe, this would be a perfect place, to determinate the motion KE and maybe not completely because we could be parts of a moving multi universe as well.

Let me mention a concrete example.
You can calculate the KE of the Earth rotation, but this doesn’t mean that the KE due to its orbit speed is a illusion.

The ant have its own reality, but this doesn’t mean that our reality is wrong.
On the other hand the cow has also it own reality too and in this case our reality is very often wrong.

Edit
Yes it can confuse that we don’t know how fast we are moving, since we can only compare our speed to different speed of many objects around us.
BUT this is an incomplete perspective.
You must always see our speed and speed related KE, compared to the speed of light.
But the way we calculated it is relative to something else, - of course.

[ArcturusA]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

There are no such relative KE differences.
You cannot ignore the speed relative to everything else.

Oh dear. That's a can of worms if I ever saw one.

Then again, your resistance against motion idea does require a single preferred and stationary frame of reference for the Universe, so I guess it does sort of follow. I mean, it breaks down all of modern physics (and some basic physics, in fact), but it does follow.

The best thing about this is, assuming the Milky Way, Local Group or Virgo Cluster (and so on) aren't stationary, the Lorentz factor probably isn't negligible on Earth any more, and it should be a piece of cake to measure your resistance against motion.

[DeiRenDopa]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Quote:

So, with Bjarne's answers in hand, here's my attempt to apply his definition of KE to calculate the KE of ISS, per the estimates I provided earlier*, based on what Bjarne and partner observe.

We have KE = Mv^2/2,
where M is the mass of the ISS, and v is its speed.

So KE = 3.4 x 10^5 x (7.7 x 10^3)^2 / 2 = 1 x 10^13 J
(please check my arithmetic Bjarne).

Now to the astronauts who came aboard the ISS, having docked their space shuttle with it, the ISS is not moving. So the KE of the ISS is:

KE = 3.4 x 10^5 x (0)^2 / 2 = 0 J

But the ISS is the same, no matter who looks at it!

How come the ISS can have two different KE's Bjarne?

* the ISS is 340 km above the surface of the Earth, and that it is moving at 7.7 km/s. From published data, you learn that its mass is 340 tonnes, or 3.4 x 10^5 kg.

There are no such relative KE differences.
You cannot ignore the speed relative to everything else.
Did you read what I wrote here http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=856
And especially this :
PS 1 !
Did you know an experiment have confirmed that time ticks slower when a clock moves anticlockwise compared to clockwise around the Earth.
The same thing would happen clockwise/anticlockwise around the Sun, the galaxy or the cluster of galaxy.
According to my understanding GR and SR are not so different to each other like these appear to be.

PS 2 !
According to the theory I represent; all clusters of galaxies are also orbiting a central huge black hole of the Universe. That hole is not eating anything because of (edith: the space wind) , but it is there. MUST be.

Imaging you was living in the center if the Universe, this would be a perfect place, to determinate the motion KE and maybe not completely because we could be parts of a moving multi universe as well.

Let me mention a concrete example.
You can calculate the KE of the Earth rotation, but this doesn’t mean that the KE due to its orbit speed is a illusion.

The ant have its own reality, but this doesn’t mean that our reality is wrong.
On the other hand the cow has also it own reality too and in this case our reality is very often wrong.

Edit
Yes it can confuse that we don’t know how fast we are moving, since we can only compare our speed to different speed of many objects around us.
BUT this is an incomplete perspective.
You must always see our speed and speed related KE, compared to the speed of light.
But the way we calculated it is relative to something else, - of course.

Thanks for this response.

However, as I'm sure you'll be the first to agree, it is exceedingly confusing!

Let's take this one step at a time, shall we?

I asked you for your definition of KE, and, after many repeated attempts to get you to provide one, you did.

That definition is KE = Mv^2/2, where M is the mass of the object, and v is its speed.

I applied your definition, to the specific example of the ISS, and found two different answers.

Your response, that I'm quoting in full, does nothing - that I can see - to explain how come the ISS can have two different KEs.

Yet, as I understand it, KE is an essential part of your idea (or "the theory I represent").

If one (a person, anyone) cannot get a clear, unambiguous answer to what the KE of an object is, in your idea, how can this KE be of any use?

So, why not provide your own answer?

What, in your idea (or according to "the theory I represent") is the KE of the ISS?

How do you (Bjarne) determine the ISS's speed?

[Bjarne]

Quote:

Oh dear. That's a can of worms if I ever saw one.

Then again, your resistance against motion idea does require a single preferred and stationary frame of reference for the Universe, so I guess it does sort of follow.

Yes, but and even this would maybe not be perfect, if we live in a multi orbiting universe etc..

Quote:

I mean, it breaks down all of modern physics (and some basic physics, in fact), but it does follow

No, because we have far from understood the dynamic forces in the Universe, these are completely misunderstood and replaces with silly dark matter.

Quote:

The best thing about this is, assuming the Milky Way, Local Group or Virgo Cluster (and so on) aren't stationary, the Lorentz factor probably isn't negligible on Earth any more, and it should be a piece of cake to measure your resistance against motion.

I am not so sure.
The resistance in the Moon/Earth system is so weak, less than ½ % of the tidal effect.
It is certainly much stronger around the Sun, so a test probes orbiting the sun retrograde would be good to get that experience, what would happen to it. - We must learn to distinguish between SpaceWind and Tidal Force, to better understand the dynamic.

Further out in the MilkyWay the SpaceWind is much stronger, but we have only math to take us further, but first we off course must get rid of the crazy dark matter.

Notice the “Edit” in the previous post:
This theory will extend GR.
SR and GR is not 2 separates and independent laws of nature, but two side of the same coin.
First understand the true nature of space (GR), and then realize that when you increase speed (SR) you’ll also increase gravity (GR), and therefore speed (SR) also change space (what you normally understand as GR) around you. This is why SR and GR in fact is the same story, and only 2 different angles to see the same reality.
Let's for example imaging the speed of the Earth is MUCH larger, this would change gravity (GR) , earth would simply “suck” / contract/ consume more space, because it has more speed/energy (SR) . Therefore also time would change here, as well as distances, and this is why speed (SR) is changing time as well as gravity (GR) does.

If you read this > http://www.science27.com/english/Culcu3.htm you can see that I wonder why the Moon is transferring double so much “unnecessary” KE to the earth, - relative to Phobos/Mars.

The main reason could very easy be that we must calculate KE in a completely difference perspective. This is a task for mathematician of the future to solve, at least to get it as exact as possible

So it is a good point DeiRenDopa have.
To make a long story short, we must know how fast we are moving relative to light, this must be the basis.

[erlando]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

To make a long story short, we must know how fast we are moving relative to light, this must be the basis.

What is your frame of reference for measuring this relative speed?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

SR and GR is not 2 separates and independent laws of nature, but two side of the same coin.
...snipped usual Bjarne ignorance...

This just illustrates your ignorance of SR and GR.
They are not two separate and independent laws of nature or two sides of the same coin. GR includes SR !
What it does is add gravitation to SR.

As for your fantasy extending GR that is a laugh.
You have little mathematics in your fantasy. What tiny bit there is pulled out of thin air (to put it politely) and so wrong that a high school student can see it.


According to Bjarne's fantasy, 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. Bjarne ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units of 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 !

[Bjarne]

Quote:

This just illustrates your ignorance of SR and GR.
They are not two separate and independent laws of nature or two sides of the same coin. GR includes SR !
What it does is add gravitation to SR.

Right, -there is overlap, not a completely unity.

Quote:

What is your frame of reference for measuring this relative speed?

On the one hand;
Consider; - that the earth already is already moving with for example 0.5% of the speed of light. If you want to accelerate the Earth to almost c, you can off course not ignore the KE the Earth already must have. It would be completely illogical to do so.
That speed of the Earth of course also affect the Moon. ( and the ISS, mother cow and etc.)
On the other hand
Every new motion process ( for example on the earth) , it could be the rotation of you wash machine what about this?.
If you want it to rotate with almost cm can you ignore that this too is already moving with 0.5% of c?
I am not sure how to deal with this, I have already done some consideration, but not much, I think it is too early to determinate anything, because we first need objective test if our calculation fits to reality.
I will keep it in mind and try to understand if anything must change.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Bjarne ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units of acceleration.

No, I am only trying to understand GR in its full range and in a way so simple and logical that I know Mother Cow would agree. I am not violent anything.

You have a problem because you know you must you huge amount of energy to accelerate the Earth. The solution (according to you) is to deny that this only can be because space must resist motion.
Not a single cow or bull thinks this sound logical.

Even though you don’t believe that resistance reflect negative speed, now try to drill just a 1/100 mm hole in your ½ meter thick anti crackpot glasses, and ask you self the question; what if this was true, - what then ?

And ask;
How must faster must acceleration be, to prevent a deceleration?

You pretend to be good to math, - now calculate how much acceleration is lost due to the fact that you it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. ?

Even though you do not believe that this is what happens, you should show us all how good you are, and CULCULATED IT RIGHT MAN.

I mean it is much very easy just to bla la bla la bla, - he is stupid and he is wrong, - so long you can’t show us all; - how to calculate how much acceleration you car would lose if this too was effected in a way where it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. ?

If you really can calculate it, - why then not show us how much slower would you car, or anything else, decelerate, if you allow you self the thought that the exact same RESISTANCE against motion would apply after your “engine stops”. (?)

What I mean; show everybody how the right deceleration must should be, and how much I am wrong. PROVE IT MAN; NOW PROVE MATHEMATICAL HOW STUPID I AM.

IF YOU DON’T , CAN YOU NOT SEE; - YOU HAVE A PROBLEM?

Mother cow is on my side and you have nothing except empty air on your side.

Unfortunately I am very afraid that the day you seriously would try to calculate it, you would come to the same results as me, - so better don’t, -- -- right?
And just bla la la la bla - right ? - this is much better--- right ?

[Paulhoff]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

You pretend to be good to math, - now calculate how much acceleration is lost due to the fact that you it requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. ?

Once again, because the energy put into an object to move it becomes part of the objects mass, it will take more energy to move it. Energy has MASS.

Once again, if your idea was right CERN would not work, CERN is working using Einstein's equations not yours.

Paul

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Paulhoff

Once again, because the energy put into an object to move it becomes part of the objects mass, it will take more energy to move it. Energy has MASS.

Once again, if your idea was right CERN would not work, CERN is working using Einstein's equations not yours.

Paul

Once again
One steep is missing, what happens before the mass increase?
What is the cause > effect ?
How does that process works?
Why does it require more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed.

Once again
The mass increase is a secondary part of the phenomena; the process whereby this happens is the primary to understand...
It can be compared to I say, the car can move because the wheels is turning.
Or if I say the car moves because it's mass increses. (Even though this too is true) , - both answer would be a stupid irrelevant answer.

When I ask how it is possible you probably should know I am asking about how the ENGINE ("the process") get the car to move.
Because the way the ENGINE works explains how the MAIN part of the process to move the car is possible.

The turning wheels are very secondary parts of the phenomena, and not part the mystery.

So the point is WHY does the mass increase and WHY does it require more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed. THIS is the mystery. - The PROCESS that make this possible, - Capito ?

Once again
Einstein haven’t made any equations to calculate the "lost" of KE due to particle magnetism.

[Paulhoff]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Why does it require more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed.

Because is has more MASS. DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Paul

[Paulhoff]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Once again
Einstein haven’t made any equations to calculate the "lost" of KE due to particle magnetism.

So.

Paul

[DeiRenDopa]

Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa

Thanks for this response.

However, as I'm sure you'll be the first to agree, it is exceedingly confusing!

Let's take this one step at a time, shall we?

I asked you for your definition of KE, and, after many repeated attempts to get you to provide one, you did.

That definition is KE = Mv^2/2, where M is the mass of the object, and v is its speed.

I applied your definition, to the specific example of the ISS, and found two different answers.

Your response, that I'm quoting in full, does nothing - that I can see - to explain how come the ISS can have two different KEs.

Yet, as I understand it, KE is an essential part of your idea (or "the theory I represent").

If one (a person, anyone) cannot get a clear, unambiguous answer to what the KE of an object is, in your idea, how can this KE be of any use?

So, why not provide your own answer?

What, in your idea (or according to "the theory I represent") is the KE of the ISS?

How do you (Bjarne) determine the ISS's speed?

Are you going to answer my questions, Bjarne?

[Paulhoff]

ERGS = ((1/((1-((V/C)^2))^0.5))-1)M*C²

The above equation will take relativity into account for any speed of the ISS.

V is the speed ISS in Centimeters per second, C is the speed of light in Centimeters per second M is the mass of the ISS in grams. One can take that answer and divide it by 10,000,000 to get joules.

At slow speeds the equation given by DeiRenDopa works will, but at very high speed it starts to fall short of the mark.

Go for it Bjarne.

This is called MATH. And no one the Scientific world will take you serious if you don't have the math for your idea all worked out.

Paul

[Bjarne]

Quote:

Are you going to answer my questions, Bjarne?

ERGS = ((1/((1-((V/C)^2))^0.5))-1)M*C²

The above equation will take relativity into account for any speed of the ISS.

V is the speed ISS in Centimeters per second, C is the speed of light in Centimeters per second M is the mass of the ISS in grams. One can take that answer and divide it by 10,000,000 to get joules.

At slow speeds the equation given by DeiRenDopa works will, but at very high speed it starts to fall short of the mark.

Go for it Bjarne.

This is called MATH. And no one the Scientific world will take you serious if you don't have the math for your idea all worked out.

Quote:

Are you going to answer my questions, Bjarne?

I have already done that......

My calculation is based on the current (equations as mentioned above) so like we normally calculate KE.
This mean each new motion process always starts from KE=zero. -Whether this is right? – I am not sure.
If a such local-framework is correct, is must be part of a overall-framework we so fare not have.

You can compare the ISS with our Moon, and you can see how I have calculated the KE.
It is the exact same principle for the ISS.

I am sure we at least (in additional to the existing framework) need a new overall-framework to be able to calculate the total KE increase and decrease due to total speed (relative to “c”) of a object.

This must include the speed of :

• Orbiting the Earth
• Orbiting the Sun
• Orbiting the Milky Way
• Orbiting the local cluster
• Orbiting the Universe

Seen from that perspective it doesn’t matter if you live on board on the ISS or on the Earth, the way to calculate your total KE would always be based on how fast you move relative to light, and therefore the same result everywhere.

Possible conflict
The existing “local-framework” ( that means; in every local motion process, - the KE increase starts from zero,) could be OK.
It could also be wrong.
Can the existing local-framework “connect” with an overall framework?
Or are these two completely independent?

Maybe the prevailing local-framework is wrong, and must be replaces with a new-local-framework where the local KE always is an integrated part of the overall framework.

In both cases the overall-framework means that; - The Mass and KE reality is the same for everybody doesn’t matter where they are.

In both cases time and distances dilation would be untouched.
Each local-process are off course always self responsible for maintaining own local respectively KE.

In the “worse case” it only means we properly must understand and see any local process of motion relative to the total speed of light, as a implemented part of a overall framework, and not relative to zero.
Which mean before we exact can calculate any possible deceleration due to resistance against motion, we must first know (for example) the total speed of the earth (relative to c) ( I don’t think this option is the case)

But I also don’t believe the nuts idea that reality just above you head, is that much stranger than here and that the KE and M increase just is reality for ghosts.

Off course distances and time is relative-different from place to place, - but not KE.

KE-increase must be seen in a complete overall perspective, - unless logic is completely lost.

But this doesn’t mean that the local-framework must be wrong.
So you can’t accuse me for totally ignoring the Lorenz Transformation, but rather to try to understand a full logic range of it.
I haven’t put much effort in this part.
It must also be work to do for the dark matter and dark energy sect, when they soon will be unemployed.

....

[Paulhoff]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

I have already done that......

No you haven't, stop lying.

Give me the ergs for ISS at 10kps and 340 tonnes.

Paul