Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Reality Check]

Could somebody (not Bjarne, because he is clueless) explain this to me: in Bjarne's drawing of the Domus Vista Building, he places the centre of gravity somewhere in the lower middle of the building and triumphantly declares that this is not where science would have placed it. Is this true? I would have thought that this is exactly where science would have placed it without knowing much about local circumstances.

The fact is that science cannot place the centre of gravity anywhere in the building without making an assumption about the mass distribution of the building. That should include the foundations but we have no knowledge about them.

A standard assumption would be that each floor of the building is the same height and mass. This places the centre of gravity at the middle of the building, i.e. at the 15th floor of 30.
We though know that the bottom floors (three?) are higher than the others. That would place the centre of gravity a few meters lower, e.g. the middle of the 14th floor.

What we do know is that in order to have the centre of gravity at the third floor as Bjarne's fantasy would have it, there has to be as much mass above it as under it. In other words, Bjarne wants half the mass of the building in the first 3 floors. That means that these floors are 9 times heavier than the others!

What we do know is that

• Bjarne's measurements show that the ADG difference between each floor changes up to the third floor. This debunks his central gravity idea which predicts a constant ADG (a difference of zero between floors). The changes are attributable to a ground effect, e.g. the ground and other buildings decreasing the ADG and the effect decreasing with height.
• Bjarne's measurements show that the ADG difference between each floor is constant above the third floor. This debunks his central gravity idea which predicts a constant ADG (a difference of zero between floors).

 

[Bjarne]

The fact is that science cannot place the centre of gravity anywhere in the building without making an assumption about the mass distribution of the building. That should include the foundations but we have no knowledge about them.

A standard assumption would be that each floor of the building is the same height and mass. This places the centre of gravity at the middle of the building, i.e. at the 15th floor of 30.
We though know that the bottom floors (three?) are higher than the others. That would place the centre of gravity a few meters lower, e.g. the middle of the 14th floor.

What we do know is that in order to have the centre of gravity at the third floor as Bjarne's fantasy would have it, there has to be as much mass above it as under it. In other words, Bjarne wants half the mass of the building in the first 3 floors. That means that these floors are 9 times heavier than the others!

What we do know is that

• Bjarne's measurements show that the ADG difference between each floor changes up to the third floor. This debunks his central gravity idea which predicts a constant ADG (a difference of zero between floors). The changes are attributable to a ground effect, e.g. the ground and other buildings decreasing the ADG and the effect decreasing with height.
• Bjarne's measurements show that the ADG difference between each floor is constant above the third floor. This debunks his central gravity idea which predicts a constant ADG (a difference of zero between floors).

It is easy to see that the 3 lower floors + the cellar can be up to 3 times as heavy as the upper floor.

Furthermore the heavy iron concrete block under the cellar pulls upwards.
You can also see that at the lower floors there are heavy hidden iron-concrete vertical and horizontal beams.
And there under each concrete foundation there are iron-concrete foundation pillars pretty deep into the ground.

Domus Vista Foundation > http://www.science27.com/english/Measurement/1-fundament.pdf

All this pulls upwards.

BUT there is an even stronger effect, and this is the distance square.

The COG means in fact where gravity counteracts -/+ - therefore the density is VERY important, which mean therefore the distance square relative to the light and heavy parts is also important.

What you can do is to find the COG of the upper parts and the lower parts, and you will see if we assume the COG is at 5th floor, - then the lower mass radius is 10 meter but the upper (lighter) section has a mass radius almost 40 meter, - so also here you'll have a factor 4 : 1

And finally, there are also strong local pull downwards at third floor. – Which mean the negative value (measured) should have been strongerhere, and therefore the COG of the building is dimmed / this is also the case in the cellar due to the heavy foundation has a local downwards pull, whereby the ADG in the cellar anyway only can be estimated.

 

[steenkh]

The fact is that science cannot place the centre of gravity anywhere in the building without making an assumption about the mass distribution of the building. That should include the foundations but we have no knowledge about them.

A standard assumption would be that each floor of the building is the same height and mass. This places the centre of gravity at the middle of the building, i.e. at the 15th floor of 30.
We though know that the bottom floors (three?) are higher than the others. That would place the centre of gravity a few meters lower, e.g. the middle of the 14th floor.

And if we assume that the foundations are heavy, we should find the centre of gravity even lower, and that is what we find in Bjarne's own graphics. So all he has done is to produce something that in no way is controversial vis-a-vis real science, right?

 

[Bjarne]

And if we assume that the foundations are heavy, we should find the centre of gravity even lower, and that is what we find in Bjarne's own graphics. So all he has done is to produce something that in no way is controversial vis-a-vis real science, right?

The fact that the COG is near the 5th floor, it not a surprise, - for either the new or the prevailing theory, - if you know that the lower parts of the building is so heavy.

But none of us knew that few weeks ago. This is what the drawings reveal .

The surprise is that ADG is stable, - towards the COG - as predicted.

This is already pretty clear to conclude based on the data we have...

There are in fact no other way how can explain the gravity - "depth" - found the the relative gravimeter.

Measurement at the lower 20 meter section of the building, - with an absolute gravimeter, - will make that conclusion much stronger..

 

[Reality Check]

How did you calculate the values in the graph

The fact that the COG is near the 5th floor, it not a surprise, - for either the new or the prevailing theory, - if you know that the lower parts of the building is so heavy.

That is wrong: We do not know how heavy the lower floors are. You have done no calculations from the drawings you have presented. You are only guessing to support your delusions.

In order to put the COG at the 5th floor the lower 5 floors will have to have half the mass of the building. So each of these floors will have to be about 5 times the mass of each of the upper floors.

The surprise is that ADG is stable, - towards the COG - as predicted.

You lie: According to my and MRC_Hans calculations the ADG varies.

According to your graph, whatever you are plotting varies.
How did you calculate the values in the graph?

A hint: Your graph looks like an Excel graph. Try attaching the file to the post where you explain how you calculated the values in the graph.

This just confirms that: Bjarne's "central gravity" is completely debunked!

 

[MRC_Hans]

Could somebody (not Bjarne, because he is clueless) explain this to me: in Bjarne's drawing of the Domus Vista Building, he places the centre of gravity somewhere in the lower middle of the building and triumphantly declares that this is not where science would have placed it. Is this true? I would have thought that this is exactly where science would have placed it without knowing much about local circumstances.

Of course. Bjarne tries to support his silly ideas by observing trivia and claiing they support him.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

That is wrong: We do not know how heavy the lower floors are. You have done no calculations from the drawings you have presented. You are only guessing to support your delusions.

In order to put the COG at the 5th floor the lower 5 floors will have to have half the mass of the building. So each of these floors will have to be about 5 times the mass of each of the upper floors.

You can clearly see at the drawing that the lower floors, included the thick concrete floor at 3rd floor, as well as the heavy concrete foundation, (etc) is MUCH heavier than the upper floors.

Certainly more than twice, and probably close to 3 times so heavy.

But this is in fact not the only thing:

When we now assume that the COG is at 5th floor, - then the lower heavy mass radius is 10 meter but the upper (lighter) section has a mass radius almost 40 meter, - so also here you'll have a factor heavy/light > 4 : 1, - which mean If we say the lower mass (20 meter total height) would be 10.000 ton, then you must have 40.000 ton above to counteract aboce where the total lenght is almost 80 meter (radius 40 meter).

Simply because of the distance square principle.

You will need (approximately) 4 times less mass in the bottom to be able to counteract the upper parts.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Allow me to suggest that we leave this sick puppy alone. He has no clue, he will get no clue, he doesn't want to have a clue.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Allow me to suggest that we leave this sick puppy alone. He has no clue, he will get no clue, he doesn't want to have a clue.

Hans

Allow me to suggest that we let the sick prevailing thesis fall.

• There are no clue, - but only speculation..
• There will never be any clue..
• Brainwashed person doesn’t want to have any clue, - but only creed to believe in.
• There are no objective evidence, - also not pinpricks in the inlands ice prove anything, - how inner gravity must be understood. .

Amen
The old thesis is dead, - disproven

 

[Paulhoff]

Allow me to suggest that we leave this sick puppy alone. He has no clue, he will get no clue, he doesn't want to have a clue.

Hans

Greatly seconded.

Paul

 

[Reality Check]

Certainly more than twice, and probably close to 3 times so heavy.
...snipped gibberish about "heavy mass"...

The stupidity continues:

1. You have no idea how heavy the floors are.
2. They need to be at least 5 times heavier than the ones above the fifth floor to have the COG at the fifth floor.

You seem to have yet another delusion: that center of gravity is a gravitational effect. It is not. It is the mean location of all the mass in a system.

The center of mass

of a system of particles is defined as the average of their positions,

, weighted by their masses, mi:

For a continuous distribution with mass density

and total mass M, the sum becomes an integral:

If an object has uniform density then its center of mass is the same as the centroid of its shape.

 

[Reality Check]

Allow me to suggest that we leave this sick puppy alone. He has no clue, he will get no clue, he doesn't want to have a clue.

Hans

Almost thirded - he is obviously delusional about his fantasies and ignorant about science.

But I think that I will continue asking him about the silo experiment and whether he has any idea what he is ploting in that idoitic graph. The answers are obvious

• The silo experiment probably disproved central gravity once again !
• He has no idea what he is plotting. He is even incapable of attaching the source of the graph in a post !

 

[steenkh]

The fact that the COG is near the 5th floor, it not a surprise, - for either the new or the prevailing theory, - if you know that the lower parts of the building is so heavy.

But none of us knew that few weeks ago. This is what the drawings reveal .

So they reveal nothing interesting?

The surprise is that ADG is stable, - towards the COG - as predicted.

In what way does it strengthen your delusion when this is completely consistent with science?

 

[Bjarne]

They need to be at least 5 times heavier than the ones above the fifth floor to have the COG at the fifth floor.

This again demonstrates how little basic knowledge you have about gravity.

Imaging the 2 earth planet, - with the same mass.

The upper planet would only have the halft size

Distance between the 2 planets is 1000 meter.

You would be at the red spot.

Would you fall upward or downwards?

Do you believe the ADG of the 2 planets counteracts each equally at that point?

So they reveal nothing interesting?

Measured at the surface - the ADG is the same according to both theories.

In what way does it strengthen your delusion when this is completely consistent with science?

ADG is stable form the surface and towards the center, - in a homogeneous mass

 

[steenkh]

Imaging the 2 earth planet, - with the same mass.

The upper planet would only have the halft size

Distance between the 2 planets is 1000 meter.

This comparison does not seem to be relevant to the Domus Vista plot. I believe that everybody agree that sufficiently heavy foundations can pull the COG downwards arbitrarily, so what is your point with that plot?

 

[Reality Check]

This again demonstrates how little basic knowledge you have about gravity.

This again demonstrates how little basic knowledge you have about the center of gravity. We are talking about small scales so the center of gravity is the same as the center of mass.

The center of mass is the mean location of all the mass in a system.

The center of mass

of a system of particles is defined as the average of their positions,

, weighted by their masses, mi:

For a continuous distribution with mass density

and total mass M, the sum becomes an integral:

If an object has uniform density then its center of mass is the same as the centroid of its shape.

The image of course really points out your ignorance of gravity - the center of gravity is not half way between 2 different masses:
center of gravity.

For example, the moon does not orbit the exact center of the Earth, but a point on a line between the Earth and the Moon approximately 1,710 km below the surface of the Earth, where their respective masses balance. This is the point about which the Earth and Moon orbit as they travel around the Sun.

Of course your ignorance of gravity has been well established:

Bjarne's "central gravity" is completely debunked!
​

How did you calculate the values in the graph?
A hint: Your graph looks like an Excel graph. Try attaching the file to the post where you explain how you calculated the values in the graph.

Any results from the silo experiment yet, Bjarne? (22 Nov 2010)

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)

​

 

[Bjarne]

This comparison does not seem to be relevant to the Domus Vista plot. I believe that everybody agree that sufficiently heavy foundations can pull the COG downwards arbitrarily, so what is your point with that plot?

The point is that the ADG is 4 times stronger upwards, - towards the small planet Earth, even though the mass is the same of the 2 planets.,.
The point is that the upper planet Earth could have 4 times less mass as the big planet earth, and still it would neutralize the ADG from the big planet earth - (that have 4 times larger mass....)
The point is 117% of all cows in the entire Universe have known this 13,7 billion years, + 13,7 billion years backwards in time
The point is 12% of the Human race in the civilized countries knows this too in 296 years.
The point is , - I don't know how this is in New Zeeland.

 

[Bjarne]

If the these 2 planet would have the same mass, the ADG would now be 4 times stronger downwards due to that the small planet simply is SMALLER - (half size, but same mass)

This mean if the small Earth would have 4 times less mass as the big planet and > the ADG between these would equalize each other.

 

[MRC_Hans]

http://www.science27.com/forum/rce2.jpg

If the these 2 planet would have the same mass, the ADG would now be 4 times stronger downwards due to that the small planet simply is SMALLER - (half size, but same mass)

This mean if the small Earth would have 4 times less mass as the big planet and > the ADG between these would equalize each other.
http://www.science27.com/forum/cowstamp.jpg

Bjarne, do these claims express your thesis about alternative gravity, or are you trying to explain how you think conventional gravity functions?

(In both cases, you are wrong)

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, do these claims express your thesis about alternative gravity, or are you trying to explain how you think conventional gravity functions?

(In both cases, you are wrong)

Hans

I did not expect you would understand. I mean you even do not understand that water is heavier than air. How should you understand basic gravity?
This would be impossible to expect.
As I wrote 117% of cows in the Universe understand basic gravity, but only 12 % of the Human race.
So you do not need to be sorry about it, you are not alone…
Try this on both the small and big earth GM/r^2 - maybe you one day will understand the cow logic.