Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

If the earth would only be the half size and the mass the same, ADG here would be 4 times faster



Imaging a little cloud, 2 % bigger than a cow, and inside that cloud is a cow. - Is that cloud still lighter than the surrounding air ?

Don't be silly.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Excactly


The point is there are no point

It's large of you to admit it.

Hans

 

[Giggywig]

Don't be silly.

Hans

It's not like that's a new development.

 

[Reality Check]

How did you calculate the values in the graph

Excactly


The point is there are no point

Exactly like this entire thread !

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]

Exactly like this entire thread

Soon you can tell us all how it is to pee agianst a hurricane....

 

[Reality Check]

Soon you can tell us all how it is to pee agianst a hurricane....

You can tell us all now how it is to pee agianst a hurricane of your
ignorance of physics (The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads (original full list to which more points have been linked)),
inability to answer the simplest question (How did you calculate the values in the graph? , Any results from the silo experiment yet, Bjarne? (22 Nov 2010)) and
delusions about your debunked ideas (Bjarne's "central gravity" is completely debunked!)....

 

[Bjarne]

inability to answer the simplest question (How did you calculate the values in the graph

I think many expect it to be “klaks” to calculate all this, after 17 years at the university.

But I can see; you still have no point.

nn

Both :

1. The amount of mass from the surface to the COG - and
2. The distance (radius) from the surface and the COG (radius ^2 ) are both very important factors.

Are you trying to tell us that this is a lie ?

I mean do you believe that r² - or the amount of mass bbetween the COG and the surface of the structure - doesn’t count?

I do NOT mean the center of mass, BUT the center of ADG / Gravity.
Only in a homogeneous mass the center of mass and the COG is the same place.
The COG is only a place where ADG components equalize each other.
Will you really deny that?

Now
How heavy do you estimate the lower section to be compared to the upper section?

I mean if anyone here knows something about concrete (defense) it MUST be you.

Where do YOU suggest / estimate the COG to be by looking at the drawing?

How heavy do you believe the lower section included the iron/concrete foundation to be?

And how do you believe all this affects the COG of the building.

Ohhh RC, - it is soooo easy to attack others with nothing but warm air.

Now show us what you have lean at that University, and shows us that YOU can prove where that COG possible must be.

And once again, - I am NOT speaking about the center of the mass. BUT the center of ADG.
And once again, - do NOT be so stupid to underestimate the meaning of radius^2

Not just (like a clumsy cow) jump to Wikipedia and find some random equations that only have 2 % with this discussion to do.

But shows us for example the equation: how to calculate the COG in a not homogeneous building. - - Just to prove you have understood at least 5 % of what we are discussing.

And show us that you also can calculate the COG.

The bitter truth is you have no idea how to do this.

How can you judge right and wrong. ?

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think many expect it to be “klaks” to calculate all this, after 17 years at the university.

You insistence on infantile language makes a poor impression.

nn http://www.science27.com/forum/point.jpg


Both :

1. The amount of mass from the surface to the COG - and
2. The distance (radius) from the surface and the COG (radius ^2 ) are both very important factors.

Are you trying to tell us that this is a lie ?

Depends on what you mean by the drawing. The gravitation center does not pull objects. In principle, every particle of the mass is pulling towards itself. The center of gravity is really just a geometrical point.

I mean do you believe that r² - or the amount of mass bbetween the COG and the surface of the structure - doesn’t count?

Of course it counts. All the mass counts.

I do NOT mean the center of mass, BUT the center of ADG / Gravity.
Only in a homogeneous mass the center of mass and the COG is the same place.

We all know that.

The COG is only a place where ADG components equalize each other.
Will you really deny that?

Nobody denies that.

Now
How heavy do you estimate the lower section to be compared to the upper section?

I'd say about 1/3 of the building's mass is concentrated in the lower part. More if you include the subterran foundations.

Where do YOU suggest / estimate the COG to be by looking at the drawing?

I'd estimate it is somewhere around the 10th floor.

How heavy do you believe the lower section included the iron/concrete foundation to be?

And how do you believe all this affects the COG of the building.

So, since you need to ask all these questions, I assume you are now admitting that we cannot measure where the COG is? Otherwise, why should you want to estimate its position?

Now show us what you have lean at that University, and shows us that YOU can prove where that COG possible must be.

Uhh, sorry Bjarne, but allow me to remind you that YOU are the one who is trying to prove something.

RC, I, or anybody else don't have to prove anything. You are the one who is suggesting an alternative thesis, so you are the one to provide the proofs.

But shows us for example the equation: how to calculate the COG in a not homogeneous building. - - Just to prove you have understood at least 5 % of what we are discussing.

And show us that you also can calculate the COG.

For the 20th time or so: There is not enough information to calculate the COG of the Domus Vista. We can estimate it, but there is no way to calculate it, with the information available.

Again, Bjarne, WE are not the ones on trial here. YOU are. You provide your calculations, you provide your evidence.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

But I can see; you still have no point.
...snipped rant and gibberish...

I have many points:

1. Bjarne's "central gravity" is completely debunked!
2. The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
3. (original full list to which more points have been linked)

and simple questions that you are unable to answer:

1. 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.
2. Any results from the silo experiment yet, Bjarne? (22 Nov 2010)

 

[Reality Check]

1. The amount of mass from the surface to the COG - and
2. The distance (radius) from the surface and the COG (radius ^2 ) are both very important factors.

Are you trying to tell us that this is a lie ?

The second point is idiotic but: No. Are you?

1. The ADG inside a body depends on the mass from the surface to the COG.
2. The distance between the surface and the COG is an important factor.
   Unless the object is a sphere than there is no "radius". For example the Domus Vista building has no radius since it is not a sphere.
   If the object is a sphere then ADG does not depend on radius ^2.

Bjarne's idea is evidence wrong (acceleration due to gravity is constant inside a sphere).
First posted 2 November 2009!

ADG = gr/rE inside the Earth (as a homogeneous sphere)

(sorry for the shouting folks but Bjarne has been deluded about this for years now).

I mean do you believe that r² - or the amount of mass bbetween the COG and the surface of the structure - doesn’t count?
r^-2 counts for the force of gravity - it is an inverse square law, not a square law, Bjarne.
r^-2 does not count for the ADG inside a homogeneous sphere.
r^-1 does count for the ADG inside a homogeneous sphere.
It is the summing of the forces from the mass between the COG and the surface of the sphere that changes the forces r^-2 dependance to the ADG's r^-1 dependance.

 

[Bjarne]

ADG = gr/rE inside the Earth (as a homogeneous sphere)

(sorry for the shouting folks but Bjarne has been deluded about this for years now).

There are religions here on the Earth that is shouted out to people, but this doesn’t make religion to science.

The understanding of inner gravity is completely misunderstood.
Inner (ADG) gravity is NOT a result of simple layer by layer effect.
But it is a result of how strong "central space" is encircled.This is a big difference.

That; - "central space" - does not mean; - the mass center.
But "central space" menas where the COG is, - when both the distance sqaure as well as the mass density "on both side" both are respected.

The graph shows relative ADG meassurements in Domus Vista

It is really not a question about to counteracts ADG components, but rather a question about to counteract; - gravity depths.

What’s goes down in a gravitionel depression “on the one side” – MUST – come up “on the other side”.

It is NOT a question about that mass must be equally distributed on both side of the COG, - but it is only a question about to counteract the inner “depth” of gravity.

THIS is the completely NEW PATTERN that is result of the new theory, - and that already is confirmed by the Domus Vista Measurement, - and THIS is what will be definitely proven by the container measurement.

Therefore the distance square law counts, in that building..

 

[Bjarne]

Depends on what you mean by the drawing. The gravitation center does not pull objects. In principle, every particle of the mass is pulling towards itself. The center of gravity is really just a geometrical point.

Not only a geometric point, - it is a point of balance, between upper and lower gravity depth.

Assume the lower 25 % of the building (25 meter height) do have a mass of 33% of the mass, like you allready did)

The lower 25 meter building = 20.000 ton
The upper 75 meter of the building = 40.000 ton

If you where at the top of the building you can now calculate a ADG-factor based on 40.000 ton/r² (radius 75 meter²) = factor 7,1

If you are at ground floor inside the building the 20.000 ton/r² (radius 25 meter²) = factor 32

Now look at the Domus Vista data, (upper and lower ADG) - You can clearly see upper and lower values (relative to COG) we allready have these upper / lower-ADG proportional’s >> (almost) 1:5.

As you can see the distance square principle gives you a must larger factor for you “money” at the bottom, (about 15 µgal per meter at the lower floors, and properly only 20 % per meter on the upper floors).

BUT there are much more to take into consideration.
A important factor is the more a structure deviate from a ball shape, - or expression with a the latest modern language; - the less a structure a able to encircle central space, - the less it is capable to create ADG effect.
( or expressed with a modern language > the less it is capable to create a strong space vacuum)

I'd say about 1/3 of the building's mass is concentrated in the lower part. More if you include the subterran foundations.

My friend I have used that estimation above, and I have added the consequence of the distance square law, and this explain why ADG is almost 5 times stronger in the bottom of the building than at the top.
THIS is also what the pattern we now have, - > reveals.

I'd estimate it is somewhere around the 10th floor.

Calculate again, and don’t ignore/underestimate the influence of the distance square law, this is an error you clearly have made.

So, since you need to ask all these questions, I assume you are now admitting that we cannot measure where the COG is? Otherwise, why should you want to estimate its position?

The data reveals this exactly as clear as the data would reveal if there was living an elephant or a herd of cows in the building.
But YES a building is not the best possible target, the coming container experiment is much better.
However these measurements done so far are clearly a BIG step forwards, and have been all the time and money worth.

Uhh, sorry Bjarne, but allow me to remind you that YOU are the one who is trying to prove something.

It is in fact not necessary to go in details; the overall picture is already sharp. But a well define measurement experiment is anyway necessary, - I mean there could maybe a very stupid single cow that not is convince so fare.

Again, Bjarne, WE are not the ones on trial here. YOU are. You provide your calculations, you provide your evidence.

So long you too not know EXCACTLY what you are witnessing, do you self the favor; at least to say, we haven’t seen the prevailing speculation is confirmed, - and it doesn’t seems to be possible to prove that old religion.

Try to admit; - yes the new theory could be right, even though you should believe it is only fraction of a percent that it could be right.

That “could” is UNACCEPABLE, exactly as it is unacceptable to know whether the hiigs “could” be correct or “could” be nothing but fantasy. We MUST KNOW. – THIS is what science is about.

We should LONG AGO have paid that relative ridiculously small price it takes, to be able to say WE KNOW how central gravity is, because we have measured it.

For the 20th time or so: There is not enough information to calculate the COG of the Domus Vista. We can estimate it, but there is no way to calculate it, with the information available.

Yes, - you can (only) estimate, and you have done so, (this is not so bad) .
NOW included the effect from the distance square (as shown above) and you’ll side how nice measurement and reality fits together, - BUT based on a completely new theory.

 

[Reality Check]

How did you calculate the values in the graph. Any results from the silo experiment

There are religions here on the Earth that is shouted out to people, but this doesn’t make religion to science.

The understanding of inner gravity is completely misunderstood.
Inner (ADG) gravity is NOT a result of simple layer by layer effect.

AGD is not a "layer by layer" effect.
The force of gravity is the sum of all of the froces from wach particle in the object. IN a homegeneous spwhere that sum give:
ADG = gr/r_E inside the Earth

This is what is measured. See Bjarne's idea is evidence wrong (acceleration due to gravity is constant inside a sphere).

Test of Newton's inverse-square law in the Greenland ice cap
​

The rest of your gibberish does not anything.

http://www.science27.com/forum/ADGFAG.jpg
The graph shows relative ADG meassurements in Domus Vista

The graph is lines that you cannot explain to anyone. It shows nothing.
Simple questions that you are unable to answer:

1. 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.
2. Any results from the silo experiment yet, Bjarne? (22 Nov 2010)

Bjarne's "central gravity" is completely debunked!
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)​

 

[MRC_Hans]

The understanding of inner gravity is completely misunderstood.

Only in your fantasy.

Inner (ADG) gravity is NOT a result of simple layer by layer effect.
But it is a result of how strong "central space" is encircled.This is a big difference.

Only in your fantasy. All this is simply something you have dreamed up. You have no evidence and you can't even give a coherent explanation of how it should function.

What’s goes down in a gravitionel depression “on the one side” – MUST – come up “on the other side”.

That would be true for an object isolated in space. However, not for a building standing on the surface of earth.

It is NOT a question about that mass must be equally distributed on both side of the COG, - but it is only a question about to counteract the inner “depth” of gravity.

Wrong.

THIS is the completely NEW PATTERN that is result of the new theory, -

Bjarne, your fantasies don't qualify as a 'new theory'. You don't even have a consistent thesis. You don't even understand the implications of your own ideas.

and that already is confirmed by the Domus Vista Measurement, - and THIS is what will be definitely proven by the container measurement.

You have proven nothing. The Domus Vista data is fully consistent with the estabished law of gravity.

Your silo experiment, which you dare not publish, cannot even support your ideas.

Therefore the distance square law counts, in that building..

The distance square law always applies.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

Please present your equation for the ADG within a building

As you can see the distance square principle

What is the "distance square principle"?
There is that the force of gravity varies with the inverse square of the distance.
But we are talking about the ADG within an building. To get that you have to sum the forces for all of the particles in the building to get the force at a certain point. You then divide by the test mass to get the ADG.
Do a "spherical cow" approximation and the ADG in the building varies as the inverse distance from the center of the building. Oddly enough your own data when adjuected by the free air gradiant does this!

The ADG calculated from Domus Vista measurments, i.e. the measured ADG - the free air gradient - the baseline measurement (the ADG wthout the building).
Since we have no baseline measurment all we can do is subtract a value to make the graph pretty.​

I do not have the axes labeled with their units which are µgal and floors.
I have even attached the Excel spreadsheet that generated the graph. This contains the raw data and the calculations that generated the graph points from the data. That was: Given

X = the ADG without the building
M = the ADG measured on a floor of the building
FAG = the free air gradient, average value = 0.3086 milligals per meter.
height = the height of a floor above the ground​

The building ADG is

M - X - (FAG * height)
​

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.


Please present your equation for the ADG within a building, Bjarne .
This is a joke of course. We know that you are abysmally ignorant of mathematics and physics. See

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

or even

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

 

[MRC_Hans]

Not only a geometric point, - it is a point of balance, between upper and lower gravity depth.

Inaccurate. It is a balance point in all directions. But it is still just a formal point. The laws applying in the center of gravity are no different from any other point.

Assume the lower 25 % of the building (25 meter height) do have a mass of 33% of the mass, like you allready did)

The lower 25 meter building = 20.000 ton
The upper 75 meter of the building = 40.000 ton

Whatever.

If you where at the top of the building you can now calculate a ADG-factor based on 40.000 ton/r² (radius 75 meter²) = factor 7,1

If you are at ground floor inside the building the 20.000 ton/r² (radius 25 meter²) = factor 32

However, the two factors don't refer to the same mass. Also, the mass of the lower part will also have an effect on the top floor, and vice versa.

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

http://www.science27.com/forum/ADGFAG.jpg
Now look at the Domus Vista data, (upper and lower ADG) - You can clearly see upper and lower values (relative to COG) we allready have these upper / lower-ADG proportional’s >> (almost) 1:5.

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

No, that's not what we see. What we see is that the contribution from the building is pretty straight for all the upper floors, but as we pass the heavy concrete deck over the 3rd floor, we have a local counter-effect.

As you can see the distance square principle gives you a must larger factor for you “money” at the bottom, (about 15 µgal per meter at the lower floors, and properly only 20 % per meter on the upper floors).

Of course, nearby mass concentrations have a greater effect. Nothing strange in this.

BUT there are much more to take into consideration.
A important factor is the more a structure deviate from a ball shape, - or expression with a the latest modern language; - the less a structure a able to encircle central space, - the less it is capable to create ADG effect.
( or expressed with a modern language > the less it is capable to create a strong space vacuum)

Nonsense. 'Space vacuum' exists only in your imagination.

My friend I have used that estimation above, and I have added the consequence of the distance square law, and this explain why ADG is almost 5 times stronger in the bottom of the building than at the top.
THIS is also what the pattern we now have, - > reveals.

It only reveals that the mass distribution is uneven.

Calculate again, and don’t ignore/underestimate the influence of the distance square law, this is an error you clearly have made.

No, I have not made that error.

The data reveals this exactly as clear as the data would reveal if there was living an elephant or a herd of cows in the building.
But YES a building is not the best possible target, the coming container experiment is much better.

Gibberish. Forget about livestock.

However these measurements done so far are clearly a BIG step forwards, and have been all the time and money worth.

Well, it has showed your thesis to be bunk. The big step forward comes only the day you realize this.

So long you too not know EXCACTLY what you are witnessing, do you self the favor; at least to say, we haven’t seen the prevailing speculation is confirmed, - and it doesn’t seems to be possible to prove that old religion.

I know exactly what I'm witnessing. The established law of gravity has been completly confirmed by evidence.

Try to admit; - yes the new theory could be right, even though you should believe it is only fraction of a percent that it could be right.

Try to admit: Your so-called theory is pure speculation, and as long as you don't even understand conventional gravity, you are in no position to challenge it.

That “could” is UNACCEPABLE, exactly as it is unacceptable to know whether the hiigs “could” be correct or “could” be nothing but fantasy. We MUST KNOW. – THIS is what science is about.

'We' know. That is, the rest of the world knows. The only ones in doubt are you and your pet cow.

We should LONG AGO have paid that relative ridiculously small price it takes, to be able to say WE KNOW how central gravity is, because we have measured it.

We have measured it.

Yes, - you can (only) estimate,

I note that you now admit that you cannot establish the COG from the measurements. Nice after you have called us idiots for pointing that out all along. Still, an improvement.

NOW included the effect from the distance square (as shown above) and you’ll side how nice measurement and reality fits together, - BUT based on a completely new theory.

No^[tm]. There is no new theory, and none is needed.


Hans

 

[Bjarne]

The force of gravity is the sum of all of the froces from wach particle in the object.

Yes this is true, BUT it is also true the more extended a mass is, - the weaker is the ADG, - and that it is a FACT that the ADG-decrease is determinated by r² from the COG.

For example,- now imaging that 50% of the Domus Vista mass would be at the 5 lower floors, and that the last 50% was distributed on 10.000 floors, - which mean the building would be 3000 km tall.

This would bring you MUCH further a ways from the COG, and this is where the r² MUST, - and I repeat MUST come into the equation .

In both cases (both to calculate the upwards and the downwards pull, - you must use the distance square law….

The point is that the further you get away from the COG the weaker ADG gets, and that is determinated mate by r² . - NOT by r, so like you claims..

If for example the Earth would be 10.000 bigger ADG would not be 10.000 times weaker at the surface, BUT 40.0000 weaker, - BECAUSE you would increase the distance to the COG.

It is the excact same principel that aply for the building, dosnet matter where the COG is. _ Honestly try hard to get that cow-logic-simple-FACT-under-the concrete.

Honestly RC, now use you’re BRAIN and you will understand this MUST be a fact.

What you are doing now is breaking the distance square law. – Stop making a fool complete fool of you self. And the same message to you Hans.

 

[Bjarne]

Double

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes this is true, BUT it is also true the more extended a mass is, - the weaker is the ADG, - and that it is a FACT that the ADG-decrease is determinated by r² from the COG.

That is actually wrong. The strength of the gravity field is determined by the mass, and only by the mass. The ADG at a given distance from the COG (outside the mass) is determined by the square of the distance (r²).

So, the surface gravity of an object will be higher if the density is higher, but ONLY because the surface is closer to the COG.

For example,- now imaging that 50% of the Domus Vista mass would be at the 5 lower floors, and that the last 50% was distributed on 10.000 floors, - which mean the building would be 3000 km tall.

This would bring you MUCH further a ways from the COG, and this is where the r² MUST, - and I repeat MUST come into the equation .

Bjarne, you should stop making all these silly scenarios, cows in clouds, 10,000 floor buildings, etc. They make no sense.

The fact of this is that the square rule (r²) applies to the gravity field outside a mass. But you are trying to discuss the gravity inside a building, and that makes a difference. The square rule still apllies to individual parts of the mass, but the picture gets quite complicated.

- NOT by r, so like you claims..

And in your version of reality, r has nothing to do with r²?

If for example the Earth would be 10.000 bigger ADG would not be 10.000 times weaker at the surface, BUT 40.0000 weaker, - BECAUSE you would increase the distance to the COG.

Why do you keep repeating things we all know? That, Bjarne is conventional gravity, and we have known that since 1679.

It is the excact same principel that aply for the building, dosnet matter where the COG is. _ Honestly try hard to get that cow-logic-simple-FACT-under-the concrete.

Honestly RC, now use you’re BRAIN and you will understand this MUST be a fact.

Stop that. You are not in a position to talk like that to anybody here. (Or anybody at all, for that matter; this is simply not the way adults communicate.)

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

That is actually wrong. The strength of the gravity field is determined by the mass, and only by the mass. The ADG at a given distance from the COG (outside the mass) is determined by the square of the distance (r²). .

And that surface could very well be the roof of the building. (Finally a brake through)

Bjarne, you should stop making all these silly scenarios, cows in clouds, 10,000 floor buildings, etc. They make no sense.

It does, so long you and RC do not understand simple principles, I have to exaggerate that ADG; - for example on the top or at the bottom of the building always are determinated by r², doesn’t matter how big or short the distance is.

Therefore you will get a much Stronger ADG in the bottom where the distance-sqaure to the COG is MUCH less and therefore the distance sqaure principle is an important factor of understand according to where we have found the COG.

If you still do not understand "MUCH" imaging that the lower mass would be the same as now - but the upper mass of Domus Vista would be 10.000 floors made of paper.
I hope the message : how to determinate ADG on the top of the upper parts ( the paper parts of the building ) is determinated by r² as well as the lower parts is, where radius is MUCH less.

--