Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

Bjarne
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
Hans
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.

According to this theory the mass doesn’t need to be equal on both side of “the line”.

You can “almost” compare this to that you have 10 cows on 2nd floor eating 10 kg each and 5 cows on ground floor that eats 20 kilo each. –As you can see, both herds of cows eat the same “mass”

But this is a really a bad example, because in this case it is the distance sqaure between matter and the COG that is decisive for how strong upper and lower ADG will get.

The distribution of mass is in fact a secondary factor.

This graph shows how both the distance square as well as the mass density is decisive where the ADG center would be.

• First notice that the COG/ADG center is at 1 meters altitude (ble curve) and 2 meters altitude (red curce)
• Secondly notice that mass below the COG is in both cases factor 100
• Mass above is in both cases factor 200.

Now notice: - based on the different mass above and below the COG, you can now calculate how long distance you will need to get up from the depression. (below the COG)

If one of upper distances to that "COG" is doubled, the upwards climb from the depression will decrease 4 times (in the graph shown as from upwards climb factor 50 to upwards climb-factor 12,5 - this is a direct consequence of stretching the distance and mass from the COG.

And this is exactly what is expected according to the new theory, as well as what we see at the Domus Vista measurement research.

As we can see, if the upper mass is “stretching” this will relocate the COG. – This is the way to understand the new theory.

The blue curve is causing ADG in the bottom = factor 100 and factor 50 in the top.
The blue curve is causing ADG in the bottom = factor 50and factor 12,5 in the top.


-------

How this is according to you religion is in fact irrelevant, This thesis is dead.

I prefer objective science and not mossy old orthodox creeds.


---

 

[Bjarne]

PS!
The blue curve is causing ADG in the bottom = factor 100 - and factor= 50 in the top.

The blue curve is causing ADG in the bottom = factor 50 - and factor = 12,5 in the top.
-------

(relative to the FAG , -- this is not shown here)

 

[Reality Check]

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.

Wrong: The ADG within a solid homogenuos sphere varies as r¹ (left a negative sign in a previous post!)

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)​

 

[Bjarne]

Wrong: The ADG within a solid homogenuos sphere varies as r¹ (left a negative sign in a previous post!)

Only according to creeds.

 

[Reality Check]

Only according to creeds.

Only according to science and quite basic mathmatics:

• The gravitation force on a test mass inside a hollow sphere is zero.
• Thus in a solid sphere we can ignore the force on the test mass from above.
• The test mass can thus be considered as on the surface of a solid sphere. Plug the mass inside that sphere into Newton's law and it varies as r^3 (the distance from the center of the sphere).
• Therefore the ADG within a solid homogenuos sphere varies as r1

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.

1. 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]

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

??

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.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but RC ans I are not the ones who don't understand. YOU are the one not getting it.

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.

We haven't found the COG.

We cannot get much more info out of the Domus Vista data, and we don't need to: They confirm conventional gravity.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

How this is according to you religion is in fact irrelevant, This thesis is dead.

---

No.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Only according to science and quite basic mathematics:

Nothing is easier as to calculate how you believe nature works.
There has been NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE to confirm such creeds-math.
Inland’s boreholes-ADG-measurements are only pinprick, and proves NOTHING.

The ADG at a given distance from the COG (outside the mass) is determined by the square of the distance (r²). .

Not ONLY outside the mass, ALSO at the surface of a mass.
Which mean according to the prevailing creeds the ADG at the surface is determinated by /r² - based on the distance from the COG to the surface.

And at the surface is where the new theory begins, which therefore mean ; there are (still) no points to claim the opposite....

Both the old thesis and the new theory agrees how ADG at the surface is determinated .

BUT the old thesis and the new theory do not agree how to determinated the COG in a homogeneous mass.

According to the old thesis, the COG "should be" proportional with the mass density / distribution.

According to the new theory this is off course wrong, (inside a none-homogeneous mass) - simply because the way to understand inner ADG is completely wrong / opposite.

According to the new theory the cause of ADG is simply the relative change in "density" of space per unit distance. Therefore; - the distance of an object will fall added with the ADG per meter will tell; - how deep into a space vacuum a object will get.

The COG is simply the total ADG depth of an object.

According to Domus Vista the heavy lower section we hence shall expect an ADG and COG pattern shown below.

The principle how to calculate the total ADG "depth", is just to find the place where 2 oppesite ADG direction both can agree the COG must be, as shown below::

This shows that the old thesis and the new theory not agrees where the COG (in a none-homogenous mass) must be.

This is also exactly what now is confirmed.
Because, -we do also see that the ADG in the bottom of DOMUS VISTA is about 5 times stronger as in the top, - much weaker as expected. - And this is because the distance (r²) from the top of the building and to the true COG is much deeper as expected.

This also confirms that we have misunderstood everything what really is going on inside an object.

The best way to demonstrate how sick the old thesis is, - is in fact a inner measurement of a none homogenous mass, - like Domus Vista, and better would be container measurements experiments.

The reason to that cows are much more intelligent as human, is that cows always are open minded, and because cows do not brainwash each other.

 

[Reality Check]

How did you calculate the values in the graph (first asked 27 Nob 2010)

Nothing is easier as to calculate how you believe nature works.
There has been NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE to confirm such creeds-math.
Inland’s boreholes-ADG-measurements are only pinprick, and proves NOTHING..

Still lying, Bjarne.
There are centries of evidence that shows that gravity works as predicted and the Greenland experiment DISPROVES CENTRAL GRAVITY.

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.

1. 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]

Still lying, Bjarne.
There are centries of evidence that shows that gravity works as predicted and the Greenland experiment DISPROVES CENTRAL GRAVITY.

Is it possible to be more naive?

 

[Paul]

Is it possible to be more naive?

We don't know, we haven't seen your next post.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne
Nothing is easier as to calculate how you believe nature works.
There has been NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE to confirm such creeds-math.
Inland’s boreholes-ADG-measurements are only pinprick, and proves NOTHING..
RC
Still lying, Bjarne.
There are centries of evidence that shows that gravity works as predicted and the Greenland experiment DISPROVES CENTRAL GRAVITY.

The boreholes of the ice core are 3 km deep, - which you must see relative to the 6378 km to the center of the Earth, - hence less as 1/2000.....

So what you claim can be directly compared to that I would measure ADG at the roof a Domus Vista and 2 millimeter inside the –roof-concrete, - and hereafter claim that now I proven that ADG in the center of that building was zero as well that there was a 10.000 kilo heavy steel ball in the center.

Even the most sick and total mad cow in the universe, would not be nuts enough to support that I now had proven anything.

As you easy "should" could understand, - there is also no mad cow, - to belive you tell the truth.
This is one of the reasons that prove hat cows really are much much much more intelligent than humans.

So what we really see here is only that completely blind "authoritarian learning" can be so damaging to the human race, in a way that nothing (no objective facts) but only holy authoritarian brainwash is the reason to that student get the right to call other (not brainwashed) people for liars..

I am so happy that mother cow now have decided to help the pitiful human race...

 

[Toke]

Bjarne,
You linked to a meter that could tell when people were removing snow from the roof of the building.
Do you really think what you are proposing would have gone unnoticed by physicists?

 

[PiedPiper]

The use of cow terminology, capital letters, large fonts, and multicolored text doesn't really impress me. When I read a scientific argument, it's usually the ones that are understated that are the true innovations; there is no need to hype the discovery, as it speaks for itself. Anyone who uses graphs with dozens of huge arrows pointing everywhere, doesn't reveal how the graph was generated (the precise equation / data manipulation method), and then uses arguments in bold letters / capital letters / different color fonts obviously doesn't know what they are talking about.

Not saying this relates to anyone in this thread (this isn't a personal attack), just making an observation.

If someone wants to post a theory and have it taken seriously by trained scientists, they should perhaps consider the method by which they communicate their ideas. If they don't want to be dismissed, that is.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne,
You linked to a meter that could tell when people were removing snow from the roof of the building.
Do you really think what you are proposing would have gone unnoticed by physicists?

I do deny that.
The result from Domus Vista is also "easy" to detect.
But even this is not enought to wake people from a loooong 300 years old dream.

The use of cow terminology, capital letters, large fonts, and multicolored text doesn't really impress me.

Would it impress you if I call you a liar because you believe the moon is round , or that a cow have 4 legs and not 7 ?

there is no need to hype the discovery, as it speaks for itself.

This can sometime be the only way to penetrate heavy concrete.

Anyone who uses graphs with dozens of huge arrows

Do cows have 4 legs or “dozen” ?
I do not see see dozens arrows anywhere?
As well as I do not see a cow with dozen legs anywhere.

then uses arguments in bold letters / capital letters / different color fonts obviously doesn't know what they are talking about

So people that use capitals letters and different colors’ doesn’t know what they talk about ?
Is that a new religion?

If someone wants to post a theory and have it taken seriously by trained scientists, they should perhaps consider the method by which they communicate their ideas. If they don't want to be dismissed, that is.

But the fact is that concrete is pretty thick, and is as you can read in this thread obvious evidence is ignored.

 

[Paul]

I do deny that.

That is not surprising, given your obvious lack of understanding.

The result from Domus Vista is also "easy" to detect.

It's not the measurements that are the problem.

Would it impress you if I call you a liar because you believe the moon is round , or that a cow have 4 legs and not 7

It wouldn't impress me but it wouldn't surprise me either.

So people that use capitals letters and different colors’ doesn’t know what they talk about ?

This is quite often the case.

But the fact is that concrete is pretty thick, and is as you can read in this thread obvious evidence is ignored.

I know, but we can only tell you so many times.

 

[PiedPiper]

Oh, Bjarne! I thought we were going to be friends. I didn't say anything bad about you (specifically), and you chose to take a negative tone in your reply to me. Let's dissect your reply:

Would it impress you if I call you a liar because you believe the moon is round , or that a cow have 4 legs and not 7 ?

No, that wouldn't really impress me at all, I'm afraid. It wouldn't really invoke any emotion in me. I really haven't been driven to great emotional heights upon being insulted since, hrm, about the 2nd grade or so. If you would like to impress me though, you could start by removing the multiple spelling errors from the axis titles in your graphs from the last few posts. Proper grammar in a scientific presentation (such as a graph) excites and impresses me. Spelling errors in an important graph make me laugh - if the scientist can't be bothered to spell the title right, why on earth should I believe that he took sufficient time on the data to make sure the data is correct?

This can sometime be the only way to penetrate heavy concrete.

I repeat: if your discovery is important enough, it does not need to be shouted. Large letters, different colors, bold text, off-topic references to cows, all of these are tricks designed to confuse the reader and throw them off balance...presumably so that they'll be less able to spot the flaws present in the central argument. I'm sorry, it's just not working.

Do cows have 4 legs or “dozen” ?
I do not see see dozens arrows anywhere?
As well as I do not see a cow with dozen legs anywhere.

I'm sorry, you are correct; there were not dozens, there were 1.5 dozen. I'm referring of course to the graph found on your website at (slash)forum(slash)point.jpg.

Even if it were somehow crucial to use arrows from all of those origination points (and I suppose it could be possible, I'll let you tell me), does it have to be that thick of a line, and that bright of a color? I repeat: most scientists, by instinct, rebel against the use of such "shouted" results. It puts them on guard. If your results are so amazing, they don't need bright lights and bold lines.

So people that use capitals letters and different colors’ doesn’t know what they talk about ?
Is that a new religion?

"Scientists" who resort to such tactics generally have weaker results than they claim. That is my experience from 15 years as a professional (Ph.D. trained) scientist, reviewing hundreds of papers for national journals as well as my students thesis applications, not to mention submitting my own papers. A scientific document should be dignified. Anything that resorts to these type of tactics is unprofessional at best and suspect at worst.

But the fact is that concrete is pretty thick, and is as you can read in this thread obvious evidence is ignored.

I repeat: let your results speak for themselves. Putting words in bold, or capital letters, or in fancy fonts / colors, does not make them any more important or believable. All it does is irritate the reader - something at which you are already inherently very skilled. If you'd like advice on how to best present your results, please PM me, I'd be glad to give you some free tips on effective, scientific communication. Hugs!

 

[Bjarne]

Oh, Bjarne! I thought we were going to be friends.

Sorry, RC is already my best friend between humans
Between higher developed creatures; Mother cow is my best friend.
So you can be my second best friend, - is that alright?

repeat: if your discovery is important enough, it does not need to be shouted.

I am not shouting the theory but only when fools claims that creeds is true science, and those that not agrees are liars.

Even if it were somehow crucial to use arrows from all of those origination points (and I suppose it could be possible, I'll let you tell me), does it have to be that thick of a line, and that bright of a color? I repeat: most scientists, by instinct, rebel against the use of such "shouted" results. It puts them on guard. If your results are so amazing, they don't need bright lights and bold lines.

I will illustrate later why I have shown all these lines / arrows.

I repeat: let your results speak for themselves. Putting words in bold, or capital letters, or in fancy fonts / colors, does not make them any more important or believable.

Yes it irritate me when fools makes creeds = science, + believe they have the right to call none-sect-members for liars.

 

[Paul]

Yes it irritate me when fools makes creeds = science, + believe the have the right to call none-sect-members for liars.

Yes, it is rather juvenile for someone who professes important scientific goals to refuse serious discussion and to call people who question them fools and liars.

I am not shouting the theory but only when fools claims that creeds is true science, and those that not agrees are liars.

Is it possible to be more naive?

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?

Liar

More ignorance....
What a bunch of lies...
Liar...
Liar...
Liar...

Liar, ignorant or just dump.


Crap from A to Z

 

[Bjarne]

Yes, it is rather juvenile for someone who professes important scientific goals to refuse serious discussion and to call people who question them fools and liars.

The first to (several times) put the word liar in his month in this thread was RC , - not because I was lying but because I did not agree to creeds.

So since this thread have much to do with Newton, and everyone knows that action = reaction, - must off course mean that we must call a man is liar when he call a fellow a liar, only because he do not agrees to holy fanatic orthodox creeds.

Hence the man that without reason, or only based on brainwashed creeds, believe he have the right to call another innocent fellow a liar, he MUST have that dirt back in his face.

It’s a law of nature....

For exsample;
The idea that it is proven that inner ADG is decreasing to zero and that this is proven - and everybody that not agrees are liars, - speaks for itself. - At least seen from a cow logic intelligent level...


This is just one from several examples; that shows how intolerant, know-all-attitude, orthodox, condescending, holy, fanatic, and faultless "science" have become.....