Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The first that (serveral 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.
No, you show no facts.

Why again does GPS work without using your so-called ideas on gravity. Something that if we didn't know how gravity, speed and time worked, it would not work at all.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
The first to (several times) put the word liar in his month in this thread was RC
Actually it was Belz..., back in post 393.


not because I was lying but because I did not agree to creeds.
RC asked if you were "A liar?, Unable to read?, Unable to read and understand? Or just deluded?" because you made a false statement, demonstrating, in the most charitable interpretation, a lack of knowledge.


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
That's not Newton, that's a silly, ill disciplined child.


only because he do not agrees to holy fanatic orthodox creeds.
Only because he lies. When he dismisses empirical evidence in favour of unsupported pseudoscience, we call him a fool.


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.
More childishness.


It’s a law of nature....
Shall we add nature to the list of things you don't understand?


This is just one from several examples; that shows how intolerant, know-all-attitude, orthodox, condescending, holy, fanatic, and faultless "science" have become.....
Why don't you show that mean old science then. How about posting some factual information in a clear, concise and ungulate-free form, that supports any of your ideas.
 
Last edited:
Any results from the silo experiment yet, Bjarne? (22 Nov 2010)

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.....
...rant snipped...
So?
What the Greenland experiments shows is that the ADG inside the Earth varies down to a depth of 3 km. Your idea predicts that the ADG is constant. Thus:
How did you calculate the values in the graph? (27 Nov 2010)
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)
No is a valid answer.
An estimated date when the results will be available would be better.
Never means that you wasted your money.

 
So, I glanced at some of the arguments here, and it seems like mentioning how we determine the Gravitational Constant would be in order. Anyone brought up the torsional weight system used to measure it? (E.g. the Cavendish apparatus and related devices)
 
So?
What the Greenland experiments shows is that the ADG inside the Earth varies down to a depth of 3 km. Your idea predicts that the ADG is constant. Thus:
The new theory predicts ADG is stable inside a homogeneous mass.
Off course the inner iron core "disturbs" a such stable pattern.
Off course the different content of the crust under the ice core "disturbs" that pattern too.
But the fact is still that ice core measurement is insignificant pinpricks, useless to make any conclusion regarding inner ADG. You don't know WHAT you are meassuring...
Compared to Domus Vista , it is ONLY like digging a 2 millimeter deep hole in the concrete roof of the building.
You cannot confirm any thesis based on such thin argument. You should know this…


So, I glanced at some of the arguments here, and it seems like mentioning how we determine the Gravitational Constant would be in order. Anyone brought up the torsional weight system used to measure it? (E.g. the Cavendish apparatus and related devices)
Read this abstract > http://www.science27.com/english/abstract.html
 

Utter nonsense and idle speculation.

I think it's time for a little sanity check. How did they make the Greenland bore-hole measurements? How did DTU measure gravity in Domus Vista for Bjarne?
Answer: They had some very sophisticated gravimeter instruments. And expensive.

Where did those instruments come from?
Answer: They were constructed, manufactured and sold.

Why would anyone construct, manufacture, not to mention buy, such strange and expensive instruments?
Answer: Because extensive research is going on, worldwide, on gravity anomalies.

Why are gravity anomalies so interesting?
Answer: Because they can tell us a lot of how Earth's crust is put together and help us find oil and precious minerals.

What has this to do with Bjarnes' alternative gravity thesis?
Answer: A lot! You see, to find those anomalies that may tell us where there is oil and minerals, we have to know the ideal scenario. We have to know exactly which gravity would be expected in a homogenous mass. When we subtract that from what we measure, we can see the anomalies.

If we actually measured something quite different, we would immidiately discover it.

Out of curiosity, I found and read a few articles on the matter, and there has been extensive research in borehole gravity, gravity inside mountains and large buildings, gravity measured from sattelites, etc., so when Bjarne claims it has never been researched, he is speaking out of ignorance.

I won't reference the articles here; they are only a Google search away. Most of it is quite sophisticated and will be way over Bjarne's head, and he will continue inserting his own fantasies instead, anyway.

Hans
 
Off course the inner iron core "disturbs" a such stable pattern.
...even more unsupported assertions.
Given your basic ignorance of physics, you have no idea whether it does or does not (it does not).
Given your basic ignorance of physics, you have no idea whether any other factors affected the result or not. The scientists who did the experiment though do not have your ignorance and did cater for the different effects.

Bjarne's "central gravity" is completely debunked!

How did you calculate the values in the graph? (27 Nov 2010)
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)
No is a valid answer.
An estimated date when the results will be available would be better.
Never means that you wasted your money.

 
Utter nonsense and idle speculation.

I think it's time for a little sanity check. How did they make the Greenland bore-hole measurements? How did DTU measure gravity in Domus Vista for Bjarne?
Answer: They had some very sophisticated gravimeter instruments. And expensive.

Where did those instruments come from?
Answer: They were constructed, manufactured and sold.

Why would anyone construct, manufacture, not to mention buy, such strange and expensive instruments?
Answer: Because extensive research is going on, worldwide, on gravity anomalies.

Why are gravity anomalies so interesting?
Answer: Because they can tell us a lot of how Earth's crust is put together and help us find oil and precious minerals.

What has this to do with Bjarnes' alternative gravity thesis?
Answer: A lot! You see, to find those anomalies that may tell us where there is oil and minerals, we have to know the ideal scenario. We have to know exactly which gravity would be expected in a homogenous mass. When we subtract that from what we measure, we can see the anomalies.

If we actually measured something quite different, we would immidiately discover it.

Out of curiosity, I found and read a few articles on the matter, and there has been extensive research in borehole gravity, gravity inside mountains and large buildings, gravity measured from sattelites, etc., so when Bjarne claims it has never been researched, he is speaking out of ignorance.

I won't reference the articles here; they are only a Google search away. Most of it is quite sophisticated and will be way over Bjarne's head, and he will continue inserting his own fantasies instead, anyway.

Hans
Is it possible to be more superficial..?
Answer; no certainly not…
 
Is it possible to be more superficial..?
Answer; no certainly not…
Obviously, you fail to get the point.

Bjarne, what I really do is provide the same level of documentation as you do, namely leave it to the readers to look for themselves. Or, take it as your word against mine. That should, but probably won't, give you some food for thought.

Hans
 
Obviously, you fail to get the point.

Bjarne, what I really do is provide the same level of documentation as you do, namely leave it to the readers to look for themselves. Or, take it as your word against mine. That should, but probably won't, give you some food for thought.

Hans

Doesn’t matter what you do, the understanding of inner gravity is not science and has never been, -but fanatic brains washed religion.

Even though it in fact thousands times easier to change that, (prove or disprove) ….. Instead of losing billion, billion and billion of USD for searching for a FANTASY hiigs.

This will all soon be a ridiculous silly and stupid chapter in the science history book.

One day my friend, - one day not so far away, - you will be able to look back and see that I was right.
 
Doesn’t matter what you do, the understanding of inner gravity is not science and has never been, -but fanatic brains washed religion..
Yoiu are very, very wrong:
Bjarne's "central gravity" is completely debunked!

How did you calculate the values in the graph? (27 Nov 2010)
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)
No is a valid answer.
An estimated date when the results will be available would be better.
Never means that you wasted your money.


 
An estimated date when the results will be available would be better.

Find a company that can do boreholes gravity measurements, and it will take only few day completely to smash the prevailing religion.

A container can be made of scaffold and boards, - very simple.

container.jpg


It can be building in a gravel pit
container2.jpg



Hence there are no transport of and, and easy and fast to load the sand, after the Free Air Gradient has been determinate.
container3.jpg


I expect ADG to be nice and stable 150 µgal per meter towards the center (not 200 µgal as the graph shows)

This mean after only 3 meters measurement the relative "depth is 600 µgal and not zero as it "should" be according to the prevailing religion.

Construction.jpg


The same can also be shown by the graph below:
MM.jpg

This illustration is included the slope quotient of the Free Air Gradient.


Never means that you wasted your money
Ohh my dear I know I am right, and I will find the money for the next much expensive measurement as well.

How much are you willing to bet that ADG in a homogeneous mass is stable towards the center?
I mean if you are soooooo sure that I am wrong let us bet? - How much?
 
Find a company that can do boreholes gravity measurements, and it will take only few day completely to smash the prevailing religion.
No that is not what I asked.
I did not ask about your plans to waste your money in a future experiment to further debunk an already debunked idea: Bjarne's "central gravity" is completely debunked!

This is what I asked:
Any results from the silo experiment yet, Bjarne? (22 Nov 2010)
No is a valid answer.
An estimated date when the results will be available would be better.
Never means that you wasted your money.
Is the answer:
  1. There are no results for some reason.
  2. There are results but you are keeping them secret because they would embarrass you.
  3. or ?
How did you calculate the values in the graph? (27 Nov 2010)
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.


An asnwer finally - for some reason your silo experiment failed and now you are going to set up another experiment which of course will fail.
 
How much are you willing to bet that ADG in a homogeneous mass is stable towards the center?
I mean if you are soooooo sure that I am wrong let us bet? - How much?
Your "central gravity" prediction is that ADG is "stable", i.e. constant every where inside a homogeneous mass.
I am prepared to bet a million dollars that ADG is not constant anywhere inside a homogeneous mass.
Oh look - I win :jaw-dropp
Bjarne's "central gravity" is completely debunked!
Experimentally Debunked 1
Your "central gravity" idea lead to you asserting that the ADG inside a sphere is constant. That is a delusion rather than an prediction because you have ignored the experimental evidence that the prediction is wrong since 2 November 2009 :eye-poppi !
Real, tested science (Newtons law of gravity) predicts a varying ADG inside a sphere. The actual measured ADG inside a sphere varies as predicted
 
One day my friend, - one day not so far away, - you will be able to look back and see that I was right.

No. Even in the very unlikely event that the conventional law is wrong, or faulty, you are not right.

You have kept ignoring it, but I have told you repeatedly that your thesis does not function. The thermodynamics won't function. The logic is faulty.

Forget your dreams of fame and fortune; it isn't gonna happen.

Hans
 
Find a company that can do boreholes gravity measurements, and it will take only few day completely to smash the prevailing religion.

No. Borehole gravity is standard procedure. If it showed anything unconventional, we would know.

Hans
 
How much are you willing to bet that ADG in a homogeneous mass is stable towards the center?

Even your Domus Vista measurements show that this is not the case.

I mean if you are soooooo sure that I am wrong let us bet? - How much?

I'll bet you one dollar. (your ideas are not even worth that, but...)

If we were to bet, what would it take to make you admit you are wrong?

- Be specific.

Hans
 
If we can sum up the dealings with our friend Bjarne up till now, I have to say that his apparent long-lasting exposure to bovine flatulence appears to have seriously impaired his facilities for applied logic thinking.

He replaces the search of knowledge with a Kumaresque random picking of such detached factoids that superficially appear to feed his fantasies.

Apart from construing long tirades of mediocre language quality where he attempts to present those fantasies as fact, and denote well-established science as belief, he has not done one piece of actual independent work. His website is full of pilfered clips, his idea of hiring DTU for gravity measurements came from me. Even his central idea of resistance against motion comes from me: I tried to explain to him that his 'space wind' thesis implied friction, and instead of realizing the impossible thermodynamic implications, he picked this tidbit and turned it into another piece in his incongruent puzzle.

Even simple math is beyond him, and whenever he needs some calculation, he resorts to attempts at goading or bullying other people to do it for him. He seeks information and fails to use it. For instance, when I told him I had used estimated elevations when calculating the gravity curve in Domus Vista, he severely chastised me for this wrongdoing, but his own curves contain exactly the same estimated figures, even AFTER he obtained the drawings where the right values could be read.

I have met people before, who were impervious to learning, but Bjarne is the first one to actually deteriorate when exposed to information; with every piece of fact supplied to him, he seems to move farther into his imaginative world and become more detached from reality.

He takes the concept of digging yourself into a hole into an entire new dimension.

I have to say, however, that the entertainment value has been worn very thin by now.


Hans
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom