Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
dafydd said:
Dear dear,Bjarne you deserve a Nobel Prize for comedy.
Click to expand...

avatar23409_2.gif


Ohhh
I always thought you did
 
Question for you, Bjarne. I know it'll help a lot of people to understand your idea if you can answer.

Imagine I have two point masses, each of mass m, a distance d apart. For simplicity, if you'd like, we can call m = 1 kg, and d = 1 m.

Our set up is something like this:

o---------x---------o

where "o" are the masses, and "x" is the position half way between them.

What, according to your theory, is the gravitational force at point x?
 
ArcturusA said:
Question for you, Bjarne. I know it'll help a lot of people to understand your idea if you can answer.

Imagine I have two point masses, each of mass m, a distance d apart. For simplicity, if you'd like, we can call m = 1 kg, and d = 1 m.

Our set up is something like this:

o---------x---------o

where "o" are the masses, and "x" is the position half way between them.

What, according to your theory, is the gravitational force at point x?
Click to expand...

Good question
This is the reason to the Classic mistake, and hence the reason to that we totally have misunderstood central gravity.

The short answer.
You can not compare what happens between two or several gravity field, with what happens inside one (homogeneous) mass.

The long answer here:
http://www.science27.com/english/gravity.html
 
Bjarne said:
The short answer.
You can not compare what happens between two or several gravity field, with what happens inside one (homogeneous) mass.
Click to expand...

Why not?
And there's no such thing as 'several gravity fields'. There is only one scalar field for gravitational potential in the entire universe. You made this mistake with magnetic fields as well.

The long answer here:
http://www.science27.com/english/gravity.html
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that, and it doesn't answer the question. At all.
I say: "What's the force at x?"
Your answer: "It's not zero!"

I'm sorry, but that doesn't cut it. I want to know what the force IS, not what it's NOT.
 
ArcturusA said:
Why not?
And there's no such thing as 'several gravity fields'. There is only one scalar field for gravitational potential in the entire universe. You made this mistake with magnetic fields as well.



I'm aware of that, and it doesn't answer the question. At all.
I say: "What's the force at x?"
Your answer: "It's not zero!"

I'm sorry, but that doesn't cut it. I want to know what the force IS, not what it's NOT.
Click to expand...

C'mon,that would mean Bjarne would have to do maths!
 
I'm sorry, but that doesn't cut it. I want to know what the force IS, not what it's NOT.
Click to expand...
img_9.jpg

If a body is situated precisely at the blue X (above), the difference in level of contracted space will be equalized in exactly that spot.
Therefore, this body will not move. However, this does not mean that contracted/deformed space has disappeared on this spot, it only means that the difference in level per distance has changed, meaning that there is no movement exactly at the point of the blue X.
Hence excactly a the center between two bodies gravity is zero.

Sorry you should read this chapter instead
http://www.science27.com/english/dark_matter.html

img_4.jpg

Measurement will confirm that central gravity (which not mean exact in the centre) but for example 1 mm from the centre not is almost zero, but the same like anywhere else inside a homogeneous (ball shaped) mass.
This prove will also mean that matter consumes / contract space, (and this is what matter is) .

The point is that space inside matter will be affected in both an inwards and outwards direction.
Towards an inwards direction space is trapped / encircled by "space-consuming" matter, and hence space towards this direction is stronger affected.
Therefore space must be continued to stretch towards the centre, (proportional with the “space-supply” to matter).
Hence ADG will reveal exactly this, simply because ADG reflects the “competition” to contract space between 2 bodies.
Exactly like when 2 person compete to eat the same piece of spaghetti.
 
Bjarne said:
Measurement will confirm that central gravity (which not mean exact in the centre) but for example 1 mm from the centre not is almost zero, but the same like anywhere else inside a homogeneous (ball shaped) mass.
Click to expand...

That's totally inconsistent with Newtonian gravity and general relativity, and totally inconsistent with literally thousands of experiments that have confirmed their predictions over the last several centuries.

According to Newton, gravity inside a homogeneous (constant density) ball of matter gets weaker in a smooth and simple way as you move towards the center. Specifically the force decreases linearly with distance from the surface (i.e. the force half way to the center is half what it is on the surface). That, by the way, is a direct consequence of the inverse-square law (which is why it's not quite true in general relativity).

If instead of a uniform density solid ball one considers a spherical shell of matter, there is zero gravitational force anywhere inside the shell. That's true in general relativity as well as Newtonian gravity, and it follows from even more basic considerations than inverse-square (which is why it's true in general relativity).
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
What the hell is central gravity ?
Click to expand...
This is an idea that Bjarne started his Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ? thread about and is now trying to derail his new thread into.
It is basically space "contracts" thus Newtonian gravity is wrong.
The usual crackpot stuff (see the The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads post):
  • No math.
  • No actual predictions just assertions.
  • No experimental basis.
  • Any experiment that show that his idea is wrong is wrong (but he does not show how).
 
Bjarne said:
Hence ADG will reveal exactly this, simply because ADG reflects the “competition” to contract space between 2 bodies.
Exactly like when 2 person compete to eat the same piece of spaghetti.
Click to expand...

Ok, so the gravitational forces are zero, but ADG isn't? (since ADG is a measure of the contraction of space, after all)

Now explain to me how something can accelerate without a force, in your theory.
 
Bjarne said:


I have promised to come back when the measurement result of the DOMUS VISTA Project was done. - Here we are.

INTRODUCTION
It should be possible to measure whether our understanding of CENTRAL gravity is correct.

Even though the prevailing understanding is build on Human logic, and sounds as rational thinking, we can't be sure that this reflect the "logic" of nature / space.
I mean how logical was it 100 years ago that space deforms. (?)

If matter consumes space and hence bends space toward matter, - space must "stretch" towards an object. Hence we are talking about the exact same property of space responsible for the expansion of the Universe. This would have huge consequences. For example "dark matter" would be nothing but naturally central gravity.

Our "logic" tell us that; Acceleration Due to Gravity (ADG) must be a result of how much mass there is under the measurement point. This could be wrong.

The way gravity (ADG) works could be completely different, and rather illogical. Space could very well continue to stretch the whole way towards the centre of a body. The reason could be that central space is trapped by encircled "space-consuming" matter.

To know which of these theories that is correct, it is necessary to measure CENTRAL gravity and compare the result from result below and above the central area.


There idea was systematically to measure a buildings gravity above and below the gravity centre, (see the red line in the image) and that's why Denmark's biggest resistance building originally was the target.

But the problem was that the only place where identical systematically measurement was possible (in that building) was in the southern end of the building, at the staircase. (see the green line).


To easy understand the buildings own gravity, try to imaging the building was floating in space.

Measurement on the one side of the building (maximum 5 meter inside) is off course only superficial.

Such can compared with gravity measurement near the surface of Earth.

In other words these measurements can't be used to confirm any of the theories.

However these systematically measurement was executed, - and was useful to learn from, to prepare for the final project.

The result of the measurement can be seen here

The Final Project
Experience shows that that building can't be used to confirm the new theory.

Data are too inaccurate. It's too much noise and too many unknown factors that play a role, and the building is simply to light, compared to the gravitational noise etc.

A heavy / solid homogeneous and well define object must be the target instead.


The next project is to build a container that measure 5 meter in diameter and 5 meter height. This should be enough to confirm which theory is the right one.

(Pi * 2.5 * 2.5 * 5) = 98.125 M3 approximated 98125 KG

The containers own gravity should hence be - MG/r^2 >> 98125 KG * 6,67E-11 / 2.5^2 = 104 mGal

This should be enough to show that the containers own CENTRAL gravity not is zero.

Measurement can be done as follows;
1.) Below the container (central) from a tunnel.
2.) Right below the centre and above the centre (in a tunnel)
3.) From 2 places of the side
4.) On the top (central) of the container.

My opinion is that science must if possible be built on objective observation and measurement, not on believe also not on "Human Logic".

In this case it is easy to prove.
It is unacceptable that is today still not is done.

Any support & suggestions are welcome.
Click to expand...

I have plotted your readings into a graph. Even if the gravity of the building is close to the noise floor, your thesis predicts a distinct jump in gravity when the center of gravity is passed. That did not happen. Similar measuremetns have been made before, on more massive buildings. Those series also confirmed the conventional theory.

Bjarne, you did actually go through the experiment, and you have my respect for that. Now try to keep it by admitting that your thesis failed.

Hans
 
That's totally inconsistent with Newtonian gravity and general relativity,
Click to expand...
Part of old - "conclusions” - Yes
Proves – No.
This mistake is 300 years old.

and totally inconsistent with literally thousands of experiments that have confirmed their predictions over the last several centuries.
Click to expand...
No
not inconsistent with experiments but only with our interpretation of these.

According to Newton, gravity inside a homogeneous (constant density) ball of matter gets weaker in a smooth and simple way as you move towards the center.
Click to expand...
Right
And you mean ADG
But ADG do not decrease.

This is an idea that Bjarne started his Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ? thread about and is now trying to derail his new thread into.
Click to expand...
Matter = contracted space
Matter contracts / consumes space
The result = space around (and inside ) matter is stretching towards matter.
Simple because space is “thinning out”
This statement is based on a property of space we know space possess.
No need to invent more deforming space-expressions no one anyway can really comprehend / understand.

No math.
Click to expand...
There are math /calculations
But these are cow logic and simple. Nothing more is necessary.
http://www.science27.com/english/gravity.html
http://www.science27.com/images/img_17.jpg
No actual predictions just assertions.
Click to expand...
There are accurate predictions
In a homogeny (ball shaped) object ADG will be stable until the centre.
No experimental basis.
Click to expand...
Experiment/measurement will be executed.
http://www.science27.com/english/Measurement/Index.htm

Any experiment that show that his idea is wrong is wrong (but he does not show how).
Click to expand...
Nothing shows “his idea” is wrong.
Central gravity measurement has never been executed.

Still today I too can in my mind do the same mistake that all have done the last 300 years.
How?
Well these days I begun to think how a better experiment/measuremnet than inner-building-measurement be done.
I came to the conclusion; so much mass as possible and so little volume as possible.
One of the thought was what would happen if placing several 75 tons tanks in a close ring and measure ADG in the middle between the ring of tanks.
But 10 minutes later, I discover I too was trapped in the old trap.
This would be a wrong experiment and the “classis mistake” because we would have several gravitational fields (GF) opposing each other.
The result of this would be completely different compared to measurement inside one homogeneous single GF.

Ok, so the gravitational forces are zero, but ADG isn't? (since ADG is a measure of the contraction of space, after all)
Click to expand...
In the exact centre of any mass ADG is zero
But this is a magic “dot” since at that “point” distances doesn’t exist.
1 millionth mm from that point ADG is the same as at the surface of any homogeneous mass.
The math is simple. –
If the Earth for example was the double the size we all would agree that ADG at the surface ADG would be 2.5 m/s^2
This would same the whole way to the centre (if the matter of the Earth was homogeneous). This is the simple math.

Now explain to me how something can accelerate without a force, in your theory.
Click to expand...
You can’t point anywhere inside a gravitational and say here is the force.
The “force” is everywhere.
Gravity is a whole; a grain of sand affects the whole universe, as well inwards to a point where distances no longer exist.

I have plotted your readings into a graph. Even if the gravity of the building is close to the noise floor, your thesis predicts a distinct jump in gravity when the centre of gravity is passed. That did not happen. Similar measurements have been made before, on more massive buildings. Those series also confirmed the conventional theory.

Bjarne, you did actually go through the experiment, and you have my respect for that. Now try to keep it by admitting that your thesis failed.
Click to expand...


Domus_vista_4-Small.jpg


Look at the elevator tower at the roof.
The elevators are 5 to 7 meters inside the South-Eastern part of the building
The stairway is only about 2 meters inside the building.
Here we did all the measurement.

We did only superficially measurement.
NOT central measurement according to the plan.

We must measure on concrete, or hard floor not for example on linoleum etc.
A building is full of problems / uncertainties, for example how big are the apartments, and a lot of gravitational noise (road, train, wind, elevator) furthermore there is measurement uncertainties.

Bjarne, you did actually go through the experiment, and you have my respect for that. Now try to keep it by admitting that your thesis failed.
Click to expand...
Ohh no amigo in no way.
Read this, this is the FACT
http://www.science27.com/english/Measurement/Index.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have an idea where it is possible to borrow a container / tank
  • Feeding stuff container
  • Slurry tank ( above the ground)
  • Etc.....
You will be rewarded when it will be used.

Not smaller as 5 X 5 meter, possible to fill 100.000 KG sand /grain / water
This will give a certain deviation that easy can be calculated to 100 mGal.
This can be executed a quite place.
This is the correct way of doing this amigo.....

The buildings (DOMUS VISTA) own gravity deviation I will consider to be maximum 20mGal.
A higher building properly more, but maybe not because of also the radius increases,, + also more gravitational wind noise.
A building is out of questions .
Think about the measurement uncertainty is alone 8 mGal.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
...snipped usual rant...
The buildings (DOMUS VISTA) own gravity deviation I will consider to be maximum 20mGal.
A higher building properly more, but maybe not because of also the radius increases,, + also more gravitational wind noise.
A building is out of questions .
Think about the measurement uncertainty is alone 8 mGal.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
  1. The measurement uncertainty as listed in the DOMUS VISTA document is one standard deviation of 0.008 mGal.

    Since you probably have no idea what that means, for normally distrubuted data, this means that
    • 68.2% of the measurements will be with 1 s.d.
    • 95.4% of the measurements will be with 2 s.d.
    • 99.7% of the measurements will be with 3 s.d.
    • etc.
  2. The difference between the pilot and actual project are at most 0.07 mGal. So not even the location of the gravimeter affects the measurement that much.
A building is in of questions.

As MRC_Hans notes - the data disproves CENTRAL gravity since there is no jump of 20 mGal as you predict above.
MRC_Hans said:
I have plotted your readings into a graph. Even if the gravity of the building is close to the noise floor, your thesis predicts a distinct jump in gravity when the center of gravity is passed. That did not happen. Similar measuremetns have been made before, on more massive buildings. Those series also confirmed the conventional theory.
Click to expand...
 
CaveDave said:
Bjarne:

Since you include the avatar of dafydd, you must not know what it is.

It is the cover art of Captain Beefheart's 1969 album "Trout Mask Replica".

Cheers,

Dave
Click to expand...

Full marks for recognising the Captain.Bjarne does not realise how unintentionally entertaining he is,and that makes it all the funnier.Talk about a lack of self-knowledge!
 
Please define what central gravity is.
Click to expand...
Exact in the centre (ADG) will be zero
1 millionth mm from the center (in a homogeneous mass) it will be stable.


The measurement uncertainty as listed in the DOMUS VISTA document is one standard deviation of 0.008 mGal.
Click to expand...
Your are right, - you must be hanged.

The relative gravimeter that have been used can measure down to 5 to 10 mGal
The absolute Gravimeter can measure 5 mGal
1 mGal = 10^(-8) m/s^2
It confused me how the gravimeter can show error below its possibility to measure.

Never mind what confused me is mainly this http://www.science27.com/forum/skema2.htm
Take a look how big difference, of ADG between each floor.
The 3 lower floors are about 1 meter higher, those you can forget.
But the others only few centimetres differences.
For example between floors 28/29 you have a pretty big ADG difference compared to floor 29/30 and 27/28
This could be different kind of apartments. Equipments, wind etc…….
Unless you can excactly answer WHY a building is out of question my freind.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

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