Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

Correct. And your measurements do also not matter when you refuse to follow a sensible protocol.
Our understanding fits reality. .

It is disproved my friend.

Your problem is that you have wasted time and money on producing worthless measurements.

You will see.

If you had made the effort to produce a sensible protocol (and you were offered help here),

I have predicted exactly what would happen to ADG.
I have only forgot to take into consideration that the gravitational center moves, depending on where for example the building is (for example relative to the Earth)

If the building is floating in space, the gravitational center would be in the center. But when it is at Frederiksberg that center would (off course) moves towards to Earth and relocate to the ground level. I have forgot that, but this is not important.

you might have made measurements that could have been of interest, but now it is just a case of garbage in - garbage out

Completely misunderstood.
I have clearly predicted that ADG would be stable towards the center, and this is "exactly" what is measured.The prevailing is dead, it only remain to fall.

 

[Ziggurat]

If the building is floating in space, the gravitational center would be in the center. But when it is at Frederiksberg that center would (off course) moves towards to Earth and relocate to the ground level. I have forgot that, but this is not important.

Not important? It's not true. And we have experimental confirmation that it's not true, in the form of basically every measurement of the gravitational constant (big G, not little g) that's ever been done. The gravitational center of an object only changes if the object itself changes, not if you move it somewhere else.

 

[Paulhoff]

If the building is floating in space, the gravitational center would be in the center.

It would be at the, wait for this one...................................


At the center of gravity for the building, which can be located off center of the building's center if the lower floors where built stronger, and therefore would have more mass has MRC_Hans has already pointed out.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

Not important? It's not true. And we have experimental confirmation that it's not true, in the form of basically every measurement of the gravitational constant (big G, not little g) that's ever been done. The gravitational center of an object only changes if the object itself changes, not if you move it somewhere else.

Truth is always a big word.
You can say there is 2 such center.
For example we have one in the center of the Moon, and one between the moon and the Earth.
But a building on the ground is a different situation, the meeting point where the earth and building meet, is the most painful place to have you feed between. This should give you an idea that “something” “strange” happens to space exactly HERE. (and that “something” is that space here is stronger “deformed" // stronger “stretched” , - due to that both the building and the Earth demands to “suck” / consume space from that central area.
I think in this case we will be force completely rethink what is up and down.

The green arrow shows stable ADG towards the center (ground level) ..
The red arrow (underground) shows the same, also stable ADG towards the center, especially the one in the middle - BUT in this case the effect measured (towards the Earth's surface) will show stable decreasing effect.
This is what the next measurement is expected to prove. ( the container measurement experiment)

PS
There is more to take into consideration.
For example the concrete floor above the measurement point is an independent field of gravity and will locally counteract downwards measured values.
If that would not be the case the measured AGD values would all have been stronger.

There is properly a lot more to discover and to rethink.

An unstoppable revolution has just begun. (Doesn’t matter if your fellows like it or not).

 

[Ziggurat]

Truth is always a big word.
You can say there is 2 such center.
For example we have one in the center of the Moon, and one between the moon and the Earth.

No, there isn't. The moon has its own center. The earth has its own center. The combined earth-moon system has a center as well, but that combined center is still below the surface of the earth.

The center of gravity of a building doesn't change, whether it's on the ground or in space. If you want to consider something other than the building itself, then whatever it is you're considering can have a center at some other location, but then you're comparing apples and oranges.

An unstoppable revolution has just begun. (Doesn’t matter if your fellows like it or not).

Dream on.

 

[Bjarne]

No, there isn't. The moon has its own center. The earth has its own center. The combined earth-moon system has a center as well, but that combined center is still below the surface of the earth..

Sounds logical yes.

The center of gravity of a building doesn't change, whether it's on the ground or in space. If you want to consider something other than the building itself, then whatever it is you're considering can have a center at some other location, but then you're comparing apples and oranges.

I think that idea is also what I am going to smash.
If you don't like that statement, try to prove that the building keeps its central gravitational center.

I think we easy can be forces to give up this idea too.
Doesn’t matter what so ever, the area where the building meets the ground, space here is much stronger deformed / consumed and this is what it in the end of the day is decisive...
Whether the building also has keeps its relative "weaker central center" is in fact not decisive, but off course good to know, sooner or later.

We can let that question be open, but I believe that center simply relocates to ground zero. This seems to be what the measurement so far has shown. And I must say it doesn’t surprise me.
Matter “competes” to suck, this explains a lot.

If space is encircled the effect on space is stronger.
And I think we both agree that the place space is strongest encircled is; - at ground zero, - not at the center of the building, - simple because mother Earth also play a role, to encircle space. This changes a lot, also where the natural place to have a gravitational center is.

Or in other words, when the building is on the ground, (not in space) there is no reason to have that center, in the center of the building. - Can you follow that logic?
My friend I did the same mistake. (Mother Cow did not tell me before now.)

 

[Ziggurat]

I think that idea is also what I am going to smash.
If you don't like that statement, try to prove that the building keeps its central gravitational center.

Look up any introductory physic textbook.

Doesn’t matter what so ever, the area where the building meets the ground is much stronger. Space here is much stronger deformed / consumed and this is what it in the end of the day is decisive...

The location of the center of gravity of a building is independent of the location of maximum gravitational field. That's been known since Newton proposed his universal law of gravity. Again, this is freshman physics, and you are completely ignorant of it. You think you've thought up something revolutionary, but you haven't. Rather, you simply don't even understand the definition of the terms you're using.

And I think we both agree that the place the mass of the building is strongest encircled is at ground zero

I can't agree with this, because I can't even understand what the hell you mean by it. Mass is not "strong". Mass can be large, it can be small, but it never makes sense to say that mass is strong. That's just nonsense.

A field can be "strong", a force can be "strong", a pressure can be "strong", and in the case of a building sitting on the ground, we can have all three of these quantities, each with a potentially different location of its maximum. Are you talking about one of these three things? I can't tell. In fact, I can't even tell if the problem is your bad English, or your bad understanding of physics.

But assuming you meant one of these three things, then I would say (once again) that standard physics already distinguishes them from center of gravity, so pointing out that their maxima are not located at the center of gravity is not new. It's old. Hundreds of years old.

 

[Bjarne]

Look up any introductory physic textbook.

You know my mission is to attach books.

The location of the center of gravity of a building is independent of the location of maximum gravitational field. That's been known since Newton proposed his universal law of gravity. Again, this is freshman physics, and you are completely ignorant of it. You think you've thought up something revolutionary, but you haven't. Rather, you simply don't even understand the definition of the terms you're using.

My friend this is what I am attaching, by objective proving the opposite.

I can't agree with this, because I can't even understand

I understand that, and before you was posting I was editing that piece to:
And I think we both agree that the place space is strongest encircled is; - at ground zero, - not at the center of the building, - simple because mother Earth also play a role, to encircle space. This changes a lot, also where the natural place to have a gravitational center is.

 

[Ziggurat]

You know my mission is to attach books.

Attach them to what?

Oh, you meant attack.

Look, normally I'm not too picky about posters whose native language isn't English, and I don't say this to be rude, but your English is bad enough that it often makes understanding you almost impossible.

My friend this is what I am attaching, by objective proving the opposite.

But you haven't proven the opposite. All you've proven is that you don't even know what "center of gravity" means. It would help if you understood what textbooks said before you attacked them.

And I think we both agree that the place space is strongest encircled is; - at ground zero, - not at the center of the building

Once again, I don't know what the hell this means. How can something be "strongest encircled"?

If you simply mean that the gravitational field is stronger at ground level than at the center of gravity of the building, well, I already told you that this doesn't contradict Newtonian gravity. The only thing it seems to contradict is your wrong interpretation of what "center of gravity" means.

 

[Bjarne]

But you haven't proven the opposite. All you've proven is that you don't even know what "center of gravity" means. It would help if you understood what textbooks said before you attacked them.

You can force the horse to the water source, but you can't force it to drink.

I have already proven:

1. That the gravitational center not is in the center of that building.
2. That there is no decreasing acceleration towards that "center"
3. That ADG is not negative below that center.
4. That ADG is stable towards that center, (and until ground level)
5. That so far everything shows that the center is at ground level.

The last point will be further proven by underground measurement; this will be done inside a compact homogeneous mass.

Once again, I don't know what the hell this means. How can something be "strongest encircled"?

The more mass there is surrounding / encircling a central point, for example a central point of the Earth, (a galaxy or a cluster of galaxy) the more that central space will be effected, - simple before matter consumes space. Therefore space must give, also from a central direction. > = a bigger central "space vacuum"

THIS is what the whole theory is about.
THIS is the logical place where the gravitational center must emerge.

It is not like we believe, but it is a simple logical consequence of : matter that encircles inner central space.

Now look at the image again.
Imaging you are space and matter pulling a vacuum on you, the more it encircles you.
Where would be the natural "vacuum center", - where matter encircles you most?

You don't need any math, it is so evidently.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Still can't provide any proof of your claim?

 

[steenkh]

It is disproved my friend.

No. Not by your worthless measurements, and no there are no other measurements that cannot be explained by conventional science.

You will see.

Are you going to repeat the measurements and this time use a proper protocol, taking into consideration all the factor that might skew the results? I doubt it, and so your measurements will remain a waste of money and effort.

I have predicted exactly what would happen to ADG.
I have only forgot to take into consideration that the gravitational center moves, depending on where for example the building is (for example relative to the Earth)

And I predicted that your measurements would be worthless. I was right.

 

[Bjarne]

No. Not by your worthless measurements, and no there are no other measurements that cannot be explained by conventional science..

Rubbish

Are you going to repeat the measurements and this time use a proper protocol, taking into consideration all the factor that might skew the results? I doubt it, and so your measurements will remain a waste of money and effort

You cannot exactly predict the strength of local disturbances, in a building.
But you can predict the overall "direction".
This is what I have done, and this completely disproves the existing thesis of how central gravity behaves.
Reality proves that there is NOTHING AT ALL THAT SUPPORTS THE OLD SPECULATION:

For example it is proven that ADG is NOT decreasing towards the (true) gravitational center, and also not towards the “expected gravitational center” - This simply mean the old thesis is DEAD.
Now it is only left bury this dead thesis.

I know it can be hard to lose a 300 years old mass hypnotizes and mass brainwashed old friend (that never have existed except in our fantasy).
But you know this is how life sometime is. Nothing last forever.
We have to say goodbye, even though this fantasy monster have been such good unnecessary heavy orthodox stubborn friend.

And I predicted that your measurements would be worthless. I was right.

This measurement is not so perfect as such can be, because it is quite easy to get a much better result when measuring in a homogeneous mass.
So fare you have seen that ADG is stable towards ground zero, this even though each concrete floor, - above the measurement point, - pulls in an upwards direction.

Therefore when using a compact homogeneous mass, the measurement result will be more perfect of several reasons:

• Because the mass is compact
• Because the mass is homogeneous and hence nothing counteracts the fall towards the center.
• Because by drilling a tube 6 meter under the container we can also measure the negative effect towards ground zero.

But already the measurement that is done is enough; The problem is now only to get rid of 300 years mossy unnecessary creeds. This demands HEAVY proves, but don’t worry this will be provided as well.

 

[Paulhoff]

Reality proves that there is NOTHING AT ALL THAT SUPPORTS THE OLD SPECULATION:

The man is now ranting more than ever. Isn't it amazing that we have satellites in orbit around the earth and other planets and even now there is one going to Pluto, but there is nothing supporting the so-called Old Speculation.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

The man is now ranting more than ever. Isn't it amazing that we have satellites in orbit around the earth and other planets and even now there is one going to Pluto, but there is nothing supporting the so-called Old Speculation.
Paul

If you really still haven't got the point, we are here ONLY talking about central gravity. Which mean ADG inside any mass.

 

[Paulhoff]

If you really still haven't got the point, we are here ONLY talking about central gravity. Which mean ADG inside any mass.

What the hell does Art Directors Guild have to do with gravity.

Someone tell him to use terms that are already used. There is no need to make up news ones. GR has no problem with showing how gravity works, and Bjarne has not shown where it does.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

What the hell does Art Directors Guild have to do with gravity.

Someone tell him to use terms that are already used. There is no need to make up news ones. GR has no problem with showing how gravity works, and Bjarne has not shown where it does.

Paul

Aceleration Due to Gravity

 

[Paulhoff]

Did anyone tell him that things will go from a higher energy state to a lower energy state when allowed to.

In general lower energy states are more stable. Think about a tall stack of books on a table, this is a high energy state and is unstable. Just a small push will result in the stack falling over, releasing energy in the form of a bump on the head among other things, and the books will end up in a lower energy state on the floor.

Paul

 

[Ziggurat]

You can force the horse to the water source, but you can't force it to drink.

Indeed. I cannot force you to educate yourself.

I have already proven:

1. That the gravitational center not is in the center of that building.
2. That there is no decreasing acceleration towards that "center"
3. That ADG is not negative below that center.
4. That ADG is stable towards that center, (and until ground level)
5. That so far everything shows that the center is at ground level.

All you've shown is that you don't even understand what "center of gravity" means. Because it doesn't mean what you think it means, and none of what you say has any relevance to what it actually means.

 

[Bjarne]

Indeed. I cannot force you to educate yourself.
All you've shown is that you don't even understand what "center of gravity" means. Because it doesn't mean what you think it means, and none of what you say has any relevance to what it actually means.

Try to understand that you from now on have no right to claim that you know how inner ADG acts. Because it is disproven.

Face it.

The prevailing theory has got a smashing direct hide. – This can’t be ignored.

You should be angry now, - not on me but on the system that have preached creeds in 3 centuries, and mass brainwashed innocent student to believe that creeds was certain knowledge.

You should now understand that a scientific revolution is about to start.

Time has come to choose site.

You must either defend the existing creeds, by demanding Universities (in your area) to prefer for counter attacks, proving the measurement I have done is wrong, manipulated, or misunderstood - or you should desert now and join the (right) site, - (your previous “enemy”), and begin to fight against that what soon must overturn.

This is serious business that concerns us all, - you cannot just hide you self like a coward.

My friend, - the time for blab la bla la blab and creeds is over. – Try to understand that. – Now only objective measureable reality counts.