Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Ziggurat]

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.

I have no idea what you mean. But it's clear that you're clueless. This isn't about whether or not something has been disproven, it's about the fact that you don't even understand the definition of the term "center of gravity". Definitions can't be disproven. They are correct, by definition. And you don't understand the definition of "center of gravity". The details of your favorite theory of gravity are completely irrelevant to your failure to understand that definition.

Time has come to choose site.

Time has come to learn English.

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

Oh, you've already proven that you don't understand what you're talking about. You can't get the definitions of words right. Which means you're wrong before you even take a measurement.

 

[Bjarne]

I have no idea what you mean. But it's clear that you're clueless. This isn't about whether or not something has been disproven, it's about the fact that you don't even understand the definition of the term "center of gravity". Definitions can't be disproven. They are correct, by definition. And you don't understand the definition of "center of gravity". The details of your favorite theory of gravity are completely irrelevant to your failure to understand that definition.

Time has come to learn English.

Oh, you've already proven that you don't understand what you're talking about. You can't get the definitions of words right. Which means you're wrong before you even take a measurement.

The last convulsions from a looser.

 

[Reality Check]

The last convulsions from a looser.

Not the last convulsions from an ignorant crank given your insistence in documenting your ignorance of science and mathematics for the world to see .

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads​

Yet another fundemantally flawed idea from Bjarne​

 

[Little 10 Toes]

So Bjarne, how's that proof coming along? You spent so much time in photoshop that you can't spend a few fractions of that time providing evidence of something?

PS, why aren't you trying to promote your "claims" at a Danish site?

 

[Bjarne]

Not the last convulsions from an ignorant crank given your insistence in documenting your ignorance of science and mathematics for the world to see .

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads​

Yet another fundemantally flawed idea from Bjarne​

Fanatics always fight to the bitter end.
Even though it is obvious that it is no more to fight for.
Cows would never be that stupid.
We have a lot to learn from Cows.
A question of IQ

 

[Reality Check]

Fanatics always fight to the bitter end.
Even though it is obvious that it is no more to fight for.
Cows would never be that stupid.
We have a lot to learn from Cows.
A question of IQ

Cranks always dispay their ignorance and incometence to the world.
Even though it is obvious that it is no more to fight for.
Cows would never be that stupid.
We have a lot to learn from Cows.
A question of IQ

Moo Cow Bjarne!
​

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads​

Yet another fundemantally flawed idea from Bjarne​

 

[Bjarne]

Cranks always dispay their ignorance and incometence to the world.
Even though it is obvious that it is no more to fight for.
Cows would never be that stupid.
We have a lot to learn from Cows.
A question of IQ

Moo Cow Bjarne!
​

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads​

Yet another fundemantally flawed idea from Bjarne​

Reality have spoken
And a child that have lost too

 

[Bjarne]

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Max Planck

 

[Paulhoff]

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Max Planck

He leaves out one very important thing.

If

it is a real scientific theory, it will stand on its own merit and only the dogmatic will be its opponents

else

it is not a real scientific theory only the uneducated will be its supporters.


Paulhoff

Paul

 

[Reality Check]

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Max Planck

(my emphasis added)
Max Planck was right but you do not understand what he says.

You do not have a scientific truth. You have a fantasy that is so obviously wrong that a high school student can see it.

You have not even shown a competent knowledge of the basics of physics and mathematics.

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
Yet another fundemantally flawed idea from Bjarne​

Part of your fantasy is "central gravity" which you have never really defined except through the usual crackpot pretty pictures obsession.

...
Of course Bjarne is ignorant of this and so thinks that means that there is something that he calls "central gravity" which is gravity but not as we know it! From what I can gather he takes Newtonian gravity, throws away the superposition principle and then makes various unsupported assertions out of his head, e.g. that the acceleration due to gravity (ADG) inside a sphere is constant. In case you are interested this is very easy to disprove:

1. The proper derivation of ADG using the proper mathematics shows that ADG varies as the radius. It is zero as you would expect at the center where all of the forces balance.
2. The forces balance at the center of the sphere balance out so ADG has to be zero. His idea could have ADG as constant for any radius within the sphere. But if it is zero and constant then it must be zero at the surface and then suddenly increase to the ADG at the surface of a sphere which is definitely non-zero, 9.8 m/s^2 for the Earth. Discontinuities are not favored by nature. Miners under the Earth do not suddenly become weightless.
3. It has been experimentally shown that the force of gravity acts as expected (Test of Newton's inverse-square law in the Greenland ice cap) as Bjarne was told last October in another thread (The force of gravity is not constant within a sphere).

 

[Bjarne]

(my emphasis added)
Max Planck was right but you do not understand what he says.

You do not have a scientific truth. You have a fantasy that is so obviously wrong that a high school student can see it.

You have not even shown a competent knowledge of the basics of physics and mathematics.

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
Yet another fundemantally flawed idea from Bjarne​

Part of your fantasy is "central gravity" which you have never really defined except through the usual crackpot pretty pictures obsession.

The old thesis according to how inner gravity works is now proven wrong
But that simple truth can only penetrate 2 meter of concrete every year
Or in other words it will take about 277435 years before it can reach you.
Nothing I can do about it.
Concrete is concrete.

 

[Aitch]

We have a lot to learn from Cows.

Concrete is concrete.

Cows? Concrete? This is obviously something to do with Milton Keynes!

 

[MRC_Hans]

It is easy to see that the average ADG difference floor by floor is averagely 0.850 MicroGal. - and it is also easy to calculate that free air gradient is only 799 MicroGal.

Hence is is no doubt that ADG is almost stable from the top of the building to the bottom.

No, it is not almost stable, it has a gradient that is steeper than the free air gradient.

The small "bumps" on that path doesn’t change that fact.

Of course not. They just show you didn't do your homework.

To make a long history short, - measurements proves that ADG is NOT gradually decreasing towards the center, not from the top to the center and also not from the bottom to the center.

Yes, it does. We have a steeper gradient than the free air gradient.

This also proves that this answer is definitive WRONG

It proves that the answer is right. And that the prevailing theory is in accordance with observation.

Ideally, we should see the gradient within the building cross the free air gradient, that is, gravity being a bit lower at the bottom floor and a bit higher at the top floor, but since we have no way of establishing a baseline, we cannot see the crossing. The baseline would be the gravity at ground level, before the building existed, but obviously, we cannot get that information, now.

And that should be a problem (for those that are awake - not for the prejudiced) .

If you want to ignore that fact 100%, - you are also ignoring 100% of the buildings own gravity.

Bjarne, you have acted as a real (if somewhat sloppy) scientist, by actually performing the experiment. Now don't make an idiot of yourself by willfully ignoring the result. The result was not what you wanted it to be; that's tough luck, but you need to work from that. Either you modify your thesis to fit observation, or you scrap it. You cannot modify or scrap reality and stay sane.

Hans

 

[steenkh]

PS, why aren't you trying to promote your "claims" at a Danish site?

He did, and he still writes gibberish, even if the words are understandable.

Please do not send him back to us!

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

No, Bjarne, your results SUPPORT the established theory. They confirm it.
All we can expect to measure in an existing building, where we cannot estabish a baseline gravity, is a gradient that is steeper than the free air gradient. And that is exactly what you found.

This is the main fault with your experiment: Your protocol did not list which results would confirm your thesis and which would reject it. So now you can waste more of your life trying to explain it away.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

No, it is not almost stable, it has a gradient that is steeper than the free air gradient.

The building is not homogeneous, and not the perfect target.
Anyway the overall picture is VERY clear.
Nothing at all confirms to the previously thesis.

Of course not. They just show you didn't do your homework.

I can’t prevent these naturally “bumps” and I shall not.

It proves that the answer is right. And that the prevailing theory is in accordance with observation.
Ideally, we should see the gradient within the building cross the free air gradient, that is, gravity being a bit lower at the bottom floor and a bit higher at the top floor, but since we have no way of establishing a baseline, we cannot see the crossing. The baseline would be the gravity at ground level, before the building existed, but obviously, we cannot get that information, now.

Crap from A to Z

You can and must compare the free air gradient floor by floor, and thta's it.

• NOTHING confirms that ADG is decreasing towards the center (exactly as predicted)
• NOTHING confirms that ADG is zero in the center (exactly as predicted)
• EVERYTHING proves that the G-center is not at the building physical center.

Amigo the measurement executed is a direct demolishing hit. FACE IT

Thisshould shake you guys. Times to wake up has come.

Bjarne, you have acted as a real (if somewhat sloppy) scientist, by actually performing the experiment. Now don't make an idiot of yourself by willfully ignoring the result. The result was not what you wanted it to be; that's tough luck, but you need to work from that. Either you modify your thesis to fit observation, or you scrap it. You cannot modify or scrap reality and stay sane.

I wonder how long time it is possible to p.. against the wind, without discovering to be wet.

No, Bjarne, your results SUPPORT the established theory. They confirm it.
All we can expect to measure in an existing building, where we cannot estabish a baseline gravity, is a gradient that is steeper than the free air gradient. And that is exactly what you found.

Crap
”baseline” – more crap.
The calculation is so simple a 10 years old boy can easy do it, as well as a such boy can easy see there is NOTHING in the real world that supports the old orthodox creed.

The next experiment will be executed because:

• The mass will be homogeneous (this give a more quite result)
• A Quite place (this give a more quite result)
• Compact mass will be used (this give a stronger result)
• In the underground too (this will prove that also the area below the container is affected, and it will also prove that negative ADG towards the G-center at the surface also is stable, as well as the possitive ADG from the top of the construction to the bottom is).

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

Edited by LashL: 

Removed hotlinked image. See Rule 5.

But as I said the already existing result is a broad hint (vink med en vognstang) that the prevailing thesis is DEAD.

You can easy calculate the ADG towards ground zero, and see that ( the average values) will fit to the measured values.

But you must use the total height of the building as “r” (not “r” from the physical center of the building) and the double weight because also the mass of the underground contributes to that gravitational field (50%). (and you must counteract the upper floors opposite drag)
Then you will easy see that the measured result fit to the calculated result.

PREDICTION
The new experiment (that will be executed) will reveal exactly that, and much more clearly.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Anyway the overall picture is VERY clear.
Nothing at all confirms to the previously thesis.

You are wrong.

Bjarne, you are desperately trying to hold on to the sinking straws of your thesis. You are a disgrace, and you are making a total fool of yourself.

It would be hilarious, if it wasn't so sad.

You have disproved your own thesis. Get over it, and get a life.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

You are wrong.

Bjarne, you are desperately trying to hold on to the sinking straws of your thesis. You are a disgrace, and you are making a total fool of yourself.

It would be hilarious, if it wasn't so sad.

You have disproved your own thesis. Get over it, and get a life.

Hans

You are desperately trying to confuse fools, only to save your own face for a while.
Everybody can read the reports and see which way the building contributes to the overall ADG . - The result is ; stable from top to bottom.

It is not more difficult like following the food step of a cow. - Even if some food steeps are dusty, the overall picture is clear. You can anyway easy determinate if the cow is heading LA or NY.
But off course here on the planet we have people that don’t know what is up and down on the cow.
If you (and RC) are one of those I will suggest you some few lesson cow logic.

 

[ArcturusA]

Have I missed the second set of measurements somewhere?
Can someone point me in the right direction?

 

[Reality Check]

PREDICTION
The new experiment (that will be executed) will reveal exactly that, and much more clearly.

PREDICTION
The new experiment

• that will be probably never be executed
• that has exactly no predictions from Bjarne's fantasy
• will probably be debunked by Bjarne because it ...

will reveal exactly that Newtons's law of gravity that has already been tested extensively is still correct. This was shown by the previous Domus Vista set of measurements that Bjarne paid to have done.

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
Yet another fundemantally flawed idea from Bjarne​