Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bjarne said:
Its not important
Let say you car have 2 engine
You know the one will give you a speed = 100 km/h
If you car drives 110 km/h, it is easy to determinate that the last + 10 km/h is due to the second engine.
Click to expand...

No you don't. They could be pulling 55% each.

If you systematically measure what happens to you car meter by meter, you will have a PERFECT overview. This is important.

In the same way; if you only drive 90 km/h, - you can easy determinate that the other engine must give the opposite effect.
Click to expand...

No you don't. Maybe your spedometer is 10 kph off.

We know the value of the free air gradient, - it is strictly not necessary to measure it.

The good thing by measure ADG at so many floors, (that are quite boring) is that we get a very detailed picture, - and hence also a very good understanding of what exactly happens, - floor by floor.
Click to expand...

We get a very nice map of the slope YES, but you lack a reference.

So you can’t point at one single floor at say,; that ADG between that floor and the floor above or below confirms the old thesis.
Click to expand...

Bjarne, that is exactly what I have been telling you: You cannot point ot a floor and say "here the gravity of the building is neutral", because you don't know what 'neutral' is.

Certainly confirms that central area of gravity is completely misunderstood.
Click to expand...

No, your measurements support conventional gravity (I don't know what you mean by 'central area of gravity')

That the gravitational center of that building (when it is on the Earth) certainly is not in the buildings physical center.
Click to expand...

How do you deduce that? What is your gravity reference?

That a new theory is necessary.
Click to expand...

No.


The “competition” between your body and the Earth to pull space, - also pull your body towards the earth, - simply because of matter sucks, - hence a space vacuum between will occur.
Click to expand...

Har har, now you are doing exactly as I predicted: You are modifying your thesis to fit what you observed, which is good, but you are claiming that you were right all along, which is idiotic.

Bjarne, allow me to remind you what you USED to claim: That the gravity of a single object would be constant till we reached the center of gravity, then it would turn abrubtly about and be constant the other way, all the way out. THAT WAS WHAT YOU CLAIMED. And your Domus Vista measurements showed a straight slope, proving you wrong.

Now you claim that your thesis is that the COG will be somewhere else so you have changed your thesis. And you're still wrong, because you cannot determine the COG of Domus Vista from your measurements.

Hans
 
Bjarne said:
You have 2 different gravitational centers at the same time, - For example inside the Moon, inside the Earth.
But when the Moon would lie on the Earth, this too would dislocate the Moons gravitational center.
But it would also dislocate the gravitational center of the Earth, but not so much...
Click to expand...

No. The COG of the the Earth and Moon would be in the same places. However, the center of gravity of the combined mass would be elsewhere.

Hans
 
The prevailing thesis is smashed
A new theory is necessary
That's it
The world’s most stupid cows already understand this
The young generation humans will also understand
But those that have been victims for too much"education" it is too late
********************************************************************************
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
********************************************************************************
http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/coke_zero_robot.jpg
 
cowhouse.jpg
 
Bjarne, allow me to remind you what you USED to claim: That the gravity of a single object would be constant till we reached the center of gravity, then it would turn abrubtly about and be constant the other way, all the way out. THAT WAS WHAT YOU CLAIMED. And your Domus Vista measurements showed a straight slope, proving you wrong.
Click to expand...

Lift that building out in space, - and ALL what I claimed is RIGHT.
And now. YES ADG is stable towards the gravitational center, of that building.
That center is in this case at ground zero
Creeds had confused me too.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
What happens inside the brain is important
Not what happen in reality?
Amen
Here is the roof of RC's special build cottage
http://www.panoramio.com/photos/original/16460411.jpg
No light and no sounds can penetrate.
Click to expand...
What happens inside the brain is important
What happens in reality is important.
That is what the science that Bjarne is ignorant of is about - brains and reality.
Here is Bjarne's special little doggy
 
Last edited:
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads

Added his ignorant treatment of center of mass.
  1. "Bended space is Contracted Space"
    Curved space is not contracted space
    First Asked 11 November 2009
  2. Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass. He ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units or acceleration.
  3. Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
  4. Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
    First asked 26 November 2009
  5. Can Bjarne understand that the force of gravity is not constant within a solid sphere?
    First asked 26 October 2009
  6. Can Bjarne understand the physics behind orbital resonances?
    First asked 3 December 2009
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
  7. Does Bjarne understand orbital mechanics?
    First asked 3 December 2009.
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
  8. Can Bjarne understand that energy is not a force and cannot "equalize" a force?
    First asked 9 December 2009 So far the answer is no :eye-poppi !

    You can expend energy to create a force to equalize a force as a hovering helicopter does. But the simple facts are:
    • Forces are vectors but energy is a number.
    • The SI units of force are Newtons but the SI units of energy is Joules.
  9. Bjarne asks what a particle is!
  10. His simplistic knowledge of physics is betrayed by his delusion that since the force of gravity varies as 1/r^2 (e.g. a factor of 4 when r doubles) then the "speed factor “should” hence have been factor 4 as well" (plus other silly previous posts).
    The Basics of Space Flight: Circular Orbital Motion shows clearly that the mean orbital speed of objects should vary that the inverse of the square root of r. The fact that objects actually act like this in the real universe shocks Bjarne!
  11. More of Bjarne's ignorance of simple physics (circular motion).
  12. Bjarne asks "( What is ”radian” ? – 1 orbit)"
  13. Bjarne does not understand that gravitational time dilation has been measured and matches GR. It is not "guessing".
  14. Bjarne's ignorance of GR
  15. Bjarne's ignorance of the electromagnetic spectrum and geometry
  16. Please show your calculations that the Domus Vista data is too inaccurate to test your idea
  17. What calculations did you do to show your cylinder data will be accurate?
  18. Where does the kinetic energy of a cow falling off a cliff come from?
    First asked 20 May 2010
    No answer so far except some insane gibberish and a link to a crank web site page about Quantum Mechanics :eye-poppi!
  19. Yet another example of Bjarne's lack of knowledge of mathematics and physics!
  20. He has no idea of what a center of gravity is as shown in his current delusion:
    Reality Check said:
    The centers of mass of 2 different bodies treated as separate systems are always two different centers of mass .
    The center of mass of 2 bodies treated as one system is always 1 center of mass .

    Where you have gone wrong is that you think that having the Moon touch the Earth magically converts then into one system. That is not needed. If you consider the Moon and Earth as one system as they are then they have 1 center of mass :jaw-dropp !
    Click to expand...
And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):
 
Reality Check said:
Added his ignorant treatment of center of mass.
  1. "Bended space is Contracted Space"
    Curved space is not contracted space
    First Asked 11 November 2009
  2. Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass. He ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units or acceleration.
  3. Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
  4. Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
    First asked 26 November 2009
  5. Can Bjarne understand that the force of gravity is not constant within a solid sphere?
    First asked 26 October 2009
  6. Can Bjarne understand the physics behind orbital resonances?
    First asked 3 December 2009
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
  7. Does Bjarne understand orbital mechanics?
    First asked 3 December 2009.
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
  8. Can Bjarne understand that energy is not a force and cannot "equalize" a force?
    First asked 9 December 2009 So far the answer is no :eye-poppi !

    You can expend energy to create a force to equalize a force as a hovering helicopter does. But the simple facts are:
    • Forces are vectors but energy is a number.
    • The SI units of force are Newtons but the SI units of energy is Joules.
  9. Bjarne asks what a particle is!
  10. His simplistic knowledge of physics is betrayed by his delusion that since the force of gravity varies as 1/r^2 (e.g. a factor of 4 when r doubles) then the "speed factor “should” hence have been factor 4 as well" (plus other silly previous posts).
    The Basics of Space Flight: Circular Orbital Motion shows clearly that the mean orbital speed of objects should vary that the inverse of the square root of r. The fact that objects actually act like this in the real universe shocks Bjarne!
  11. More of Bjarne's ignorance of simple physics (circular motion).
  12. Bjarne asks "( What is ”radian” ? – 1 orbit)"
  13. Bjarne does not understand that gravitational time dilation has been measured and matches GR. It is not "guessing".
  14. Bjarne's ignorance of GR
  15. Bjarne's ignorance of the electromagnetic spectrum and geometry
  16. Please show your calculations that the Domus Vista data is too inaccurate to test your idea
  17. What calculations did you do to show your cylinder data will be accurate?
  18. Where does the kinetic energy of a cow falling off a cliff come from?
    First asked 20 May 2010
    No answer so far except some insane gibberish and a link to a crank web site page about Quantum Mechanics :eye-poppi!
  19. Yet another example of Bjarne's lack of knowledge of mathematics and physics!
  20. He has no idea of what a center of gravity is as shown in his current delusion:
And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):
Click to expand...

Tell me honestly
Have you also (like Caroline cow) been more than 17 years at a University?
 
Bjarne said:
Lift that building out in space, - and ALL what I claimed is RIGHT.
And now. YES ADG is stable towards the gravitational center, of that building.
That center is in this case at ground zero
Creeds had confused me too.
Click to expand...
Lift that building out in space, - and ALL what Bjarne claimed is WRONG.
The building is still in Earth's graviatational field. The gravitational force still varies as predicted by Newton and confirmed by observaiton and experiment.

And now: If the mass of the body is constant the the ADG is stable and points to the gravitatinal center of the body.
That center is in this case at the center of the building if you ignore the Earth's gravitational field..
Thus says science.

This is what confused Bjarne - his ignorance of science (see The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads and Yet another fundemantally flawed idea from Bjarne )

But this is possibly a reference to Bjarne's debunked fantasy that the force of gravity is constant inside a body. This is obviously false:
  1. The proper derivation of the force using the proper mathematics shows that the force 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 the force has to be zero. His idea could have the force as constant for any radius within the sphere. But if it is zero and constant at the core then it must be zero just below the surface and then suddenly increase to the proper value at the surface of a sphere, e.g. giving an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 for the Earth.
    • Discontinuities are not favored by nature.
    • Miners under the Earth do not suddenly become weightless.
    • Water is not weightless under the ocean surface.
    • Submariners do not float in midair.
    • Tourists descending into the Grand Canyon do not float in midair.
  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 in October 2009 in another thread (The force of gravity is not constant within a sphere).
 
Bjarne said:
Tell me honestly
Have you also (like Caroline cow) been more than 17 years at a University?
Click to expand...
Tell me honestly
Have you also (like Caroline cow) have a total ignorance of physics and mathematics? Or is it just partial l(like Wags the dog below)?

Honestly:
Like many university educated people I have actually been educated and understand what I have been taught. I spent 6 years at university. Like all undergraduates I was taught how to think and analyze. Like all post graduates I was taught how to doubt, criticize and consider alternatives.
Ask me about the transport properties of nearly-magnetic materials like Fe-Rh and I can tell you about the state of the science 20 years ago when I left academia for the computer industry :D.
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
Wrong. The COG of the building is not at ground level. It is in the same place as it would be in space.
Try again.

Hans
Click to expand...
Based on creeds only.
You have NO evidence what so over
What you believe is disproven by measurements.
************************************************** ******************************
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
************************************************** ******************************
http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content...zero_robot.jpg
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
Based on creeds only.
You have NO evidence what so over
What you believe is disproven by measurements.
Click to expand...

No, you don't understand your own measurements. Please proceed to my second question: Based on your measurements, how do you determine the COG of Domus Vista. Be specific.

Hans
 
Do me a favor

I mean after 17 years at a University, - we should expect RC can calculate the buildings expected ADG
  • At the top of the building
  • At the bottom
  • At the center
And , now my dear RC (and Hans)
Put you right hand on the bible and the left on the science book at demonstrate that the calculated values FITs with these we have measured.

AAAhhhhhhhhhhh, RUUUUN, - I got you RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN.
  • Or just ignore what i just ask you about, this will give you a little more time to blabb la lablab
  • or just call it: “my homework” ( and ignore the result when I show you)
  • or just continue to bla blab bla to confused fools and put the attention in a different direction.
  • or what about to claim that the values that is measured only counts in another dimension?
  • or cliam it is not possible to calculate because of bblaba blabab blab blab
Off course you can still entertain fools for a while.
So don’t worry…
But the young part, and the more intelligent part of the population (and those that haven’t been so long at a University as RC) will be difficult to brainwash in the future.
Because now measurement and reality has spoken.
Even not many complete idiots,would deny that.

So the brainwash industry will have hard times from now on. But well there are still many out there that can’t be saved, those can still be victims.

************************************************** ******************************
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
************************************************** ******************************
http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/coke_zero_robot.jpg
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
And , now my dear RC (and Hans)

Put you right hand on the bible and the left on the science book at demonstrate that the calculated values FITs with these we have measured.
Click to expand...
Explain how you establish the COG from your measurements.

Hans
 
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