Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

English is my native language. I speak it quite well.

There is no 'almost' allowed when discussing evidence - something either is evidence or it is not evidence.


Learn to think.

“Almost evidence” is allowed when talking about; “almost evidence”.
This matter of fact is similar to that it also is allowed to talk about: that it for exsample is “almost a cow“ in your home.

Learn to think cow-logic.

************** ************** ***********************
“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”
Max Planck

 

[tsig]

Almost mean means almost, learn some english English.

ftfy

 

[MRC_Hans]

How did you come to such strange conclution….


Read >> http://www.science27.com/forum/report.pdf

OK, I actually read it (*gag*). you say it is significant that you don't find a negative effect of the gravity of the building. HOW DO YOU KNOW that you don't find a negative effect of the gravity of the building?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Learn to think cow-logic.

Exactly why should we do this? what are cows good at?


Hans

 

[Complexity]

“Almost evidence” is allowed when talking about; “almost evidence”.
This matter of fact is similar to that it also is allowed to talk about: that it for exsample is “almost a cow“ in your home.

Learn to think cow-logic.

Only the ignorant talk about "almost evidence".

No 'cow-logic' for me - I'm not insane.

 

[Reality Check]

It doesn’t disprove the law of gravity, - but only the prevailing understanding of ADG inside a object, that only is "understood" based on speculation and math..

Still ignorant of the actual science, Bjarne:

Firstly the prevailing understanding of ADG inside a object is understood based on math and experiment:

• Bjarne's idea is evidence wrong (acceleration due to gravity is constant inside a sphere).
  First asked 2 November 2009

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

Secondly there is no real difference between the ADG inside an object and outside an object - it is all due to the force of gravity from the mass of the particles making up the object. The only difference is that when you are outside the object all of the particles exert a force in the same direction (toward the object's center). Inside the object some of the particles are above you so that there are forces both toward the object's center and the object's surface. This leads to an ADG that varies with the depth with the object as experimentally verified by the above.

Test of Newton's inverse-square law in the Greenland ice cap
Bjarne's assertion is that the Greenland ice core experiment did not measure a gravity gradient because of the variation of gravity below the Earth as predicted by Newton. He seems to think that this is some sort of effect from the core's gravity.

First asked 2 November 2009
Bjarne, can you show us the calculation that you did for a homogeneous, solid sphere with a core that demonstrates that the Greenland ice core experiment's result is wrong?

Your idea fails yet again !

 

[Bjarne]

Exactly why should we do this? what are cows good at?

Cows are not arrogant, they don’t eat junk food or smoke poisons, they don’t take drugs, they don’t get to late in bed, they are not sexual confused, they have never started any wars, they are not to blame for the stupid oil spill in the Mexican Gulf, they don’t believe in fanatic science fixing, cow-dictators does not exist, - they are not fanatic at all, they are not jealous, they don’t talk **** about each other, they don’t accept the Jantelov, they don’t commit any crimes, they don’t behavior in traffic like idiots, they are rarely too fat, they do not accept politic, -simply spoken, - they are always just smarter than us. We could learn a lot.

OK, I actually read it (*gag*). you say it is significant that you don't find a negative effect of the gravity of the building. HOW DO YOU KNOW that you don't find a negative effect of the gravity of the building?

I thought we have been that through.
You can compare all the measured values with the free air gradient (FAG)
Remember to start from where YOU expect the zero line to merge, witch means I the middle of that building.

In no direction, - and at no floor you can measure any negative gravity.

Even if you strongly doubt the measurement accuracy, you still can’t show any negative values that even theoretical comes close to the expected value.

Also the expected positive values are far from the expected values, and is compared to expected values, strongest at ground floor, where is according to the prevailing thesis should have been weakest.

 

[Complexity]

Cows are not arrogant, they don’t eat junk food or smoke poisons, they don’t take drugs, they don’t get to late in bed, they are not sexual confused.

Some cows (and bulls) are gay (of course, this doesn't mean that they are 'sexual confused', but I could see where you were aiming).

And you consider yourself an 'expert' on cows.

Ha.

 

[Bjarne]

Secondly there is no real difference between the ADG inside an object and outside an object - it is all due to the force of gravity from the mass of the particles making up the object. The only difference is that when you are outside the object all of the particles exert a force in the same direction (toward the object's center). Inside the object some of the particles are above you so that there are forces both toward the object's center and the object's surface. This leads to an ADG that varies with the depth with the object as experimentally verified by the above.

So long you have no idea of the cause of gravity; you are doomed to such mistake you just demonstrated.

Gravity is not a result of a force: that gradually builds up from within.
This sounds “logical” for us, - but this is NOT the nature of gravity.

Matter sucks space, - this is the cause of gravity, and this explains everything that happens to space, outside a body as well as inside.

Hence space inside a body is affected both towards and inwards and outwards direction.

The inwards effect on space is completely different from the outwards.

This is because of towards the outwards direction space in unlimited, - the opposite is the case towards the inwards direction.

The fact that a galaxies always is expected to have a black hole proportional to its mass, (which in fact is a big mystery) – is cow logic simple, and just explained above.

To fully understand all this you must fully understand the whole theory, also why a stone falls to earth, and what is the cause of its speed (ADG) m/s^2 , the cause of mass attraction etc…

It is only to follow the simple main thread; - everything explains itself, just by accepting: MATTER SUCKS/SPINS SPACE.

This is also the cause of that we haven’t lost RC, - he is sucked to New Zealand because of the; “space sucking property”.

 

[Paulhoff]

Gravity is not a result of a force: that gradually builds up from within.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA, please just stop it now, my sides hurt.

Gravity comes about because of mass, mass curves space, and curved space tell mass how to move thur it.

Gradually builds up from within............... to much.

Paul

 

[Reality Check]

So long you have no idea of the cause of gravity; you are doomed to such mistake you just demonstrated.

Gravity is not a result of a force: that gradually builds up from within.
This sounds “logical” for us, - but this is NOT the nature of gravity. .

I have to agree with Paulhoff: HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
The crackpottery is strong in you Bjarne.

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

 

[Tim Thompson]

Where does sucked space go?

Matter sucks space, ...

Where does all that space go when matter sucks it? Does it get sucked into the matter? Or maybe all matter particles are surrounded by a dense shell of sucked in space?

And where does all that space come from? After all, if matter sucks space on one end, what happens to the space at the other end? If the universe is not bounded, then if matter sucks space in from all directions, then at the antipode of each matter particle in space, there must be a place where space is getting sucked away. Is that what a black hole is, a place where all the space has been sucked away? And if the universe is bounded (i.e., not infinite), then there must be a place where space meets the boundary. If all matter sucks space, what happens to the space where it is glued to the boundary?

And what about the space between two massive objects, like a binary pulsar. The space between them is being sucked in both directions. Is new space created between them? If so, where does it come from? If not, what's happening?

 

[Reality Check]

sol invictus commented on the problems with trying to get a theory of gravity from a drain of spacetime in another of Bjarne's threads. This was back in October 2009.

That's not entirely wrong, but it's incomplete because it has a major problem. Where does the flow originate? If mass is a drain, what's the source? There's no such thing as negative mass, after all.

For example, suppose you have a single point mass somewhere in otherwise empty space. Then the flow points towards that mass. If you follow one of the flow lines out away from the mass, it can't end anywhere or loop back, so it must go all the way to infinity - and there must be an infinity for the line to "end" on; the space cannot be compact.

That's more or less OK, until you try to understand what happens in a universe like ours. Our universe might be infinite, but observation indicates that it's full of a more or less homogeneous mass density everywhere. So, where are all those flow lines coming from? Infinity is no help, because it's full of mass (this is the gravitational version of Olbers' paradox).

That's actually a completely intractable problem - it has no solution - unless you allow space itself, even away from the mass, to deform in response to these flows. Interestingly, you're more or less inevitably led to something like general relativity purely based on the observation that there is no negative mass and that the universe is homogeneous (of course that's not how Einstein arrived at it, he used the much more powerful principle of general covariance).

 

[tusenfem]

Exactly why should we do this? what are cows good at?


Hans

Regurgitation

 

[Aitch]

Where does all that space go when matter sucks it? Does it get sucked into the matter? Or maybe all matter particles are surrounded by a dense shell of sucked in space?

Maybe that's his next cow-theory - matter is in fact super-dense 'sucked' space!

 

[erlando]

Regurgitation

Nominated for pith.

 

[Bjarne]

Where does all that space go when matter sucks it? Does it get sucked into the matter? Or maybe all matter particles are surrounded by a dense shell of sucked in space?

Yes matter = contracted space.

Important, - read this > http://www.science27.com/english/quantum_physics.html

And what about the space between two massive objects like a binary pulsar.
The space between them is being sucked in both directions. Is new space created between them? If so, where does it come from? If not, what's happening?

We know the Universe expands. Hence space must have some kind of density.

Like a tornado spins air around itself, so does elementary particle the same with space.
The result is that a particle appears like physical matter.
But in fact it is only> : contracted space.

Many scientist have come to the same conclusion, this is also the essence of famous equation E=Mc² (Matter is only energy)

This is also what Max Planck realized and describe with the words:

There is no matter as such.
All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.

And where does all that space come from?
After all, if matter sucks space on one end, what happens to the space at the other end?

Space consumption of Matter is (normally) not causing a flow of space, but rather a stable contracted space and a stable stretched space around matter.
How this is obviously possible is explained here > http://www.science27.com/english/quantum_physics.html
Therefore gravity is; A stable stretched space.,

If the universe is not bounded, then if matter sucks space in from all directions, then at the antipode of each matter particle in space, there must be a place where space is getting sucked away.

Notice the differences:

• Matter = stable contracted space
• Gravity = stable stretched space.
• A Magnetic Field = space in motion. Hence a MF is (and must be) a naturally a circuit / circulation (of space).

Is that what a black hole is, a place where all the space has been sucked away? And if the universe is bounded (i.e., not infinite), then there must be a place where space meets the boundary. If all matter sucks space, what happens to the space where it is glued to the boundary?

A galaxy or a galaxy cluster is an extended mass.
Our Sun will contribute to suck/contract/consume space, (to create the matter of the Sun) and hence stretch space nearby, - both from a inward direction as well from an outwards direction of the MilkyWay.

From the outwards direction there is enough space to fetch, - but from an inward direction the access to space gets gradually more and more limit.

This mean that space towards the center of the MilkyWay gets gradually stronger effected, (gradually more stretched) - or in other words the space vacuum towards the center is increasing. - Simply because on the path to the center there is many stars to "feed"...

All this have been the reason for the 3 ADG measurement at DOMUS VISTA, that confirms the thought what is describe above, - seems to be the true nature of space.

And yes this is also the cause of black holes.

Our idea that there is a huge invisible mass inside the black hole is crap, (too).
It is the mass aroundthe black hole that is responsible for the fact (and mystery) that the size of the black hole is completely proportional with the total mass of a galaxy.

We have turned too much upside down, only because we have completely misunderstood the nature of CENTRAL gravity.

But we have not misunderstood the nature of gravity from the surface of a body and towards infinity.

All this is not fantasy.
I have argued so for years, and also predicted how this theory easy can be proven.

Today it is proven.
But think about how much will be turn over.
I don’t believe it is popular for example to turn over the whole Higgs fantasy load, and much more we have invested huge amount in.
Therefore people (also those that are responsible for enlighten us) properly just will act like many at this forum; - by simply ignoring objective measurable facts that proves I am right.

Try to take this serious. I am sure many more can contribute to this theory. For exsample better to understand quantum physics and much much more.
..

 

[Reality Check]

What a lot of gibberish yet again from Bjarne

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

 

[Reality Check]

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

Added Bjarne's persistant ignorance of the objective evidence for general relativity

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.
   • Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
     First asked 23 October 2009
     So far the answer is no !
3. Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
   • Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
     First asked 2 November 2009
   • Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" (the above post expanded).
   • Bjarne's idea is evidence wrong (acceleration due to gravity is constant inside a sphere).
     First asked 2 November 2009
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 !
7. Does Bjarne understand orbital mechanics?
   First asked 3 December 2009.
   So far the answer is no !
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 !
   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 !
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 that he can arbitrary change the objects included in a system and expect the system's center of mass to remain the same.
21. Does Bjarne know that difference between time and distance?
    First asked 7th July 2010
    (an apparent abuse of the gravitational time dilation equation to calculate distances)
22. Are you truly ignorant of the objective evidence for General Relativity?
    First asked 12 July 2010
    So far the answer is yes !

And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):

• Does Bjarne know that the Lorentz factor does not have any units of measurement?
  First asked 22 November 2009
• Does Bjarne think that the Lorentz factor is measured in kilograms?
  First asked 23 November 2009
• Why does relativistic mass have the units of mass
  First asked 23 November 2009

 

[Reality Check]

Does Bjarne's know what E=mc^2 means

Many scientist have come to the same conclusion, this is also the essence of famous equation E=Mc² (Matter is only energy).

Another bit of ignorance from you worthy of exposing to the world so:

First asked 14th July 2010
Bjarne,
What is the exact meaning of E=mc^2?

Hint:
Mass–energy equivalence.

Mass–energy equivalence does not imply that mass may be “converted” to energy, and indeed implies the opposite. Modern theory holds that neither mass nor energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another.
In physics, mass must be differentiated from matter, a more poorly defined idea in the physical sciences. Matter, when seen as certain types of particles, can be created and destroyed, but the precursors and products of such reactions retain both the original mass and energy, both of which remain unchanged (conserved) throughout the process. Letting the m in E = mc2 stand for a quantity of "matter" may lead to incorrect results, depending on which of several varying definitions of "matter" are chosen.