Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

You cannot really talk about the center of gravity without to get very close to the cause of gravity. Matter sucks space = a Space vacuum inside matter, this is what we talk about.


Yes it does, - always to the ground floor.

OK, so I had your creed right. Now go and perform my stick experiment, report and explain.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

Liar

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

Bjarne's ignorance of the scientific explanation of the correlation between black hole mass and the mass of the galaxy central bulge
First posted 16th March 2010!
​

Creeds

Since you are ignorant of this also: Newton derived the shell theorem which shows that the net force on a test particle inside a hollw shell is zero.

 

[Bjarne]

OK, so I had your creed right. Now go and perform my stick experiment, report and explain.

What experiment?

 

[Reality Check]

What experiment?

Your memory is short and it seems that your computer skills are also lacking.
Here is what MRC_Hans is talking about

Who talks about the cause of gravity? I'm takling about the center of gravity.

Really? Mother cow understood it immidiately. I'm just asking you to check if the center of gravity of a stick moves when you place it in the ground (as you seem to claim).

But perhaps you don't understand ANY of all this? You are just bleating verbal flatulence, right??

Hans

 

[The Man]

Not quite, Bjarne. Science is very much about understanding what you are doing. You see, we can rarely measure things directly. Usually, we have to understand the result.

I have a small riddle for you:

According to you, when a mass is sitting on the ground, its center of gravity (COG) moves down to the bottom, right?

So, I have a little experiment for you to perform (its easy and cheap):

Go and get a 6x6cm wood beam. Saw off a (ca) 1m length, make sure at least one end is in a good right angle.

Now, balance it in your hand to find the COG. It should be very near the middle. Make a cross on the beam where you find the COG.

Next, place the beam on its (right-angled) end on a smooth, horizontal floor. You should be able to make it stand on its own.

Now, according to you, by placing it on the ground, the COG should be moved to the bottom end of the beam. You can test if this is true:

Put your finger at the place where you marked the "free space" COG, and push slowly. The beam will fall over when the COG comes outside the base area.

According to current theory, this will happen when you have pushed the middle about ½ of the thickness of the beam (about 3cm).

According to your thesis, the COG is now at the bottom, so you should be able to push the beam way over before it topples.

Try it and tell us what you observe.

Hans

I cannot see what the balance points of a wood beam have to do with the cause of gravity to do. - This seesm to be to be pretty misk masked.


This I do not understand at all.

Things topple over when a plumb line from their center of gravity is no longer over the support base.


To exemplify, the rectangle represent some blocks of wood, the line underneath the ground. The downward arrows (plumb line) represent the gravitational force vector (not to any scale) at the center of gravity for the block and the upward arrows represent the reaction force from the ground at a point of contact with the ground. In the stable and unstable cases the reaction forces and gravitational forces can be co-linear (along the same line). So no rotational moment results. As named, the unstable case is, well, unstable. So any extraneous force can tip it over or back to the original stable case. In the falling over case the gravitational force and reaction force from the ground (at a point of contact with the ground) can no longer be co-linear. The separation between the two force represents a rotational moment arm. As the block rotates that moment arm increases and thus the rotational force increases (then decreases as the side impacts the ground) until the block comes to rest on its side (again a stable condition). I hope that makes it clearer.




Click on image for larger view

 

[MRC_Hans]

I hope that makes it clearer.


[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_176374c46935f0bee2.jpg[/URL]

Click on image for larger view

Thank you. Although, for Bjarne, you should probably have included some cows.

Actually, Bjarne is not (that) dumb. He could understand it, but he doesn't want to because this simple experiment, which everyone can do, demolishes his idea.


Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Thank you. Although, for Bjarne, you should probably have included some cows.

Actually, Bjarne is not (that) dumb. He could understand it, but he doesn't want to because this simple experiment, which everyone can do, demolishes his idea.


Hans

Such a silly conclusion.
So soon the tower will begin to tip to a side, much of the towers upper mass will come to a lower position, and must at a certain point move "up hill" to prevent the tower to fall.
We call this the weight principle.
Therefore at a certain point off course such tower will fall.
The new theory does not cancel out gravity and also not logic.
Try to open the link, -
http://larsbarfoed.dk.nt6.unoeuro.com/images/uploads/billeder/Vægt stor.jpg
Now imaging you will put a cow on the one side of the weight and DOMS VISTA on the other side, what will happen?
It is not because of Hans is stupid that he fires with such blank cartridges; the only problem is that the gunpowder is beginning to get wheat.
But don’t be sorry Hans, it is always interesting to discuss with you.

 

[Toke]

It is not because of Hans is stupid that he fires with such blank cartridges; the only problem is that the gunpowder is beginning to get wheat.

Are you questioning his cereal processes?

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne, just to remind you:
Outstanding questions for Bjarne
First asked 19 July 2010

and this is a candidate for the list:
A new question for Bjarne about black hole masses
First asked 20 July 2010
This is about your personal belief without any evidence that

Originally Posted by Bjarne
I do not believe there is a lot of matter inside a black hole.
Stars falling into a black hole are ripped apart and disappear as energy, - properly together with the jet.

To me 4 million solar masses (Sag A* ) is a lot of matter and I have evidence (actual measurements) for this belief.

 

[The Man]

Thank you. Although, for Bjarne, you should probably have included some cows.

Actually, Bjarne is not (that) dumb. He could understand it, but he doesn't want to because this simple experiment, which everyone can do, demolishes his idea.


Hans

No problem. Though I don't use it as much in my current job I still like to make sure my education and experience in applied mechanics doesn’t go to waste, well except on Bjarne.


You’re right, I probably should have used cow tipping as the example just to appeal to his apparent fetish.

The new theory does not cancel out gravity and also not logic.

Unfortunately your purported “new theory” is evidently lacking in both those regards.

 

[Bjarne]

To me 4 million solar masses (Sag A* ) is a lot of matter and I have evidence (actual measurements) for this belief.

When a stone would fall towards the Earth with a speed of almost "c" it is not evidence that proves that the mass of the Earth is the same as 4 million solar masses.
Such a Stupid conclution.
All you have is mass-creeds, nothing more than this

 

[MRC_Hans]

Such a silly conclusion.
So soon the tower will begin to tip to a side, much of the towers upper mass will come to a lower position, and must at a certain point move "up hill" to prevent the tower to fall.
We call this the weight principle.

No, we call that unadulterated nonsense.

Nothing moves uphill, and for a tall, narrow mass (that was exactly the reason I suggested a stick), the mass does not move much down.

What happens is that the center of gravity is moved sideways (as you push the stick).

Therefore at a certain point off course such tower will fall.

It will fall exactly at the moment when the the center of gravity moves outside the support area, just like the law of gravity says.

Hans

 

[ArcturusA]

When a stone would fall towards the Earth with a speed of almost "c" it is not evidence that proves that the mass of the Earth is the same as 4 million solar masses.
Such a Stupid conclution.
All you have is mass-creeds, nothing more than this

*Sigh*
If you really think 'almost "c"' is the best measurement we can make, then there is no hope for you.

You can measure the mass of a star by looking at the periods and distances of any orbiting bodies. It's how we measured the mass of the Sun, and it's how we measured the mass of Sag A*.
Try it yourself. Look up Kepler's Third Law, and stick in the orbital properties of Earth, or the stars orbiting Sag A*.

 

[Reality Check]

When a stone would fall towards the Earth with a speed of almost "c" it is not evidence that proves that the mass of the Earth is the same as 4 million solar masses.
Such a Stupid conclution.
All you have is mass-creeds, nothing more than this

All you have is mass-ignorance, nothing more than that
As ArcturusA stated the mass of Sag A* was measured using Kepler's Third Law not whatever your gibberish means.

Try looking up a basic fact: The mass of the Earth is not 4 million solar masses. It is not even 1 solar mass!

P.S. You seem to have missed the actual questions in the post:

Bjarne, just to remind you:
Outstanding questions for Bjarne
First asked 19 July 2010

and this is a candidate for the list:
A new question for Bjarne about black hole masses
First asked 20 July 2010
This is about your personal belief without any evidence that

To me 4 million solar masses (Sag A* ) is a lot of matter and I have evidence (actual measurements) for this belief.

But then you obviously did not read (or maybe understand) the original post. So here is the relevant part again.

The basic problem with your statement is the the mass of black holes has been measured. It is quite simple to do:

• The stellar black hole candidates are in X-ray binary systems.
• Measure the orbits.
• Use Kepler's Laws tell you the mass of both stars.

(ditto for Sag A* except there are lots of stars to use)
​

Try following the Use Kepler's Laws tell you the mass of both stars to see the method explained.

 

[dafydd]

When a stone would fall towards the Earth with a speed of almost "c" it is not evidence that proves that the mass of the Earth is the same as 4 million solar masses.
Such a Stupid conclution.
All you have is mass-creeds, nothing more than this

Which cow told you that the Earth weighs 4 million solar masses?

 

[Bjarne]

What happens is that the center of gravity is moved sideways (as you push the stick).

Off course it does.
A building gives a “larger perspective, so better used such example.
Doesn’t matter if the building stands or lay down, - the gravitational center will be at the ground floor.

If the building tips over, - between these two possessions the gravitational center will move too, - see the red circle.

Nothing moves uphill, and for a tall, narrow mass (that was exactly the reason I suggested a stick), the mass does not move much down.

See the red arrow in the image. The building can off course only fall downwards, not upwards.

It will fall exactly at the moment when the the center of gravity moves outside the support area, just like the law of gravity says.

And that center is at the buildings ground floor level.

*Sigh*
If you really think 'almost "c"' is the best measurement we can make, then there is no hope for you.

I did not say that, - but only that the Moon could fall VERY fast towards the Earth, BUT this would not (absolutely) mean that the mass OF THE Earths need to be (for example) 4 million times the mass of the Sun. Such conclusions is turbo-science, - and just proves how incomplete our knowledge is.

You can measure the mass of a star by looking at the periods and distances of any orbiting bodies. It's how we measured the mass of the Sun, and it's how we measured the mass of Sag A*.
Try it yourself. Look up Kepler's Third Law, and stick in the orbital properties of Earth, or the stars orbiting Sag A*.

This is not the point either.
I make parallels to the mass in black holes, and do not disagree how we measure the weight of a star.

Which cow told you that the Earth weighs 4 million solar masses?

Cows do not believe in this, also not that black whole have such cow-illogical nuts mass, simply because when understanding the law of resistance against motion , things do not need much mass to reach huge speed.

And all cows do know that resistance against motion really happens in the real world, and not only in fantasy dimensions.
You see cow are very logical, it is therefore you never see that cows are fanatic sect members.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Off course it does.
A building gives a “larger perspective, so better used such example.
Doesn’t matter if the building stands or lay down, - the gravitational center will be at the ground floor.

No, a stick is a better object because it has a homogenous density and you can experiment with it. But I know you don't dare to make the experiment, that is why you prefer the building.

http://www.science27.com/forum/Fall.jpg
If the building tips over, - between these two possessions the gravitational center will move too, - see the red circle.

Explain why you draw the dotted line where you do.

See the red arrow in the image. The building can off course only fall downwards, not upwards.

Nobody said that.

And that center is at the buildings ground floor level.

No. As can be demonstrated by the stick experiment. The idea that the gravity center is at the ground floor is a total random idea you have drawn out of your nethers. It makes no sense at all, and there is absolutely nothing to support it.

The more you insist on it, the more silly you seem.

I did not say that, - but only that the Moon could fall VERY fast towards the Earth, BUT this would not (absolutely) mean that the mass OF THE Earths need to be (for example) 4 million times the mass of the Sun. Such conclusions is turbo-science, - and just proves how incomplete our knowledge is.

Is that supposed to be English? What are the conlusions you are talking about? Your own?

Hans

 

[steenkh]

Is that supposed to be English? What are the conlusions you are talking about? Your own?

He invented the idea that "turbo-science" predicts that the Moon crashing into the Earth at relativistic speeds would mean that the Earth had a mass of millions of Suns, and now he is attacking science because of that.

 

[MRC_Hans]

OK, cows are slow, and Bjarne says they are 4 times smarter than him, so I'll just explain again how Bjarne's measurements do not dent the established law of gravity.

There are some expectable anomalies around the top and the botton of the building, so I take floors #5, #15, and #25.

First column, is the floor no.
Second is the appr. elevation of that floor, in meters.
Third is the actual reading from Bjarne's report, in mGal.
Fourth is the calculated free air gravity (as if the building was not there) for the same elevations, in mGal.
The last column is the difference between the measured gravity in the building and the free air gravity, in mGal.

Floor Hight    Reading           Free air          Difference
5     15m      981,544.2660   981,545.0650   -0.7990
15    45m      981,535.8070   981,535.8070    0.0000
25    75m      981,527.2690   981,526.5490    0.7200

As you can see, this shows that the bulding pulls up by a value of 0.799 mGal on floor #5 and down by a value of 0.72 mGal on floor #25.

- Just as predicted by conventional theory. So, contrary to what Bjarne claims, the conventional "creed" is far from dying.

This calculation has the center of gravity on floor #15. There is a caveat in this, but I have already mentioned this earlier. If Bjarne is half as smart as he claims he is, he can point it out, but it will only prove why his measurements don't support him.

Mother cow has reviewed my calculations and agrees.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

He invented the idea that "turbo-science" predicts that the Moon crashing into the Earth at relativistic speeds would mean that the Earth had a mass of millions of Suns, and now he is attacking science because of that.

Does that qualify as a turbo-strawman?

Hans