Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[ArcturusA]

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

Mother cow has reviewed my calculations and agrees.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Explain why you draw the dotted line where you do.

These demonstrate the central mass vacuum contribution directions.

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

Now wait to defend dying creeds further, the next measurement is done. Phase 1 is ready.
I have shown where the buildings COG center is, whether you understand it or not is not important.
Science is about objectivity, - measurements results will soon guide you.

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.

Time will (again) prove, SOON.

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

Stop being silly Hans.
“r” (height) is your own invention - a 89% brain damage cow can see that within 7 seconds.

 

[Bjarne]

The Container measurement phase 1 was executed yesterday.

There was much too much Gravitational noise at the top, due to the wind.
The building is made of light steel, and the whole building is vibrating a lot. So we could not use measurement at the top.

However measurement only from ground floor can also be used.
The prevailing theory predicts a upwards pull (negative ADG compared to FAG) from ground floor and upwards, when the container is full.

This will a (according to the prevailing thesis) also happens from the site of the building (ground floor) .

Within the 6 week all the containers are full. Now all are completely empty (new) .

So the prevailing thesis predict a upwards pull (I will calculate later, waiting for the equations).

The new theory predicts there is a almost zero effect.

Fellows and sissies , - Now make your own calculations - and let us see if you can compete with cow logic science.

 

[The Man]

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.

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


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


And that center is at the buildings ground floor level.

Actually, Bjarne is not (that) dumb.

Evidently he is.

Bjarne, you do understand why it is called the “the gravitational center” or center of gravity, don’t you? As noted before, for a uniformly distributed mass, the center of gravity for that mass is the geometrical center of that body (the center of mass for that body). This it different from the center of gravity between say the Earth and that other body (the center of mass between the two bodies), which would only be at the point of contact with the Earth if that other body was exactly the same size, mass and mass distribution as the Earth. These are all well established and easily demonstrable principles of mass and gravity that you seem to have (perhaps deliberately) overlooked or simply ignored in your “new theory”.

 

[Bjarne]

Evidently he is.

Bjarne, you do understand why it is called the “the gravitational center” or center of gravity, don’t you?

Yes.

As noted before, for a uniformly distributed mass, the center of gravity for that mass is the geometrical center of that body (the center of mass for that body).

Right.

This is different from the center of gravity between say the Earth and that other body (the center of mass between the two bodies), which would only be at the point of contact with the Earth if that other body was exactly the same size, mass and mass distribution as the Earth.

Right.

To distinguish we could call these:

• Gravitational inner mass center (COG - as before)
• Relative gravitational center. (RGC)

These are all well established and easily demonstrable principles of mass and gravity that you seem to have (perhaps deliberately) overlooked or simply ignored in your “new theory”.

No, - this are not overlooked, - the thing is, that what you normally understand as the COG (of a secondary body), - means it have a gravitational central property (pull from all sides).
This center (of a relative small secondary body) seems to moves and merges (unite) with the RGC (between the bodies) so soon there are contact with a primary heavy body (primary mass), - as for example a buildings contact with the Earth.

So nothing is missing.

The COG will again separate from the unification with the RGC, for example inside a rocket, after leaving the Earth.

The further away from the rocket gets from the Earth, the more the COG (included belonging gravity property) will be recreated in the geometrical mass center of that rocket.

If the Moon would fall towards the Earth, both the Earth’s but mainly the Moon’s COG would approach each other, but still be inside the bodies..

Between these there would be a common RGC, which would be exactly the same as COG, so soon the mass unification is 100 % accomplished. (- when the moon would be completely swallowed).

In the end RGC and is COG is off course the same property we are speaking about.
A, - RGC is only "steps" of a unification process, between 2 masses, - to become a completely united COG / mass.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Stop being silly Hans.
“r” (height) is your own invention - a 89% brain damage cow can see that within 7 seconds.

Do you have any correction to the hight of Domus Vista? Appr. 3m per floor is your own observation.

Bjarne, you are in denial.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

The Container measurement phase 1 was executed yesterday.
http://www.science27.com/forum/g3.jpg
There was much too much Gravitational noise at the top, due to the wind.
The building is made of light steel, and the whole building is vibrating a lot. So we could not use measurement at the top.

http://www.science27.com/forum/g5.jpg
However measurement only from ground floor can also be used.
The prevailing theory predicts a upwards pull (negative ADG compared to FAG) from ground floor and upwards, when the container is full.

This will a (according to the prevailing thesis) also happens from the site of the building (ground floor) .

Within the 6 week all the containers are full. Now all are completely empty (new) .

So the prevailing thesis predict a upwards pull (I will calculate later, waiting for the equations).

The new theory predicts there is a almost zero effect.

Fellows and sissies , - Now make your own calculations - and let us see if you can compete with cow logic science.

State your data. What did you measure? We need it now, to make sure you don't lie about it later.

Hans

 

[Complexity]

So the prevailing thesis predict a upwards pull (I will calculate later, waiting for the equations).

Where precisely do you get your equations that you need to wait for them?

Are we really to believe any of this?

 

[Bjarne]

Do you have any correction to the hight of Domus Vista? Appr. 3m per floor is your own observation.

Bjarne, you are in denial.

Hans

This link have been repeated 10 times
How can you have missed it http://www.science27.com/english/Skema2.htm

 

[Bjarne]

State your data. What did you measure? We need it now, to make sure you don't lie about it later.

Hans

We have measured ADG at ground floor close the side of all containers.
The containers are all empty now.
We will measure the excact same places again when the containers are full. ( 4 * 4000 Ton)

• According to the prevailing thesis we should expect negative ADG compared to the FAG
• According to the new theory we shall expect zero difference at the same measurements points compared to empty containers.

 

[steenkh]

This center (of a relative small secondary body) seems to moves and merges (unite) with the RGC (between the bodies) so soon there are contact with a primary heavy body (primary mass), - as for example a buildings contact with the Earth.

How much contact is needed for the COG and RGC to merge? If say a building was carried by a helicopter a few millimetres above the ground, would the COG and RGC move at that point? If, say, a piece of wiring touched the ground between them, would the COG and RGC move at that point? What if more pieces of the building come into contact with the ground?

 

[Bjarne]

How much contact is needed for the COG and RGC to merge? If say a building was carried by a helicopter a few millimetres above the ground, would the COG and RGC move at that point? If, say, a piece of wiring touched the ground between them, would the COG and RGC move at that point? What if more pieces of the building come into contact with the ground?

How much contact is needed for the COG and RGC to merge? If say a building was carried by a helicopter a few millimeters above the ground, would the COG and RGC move at that point? If, say, a piece of wiring touched the ground between them, would the COG and RGC move at that point? What if more pieces of the building come into contact with the ground?

A suspended building would still have constant ADG towards "ground floor" of the building, also even though it is no longer touching the Earth.
And the COG would still be where the building ends, (at ground floor) so long the building would be relative close to the Earth.
From where the building ends, (and towards infinity or the Earth) the buildings own ADG would decrease as /r², in all outwards directions (we know that already).

Between the building and the Earth

Let's say:

1. the buildings own ADG towards the Earth at ground floor where the building ends is 1m/s².
2. in that altitude where the building ends, the Earth's ADG would have been 9 m/s² without the building.

Because of the present of the building, - just beneath ground floor of the suspended building (exactly where the building ends) ADG towards would therefore be 1m/s², weaker,
- whereby the ADG towards the Earth only would be: (9 minus 1) = 8m/s²..

The effect of the building’s own ADG affecting the Earth’s ADG would be decreasing towards he Earth (and inside) also based on; /r²

Bjarne
I think you question must be reworded like: How far from the Earth must the building be before the buildings own central COG begins to re establish itself again. (Because of naturally should COG be in the center of the building).

The short answer is in that altitude where the building’s own ADG begins to get stronger as what is left of the Earth ADG.

Imaging 2 vacuum tanks connected somehow.

• T1 with -1 bar
• T2 with - 0.5 bar.

And let say the vacuum of T1 is decreasing based on; /r².

When the distance between T1 and T2 is large enough, the vacuum of T1 will decrease to -0,5 bar.

This is the distance where both vacuums T1 and T2 are the same (at the meeting point).

If the distance between T1 and T2 increases further than that, T2 will begin to relocate its own naturally vacuum center, - and this is the distance COG will begin to move “back” towards the central direction of T2, where it “belong”.

 

[dafydd]

[qimg]http://www.science27.com/forum/g5.jpg[/qimg]

We have measured ADG at ground floor close the side of all containers.
The containers are all empty now.
We will measure the excact same places again when the containers are full. ( 4 * 4000 Ton)

• According to the prevailing thesis we should expect negative ADG compared to the FAG
• According to the new theory we shall expect zero difference at the same measurements points compared to empty containers.

We? Don't tell me that there is another nutcase who believes this nonsense.

 

[MRC_Hans]

This link have been repeated 10 times
How can you have missed it http://www.science27.com/english/Skema2.htm

That's where I got the data for my calculations from.

Bjarne, the data I use is YOUR DATA. If you deny it, you deny your OWN DATA.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

http://www.science27.com/forum/g5.jpg

We have measured ADG at ground floor close the side of all containers.
The containers are all empty now.

We will measure the excact same places again when the containers are full. ( 4 * 4000 Ton)

• According to the prevailing thesis we should expect negative ADG compared to the FAG
• According to the new theory we shall expect zero difference at the same measurements points compared to empty containers.

Bjarne, can't you READ? I didn't ask you where you measured, because you already stated that. I asked you WHAT you measured.

What were the VALUES?

The value you measure in the empty tank is your gravity baseline. If you don't have that you cannot conclude anything from your measurements on the full tank.

However, quite frankly, I don't trust you not to fake your baseline to make the final measurement fit your notions, so you need to state the baseline you found NOW, so we can check it with your final measurements.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

We? Don't tell me that there is another nutcase who believes this nonsense.

No, the other one is the professional from the Danish Technological University (DTU), whom Bjarne has hired to do the measurements. He is a neutral, just doing what he is paid to do.

ETA: That gravimeter has a price-tag of around $100K, there's no way they'd let Bjarne play around with it on his own (and he probably could't use it anyway; it's a little over cow complexity). So he had to hire it with an operator.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

That's where I got the data for my calculations from.

Bjarne, the data I use is YOUR DATA. If you deny it, you deny your OWN DATA.

Hans

Liar you claims there is a height difference of 3 meter of any floor.
This does not come from my data.

Bjarne, can't you READ? I didn't ask you where you measured, because you already stated that. I asked you WHAT you measured.

What were the VALUES?

The value you measure in the empty tank is your gravity baseline. If you don't have that you cannot conclude anything from your measurements on the full tank.

However, quite frankly, I don't trust you not to fake your baseline to make the final measurement fit your notions, so you need to state the baseline you found NOW, so we can check it with your final measurements.

Hans

It is now important now, but rather what is the difference.
This we will not know before after the next measurement is done.

 

[Complexity]

It is now important now, but rather what is the difference.
This we will not know before after the next measurement is done.

So you refuse to give us the baseline measurements now, even after it was carefully explained to you that we doubt your honesty and want to remove the possibility of your altering at least the baseline data?

I can only assume that the reason you refuse to go on the record with the baseline measurements is that you want to give yourself the opportunity to adjust their values to satisfy your expectations - in other words, to fake the data.

How are we supposed to trust you on anything if you won't do the simplest sensible thing to try to regain some tiny bit of credibility?

 

[Bjarne]

So you refuse to give us the baseline measurements now,

I am waiting for the report

 

[Bjarne]

I am not completely sure if the floor height at Domus Vista was total 22 or total 22 cm.
It has a 2 cm stone layer (wear-layer)
I will try to check.
If it is 22 cm, the buildings own ADG towards ground floor is maybe not stable but accelerating, compared to the FAG.