Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Reality Check]

There are no evidence
Nothing starts with ”dunn”
...snipped obvious ignorance.....

Where are the evidence that you can do something as simple as follow a link? Or read the citations in the link.
Start with: Dunn, G. E., 1940: "Cyclogenesis in the tropical Atlantic" Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 21, pp.215-229

Since you are too ignorant to know what this is about, I will explain more:

• There was a scientist called G.E. Dunn.
• This scientist published a paper with the evidence for the cyclogenesis in the tropical Atlantic.
• That paper was published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society on 1940, issue 21, pages 215-229.

That paper is cited as listing the observable measured evidence for easterly waves triggering hurricanes, and not the totally debunked delusion of a crank (Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked).

And since you are too lazy to actually read things:
What is an easterly wave ?

It has been recognized since at least the 1930s (Dunn 1940) that lower tropospheric (from the ocean surface to about 5 km [3 mi] with a maximum at 3 km [2 mi]) westward traveling disturbances often serve as the "seedling" circulations for a large proportion of tropical cyclones over the North Atlantic Ocean. Riehl (1945) helped to substantiate that these disturbances, now known as African easterly waves, had their origins over North Africa. While a variety of mechanisms for the origins of these waves were proposed in the next few decades, it was Burpee (1972) who documented that the waves were being generated by an instability of the African easterly jet. (This instability - known as baroclinic-barotropic instability - is where the value of the potential vorticity begins to decrease toward the north.) The jet arises as a result of the reversed lower-tropospheric temperature gradient over western and central North Africa due to extremely warm temperatures over the Saharan Desert in contrast with substantially cooler temperatures along the Gulf of Guinea coast

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)​

 

[mactonite]

A simple explanation (which doesn't strive to be accurate) would be that the expanding space gives the Moon "more space to fall into", and the effect on its orbit would cause the Moon to "spiral inward" instead of orbiting circularly or elliptically - but the same expansion of space also pushes the inward spiral out into a circle or ellipse again. (This is not a coincidence, but a consequence of the mathematics involved.) So the Moon retains a stable orbit despite the expanding space; in a sense, it can be imagined as steadily falling ever "closer" towards the Earth through the expanding space. Again, this only works because the Moon and the Earth form a bound system. If the Moon wasn't constantly falling towards the Earth (as orbiting objects do), this wouldn't happen.

We lose about 1 1/2 in of the moons orbit every year. So in a sense, at least the moon's orbit is expanding.

 

[Reality Check]

I don’t understand “Roche”

The Roche limit is the closest that two solid bodies can get together before tidal forces tears the smaller body apart.
This is not applicable to clouds since they are not solid bodies.

Your "central gravity" is just your fantasy that you have based a delusion about clouds on. See Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked.
The point is that you have pulled yet another unsupported assertion about your fantasy from your pet cow's bottom, i.e. that gravity somehow pulls low pressure areas (hurricanes) together. That is dumb for 2 reasons

1. Low pressure areas tend to clump together because they are low pressure areas! They are surrounded by higher pressure that pushes them together (a but simplified).
2. Your fantasy produces no numbers and so you have no idea what forces it would create.

 

[Reality Check]

High pressure means that air is falling down. It is the opposite.

You need to learn some basic physics,Bjarne.
Pressure has little to do with "air falling down". Differences in pressure is a cause of winds. Some winds can be downwards (downdrafts) but these are more often caused by cooling air.

High pressure means that a volume contains more air than a corresponding volume elsewhere. The air is more dense.
Low pressure means that a volume contains less air than a corresponding volume elsewhere. The air is less dense.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Turbulence and upward moving air currents can keep them up for quite a while.

Where does the turbulence and upwards air currents come from?

Now imaging that the turbulence is a bit stronger one day,

How does it get stronger?

This is how “clouds” (and the upwards wind related to clouds) carries water (mass).

And this is why clouds don’t fall to the ground.

What maintains the upwards wind?

Without the upwards moving wind they would fall to the ground.

What maintains the upwards wind? Where does it get the energy to keep droplets up??

OK Bjarne, you have asked for it: I tried to keep it simple for you, but you won't listen, so brace yourself for thermodynamics.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

There are no evidence
Nothing starts with ”dunn”
Scientific evidence must be observable measure evidence, and not a dream of dust devil and cow breath.

I quite agree, so let us suspend further discussion till you provide observable measure evidence for your ideas, OK?

Don’t tell me anyone have follow a dust devil or a cow breath and proven it was ending up as a low pressure. RC you are dreaming, - WAKE UP.

Nobody has claimed that. Bjarne you can't grasp chaos theory, that is OK, but then stop referring to it.

If you mean local gravity of a thunder cloud system?
It doesn’t "overcome" gravity of the Earth. - The Earth gravity is off course still there.

There is no local gravity of a thunder system.

This is why I predict that above the eye of a hurricane, you’ll (if technical possible) be surprised how large a positive gravity anomaly you can measure here.

Your prediction is wrong. We are mapping gravity anomalies from sattelites. A large mobile anomaly would have been noticed.

Under the eye, you can measure a negative anomaly, BUT it is impossible to distinguee due to up-winds and rising vapour are much stronger factors.

No. The relative mass of the system is lower than the surrounding air. And there is nothing that keeps us from measuring under the eye.

It is the exactly same principle in even a little cloud; - this is why you sometimes see the round holes in the clouds.

No.

This is not a new scientific religion but just few of many a consequences, (basic - easy to prove) that follows when central gravity is misunderstood.

It is idle speculation with no evidence.

If ADG is either stable or increasing towards the center of a extended mass, this will start rotation.

How will it start rotation? I have asked you this half a dozen times, you just keep claiming it. Explain your logic behind the claim, in details.

How can a gravitational pull towards a center result in rotation about that center?

Another consequences of the theory is that seen from a overall gravity perspective: - a cloud is not only million separated small pieces that almost not affect each other, but rather a coherent “space vacuum” sucking space also from the center of the extended mass, - and like that causing a effect that to a certain degree gives a cloud system a property like was it “almost” a solid disk.

Idle speculation with no evidence.

This makes it possible for the Coriolis to rotate the whole cloud/system.

Hahah, you don't understand a thing. The Coriolis force cannot rotate a (almost) solid disk. As you have noted yourself earlier, it only affects winds going north or south, so it can only rotate a wind system if winds are either converging on a spot (low pressure), or spreading from a spot (high pressure).

I don’t understand “Roche”

Then look it up and read about it.

High pressure means that air is falling down. It is the opposite.

Wow, you got that right! (Blind høne finder også et korn)

A big heavy (more or less united) cloud system gets a weak solid-disk property.

This is enought for Coriolis, to be able to start rotation.

No, you have got it the wrong way around. Because the system rotates, usually due to the Coriolis force, the centripetal force balances the pull from the central low pressure, and this gives the system some properties of a solid disk. It is not really anything near solid because a steady stream of air is sucked through it, but for some purposes we can view it as a disk.

Thunder-clouds in the periphery contributes to strengthen the global gravitionel center. But between two big “extended bodies” you’ll also have stronger mass attraction.

No.

I mean you can image matter pulls a: - space vacuum, - - stretching the space density. Therefore it is all a competition to get space.

No.

Imaging 100 people in a very small room, and only a few small open windows in the periphery.
When all inhale at the same time you will have a weak vacuum - also pulling air from the other rooms (full of air consuming people)

Haha, no you won't. What happens when you inhale? Your breast is extended, by exactly the same volume, so no overall pressure change occurs. Please try to think before you post; some of your statements are so embarrassingly naive.

In the same way, gravity is always a unity, and always trying to connect /glue to other space vacuums.

Space can “give” from it density, both from the direction of infinity, but also from the direction of the center of the mass..

And please stop stating your wild and unsupported speculations as if they were facts. There IS no such thing as 'space vacuum', except in your fantasy.

Hans

 

[dafydd]

And please stop stating your wild and unsupported speculations as if they were facts. There IS no such thing as 'space vacuum', except in your fantasy.

There are space vacuum cleaners,those shuttles get very dusty.

 

[Bjarne]

Hang on, are you saying the rotation is due to the Coriolis effect now?

I am saying unless “something” keep a cloud together (to a certain degree) the Coriolis is nothing but different latitude atmospheric speed.

BUT when “something” connect a areas of the atmosphere, - that “something” + (plus) the Coriolis = rotation.

Please provide observable measure evidence

It will follow automatically when proving central gravity is misunderstood.

It has been recognized since at least the 1930s (Dunn 1940) that lower tropospheric………….

“recognized”

helped to substantiate that these disturbances

“disturbances”

documented that the waves were being generated by an instability of the African easterly jet

“instability”

But no objective observable evidence , that according to the scientific methods follows a dust devil and proves that it not will die short after, But REALLY develop to a hurricane.

My dear friend RC. THIS is NOT evidence , - but ONLY fantasy / speculation.


The “instability” - “disturbances” is there YES, - the sky is BLUE – this do not prove it is because of oxygen is blue.
Conclusion
It is impossible to follow and prove that a innocent dust devil trigger a hurricane.
Amen.

Your "central gravity" is just your fantasy

Imagination is more important than knowledge
Albert Einstein
Well call it fantasy, what is the different?

Low pressure areas tend to clump together because they are low pressure areas! They are surrounded by higher pressure that pushes them together (a but simplified).
Off course, gravity have does the same, in this case we call it mass attraction.

Bjarne
High pressure means that air is falling down. It is the opposite.
RC
You need to learn some basic physics,Bjarne.
Pressure has little to do with "air falling down". Differences in pressure is a cause of winds. Some winds can be downwards (downdrafts) but these are more often caused by cooling air.

Get out of the Crakpot bunker RC and learn some Danish.
Then you will understand a lot.
Even a 6 years old (danish) child would understand, just by watching the picture book here > http://vejret.tv2.dk/artikel/id-587629:højtryksvejr.html

Where does the turbulence and upwards air currents come from?

It is a circulation, > low pressure > high pressure.

How does it get stronger? - What maintains the upwards wind?

I think we both agree what reinforce the process original started by gravity.

Where does it get the energy to keep droplets up??

From the Sun, and gas from cows.

I quite agree, so let us suspend further discussion till you provide observable measure evidence for your ideas, OK?

Take it easy boys.

There is no local gravity of a thunder system.

I have used a VERY simple illustration; - the correct illustration of the atmosphere (west from Africa) is much more fine-meshed.

Idle speculation with no evidence

The basic evidence will start a domino effect, also explain the baisc cause of low pressures.

The Coriolis force cannot rotate a (almost) solid disk. As you have noted yourself earlier, it only affects winds going north or south, so it can only rotate a wind system if winds are either converging on a spot (low pressure), or spreading from a spot (high pressure).

Faster wind nearest to equator can push the rotation, but only if the clouds system is “connected” – “somehow”, - for example connected by gravity.

No, you have got it the wrong way around. Because the system rotates, usually due to the Coriolis force, the centripetal force balances the pull from the central low pressure, and this gives the system some properties of a solid disk. It is not really anything near solid because a steady stream of air is sucked through it, but for some purposes we can view it as a disk.

It sounds like turbo valopyk.
Nearest equator the atmosphere is faster, this will speed up the already rotating system, - like the one gearwheel speed up the other one when changing gear..
So from a gearbox perspective the Coriolis is: the synchronize unit between 2 gearwheels, - so simple like that.
BUT this will ONLY work when gravity bends the path..

And please stop stating your wild and unsupported speculations as if they were facts. There IS no such thing as 'space vacuum', except in your fantasy.

Imagination is more important than knowledge
Albert Einstein

 

[Reality Check]

But no objective observable evidence , that according to the scientific methods follows a dust devil and proves that it not will die short after, But REALLY develop to a hurricane.

My dear friend RC. THIS is NOT evidence , - but ONLY fantasy / speculation

My dear friend, Bjarne your ignorance continues:
The scientific papers contain the objective observable evidence.
What is an easterly wave ?

It has been recognized since at least the 1930s (Dunn 1940) that lower tropospheric (from the ocean surface to about 5 km [3 mi] with a maximum at 3 km [2 mi]) westward traveling disturbances often serve as the "seedling" circulations for a large proportion of tropical cyclones over the North Atlantic Ocean. Riehl (1945) helped to substantiate that these disturbances, now known as African easterly waves, had their origins over North Africa. While a variety of mechanisms for the origins of these waves were proposed in the next few decades, it was Burpee (1972) who documented that the waves were being generated by an instability of the African easterly jet. (This instability - known as baroclinic-barotropic instability - is where the value of the potential vorticity begins to decrease toward the north.) The jet arises as a result of the reversed lower-tropospheric temperature gradient over western and central North Africa due to extremely warm temperatures over the Saharan Desert in contrast with substantially cooler temperatures along the Gulf of Guinea coast

You are totally deluded if you think that hurricanes "according to the scientific methods follows a dust devil and proves that it not will die short after, But REALLY develop to a hurricane".
What Burpee (1972) showed that there is objective observable evidence that the easterly waves that cause many hurracanes are started by generated by an instability of the African easterly jet. This instability is triggered by any random temperature fluctuation in the source of the jet, e.g. dust devils, fires, etc.

Well call it fantasy, what is the different?

The difference is that your fantasy is just in your head and describes nothing that exists in the universe.

The idiocy of comparing Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked to anything that Albert Einstein thought of is so obvious that it deserves two

​

Low pressure areas tend to clump together because they are low pressure areas! They are surrounded by higher pressure that pushes them together (a but simplified).

Off course, gravity have does the same, in this case we call it mass attraction.

No - we not call the tendency of mass to clump together "mass attraction". We call it gravity.

Get out of the Crakpot bunker RC and learn some Danish.
Then you will understand a lot.
Even a 6 years old (danish) child would understand, just by watching the picture book here

Get out of the Crakpot bunker Bjarne, learn some simple physics and to read Danish.
Then you will understand a tiny bit rather than what your pet cow tells you.
Even a 6 years old (danish) child would understand, just by watching the picture book here.

When the air in height placed downward, as happens in high pressure.

That states what I said:

Pressure has little to do with "air falling down". Differences in pressure is a cause of winds. Some winds can be downwards (downdrafts) but these are more often caused by cooling air.

Winds go from high pressure areas to low pressure areas. So air moves away from high pressure areas and air falls to replace it.

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)​

 

[Paul]

It will follow automatically when proving central gravity is misunderstood.

So your response to ten requests for the observable measure evidence, which you insist is a necessity, is to completely ignore observation, measurement, and evidence.

“recognized”

“disturbances”

“instability”

"childish"

"word"

"games"

My dear friend RC. THIS is NOT evidence , - but ONLY fantasy / speculation.

In this case, I'm sure you will refrain from further idle speculation and only post when you have observable measure evidence

Imagination is more important than knowledge
Albert Einstein
Well call it fantasy, what is the different?

You missed a bit "For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand"

Einstein didn't mean that you should make things up as a substitute for knowledge and understanding, he also didn't want you to stop thinking because you do know, or think you know, something.

 

[wollery]

The “instability” - “disturbances” is there YES, - the sky is BLUE – this do not prove it is because of oxygen is blue.

It isn't oxygen that causes the sky to be blue, so, um, no.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Excuse me, to many pages to read.. what is "central gravity" pointing me towards a page or post is appreciated.

 

[Reality Check]

Excuse me, to many pages to read.. what is "central gravity" pointing me towards a page or post is appreciated.

Good question.
Bjarne has never been able to clearly define "central gravity" other than it is something that does whatever he wants it to do in his head. All you will get is a link to his web site which is just another one of the 1000's of crackpot web sites on the internet.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I am saying unless “something” keep a cloud together (to a certain degree) the Coriolis is nothing but different latitude atmospheric speed.

BUT when “something” connect a areas of the atmosphere, - that “something” + (plus) the Coriolis = rotation.

No. You already said that before. It is still wrong.

But no objective observable evidence , that according to the scientific methods follows a dust devil and proves that it not will die short after, But REALLY develop to a hurricane.

My dear friend RC. THIS is NOT evidence , - but ONLY fantasy / speculation.

Wrong. There is objective evidence that a simple thermal bubble (e.g. a dust devil) can evolve into a full hurricane.

The “instability” - “disturbances” is there YES, - the sky is BLUE – this do not prove it is because of oxygen is blue.

Gibberish.

Conclusion
It is impossible to follow and prove that a innocent dust devil trigger a hurricane.
Amen.

Wrong.

Imagination is more important than knowledge
Albert Einstein
Well call it fantasy, what is the different?

However, imagination without knowledge is ... fiction.

Off course, gravity have does the same, in this case we call it mass attraction.

No, because there is no gravity center in a low pressure. Quite the opposite, so any effect of gravity would tend to pull it apart.

Get out of the Crakpot bunker RC and learn some Danish.
Then you will understand a lot.
Even a 6 years old (danish) child would understand, just by watching the picture book here > http://vejret.tv2.dk/artikel/id-587629:h%C3%B8jtryksvejr.html

That article is, of course about high pressures, which are not the subject of this discussion, but not only that: It completely confirms what others and I are saying about how rotational wind systems start and are maintained.

Do your own reference debunks you.

I can only conclude that your understanding is poorer than the 6yo you mention.

I think we both agree what reinforce the process original started by gravity.

We don't, since we don't agree that gravity starts it, but nice try at twisting my words.

The basic evidence will start a domino effect, also explain the baisc cause of low pressures.

There IS no basic evidence. You Domus Vista experiment debunked your thesis, and your new measurements do not have the potential to prove it.

Faster wind nearest to equator can push the rotation, but only if the clouds system is “connected” – “somehow”, - for example connected by gravity.

Bjarne stop that. The coriolis effect makes wind systems in low pressures rotate. This is an observable fact. No matter what you dream, it remains a fact.

It sounds like turbo valopyk.
Nearest equator the atmosphere is faster, this will speed up the already rotating system, - like the one gearwheel speed up the other one when changing gear..
So from a gearbox perspective the Coriolis is: the synchronize unit between 2 gearwheels, - so simple like that.
BUT this will ONLY work when gravity bends the path..

I think 'turbo volapyk' is a good term for the nonsense you write.

All you did in your last post was repeat your previous faults. You are not worth my time.

ETA: however, I give you one more chance to answer my question: How do you imagine that a gravity center, IF it existed, could cause air to rotate. Explain in detail.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Excuse me, to many pages to read.. what is "central gravity" pointing me towards a page or post is appreciated.

Bjarne thinks that gravity is due to a steady stream of space coming towards any mass. I have no idea why he calls it 'central gravity', and he cannot explain how it should work. In particular, he has been completely unable to solve the thermodynamic implications of his idea, no doubt because he doesn't have the slightest idea what thermodynamics IS.

So yes, we have yet another dunce thinking he can better Newton and Einstein, but has only the foggiest notion about even simple physics. (and math, for that matter).

The only difference between Bjarne and other similar clowns is that he has in fact bought a reputable institution to make some measurements. The result did not favor his claims, but he has, of course, ignored that fact and instead claims they confirm them.

So, nothing new here.

And why do we waste time on this sick puppy? I really don't know. I suppose slo mo train-wrecks are somehow fascinating.

Anyhow, he is a fraction of an inch from my ignore list by now.

....

I might add that if you search a little on the internet (Bjarne is his real name, and even a brief search will reveal his full name to you), you will see that he has spammed forums all over the internet for years with his silly notions. He has been laughed at, scorned, and ignored. He interprets this as proof that he is really a genius and that the world is afraid to face his brilliant ideas. I'm sure there is a diagnosis somewhere in there.

He has also tried to enter his imaginative version of reality into several wikis. So far he has been stopped. So you might say that by occupying him here, we do the rest of the world a favor.

Hans

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

After reading this entire thread two things that should be blatantly obvious to everyone have immediately struck me. Totally off topic.

1. Just because something is on the internet is absolutely no proof that it is true.

2. If you can't provide a link, provide the equations and mathematics necessary to prove your point. If you can't provide either, then in this sort of debate you should just stop.

 

[dafydd]

It isn't oxygen that causes the sky to be blue, so, um, no.

Our great scientist has never heard of Rayleigh Scattering.

 

[wollery]

After reading this entire thread two things that should be blatantly obvious to everyone have immediately struck me. Totally off topic.

1. Just because something is on the internet is absolutely no proof that it is true.

2. If you can't provide a link, provide the equations and mathematics necessary to prove your point. If you can't provide either, then in this sort of debate you should just stop.

The fact that you read the entire thread also proves that you are a masochist.

 

[dafydd]

Bjarne thinks that gravity is due to a steady stream of space coming towards any mass. I have no idea why he calls it 'central gravity', and he cannot explain how it should work. In particular, he has been completely unable to solve the thermodynamic implications of his idea, no doubt because he doesn't have the slightest idea what thermodynamics IS.

So yes, we have yet another dunce thinking he can better Newton and Einstein, but has only the foggiest notion about even simple physics. (and math, for that matter).

The only difference between Bjarne and other similar clowns is that he has in fact bought a reputable institution to make some measurements. The result did not favor his claims, but he has, of course, ignored that fact and instead claims they confirm them.

So, nothing new here.

And why do we waste time on this sick puppy? I really don't know. I suppose slo mo train-wrecks are somehow fascinating.

Anyhow, he is a fraction of an inch from my ignore list by now.

....

I might add that if you search a little on the internet (Bjarne is his real name, and even a brief search will reveal his full name to you), you will see that he has spammed forums all over the internet for years with his silly notions. He has been laughed at, scorned, and ignored. He interprets this as proof that he is really a genius and that the world is afraid to face his brilliant ideas. I'm sure there is a diagnosis somewhere in there.

He has also tried to enter his imaginative version of reality into several wikis. So far he has been stopped. So you might say that by occupying him here, we do the rest of the world a favor.

Hans

I have him on ignore,but I learn a lot from your replies.Thanks.

 

[Bjarne]

Excuse me, to many pages to read.. what is "central gravity" pointing me towards a page or post is appreciated.

http://www.science27.com

In this case, I'm sure you will refrain from further idle speculation and only post when you have observable measure evidence

Why should I ? - Science is full of thesis, one more or less what difference does that make ?

That article is, of course about high pressures, which are not the subject of this discussion

In a high pressure air is falling. RC tried to deny that.

Wrong. There is objective evidence that a simple thermal bubble (e.g. a dust devil) can evolve into a full hurricane.

Crap
No evidence at all.
Don’t try to tell me; that someone have followed a dust devil ? film it ? the hole way until it end as a hurricane ? – HOW ? - did he use a helicopter? Hans you and RC are in fantasy land now.

CENTRAL GRAVITY.

Bjarne has never been able to clearly define "central gravity" other than it is something that does whatever he wants it to do in his head.

Consider how would the Universe look like if : Matter consumes space?

Hence space would be “fetched” from an outwards direction.

We already know space have a stretching property.
So what you shall imaging is that: Space is stretching towards matter. (This is what the curvature of space means.)

This mean that the curvature of space and the expanding space, - happens due to the exact same stretching property of space. These phenomena’s are united.

In the same way that space can be fetched from an outwards direction, it can also from an inwards direction.

We can say: there is more space in one cubic meter than only one cubic meter, or space has “density” – this is something we already KNOW.

This mean our understanding of gravity is completely wrong, for example ADG (acceleration due to gravity) is NOT decreasing towards the center of a mass, - but either stable (in a homogeneous mass) or increasing.

Simply because the access to inner space and hence the consuming effect on inner space is increasing proportional with the amount of mass encircling a central point of space.

Understanding this also require that you understand; what is mass attraction ? - It is caused by the same space vacuum property. (competition to get/consume space)

We can only assume / consider whether the access to inner space require the same effort as access /fetching space from an outwards direction, - if so ADG will be accelerating.

Measurement can and will confirm that soon, then we will be a lot wiser.

If you also would ask how can space be consumed by matter ? then read this > http://www.science27.com/english/quantum_physics.html

There IS no basic evidence. You Domus Vista experiment debunked your thesis

Not at all Amigo Hans.

• DTU have now ordered new software to modulate.
• Some height measurement was wrong (difference between the staircase and inside) .
• The building have a cellar, this gives problem to assume the FAG from ground level.
• I consider more measurements.
• Now first the silo measurement shall be finished.

The coriolis effect makes wind systems in low pressures rotate.

This is only possible if it wind moves north (or south) – OR if gravity is part of the deal.

How do you imagine that a gravity center, IF it existed, could cause air to rotate. Explain in detail.

It is explained already.

1.First at all: either stable or increasing ADG towards the center. We have calculated and discuss that in details already.

2. Second

Furthermore a cloud system has weak “solid disk” property.
This can contain of hundreds of “local gravitionel fields” that all are connected (to a certain degree) to a bigger one,(BIG "L") due to the fact that matter also sucks space towards a central direction.
Because a cloud system is connected in a way not previously understood, - the Coriolis will also to the same (certain) degree rotate such unity held together by gravity / mass attraction between local gravitational fields.

WHAT IS MISSING
If hurricanes just are caused by vapour, warm air, and Coriolis, why can we then not predict whether a hurricane will weaken or strengthen, how much or which direction it will take?
Ask you self 100 times these equations. This is what REEL scientist does.

What is missing? - Gravity ?

It is the rotation that is dangerous.

Is it possible to prevent hurricane still not created ?

YES IT IS.

YES WE CAN.