I would be careful referencing that site. It very clearly demonstrates that you don't have a clue.
Why should I ? - Science is full of thesis, one more or less what difference does that make ?
Your thesis makes absolutely no difference. It also makes absolutely no sense.
In a high pressure air is falling. RC tried to deny that.
No.
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.
Of course not. If you see a train enter a tunnel, and a minute later that train comes out of the other end of the tunnel, you don't need to follow it all the way to know what happened. .... Make that a cow, if it makes it easier for you to understand.
Bjarne, go down to the library, and borrow a few books on on meteorology.
I recommend to start with this one: Meteorologi for Sejlere, by Sven Albrechtsen.
READ them, take notes and try to understand. If anything is unclear, you are welcome to ask about it here.
You will learn two very important lessons:
1) You will learn some basic meteorology.
2) You will learn that there are actually a lot of people out here who know a lot of stuff you don't know.
Consider how would the Universe look like if : Matter consumes space?
It would, obviously, run out of space fairly soon. I have asked before, but, heck, let's try again: Where does all that space come from, and where does it go, once mass has 'consumed' it?
Since, for your idea to make the slightest bit of sense, that 'space' must represent energy, how would the system keep from running out of entropy?
Hence space would be “fetched” from an outwards direction.
Do you really not realize how silly that idea is?
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.)
Even if we express the curvature of space in that way, it obviously does not imply that matter consumes space.
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.
If you choose to define curvature and expanding as the same, then they are .... the same, and not two phenomena. If they are two phenomena, they are not the same. So make up your mind.
In the same way that space can be fetched from an outwards direction, it can also from an inwards direction.
Please translate to some human language.
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.
We? You and your cow, perhaps. Space, or rather, space-time has
a structure, but you cannot say it has
density for any meaningful definition of that word.
This mean our understanding of gravity is completely wrong, for example ADG (acceleration due to gravity)
No, it does not mean that.
is NOT decreasing towards the center of a mass, - but either stable (in a homogeneous mass) or increasing.
No, that does not follow. Not even from your own thesis.
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.
What is inner 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)
Mass attraction is another term for gravity.
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.
Gibberish
Measurement can and will confirm that soon, then we will be a lot wiser.
So far, all measurements have contradicted your thesis.
DTU have now ordered new software to modulate.
To ... modulate? What does that mean?
Some height measurement was wrong (difference between the staircase and inside) .
I told you that long ago.
The building have a cellar,
Surprise, surprise! The building has a cellar, indeed. This shows the absolutely amateurish level of your 'research': After working on this for a year, you discover, to your apparent surprise, that a 30 story building has a basement! Tell me, don't houses in Kolding usually have basements?
this gives problem to assume the FAG from ground level.
That is funny, Bjarne! When I told you that your figures could be messed up by basement and foundations, you told me that it didn't matter.
I consider more measurements.
Bjarne, next time, make a proper protocol, or don't bother at all.
Now first the silo measurement shall be finished.
Oh, the suspense.
This is only possible if it wind moves north (or south) – OR if gravity is part of the deal.
(On Coriolis effect). When a thermal bubble rises, wind comes in from all directions to fill the resultant low pressure. The winds in the Northern and Southern quadrants veer right due to the Coriolis effect (on the Northern hemisphere). What do you think the winds in the Eastern and Western quadrants have to do then? Right? They must also veer to the right. This starts the rotation. Gravity has nothing to do with that.
Yes, yes, you have explained and explained, but none of it makes any sense.
1.First at all: either stable or increasing ADG towards the center. We have calculated and discuss that in details already.
"We"? You and mother cow, perhaps? There is no gravity field because the mass of air in a low pressure is lower. Otherwise, it would be a high pressure, as you have pointed out yourself.
2. Second
Furthermore a cloud system has weak “solid disk” property.
Not really, no.
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.
Gibberish. And you cannot argue that matter sucks, because that is your own unconfirmed thesis. You cannot support a thesis by referring to it, that is called circular argumentation.
Because a cloud system is connected in a way not previously understood,
It is not connected in a way previously not understood. We perfectly well understand the physics of a cloud system.
- the Coriolis will also to the same (certain) degree rotate such unity held together by gravity / mass attraction between local gravitational fields.
No, the Coriolis effect
cannot rotate a 'solid' disk. It can only rotate a disk that consists of winds converging on the center.
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?
1) Why would gravity make it easier to predict?
2) We cannot predict it precisely because we don't know every wind, temperature, and moisture on Earth. A hurricane is a partly chaotic system, and such systems are extremely complex to predict. I could explain more, but you are both unable and unwilling to understand.
.... I'll do it anyway, for other readers:
Even if we knew, in sufficient detail, every meteorological parameter in all the possible paths of a hurricane, because a hurricane is a partly chaotic system, we need to know the complete algorithm of each hurricane. That is, we need to know how this particular hurricane will react to a given complex of stimuli. And since there is no way we can 'read out' the internal chaotic functions, and since no two hurricanes are alike, even if we had some sci-fi supercomputer, we could not predict its behavior exactly. What we do instead, and do with considerable success, is make general short-term predictions on possible scenarios.
Ask you self 100 times these equations. This is what REEL scientist does.
No, that is what idiots do.
Hans
