Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

[MRC_Hans]

Tell me now honestly, - how stupid / delusional (on a scale from 1 to 10) would you feel you self, when the gravity measurement I have been mentioned will show that my theory is right?

Come back when you have the results. Then let's talk.

Hans

 

[dafydd]

Come back when you have the results. Then let's talk.

Hans

You'll have a long wait.

 

[Reality Check]

You'll have a long wait.

He managed to get someone to do the measurements: Domus Vista Gravity Project
The results were that the gravimeters measured the gravity quite well (with a standard deviation of 0.008 mGal). There is no mention of Bjarne's theory. There is no mention of a variation from the predictions of Newtonianian gravity.

Of course Bjarne is now claiming in another thread that the experiment will not work due to "Data are too inaccurate. It's too much noise and too many unknown factors that play a role, and the building is simply to light, compared to the gravitational noise etc."
He now wants to build a 5m by 5m cylinder weighing 98,125 kg to do the test.

 

[Reality Check]

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

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

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 proven 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
   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 physis 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" (plust 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 dialation 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

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

Next questions:The list of data from the Domus Vista Gravity Project have been put on the web and Bjarne's response is "Data are too inaccurate. It's too much noise and too many unknown factors that play a role, and the building is simply to light, compared to the gravitational noise etc."

First asked 28 March 2010


Bjarne,

• If "the building is simply to light, compared to the gravitational noise ", why did you do the experiment al all?
• Please show your calculations that the data is too inaccurate to test your idea.
• What calculations did you do to show that measurments using a 5m by 5m cylinder weighing 98,125 kg will not be too inaccurate.

 

[MRC_Hans]

He managed to get someone to do the measurements: Domus Vista Gravity Project
The results were that the gravimeters measured the gravity quite well (with a standard deviation of 0.008 mGal). There is no mention of Bjarne's theory. There is no mention of a variation from the predictions of Newtonianian gravity.

Of course Bjarne is now claiming in another thread that the experiment will not work due to "Data are too inaccurate. It's too much noise and too many unknown factors that play a role, and the building is simply to light, compared to the gravitational noise etc."
He now wants to build a 5m by 5m cylinder weighing 98,125 kg to do the test.

I think he payed to have it done. My respect for that. Now, let's see him find a conclusion.

Hans

 

[Toke]

I think he paid to have it done. My respect for that. Now, let's see him find a conclusion.

I wonder how much he would have had to pay to get his theory mentioned in the paper?
It simply concludes that the instruments works well.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I wonder how much he would have had to pay to get his theory mentioned in the paper?
It simply concludes that the instruments works well.

I think he has hired them to do the measurements, either at a fixed price or hourly rate.

Maybe, he got them to do it partly privately as I notice the measuremetns were done on a Sunday.

Hans

 

[Toke]

Sounds likely.
Bjarne, I am quite impressed that you actually did this instead of only talking, that is unusual for people with alternate theories.

 

[Reality Check]

Show your calculations that the Domus Vista data is too inaccurate to test your idea

From: The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads.
First asked 28 March 2010
Bjarne,
The list of data from the Domus Vista Gravity Project have been put on the web and Bjarne's response is "Data are too inaccurate. It's too much noise and too many unknown factors that play a role, and the building is simply to light, compared to the gravitational noise etc."

• If "the building is simply to light, compared to the gravitational noise ", why did you do the experiment al all?
• Please show your calculations that the data is too inaccurate to test your idea.

 

[Reality Check]

What calculations did you do to show your cylinder data will be acurrate

From: The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads.
First asked 28 March 2010
Bjarne,
The list of data from the Domus Vista Gravity Project have been put on the web and Bjarne's response is "Data are too inaccurate. It's too much noise and too many unknown factors that play a role, and the building is simply to light, compared to the gravitational noise etc."

• What calculations did you do to show that measurments using a 5m by 5m cylinder weighing 98,125 kg will not be too inaccurate.

 

[steenkh]

Please show your calculations that the data is too inaccurate to test your idea.

His calculations go like this: if the result does not support my ideas, the data are too inaccurate to test the ideas!