Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

[Ziggurat]

You can't demonstrate your thoughts coherently or clearly, that is your issue.

That might not be true, if the thoughts themselves have no coherence. On the other hand, Incoherent thoughts and incoherent presentation aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Reality Check]

Another point about Bjarne's measurement:
I do hope that when he publishes his scientific paper on the measurement of g in a 30 story building at each story in a peer reviewed journal, that he includes the gravitational influence of the other buildings in the city.

It turns out that he is not actually going to measure g.
He is gong to measure the acceleration due to the building's acceleration due to gravity according to his "evidence" web page.
The English is bad but it looks like he expects this quantity (call it g_b) will be constant above the building's center of gravity and g_b will decrease below the center of gravity. Of course this means that the building will have a non-zero g_b at its center of gravity.

The defect in this is easy to see - the top of the building will have a net acceleration into the sky!
Turn the building into an equivalent situation - a satellite in an orbit around the Earth (Bjarne may require it to be geosynchronous). That satellite will then vanish into the Solar System. Someone should tell NASA that they are losing the International Space Station!
Or another equivalent situation - move the same building so that it is in space sitting on a small asteroid. That building will then lift off and vanish into the cosmos.

In this post, Bjarne states "We have one gravimeter in Denmark that can measure 5/1.000.000.000 of “g” – This should be OK. It’s possible to pay for getting a job done.". I have my doubts that this will be able to detect g_b from the much smaller mass of a buidling, assuming that Bjarne can separate out this from g (from the Earth) and the forces form other sources such as other buildings.
I have probably got the math wrong but 5/1,000,000,000 of g looks like the equivalent g from a rock with the Earth's density with a radius of 15.8 kilometers. That is a fairly large buidling.

 

[Bjarne]

All these are scientific measurements.
None of these measurements depend on the size or density of the inner core.

You can measure the core form the surface.
Did you know g on the North Pole (radius is 22 km less that equator) Here ADG is stronger than at the equator. No you did not know, this is what you demonstrate. And this is because of the core. The only problem is that we don't know exactly, we believe so. OK ?

The density (not dense) of the surface of the earth is known, because we can measure it directly.

To eliminate doubt you must also test the by drilling. This can be a problem for ex in a mine. You can drill above a mine OK ?
You will always have doubt what your are measuring. But not in building or and object where you know the density (not dense)

Once again, you are not convincing anyone that they are wrong or that you are right, you are only demonstrating how little you know.

And you not convincing that I am wrong.
This is always so.
Measurement is the way to do it.

that is as inaccurate as the rest of your rambling

People must stick to the scientific methods, not to believe, and many do not. Much “science” is today only believes.

It turns out that he is not actually going to measure g.
He is gong to measure the acceleration due to the building's acceleration due to gravity according to his "evidence" web page.
The English is bad but it looks like he expects this quantity (call it g_b) will be constant above the building's center of gravity and g_b will decrease below the center of gravity. Of course this means that the building will have a non-zero g_b at its center of gravity.

Let’s say that the building ADG is 0.00000001m/s (in the length direction) – You should according to my opinion be able to measure that in the whole building. Below the centre it will counteract the Earth, Above the centre it will reinforce the Earths ADG.

The defect in this is easy to see - the top of the building will have a net acceleration into the sky!
Turn the building into an equivalent situation - a satellite in an orbit around the Earth (Bjarne may require it to be geosynchronous). That satellite will then vanish into the Solar System. Someone should tell NASA that they are losing the International Space Station!
Or another equivalent situation - move the same building so that it is in space sitting on a small asteroid. That building will then lift off and vanish into the cosmos.

Can’t see your problem.

In this post, Bjarne states "We have one gravimeter in Denmark that can measure 5/1.000.000.000 of “g” – This should be OK. It’s possible to pay for getting a job done.". I have my doubts that this will be able to detect g_b from the much smaller mass of a buidling, assuming that Bjarne can separate out this from g (from the Earth) and the forces form other sources such as other buildings.
I have probably got the math wrong but 5/1,000,000,000 of g looks like the equivalent g from a rock with the Earth's density with a radius of 15.8 kilometers. That is a fairly large building.

The Empire state Building have a weight = 365.000.000 Kg – Lets say the building I will measure ADG = 1/10 = 36.500.000 kg height is 100 meter

6.67E-11 * 36500000 / 100^2 = 0.000000243 m/s

The gravimeter can measure = 0.00000005 m/s

Ohh Yeh you have got it wrong (again)

 

[Bjarne]

All these are scientific measurements.
None of these measurements depend on the size or density of the inner core.

You can measure the core form the surface.
Did you know g on the North Pole (radius is 22 km less that equator) Here ADG is stronger than at the equator. No you did not know, this is what you demonstrate. And this is because of the core. The only problem is that we don't know exactly, we believe so. OK ?

The density (not dense) of the surface of the earth is known, because we can measure it directly.

To eliminate doubt you must also test the by drilling. This can be a problem for ex in a mine. You can drill above a mine OK ?
You will always have doubt what your are measuring. But not in building or and object where you know the density (not dense)

Once again, you are not convincing anyone that they are wrong or that you are right, you are only demonstrating how little you know.

And you not convincing that I am wrong.
This is always so.
Measurement is the way to do it.

that is as inaccurate as the rest of your rambling

People must stick to the scientific methods, not to believe, and many do not. Much “science” is today only believes.

It turns out that he is not actually going to measure g.
He is gong to measure the acceleration due to the building's acceleration due to gravity according to his "evidence" web page.
The English is bad but it looks like he expects this quantity (call it g_b) will be constant above the building's center of gravity and g_b will decrease below the center of gravity. Of course this means that the building will have a non-zero g_b at its center of gravity.

Let’s say that the building ADG is 0.00000001m/s (in the length direction) – You should according to my opinion be able to measure that in the whole building. Below the centre it will counteract the Earth, Above the centre it will reinforce the Earths ADG.

The defect in this is easy to see - the top of the building will have a net acceleration into the sky!
Turn the building into an equivalent situation - a satellite in an orbit around the Earth (Bjarne may require it to be geosynchronous). That satellite will then vanish into the Solar System. Someone should tell NASA that they are losing the International Space Station!
Or another equivalent situation - move the same building so that it is in space sitting on a small asteroid. That building will then lift off and vanish into the cosmos.

Can’t see your problem.

In this post, Bjarne states "We have one gravimeter in Denmark that can measure 5/1.000.000.000 of “g” – This should be OK. It’s possible to pay for getting a job done.". I have my doubts that this will be able to detect g_b from the much smaller mass of a buidling, assuming that Bjarne can separate out this from g (from the Earth) and the forces form other sources such as other buildings.
I have probably got the math wrong but 5/1,000,000,000 of g looks like the equivalent g from a rock with the Earth's density with a radius of 15.8 kilometers. That is a fairly large building.

The Empire state Building have a weight = 365.000.000 Kg – Lets say the building I will measure ADG, - has a weight 1/10 of Empire state Building = 36.500.000 kg height is 100meter

6.67E-11 * 36500000 / 100^2 = 0.000000243 m/s

The gravimeter can measure = 0.00000005 m/s

Ohh Yeh you have got it wrong (again)

 

[Pixie of key]

How photons change moving direction?

How photons can change direction where photons move?

I know one way! I think you dont know any other way!

Lets put 100 people together move to space.

Now we have energyconcentration like photons. Photons are very small energyconcentration. Inside photons are only energy, just like inside people.

When other side 100 people energyconcentration 10 people open up and push with hand and leg other people far away, then 90 people moving direction change!

This is real science and you can make again that test!

Photons energy have to open up faster other side photons and then photons moving direction can change!

space dont curving at all!

Religious people believe, space curving!

space dont curving!

.

 

[steenkh]

This is real science and you can make again that test!

Who is this guy, and is he possibly even weirder than Bjarne?

 

[Pixie of key]

You cant proof

You cant proof, space expanding or curving!

I can proof, energy can exploding all a time and some times faster than other exploding energy expanding in space who dont expanding at all!

You cant proof god! Also you cant proof expanding space.

You can believe, there is god or expanding space.

Expanding and bending space is not even science!

onesimpleprinciple com


.

 

[dafydd]

Who is this guy, and is he possibly even weirder than Bjarne?

Dunno,but I would like some of what they're smoking.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The Empire state Building have a weight = 365.000.000 Kg – Lets say the building I will measure ADG, - has a weight 1/10 of Empire state Building = 36.500.000 kg height is 100meter

6.67E-11 * 36500000 / 100^2 = 0.000000243 m/s

The gravimeter can measure = 0.00000005 m/s

Ohh Yeh you have got it wrong (again)

That will have to be in your protocol. Also your corrections for tidal forces (allowing for the time difference between measurements, as the whole procedure will take quite some time), instrument drift, and the elevation of each floor above Earth's centre. I gave you a link on how to calculate that on the Danish forum.

And since the precision of your instrument is only 1/5 of the target value, you need to provide a full measurement uncertainty calculation.

Otherwise, you are wasting your time (and money), because whatever result you get can be dismissed as noise.

... Real science is hard work!



Hans

 

[Toke]

Who is this guy, and is he possibly even weirder than Bjarne?

I think he is using google translator from finnish.

 

[steenkh]

... Real science is hard work!

That is just your religious attitude! Real science is lots of imagination and a math level comparable to pre-school. Only then can you get the results that will brush away the petrified beliefs of outdated physics, so that even mother cow can understand it!

 

[MRC_Hans]

That is just your religious attitude! Real science is lots of imagination and a math level comparable to pre-school. Only then can you get the results that will brush away the petrified beliefs of outdated physics, so that even mother cow can understand it!

You forgot to spell math as 'mat'.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

CORRECTION

1.) / radius (not diameter)
6.67E-11 * 36500000 / 50^2 = 0.0000009743 m/s

2.)
If the building is 100 m height, the width and length should be the same.
Otherwise the total ADG effect will be weaker.
The problem could be that the gravimeter is not enough sensitive.
I am looking for a better building. - A Tower or slim building is not the best option.
The trick's is to encircle central space, - that’s why.

 

[steenkh]

The trick's is to encircle central space, - that’s why.

Are windows allowed? Will it change anything if they are open? If only one is open?

 

[Reality Check]

You can measure the core form the surface.
Did you know g on the North Pole (radius is 22 km less that equator) Here ADG is stronger than at the equator.

You can measure the core from the surface (seismology). So what?

I know that g is smaller at the poles (North and South). This is because the radius is 22 km less that equator.

No you did not know, this is what you demonstrate. And this is because of the core. The only problem is that we don't know exactly, we believe so. OK ?

Still wrong - I know. I also know the reason. Did you know that the Earth is not a perfect sphere? That it's radius is 22 km less that equator? Can you read your own words?

Can’t see your problem.

The problem is not mine - it is your prediction that all orbits are unstable. The Solar System is ~5 billion years old. According to you every object in orbit around the Sun has been experiencing an outward acceleration for ~5 billion years. Thus the Solar System cannot exist.

Wow. You got it wrong again!

According to you every NASA mission that launched a spacecraft must have failed as the spacecraft was pushed out of the the Solar System by this outward acceleration.
At the very least you are calling NASA so dumb that they did not notice that all spacecraft have an unexplained outward acceleration.
Or maybe you think that they (and all other space agencies) know and there is a massive global conspiracy to hide this.

Wow. You got it wrong again!

The Pioneer anomaly is an inward acceleration. You seem to be under the delusion that your idea explains this. What happened to your outward acceleration?

Wow. You got it wrong again!

The Empire state Building have a weight = 365.000.000 Kg – Lets say the building I will measure ADG, - has a weight 1/10 of Empire state Building = 36.500.000 kg height is 100meter

6.67E-11 * 36500000 / 100^2 = 0.000000243 m/s

The gravimeter can measure = 0.00000005 m/s

Ohh Yeh you have got it wrong (again)

You are right - as I stated my arithmetic was probably wrong and it turns out I was right (it was).
At least it was just arithmetic.

You have the total delusion that "Bended Space = Contracted Space"
Ohh Yeh you have got it wrong (again and again and again and again...)

 

[Bjarne]

You can measure the core from the surface (seismology). So what?

This as well is no guarantee for anything, - for example also not the cores densit, - comrade.

The problem is not mine - it is your prediction that all orbits are unstable. The Solar System is ~5 billion years old. According to you every object in orbit around the Sun has been experiencing an outward acceleration for ~5 billion years. Thus the Solar System cannot exist.

Wow. You got it wrong again!

According to you every NASA mission that launched a spacecraft must have failed as the spacecraft was pushed out of the the Solar System by this outward acceleration.
At the very least you are calling NASA so dumb that they did not notice that all spacecraft have an unexplained outward acceleration.
Or maybe you think that they (and all other space agencies) know and there is a massive global conspiracy to hide this.

Wow. You got it wrong again!

The Pioneer anomaly is an inward acceleration. You seem to be under the delusion that your idea explains this. What happened to your outward acceleration?

Wow. You got it wrong again!

The Pioneer anomaly is an inward acceleration. You seem to be under the delusion that your idea explains this. What happened to your outward acceleration?

All this only demonstrates that you have read nothing of this you are criticizing.

Please read this and ALL the links, then you will know what this is about:
http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

READ MORE HERE

and HERE

Wow. You got it all wrong again!

 

[MRC_Hans]

Another point about Bjarne's measurement:
I do hope that when he publishes his scientific paper on the measurement of g in a 30 story building at each story in a peer reviewed journal, that he includes the gravitational influence of the other buildings in the city.

To be fair, the only two 30 story buildings in Denmark (Domus Vista and the Herlev Hospital) are standing fairly solitarily, so I expect influence from other buildings can be largely neglected. What cannot, of course, be neglected, is tidal force, elevation, and measurement uncertainty. All of these have the potential to completely drown out any result he may get.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Please read this and ALL the links, then you will know what this is about:
http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

Bjarne, let me remind you that in an academic discussion, such as this, you are obliged to present your evidence and explanations here. You cannot refer others to read extensive bodies of text, unless such text is broadly recognized as basic knowledge.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html
Wow. You got it all wrong again!

Read it.
Wow. You got it all wrong again!

See the posts in your other thread about the ignorance displayed in that page:

• Sensation_of_physics points out that your arbitrary equations leads to "orbital velocities starting from the speed of light and dropping to zero between 0 and 400 m from the center of the sun!".
• I point out the simple mistake in the use of units of measurement, i.e. a number without dimensions is a number - it is not an acceleration or velocity.

 

[Bjarne]

Read it.
Wow. You got it all wrong again!

See the posts in your other thread about the ignorance displayed in that page:

• Sensation_of_physics points out that your arbitrary equations leads to "orbital velocities starting from the speed of light and dropping to zero between 0 and 400 m from the center of the sun!".
• I point out the simple mistake in the use of units of measurement, i.e. a number without dimensions is a number - it is not an acceleration or velocity.

The first link is ONLY a HUGE load of manipulation
The second:

Everyone can see that this is wrong.
You have defined y as a numeric quantity. It is just a number. It is not a velocity or an acceleration or a force or anything else with units of measurement.
You then subtract 1 from a numeric quantitiy. The result is obviously not a velocity or an acceleration or a force or anything else with units of measurement.
You arbitarily make this into an acceleration by adding units of measurement to the result.

You make this mistake worse by implying that (1-y) is a velocity when it is actually a number. This is probably a fault with your lack of knowledge of English.

Can you tell us where Sensation_of_physics went wrong with his equations?

In the equation above, (y-1) expresses the transformation factor but it must naturally reflect the value of resistance as well, not only a factor which is able to show an object’s required energy necessary for acceleration and an object’s increase of mass due to higher velocity.

Do you deny that we here talk about negative velocity comrade?
And if not what is the deceleration according to your opinion comrade?

You know it's easy to claim that I am wrong, and you are right, but then you must show the right answer
Can you do that comrade?
Or will you lie and say that we do not speak about negative velocity comrade?