Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

how do you determine the cog of domus vista. Be specific.

Click to expand...

2MG/r²And notice "r" = 100 meter not 50 meter
"2" = because also part of the mass of the Earth contributes to encircles a central point of space, between the building and the Earth.

Bjarne said:

Do me a favor


I mean after 17 years at a University, - we should expect RC can calculate the buildings expected ADG

• At the top of the building
• At the bottom
• At the center

Click to expand...

Do me a favor
I spent 8 years at university.


The building expected ADG due to the building itself and neglecting any external gravitation field is (M = the building mass, r = the distance from the center):

• GM/r^r at the middle of the top of the building directed toward the center
• GM/r^2 at the middle of the bottom of the building directed toward the center.
• zero at the center, i.e. the two accelerations above add together to zero.

as any high school student can tell you.

F.Y.I. Bjarne, accelerations are vectors. Two vectors with the same magnitude in opposite directions add up to zero.


I mean after 17 years at a University, - we should expect Bjarne can calculate the buildings expected ADG

• At the top of the building
• At the bottom
• At the center

I wonder why he has never presented any actual calculations from Newton's equations?
Wait a minute - given his ignorance of physics and mathematics he never got past primary? school




************************************************** ******************************
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Max Planck
*******************************
(my emphasis added)

************************************************** ******************************
A crackpot idea does not fail by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents easily see its flaws and a new generation grows up that ignore the debunked idea completely .
Reality Check
*******************************

Bjarne said:

2MG/r²

Click to expand...

Your ignorance of physics continues:
2MG/r² is an acceleration not a point in space where the center of gravity is located.

The center of gravity (barycenter) between the Earth and the building is basically at the core of the Earth because the Earth is much more massive then the building.

If you ignore the Earth then the center of gravity is the building's center of mass which should be its geometric center assuming a homegeneous building.

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)

First asked 23 October 2009
So far the answer is no !

Try again Bjarne: Explain how you establish the COG from your measurements.

The COG is a position.

Bjarne said:

35000000 * 6,67E-11 / 50^2 = 0.100 MicroGal.

Click to expand...

Funny, no matter how many times I do the above equation, I get 0.0000009338 and times that answer by a 1,000,000 drum roll............ 0.9338 MicroGal. That is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

Of course it is different again if that is a comma and not a period in 6,67E-11

Paul

Bjarne - 17 years at university?

Oh, I get it - it's the University of Life. And Bjarne's 17 years old.

Bjarne said:

2MG/r²And notice "r" = 100 meter not 50 meter
"2" = because also part of the mass of the Earth contributes to encircles a central point of space, between the building and the Earth.

Click to expand...

I said 'from your measurements'.

OK, I 'll explain because otherwise, this never ends. Follow this carefully, because I will not repeat it (anymore).

1) The actual COG. We can't calculate it from the dimensions of the building, because the mass distribution is certainly not even. If the building was floating in space, we could measure it. It would be the point where gravitational pulls were the same in all directions. So in that point we would measure a virtual zero gravity.

2) Measuring on Earth. We can, as Bjarne demonstrated, measure the gravitational pull on each floor. We will then get a positive gravity on all floors, because Earth's gravitational field is far stronger than that of the building. We will also get a gravity that gets lower as we rise into the building, because Earth's gravity diminishes with elevation (the free air gradient).

3) Calculating. Now we can start to subtract the influences that are not from the building. The scientists making measurements for Bjarne already corrected for tidal force, so we can forget about that. Since we know the approximate hight of each floor, we can also subtract the free air gradient. Now we have a list of values that show the gravity pull of the building plus the gravity of Earth. We will notice that gravity pull is largest at the top floor (Earth + building) and least on the bottom floor (Earth - building.). Between those points, we see a fairly smooth slope (as we have discussed, there are bumps, but that is a secondary matter).

4) COG? Now, to find the exact COG, all we have to do is subtract Earth's gravity from all the values, and the COG will be where the slope crosses zero, just like in space. There is just one small problem: We don't know the exact value for Earth's gravity pull, in that exact spot. Of course, we know the general value, but in real life, it varies from place to place, due to a number of reasons. And, unfortunately, those variations are a good deal larger than the total gravitational pull of a large building. If someone had taken the trouble to measure and record the gravity constant in the spot before they started to excavate foundations and erecting the building, we might have had luck. But nobody did, and actually, I don't even think sufficiently precise instruments were available at the time.

....

So how can Bjarne deduct the position of the COG, from his measurements? Answer: He can't. Nobody can, because there is insufficient information. What we can see is that there is a gradual slope from top to bottom, which is consistent with the law of gravity. Presumably this crosses the baseline gravity at some spot, but without a sufficiently precise figure for the baseline gravity, we cannot know where.

End of story.

So Bjarne, if you want to make a new experiment, make sure you obtain the baseline gravity. Otherwise you are wasting time and money.

Now, if you had designed a proper protocol, as I told you to do, you would have realized this in advance.

OK, you can now pretend this did not happen.

Hans

Paulhoff said:

Funny, no matter how many times I do the above equation, I get 0.0000009338 and times that answer by a 1,000,000 drum roll............ 0.9338 MicroGal. That is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

Of course it is different again if that is a comma and not a period in 6,67E-11

Paul

Click to expand...

In Denmark, we use a comma ',' as a decimal point '.'.

Hans

GM/r^r at the middle of the top of the building directed toward the center
GM/r^2 at the middle of the bottom of the building directed toward the center.
zero at the center, i.e. the two accelerations above add together to zero.

Click to expand...

I ask you to

• calculate
• Compare with the measured values
• And in this way prove that the measured and calculated values are the same

************************************************** ******************************
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Max Planck
************************************************** ******************************
http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/coke_zero_robot.jpg

MRC_Hans said:

In Denmark, we use a comma ',' as a decimal point '.'.

Hans

Click to expand...

OK, so what the hay do you use for a comma. a !

Paul

Paulhoff said:

OK, so what the hay do you use for a comma. a !

Paul

Click to expand...

In number notations, we use the point, like this

Most of the world: 12,345.678
Scandinavia (and some others): 12.345,678

Confused? Wait till you use various calculation programs and spreadsheets, some of which are adapted to Danish, others not.

In prose, we use commas and periods in the same way as everbody else.

Hans

Bjarne said:

I ask you to

• calculate
• Compare with the measured values
• And in this way prove that the measured and calculated values are the same

You will never do it, because you are a:

Click to expand...

Point 1. Just how long a moderations leash does Bjarne get for insulting people?

I know nobody takes it seriously, still .....

Secondly: Bjarne, I did just that.

In case you didn't notice, I repeat the numbers here (bottom floors at the top of the list):

-0.277
-0.467
-0.642
-0.562
-0.470
-0.395
-0.315
-0.225
-0.151
-0.079
0.004
0.073
0.151
0.221
0.294
0.359
0.425
0.498
0.563
0.634
0.705
0.766
0.825
0.896
0.968
1.050
1.118
1.190
1.278
1.345

Ignoring bumps, I have the COG somewhere around the 11th floor, which is probably realistic, as the lower floors will be of heavier construction than the top floors, and there is a contribution from the shopping center at the bottom.

How did I get these numbers Bjarne? ... I estimated a baseline gravity. As good a guess as anybody can do.

Hans

The actual COG. We can't calculate it from the dimensions of the building, because the mass distribution is certainly not even. If the building was floating in space, we could measure it. It would be the point where gravitational pulls were the same in all directions. So in that point we would measure a virtual zero gravity.

Click to expand...

Bad excuse
Estimate the weight to 35.000.000 KG and calculated it.

Secondly: Bjarne, I did just that.

Click to expand...

I ask you to

• calculate
• Compare with the measured values
• And in this way prove that the measured and calculated values are the same

Bjarne said:

Bad excuse
Estimate the weight to 35.000.000 KG and calculated it.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:....net/81b/just-looser71570/pics/1711179692.jpg

Click to expand...

Bjarne, do you really not understand this, or are you in denial? I can calculate the gravity of the building, and so can you. But you cannot establish the exact position of the COG from your measurement series (or from any other measurement series, for that matter), because you don't know Earth's gravity at that exact spot with sufficient precistion. And you can't measure it because the building is there. If you know the exact mass of the building, you may be able to get a good approximation, but the problem is that the local variances are orders of magnitude too big.

If you study the drawings and find the mass distribution, you can also get a good estimate. But your measurements can't show it, end of story.

But my dear friend, don't let all this disturb you! Stop wasting time on us blockheads, and publish your great find before someone snatches that Nobel Prize from you! How about the fellows from DTU? Aren't they constantly badgering you to hurry up and publish so they can get their part of the honor? Huh??


Hans

Bjarne said:

I ask you to

• calculate
• Compare with the measured values
• And in this way prove that the measured and calculated values are the same

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quoted moderated content

Click to expand...

Bjarne, do you really not understand this, or are you in denial?
I can calculate the gravity of the building, and so can you.

Click to expand...

DO IT

But you cannot establish the exact position of the COG from your measurement series (or from any other measurement series, for that matter), because you don't know Earth's gravity at that exact spot with sufficient precistion.

Click to expand...

Don’t Worry, you don’t need this

When you will calculate the buildings ADG you will see a pattern

Capito what a pattern is ?.

OK not comprendes amigo ?

OK you do not understand, this is what I thought.

Therefore let's look at the image below.



Here you can see a pattern, that shows that because of gravity both left cow and right cow is supported by ADG to move to the center.

Exactly where the center is not important. .Capito this ?

The important point is that you can ONLY according to the prevailing thesis calculate a similar cow pull pattern in that ******* building..

And this PATTERN – DO NOT FIT with the pattern found by measurement

How Cow Logic stupid difficult can this Muuuuhh Pattern math be ?

How ever has this thread managed to go on this long with such a faulty premise? It's quite apparent that Bjarne will never accept reality, so there's no sense banging your heads against a wall. I hope moderators take a good long look at Bjarne's behaviour in this thread and take appropriate actions.

Also, the thread does not belong in the science forum. As there's no real Pseudoscience forum, I vote for the thread being moved to General Skepticism and The Paranormal (sort of general woo as this is), Religion and Philosophy (as Bjarne's woo bears the marks of being religious in nature) or, in a pinch, Conspiracy Theories.

Bjarne said:

Therefore let's look at the image below.

Click to expand...

What a wonderful image. Good to know that you have passing Photoshop skills. Spelling skills, that's different. (Miccro? And what exactly is "capito"?)

Too bad you're wrong about some of the simplest things and can't counter my arguments.

The moment of truth