Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bjarne said:
You are desperately trying to confuse fools, only to save your own face for a while.
Everybody can read the reports and see which way the building contributes to the overall ADG . - The result is ; stable from top to bottom.

It is not more difficult like following the food step of a cow. - Even if some food steeps are dusty, the overall picture is clear. You can anyway easy determinate if the cow is heading LA or NY.
But off course here on the planet we have people that don’t know what is up and down on the cow.
If you (and RC) are one of those I will suggest you some few lesson cow logic.
Click to expand...
You are desperately trying to confuse knowledgeable people, only to save your own face for a while.
Everybody can read the reports and never see which way the building contributes to the overall ADG . The measurements ares non-stable from top to bottom.

It is not more difficult like following the footstep of a cow. - Even if some food steeps are dusty, the overall picture is clear. You can anyway easy determinate if the cow is heading LA or NY.
But off course here on the planet we have people that don’t know what is up and down on the cow.
If you are one of those I will suggest you some few lesson cow logic.

Alternately learn some basic mathematics or to read English:
MRC_Hans said:
Thank you, nice data. A little tricky to extract from the .pdf, but no matter.

So if you subtract the free air gradient, you get a nice (if somewhat bumpy) slope from the top of the building to the bottom, with gravity being higher at the top. Since we don't know the zero reference (the gravity at that spot if the building had NOT been there) we cannot deduce the center of gravity, however, your measurements are EXACTLY as predicted by established gravity theory:

At the top of the building, you are exposed to the gravity of Earth + the gravity of the building (but - the gradient from altitude).

At the bottom of the building, you are exposed to the gravity of Earth - the gravity of the building.

Between those two points, there is a continuous gradient which crosses zero in the building's center of gravity.

Nice work, Bjarne. You have just disproved your own thesis, but a true scientist accepts that and moves on.

Thank you for playing.

Here is the differential gravity measured by Bjarne's team, when corrected for elevation. As you can see there are a few bumps, but they can be due to local mass concentrations. We don't know exactly what is in that building.

-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

I will leave it as an exercise to the masochists to calculate the mass of the building from this. :p

Hans
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ArcturusA said:
Have I missed the second set of measurements somewhere?
Can someone point me in the right direction?
Click to expand...

It seems to be here:

http://www.science27.com/english/Measurement/Domus.pdf

You can then use an arbitrary point as reference, extract the slope, and subtract the free air gradient. The free air gradient is the way gravity decreases with elevation when there is no object there.

Now you get the slope I posted earlier, which shows clearly that the building exhibits a steeper gradient than free air. In other words, at the bottom of the building, something pulls you UP, then as you ascend, this effect diminishes proportionallly with elevation till, at the top of the building, something pulls you down with a little more strenght than normal gravity.

This is exactly what the conventional law of gravity predicts. Of course, there is a zero point somewhere, coinciding with the COG for the building, but since we cannot know what the exact gravity would be in that spot, were the building NOT there, we cannot see where it is.

Of course, Bjarne is now busy in denial of this, because it sort of topples his idea of himself being smarter than the rest of the world, but.....

Hans
 
Bjarne said:
The old thesis according to how inner gravity works is now proven wrong
But that simple truth can only penetrate 2 meter of concrete every year
Or in other words it will take about 277435 years before it can reach you.
Nothing I can do about it.
Concrete is concrete.
Click to expand...
What the hell is he talking about. "Inner Gravity" there is no such thing. "Gravity can only penetrate 2 meters of concrete every year" what kind of BS is that? Gravity is the bending of space. Nothing can and/or will slow it down. If it has a mass, which concrete does, it will only increase the bending of space therefore increase the gravity.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:
What the hell is he talking about. "Inner Gravity" there is no such thing. "Gravity can only penetrate 2 meters of concrete every year" what kind of BS is that? Gravity is the bending of space. Nothing can and/or will slow it down. If it has a mass, which concrete does, it will only increase the bending of space therefore increase the gravity.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...
I think Bjarne is referring to the concrete in the minds of those who cannot grasp his fabulous cow logic. You know, he went and explained it all to some gows, and they nodded and said 'moo', showing how smart cows are.

Now we will see how long it takes to get it trough the concrete in his own mind that he has just destroyed his own thesis.

I predict that he will never admit it, but he will slowly amend his thesis to fit the facts (which is a good thing), and keep claiming that he was right all the time (which is a very stupid thing).

Hans
 
In other words, at the bottom of the building, something pulls you UP,
Click to expand...


Which floor are you bla bla about Comrade Hans ?

None of the measured values shows that "something pull you up"

According to the prevailing brainwashed creeds this "should" happen on every floor, from ground zero to the center.

But it doesn’t happen on one single floor.

Near the center (floor 14 / 15 ) the building ADG "should" be zero.
It is NOT zero, but the same average (0.850 MicroGal) than on all other floors.

On all floor, - the buildings ADG, - ONLY contributes to DOWNWARDS PULL, this as well can’t be explained by the prevailing fanatic creeds.

THIS mean the old speculation is completely SMASHED.

Both according to the first and second report - this is a matter of FACT.

Here you can easy see that the AGD difference on each floor is always more than 0.799 MicroGal
This means that there is NOT ONE SINGLE FLOOR WHERE THE BUILDINGS OWN AGD PULL UPWARDS.

IF THIS SHOULD BE THE CASE THE BUILDINGS ADG CONTRIBUTION SHOULD BE LESS AS THE FREE AIR GRADIANT (LESS THAN 0.799 MicroGal)
THIS IS NOT WHAT IS MEASURED.

ALL MEASURED VALUES ARE MORE THAN THE FREE AIR GRADIENT .

How cow stupid difficult can this be ?
 
Last edited:
One the one hand we have now (soon) the result of CENTRAL gravity measurement, (the second report).
On the other have we shall NOT forget to compare these values with the values we EXPECT these to be, - according to the prevailing thesis.

http://www.science27.com/forum/expected.jpg

I have estimated the buildings own weight to about 35.000.000 Kg.
This is based on the dimensions and weight of concrete used in that building.

IF, - and notice the word IF, - the prevailing theory was correct, RADIUS from the top of the building to the center should be used to calculate how the building ADG would be:

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

Which mean :

  • + 100 in the top
  • zero in the center
  • - 0.100MicroGal in the bottom
The equation used, is for calculating ADG in a ball shaped object, but the result shown above will not differ much, even though the correct equation not is used.


  • We have NOT been able to confirm such pretty high value pattern due to the buildings own ADG contribution
  • We have NOT been able to confirm that pattern at all.
  • We have NOT been able to confirm that ADG is zero in the center.
The real ADG values due to the buildings own gravity is ONLY 0.025 MicroGal.


THIS is because the gravitational center is at ground zero; whereby radius to the gravitational center is almost 100 meter .
(But the mass of that gravitational field is the double because also the mass of the underground also counts)

This mean that also math support the idea that the gravitational center is NOT in the physical center of the building, but at ground zero.

As already mentioned, the building would ONLY have its gravitational center in the physical center i it was floating in space.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.science27.com/forum/cowstamp.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does anyone see the math for gravity at the top of the building being less than at the bottom of the building because the top of the building is farther from the earth.

Because at the top of the building gravity would be 99.997129731816640066893020484722% of what it would be at the bottom of a 300 foot building.

Also the building is not a sphere so the math that he uses wouldn't be corrent for the building's shape.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
According to the prevailing brainwashed creeds this "should" happen on every floor, from ground zero to the center.

But it doesn’t happen on one single floor.

Near the center (floor 14 / 15 ) the building ADG "should" be zero.
It is NOT zero, but the same average (0.850 MicroGal) than on all other floors.

On all floor, - the buildings ADG, - ONLY contributes to DOWNWARDS PULL, this as well can’t be explained by the prevailing fanatic creeds.
Click to expand...
You don't know if it pulls up or down, because you don't know the baseline gravity in that spot. To know that you would have needed to measure it before Domus Vista was built (and all other buildings in the area).

What we do see is that the gravity og the building gradually adds to the local gravity as you go upstairs, giving a steeper slope than free air.



Hans
 
You don't know if it pulls up or down, because you don't know the baseline gravity in that spot. To know that you would have needed to measure it before Domus Vista was built (and all other buildings in the area

What we do see is that the gravity og the building gradually adds to the local gravity as you go upstairs, giving a steeper slope than free air.).
Click to expand...

Its not important
Let say you car have 2 engine
You know the one will give you a speed = 100 km/h
If you car drives 110 km/h, it is easy to determinate that the last + 10 km/h is due to the second engine.
If you systematically measure what happens to you car meter by meter, you will have a PERFECT overview. This is important .

In the same way; if you only drive 90 km/h, - you can easy determinate that the other engine must give the opposite effect.
We know the value of the free air gradient, - it is strictly not necessary to measure it.

The good thing by measure ADG at so many floors, (that are quite boring) is that we get a very detailed picture, - and hence also a very good understanding of what exactly happens, - floor by floor.

So you can’t point at one single floor at say,; that ADG between that floor and the floor above or below confirms the old thesis.

You have in fact no place at all you can hang your hat.

The old thesis is smashed already, - but too completely and without any reasonable doubt also to understand WHY and how central gravity really must be understood; one more BIG measurement experiment must be executed.

It was very good to start with DOMUS VISTA, - I too have learn a lot by that.


A building is not good. But it have already given a very clear broad hint, that;
  • Certainly confirms that central area of gravity is completely misunderstood.
  • That the gravitational center of that building (when it is on the Earth) certainly is not in the buildings physical center..
  • That a new theory is necessary.
The “competition” between your body and the Earth to pull space, - also pull your body towards the earth, - simply because of matter sucks, - hence a space vacuum between will occur.

http://www.science27.com/forum/SW.jpg



Edited by LashL: 
Removed hotlinked image. See Rule 5.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bjarne said:
As already mentioned, the building would ONLY have its gravitational center in the physical center i it was floating in space.
Click to expand...

Hey Bjarne, the gravitational center (meaning the point at which its gravitational field is zero) is actually not the same thing as the center of gravity. Those can be in different locations.

But you won't understand how that's possible, because you still don't understand the definition of center of gravity.
 
Ziggurat said:
Hey Bjarne, the gravitational center (meaning the point at which its gravitational field is zero) is actually not the same thing as the center of gravity. Those can be in different locations.
But you won't understand how that's possible, because you still don't understand the definition of center of gravity.
Click to expand...

First at all; our understanding / believe so far has been smashed, based on the 2 measurement done so far.
Or in other word, you will be forced to rethink all you have learned regarding this.

The last measurement has proven that small gravitational field like a buildings etc… cannot maintain a gravitational center in the physical center, when; “competing” with the earth to encircle/consume space.
Encircling a central point of space is what this is about.

It is a question of balance, - the balance to encircle/consume space.

For example inside the Moon, inside the Earth, you have 2 different gravitational centers at the same time.

But when the Moon would lie on the Earth, this too would dislocate the Moons gravitational center.
But it would also dislocate the gravitational center of the Earth, but not so much...

It is all a question of : a unification process

http://www.science27.com/images/img_8.jpg

Edited by LashL: 
Removed hotlinked image. See Rule 5.


http://www.science27.com/english/gravity.html

----
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bjarne said:
Its not important
Let say you car have 2 engine
You know the one will give you a speed = 100 km/h
If you car drives 110 km/h, it is easy to determinate that the last + 10 km/h is due to the second engine.
If you systematically measure what happens to you car meter by meter, you will have a PERFECT overview. This is important .

In the same way; if you only drive 90 km/h, - you can easy determinate that the other engine must give the opposite effect.
Click to expand...

If I have a car that has two engines, and one will let me drive at 100km/h, it does not mean that the other engine does 10km/h. Both engines could be doing 55km/h.

If I only drive 90 km/h, perhaps I have one engine at 80km/h and the other at 10km/h, or are both at 45km/h?

Maybe you should stop while still needing English lessons?
 
Bjarne said:
First at all try to understand that our understanding / believe so far has been smashed, based on the 2 measurement done so far.
Click to expand...

This issue has nothing to do with measurements, and everything to do with definitions. You don't understand the definition of "center of gravity".

Or in other word, you will be forced to rethink all you have learned regarding this.
Click to expand...

I don't have to relearn a definition. A definition is correct, by definition. Measurements have nothing to do with it. Rather, you need to learn the definition for the first time, because you clearly don't know it.
 
This issue has nothing to do with measurements, and everything to do with definitions. You don't understand the definition of "center of gravity".
Click to expand...
You have 2 different gravitational centers at the same time, - For example inside the Moon, inside the Earth.
But when the Moon would lie on the Earth, this too would dislocate the Moons gravitational center.
But it would also dislocate the gravitational center of the Earth, but not so much...

Before we can define we must understand the nature of space, for example what is ;
  • the curvature of space,
  • mass attraction ?
  • and what is the zero point of gravity about ?
Unless understanding this it is all fumbling in darkness.
 
Bjarne said:
First at all; our understanding / believe so far has been smashed, based on the 2 measurement done so far.
Or in other word, you will be forced to rethink all you have learned regarding this.----
Click to expand...
First at all; your understanding / believe so far has been smashed, based on the 2 measurement done so far and all of your posts.
The Domus Vista measurement is confirmation of Newtonian gravity and smashes your fantasy of "central gravity" that you cannot even define to bits.

But the Domus Vista measurement was a total waste of your time and money because:
Reality Check said:
...
In case you are interested this is very easy to disprove:
  1. The proper derivation of ADG using the proper mathematics shows that ADG varies as the radius. It is zero as you would expect at the center where all of the forces balance.
  2. The forces balance at the center of the sphere balance out so ADG has to be zero. His idea could have ADG as constant for any radius within the sphere. But if it is zero and constant then it must be zero at the surface and then suddenly increase to the ADG at the surface of a sphere which is definitely non-zero, 9.8 m/s^2 for the Earth. Discontinuities are not favored by nature. Miners under the Earth do not suddenly become weightless.
  3. It has been experimentally shown that the force of gravity acts as expected (Test of Newton's inverse-square law in the Greenland ice cap) as Bjarne was told last October in another thread (The force of gravity is not constant within a sphere).
Click to expand...

 
Bjarne said:
Before we can define we must understand the nature of space, for example what is ;
  • the curvature of space,
  • mass attraction ?
  • and what is the zero point of gravity about ?
Unless understanding this it is all fumbling in darkness.
Click to expand...
I agree - you are fumbling in darkness beause you do not understand
what is
  • the curvature of space,
  • mass attraction,
  • and what is the zero point of gravity about.
People who have a bit of knowledge of physics know that
  • The curvature of space is caused by mass (general relativity).
  • Mass attraction is gravity (or another part of your fantasy that you cannot define).
  • The "zero point of gravity" is when 2 bodies have exactly the same and opposite force on a test object.
Science never states what anything really really is. It is not a religion as you seem to think.
What science knows and states is how things act. Science tells us that gravity acts as if mass curves spacetime. That is the definition of the curvature of spacetime in physics.
 
Bjarne said:
You have 2 different gravitational centers at the same time, - For example inside the Moon, inside the Earth.
Click to expand...
Yes - the Moon and Earth are 2 different bodies. P.S. The Sun is another one.

Bjarne said:
But when the Moon would lie on the Earth, this too would dislocate the Moons gravitational center.
Click to expand...
No.

Bjarne said:
But it would also dislocate the gravitational center of the Earth, but not so much...
Click to expand...
No.

It seems that you are also ignorant of the concept of center of mass ("gravitational centers") as well as the other things that are documented in The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads and Yet another fundemantally flawed idea from Bjarne .

The centers of mass of 2 different bodies treated as separate ssystems are always two different centers of mass .
The center of mass of 2 bodies treated as one system is always 1 center of mass .

Where you have gone wrong is that you think that having the Moon touch the Earth magically converts then into one system. That is not needed. If you consider the Moon and Earth as one system as they are then they have 1 center of mass :jaw-dropp !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom