Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Outstanding questions for Bjarne

Hi Bjarne. I asked you these questions yesterday but your reply did not address them.

It should be very, very easy to asnwer these questions.

• You have stated some numbers of 267μGal at the roof according to the "prevailing" theory (Newton or GR?) and 67 μGal according to your (very mathematical ) theory.
• We hope that you actually worked out these numbers rather than making them up.
• That means that you have the equations that you used to do the calculations and the values that you put into the equations to get the calculated numbers.

All you need to do is state those equations and the values that you put in them.

In case you missed the questions:

Reality Check said:

First asked 19 July 2010
Bjarne,
Please show your full calculation of the expected ADG at the top of the silo. I expect that you used and can cite the equation for the gravitational field inside a cylinder.

I suspect that you used the "spherical cow" approximation yet again. Thus the actual number will never be measured.

First asked 19 July 2010
Bjarne,
Please show your full calculation of the expected ADG at the top of the silo. I hope that you used and can cite the equation for the gravitational field inside a cylinder according to your theory.

First asked 19 July 2010
Bjarne,
So if you measure 66 or 68 μGal then both theories according to your calcualtions are wrong.
Will you then throw away your theory?

Click to expand...

(section in italics added to emphasis that there are 3 questions not 2!)

I posted this before

Reality Check said:

Before I get onto black holes here are the points that I have raised about Bjarne's ideas as a linked list rather than the forum flooding post with a single list:

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

plus

1. Does Bjarne's know what E=mc^2 means?
   

   First asked 14th July 2010
   He thinks that it means that matter is energy. The equation actually means that the mass (not matter) content and energy content of an object are equivalent. And posts link to a BBC clip to support his ignorance! My response.​
2. Bjarne: "Our idea that there is a huge invisible mass inside the black hole is crap"
   
   
   I asked him what he meant by this. It looks like not even Bjarne knows what he means by this given the gibberish and personal attacks in his response.​
3. Bjarne's ignorance of the scientific explanation of the correlation between black hole mass and the mass of the galaxy central bulge
   First posted 16th March 2010!

Click to expand...

but it turns out that there is an existing thread :
which addresses point 2 above if the "huge invisible mass" is about the non-emission of light from black holes.
This assumes that Bjarne knows that the mass of black holes candidates are always measured (and so are not invisible) and the black holes need not be "huge". In astronomy a star is not treated as exceptionally large and there are stellar sized black hole candidates.

Bjarne said:

The theory is the same, if the building was floating in space, but when it is on the earth the gravitational center will dislocate.


In space there is no bottom.


First at all the theory is a space vacuum theory.
This mean that the gravitational center always must reflect where a central point of space is encircled by matter.

If a body is on the ground, the Earth always helps to encircle a central point of space.

You can say that the building obstructs the Earth’s access to space. Therefore both the building and the Earth must “cooperate” to pull the space the building need.

This is why the space vacuum (off the building) also effect’s the underground of the the Earth, - and hence why the gravitational center moves towards the buildings floor level.

The central space vacuum, also tell you the place / cause of mass attraction.
The space vacuum will be stronger at the meeting point between the building and the Earth. This is also be the place where the weight of the building is largest.

Click to expand...

Two more questions:

-If the silo was instead suspended 1m off the ground, where would the gravitational centre be?

-How do you calculate how much the gravitational centre shifts by in the presence of another mass?

It should be very, very easy to asnwer these questions.

Click to expand...

The same as you, but double radius.
Now tell me what you expect RC?

-If the silo was instead suspended 1m off the ground, where would the gravitational centre be?

-How do you calculate how much the gravitational centre shifts by in the presence of another mass?

Click to expand...

Good questions let me think about it.
Before calculating we must understand how it works.
So far I have only considered what if the was a cellar, in that case I believe (and is pretty sure) the "meeting point" is where the cellar floor meets the ground.
Another question is for example is the Moons gravitational center now in its center, or is the Earth pulling that a little towards the Earth.
I believe it is being pulled towards the Earth. - But yes we need to find the equation for that. I will consider when I get some time.

which addresses point 2 above if the "huge invisible mass" is about the non-emission of light from black holes.
This assumes that Bjarne knows that the mass of black holes candidates are always measured (and so are not invisible) and the black holes need not be "huge". In astronomy a star is not treated as exceptionally large and there are stellar sized black hole candidates

Click to expand...

To my opinion it is difficult to come to exact complete or even partial conclusion, so long there is something or much we do not understand.

The most stupid we can do is that we try to create the universe in a way we can understand it, based on uncompleted understanding of the law of nature.

For example so long we do not know why the magnitude of a black hole is proportional with the mass of its surroundings, we have a HUGE problem.

Now, for example consider if the inner core of the Earth was empty, - the mass of the Earth still was the same, but completely homogeneous.
Now how would ADG be in the inner empty place or Earth?

I believe ADG would be the same, the whole way to the center (if the mass was homogeneous) both with and without such inner hole.
In other words, what I am trying to explain is that even though there is no more mass towards the direction of the gravitational center (of a matter encircled center of space) - a such center will continue to pull a stone towards the center,- because gravity must always be seem as a complete funnel shaped unity.

It is easy to confirm this by measurements experiments, and I am sure that we will be surprised.

I believe gravity can pull from a completely opposite direction of where the mass is, - like a sailboat can sail against the wind.

The “funnel shape” is always the nature of gravity, the whole way through the center.

Gravity’s effect on space cannot always be partial understood, but must, in this case be understood like a unity, because it is and works like a unity.
The nature of the central point of the central space vacuum is important to understand.

Towards infinity gravity is decreasing; hence space is affected decreasingly towards infinity. This is because the access to open space in that direction is unlimited. There is plenty of space to “take from” , - from this direction and give to the space consumption matter.

BUT towards an inwards direction space too must "give", and therefore the opposite happens.
Towards an inwards direction space is gradually stronger affected, also even though, - after - there is no more matter, towards the direction of the center? - Exactly like space in a outwards direction also is affected even though after matter is left behind.

What exact happens in a inwards direction is properly difficult or even illogical to understand, but it is easy to measure and confirm what is going on.

We can be force to accept something difficult to imaging, and then try to understand so good we can.

Continuous inwards pull of space (exactly like a continuous outwards pull) could explain that space also towards an inwards direction is affected towards; - inwards “infinity”

This can explain why the magnitude of black holes is proportional with the surrounding matter.

I do not believe there is a lot of matter inside a black hole.
Stars falling into a black hole are ripped apart and disappear as energy, - properly together with the jet.

There is not matter inside a black hole that determinate the magnitude of a black hole.

All the matter around the black hole, - for example the matter of a galaxy, - is laughing of such a cow-illogical conclusion, - because that amount of matter knows its presents around the black hole always is proportional with the magnitude of the black hole.

This is also pretty easy to measure, just by using a borehole gravimeter - the experiment below:

First find the gravitational center, and measure its magnitude, - then remove some cubic sand from the center, move that to the top, and test if central gravity still is the same. I believe it is.

So RC you can bla bla balpa la bla of balck hole in 1000 years, this is not what science is about, - if you want to KNOW, - use the scientist methods, not scientific religion.
GO AND MEASURE and PRÓVE - THIS is what science is about.

Bjarne said:

So RC you can bla bla balpa la bla of balck hole in 1000 years, this is not what science is about, - if you want to KNOW, - use the scientist methods, not scientific religion.
GO AND MEASURE and PRÓVE - THIS is what science is about.

Click to expand...

Not quite, Bjarne. Science is very much about understanding what you are doing. You see, we can rarely measure things directly. Usually, we have to understand the result.

I have a small riddle for you:

According to you, when a mass is sitting on the ground, its center of gravity (COG) moves down to the bottom, right?

So, I have a little experiment for you to perform (its easy and cheap):

Go and get a 6x6cm wood beam. Saw off a (ca) 1m length, make sure at least one end is in a good right angle.

Now, balance it in your hand to find the COG. It should be very near the middle. Make a cross on the beam where you find the COG.

Next, place the beam on its (right-angled) end on a smooth, horizontal floor. You should be able to make it stand on its own.

Now, according to you, by placing it on the ground, the COG should be moved to the bottom end of the beam. You can test if this is true:

Put your finger at the place where you marked the "free space" COG, and push slowly. The beam will fall over when the COG comes outside the base area.

According to current theory, this will happen when you have pushed the middle about ½ of the thickness of the beam (about 3cm).

According to your thesis, the COG is now at the bottom, so you should be able to push the beam way over before it topples.

Try it and tell us what you observe.

Hans

-If the silo was instead suspended 1m off the ground, where would the gravitational centre be?

Click to expand...

I think the place where mass of the suspended body (over the Earth) ends, here begins the negative ADG.
The negative ADG must be understood as the negative different between ADG with and without the building.

-How do you calculate how much the gravitational centre shifts by in the presence of another mass?

Click to expand...

I think you can use the ADG of the 2 bodies.
If let say the Earth is 10 m/s² and the suspended body 1 m/s² - the place between where the mass of the suspended body ends would be 10m/s² minus 1m/s2 = 9m/s²Hence this is the gravitational center of that secondary body.
Does that sound acceptable?

Another question is how much the gravitational center is affected, (moves) . I think this is possible to calculate based on the principle mention above.

Bjarne said:

The same as you, but double radius.
Now tell me what you expect RC?

Click to expand...

You first (or are you just pulling these numbers out of your pet cow's bottom ?) then I will redo your calculations using your equations to make sure that we have the same numbers.
But I will do the math for your theory since it is really easy:

1. Take a "spherical cow" for the silo.
2. According to your theory the ADG inside a sphere is constant.
3. The ADG at the center of the sphere must be zero since all of tthe forces balance out.
4. Thus the constant ADG in your theory is zero.
5. Therefore the ADG according to your theory = 0 μGal

Oh dear. You are wrong !
Or maybe I am but you cannot show that I am wrong until you give the equation that I should be using.

Not quite, Bjarne. Science is very much about understanding what you are doing. You see, we can rarely measure things directly. Usually, we have to understand the result.

I have a small riddle for you:

According to you, when a mass is sitting on the ground, its center of gravity (COG) moves down to the bottom, right?

So, I have a little experiment for you to perform (its easy and cheap):

Go and get a 6x6cm wood beam. Saw off a (ca) 1m length, make sure at least one end is in a good right angle.

Now, balance it in your hand to find the COG. It should be very near the middle. Make a cross on the beam where you find the COG.

Next, place the beam on its (right-angled) end on a smooth, horizontal floor. You should be able to make it stand on its own.

Now, according to you, by placing it on the ground, the COG should be moved to the bottom end of the beam. You can test if this is true:

Put your finger at the place where you marked the "free space" COG, and push slowly. The beam will fall over when the COG comes outside the base area.

According to current theory, this will happen when you have pushed the middle about ½ of the thickness of the beam (about 3cm).

According to your thesis, the COG is now at the bottom, so you should be able to push the beam way over before it topples.

Try it and tell us what you observe.

Hans

Click to expand...

I cannot see what the balance points of a wood beam have to do with the cause of gravity to do. - This seesm to be to be pretty misk masked.

According to current theory, this will happen when you have pushed the middle about ½ of the thickness of the beam (about 3cm).

Click to expand...

This I do not understand at all.

You first (or are you just pulling these numbers out of your pet cow's bottom ?) then I will redo your calculations using your equations to make sure that we have the same numbers.

Click to expand...

I have tell you, 67 μGal , so soon the first container is full 4.000.000 KG, according to my theory.
So now you, come out of the bunker, - and let us know yours result.

Therefore the ADG according to your theory = 0 μGal

Click to expand...

Notice the center of a gravitional center is no "place" distance at that "point" do not exist.
But yes at the center = 0 μGal is correct, but this is a "magic" - "place", so magic that that "place" / "point" not exist, because it is "too small".

It is therefore I say gravity pulls space from infinity, here we both understand that infinity is from the outwards direction.

BUT infinity does also exist towards the inwards direction, - a place without distance, - must be a strange “place” ´.....
Nature is strange, - but I am not to blame for that.

Bjarne said:

...snipped...
For example so long we do not know why the magnitude of a black hole is proportional with the mass of its surroundings, we have a HUGE problem.

Click to expand...

Fior example your ignorance of the fact that we do know why the magnitude of a black hole is proportional with the mass of its surroundings, is a HUGE problem for you:
From The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads:

Bjarne said:

Now, for example consider if the inner core of the Earth was empty, - the mass of the Earth still was the same, but completely homogeneous.
Now how would ADG be in the inner empty place or Earth?

Click to expand...

The ADG in an hollow sphere is zero since the forces balance out. This is one of the first problems that undergraduate students are given to solve.

Bjarne said:

I believe ADG would be the same,

Click to expand...

Wrong again.

Bjarne said:

...snipped funnel non-science...
I do not believe there is a lot of matter inside a black hole.
Stars falling into a black hole are ripped apart and disappear as energy, - properly together with the jet.

Click to expand...

The really, really basic problem with your statement is the the mass of black holes has been measured and is a "lot" of matter.See the next post.

The second problem is that the jet comes from the accretion disc, not the black hole.

Bjarne said:

...snip...
So RC you can bla bla balpa la bla of balck hole in 1000 years, this is not what science is about, - if you want to KNOW, - use the scientist methods, not scientific religion.
GO AND MEASURE and PRÓVE - THIS is what science is about.

Click to expand...

Scientists have GONE AND MEASURED and "PROVED" (have strong evidence for).

A new question for Bjarne about black hole masses

Bjarne said:

I do not believe there is a lot of matter inside a black hole.
Stars falling into a black hole are ripped apart and disappear as energy, - properly together with the jet.

Click to expand...

The basic problem with your statement is the the mass of black holes has been measured. It is quite simple to do:

• The stellar black hole candidates are in X-ray binary systems.
• Measure the orbits.
• Use Kepler's Laws tell you the mass of both stars.

As an example: Cygnus X-1 was the first candidate found. The black hole has a mass of 11 +/- 2 solar masses.

The mass of Sag A* has been determined and being continuiously refined using the orbits of stars around it. It's mass is about 4.1 (+/- 0.6) million solar masses.

Tim Thompson said:

See the UCLA Galactic Center Group webpage has a very spiffy video reconstruction of the orbits, along with other images & data, and see Ghez, et al., 2008 for the detailed analysis of the stellar orbits.

Click to expand...

Stars falling into a black hole are ripped apart and disappear below the event horizon. For supermassive black hole like Sag A* the escape velocity from a hypothetical surface at its maximum radius is very nearly the speed of light. This basically eliminates any matter or energy escape even if Sag A* is not a black hole. It would be like you throwing a cow into orbit !
Any jets from a black hole are from the accretion disk.

First asked 20 July 2010
Bjarne,
The measurements show that there is a "lot" of matter inside black holes.
What is wrong with these measurments of the masses of black holes?

You may want to read On the Physical Reality of Black Holes rather than making unsupported assertions.

Reality Check said:

The really, really basic problem with your statement is the the mass of black holes has been measured and is a "lot" of matter.

Click to expand...

It is not just measured that there is a lot of matter in a black hole, it is the definition of a black hole!

Bjarne said:

I have tell you, 67 μGal , so soon the first container is full 4.000.000 KG, according to my theory.

Click to expand...

I have told you that you are wrong - the ADG according to your theory = 0 μGal.
Oh dear. You are wrong !
Or maybe I am but you cannot show that I am wrong until you give the equation that I should be using.
So now you, come out of the bunker, - and let us know your working.

Bjarne said:

I cannot see what the balance points of a wood beam have to do with the cause of gravity to do. - This seesm to be to be pretty misk masked.

Click to expand...

Who talks about the cause of gravity? I'm takling about the center of gravity.

This I do not understand at all.

Click to expand...

Really? Mother cow understood it immidiately. I'm just asking you to check if the center of gravity of a stick moves when you place it in the ground (as you seem to claim).

But perhaps you don't understand ANY of all this? You are just bleating verbal flatulence, right??

Hans

He does not know that the centre of gravity of an object has a connection to balance!

steenkh said:

He does not know that the centre of gravity of an object has a connection to balance!

Click to expand...

Perhaps it is time to invert the RC list and start listing the things Bjarne does know?

That would probably make for a shorter list.

Hans

MRC_Hans said:

Perhaps it is time to invert the RC list and start listing the things Bjarne does know?

That would probably make for a shorter list.

Hans

Click to expand...

I have it right here..:

1. Moo

erlando said:

I have it right here..:

1. Moo

Click to expand...

I don't think Bjarne even knows much about cows.

Fior example your ignorance of the fact that we do know why the magnitude of a black hole is proportional with the mass of its surroundings

Click to expand...

Liar

The ADG in an hollow sphere is zero since the forces balance out. This is one of the first problems that undergraduate students are given to solve.

Click to expand...

Creeds

The basic problem with your statement is the the mass of black holes has been measured. It is quite simple to do:

Click to expand...

The basic problem is that scientist too often “create their own Universe” - that fits to a very limit understanding of the laws of nature.

1. We are completely unaware of the nature of central space. And why the amount of matter surrounding the centre of a galaxy is responsible for that central “funnel” shape.
2. We are not aware of the “Space wind” for example of the Sun, that prevent the Earth to fall to the Sun. I am talking about this force >> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html
3. We are not aware of the resistance against motion, (e.g; responsible for the pioneer anomalies) and that the space wind counteracts e.g; the Earth orbit resistance against motion.
4. Thanks’ to the Sun rotation the Earth is thrown outwards in space. A star near a black hole, do not have any space-wind (or tidal force) to prevent it from falling into the black hole. BUT instead it has HUGE resistance against motion due to the huge speed. It sounds like a contradiction, but the resistance against motion in fact speeds up the fall towards the black hole, exactly like the Moon would speed up if it was falling almost straight towards the Earth.

So the whole idea with super gravity inside the black hole, because of the speed of a falling object is homburg, based on a limit understanding of all what really is involved in that phenomenon.

The second problem is that the jet comes from the accretion disc, not the black hole.

Click to expand...

• You don’t know if anything really ends up in the black hole, since it is black, even light do not escape.
• Energy (all kind of EM waves) can escape since these moves with “c”
• If matter is completely dissolved, it is nothing but space, which mean if a star is completely lost space would just expand a bit more. Hence a lot energy can "disappear" a black hole.

Stars falling into a black hole are ripped apart and disappear below the event horizon. For super massive black hole like Sag A* the escape velocity from a hypothetical surface at its maximum radius is very nearly the speed of light. This basically eliminates any matter or energy escape even if Sag A* is not a black hole. It would be like you throwing a cow into orbit !
Any jets from a black hole are from the accretion disk.

Click to expand...

If the Moon did not have any tidal force or space-wind, - pushing it outwards, it would due to the resistance against motion "dive" more and more towards the Earth, and accelerate in that direction as well. - This would cause stronger resistance against motion and a self-perpetuating process have started, - which mean suddenly it would fall almost straight to the Earth, with a huge speed.

That would not be strange, and still the Earth is only the Earth and not the nuts mass of 1 million stars with super gravity

I do not see any real reason to all that TURBO-SCIENCE, - all we need to do is FIRST to understand gravity, and solve all the mysteries related to gravity, - then we are prepared to understand much more, - not before.

Scientists have GONE AND MEASURED and "PROVED" (have strong evidence for).

Click to expand...

Scientist have measured based on far form a 20% of a complete understanding what really happens in such area. . How can this be anything else as nonsense?

It is not just measured that there is a lot of matter in a black hole; it is the definition of a black hole!

Click to expand...

It’s a load of creeds in a black hole; we have MUCH more to learn.

Who talks about the cause of gravity? I'm talking about the center of gravity

Click to expand...

You cannot really talk about the center of gravity without to get very close to the cause of gravity. Matter sucks space = a Space vacuum inside matter, this is what we talk about.

Really? Mother cow understood it immediately. I'm just asking you to check if the center of gravity of a stick moves when you place it in the ground (as you seem to claim).

Click to expand...

Yes it does, - always to the ground floor.