What you fail to understand is that for something to qualify as a scientific truth, it must also be correct!
Here is another quote that you might consider adding to your posts:
"I reject your reality and substitute my own" - Adam Savage
Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.
- Thread starter Bjarne
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dark energy
- Status
Here is another quote that you might consider adding to your posts:
"I reject your reality and substitute my own" - Adam Savage
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
More ignorance from Bjarne:
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
The ADG inside a sphere is measured to act as predicted by Newton (decreases).
Bjarne has a fantasy not a prediction since his lack of basic mathematics means he has absolutely no idea of how the ADG varies in a sphere even according to his fantasy. E.g.
- Physical quantities cannot 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
- Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
- Bjarne's idea is evidence wrong (acceleration due to gravity is constant inside a sphere).
First asked 2 November 2009
Test of Newton's inverse-square law in the Greenland ice cap
Bjarne's assertion is that the Greenland ice core experiment did not measure a gravity gradient because of the variation of gravity below the Earth as predicted by Newton. He seems to think that this is some sort of effect from the core's gravity.
Bjarne's assertion is that the Greenland ice core experiment did not measure a gravity gradient because of the variation of gravity below the Earth as predicted by Newton. He seems to think that this is some sort of effect from the core's gravity.
Bjarne, can you show us the calculation that you did for a homogeneous, solid sphere with a core that demonstrates that the Greenland ice core experiment's result is wrong?
IMO: The variation of g with raduis above the core is gr/rE + GMc/r^2
IMO: The variation of g with raduis above the core is gr/rE + GMc/r^2
where
- r is the distance above the core (e.g 3487 kilometers).
- rE is the radius of the Earth.
- g is the acceleration of gravity at the surface of the Earth.
- Mc is the effective mass of the core due to its different density.
Anyone who knows basic mathematics can see that this equation is not a constant. It varies with r.
Your idea fails yet again and again and again 
!
!
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
BUT never inside a (homogeneous) solid object.
The simple stupid cow logic difference is that two or several objects gravity interacts with each other, - a single (homogeneous) field of gravity does not, also not even though religious sects of different kinds belive so...
Ohh the math is so simple like; > all the cows in the cowhouse eat the same quantity. According to matter there is not different except matter do not sh.t space....
First at all you can accuse the inner core for what you want it will not answer back if you are wrong.
Furthermore: The Greenland Ice core measurement is NOT central gravity measurement but just so superficial like you.
Your argument is waste of time.
And so it is to dream about how heavy the inne core is or not is...
It requires more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed
Cow’s word wide agrees this is due to resistance against motion.
It seems like you (and many more) denies that there are any resistances against motion (!) + (?)
At least I have calculated that, and you cannot do better. .....
I have ask you 117 times to show the right resuslt, but (it seem to) the messages have not got through the concrete.
Mother cow told me this can only be possible because you (and any more) must be living in a unknown dimension (between the fourth and 21 dimension) and this is the only reason to that communication with the classic down to cow logic Earth reality completely have failed.
When you one day should visit the third dimension (again) I would appreciate to invited you to a cow party , and you are off course welcome to try to convince us all that all the resistance-free dimension (you live) is real, -and not only are places in your fantasy (even though resistance-free-spacy-dimentions, - contradict mathematical facts) .
But be prepared we in the worlds cow logic association are VERY skeptical, especially Mother Cow. I believe this is because she has been dragged so many heavy ploughs in here live, so she know the difference between fantasy and reality. And don't underestimate here, she know that Math: more and more energy to get a diminishing increase in speed...................
************************************************** **************
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
Last edited:
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,306
And why would the Sun not create more poles? Whenever magnetic field loops come out of the surface there is a north and a south. HOWEVER, if you look over the whole Sun, you will see that the north pole is magnetic north(south) and the south pole is magnetic south(north), and they change every 11 years or so. Apparently, you never read anything about the Sun's magnetic field.
The magnetic field in the Sun is generated in a similar way as the magnetic field of the Earth. There is a dynamo at work, which amplifies very small seed magnetic fields that are always present in a plasma.
And there is no "very strong MF of the solar wind," it is actually rather weak, on the order of 10 nanoTesla. Compare that with the magnetic field at the surface of the Earth which is about 30,000 nanoTesla. Again, you have not got the foggiest about the things you are talking about.
And how does this answer the question, what the nature of a cow is and what the reason of a cow is? So now I guess a cow is a force?
And when, prithee, do we get your paper on this topic, explaining how wrong we all are? And please in understandable english, no cows and a bit of quantitative work (i.e. numbers and equations and things like that).
Last edited:
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
The local magnetic field in the neighborhood of a large sunspot can be as strong as 4,000 Gauss... much, much greater than the Sun's average field.
And the Sun have in period 2 magnetic North Poles.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_poles_030423.html
One more measurement will be done in the biggest residence building in Denmark
And Boreholes measurement will be next (but that take at least ½ year to complete)
http://www.science27.com/english/Measurement/Index.htm
..
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
The simple cow logic (Moo Cow, Bjarne
) is that on large scales the Earth is a homogeneous solid object.A point in testing Newton's laws of gravitation in the Greenland ice cap is that ice is (fairly) homogeneous.
A single single (homogeneous) field of gravity does interact internally , also not even though ignorant people of different kinds believe so.
That is why miners when they go down in mines do not start to float in mid air
.Ohh the math is so simple like has been aught to high school students for centuries.Ohh the math is so simple like;
...snipped usual Bjarne cow gibberish....
That is really silly.
The inner core does not have a voice.
Furthermore: The Greenland Ice core measurement IS gravity measurement but just so NOT superficial like you.
Your argument is waste of time.
usual Bjarne cow gibberish
Last edited:
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
These two images show why the Sun never has a south pole.
Try to understand the solar wind is the dynamo of the Sun’s MF, that’s why there is no South Pole.
Right….The simple cow logic (Moo Cow, Bjarne
Right…
A point in testing Newton's laws of gravitation in the Greenland ice cap is that ice is (fairly) homogeneous.
Wrong, not when it is completely homogeneous, this is what I will prove, and you will change your (orthodox stubborn concrete) mind.
You can accuse the inner core for what you want, and also the underground close to the mine. None of those will answer back.That is why miners when they go down in mines do not start to float in mid air
Amen
Here is a man that can have 2 ways communication with the Earth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1yUfT9CrQE&feature=player_embedded#!
( I can only speak with cows, and sometimes with (some) humans) (but only in the third dimention)
The inner understanding of a single (homogeneous) field of gravity is totally wrong.
An I will prove that fact.
--
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Except, of course, for the fact that both your drawings do show a south pole.
Just because you failed to put an 'S' in the area where the field lines emerge, it doesn't mean there is no south pole there.
Bjarne, not only do you not understand physics, you don't even understand your own drawings.
Hans
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
This is a scientific proven fact.
Red the red text
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6038648&postcount=948
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,306
And so WHAT? you are talking about AVERGAGE FIELD, which naturally is lower than any maximum field you may find on the Sun. That is why it is called an AVERAGE MAGNETIC FIELD STRENGTH. Are you really so dumb?
From the text, the second paragraph:
And it is not at all impossible, because only on average is the Sun a dipole. In the case of the change of the magnetic field, every 11 years or so, the dipole structure disappears first and the quadrupolar structure remains, immediately created the case of 2 north poles. There is nothing wrong there.
Stick to your cows, because all the rest you write it bull.
Oh dear, those poor people living with you.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
No. Read the text you refer to. READ it, I know you can read.
It says that the Ulysses probe has so far failed to detect a south pole in the area where we most expected it, but that doesn't mean it does not exist. Both your nice drawings show possible scenarios, where the south pole is in a totally different place, or is so far from the surface that there is no distinct pole area on the surface. I don't know how likely they are, but they are at least possible (which makes them better than 90% of what is on your web page).
But it STILL doesn't mean there is no south pole. Just that it may take us some time to find it.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
No I am not dump, I have good Cow IQ, this tells a LOT of the difference between you an me.
Amigo the hole point with the strength of the Suns MF and the solar winds and the Sun spots, is all: > MOTION of matter. – You can and MUST trace it back to that. THIS is the main point.
Amigo, it is discovered that the Suns MF NOT is a dipole.
The MF “S” is missing OK ?
Exactly and this is the point.
How on Sun is that possible?
The image above shows how it is possible.
Temporary the Sun creates 2 “N” – because the solar wind is the dynamo.
Ohh yehhhh mann
I forgot, it could be hiding in the 17 th dimension together with the lost photon energy, the resistance free universe, and 1795 tonnage other difference scientific exported junk.
Let's be serious, - IF there where a MF "S" we would have measure it . It can NOT hide it self.
I will improve the drawings, don't worry. The start of lines must also be shown closer to the Magnetic Poles of the Sun
Amigo Hans, a MF = is a circulation.
Magnetic South is; = each small and big solar “ejection” / wind / storm.
This is where the MF "S" power lines come out.
This is where MN South is BORN.
Motion of matter drags space behind.
THIS mean (deformed space) in motion = THIS is a MF.
This explain why (you KNOW) the strengths of the solar wind/storm activity is proportional connected to the Sun’s “global” MF.
If there are no solar wind at all. The Sun would only have left the MF due to solar flared / spicules. – These are cause by the Suns rotation, and a different story.
So all the mysteries of the Sun MF can be cooked down to: = Mater in motion = Space in Motion = a MF.
As you can see, all you need to do is to drop the electromagnetic crappie idea.
The only mystery left is; - why pure believes so often fast is hardening inside the human brains and automatically becomes certain religious fanatic orthodox knowledge.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
So you will do your unspecified test on a homogeneous sphere that is the same size as the Earth?
I await your results - I will definitely not hold my breath
!However given your incompetence with the Domus Vista experiment, I can predict a disaster with whatever test you are going to do.
- Please show your calculations that the Domus Vista data is too inaccurate to test your idea
- What calculations did you do to show your cylinder data will be accurate?
The experimental evidence is that the gravitational force inside the Earth does vary as per Newton (The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads).
- Bjarne's idea is evidence wrong (acceleration due to gravity is constant inside a sphere).
First asked 2 November 2009
Test of Newton's inverse-square law in the Greenland ice cap
And then there is your ignorance of the fact that geologists use gravity to map subsurface features. This depends on Newton not your fantasy.
And then there is your ignorance of the fact that geologists use gravity to map subsurface features. This depends on Newton not your fantasy.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
So you ignored the second paragraph as tusemfem pointed out. Now read the third paragraph:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
THAT I will believe.
Why?
No. We have not discovered a magnetic monopole yet. Polypoles, yes, but a monopole would be a sensation. Science does not absolutely exclude the possibility of a magnetic monopole, but it has never been observed, and is considered unlikely to exist, for a number of reasons.
There is a south pole in that picture. You just forgot to insert the 's'.
Oh, we will find it, sooner or later.
Funny, how you are suddenly so confident in our ability to discover things, when it suits your own purposes.
Only as long as you have (at least) two poles. That is the reason we don't expect to find a monopole: There could be no circulation.
Note that a polypole magnet field can always be broken down to a combination of dipoles.
Hans
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
I am NOT changing that fact, - BUT only explaining WHY it happens.
Because matter sucks space, - if matter moves – and the rest of the story you have hear 117 times. – That’s why.
No one have claimed so.
The place where the sun winds begin is the MF "S", - so simple like that.
Only so that you can see where we expect the missing MNS to be.
It is found...Open you eyes...
Matter in motion = space in motion = a MF >> This is a simple consequence of the theory.
Exactly and this is the problem with the discovery that is done.
I HAVE FOUND IT. – that you today not believe, will properly change.
Now you are ready to ONE MORE SUN MYSTERY
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/20feb_coolmystery/
Why is the MNP colder as MSP
Probably because (some of) the plasma thrown out in space, by the solar wind, returns to the Sun again, after it cools downs, in space, - and later cools down the MNP of the Sun - I guess....
Nothing returns to the Sun's MSP, hence it will not become colder.
Last edited:
Unless you tell him where, he will not be able to understand you.
- Status