Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bjarne: "Our idea that there is a huge invisible mass inside the black hole is crap"

Bjarne said:
And yes this is also the cause of black holes.

Our idea that there is a huge invisible mass inside the black hole is crap, (too).
It is the mass aroundthe black hole that is responsible for the fact (and mystery) that the size of the black hole is completely proportional with the total mass of a galaxy. ..
Click to expand...
Another baseless bit of crap from you but maybe I am wrong. So show me wrong, Bjarne.

First asked 14 July 2010
Bjarne,
State your mathematical proof that black holes have no "huge invisible mass inside"
Show the observational evidence that black holes have no "huge invisible mass inside".


Of course this exposes some more ignorance from you
  1. The mass of black holes is rarely "huge". Stellar black holes are the size of stars.
  2. The mass inside is never invisible. The gravity of black holes is frequently measured.
    What you mean is that black holes do not emit light - they are black.
  3. The mass of black holes is measured from their obits and the orbits of other objects around them. This shows that they do have mass and that mass is concentrated in very small volumes.
  4. The mass of the super-massive blackholes at the center of galaxies has no correlation with the mass of the galaxy.
    They do have a correlation with the mass of the central bulge of their galaxy. This is to be expected because the stars in the buldge are tought to be the source of the mass of the black hole. However there is a bit of evidence that it is the other way around - black holes form first and drive the formation of the central buldge.
This sounds like more ignorance to add to:
 
Bjarne's ignorance about black hole mass and their galaxies

Forgot that Bjarne's ignorance of the science about galaxies and their super-massive black holes has already been addressed.

First posted 16th March 2010!
Reality Check said:
I believe that what Bjarne means by "One example (of several) is that black holes have force/sizes proportional with the masses of galaxies . This is not understood." is the known correlation of the size of galaxies with the size of the super-massive black holes that they contain.
What is understood is:
Galaxies seem to have one (or more!) super-massive black holes.
Super-massive black holes are a small percentage of the size of galaxies in mass and infinitesimal when sizes are compared.
When we look at nearby galaxies the size of the central bulge is about 700 times that of the super-massive black hole. Also quasars are thought to be active super-massive black holes. Star formation and quasar activity both peaked around the same time, 8 to 10 billion years ago.
This suggests a link between the two events:
  • The formation of the central bulge of a galaxy in its infancy.
  • The formation of the super-massive black hole.
The theory has been that the galaxy and its central bulge formed first and then the super-massive black hole formed from merging stellar black holes and accretion from the stars and gas in the galaxy.
An alternative has been suggested - that the super-massive black holes formed first, jets from them caused shock waves that create galaxies which then grab the black holes. See this New Scientist article.
ETA
This blog has an account of the full article: http://tech4allblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/tech4all-supermassive-black-holes.html


Of course Bjarne is ignorant of this and so thinks that means that there is something that he calls "central gravity" which is gravity but not as we know it! From what I can gather he takes Newtonian gravity, throws away the superposition principle and then makes various unsupported assertions out of his head, e.g. that the acceleration due to gravity (ADG) inside a sphere is constant. 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...
(emphasis added)
The continued ignorance of this is definitely worthy of the list:
 
Last edited:
Just ignore RC
It is too late

17 years at the University have made him 999999982334227 % prejudiced.

Max Planck was absolutely right
 
Bjarne said:
I thought we have been that through.
You can compare all the measured values with the free air gradient (FAG)
Remember to start from where YOU expect the zero line to merge, witch means I the middle of that building.

In no direction, - and at no floor you can measure any negative gravity.
Click to expand...

Did you expect to be walking on the ceiling in any part of the building?

OK, let's cut this short:

To find the negative values, you need to subtract the baseline gravity. That is value of the gravity on the spot where the building stands.

What is this value, Bjarne?

Hans
 
Bjarne still hasn't told us yet why the GPS system works so well since according to him science knows nothing about gravity.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Rumour has it that the Higgs boson may have been found,despite Professor Bjarne predicting that it does not exist.
Click to expand...
It must be systematically replicated, this is not the case. Such baseless speculation have it been before.

Bjarne
You can compare all the measured values with the free air gradient (FAG)
Remember to start from where YOU expect the zero line to merge, witch means in the middle of that building.
In no direction, - and at no floor you can measure any negative gravity.
Hans
Did you expect to be walking on the ceiling in any part of the building?
OK, let's cut this short:
To find the negative values, you need to subtract the baseline gravity. That is value of the gravity on the spot where the building stands.
What is this value, Bjarne?
Hans
Click to expand...

I am not sure I understand what you mean.
The negative ADG (gravity upwards pull) "should" be easy to demonstrate at all the lower floors, and especially those close to ground floor (according to the prevailing crap).

Hence lower floors measured values “should” comparable to the buildings gravitational zero (in the physical center of the building) be negative and off course significant lower than the FAG.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

If you move downwards from the physical center (e.g.: 15th floor towards ground floor) ADG is not at all deceasing, but opposite increasing, - exactly like it happens from floor 30th to 15th.

You can’t show any such negative ADG, simply because it doesn’t exist.

ACCEPT IT.

The prevailing theory is therefore disproven, so simple is that.

To find negative ADG you must measure in the underground beneath that building. - Bet a cow?
 
Last edited:
baseless speculation

Bjarne said:
Learn to think cow-logic.
Click to expand...

Bjarne said:
Matter sucks space, - this is the cause of gravity, and this explains everything that happens to space, outside a body as well as inside.

<snip>

It is only to follow the simple main thread; - everything explains itself, just by accepting: MATTER SUCKS/SPINS SPACE.
Click to expand...

Bjarne said:
We know the Universe expands. Hence space must have some kind of density.

Like a tornado spins air around itself, so does elementary particle the same with space.
The result is that a particle appears like physical matter.
But in fact it is only> : contracted space.

<snip>

Notice the differences:
  • Matter = stable contracted space
  • Gravity = stable stretched space.
  • A Magnetic Field = space in motion. Hence a MF is (and must be) a naturally a circuit / circulation (of space).
<snip>

All this is not fantasy.
I have argued so for years, and also predicted how this theory easy can be proven.

Today it is proven.
Click to expand...

Bjarne said:
It must be systematically replicated, this is not the case. Such baseless speculation have it been before.
Click to expand...
If I were interested in baseless speculation, I'd be reading this thread.

Wait...
:boxedin:
 
Bjarne said:
Just ignore RC
It is too late

17 years at the University have made him 999999982334227 % prejudiced.

Max Planck was absolutely right
Click to expand...
Just ignore Bjarne
It is too late

No years at the University has made him 999999982334227 % prejudiced.
An inability to learn has made him 9999999823342279987634876431098136198765832168753216526 % ignorant

Max Planck was absolutely right: Quantum mechanics describes the behaviour of the universe at small scales.
What Bjarne thinks he was right about is only in Bjarne's head. Possibly one of the quotes Bjarne is obsessed about.
 
Bjarne said:
I am not sure I understand what you mean.
The negative ADG (gravity upwards pull) "should" be easy to demonstrate at all the lower floors, and especially those close to ground floor (according to the prevailing crap).
Click to expand...

Do you expect negative gravity on the lower floors of large buildings?

Not even cows are that stupid!

The gravity of the building detracts from earth's gravity, making it slightly weaker, but you will always measure a positive gravity, simply because earth's gravity is so much stronger.

So, to find the contribution from the building, you need to subtract earth's gravity. But what is it, in that exact spot?

If you move downwards from the physical center (e.g.: 15th floor towards ground floor) ADG is not at all deceasing, but opposite increasing, - exactly like it happens from floor 30th to 15th.

You can’t show any such negative ADG, simply because it doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...

Yes I can. I subtracted earth gravity, and the free air gradient, and posted a list of numbers. If you make a curve from them, you WILL SEE THAT IT IS DECREASING TOWARDS THE GROUND.

ACCEPT IT.

Hans
 
Do you expect negative gravity on the lower floors of large buildings?
Click to expand...
According to my theory, if the building is on the earth, - the answer is no.

The gravity of the building detracts from earth's gravity, making it slightly weaker, but you will always measure a positive gravity, simply because earth's gravity is so much stronger.
Off course.

So, to find the contribution from the building, you need to subtract earth's gravity. But what is it, in that exact spot?
Click to expand...
No
you do not need to know how ADG exactly would be if not the building was there.
I have now several times explained you; that seen from a central perspective; > the buildings physical center, - you have already all what you need. - This is the perfect starting point for you to analyses all the data, and test the prevailing religion.

Let assume you are living at the 15th floor. – Exactly here the buildings own ADG must (according to the prevailing creeds) be zero.

Therefore if you are moving downwards, you “should”, relative to the 15th floor ADG values, - expect ADG, - to decrease (0.3048 mGal) per meter due to the FAG….. – MINUS the buildings own gravity.
This mean that 50 meter below you (at ground floor) gravity should compared to the 15th floor be 50*0.3048 mGal MINUS the buildings own ADG, - 0.093 mGal

  • THIS IS NOT WHAT IS FOUND BY THE MESSUREMENT.
  • THERE IS NO SUCH LARGE MINUS ANYWHERE IN THAT BUILDING
  • THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE ADG IN THAT BUILDING.

ONLY a roughly weak and stable ADG is measured from the top to the bottom

You should also be able to point out +93mGal at the top of the Building, - This is also not the case, - ADG at the upper floors is only about +25mgal – 75 % lower as expected.
The prevailing speculation is completely DEAD.
The new theory is 50% proven.
 
Bjarne said:
You should also be able to point out +93mGal at the top of the Building, - This is also not the case, - ADG at the upper floors is only about +25mgal – 75 % lower as expected.
The prevailing speculation is completely DEAD.
The new theory is 50% proven.
Click to expand...
Than you did the math WRONG.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
I have missed the curves, but assume that bjarne's measurements, when compared to expectations of free air, shows lower gravity at the ground floor and higher at the top floor?
Both due to a big building pulling respectively up and down.
 
Paulhoff said:
Than you did the math WRONG.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...
Actually to be charitable, Bjarne did not get the math wrong.

His ignorance comes in that he does not realize that the "spherical cow" approximation is an approximation :jaw-dropp !

Treating the building as a sphere rather than a rectangular block is an approximation. We should not be surprised if the result is off by 75%.

But I think that a bigger source of error is the fact we have to take his word for the mass of the building as 35,000,000 kg. This is unlikely to be a correct figure since
There is the fact that the effect of nearby buildings is also ignored. These will decrease the ADG measured at the top of the Domus Vista.
 
Bjarne said:
According to my theory, if the building is on the earth, - the answer is no.
Click to expand...

Ehr, no. After the measurement results were in, you modified your theory.


No
you do not need to know how ADG exactly would be if not the building was there.
Click to expand...

Yes you do, because otherwise you have no baseline.

I have now several times explained you; that seen from a central perspective; > the buildings physical center, - you have already all what you need. - This is the perfect starting point for you to analyses all the data, and test the prevailing religion.

Let assume you are living at the 15th floor. – Exactly here the buildings own ADG must (according to the prevailing creeds) be zero.
Click to expand...

No, that does not have to be on the 15th floor. It will be at the gravity center of the building, that is the point where the mass above and the mass below are equal. That is not likely to be in the geometrical center of the building.

Therefore if you are moving downwards, you “should”, relative to the 15th floor ADG values, - expect ADG, - to decrease (0.3048 mGal) per meter due to the FAG….. – MINUS the buildings own gravity.
This mean that 50 meter below you (at ground floor) gravity should compared to the 15th floor be 50*0.3048 mGal MINUS the buildings own ADG, - 0.093 mGal

  • THIS IS NOT WHAT IS FOUND BY THE MESSUREMENT.
  • THERE IS NO SUCH LARGE MINUS ANYWHERE IN THAT BUILDING
  • THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE ADG IN THAT BUILDING.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is. Study the figures I have posted earlier. They are calculated from YOUR data.


ONLY a roughly weak and stable ADG is measured from the top to the bottom
Click to expand...

Because you use the wrong figures. You have used the floor to floor differential, which IS, of course roughly stable, because it is only influenced by local mass concentrations.

You should also be able to point out +93mGal at the top of the Building, - This is also not the case, - ADG at the upper floors is only about +25mgal – 75 % lower as expected.
Click to expand...

You cannot calculate the absolute value, but there is a clear differential from top to bottom (see my figures).

The prevailing speculation is completely DEAD.
The new theory is 50% proven.
Click to expand...

No. You cannot even understand your own data.

OK, Bjarne, I just wanted to make sure you hadn't simply misunderstood. That is not the case, I can see. You are desperately hanging on to your faulty interpretation of your quite mundane data.

Fine, have it your way! Now go away and publish your "discovery". - And see what happens. :p

The cows will no doubt applaud you. :rolleyes:

Hans
 
Toke said:
I have missed the curves, but assume that bjarne's measurements, when compared to expectations of free air, shows lower gravity at the ground floor and higher at the top floor?
Both due to a big building pulling respectively up and down.
Click to expand...
It does, but Bjarne does not use that calculation. Instead he uses the floor to floor differential.

The absolute gravity per floor, when corrected for a putative baseline, and the free air gradients, and using Bjarnes measurements is the following (bottom floor first line):

0,000
-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

Note that except from the bottom three floors, which are no doubt influenced by the shopping center built around the lower part of the building (and ignored by Bjarne), we have a nice declining curve from top to bottom. The center of gravity cannot be deducted, since we cannot know the actual baseline, so the zero crossing @ the 11th floor is arbitrary.

This is raeally incredibly sad:

- Bjarne has a nutty idea.
- He actually goes to the trouble of trying to prove it by observation.
- His measurements show that he is mistaken.
- He fails to understand the data he has collected and claims they prove him right.

If you read the report, submitted by the certified body who made the measurements for him, you will also see that their conclusion is:

The measurements can be expected to be accurate. :p

These guys are professionals, if there was something sensational in this, you would think they would have reacted in some way. ;)
(In fact, they would probably be busy publishing, right now! :D )

Hans
 
Thanks, glad to see I did not misunderstand something.
I read the first report of measurements and it looked like a professional hired to do the measurements.
And yes if the results were unusual they would have reacted. :)
 
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