Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Any response to this Bjarne?

Reality Check said:

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!

(emphasis added)
The continued ignorance of this is definitely worthy of the list:

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

Click to expand...

tusenfem said:

Well, this danish cow is really senile if (s)he gets this result, the 20 is in cm, thus your answer has to be divided by 100.
I have no idea what the 70 is and I have no idea why 31 does not appear in the calculation of the mass.

You are one senile old cow, Bjarne.

Click to expand...

To be fair: I think the 70 x 20 is a calculation of the area of each floor. And the 6,2 is the combined thickness of 31 floors of 0,2m in thickness.

Thus (for the first time) Bjarne gets both calculation AND units right.

70m x 20m x (31 x 0,2m) is indeed 8620m3.

ETA: Of course the subsequent weight-calculation completely and erroneously ignores any reinforcements embedded in the concrete.

erlando said:

ETA: Of course the subsequent weight-calculation completely and erroneously ignores any reinforcements embedded in the concrete.

Click to expand...

It also appears to ignore the walls; or is there something about them I don't know?

Aitch said:

It also appears to ignore the walls; or is there something about them I don't know?

Click to expand...

And foundation. And pillars. And stairwells. And elevators. Generally anything giving the building it's total mass other than the floors. This probably constitutes around 50% of the total mass.

erlando said:

ETA: Of course the subsequent weight-calculation completely and erroneously ignores any reinforcements embedded in the concrete.

Click to expand...

It also ignores significant holes that would be left for things like elevator shafts and stairwells. And the mass of the elevator equipment and the stairs; I doubt they perfectly cancel out the missing mass from the holes.

1.

That is idiotic. The foundation is under the building - it is not the bottom floor. Depending on many factors they can be as much as a third of the weight of a building AFAIK.

Click to expand...

2.

Have completely ignored the fact that buildings have foundations just because you want to.

Click to expand...

Reply 1+2
Even though there is a heavy foundation, only the density difference(between the concrete and sand/soil) - counts.
I Hope you do understand that the mass difference is important, - if it is concrete / contra air, or concrete contra compressed soil/sand is important.

So in the end of the day the foundation do really not count so much, than you immediate would believe,- it can in no way “compete” with the building, since the density/contrast is so small.

Ohh no: You are still ignorant of the basic physics of stating estimates with errors. The estimate is the mass of the building.

Click to expand...

Honestly it is not much wrong, 35.000.000 KG +/- the weight of few cows.

Have not given any evidence that the floors are solid concrete slabs.
Do they contain reinforcing?
Do they have flat lower surfaces (I have seen some construction methods that have corrugated surfaces.

Click to expand...

Concrete + steel, and flat, - simple and nothing more than this. On the top there is a layer of pressed small stone cover. (+2 cm)

Due to the steel the building could be a little more heavy.
I have calculated with 2300 kg/m³ - this is only for concrete.

Professor RC, we are discussion peanuts now.
Times have come to go and measure.
DEMAND the authoritarian everywhere do so. This is the only passable road. So get out of that bunker now. The war is over. (you have lost) .

Bjarne said:

DEMAND the authoritarian everywhere do so. This is the only passable road. So get out of that bunker now. The war is over. (you have lost) .

Click to expand...

GPS works, you have lost, and it wasn't a close war.

Paul

Bjarne, to me, a guy who has been mostly just watching quietly, it appears to me that you're merely struggling. You're thrashing about blindingly, praying for a hit. Any hit anywhere.

I do not see you getting any.

Mister Earl said:

Bjarne, to me, a guy who has been mostly just watching quietly, it appears to me that you're merely struggling. You're thrashing about blindingly, praying for a hit. Any hit anywhere.
I do not see you getting any.

Click to expand...

I do not absolutely need any help from others, - to hit the target (again).
I had have a demolishing direct hit already.

It would be good if others would be a little more objective and understand that according to the scientific methods, - speculation cannot stand alone, - and must be accomplished by objective measurement.
It is a duty of a true scientist to do so, and also to think so, as well as to accept the objective result, - and especially it is a duty of the authoritarian, - also doesn’t matter how strong the fanatic creeds, the logic, or the arrogant laughter seems to be.

Alone I can and will hit again, and next time harder..

I am also not "struggling", with anything, - except to test how difficult it is to get people to understand something that I believe is so very simple, naturally, logical and coherent, and now also objective since it is proven.

Really, I am very surprised; - and honestly, - I cannot believe it is so difficult to understand how people can close their mind so much.
It must be the prevailing creed that must have damage much more than I ever could imaging was possible.

Max Planck had have same kind of experience I believe, speaking a great true, - for completely deaf ears.
I still can't believe it, - but science can in many ways be fully comparable to fanatic, blind orthodox religion, even though all what people really have; is a old narrow-minded speculative thesis, and now also a clear objective measureable contradiction, - there seems to be no return.

We cannot blame people for 300 years ago, that they accepted central gravity the way they did, but we have the possibility, and much more knowledge, - easy and cheap to reach a much larger perspective of the strange nature of gravity, - if we want.

Bjarne - From what I can tell, nearly everything you have written in posts is wrong.

Many people have told you this, but you stubbornly persist in your erroneous beliefs.

Go ahead and waste your life on this garbage if you wish to. Your work will come to nothing except a trail of humorous posts on cows.

We tried and failed to wake you up to reality.

How sad.

We tried and failed to wake you up to reality.

Click to expand...

What reality ?

Bjarne said:

What reality ?

Click to expand...

Perhaps that is at the root of your problem.

Bjarne
Many scientist have come to the same conclusion, this is also the essence of famous equation E=Mc2 (Matter is only energy).
RC
He thinks that it means that matter is energy. It actually means that mass (not matter) content and energy content of an object are equivalent

Click to expand...

YES this is true I believe so proffessor RC, - and I belive MANY does

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6cbaMj883c

I really hope you one day will get out of your arrogant list bunker-factory RC. - It must be very dark where you are.
I didn’t know a man could be so ignorant after 17 years at a university, - unbelievable..

Bjarne said:

YES this is true I believe so proffessor RC, - and I belive MANY does

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6cbaMj883c

I really hope you one day will get out of your arrogant list bunker-factory RC. - It must be very dark where you are.
I didn’t know a man could be so ignorant after 17 years at a university, - unbelievable..

Click to expand...

You and the "I belive MANY does" are wrong. But then the BBC video also says you are wrong as a quick transcirpt shows

• Energy and mass are inextricably linked.​
• Dr Brian Cox:
  "Basically energy and mass are 2 sides of the same coin. They are basically the same thing. They are interchangable".​
• Dr Alvaro de Rujula mentions one side of the coin - "mass is just a form of energy".
  Though he was incorrect when he stated that there was no precedent for the idea. It has been around since Newton. But Einstein was the first to derive a specific equation stating the equivalence.​
• The narrator then states that "it works both ways" and we get into particle physics.​

• E=mc^2 is treating mass as energy.​
• m=E/c^2 is treating energy as mass.​
• The two treatements are the same (equivalent, interchangable, two sides of the same coin, etc.).​

I really hope you one day will get out of your arrogant list bunker-factory Bjarne. - It must be very dark where you are.
I didn’t know a man could be so ignorant after no years at a university, - unbelievable..!

It makes me think that you must have not even attended high school (or have had a terrible accident erasing all memory of your high school science) as shown by:

Bjarne
Many scientist have come to the same conclusion, this is also the essence of famous equation E=Mc2 (Matter is only energy).
RC
He thinks that it means that matter is energy. It actually means that mass (not matter) content and energy content of an object are equivalent
RC Wrote

Reality Check said:

You and the "I belive MANY does" are wrong. But then the BBC video also says you are wrong as a quick transcirpt shows

• Energy and mass are inextricably linked.​
• Dr Brian Cox:
  "Basically energy and mass are 2 sides of the same coin. They are basically the same thing. They are interchangable".​
• Dr Alvaro de Rujula mentions one side of the coin - "mass is just a form of energy".
  Though he was incorrect when he stated that there was no precedent for the idea. It has been around since Newton. But Einstein was the first to derive a specific equation stating the equivalence.​
• The narrator then states that "it works both ways" and we get into particle physics.​

Epic Fail yet again, Bjarne!​

Some simple English for you, Bjarne: Mass–energy equivalence (E=mc^2) means that the mass and energy are equivalent. Equivalent means that you can treat one as the other or the other way around. Thus​

• E=mc^2 is treating mass as energy.​
• m=E/c^2 is treating energy as mass.​
• The two treatements are the same (equivalent, interchangable, two sides of the same coin, etc.).​

I really hope you one day will get out of your arrogant list bunker-factory Bjarne. - It must be very dark where you are.
I didn’t know a man could be so ignorant after no years at a university, - unbelievable..!

It makes me think that you must have not even attended high school (or have had a terrible accident erasing all memory of your high school science) as shown by:

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
Yet another fundemantally flawed idea from Bjarne
​

Click to expand...

Mass / Matter = Energy, E=mc²Doesn’t matter how much RC tries to deny / “prove” the opposite.

I believe that any cow on this planet know that Mass/matter= energy or that 3 USD = 1 Hamburger.
The same cows also know that the taste of 3 USD and 1 Hamburger is different. - But in the end of the day both the hamburger and the USD is only energy.
But off course at the Universities such expression is a bit more turbo complicated, - I mean such places many people maufacturer a bit more advances hamburger blap la nlap blap bla la blap blap science fiction.
But down on the Earth (at least) matter = energy.

Watch this short youtube video >>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6cbaMj883c

So, as we see matter = Energy.

So....RC has in his bunker a arrogant list factory, as I think we all have discovered.
From this bunker he creates his own reality, - and now he accused me for being stupid because I do not accept it.
I can off course not be responsible for RC's distorted reality.

Notice that RC participate in a discussion about gravity, without to know what a Gal. mGal or MicroGal is.

Hence he also seems to believe that the building is Denmark (we all talk about) is almost massive.

It can be compared to a man that participating in a discussion about cows, - and how to understand the milk production, - and he believe that a cow can give 30000 liter milk per day.
..

Well it is OK for me that RC lives in his own reality and not believe in Gal or matter = energy, ..

But the stupid thing is the list factoy and he tries prove how stupid others are (that don't agree with RC's reality factory) .

RC ....advice
Try first to test how stupid you self is RC, - before you put so much energy in demonstrating how stupid I am.

I too can make a looongggg list to and show people how stupid you is.
But I am not at the same arrogant and ignorant “level” like you.
For example just look at your last post:

1. Belive
2. transcirpt
3. interchangable
4. fundemantally
5. treatements

Have you ever serious considered to get some of your university fee back, or to continue 17 years more ?

My list about you cold properly show 126544 big and small errors.
65433 I will fabricate myself, - so like we all can see you do, - for example by denying that matter = energy. -At least I will achieve to confuse the stupid’s.
The rest of the list would be really errors, such as: Gal microGal mGal. etc...etc...etc..etc..etc...etc...etc..etc..etc...etc...etc..etc..etc...etc...etc..etc..etc...etc...etc..etc..etc...etc...etc..etc..

But my good friend RC, why should I systematically humiliate you, the last post I believe is enough to everybody can see that you can handles this yourself.

I think all here at the forum know that even though a hamburger not taste of 3 USD, then it is anyway energy.
Muuuu

Bjarne said:

Bjarne
Mass / Matter = Energy, E=mc2
Doesn’t matter how much RC tries to deny / “prove” the opposite.
...snipped usual cow logic gibberishh...

Click to expand...

Still wrong and still an Epic Fail yet again, Bjarne!

Some simple English for you, Bjarne: Mass–energy equivalence (E=mc^2) means that the mass and energy are equivalent. Equivalent means that you can treat one as the other or the other way around.

That means that

• Mass / Matter = Energy, E=mc2
• and Energy = Mass / Matter, E=mc2

double

Mass / Matter = Energy, E=mc2

Click to expand...

Finally RC got the point
Finally he understood that "=" mean > is / are
Finally he understood that matter / mass = energy
Finally he understood the meaning of E=mc²

Bjarne needs to tell us what the crap is
Is the crap that there is any at all mass inside a black hole?
Is the crap that there is mass and that it is invisble?
Is the crap that there is invisible mass and that it is huge?
or what else is the crap?

Click to expand...

It is crap if you believe you have been there.
It is also crap if you believe you know anything of what is inside a black hole , so long you don't know don't know what is causing a black hole.
And it is crap if you belive you know anything of the cause so long you don’t know why the magnitude of a black hole is proportional with a mass of a galaxy.

And should all this not be crap RC, - then enlighten us, - how can your big speculative mass inside the black hole KNOW how much mass there is in the galaxy where that black hole is.

Let us say you are blind and deaf, and it is a scientifically fact that you stomach grows completely proportional with Wellington. How on Earth can you explain that?
Is it because Wellington is inside your stomach?
Or how is this connected.

Let us now say this not only happen with you or your family, but everyone.
So tell me now how can cities growing size, and peoples growing stomach be connected sir?

I think you need 117 years more at the University to solve this mathematical, don't you think SIR ?

Ahh you can off course close you eyes and ears and ignore fact and continue to bla la labla bla all what you "know" - right

doble?

Bjarne said:

Finally RC got the point
Finally he understood that "=" mean > is / are
Finally he understood that matter / mass = energy
Finally he understood the meaning of E=mc²"

Click to expand...

Bjarne does his usual trick of ignorance:
I have always understood that "=" mean equals.
I have always understood that matter / mass = energy AND that energy = matter /mass.
I have always understood the meaning of E=mc².

You are the ignorant one:

• 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.