Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.
- Thread starter Bjarne
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dark energy
- Status
Doesn't your hypothesis differ to Newtonian gravity only inside a mass? If so, surely measuring on the roof of one of these silos should be the same whichever is correct.
And can you show how you arrived at the 267μGal and 67μGal predictions, please?
And can you show how you arrived at the 267μGal and 67μGal predictions, please?
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
You're not going to let Cosmological play his freshman year?
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
Yes...
Don't be so sure, and try you too to calculate what you expect.
According to the prevailing dying thesis, the gravitational center is in the physical center (10 meter from the top) ...
But according to the experience from the previous measurement at DOMUS VISTA we have found that the center rather seems to e at ground floor.
Hence you'll get the double radius, and since you must divide with r2 - you'll off course only get 25% of the expected value, - also at the roof.
I would appreciate if so many as possible would calculate and predict the expected ADG (middle) of the roof of each of the containers. a.) when one container is full (4.000.000 KG) and b.) when all is full 16.000.000 KG (diameter and height is both 20 metre)
Last edited:
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
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
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
plus
- 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.
[*]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. - 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!
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Science does not care what your religious beliefs are or unsupported assertions about science are. It also does not care about your calling it crap.
25) The evidence is that dynamo theory works. That is what science is about - matching how the universe works.
26) The evidence is that dynamo theory works.
27) Candiates for dark galaxies have been detected.
28) Brane theory is currently just that - a theory.
30) The gravitation (graviton?) or higgs crap does not believe in you either
.31) The physical evidence is that cosmological redshift is due to the universe expanding. It might also be explained if you add in an arbitary time change to the universe but see Occam's razor.
32) No real evidence for parallel Universes - just that the multi-world QM interpretation works just as good as the usual interpretation.
33) I guess this is string theory. Another developing area of theory.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Bjarne - Please cite the equations you used for the silo calculations
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.
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.
So if you measure 66 or 68 μGal then both theories according to your calcualtions are wrong.
Will you then throw away your theory?
P.S. Once again I note that you are not following basic science and quoting errors for your numbers.
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.
So if you measure 66 or 68 μGal then both theories according to your calcualtions are wrong.
Will you then throw away your theory?
No thanks. We all know what a silo looks like.
P.S. Once again I note that you are not following basic science and quoting errors for your numbers.
Last edited:
Ok, so you've changed your theory. Fair enough, I remember we came to that conclusion a few pages back anyway.
Right, well then. In that case...where's the bottom of the silo, if it's on its own in space? Why should the gravitational centre in your idea favour one direction over any other, breaking the symmetry?
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Point 26 had part of the answer to point 25.Science does not care what your religious beliefs are or unsupported assertions about science are. It also does not care about your calling it crap.
25) The evidence is that dynamo theory works. That is what science is about - matching how the universe works.
26) The evidence is thatdynamo theory"convection crap" works.
27) Candiates for dark galaxies have been detected.
28) Brane theory is currently just that - a theory.
30) The gravitation (graviton?) or higgs crap does not believe in you either
31) The physical evidence is that cosmological redshift is due to the universe expanding. It might also be explained if you add in an arbitary time change to the universe but see Occam's razor.
32) No real evidence for parallel Universes - just that the multi-world QM interpretation works just as good as the usual interpretation.
33) I guess this is string theory. Another developing area of theory.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Please submit a protocol. If you don't know how to write one, have the DTU guys do it for you. Remember to include the math, so we won't have another futile discussion of how to calulate stuff.
Hans
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Show your exact calculations, so we don't have to discuss the methods afterwards.
Incorrect. The gravitational center is the point where masses around it equal out. If the object has a uniform mass distribution, that point will coincide with the geometrical center.
Wrong: You cannot deduce that from your Domus Vista data (as I have explained a dozen times, now).
The interaction between the containers will be limited. Perhaps up to 25% for adjacent containers.
Do you know the mass of the empty container? - I thought not.
Hans
Last edited:
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
I am sure you don’t know how to calculate it.
+
RC and Hans
Here you have a terrific change to prove how clever you are.
You know even a cow can blab la bal how stupid you are, but when the cow cannot do better itself, beforehand, - I believe it have no right afterwards to claim how correct and smart it was. – So RC here is a real change to demonstrate WHAT YOU ARE MADE OF.
But I am 9999999999999345612389623592346598235% sure you will not, because this would completely demonstrate that you both would LOSE.
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.
The common denominator is: The place central space is strongest / equally possible encircled by matter. As you easy can see, the Earth is part of such encirclement.
Even though we this time have a much more compact mass, the central encircled place of space, - still is at the ground floor.
There is of course more to consider: - For example:
- Where would the gravitational center be, - when the Moon was laying on the Earth?
- What if the containers were made of lead?
I am not saying that we will not see more surprised.
My mission is to think, assume, measure, understand, come to conclusions, predict,, and prove, - not to create new scientific-religions, - we already have enough.
Last edited:
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
Bjarne - I don't care enough about what you're spouting to read about what you're doing, let alone figure out how to calculate it.
I do know that I'd have a better chance of handling the math than you would, since you seem to know absolutely no math whatsoever.
I do know that I'd have a better chance of handling the math than you would, since you seem to know absolutely no math whatsoever.
phunk
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
Not necessarily. For example, if the contents of the container are compressible, it will be denser at the bottom than the top, and the center of mass won't be the gemoetric center.. Or if the container has thicker walls at the bottom. Or if "full" doesn't mean "all the way to the ceiling". Etc.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
If you’re claiming your "theory" is empty and just sucks, well, I'm inclined to agree.
So the building clogs up your “space vacuum theory”? I think you underestimate just how much your “theory” actually sucks.
Well a “central space vacuum” would seem to help you focus all of your sucking to one inevitable location, while you suck as much as you can wherever you can.
OK, but evidently you just suck at it.
Well you’ve got that one down pat.
Based on what, your pervious assumptions?
Evidently not.
You see, predetermined conclusions, like yours, are just assumptions that you endeavor to maintain.
Predict what? That you will arrive at your predetermined conclusions by your assumptions? That is not a prediction, but just an inclination.
Prove what? That you will retain your predetermined conclusions and your assumptions? We require no poof of that. Proof to the contrary is something I, and I’m sure others, would be quite pleased to find from you.
Then why have you just created your own?
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Nope, no problem here, I have long accepted the fact that I suck in a lot of ways and at a lot of things. The difference is that I don’t just claim that sucking to be the basis of some new revolutionary “theory”.
Why should it? It obviously hasn’t helped you.
You don’t have to be sorry, that you simply can not help yourself or anyone else with this nonsense of yours is pretty sorry, but again you don’t have to be sorry (so I guess you just must enjoy it).
Why, were you looking for a nomination instead of a quote?
Keep looking.
- Status