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
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
No we would not and will not.
The defnition of center of gravity of a system means that your "RGC" is redundant:
The center of massof a system of particles is defined as the average of their positions,
, weighted by their masses, mi:
For a continuous distribution with mass density
and total mass M, the sum becomes an integral:
If an object has uniform density then its center of mass is the same as the centroid of its shape.
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
Reality Check - How misguided and wrong of you!
You know Bjarne's mind transcends calculus, rendering it unnecessary and, indeed, inappropriate for his calculations.
You know Bjarne's mind transcends calculus, rendering it unnecessary and, indeed, inappropriate for his calculations.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
RGC is not my invention. Maybe it would make sense to you if we call it Common Gravity Center (or what so ever) - But still it is not my invention.
So RC, - I don't know why it not make sense to you, - but it is so much that don't make sense to you, so that this also do not, - is really not surprising.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Bjarne, the Domus vista is about 100m tall, and it has 30 floors. You CAN divide 30 into 100, can't you? Of course, that gives 3.33m, but I happen to know that some of the lower floors are higher, and anyway that is not an important detail.
Yes, it is CRUCIALLY important, right now! If you don't have the value, call the engineer and have him tell you. If you don't publish it up front, you may as well not measure anything more. I tell you this as a friend: Whether you understand why or not, your entire chain if evidence hangs in this!!!
Hans
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
That is for calculating the mass. To calculate the free air gradient, you need the distance between the floors. You need to know the elevation of each floor, and that's where the appr 3m comes in.
Hans
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
"About"
There are several different information at the internet.
Don’t believe in these.
Notice these are INCLUDED the lift tower and the service floor
Notice the 3 lower floors have very different height.
Better used this
So all the floors except the 3 lower and the service floor is as you can read from my measurement 259 +/- 1 cm (few up to 261-262 cm and one or 2 = 257 cm ) + 20 cm concrete floor and maybe + 2cm stone / wear layer. ( I must check agian if the 2 cm stone layer was included or excluded.)
The height between ground floor and first floor I am not exactly sure, there could be insulation etc behind the PVC cover.
No not only, - the floor height you must add 20 cm (= + 600 cm) and maybe also + 2 cm for the wear layer. = total + 60 cm
This make a huge different on the final result
Also notice that the measurement at the ground floor was done by the entrance and hence not the same place like that the vertical aligned measurement, - so better ignore this one, - these is only for "final calibration"
Finally notice . I have still not got the report for the central measurement, - these where + 25 microgal compared to the first report, but more bumpy because we did only measure with 1 gravimeter.
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Not at all. I calculate the values for floor #5, #15, and #25. Whether this is off by a couple of meters is entirely irrelevant. That difference in free air gradient is small (0.3mGal per meter).
Bjaren you are just obfusciating to get around the fact that these numbers
Code:
Floor Hight Reading Free air Difference
5 15m 981,544.2660 981,545.0650 -0.7990
15 45m 981,535.8070 981,535.8070 0.0000
25 75m 981,527.2690 981,526.5490 0.7200do show a negative contribution from the building on the lower floors. That is what you need to refute, not whether floor 15 is 42, 45, or 48 meters above the ground.
I did ignore the top and bottom floors, explicitly to avoid the anomalies that can be expected there. READ what people post, Bjarne. You CAN read, can't you?
[/quote]Finally notice . I have still not got the report for the central measurement, - these where + 25 microgal compared to the first report, but more bumpy because we did only measure with 1 gravimeter.[/quote]
You don't need it. It will just confirm that you are wrong.
Hans
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Then cite where it is defined. It looks exactly like center of gravity of a system of particles to me.
So Bjarne, - it does make sense to me.
That is the definition of the center of gravity that The Man states. The difference he mentions is between the geometrical center and center of gravity.
He gives the example of two Earths with a point of contact where the center of mass is at that point.
More examples
- Two Earths whose surface is separated by X kilometers would have a center of gravity at X/2 kilometers.
- Two Earths whose centers are the same would have a center of gravity at the center.
- Two Earths who overlap will have a center of gravity within the overlap.
A new question for Bjarne about black hole masses
First asked 20 July 2010
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
Hans this is a forum.
I think more than 300 million hyper intelligent cows will read and understand how silly your statement is.
2 meter off = 2 * 0.3048 mGal = 0.6048 mGal
This is a diviation 6 times more than the total weight of the building.
So the building most according to your believe be almost massive, and probaly also made of lead ? or how can you get soooooo huge diviation ?
Don't you think this huge cow alarm bell should had awaken you ?
Exactly like your calculated values ( -0.7990 and + 0.7200) also is at least 1000% off compared to the buildings weight.
RC honestly , - ask the Man.
I believe the needle never gets out of the same crackpot track doesen't matter what I try to tell you.
It is waste of time telling you or Hans even common knowledge, -for example that a cow do not have the same weight as a 77 ton Scania, - or that this have something with gravity to do.
Ohh so you understand it now?
Not long ago you wrote that was redundant::
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6159533&postcount=1462
Good you could make up your mind.
So now you know how to find the gravitional center both of a cow and a herd of cows.
I am surprided.
But you know that center of the cow-herd is not redundant ( just in case you still do not understand,.............. both counts ).
PS !
Muuu
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
I do not need to since The Man never said that there were two kinds of center of gravity.
He stated that there were a geometrical center and a center of gravity. You misread this and proposed your "gravitational inner mass center (COG - as before)" and "relative gravitational center (RGC)".
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Actually they are already well distinguished by the mass distribution one is taking about.
One body.
Two body.
Three (or more) bodies.
No the COG of a single body never changes unless the mass distribution of that body changes. As in adding mass, removing mass or deforming the body in some way.
The center of mass between two bodies will change as the positions of those bodies relative to each other changes. However in the case where one mass is so extremely more massive than the other (as in the case of the earth and a building on or near the Earth) the center of gravity between them is still going to be at about the center of gravity of just the Earth.
Just gravity and logic, as I mentioned before.
What? Again the rocket has its own center of gravity that is always at “the geometrical mass center of that rocket”. If you think you need it to “be recreated” then indeed you are missing quite a lot.
The moon is falling towards the Earth, yet it’s center of gravity moves no closer.
Again this is just the difference between one body or two bodies. The center of gravity in either case it is still the “the geometrical mass center” of that one body or those two bodies.
Nope no “steps” no “unification process, between 2 masses” just a “the geometrical mass center” of that one body or those two bodies. That’s it, if your talking about a different mass distribution then you’re talking about a different center of gravity.
Let me try to explain more succinctly for you. As I said before..
the rocket has its own center of gravity that is always at “the geometrical mass center of that rocket”.
If we now consider the rocket and the Earth, well we have just added the mass and position of the Earth to the mass distribution being considered. As a result the rocket and the Earth have a mutual center of gravity somewhere between the COG of the Earth and the COG of the rocket.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Certainly wasn't my invention.
It made perfect sense to Reality Check as already noted, you're still the only one not getting the point.
Indeed. for some reason Bjarne just doesn’t seem understand that the center of gravity can be the geometrical center, even if two bodies are considered, but that the center of gravity is always the center of mass (for one or more bodies).
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
Yehhh Yehhh Yehhh Yehhhh
Edited by Darat:
Breach of Rule 5 removed.
Like this cow it is not white with black spots, but black with white spots, especialy the stomach have a big white spot.
And many of the white spots is reduntdant ..
Last edited by a moderator:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Yehhh Yehhh Yehhh Yehhhh: Your RGC is redundant.
I guess expecting any coherent answers to these is also"redundant"
.and this is a candidate for the list:
A new question for Bjarne about black hole masses
First asked 20 July 2010
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
About the 2 meters. That would just mean that I calculated the gravity on, say, 6th floor, instead of the 5th. No big deal at this point.
However, if you say the -0.7990 and + 0.7200 are a 1000% off then your measurements are useless, because those figures come directly from your measurements.
Actually, I agree: You measurements are, on the whole, useless, but as I have shown repeatedly, it is possible to derive an indication of the negative slope from the building's gravity.
Now, to avoid making your next measurements equally useless:
Please provide the gravity reading obtained at the base of the empty tank.
Hans
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
24 points in the list so far plus three questions exploring Bjarne's ignorance that equations involving physical quantities have to preserve the units of measurement.
To this add:
That question is based on this
It suggests that he thinks that stars fall past the event horizon and then are ejected somehow. This is of course impossible in general relativity (and in Newtonian gravity).
Thus I will initially ask this question here in case he has a simple answer. If not then it needs to be a separate question as a candidate for the list.
First asked 27 July 2010
Bjarne,
What exactly do you mean by
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
24 points in the list so far plus three questions exploring Bjarne's ignorance that equations involving physical quantities have to preserve the units of measurement.
To this add:
25. A new question for Bjarne about black hole masses
First asked 20 July 2010
He does not believe that "there is a lot of matter inside a black hole". I pointed out that the masses of black holes are actually measured and these masses range from a few to millions of solar masses. That is a lot of matter
!
ETAFirst asked 20 July 2010
He does not believe that "there is a lot of matter inside a black hole". I pointed out that the masses of black holes are actually measured and these masses range from a few to millions of solar masses. That is a lot of matter
!
That question is based on this
The second sentence is strange (energy never disappears) and what does he think this has to do with the jet from the accretion disk outside the black hole?
It suggests that he thinks that stars fall past the event horizon and then are ejected somehow. This is of course impossible in general relativity (and in Newtonian gravity).
Thus I will initially ask this question here in case he has a simple answer. If not then it needs to be a separate question as a candidate for the list.
First asked 27 July 2010
Bjarne,
What exactly do you mean by
Astronomers believe that
- Stars do get torn apart, merge with the accretion disk and fall past the event horizon ("into a black hole").
- Jets are not emitted from inside the the black hole. They are emitted from the accretion disk.
Last edited:
- Status