Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

MRC_Hans · Aug 30, 2010

Bjarne said:
A cow in a elevator moving faster upwards as 10m/s² have no weight. - Measure from the ground it is a complete low pressure cow.

If it only moves half so fast upwards the cow low pressure would only be 50%.

That is total nonsense. You are off into fantasy land. And 10m/s² is not a speed.

A load in an elevator weighs the same regardless of speed. :nope:

Hans

Bjarne · Aug 30, 2010

Actually, it's weight would be doubled. I think you mean moving down at 10m/s2

Øhh, I fotgot , you must deduct the Earth ADG.
10m/s² upwards and 10m/s² downwards so the result is =, the cow is floating (like the cow heavy clouds).

Bjarne, stop this. You have no idea about this.

Where is the evidence ?
Imaging that it was me that serious would claim that the breath from a cow could start a hurricane.
You guys would all be 110% sure that I was 200% nuts.
BUT when it comes from the authorities’ - people east whatever they serve.

We don’t know what starts the rotation of a hurricane; therefore it “must” be a coincident.

This is not knowledge, it is not science, it is not objective observation, - but rather desperate speculative fumbling for something to prevent us to look too stupid.

Paul · Aug 30, 2010

Bjarne said:
and cow-farts for being big parts of the cause of clime changing’s

Wrong end of the cow.

Reality Check · Aug 30, 2010

Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked

Bjarne said:
This is only desperate speculation, never shown.

That is your desperate ignorance of the science, never to be undone by actually learning about things.

Bjarne said:
Misunderstood magnitude of central gravity ...usual cow logic rant...

This "central gravity" is a fantasy for several reasons.

It is a Not Even An Idea
An idea should be stated in a clear enough way so that other people can understand it, understand how predictions from it are derived and make their own predictions from it.
This is not true of "central gravity". Your explanation of it is pitiful - space stretching? or dancing the fandango? Your predictions from it have no connection to "central gravity" except your assertion that they have a connection. That makes the idea and predictions all inside your head, i.e. a fantasy that generates delusions (the delusional aspects are explained below).

Experimentally Debunked 1
Your "central gravity" idea lead to you asserting that the ADG inside a sphere is constant. That is a delusion rather than an prediction because you have ignored the experimental evidence that the prediction is wrong since 2 November 2009 !
Real, tested science (Newtons law of gravity) predicts a varying ADG inside a sphere. The actual measured ADG inside a sphere varies as predicted:

Reality Check said:
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, 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 radius above the core is gr/r_E + GM_c/r^2

where

r is the distance above the core (e.g 3487 kilometers).

r_E is the radius of the Earth.

g is the acceleration of gravity at the surface of the Earth.

M_c 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 !

(emphasis added)

Experimentally Debunked (By Bjarne!) 2

The Domus Vista measurements that you paid have done are also interesting. They definitely show that "central gravity" is a fantasy. It is either

useless (cannot predict the ADG where the measurements were done - in a stairwell at the side of the building) or
wrong because the measurements show a varying ADG due to the building as has been pointed out to you several times.

Fantasy from the Debunked Idea
Another idiocy from that "central gravity" fantasy is that the ADG at the center of a sphere is zero. Thus you probably have the rather idiotic idea that the ADG inside a sphere is zero. That is so obviously dumb - people do not float in mid air in basements, subways, mines, submarines, etc.
Alternately you may have the even more idiotic idea to make "central gravity" into even more of a fantasy by pulling another unsupported assertion out of your pet cow's bottom, e.g. that the ADG is constant and suddenly changes to zero at the center.

Basic Physics Violated By the Debunked Idea

The latest "central gravity" delusion is you asserting that the ADG exerted by a body attached to another body is 50% of the expected value. You are even going to was your money testing this between a silo and the Earth. This is a delusion because

You pulled the number 50% out of your pet cow's bottom.
Atoms do not do not have any idea that the body they are in is attached or not to another body.
The gravitational force between atoms does not depend on the connectivity.
Add up the forces and the total force between the bodies does not depend on the connectivity of the bodies.
Atoms are not your pet cow!
It violates a little thing called the conservation of energy by arbitrarily having the gravitational potential energy of the unattached object halve when it becomes attached. Think of lowering your silo onto the ground using a really, really big helicopter.

To Be Experimentally Debunked By Bjarne Again?
It seems that you have hired a hopefully competent person to do the work that you are incapable of doing, i.e. calculate the Newtonian ADG from the filled silo at an specified point under it. This means that they should get to within a reasonable % of the Newtonian value. That in turns means that you will once again disprove "central gravity" with your own money :jaw-dropp

!
I do have an prediction in regard to this:

If the result is 49% of the expected value you will change your asserions to 49%.
If the result is 99% of the expected value you will change your asserions to 99%.
That would be an admission that your idea is even more of a useless fantasy.

In conclusion

Every time that you make an unsupported assertion about "central gravity" (like your current fantasy about hurricanes) you make "central gravity" even more idiotic because one or more of the following is true

The connection between the debunked "central gravity" and your assertion is only in your head. All that you can do draw cartoons about the fantasy.
The assertion is ruled out by simple physics.
The assertion is ruled out by experimental evidence.
The assertion is ruled out by experimental evidence that you pay for! (or "central gravity" is shown to be useless).

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)

MRC_Hans · Aug 30, 2010

Bjarne said:
Øhh, I fotgot , you must deduct the Earth ADG.
10m/s² upwards and 10m/s² downwards so the result is =, the cow is floating (like the cow heavy clouds).

Bjarne, what are you trying to claim? There is only one condition where a cow is floating inside an elevator: And that is if the elevator is accelerating at ~10m/s² downwards. That is called free fall. Of course, sooner or later, the elevator will reach the ground floor. :eye-poppi

Where is the evidence ?
Imaging that it was me that serious would claim that the breath from a cow could start a hurricane.

Nobody has claimed that the breath from a cow could start a hurricane. Now, lay off this nonsense. It is irrelevant.

We don’t know what starts the rotation of a hurricane; therefore it “must” be a coincident.

Yes, we do know. The Coriolis effect.

Hans

Bjarne · Aug 30, 2010

Approximately 60% of Atlantic tropical cyclones originate from tropical waves, while approximately 85% of intense Atlantic hurricanes (Category 3 and greater) develop from tropical waves.

Where are the evidence
Amen

wollery · Aug 30, 2010

Bjarne said:
Øhh, I fotgot , you must deduct the Earth ADG.
10m/s² upwards and 10m/s² downwards so the result is =, the cow is floating (like the cow heavy clouds).

No, the cow is falling, at free fall, and will very soon become steak tartare.

MRC_Hans · Aug 30, 2010

wollery said:
No, the cow is falling, at free fall, and will very soon become steak tartare.

But then, it keeps pace with Bjarnes' arguments which also drop like stones and are shredded with evey post.

Funny thing is that it seems Bjarne thinks he is conducting a discussion.

Hans

phunk · Aug 30, 2010

phunk said:
Why would mass be attracted towards a lower density area?

Sorry let me be more clear.

Why would mass be gravitationally attracted towards a lower density area?

MRC_Hans · Aug 30, 2010

Bjarne said:
Where are the evidence
Amen

YOU are asking for evidence?

... Good joke, that.

You are the one with the extraordinary claims, here. Call me when you have some evidence of your own.

Hans

Bjarne · Aug 30, 2010

Why would mass be gravitationally attracted towards a lower density area?

This is because Hans believes Cows have A LOT of HOT air in there stomachs

Call me when you have some evidence of your own.

What is your phonenumber ?

phunk · Aug 30, 2010

Bjarne said:
This is because Hans believes Cows have A LOT of HOT air in there stomachs

I didn't realize someone else's beliefs could cause gravitation.

I was asking YOU why YOU think that a low pressure system would gravitationally attract the surrounding air/clouds/whatever.

MRC_Hans · Aug 30, 2010

Bjarne said:
This is because Hans believes Cows have A LOT of HOT air in there stomachs

What is your phonenumber ?

Meltdown: Bjarne is left with lies and nonsense.

Ignore countdown: 1

Hans

Bjarne · Aug 30, 2010

I was asking YOU why YOU think that a low pressure system would gravitationally attract the surrounding air/clouds/whatever

Tell me what is the headline in this article > http://www.jimloy.com/physics/clouds.htm
What is the first line in this article?
Do you understand English:

> > Turbulence and upward moving air currents can keep them up for quite a while.

Now imaging that the turbulence is a bit stronger one day, - do you understand that turbulence and upward moving air currents also can keep even cows up for a while.

So turbulence keeps droplets (clouds) and sometimes cows up in the sky.

This is how “clouds” (and the upwards wind related to clouds) carries water (mass).

And this is why clouds don’t fall to the ground.

Without the upwards moving wind they would fall to the ground.

If you do not understand this, - OK then bye bye.

Mister Earl · Aug 30, 2010

Bjarne, how would local gravity overcome the gravity influence of the Earth? Given that any clouds are necessarily within the Earth's Roche limit, how can local gravity hold them together? Additionally, seeing as the clouds are in a low pressure zone, why would higher local gravity not make the low pressure zone a high pressure zone?

Reality Check · Aug 30, 2010

Bjarne said:
Where are the evidence
Amen

Where are the evidence that you can do something as simple as follow a link? Or read the citations in the link.
Start with: Dunn, G. E., 1940: "Cyclogenesis in the tropical Atlantic" Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 21, pp.215-229

phunk · Aug 30, 2010

Bjarne said:
Tell me what is the headline in this article > http://www.jimloy.com/physics/clouds.htm
What is the first line in this article?
Do you understand English:

> > Turbulence and upward moving air currents can keep them up for quite a while.

Now imaging that the turbulence is a bit stronger one day, - do you understand that turbulence and upward moving air currents also can keep even cows up for a while.

So turbulence keeps droplets (clouds) and sometimes cows up in the sky.

This is how “clouds” (and the upwards wind related to clouds) carries water (mass).

And this is why clouds don’t fall to the ground.

Without the upwards moving wind they would fall to the ground.

If you do not understand this, - OK then bye bye.

Bjarne, I'm talking about your picture here:

In this picture, the gravitational attraction is horizontal, not vertical. I'm not asking what keeps the clouds up, I'm asking you why you expect clouds to attract each other gravitationally.

Bjarne · Aug 30, 2010

Where are the evidence that you can do something as simple as follow a link? Or read the citations in the link.
Start with: Dunn, G. E., 1940: "Cyclogenesis in the tropical Atlantic" Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 21, pp.215-229

There are no evidence
Nothing starts with ”dunn”
Scientific evidence must be observable measure evidence, and not a dream of dust devil and cow breath.

Don’t tell me anyone have follow a dust devil or a cow breath and proven it was ending up as a low pressure. RC you are dreaming, - WAKE UP.

Bjarne, how would local gravity overcome the gravity influence of the Earth?

If you mean local gravity of a thunder cloud system?
It doesn’t "overcome" gravity of the Earth. - The Earth gravity is off course still there.

This is why I predict that above the eye of a hurricane, you’ll (if technical possible) be surprised how large a positive gravity anomaly you can measure here.

Under the eye, you can measure a negative anomaly, BUT it is impossible to distinguee due to up-winds and rising vapour are much stronger factors.

It is the exactly same principle in even a little cloud; - this is why you sometimes see the round holes in the clouds.

This is not a new scientific religion but just few of many a consequences, (basic - easy to prove) that follows when central gravity is misunderstood.

If ADG is either stable or increasing towards the center of a extended mass, this will start rotation.

Another consequences of the theory is that seen from a overall gravity perspective: - a cloud is not only million separated small pieces that almost not affect each other, but rather a coherent “space vacuum” sucking space also from the center of the extended mass, - and like that causing a effect that to a certain degree gives a cloud system a property like was it “almost” a solid disk.

This makes it possible for the Coriolis to rotate the whole cloud/system.

Given that any clouds are necessarily within the Earth's Roche limit, how can local gravity hold them together?

I don’t understand “Roche”
Anyway, remember the clouds /wind / droplets are due to upwards moving winds easy to affect.

seeing as the clouds are in a low pressure zone, why would higher local gravity not make the low pressure zone a high pressure zone?

High pressure means that air is falling down. It is the opposite.

Take a look at this.
http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/elements/cloudfloat.htm

In this picture, the gravitational attraction is horizontal, not vertical. I'm not asking what keeps the clouds up, I'm asking you why you expect clouds to attract each other gravitationally.

Both happen.
A big heavy (more or less united) cloud system gets a weak solid-disk property.

This is enought for Coriolis, to be able to start rotation.

Thunder-clouds in the periphery contributes to strengthen the global gravitionel center. But between two big “extended bodies” you’ll also have stronger mass attraction.

I mean you can image matter pulls a: - space vacuum, - - stretching the space density. Therefore it is all a competition to get space.

Imaging 100 people in a very small room, and only a few small open windows in the periphery.
When all inhale at the same time you will have a weak vacuum - also pulling air from the other rooms (full of air consuming people)

In the same way, gravity is always a unity, and always trying to connect /glue to other space vacuums.

Space can “give” from it density, both from the direction of infinity, but also from the direction of the center of the mass..

Paul · Aug 30, 2010

Bjarne said:
This is why I predict that above the eye of a hurricane, you’ll (if technical possible) be surprised how large a positive gravity anomaly you can measure here.