Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

What about satellites in polar orbits? What keeps them from decelerating due to your hypothetical RAM?

Ulysses was such a "satellite" - orbiting around / above the poles of the Sun and hence affected by MUCH faster speed as a satellite around the Earth, and hence effected by much stronger RAM, and still the effect is almost insignificant after a decade, - BUT strong enough to that there where reasonable doubt. - Read this >>>

The JPL team pointed to data from the Ulysses and Galileo spacecraft which suggest a similar effect may be at work on these probes. However, it has been hard to draw firm conclusions in the case of Ulysses and Galileo partly because they have not travelled as far from the Sun as have Pioneers 10 and 11.
Sourse http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo...r_anomaly.html

We are talking about really small effect - especially when objects are in orbit, - simply because small period of acc, is NOT the same as constant acc.... - BUT it is still there....

The best experiment is to send probes out of the solar system, these will decelerate constant, - (if not space wind from the gravity assist cancel our / counteract this)
So the best possible test scene is long away from everything, - and this is where the Pioneer probes was proving: - RAM is a fact.

 

[Reality Check]

I can see you could not answer my question.
Don't worry you are still my best friend.

The answer is - it cannot be detemined withouth measuring the baseline ADG (X below).
Let us start by stating the basics for the ignorant yet again:

The simple fact is that the free airgradient (FAG)is a relative measurement that adjusts the local value of the ADG.
So if you have a ground measurement of X then the free airADG iabove the ground is X - (FAG * height).
Now add a building and measure the ADG in it. To get the ADG of the building, you have to subtract the free air ADG from the measurements (M), i.e. M - X - (FAG * height).

Thus given:

X = the ADG without the building
M = the ADG measured on a floor of the building
FAG = the free air gradient, average value = 0.3086 milligals per meter.
height = the height of a floor above the ground
​

The building ADG is

M - X - (FAG * height)
​

Let us start at step 1: What is X, Bjarne?
I can see you could not answer my question.
Don't worry you are still my best friend.

OK RC let is jump to step 2

How much do you expect ADG to decrease the first 5 meter (meter per meter) above the surface of the Earth, there where you are now? --- (FAG)

Please mention the decrease : from XXXX to XXXX

I mean under normal condition in NZ, or a different place...

Step 2
Simple: I measure the ADG here in NZ as X. Thus the ADG decrease for 5 metres is above the surface of the Earth from X to X- (FAG * 5 meters). Or meter per meter

• X- (FAG * 0 meters) at 0 meters.
• X- (FAG * 1 meters) at 1 meters.
• X- (FAG * 2 meters) at 2 meters.
• X- (FAG * 3 meters) at 3 meters.
• X- (FAG * 4 meters) at 4 meters.
• X- (FAG * 5 meters) at 5 meters.

Even your pet cow can understand this.

 

[Bjarne]

Double

 

[Paulhoff]

The answer is - it cannot be detemined withouth measuring the baseline ADG (X below).
Let us start by stating the basics for the ignorant yet again:

The simple fact is that the free airgradient (FAG)is a relative measurement that adjusts the local value of the ADG.
So if you have a ground measurement of X then the free airADG iabove the ground is X - (FAG * height).
Now add a building and measure the ADG in it. To get the ADG of the building, you have to subtract the free air ADG from the measurements (M), i.e. M - X - (FAG * height).

Thus given:

X = the ADG without the building
M = the ADG measured on a floor of the building
FAG = the free air gradient, average value = 0.3086 milligals per meter.
height = the height of a floor above the ground
​

The building ADG is

M - X - (FAG * height)
​

Let us start at step 1: What is X, Bjarne?
I can see you could not answer my question.
Don't worry you are still my best friend.


Step 2

Simple: I measure the ADG here in NZ as X. Thus the ADG decrease for 5 metres is above the surface of the Earth from X to X- (FAG * 5 meters). Or meter per meter

• X- (FAG * 0 meters) at 0 meters.
• X- (FAG * 1 meters) at 1 meters.
• X- (FAG * 2 meters) at 2 meters.
• X- (FAG * 3 meters) at 3 meters.
• X- (FAG * 4 meters) at 4 meters.
• X- (FAG * 5 meters) at 5 meters.

Even your pet cow can understand this.

WHY?????

are you trying. The man is clueless.

Paul

 

[Reality Check]

A baseline does not exsist

Right - a baseline measurement does not exist because you did not measured it before the building was constructed.

Why do think a FAG is invented ?

That is an idiotic question, Bjarne.
The free air gradient was invented so that people can calculate the free air ADG at a height above the ground by applying the FAG to the ADG measured on the ground. The ADG measured on the ground is the baseline measurement.

The FAG is pretty Universal on this planet.
Here the average should be around 304,8 µgal

The FAG is totally universal on this planet.
The average FAG is

http://www.science27.com/forum/meter-meter.jpg

This graph shows what happen to the ADG relative to FAG, the first 12 meter upwards from ground floor. - YOU CAN NOT DENY IT.
This is completely the oppesite of what you have expected.

I CAN DENY IT BEACUSE YOU DO NOT STATE HOW YOU CALCULATED THE POINTS ON THIS GRAPH.

What is the "ADG Relative to FAG"?
Why are you subtracting the measured values ( the " - Measured" part of the label)?
How did you calculate the "ADG Expected according to the Prevailing Thesis"?

It looks like you took the rather simplistic step of setting the value of the ADG at the ground without the building (the baseline ADG) to zero.

The building ADG is

M - X - (FAG * height)

where
X = the ADG without the building
M = the ADG measured on a floor of the building
FAG = the free air gradient, average value = 0.3086 milligals per meter.
height = the height of a floor above the ground
​

The building ADG, I calculate is:

The ADG calculated from Domus Vista measurments, i.e. the measured ADG - the free air gradient - the baseline measurement (the ADG wthout the building).

Since we have no baseline measurment all we can do is subtract a value to make the graph pretty.
​

Since we do not have the ADG without the buliding (the baseline ADG), it is idiotic to compare the expected value (X - (FAG * height) to the measurements.

 

[Bjarne]

The answer is - it cannot be detemined withouth measuting the basline ADG (X below)..

A baseline does not exsist
Why do think a FAG is invented ?

The FAG is pretty Universal on this planet.
Here the average should be around 304,8 µgal

By you I understand it is 308 µgal according to what you wrote.

This graph shows what happen to the ADG relative to FAG, the first 12 meter upwards from ground floor. - YOU CAN NOT DENY IT.
This is completely the oppesite of what you have expected.

Yes we can adjust that few µgal per meter up and down, BUT the overall pattern is nailed...

We are speaking about not more than few µgal per meter...you can adjust, - but notice when ready it must fit to everything, also where you expect to have the COG

The "picture" we have now, is so crystal clear, I am really surprised you will not admit it.

There is no possible way, - to adjust that "picture" out in the bush...

Where you expect to have zero you have in fact maximum deviation from the FAG

Dear RC - a new theory is desperate needed.

When adding the cellar you will according to both theories reach a deeper depth... probably more than minus 200 gal below the FAG

 

[Bjarne]

What is the "ADG Relative to FAG"?

Measured ADG Relative to the FAG line

Why are you subtracting the measured values ( the " - Measured" part of the label)?

I am only showing you both the Measured ADG values as well as these relative to the FAG line.

How did you calculate the "ADG Expected according to the Prevailing Thesis"?

I ask you to calculate it, - as step 1.
Now do it and prove mathematical that I am wrong
ADG is no more than about 15 µgal per meter in the lower section in that building.
There is no possible way you can explain the total depth (about 200 µgal below FAG at 3rd floor ) , except when replacing the old thesis.
A completely new theory is desperate needed..

 

[Reality Check]

Measured ADG Relative to the FAG line

So you took the measured ADG and subtracred the FAG?
What value did you use for the baseline ADG?

I ask you to calculate it, - as step 1.

I told you that I will - as soon as you give me the baseline ADG - as in step 1.
The building ADG is

M - X - (FAG * height)

where
X = the ADG without the building
M = the ADG measured on a floor of the building
FAG = the free air gradient, average value = 0.3086 milligals per meter.
height = the height of a floor above the ground
​

Let us start at step 1: What is X, Bjarne?

There is no possible way you can explain the total depth (about 200 µgal below FAG at 3rd floor ) , except when replacing the old thesis.
A completely new theory is desperate needed..

Yes I can: You are so ignorant that you have no idea that is is impossible to compare the measured ADG values to expected ADG values because there is no baseline ADG.
This explains that the "the total depth (about 200 µgal below FAG at 3rd floor )" is a lie. You cannot have calculated any expected ADG values.

A completely new brain for Bjarne and his pet cow is desperately needed!

 

[Bjarne]

So you took the measured ADG and subtracred the FAG?
What value did you use for the baseline ADG?

I have told you.
I have adjusted the FAG (here 304,8 µgal ) 1,5% below that level.
Of course it can be a bit difference for example 0,2 % more or less in the top than in the bottom. - BUT > THIS > is the way to do it.

I told you that I will - as soon as you give me the baseline ADG

Read above

RC- you cannot adjust minus 200 µgal out in the bush.
If you think you can adjust this negative values away from the bottom you would had the opposite problem in the top of the building.
Hence there is a naturally limit for how mad you adjust.
The fact is that the strongest ADG in this building is about 15 µgal per meter, and this will also be the maximum possible to measure in the bottom of the building (and mush less in the top)

 

[Reality Check]

How did you calculate the values in the graph

I have told you.
I have adjusted the FAG (here 304,8 µgal ) 1,5% below that level.

That is not what I asked you.

So lets try again:
You state that the red line is your local FAG ("here 304,8 µgal" per meter).

What is the expected free air ADG according to you at the ground?
Multiply the FAG by the height. We get 0 µgal. But you have not plotted this. So one more time:

How did you calculate the red line?
For example: Start with your local FAG and state the steps that you took to get the value for the ground floor to get the value you plotted.


Look at the ground free air ADG. It is 0 0 µgal. But the ADG at the ground is not zero! So we obviously have to include the free air ADG measured at the ground. I am calling this the baseline ADG.
You have not measured the free air ADG measured at the ground (baseline ADG). Thus it is impossible to calculate or plot the free air ADG.

So when I plotted the building's ADG I just offset the plot by a "baseline ADG" that made the graph pretty:

The ADG calculated from Domus Vista measurments, i.e. the measured ADG - the free air gradient - the baseline measurement (the ADG wthout the building).
Since we have no baseline measurment all we can do is subtract a value to make the graph pretty.​

How did you calculate the blue line?
For example: Take the measured value for floor 1 and show the steps that you took to get the value you plotted.

 

[Bjarne]

That is not what I asked you.

So lets try again:
You state that the red line is your local FAG ("here 304,8 µgal" per meter).

What is the expected free air ADG according to you at the ground?
Multiply the FAG by the height. We get 0 µgal. But you have not plotted this. So one more time:

You have misunderstood it all (again.)
Read the explanation of the red line INSIDE the graph.
Here you can read that the red line is: The expected ADG (relative to the FAG) according to the prevailing thesis.
So the red line is your thesis
The blue line is my theory as well as what objective is measured.
The green Line is the FAG line

 

[Reality Check]

How did you calculate the values in the graph

You have misunderstood it all (again.)
Read the explanation of the red line INSIDE the graph.
Here you can read that the red line is: The expected ADG (relative to the FAG) according to the prevailing thesis.
So the red line is your thesis
The blue line is my theory as well as what objective is measured.
The green Line is the FAG line

I read it:

• So the red line is your delusion about what the thesis is
  [*]The blue line is your debunked theory as well as what objective is measured according to your pet cow.
  [*]The green Line is the zero line on the graph

The captions are gibberish.

How did you calculate the red points?
For example: Start with your local FAG and state the steps that you took to get the value for the ground floor to get the value you plotted.

What equation did you use to create the red line?

How did you calculate the blue points?
For example: Take the measured value for floor 1 and show the steps that you took to get the value you plotted.

And if the blue line is your theory: What equation did you use to create the blue line?


ETA:
What are the units that you use for the axes?
The y axis has a label that includes "µgal - meter" which is nonsense. My guess is one of

• µgal
• µgal/meter
• µgal*meter

The x axis looks like meters.

 

[Bjarne]

The captions are gibberish.

• The captions are the only possibility.
• The captions was possible to predict
• The captions is confirmed by measurement

How did you calculate the red points?

I asked you to calculate it, why did you not do it ?
I mean it doesn’t matter what I do, - hence calculate it yourself, and I hope you’ will see ADG on the blue line is no more than 15 µgal at the surface at the body as well as everywhere at that line.

What equation did you use to create the red line?

Same answer as above, make you own calculation and prove I am wrong.

How did you calculate the blue points?
For example: Take the measured value for floor 1 and show the steps that you took to get the value you plotted.

And if the blue line is your theory: What equation did you use to create the blue line?

First at all notice the blue line is MEASSURED

You can use the same equation as you use to calculate ADG according to the prevailing theory, that equation will give you the result at the SURFACE of an object. I fully agree to that result at the SURFACE
This mean: to calculate ADG in a ball shaped object you use: - GM/r^2 - BUT different structure are much more differcult to calculte...

But to understand that ADG is stable from the surface and inwards, is based on UNDERSTANDING. Exactly like when you have hundred 500 kg cows on a line, - you can be sure all will eat the same amount.

According to your religion, cows last in the line are not hungry (and cows number 50 only half so hungry as cow number 1. )

OK, - lets be serious;

Imagine an inner area of a ball shaped body divided into 3 successive areas.
One area furthest out ‘A’
One area further in ‘B’
One area even further in ‘C’
The matter that is in area ‘A’ is contracting / consuming and hence "vacuumizing" space here.

This means that the matter that lies deeper inside the body (area ‘B’) lies ‘behind’ the outer matter (area ‘A’) and thereby in an area that is already somewhat affected (by area ‘A’).
The matter that lies in area ‘B’ and even deeper (in area ‘C’) therefore lies in areas that are becoming more and more deformed / stretched / vacuumized as one moves inwards.

Towards the centre of a body, space is therefore equally affected (in a homogeneous mass).

Hence, also the relative change in "density" of space per unit distance towards the centre must be equal (the slope quotient).

This is not math, but as you can see not more difficult like 100 equal hungry cows.

 

[Reality Check]

• ...

The caption text are giberish.

Same answer as above, make you own calculation and prove I am wrong.

What an idiotic thing to say, Bjarne - the questions are about how you created the graph so that I can prove that you are wrong!
Otherwise all I can guess is that you are so deluded/ignorant/insane/incoherent/etc. that you cannot communicate how you calculated the values on the graph.

First at all notice the blue line is MEASSUERED

First at all notice the blue line is NOT MEASURED. The measured values start at 981547.684. You have obviously done something to the measured values. So tell us what you did.

....snipped gibberish...
This is not math, but as you can see not more difficult like 100 equal hungry cows.

How did you calculate the red points?
For example: Start with your local FAG and state the steps that you took to get the value for the ground floor to get the value you plotted.

What equation did you use to create the red line?
From this post none - you just let Excel? do its usual trick of drawing a line.

How did you calculate the blue points?
For example: Take the measured value for floor 1 and show the steps that you took to get the value you plotted.

And if the blue line is your theory: What equation did you use to create the blue line?
From this post none - you just let Excel? do its usual trick of drawing a line.

What are the units that you use for the axes?
The y axis has a label that includes "µgal - meter" which is nonsense.
The x axist looks like meters which is valid.

 

[Bjarne]

What an idiotic thing to say, Bjarne - the questions are about how you created the graph so that I can prove that you are wrong!

I was asking first http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6585627&postcount=2350

So now try YOU to shows us how you would calculate ADG at the bottom and at the top of that building, then I will tell you how I did.

There are NO DIFFERENCE how you and I would calculate that, so keep it simple, just calculate it like anyone else would do.

Then attack me, if you can prove you do not agree that ADG is not more than 15 µgal in the bottom at the building.

What happens inside the building is a different history. This is step 7.

What are the units that you use for the axes?
The y axis has a label that includes "µgal - meter" which is nonsense.

No it is not nonsense, but the only way you can express a depression relative to the FAG line.....

The Graph shows the expected ADG pattern of the container measurement experiment relative to the FAG line. (The graph indicates that the container is 2 meters above Earth; please ignore that indication. The container is off course at the ground).

All of the ADG values: - at the top and bottom of the container and inside of it are expected to be as follows: From minus 200 to minus 800 µgal below the FAG line. This proves that Gravity is in fact a space vacuum.

At the center of the container, a measurement of minus 800 µgal is expected. This is relative to the FAG line. However, this is not a real speed but only an “expression” of the total Depth of space vacuum in the container.

So far, we have not had any expression for this and therefore such “depth” could be called µgal-meter. This is because the “depression” indicates the total depth of the space vacuum after a certain distance of acceleration.

The ADG inside the cylinder is expected to be constant 200 µgal per meter. Hence, 200 µgal multiplied with the distance to the center of gravity ( 3*200 µgal) + the value that the cylinder has at the surface ( +200 µgal) = 800 µgal-meter.

This is not just theoretical speculation; this is what the DOMUS VISTA measurement clearly confirms must be the new understanding of gravity.

The difference is only that DOMUS VISTA is not homogeneous (especially at the lower floors, and there is much more gravitionel noise in such buildings compared to the container measurement experiment, which result in the “bumpy” measurement line” measured in the building. .

 

[Reality Check]

I was asking first http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6585627&postcount=2350

So now try YOU to shows us how you would calculate ADG at the bottom and at the top of that building, then I will tell you how I did.

I told you: Without a baseline ADG measurement it is impossible to calculate the ADG at at the bottom and at the top of that building

Now tell me how you did it:
How did you calculate the red points?
For example: Start with your local FAG and state the steps that you took to get the value for the ground floor to get the value you plotted.

What equation did you use to create the red line?
From this post none - you just let Excel? do its usual trick of drawing a line.

How did you calculate the blue points?
For example: Take the measured value for floor 1 and show the steps that you took to get the value you plotted.

And if the blue line is your theory: What equation did you use to create the blue line?
From this post none - you just let Excel? do its usual trick of drawing a line.

What are the units that you use for the axes?
The y axis has a label that includes "µgal - meter" which is nonsense.
The x axist looks like meters which is valid.

 

[Reality Check]

No it is not nonsense, but the only way you can express a depression relative to the FAG line.....

Now I see - this is a result of your total ignorance of physics.
You are ignotant enough to subtract a length (meters) from an ADG (µgal) !

Anyone with a brain would remember that you cannot subtract 2 physical quantities with different units of measurement, e.g. it is idiotic to subtract a length from a time. Thus any graph with a axis labeled as having the units of "µgal - meter" is wrong.

Your graph must not contain a "FAG" line. The FAG is an adjustment to the ADG at ground level. You cannot plot FAG against an ADG. You have to calculate the free air ADG and plot that against the measured ADG.

 

[Bjarne]

Anyone with a brain would remember that you cannot subtract 2 physical quantities with different units of measurement, e.g. it is idiotic to subtract a length from a time

This morning when I read this I went very depressed to Mother Cow and ask her WHAT more can I do to get RC to understand. ?

Mother cow looked much said, - if was difficult to determinate who of us that was most depressed, - she said to me; "there is only one thing more you can do, - Tell RC the spring history".

So here we go.
Imaging there is a spring fixed to the back of RC.
Now we ask RC to move down the stairs – 1 meter per second.
After 1 meter (and 1 second) the spring would stretch 1 meter after 2 meter (and 2 second) the spring would stretch 2 meter, after 3 meter (and 3 second) the spring would stretch 3 meter, and like this it goes.

When RC have come 160 meter down the stairs, the spring have stretched 160 meter and it have taken 160 second.

Now come the critical point. – > The 160 m stretch is the TOTAL stretch. – The speed of RC down the stairs is ONLY 1 meter per second.

We could call the 160 meter stretch of the spring for 160 cow-gal-meter. But this would in fact only indicate he now is 160 meter down the stairs...

This mean after 1 meter RC is affected with 1 cow-gal-meter – after 10 meter RC is affected by 10 cow-gal-meter, and after 100 meter with 100 cow-gal-meter etc…..

A gravimeter works exactly the same way like RC and the spring in his back.

The ONLY difference is that in this case we use not cow-gal-meter – BUT µgal

A RELATIVE Gravimeter is ONLY measuring the TOTAL-spring- stretch-difference between 2 points, - It is NOT measuring the speed of anything.

Therefore the 160 (cow-gal-meter or µgal ) at third floor ONLY tells us that the total distance, the spring has stretched from A to B.


That distance between A and B and could be ANY distance, and therefore A could be a point at the FAG OR a point at any floor.....

Therefore because the spring continues to stretch MUCH MORE AS EXPECTED, this PROVES RC is CONSTANTLY IS MOVING DOWNWARDS – NOT UPWARDS.

The UNEXPECTED stretch of the spring PROVES THAT THERE IS SOMERTHING ROTTEN WITH THE PREVAILING SPECULATION.

Therefore dear RC, - therefore you must divide the TOTAL stretch of the spring with the distance, IF you want to KNOW the stretch per meter.

This is stamped by mother Cow herself.

 

[MRC_Hans]

This morning when I read this I went very depressed to Mother Cow and ask her WHAT more can I do to get RC to understand. ?

*Snip*

This is stamped by mother Cow herself.

Time for a warning to everybody, especially our younger readers: This is what may happen to you if you take your advice from cows.



Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Time for a warning to everybody, especially our younger readers: This is what may happen to you if you take your advice from cows.



Hans

Yehhh that's right
Mother Cow knows the difference between relative and absolute gravimeters.

Don't read this, it could change the Uiniverse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter