Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Paul]

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.

That has nothing to do with what you did.

What you did was subtract a length from an acceleration.

 

[Bjarne]

That has nothing to do with what you did.

What you did was subtract a length from an acceleration.

The relative gravimeter doesn’t measure any ADG, it is ONLY a spring, and it can only measure the –spring stretch different between measurement point A and B.
If you want to know the springs stretch factor per meter, (to be able to compare with the FAG / that also is a factor per meter) - and the distance between the measurement point A and B is for example 10 meter you must divide the measured value,- with the distance between A and B > > 10 meter – THIS is what I did.
In this way you get the bodies average ADG per meter.

 

[Paul]

The relative gravimeter doesn’t measure any ADG, it is ONLY a spring,

Like spring scales don't measure weight because they're just springs or a rule can't measure distance because it's just a piece of wood?




What is a Gal Bjarne?

 

[Bjarne]

Like spring scales don't measure weight because they're just springs or a rule can't measure distance because it's just a piece of wood?

Because you ask so serious and respectful and do not call my graph and “gravity-depression” for idiotic, - I shall answer you serious and respectful without to call you an idiot or cow-stupid.

A relative gravimeter does not measure the speed of falling object.
This is what an absolute gravimeter does.

Let us say you would fall 1 m/s into a gravitionel field, - and there was a spring fixed from you and to your starting point.

The deeper you get into a gravitionel field the more the spring must continue to stretch, also even though you fall with a constant speed.

If this not should be the case anymore of some (unknown) reason you would simply stop falling. – That what pulls you, would no longer pull you. (except when the Earth stop you)

The relative gravimeter measure how deep you are in a gravitionel field, - relative to a point > distance X meter away.

It do not measure the 1 m/s (or what so ever per meter) unless you the distance between meassurement point A and B = 1 meter.

It is also not forbidden to calculate how much it was per meter.

But now I better shut up , if not I can use the next 1 ½ year to try to get RC to understand why “units” not always are holy cows.

 

[Toke]

Bjarne,
Did you read the wiki link you posted?

In a dramatic demonstration of the sensitivity of the superconducting gravimeter, Virtanen (2006),[3] describes how an instrument at Metsähovi, Finland, detected the gradual increase in surface gravity as workmen cleared snow from its laboratory roof.

To my complete non-surprise physicists already have data far surpassing your measurements on Domus Vista and have found no inconsistency with existing theories.
(And if they had, there would be a mob of them trying to be the first to publish.)

 

[Paulhoff]

And GPS still works perfectly without him and his cows.

Paul

 

[Toke]

And GPS still works perfectly without him and his cows.

Paul

I have kind of lost track.
Is he claiming/implying that their internal clocks would go haywire, or that they would go out of position due to some of his inventions. (spacewind, friction in vacum.)

 

[MRC_Hans]

The relative gravimeter doesn’t measure any ADG, it is ONLY a spring, and it can only measure the –spring stretch different between measurement point A and B.
If you want to know the springs stretch factor per meter, (to be able to compare with the FAG / that also is a factor per meter) - and the distance between the measurement point A and B is for example 10 meter you must divide the measured value,- with the distance between A and B > > 10 meter – THIS is what I did.
In this way you get the bodies average ADG per meter.

I think this tops it all:

Bjarne cannot do math.
Bjarne does not understand basic physics.

- Fair enough but this hits a new low:

Bjarne pays professionals to do measurements for him, and he has no clue about what the results mean.

Bjarne, the gravimeter that DTU uses is indeed a type that we call a relative gravimeter, but it is calibrated to show absolute gravity, just like your bathroom scale is really just a relative weight measurer, but it is calibrated to show your absolute weight.

The measurements you got were absolute values. Don't try to understand it, because you can't. Don't ask the cows, because cows don't have a clue. Just trust me, because I happen to be a professional, too.

Now, stop making a fool of yourself, go back to your auto parts, be a good businessman and a nice family father, live a good life, enjoy the seaview from your apartment, and forget about physics, gravity, and unified theories of the universe; science is way above your head.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, the gravimeter that DTU uses is indeed a type that we call a relative gravimeter, but it is calibrated to show absolute gravity

First air is heavier than water and now this ....
HA HA HA HA
A relative gravimeter is calibrated (with support from a absolute gravimeter) so that the spring know where to start....
But Hans it is hopeless, you will deny that also...

 

[Bjarne]

Yes I did
Try to see how HARD it is to convince scientist to do the SYSTEMATICAL TEST of INNER gravity as I do.

People fully believe in the old religion, no one even dream about to ask if it is correct. .

 

[Bjarne]

The graph explains itself ( I hope) ..
In the cellar and towards Ground Floor it is estimated that the ADG "depth" have decreased 60 “µgal” compared to the FAG.. ( I have included that part, but it is not decisive)

Before doing the container measurement Experiment, I will measure the 3 lower floors of Domus Vista with an absolute Gravimeter.

It is easy to predict that the absolute gravimeter only will be able to measure the values illustrated by the orange line (in the Graph).

But this line is so close to the values expected according to the prevailing thesis, that it will be impossible to distinguish between these 2.

The Relative Gravimeter is in fact telling the same "story" as the absolute gravimeter. By comparing these 2 results we will get the best possible result, and can exclude any local influence.

This will definitive make the theory ready for publishing.

 

[Paul]

A relative gravimeter does not measure the speed of falling object.
This is what an absolute gravimeter does.

gravimeter (gravity meter) An instrument for measuring the gravitational acceleration. Most field instruments are relative instruments, i.e. they determine the difference in gravitational acceleration between two or more points. Most operate by determining the change in extension of a spring loaded with a constant mass. Laboratory instruments can be absolute and are based on dropping masses, vibrating strings, or oscillating pendulum systems.

"gravimeter" A Dictionary of Earth Sciences. Ed. Michael Allaby. Oxford University Press, 2008. Oxford Reference Online.
​

The relative gravimeter measure how deep you are in a gravitionel field, - relative to a point > distance X meter away.

A relative gravimeter, as it's name suggests, measures the difference between the acceleration due to gravity (an acceleration) at the point of calibration and the point(s) of measurement.

It do not measure the 1 m/s (or what so ever per meter) unless you the distance between meassurement point A and B = 1 meter.

The distance between the points is irrelevant to the measurement, it returns a relative value.

...try to get RC to understand why “units” not always are holy cows.

If something has units, it has units, you still can't subtract length from acceleration.

 

[Paulhoff]

I have kind of lost track.
Is he claiming/implying that their internal clocks would go haywire, or that they would go out of position due to some of his inventions. (spacewind, friction in vacum.)

He is not taking about gravity and his so-called resistance to motion.

Paul

 

[Reality Check]

How did you calculate the values in the graph

One more time before I conclude that you faked the graph to satisfy your delusions about the already debunked "central gravity".
Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked!

• an experiment that debunks "central gravity" (The actual measured ADG inside a sphere varies as predicted) and​
• The Domus Vista data shows that Bjarne's "central gravity" is wrong or useless​

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.

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.

What are the units that you use for the axes?
The y axis has a label that includes "µgal - meter" which is nonsense.
If you mean µgal then label it as µgal.
If you mean something else then label it as that.

The x axis looks like meters which is valid.

As an example:, look at what I did:

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.​

I do not have the axes labeled with their units which are µgal and floors.
I have even attached the Excel spreadsheet that generated the graph. This contains the raw data and the calculations that generated the graph points from the data. That was: 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)
​

N.B. The graph is a line plot. It really should be a scatter plot since all we have is the discrete measurements. The line though emphasizes the trend, i.e. that the building ADG calculated from the measurements is not constant and so debunks "central gravity" as in Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked!.

If we can ever figure out what Bjarne's graph is then it will probably also debunk his fantasy of "central gravity".

 

[Bjarne]

How did you calculate the red points?

I was aksing first, so now show us how clever you are, and how good you are understanding what you talk about

 

[Paulhoff]

He is not taking about gravity and his so-called resistance to motion.

I wrote that too quickly, it should read.

Is he not taking about gravity and his so-called resistance to motion.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

 

[Toke]

I wrote that too quickly, it should read.

Is he not taking about gravity and his so-called resistance to motion.

Paul

I see, it is just that the time dilation at speed is quite relevant too.

 

[Reality Check]

How did you calculate the values in the graph?

A hint: Your graph looks like an Excel graph. Try attaching the file to the post where you explain how you claculated the values in the graph.

 

[steenkh]

Could somebody (not Bjarne, because he is clueless) explain this to me: in Bjarne's drawing of the Domus Vista Building, he places the centre of gravity somewhere in the lower middle of the building and triumphantly declares that this is not where science would have placed it. Is this true? I would have thought that this is exactly where science would have placed it without knowing much about local circumstances.