Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

Even though the building would be a perfect ball shape (and still radius 70 meter, or even only 50 meter) you would NEVER could reach that strong ADG you have shown in your graph, - at the top of the building.

You are violating the law of gravity SIR

It would take a 10 years child (with an IQ only 5% of mother cows) - less as 2 minute to prove you this matematical.

So if you not is manipulating, is the answer then just that you are mathematical blind? – Or WHAT ?

Come Hans, - you are desperate that’s all, and that’s the truth.

Bjarne, my figures come ENTIRELY from these 3 sources:

1) The measurements DTU made for YOU.
2) The elevations from the drawing of the building (provided by YOU).
3) The free air gradient for the Copenhagen area (provided by DTU).

I have showed you my formulas.

EXPLAIN why, if you claim my figures are wrong.

It would take a 10 years child (with an IQ only 5% of mother cows) - less as 2 minute to prove you this matematical.

Fine! Then it should be no problem for YOU? Do it!

-

How do you know what the total ADG should be? To make a claim for that, you need to know the mass of the building. Do you have an objective knowledge of the mass of the building?

Hans

 

[Paulhoff]

And the GPS still works without the magic of Bjarne. Something in which gravity, speed and time wheren't understood, would not work.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, my figures come ENTIRELY from these 3 sources:

1) The measurements DTU made for YOU.
2) The elevations from the drawing of the building (provided by YOU).
3) The free air gradient for the Copenhagen area (provided by DTU).

I have showed you my formulas.

EXPLAIN why, if you claim my figures are wrong.

Pretty simple.
Because a simple 10 years old schoolboy's calculation can after 2 min. show that the ADG value you have shown at the roof is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

You can download the complete set of drawings and info of the building here
http://www.science27.com/forum/bjarne.zip

We know the weight of the building is 50.000 T.

After this it is simple calculation how strong ADG possible can be, and also how strong it not can be…

Try again Hans.

But be prepared, - I have totally lost any confidence to you.

You are beyond the pedagogical scope and only desperate to win a discussion, you either cannot understand, - or that you don’t want to understand.

I believe you understand that, - but not that you will admit it.

The next you will do is to manipulate your graph, - so that it also fits with simple schoolboy test calculation, - added with a stupid excuse what went wrong in the first and second place.

You can (and will) continue to fool the stupid, and those that don't know anything of gravity, I believe I already know you so well.

Beforehand Congratulations
Enjoy yourself, - Hope you'll continue to enjoy it.

 

[Paul]

Pretty simple.
Because a simple 10 years old schoolboy's calculation can after 2 min. show that the ADG value you have shown at the roof is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Please show, instead of whining, exactly what is wrong with Hans' data.

But be prepared, - I have totally lost any confidence to you.

Coming from you, that is more of a confirmation of validity.

You are beyond the pedagogical scope and only desperate to wind a discussion, you either cannot understand, - or that you don’t want to understand.

Congratulations on the amusingly inappropriate use of pedagogical.

You can (and will) continue to fool the stupid, and those that don't know anything of gravity, I believe I already know you so well.

You do seem to be spending a lot of time trying, quite poorly I might add, to insult people. Is that a silly way of attempting to divert attention from the fact that you haven't honestly responded to any points?

 

[Bjarne]

Please show, instead of whining, exactly what is wrong with Hans' data.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xc_DSuJfMc

http://www.mothercow.org/

http://babymath.org/

 

[Paul]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xc_DSuJfMc

http://www.mothercow.org/

http://babymath.org/

Yes, I can see where a particularly dense child might confuse "Please show, instead of whining, exactly what is wrong with Hans' data", with a request for juvenile trolling.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Pretty simple.
Because a simple 10 years old schoolboy's calculation can after 2 min. show that the ADG value you have shown at the roof is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

You can download the complete set of drawings and info of the building here
http://www.science27.com/forum/bjarne.zip

We know the weight of the building is 50.000 T.

Here we see the type of debater Bjarne is. After calling me, essentially, an idiot for not knowing the mass of the building, he NOW uploads 1394 pages of info on the building. I assume I was supposed to channel the info?

Anyhow, the weight of the building may be in there, but I'm not going to wade through 1394 pages of scanned papers to find it. YOU point out where you have that data, Bjarne, AND describe how you calculate the supposed gravitational pull of the building from that.

Then, if you can actually show that the gravitational pull must be lower than that in my graph, YOU have a small problem:

Either your measurements are wrong, or your calculation is wrong. You see, all data I have used come from YOU. If the ends don't meet, YOU HAVE A PROBLEM, not I.

So which is it, Bjarne:

Is the gravity measurement right,
or is your claim of the mass of the building right?

After this it is simple calculation how strong ADG possible can be, and also how strong it not can be…

Show us. Show us the data, show us the calculation. Remember, you said a 10 year old can do it. Show us you are at least 10 years old.

But be prepared, - I have totally lost any confidence to you.

OOooh, I'm devastated.

You are beyond the pedagogical scope and only desperate to win a discussion, you either cannot understand, - or that you don’t want to understand.

A note to non-danes: Bjarne is here trying to translate a Danish expression. None too successfully.

I believe you understand that, - but not that you will admit it.

I have noted that Bjarne tends to project. When he is desparate, he calls me desparate. When he is manipulating, he accuses me of manipulating, etc.

'Nuff said.

The next you will do is to manipulate your graph, - so that it also fits with simple schoolboy test calculation, - added with a stupid excuse what went wrong in the first and second place.

No, I don't know how to manipulate that graph. All I have is YOUR data and a simple formula. No room for manipulation, as everyone would spot it immidiately. If my graph is wrong, it means YOUR data is wrong.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Here we see the type of debater Bjarne is. After calling me, essentially, an idiot for not knowing the mass of the building, he NOW uploads 1394 pages of info on the building. I assume I was supposed to channel the info?

Anyhow, the weight of the building may be in there, but I'm not going to wade through 1394 pages of scanned papers to find it. YOU point out where you have that data, Bjarne, AND describe how you calculate the supposed gravitational pull of the building from that.

Then, if you can actually show that the gravitational pull must be lower than that in my graph, YOU have a small problem:

Either your measurements are wrong, or your calculation is wrong. You see, all data I have used come from YOU. If the ends don't meet, YOU HAVE A PROBLEM, not I.

Hans

Once agian

In the next couple of days, try to understand the most basic

Starts to calculate ADG based on a simple ball shape: MG/r²
NOW TRY - PLEASE try to understand - the more a body deviate from a ball shape , the weaker ADG .

For example if Domus Vista would be thin like a long piece of sheet metal, - you would get MUCH less ADG as now.

Already that building deviate at least 80% from a ball shape, therefore the ADG is 80 % weaker as if it would have been a ball shape.

Gravity is all about to encircle central space. - The best body to do this is a ball shape. - Hence a ball shape creating the strongest ADG

BUT even though Domus Vista was a ball shape, that would not could save you ..

In fact, you shall expect VERY low ADG in that building - the 160 µgal is a relative value, impossible for you to explain how it could occur.

FACE it

The battle is LOST.

The old creed is DEAD.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans

Once agian

In the next couple of days, try to understand the most basic

Starts to calculate ADG based on a simple ball shape: MG/r²
NOW TRY - PLEASE try to understand - the more a body deviate from a ball shape , the weaker ADG .

How do you know the mass of the building?

For example if Domus Vista would be thin like a long piece of sheet metal, - you would get MUCH less ADG as now.

Already that building deviate at least 80% from a ball shape, therefore the ADG is 80 % weaker as if it would have been a ball shape.

That's just a figure you pulled out of your hat.

If you want to find out the exact deviation from a ball shape, calculate the volume of the building, then calculate the radius of a sphere with the same volume. The difference between that radius and half the high of the building will give you an idea, but the transformation isn't linear.

Gravity is all about to encircle central space. - The best body to do this is a ball shape. - Hence a ball shape creating the strongest ADG

No, gravity is about mass/surface ratio. A ball shape has the highest ratio.

BUT even though Domus Vista was a ball shape, that would not could save you ..

Oops, Bjarne, I'm not the one who needs saving, here, YOU are:

The gravity I have calculated (nearly 0.6 mGal) for the whole building comes from YOUR observation. You don't need to make fancy graphs to calculate that, just subtract the ground floor reading from the top floor reading, then subtract the FAG, and there you have it.

Either your idea of the mass of the building is wrong, or your measurements are wrong. Take your pick.

But, since the gravity measurements were made by the DTU, and the mass of the building is a figure you pulled out of your ***, I know where I put my money.

In fact, you shall expect VERY low ADG in that building - the 160 µgal is a relative value, impossible for you to explain how it could occur.

You are the one who needs to do explaining.

FACE it

The battle is LOST.

The old creed is DEAD.

Bjarne, this is SOO pathetic. Even if there is imprecision in the figures, they contradict your ideas, and confirm conventional gravity.

You had the choice between being a scientist and a crackpot. You chose crackpot.

Sad.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

How do you know the mass of the building?

Read the geo chapter in the info you have downloaded. – 50.000 T as I wrote.

That's just a figure you pulled out of your hat.

Yes, that’s a lazy rough estimation, and not completely correct.

The rough logic is: imaging you was standing at the roof the building (DV) and it was 5 times so long, but all the dimensions and mass was the same.
I hope you would agree that when the mass is extended sideward’s 5 times, > ADG at the rood will be 5 times weaker.

Now imaging that the building would only have the half Length, - now I hope you agree that ADG at the roof would be 2 times larger

Now imaging the buildings square would be 40M * 40 Meter – again you would see the the ADG at the rood would increase.

If the building would be a cylinder 40M * 40 Meter that too would increase the ADG

Now you are standing at the center inside a cylinder 40*40 * 80 meter height, now imaging that the mass of the cylinder would decrease to the half height = 40 *40 * 40 – Again ADG would increase twice.

And now imaging that cylinder would change shape to a ball, Ø40 Meter – again ADG would increase.

This is the history about you roughly can estimate the ADG out of the hat. The more it is diviating from a ball shape the less ADG...

If you want to find out the exact deviation from a ball shape, calculate the volume of the building, then calculate the radius of a sphere with the same volume. The difference between that radius and half the high of the building will give you an idea, but the transformation isn't linear.

Not only the height of the building counts, - if the length /(+mass) would stretch from Frederiksberg to Tokyo I hope you agree that there where almost no ADG due to the building, (or at least VERY weak) even though the mass still is 50.000 T.

It is not so easy to calculate the effect of the length and height stretch / deviation from a ball shape, - also the shape of the inner concrete counts.

Bjarne
Gravity is all about to encircle central space. - The best body to do this is a ball shape. - Hence a ball shape creating the strongest ADG
Hans
No, gravity is about mass/surface ratio. A ball shape has the highest ratio.

Why do you think the planet where you (hopefully) live is round? – and all a big astronomic bodies too ?
What do you think pulls matter into exactly that shape?
Try to understand the basic of the nature of gravity, before you balp blap to much nonsense..

Oops, Bjarne, I'm not the one who needs saving, here, YOU are:

The gravity I have calculated (nearly 0.6 mGal) for the whole building comes from YOUR observation.

600 µgal, - ooohhh dear – this should start this one http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmg1tBrQIU0tm5gSdtOrIRjVnrvEFk_3BpvgigzwrW1CjtQKhYUg
What are you bllabbing blap blapp blab about dear?

• That DTU have done a HUUUUUUGE measurement mistake.
• Or that the buildings height you can see at the drawing must be wrong?
• Or that I have manipulate the report from DTU ?

You wrote; it was “YOUR” (My) observation - do you mean my data?
Or Which “observation” are you blap blap la la bladhpp about ?
Tell me are you really in the Milkyway right now ?

Do you self a favor and you could easy calculate that ADG at its strongest (per meter) is no more than 15 µgal (at the bottom) – and only 3-4 µgal at the top of the building…

If you still cannot do it serious get some lessons here > http://aubreylegendre.com/math_toilet.jpg

Show us your input and the equation how to calculate ADG at the roof dear?

You don't need to make fancy graphs to calculate that, just subtract the ground floor reading from the top floor reading, then subtract the FAG, and there you have it.

And this exactly ONLY demonstrate that you are totally blind for the point.
The point is still (if you still after 2 years not should have discovered it) to follow the ADG pattern INSIDE the building, and understand all the systematical measurements as well as what such a graph tells you.

Is it possible to be more ignorant?

Answer, - no at least not in the Milkyway.

You have chosen completely to ignore that ADG evidently is 160 µgal below FAG at third floor.

As i wrote

Hans you are not worth my time, - I can only feel sorry for the fools you can cheat...

 

[steenkh]

Yes, that’s a lazy rough estimation, and not completely correct.

Who would have guessed?

The rough logic is: imaging you was standing at the roof the building (DV) and it was 5 times so long, but all the dimensions and mass was the same.
I hope you would agree that when the mass is extended sideward’s 5 times, > ADG at the rood will be 5 times weaker.

Now imaging that the building would only have the half Length, - now I hope you agree that ADG at the roof would be 2 times larger

Now imaging the buildings square would be 40M * 40 Meter – again you would see the the ADG at the rood would increase.

One of your own favourite expressions fits well: "Bla bla"! Instead of showing the real calculations - which you claim a 10-year old could do - you evade the issue by treating us to a lot of irrelevant stuff.

Do you self a favor and you could easy calculate that ADG at its strongest (per meter) is no more than 15 µgal (at the bottom) – and only 3-4 µgal at the top of the building…

If it was so easy. you would surely have done the calculations yourself ...

Show us your input and the equation how to calculate ADG at the roof dear?

How about doing your own calculations?

Hans you are not worth my time, - I can only feel sorry for the fools you can cheat...

We feel sorry for you too, but not so much pity as before ...

 

[Bjarne]

One of your own favourite expressions fits well: "Bla bla"! Instead of showing the real calculations - which you claim a 10-year old could do - you evade the issue by treating us to a lot of irrelevant stuff.

A 10 years old boy can exactly like shown above within 2 minutes calculate + estimate that Hans is a factor 100 wrong , - but he cannot calculate the exact value. .

If it was so easy. you would surely have done the calculations yourself ...

If you read above , you'll know I wrote; to calculate it exactly is NOT easy, -This is why I have estimated the deviation from a ball shape.

 

[Reality Check]

We know the weight of the building is 50.000 T.

After this it is simple calculation how strong ADG possible can be, and also how strong it not can be…

Bjarne: Present your "simple" calculation of the ADG expected from your "central gravity" idea.
Whoops - a few problems:

1. Bjarne's "central gravity" is completely debunked!
2. The "central gravity" idea is just that - an idea supported only by fantasies. There is no math. It cannot predict anything except what you imagine it to predict.
3. And see the above link for the fact that your own data shows that ADG varies inside Domus Vista and thus your "ADG is constant" predicton falsifies your idea.

There is no simple calculation of the ADG expected within the Domus Vista building using actual science.

1. It is rectangular.
2. The distance between lower floors is higher than the upper ones.
3. It is not homogeneous - the mass is concentrated between the floors.

The best that we could do is model the building as a homogeneous rectangular block. That is not a simple calculation but if you want to have a try ... !
Luckily we do not have to do this. This thread is about your (Bjarne) ideas. It is up you to defend them by providing evidence. So far you have failed. You assert that you idea means that the ADG inside an object is constant:

• The Domus Vista measurements show that the ADG inside the building is not constant.
• Subtracting the free air gradient from the measurements shows that the ADG of the building varies within the building.

• 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

• Your silo experiment seems to have vanished (Any results from the silo experiment yet, Bjarne?).

We will definitely get the wrong answer by modeling the building as a homogeneous sphere (mass 50,000 T; radius 50 meters?).

P.S.
How did you calculate the values in the graph? (27 Nov 2010)
A hint: Your graph looks like an Excel graph. Try attaching the file to the post where you explain how you calculated the values in the graph.

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

 

[Bjarne]

The best that we could do is model

Exactly
And in this case we shall not expect more that max 15µgal at the bottum according the the previaling thesis.....

It is allready easy to conclude there is relative160 µgal difference between 3 floors.
It should be easy to conclude that the ADG difference is increasing towards the COG (and not increasing towards the opposite direction, away from the COG).
This as well should be a big problem, - but only for those that cannot accept that the old creeds must fall...

And that’s it..

The next goal is now to measure in the center of a 6,5 height container filled with sand(diameter 6,5)

( A cylinder is the closest we can get to a ball shape.)

In the center there must be a 75 cm heigh concrete ring and access from the site true a concrete tube.

When measuring at the top according to both theories we shall expect roughly around 100 µgal relative to the FAG.

According to the prevailing thesis: this value should decrease to zero at the center, and therefore merge with the FAG at that point.

According to the new theory: this value will be stable towards the center and therefore relative 400 µgal (to the FAG) at the center.

We will determinate the FAG before filling the container.

Even though the new theory already is proven, unfortunately the brainwashed part of the human race does only understand the language of a sledge hammer…

 

[MRC_Hans]

Read the geo chapter in the info you have downloaded. – 50.000 T as I wrote.

Which page? I have better things to do than read through 1300 pages.

The rough logic is: imaging you was standing at the roof the building (DV) and it was 5 times so long, but all the dimensions and mass was the same.
I hope you would agree that when the mass is extended sideward’s 5 times, > ADG at the rood will be 5 times weaker.

Rood? 5 times as long, but all dimensions the same?? ?

However assuming you mean 'roof' and that all other dimensions were the same, then .... no. The part of the building that was the original width, but 1/5 the mass would give 1/5 the gravity, but the remaining 4/5 would, of course, also contribute.

There must be formulas for this somewhere.

Now imaging that the building would only have the half Length, - now I hope you agree that ADG at the roof would be 2 times larger

No. It is not clear exactly what you mean, but in all cases, the answer is no. If you mean a bulding like Domus Vista, with same mass, but more square, then no, the gravity at the top would not increase that much, since most of the mass is already more or less directly under you.

Now imaging the buildings square would be 40M * 40 Meter – again you would see the the ADG at the rood would increase.

If the building would be a cylinder 40M * 40 Meter that too would increase the ADG

Yes, the smaller and denser you make a body, the higher its surface gravity will be. Elementary.

Not only the height of the building counts, - if the length /(+mass) would stretch from Frederiksberg to Tokyo I hope you agree that there where almost no ADG due to the building, (or at least VERY weak) even though the mass still is 50.000 T.

Utterly irrelevant.

- also the shape of the inner concrete counts.

As we can see from your measurements, the building behaves roughly like a homogenous mass, so no, not much.

• That DTU have done a HUUUUUUGE measurement mistake.
• Or that the buildings height you can see at the drawing must be wrong?
• Or that I have manipulate the report from DTU ?

Well it could be all of them, but I think you most likely made a mistake in your estimate of the expected gravity from the building.

But I notice that you have implicitly withdrawn your claim that I have manipulated anything. Thank you.

Or Which “observation” are you blap blap la la bladhpp about ?

Bjarne, you childish outbursts only reflect badly on you. Act your age.

The measurements in the DTU report is observation, and since you paid for them and published them, I call them yours.

Do you self a favor and you could easy calculate that ADG at its strongest (per meter) is no more than 15 µgal (at the bottom) – and only 3-4 µgal at the top of the building…

Do your self a favor and show us YOU can calculate it. However, the pull (up) at the bottom will be the same as the pull (down) at the top. And what do you mean by 'per meter'? I am talking about the total pull for the building.

You have chosen completely to ignore that ADG evidently is 160 µgal below FAG at third floor.

How do you calculate that?

Hans you are not worth my time, - I can only feel sorry for the fools you can cheat...

You are free to leave any time you want, but this is a public forum, and I post here as I please, within my membership agreement.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Exactly
And in this case we shall not expect more that max 15µgal at the bottum according the the previaling thesis.....

You have not shown this conclusively.

It is allready easy to conclude there is relative160 µgal difference between 3 floors.
It should be easy to conclude that the ADG difference is increasing towards the COG (and not increasing towards the opposite direction, away from the COG).

No, we don't see it increasing. It is pretty uniform in most of the building.

The next goal is now to measure in the center of a 6,5 height container filled with sand(diameter 6,5)

( A cylinder is the closest we can get to a ball shape.)

In the center there must be a 75 cm heigh concrete ring and access from the site true a concrete tube.

No, that's impractical. It is simpler and much more useful to have a vertical pipe in the middle, from top to bottom.

When measuring at the top according to both theories we shall expect roughly around 100 µgal relative to the FAG.

If you say so, but if you want to prove anything, show your calculations.

According to the prevailing thesis: this value should decrease to zero at the center, and therefore merge with the FAG at that point.

That is correct.

According to the new theory: this value will be stable towards the center and therefore relative 400 µgal (to the FAG) at the center.

Why do we see no trace of that effect in Domus Vista?

We will determinate the FAG before filling the container.

What about the weight of the container? It needs to be pretty sturdy to hold the weight of all that sand.

Even though the new theory already is proven, unfortunately the brainwashed part of the human race does only understand the language of a sledge hammer…

Better start thinking about what you will say when this experiment ALSO supports the 'prevailing thesis'.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Oh, BTW, I have found out how the calculate the COG of the Domus Vista from the DTU measurements. This will enable us to calculate the baseline gravity. So your money is not all wasted, Bjarne.

I don't have time to do it just now, but, stay tuned.

- Hint: You need to find the spot where the RMS (Root Mean Square) values of the upper and lower parts of the curve are the same.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

And in this case we shall not expect more that max 15µgal at the bottum according the the previaling thesis.....

How did you get that number of 15µgal at the bottom?

It should be easy to conclude that the ADG difference is increasing towards the COG (and not increasing towards the opposite direction, away from the COG).
This as well should be a big problem, - but only for those that cannot accept that the old creeds must fall...

This is an enormorous problem for "central gravity" since it predicts that the difference should be zero.
Thus: Bjarne's "central gravity" is completely debunked!

P.S.
How did you calculate the values in the graph? (27 Nov 2010)
A hint: Your graph looks like an Excel graph. Try attaching the file to the post where you explain how you calculated the values in the graph.

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

 

[Bjarne]

Oh, BTW, I have found out how the calculate the COG of the Domus Vista from the DTU measurements. This will enable us to calculate the baseline gravity. So your money is not all wasted, Bjarne.

I don't have time to do it just now, but, stay tuned.

- Hint: You need to find the spot where the RMS (Root Mean Square) values of the upper and lower parts of the curve are the same.

Hans

As expected, and as prediected above....

Mother is not impressed by anything of that you have show until now, - when she read what you just wrote the only comments was ; muuuhhhh muuuhhhh

No. It is not clear exactly what you mean, but in all cases, the answer is no. If you mean a building like Domus Vista, with same mass, but more square, then no, the gravity at the top would not increase that much, since most of the mass is already more or less directly under you.
Hans
There are 2 factors that are important to understand according to the strength of the ADG you can get

The one is off course how extended a mass is. This is not the point.

The other point is simple, - the more an inject deviate from a ball shape the less ADG will you get.
Nothing can compete with a ball shape. This is also why a ball shape is the automatically created itself in space.
I will not try to go deeper into details again, because you will not get the point anyway.

Bjarne
Do you self a favor and you could easy calculate that ADG at its strongest (per meter) is no more than 15 µgal (at the bottom) – and only 3-4 µgal at the top of the building…
Hans
Do your self a favor and show us YOU can calculate it. However, the pull (up) at the bottom will be the same as the pull (down) at the top. And what do you mean by 'per meter'? I am talking about the total pull for the building.

You must model it to get it right, like RC just wrote.
But still, - to understand inner gravity require a completely new understanding, only in a homogeneous mass the ADG at the surface will be the same in the top and in the bottom. And only in this case both theories agree where to find the COG.

Anyway a model, even based on the prevailing theory would show that the prevailing thesis would fail to be able to explain what we actually are witnessing...

But you can roughly calculate and estimate it.
This requires you understand what I wrote above regarding the importance of the shape of a body.

Furthermore if you understand the new theory that too will immediately show you the result.

Take a look further below, - “the 163 µgal” (below) – the ADG increase from ground floor to 3rd floor.

Just divide this value with the distance between ground floor and 3rd floor and you’ll have the ADG average per meter.
That’s it.

You can do the same from the COG towards the top of the building.
This is the basic understanding of the new theory.

Whether you like or not is not important.
Soon I will “force” you to understand and accept it.

No, we don't see it increasing. It is pretty uniform in most of the building.

The distance between ground floor (GF) and 3rd floor (420+385+385) = 1190cm

Estimated FAG= 301 µgal – (1190cm * 310 µgal) = 3418,0 µgal
Measured ADG difference between GF and 3rd = 3581,9 µgal

So you can see the ADG difference is 163,9 µgal larger as the FAG, - which mean there is a upwards ADG-increase from GF to 3rd floor.

According to your religion we should expect the exact opposite..

But Hans even after all this you'll continue to ignore the world you live in.

Therefore my only hope now is this > http://www.wickes.co.uk/content/ebiz/wickes/invt/169097/Sledge-Hammer_large.jpg

If this is not enough there is one option left – this > http://i.ytimg.com/vi/l1qm4CE7MAY/0.jpg

I am an optimist,- I hope the sledge hammer will do it......

 

[Reality Check]

The distance between ground floor (GF) and 3rd floor (420+385+385) = 1190cm

Estimated FAG= 301 µgal – (1190cm * 310 µgal) = 3418,0 µgal
Measured ADG difference between GF and 3rd = 3581,9 µgal

So you can see the ADG difference is 163,9 µgal largeras the FAG, - which mean there is a upwards ADG-increase from GF to 3rd floor.

The central gravity prediction is that there is a zero ADG-increase from GF to 3rd floor.

Thank you Bjarne fro confirming with your own calcuations that: Bjarne's "central gravity" is completely debunked!

But of course you screwed up your math:
The first problem is your lack of knowledge of science and the basic concept of errors. You do not calculate the error limits on the measurements. Thus you have no way of knowing whether the measured ADG is actually larger than the estimated FAG.

The next problem is that your "Estimated FAG" is wrong. The FAG starts with the ADG of the Earth which has not been measured when the Domus Vista was not built. It is obvious that your "301 µgal" value is wrong.
What you want to calculate is the estimated FAG Difference between the GF and 3rd. That can then be compared to the measured ADG difference between GF and 3rd.

We know that the ADG inside a spherical body obeys Newtonian gravity (Test of Newton's inverse-square law in the Greenland ice cap First posted 2 November 2009 ). So your "central gravity" idea has been debunked by this one experiment (and many other measurements) for over a year now.

The Doma building is not a sphere. It is a rectangular block. The ADG inisde it will not be that of a sphere. It is stupid to say that the prevailing theory states that the ADG will decrease until you acaculate what the prevailing theory predicts.

We can say that ADG changes inside the building because it is non-zero at the bottom and top and zero at the COG (wherever that is). We cannot say how it varies without doing the claculatons for a rectangular block.

In adddition there is the practical matter of the ground effect, i.e. the ADG caused by

• The shoping center around the base of the building.
• Other buildings around the building.
• The ground around the building.