Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Island Skeptic]

Not to get on your case, but could you lay off the swearing.

No offense (although I did use characters -rather than letters- to express my emotion).... Forgive me but I am intrigued.

Why I keep returning to this thread is because I had been "beat" in these forums. And, due to my personal humbling experience, this process of argumentation, logic & reliable evidence has unticed (and humbled) me more than ever.

There are many brilliant people here.... Some are quite annoying but, nevertheless, the bulk of my opposition had actuallly "reformed" me.
They were right and I was wrong. That is still incredibly difficult to swallow, but there's no question that my most arguments did not hold water.

I am in no way qualified to take any "sides" in this particular debate.
It is just the argument itself that fascinates me....

Apologies for interfering again.
Carry on my wayward sons....

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

I can't really find head or tail in your figures. Perhaps, if you would stick to posting arguments and drop all the insults and gibberish, people might at least understand what you mean.

However, according to the DTU data and the drawing, the differential gravity (measured - FAG) on the ground floor is -0.319mGal and on 3rd floor it is -0.064mGal. The difference is 0.255mGal, so divided by the hight difference (11,09m) you get 0.023mGal/meter, which is the slope in the lower, denser part of the building.

However, it is not clear which graph you are using. The correct graph, allowing for the correct elevations of the individual floors according to the drawing, is this:

 

[MRC_Hans]

Forgot attachment:

 

[MRC_Hans]

Oh, and Bjarne, you forgot to indicate where in the documentation I can find the mass of the building. Page number, please.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

The central gravity prediction is that there is a zero ADG-increase from GF to 3rd floor
Right, and more exact that ADG is decreasing from GF towards the 3rd floor (and towards the COG)
And this is now disproven, it doesn’t happen. Just by looking at the ADG different between GF and 3rd floor is enough to confirm that.
Thank you Bjarne fro confirming with your own calcuations that: Bjarne's "central gravity" is completely debunked!

RC, - all what you do is ONLY once again to demonstrate how little you have understood.

The difference between the measured values at GF and 3rd floor is NOT a speed, - it is a difference.
Call it 163,9 µgal-meter
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS ?

Exactly like the distances between wellington and Auckland also not is a speed. First when you are dividing that distance with time you’ll get the speed.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS ?

Or exactly like the rekative depth a river falls is not a speed, but always nothing but a relative depth.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS ?

Imaging you was hanging in the spring of the gravimeter. From GF and towards the 3rd floor the spring would gradually stretch more and more. According to you religion you should expect the exact opposite.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS ?

To calculate the average speed you shall now divide the relative “µgal -distance” – (“163,9 µgal-meter") - with the distance, - the result is your speed = (average) 15µgal, from GF towards 3rd floor.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS ?

The next problem is that your "Estimated FAG" is wrong.

Prove it, show me the correct estimated FAG and the ADG-pattern connected to the FAG so (nice) as I have done.
CAN YOU DO THIS ?

Furthermore even though you would use the standard FAG value, you would still be pulled from GF towards 3rd floor, - but just a tiny bit less as the mentioned 15µgal.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS ?

It is NOT me that is wrong or is lying, - if you want to accuse anybody / anything for lies, then it is only the spring of the gravimeter left to accuse. That SPRING do not agree with YOURS religion. – None of the spring in the 2 parallel gravimeters does agree with yours religion.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS ?

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.

These influences are insignificant.
Nothing of this can justify that you have a local STABLE pull upwards, proven by the spring of the gravimeters are STRECTHING gradually more and more and more and more, when approaching 3rd floor from the GF.

Dear RC, -TRY to understand the relative ADG difference 163,9 µgal is a lot - compared to the very weak gravity we are dealing with in that building.

THERE IS NOTHING THAT CAN PREVENT THE PREVAILING THESIS TO FALL.
OPEN YOUR EYES, - IT IS ALLREADY DEAD

You know the river Waikato, you expect the flow / amount of water to be larger and larger towards the Ocean. What would you say when it is proven that; From the Ocean and 100 km into the land the flow of water is opposite as you expect it to be, and the amount of water flow in that direction is stable ? - Imagining you could PROVE that meter by meter.

WOULD YOU SAY THIS CONFIRMS THE PREVALING THEORY ?

 

[Bjarne]

I can't really find head or tail in your figures. Perhaps, if you would stick to posting arguments and drop all the insults and gibberish, people might at least understand what you mean.

However, according to the DTU data and the drawing, the differential gravity (measured - FAG) on the ground floor is -0.319mGal and on 3rd floor it is -0.064mGal. The difference is 0.255mGal, so divided by the hight difference (11,09m) you get 0.023mGal/meter, which is the slope in the lower, denser part of the building.

However, it is not clear which graph you are using. The correct graph, allowing for the correct elevations of the individual floors according to the drawing, is this:

I have just explained that above, - repeated below

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.

Divide the 163,9 µgal with the distance 11,9 meter = 13,77 µgal - This is the slope.

Oh, and Bjarne, you forgot to indicate where in the documentation I can find the mass of the building. Page number, please.

I am exact so lazy as you.
We can bet, if the 50.000 T not is in the file you have won 1 million USD. If it is you pay to me that amount?
Does that attempt you?

 

[Bjarne]

In this graph the slope from the cellar is estimated to increase to minus 70 µgal (at GF)


We must estimate the FAG in a way that the curve will come up to the surface and almost touch the FAG...

Otherwise there would not be any logic at all, and we would ALL be lost fare out on Jens Peter Jensen’s ploughed field.


Red line ----------------- is the expected "pattern" according to the old religion.


The saying ; - what goes up must come down, is the opposite in gravity-science, - > what fall down in a gravity depression, - at one side, - MUST - come up on the other side.

And Logic must be follow all the way. - > This is why it is EASY to estimate the FAG

 

[MRC_Hans]

I have just explained that above, - repeated below

http://www.science27.com/forum/adg5.jpg

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.

Divide the 163,9 µgal with the distance 11,9 meter = 13,77 µgal - This is the slope.

OK, I'll give you 3 points for focusing, 1 point for math, but keep trying.
Oh, and this is an English forum, so use point '.' for decimal point, not ','.

DTU reading gnd floor: 981547.684mGal
DTU reading 3rd floor: 981544.266mGal
Difference: 3.418mGal This is the MEASURED difference, not the FAG.

Now for the FAG, I use DTU's FAG for the Copenhagen area: 0.3086mGal/m

11.9m * 0.3086 = 3.67234mGal

So, the difference is -0.254 mGal. In other words, the building pulls you UP by 0.254 mGal more on the ground floor than on 3rd floor, exactly in accordance with the law of gravity (you know, the 'prevailing creed').

I am exact so lazy as you.
We can bet, if the 50.000 T not is in the file you have won 1 million USD. If it is you pay to me that amount?
Does that attempt you?

No. It doesn't even tempt me. However, I found it. The figure is in the geological pre-studies and is a figure for a 18-25 story building they use to estimate the needed load. The Domus Vista wasn't even drawn at the time.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

http://www.science27.com/forum/ADGFAG.jpg
In this graph the slope from the cellar is estimated to increase to minus 70 µgal (at GF)

That curve is wrong. It seems to be the old one assuming equal hight of all floors. You should use the one I posted.

We must estimate the FAG in a way that the curve will come up to the surface and almost touch the FAG...

Try to focus; you are mixing up the concepts. The Free Air Gradient (FAG) is the reduction of gravity in open air as you rise from the ground. In the Copenhagen area, it is 0.3036 mGal/m. It is always the same and it is always falling with height.

Otherwise there would not be any logic at all, and we would ALL be lost fare out on Jens Peter Jensen’s ploughed field.

Your English is shaky enough without using 'the julekalender' language.

Red line ----------------- is the expected "pattern" according to the old religion.

Apart from the scaling, the red line is exactly what we find.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Difference: 3.418mGal This is the MEASURED difference, not the FAG

Nothing but a written mistake.
But OK I will you 1 point for that and – minus 10 for the rest.

Now for the FAG, I use DTU's FAG for the Copenhagen area: 0.3086mGal/m

11.9m * 0.3086 = 3.67234mGal

So, the difference is -0.254 mGal. In other words, the building pulls you UP by 0.254 mGal more on the ground floor than on 3rd floor, exactly in accordance with the law of gravity (you know, the 'prevailing creed').

If you can calculate that the slope of the river is 254 cm, - per 1190 cm, it does not proves that the water of the river flows to the west.

And especially not when Mother Cow has try to explain you it is proven if flows to the east.

In the exact same way when it comes to Domus Vista.
Mother cow have try to make it 800% crystal cow logic clear that the FLOW, - or if you prefer the SLOPE - is increasing towards 3rd floor, and NOT towards the GF ( like the prevailing creeds / religion states) .

( The slope of the cellar is estimated to -70µgal "GF")

And this is what you clearly can see.

Just add the negative difference floor by floor and the result appears in the red column, - and you will see at 3rd floor you have reached a value -163µgal (if we ignore the cellar)..

Congratulations, once again you certainly have succeeded to cheat fools. I hope you still enjoy it.

And by the way, according to the FAG value you had mention above, this will only make the problem of your religion much WORSE, and the depression DEEPER, simple because the “river” will now flow faster from GF towards the 3rd floor.

The 0.254 mGal difference you just have calculated is not a difference that imply ground floor, - BUT a total difference measured at 3rd floor….. ..

How , Why ?

You can see how the difference is increasing UPWARDS.

The direction where the slope of the river is increasing, this is (according to mother cow) the direction the river flows.

And still my friend it is NOT a speed, but on an expression for a depression in the landscape, per a certian distance (or in space when it comes to gravity).

So try again. – Sorry I mean; don’t try again, you are losing you time, the old thesis dead...

It is time to surrender, - don’t worry you are still my next best friend, and RC my best friend, (between humans).

 

[Paul]

Bjarne, you can't even tell the difference between micro and milli, why on earth should we take any notice of anything you say?

 

[Reality Check]

RC, - all what you do is ONLY once again to demonstrate how little you have understood.

The difference between the measured values at GF and 3rd floor is NOT a speed, - it is a difference.

Bjarne, - all what you do is ONLY once again to demonstrate how little you have understood.

The difference between the measured values at GF and 3rd floor is AS I STATED NOT a speed, - it is a difference beween the measured ADG values at GF and 3rd floor.
Likewise the estimated FAG is a difference beween the estimated FAG values at GF and 3rd floor.

Try reading what I wrote:

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.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, - all what you do is ONLY once again to demonstrate how little you have understood.

The difference between the measured values at GF and 3rd floor is AS I STATED NOT a speed, - it is a difference beween the measured ADG values at GF and 3rd floor.
Likewise the estimated FAG is a difference beween the estimated FAG values at GF and 3rd floor.

Try reading what I wrote:

As you can read in the reply to Hans;
Doesn’t matter if you use a FAG like I did 301µgal per/m or 308µgal /m, (or something betweeen) - you will in both case have a huge gravity depression at 3rd floor.

You can't explain that

And that's it.

 

[Reality Check]

You can't explain that

And that's it.

There is no "gravity depression" at the third floor to explain.
Thus it is explained - it does not exist.
And that's it.

There is a difference between the heights of the first 3 floors and the remaining floors. This means that if an ignorant person were obsessing about the ADG difference between floor they would see the the first 3 floors have a different ADG than the other floors.

An smarter person would plot the actual calculated ADG per floor.

ETA:
In your image above: Are you stating that the ground floor is 280 meters or centimenters above the ground?
Isn't the ground floor by defintion 0 meters above the ground?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Nothing but a written mistake.

No problem. We all make mistakes.

In the exact same way when it comes to Domus Vista.
Mother cow have try to make it 800% crystal cow logic clear that the FLOW, - or if you prefer the SLOPE - is increasing towards 3rd floor, and NOT towards the GF ( like the prevailing creeds / religion states) .

What are you talking about?

The slope is more steep for the lowest 3 floors, because the building id more massive there. Not only is the high-rise itself much heavier, but there is a shopping centre built around it.

And this is what you clearly can see.

And this is where concnetrating on the differential cheats you (or you try to cheat using that, take your pick).

Look at my curve, which is plotted using the values for each floor separately, and you can see the true picture.

The 0.254 mGal difference you just have calculated is not a difference that imply ground floor, - BUT a total difference measured at 3rd floor….. ..

How , Why ?

It is the difference between the GF and 3rd floor.

Why? Because that was the value you tried to calculate.
Why did you want that value? I have no idea, I just showed you how to calculate it correctly.


Bjarne, it's mildly amusing to see you squirm, but you have lost.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

As you can read in the reply to Hans;
Doesn’t matter if you use a FAG like I did 301µgal per/m or 308µgal /m, (or something betweeen) - you will in both case have a huge gravity depression at 3rd floor.

You can't explain that

And that's it.

I don't have to. There is no depression. I have calculated the absolute values for each floor. There is no depression, just a steeper slope, because the low part of the building is more massive, as clearly shown by the drawings.

Now, you were wrong. Live with it, and get a life.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

No problem. We all make mistakes.

The slope is more steep for the lowest 3 floors, because the building id more massive there. Not only is the high-rise itself much heavier, but there is a shopping centre built around it.

Hans

The 254µgal you have calculated yourself, (the difference between the FAG and ADG), - is still a relative difference and not a speed, measure on 1190 cm..

Do you agree to that YES or NO ?

This pull UPWARFS relative difference is increasing towards the 3rd floor, -not towards the ground floor.

Do you agree to that YES or NO ?

According to the prevailing religion , it "should" be increasing towards ground floor. This is NOT the case.

Do you agree to that YES or NO ?

Exactly like the relative distance of slope of a river is decreasing towards the ocean.

We are not talking of small difference here or there, on each floor but about the total depth of the depression at 3rd floor and about direction..

Honestly, - don't you feel sorry for all the fools you succeed to cheat?

 

[MRC_Hans]

The 254µgal you have calculated yourself, (the difference between the FAG and ADG), - is still a relative difference and not a speed, measure on 1190 cm..

Speed? Who is talking about speed? It doesn't mater who has calculated it, it is what the numbers say.

This pull UPWARFS relative difference is increasing towards the 3rd floor, -not towards the ground floor.

Do you agree to that YES or NO ?

No. It is largest at the ground floor.

According to the prevailing religion , it "should" be increasing towards ground floor. This is NOT the case.

Yes, it is the case.

Exactly like the relative distance of slope of a river is decreasing towards the ocean.

Irrelevant nonsense.

Honestly, - don't you feel sorry for all the fools you succeed to cheat?

The numbers speak for themselves.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

No. It is largest at the ground floor.

This is where the chain went off.

 

[MRC_Hans]

This is where the chain went off.

Honestly, Bjarne: Was your chain ever on?

However, I'm talking about the absoute value. Which you can find in my graph, or calculate yourself; it's easy.

Hans