Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

Yes, Bjarne, I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the result you got in your previous experiment, the Domus Vista measurement, which showed convincingly that at Domus Vista, gravity behaves exactly as predicted by conventional law.

What is your comment to this result? You know, it is not going to go away, just because you try to ignore it. It is there, it is fact, and you have to accept it.

My comment ?
Is it possible to be more blind ?

About your new experiment, the details are apparantly a secret. I can understand you won't disclose them in advance, because then you can't manipulate the result.

I have revealed that already, many times, you haven’t read it. – As usual.

 

[MRC_Hans]

My comment ?
Is it possible to be more blind ?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif

So you are not able to comment? Well, I'm not surprised.

So we can conclude that the Domus Vista measurement has disproved your gravity model, and you can't comment further.

I have revealed that already, many times, you haven’t read it. – As usual.

You have shown a sketch of a scaffold of some kind.

But, since you have already debunked yourself, and refuse to recognize it, why should I care what else you do?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

About your new experiment, the details are apparently a secret. I can understand you won't disclose them in advance, because then you can't manipulate the result.

ADG in the center (measurement station 4) of the container "should" according to your religion be the same value (when full) compared to the value we will measure when we determine the free air gradient (when empty).

Shortly; There should according to old mossy creeds be no different, - except that caused by gravitational noise (around +/- 25µgal)...when measuring in the center full / empty...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to both the old thesis and to the new theory I expect we will measure + 100µgal (+/- 50µgal)...So fare both the old thesis and the new theories agrees...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the new theory I expect we will measure relative 3,25 time so strong ADG in the center of the container, compared to the top.. .

For example
Let say we will measure +100 µgal at the top when the container when it is full, - Now I expect we will measure 100 µgal + 325 ugal (= +425 ugal) in the center of the container, - and the prevailing religion expect that the value will be the same as the FAG which mean a different to FAG = 0

 

[Reality Check]

ADG in the center (measurement station 4) of the container "should" according to your religion be the same value (when full) compared to the value we will measure when we determine the free air gradient (when empty).
...snipped usual gibberish...

We already know that central gravity is your religion and an debunked mossy creed: Bjarne's "central gravity" is completely debunked!

And now you get the numbers wrong: Did you pull 400 µgal from your pet cow's bottom or is it "100 µgal + 325 ugal (= +425 ugal)" that was pulled from your pet cow's bottom?

Any high school student (and your pet cow ) knows that it is idiotic to give a value without showing how you derived it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

ADG in the center (measurement station 4) of the container "should" according to your religion be the same value (when full) compared to the value we will measure when we determine the free air gradient (when empty).

Since I see no drawing of the container, and no indication of what is in the container, or where in the container you will measure, I can't say what should be expected. However, if you do measure gravity in the gravital center of a mass, then its contribution will be zero, just as we saw with the Domus Vista.

According to the new theory I expect we will measure relative 3,25 time so strong ADG in the center of the container, compared to the top.. .

The how come you did not measure that in the Domus Vista?

For example
Let say we will measure +100 µgal at the top when the container when it is full, - Now I expect we will measure 100 µgal + 325 ugal (= +425 ugal) in the center of the container, - and the prevailing religion expect that the value will be the same as the FAG which mean a different to FAG = 0

And when you don't measure that, will you admit you were wrong?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Since I see no drawing of the container, and no indication of what is in the container, or where in the container you will measure, I can't say what should be expected.

Don’t worry dear, it will all be recorded.

However, if you do measure gravity in the gravital center of a mass, then its contribution will be zero, just as we saw with the Domus Vista.

You “should” have seen; minus 160ugal, - in Domus Vista that shouldn’t been there, - according to the old creeds.
But don’t worry dear; I will now use the sledge hammer to open your eyes.
All welding and drilling are completed, weather is good, and everything looks promising.
Soon the old fanatic creed is definitive dead.

And when you don't measure that, will you admit you were wrong?

As I said Hans, let’s make a deal here.
When I am more wrong than you I will always finish a post with the words.
I am more stupid as a certain tail-part of Mother cow.
If your prediction “zero” is more wrong than my prediction; +425ugal you most promise always ( the rest of you live) to finish a post with these words.
Notice the 425ugal will be + relative to the top, and – (minus 425ugal) relative to the bottom. BUT we will not measure full in the Bottom. // Only top and middle will be measured full. This is enough…

 

[Reality Check]

Don’t worry dear, it will all be recorded.

Who cares dear?
All you are doing is admitting that your idea is even more idiotic than has alreadt been shown: Bjarne's "central gravity" is completely debunked!

It is so bad an idea that you cannot even show the calculation of any values from it. Instead you have to make up numbers: Did you pull 400 µgal from your pet cow's bottom or is it "100 µgal + 325 ugal (= +425 ugal)" that was pulled from your pet cow's bottom?

 

[Paul]

Don’t worry dear, it will all be recorded.

By you, or by someone independent?

What are the baseline figures?

You “should” have seen; minus 160ugal, - in Domus Vista that shouldn’t been there, - according to the old creeds.

We know that you don't understand your own data, you don't have to keep reminding us.

Notice the 425ugal will be + relative to the top, and – (minus 425ugal) relative to the bottom. BUT we will not measure full in the Bottom. // Only top and middle will be measured full. This is enough…

Why will you not measure at the base?

You are making up numbers for it so you must measure to demonstrate that you didn't just pull them from your cow.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Don’t worry dear, it will all be recorded.

Fine, but don't ask me to make predictions when you won't tell me the details.

You “should” have seen; minus 160ugal, - in Domus Vista that shouldn’t been there, - according to the old creeds.

We saw exactly what we should see in the Domus Vista.

But don’t worry dear; I will now use the sledge hammer to open your eyes.
All welding and drilling are completed, weather is good, and everything looks promising.
Soon the old fanatic creed is definitive dead.

You will use the sledge hammer to try to whack the result into something that supports your silly ideas.

But, I'm looking forward to either:

1) Seeing how you will get that scaffold of yours inside a container full of anything.

2) Seeing how you will try to explain how you can measure inside gravity on the outside of a container.

As I said Hans, let’s make a deal here.
When I am more wrong than you I will always finish a post with the words.
I am more stupid as a certain tail-part of Mother cow.
If your prediction “zero” is more wrong than my prediction; +425ugal you most promise always ( the rest of you live) to finish a post with these words.

Ahh, backpaddling already? Bjarne, there is no more or less wrong in this matter. Either you are right, or you are wrong, period.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

And before Bjarne tries to use his sledge hammer to forge the Domus Vista data into something they are not, let us recap. I have now done two refinements to the chart:

1) I have changed the X axis to reflect the actual elevations of the measuring stations. This shows that the slope for the lower, heavier, part of the building is not as steep as one might gather from the earlier graphs.

2) I have calculated the approximate COG for the building. This is done by finding the point where the integrals of the upper and lower slopes are the same. It appears that the COG is just below the 10th floor measuring station.

From the total gravity deviation, we can conclude that the weight of the building is around 75,000 metric tons.

There is absolutely no sign of Bjarne's constant internal gravity. For fun, I have drawn a red line that shows the curve we should get, according to Bjarne's model.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

It is so bad an idea that you cannot even show the calculation of any values from it. Instead you have to make up numbers: Did you pull 400 µgal from your pet cow's bottom or is it "100 µgal + 325 ugal (= +425 ugal)" that was pulled from your pet cow's bottom?

I have answer that question many times.

The measurement is executed in a container Ø 6,5 meter H 6.5 meter, -container, - because this is a simple structure that not deviate a lot form the ball shape.

A ball shape would be the best possible shape, because in such matter encircles a central point of space most effective and would therefore cause strongest possible gravity. - But such structure is not easy / cheap to build.

I have already made it clear that the more a structure deviate from a ball shape, the weaker ADG we shall expect.

Let us know first calculate the ADG based on the mass that balls ahpe “beyond” the cylinder structure.

Volume = Pi * 3,25m* 3,25m * 6,5m = 215 m3
Weight = 1550 KG * 215 M3 = 333250 Kg
We will estimate the mass (sand) to 1550 Kg / ton

Gravity of the “hidden” ball shape (green area) is roughly-lazy estimated to 60% of the Mass.

To find ADG of that we can use the most simple equation GM/r²
100% = 333250 * 6,67E-11 / 3,25^2 = 210 ugal
60% = 125 ugal
This mean the ball shape "beyond" the cylinder shape = 125 ugal

Now we must deduct the inner missing mass (black area).. (Tunnel & station 4)

Hence we shall expect approximated 100 – 110 ugal at the central top of the Building....

Left is to add the mass that deviate from a ball shape. The red area (the 40%).

But this will not cause 40% extra ADG, but only the amount proportional to how effective it in a homogeneous way encircles central space of the container.

Hence this mass (the red area) contributes much less. Probably not more than 10-15% relative to that mass.

I don’t think the red area mass will affects the measurement resukt at station 4 or 7, but only that in the area between that (read area) mass and the center.

So At the central top of the container we shall expect almost 100-110 ugal.

Now just multiply the (approximate) 100-110 ugal with the distance between Station 4 and 7 (3,25 meter) and you will get 325 to 357 ugal.

You must add the value at the top, (100-110 ugal) and you can see that we shall expect around 4-500ugal stronger ADG in the center relative to the value (in the center) when the container is empty (FAG)

So dear RC, I KNOW EXCACTLY what I am speaking about.

What are the baseline figures?

We will measure that first.

We saw exactly what we should see in the Domus Vista.

Yes we say Minus 160 ugal that you could not explain and now have manipulated away…

Ahh, backpaddling already? Bjarne, there is no more or less wrong in this matter.

We most always be open minded, and always expect surprised.

Either you are right, or you are wrong, period.

Right and therefore bet or agree to the stupid-cow-tail-deal I suggested you.

The first place this nonsence strikes; is that you have “found” + 200 ugal

• This is not what is measured.
• This is impossible
• This is not what the prevailing thesis predict
• This is Manipulation or at best completely misunderstood.
• This only crystalo clear demonstrates you don’t know what you are dealing with.

The buildings own ADG at the top of the Building is in fact so weak it is difficult to distinguish from Gravitational noise , - (not more than 15 ugal) .

The only thing in that building that makes sense is the overall picture and especially the relative gravity difference between the 4 lower floors.

 

[Paul]

We will estimate the mass...

roughly-lazy estimated to 60% of the Mass...

approximated 100 – 110 ugal...

Probably not more than 10-15%...

I don’t think the red area mass will affects the measurement resukt...

Now just multiply the (approximate) 100-110 ugal...

we shall expect around 4-500ugal stronger...

So dear RC, I KNOW EXCACTLY what I am speaking about.

OK, cow's backside it is.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I have answer that question many times.

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

The measurement is executed in a container Ø 6,5 meter H 6.5 meter, -container, - because this is a simple structure that not deviate a lot form the ball shape.

We seem to have to drag information out of you: What is in the container?

A ball shape would be the best possible shape, because in such matter encircles a central point of space most effective and would therefore cause strongest possible gravity.

Encircles a central point? If that is your way of saying that the distance to the COG is the smallest for a given mass in a ball shape, then right.

I have already made it clear that the more a structure deviate from a ball shape, the weaker ADG we shall expect.

For a given density, correct. For a a given mass, not necessarily.

Let us know first calculate the ADG based on the mass that balls ahpe “beyond” the cylinder structure.

No, within the cylinder.

Volume = Pi * 3,25m* 3,25m * 6,5m = 215 m3
Weight = 1550 KG * 215 M3 = 333250 Kg

So, it is sand? Fine. Yes, a density of 1.55 is plausible.

We will estimate the mass (sand) to 1550 Kg / ton

Kg / ton??????? You mean that you estimate the density of sand to be 1550 / m³.

Now we must deduct the inner missing mass (black area).. (Tunnel & station 4)

That must be negligible.

Hence we shall expect approximated 100 – 110 ugal at the central top of the Building....

For a ball of 6.5m diameter, and a density of 1.55, the surface gravity will be 2.7mGal.

Hence this mass (the red area) contributes much less. Probably not more than 10-15% relative to that mass.

No, that's not enough.

So At the central top of the container we shall expect almost 100-110 ugal.

More like 3.5mGal

Now just multiply the (approximate) 100-110 ugal with the distance between Station 4 and 7 (3,25 meter) and you will get 325 to 357 ugal.

Why on earth should we do that?

You must add the value at the top, (100-110 ugal) and you can see that we shall expect around 4-500ugal stronger ADG in the center relative to the value (in the center) when the container is empty (FAG)

The FAG is -0.3036mGal/m, so from the bottom to the central station it is -0.9867mGal. However, in the center, where the ypper and lower mass will cancel out, we shall expect roughly the same value as the one for the empty container.

Of course, the sand at the bottom will be somewhat denser than at the top.

So dear RC, I KNOW EXCACTLY what I am speaking about.

Apparantly not.

Yes we say Minus 160 ugal that you could not explain and now have manipulated away…

I cannot manipulate anything, because I am using YOUR data.

The first place this nonsence strikes; is that you have “found” + 200 ugal

• This is not what is measured.

I am using your data, so yes, it is what is measured.

This is impossible

Why?

This is not what the prevailing thesis predict

It is exactly what the law of gravity predicts.

The buildings own ADG at the top of the Building is in fact so weak it is difficult to distinguish from Gravitational noise , - (not more than 15 ugal) .

How do you know? Your measurements show differently. Ler me make this very simple for you:

YOUR measurement at the lowest floor: 981547,684mGal
YOUR measurement at the top floor: 981521,273mGal
Difference:26,411mGal

Elevation difference between the two floors (according to the drawing YOU published: 87.5m
FAG = -0.3086 x 87.5 = 27.0025mGal

Difference between measured gravity and FAG: 0,592mGal

That is the contribution of the building, on the highest measuring station.

Do you have any questions to my calculation?

Hans

 

[Paul]

Because you are too lazy to do even the most basic of preparation Bjarne, I will give you some accurate data to start with:

Volume of green sphere = 143.79328383333333 m³
Volume of red cylinder = 215.68992575000004 m³
Density of dry sand approximately 1602 kg/m³
Mass of full sphere = 230356.84069566 kg

Mass of full cylinder = 345535.2610515 kg

The sphere is 0.66666 the volume of the cylinder and 0.66666 the mass

 

[MRC_Hans]

I'm a little apprehansive about this experiment: Who built that cylinder, and from what? 345 tons of sand is going to make one hell of a pressure on those cylinder walls.

If this is something constructed by Bjarne, I wouldn't venture within 30 meters of it. Oh, well, he isn't going to be shovelling that sand in, and I suppose the people handling it know what they are doing.

Hans

 

[Paul]

Oh, well, he isn't going to be shovelling that sand in, and I suppose the people handling it know what they are doing.

"Nej, hr. Lorenzen, ønsker vi dig at stå godt tilbage for vores sikkerhed"

 

[Zeuzzz]

I wonder what difference it would have made to peoples opinions if dark matter and energy had been called bright matter and energy?

 

[Paul]

How about The Colonel's Secret Matter

 

[Zeuzzz]

The trouble with dark matter and energy is that we will never be able to prove they exist like we do with other objects in science. We will never be able to nip to the galaxy next to us and do direct in situ experiments. We can however easily increase the likelihood of its existence with time by inferences we draw from visible parts of space, and maybe to the point where its non existance is statistically impossible.

With dark energy/matter people are always going to end up assuming what they try to prove.

Sometimes its better for scientists and experts to say that they just don't know the answer than to assume the inferences drawn from current theories are correct. Scientists that think that theres no mystery left in science and we've nearly worked most things out really annoy me, especially cosmologists, as to think that about such a titanic subject as the properties of the entire universe is naive to the extreme.

 

[Paulhoff]

With dark energy/matter people are always going to end up assuming what they try to prove.

With that statement, you have shown that you don't know who science works.

But you are showing how religious people seem to think, alone with 9-11 etc people.

Paul