Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Zeuzzz]

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

Do you mean how science works?

If so can you please explain why this is the case so I can actually respond to your unsupported proclamation.

Also are you asserting that if someone thinks the way "religious people seem to think" that any science they discuss is wrong? Think you will find that religion means extremely different things to different people.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Scientists that think that theres no mystery left in science and we've nearly worked most things out really annoy me[...]

Can you name even one?

 

[Reality Check]

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

Can you provide the evidence for this unsupported assertion?
For example:

• citations to where Zwinky assumed that dark matter existed (in the 1940s) before he found that there was not enough visible matter in galaxy clusters to explain their dynamics.
• citations to where Rubin assumed that dark matter existed (in the 1970s) before she found that there was not enough visible matter in galaxies to explain their dynamics.
• citations to the assumption that dark matter exists in the analysis of gravitation lensing of galaxy clusters.
• citations to the assumption that dark energy exists in the analysis of Type 1A supernovae data.

Without this evidence you are just wrong. The science is

1. People make observations.
2. They create hypotheses to explain them.
3. Further observations validate the hypotheses.

The rest of your post is definitely wrong - science never "proves" that something exists. What science does is provide evidence that something exists. Sometimes the evidence is strong enough to convince enough scientists that the thing exists and so it is accepted as existing. As an example:

Most scientists accept that there is strong evidence that quarks exist. This is despite the fact that quarks by definition can never be directly detected !
​

 

[Zeuzzz]

They may not say exactly that but that is defiantly what some of them imply. They muddle observational science with experimental science, a fatal mistake.

Hu et al. (Hu, W., Sugiyama, N. And Silk, J., 1997, Nature, 386, 37. ) said this to a preview of the results they expect from spacecraft such as MAP and PLANCK designed to map the Cosmic Background Radiations: "we will establish the cosmological model as securely as the Standard Model of elementary particles. We will then know as much, or even more, about the early Universe and its contents as we do about the fundamental constituents of matter''.

The most charitable thing that can be said of such statements is that they are naive in the extreme and betray a complete lack of understanding of history, of the huge difference between an observational and an experimental science, and of the peculiar limitations of cosmology as a scientific discipline. By building up expectations that cannot be realised, such statements do a disservice not only to astronomy and to particle physics but they could ultimately do harm to the wider respect in which the whole scientific approach is held.

And the cosmologists that always bring up religion and god really annoy me too. Same thing really, if there's mysteries you cant explain, just say god did it

Then, last week, American scientists announced the discovery of radiation patterns in space that may mark the beginning of time itself. Said astrophysicist George Smoot, leader of the research team: "If you're religious, it's like looking at God. The order is so beautiful and the symmetry so beautiful that you think there is some design behind it."

Whatever caused the rapid expansion of the universe following the Big Bang--the same forces caused tiny ripples. Because if you try to do something too fast, you shake a little. God might be the designer.
--Maclean's, May 4, 1992 (the three above quotes are by George Smoot).


"It is a mystical experience, like a religious experience," Smoot said, reflecting the unscientific thoughts he had allowed himself in recent days, after the rigorous analysis of data was well behind him. "It really is like finding the driving mechanism for the universe, and isn't that what God is?" --(San Jose Mercury News, May 12, 1992. Story by John Noble Wilford of the New York Times.)


"By studying the way objects attract each other," Lange goes on, "we can come to the conclusion that there must be something [in the universe] that isn't normal matter, something that's some new form of matter. And any particle that exists--that God put in from the beginning--if it's stable, would still be around in great abundance.” --Andrew Lange (April 26, 1991 issue of the East Bay Express: "The Revenge of the WIMPS" an article by Steve Heimoff on current cosmology. This article centers on the U.C. Berkeley Lange Group, "a group of instructors, graduate students, and department assistants, organized under assistant professor of physics Andrew Lange.”)


The evolution of the universe from nothing is described by the big bang theory.
--astrophysicists Fang Li Zhi and Li Shu Xian, (Creation of the Universe, World Scientific, 1989)


What is the ultimate solution to the origin of the Universe? The answers provided by the astronomers are disconcerting and remarkable. Most remarkable of all is the fact that in science, as in the Bible, the world begins with an act of creation.
--astronomer Robert Jastrow, (Until the Sun Dies, 1977)

 

[Zeuzzz]

Most scientists accept that there is strong evidence that quarks exist. This is despite the fact that quarks by definition can never be directly detected !
​

Quarks have been invented not discovered.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

They may not say exactly that but that is defiantly what some of them imply. They muddle observational science with experimental science, a fatal mistake.

Hu et al. (Hu, W., Sugiyama, N. And Silk, J., 1997, Nature, 386, 37. ) said this to a preview of the results they expect from spacecraft such as MAP and PLANCK designed to map the Cosmic Background Radiations: "we will establish the cosmological model as securely as the Standard Model of elementary particles. We will then know as much, or even more, about the early Universe and its contents as we do about the fundamental constituents of matter''.

If this is in reply to me, then it doesn't even come close to demonstrating what you claimed.

 

[Reality Check]

Quarks have been invented not discovered.

So?
Quarks were invented as the best way to explain the physics.

Waiting for your citations....

 

[Reality Check]

They may not say exactly that but that is defiantly what some of them imply. They muddle observational science with experimental science, a fatal mistake.

Hu et al. (Hu, W., Sugiyama, N. And Silk, J., 1997, Nature, 386, 37. ) said this to a preview of the results they expect from spacecraft such as MAP and PLANCK designed to map the Cosmic Background Radiations: "we will establish the cosmological model as securely as the Standard Model of elementary particles. We will then know as much, or even more, about the early Universe and its contents as we do about the fundamental constituents of matter''.

Hu et al. are stating their opinion that the data from from WMAP and PLANCK provide enough data to establish the cosmological model as securely as the Standard Model of elementary particles.
N.B. whatever "cosmological model" they are talking about probably does not include dark energy (observed in 1998).

Observational science is as valid as experimental science.. They both produce valid data. Observational science has the advantage that it explores areas that experimental science cannot. Experimental science has the advantage that it can explore the details.

P.S.
Waiting for your citations....

 

[Zeuzzz]

Quarks were invented as the best way to explain the physics.

Correction:

Quarks were invented as the best way to explain [problems with] the physics.

They do a very nice of job of balancing out various equations and conserving various laws.

 

[Zeuzzz]

If this is in reply to me, then it doesn't even come close to demonstrating what you claimed.

What I claimed was misleading then, I should have said that scientists that think cosmological inferences are set in stone and close to revealing some of the biggest questions people can ask about the universe should learn a lesson from history.

 

[Reality Check]

Correction:

Quarks were invented as the best way to explain [problems with] the physics.

They do a very nice of job of balancing out various equations and conserving various laws.

Thanks Zeuzzz - that is a better way to describe quarks (and neutrinos, W-bosons, etc.)

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip* I should have said that scientists that think cosmological inferences are set in stone and close to revealing some of the biggest questions people can ask about the universe should learn a lesson from history.

That is true, however, such scientists are rare, if they exist at all. It is just that if you are to explain any theory of reasonable complexity, you can't keep saying "presumably, according to current observation, to the best of our present knowledge, at least till evidence to the contrary is found, etc.." all the time because that would make your reports a hundred pages thicker, however, for rational scientists, all this is implied.

When a scientist says "gravity is carried by gravitons", he/she really means "the assumed quantum of gravity is assigned to a hypothetical particle which we have chosen to call a graviton". It is just that it takes too long to convey a serious message in the latter format.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Thanks Zeuzzz - that is a better way to describe quarks (and neutrinos, W-bosons, etc.)

Uhh, neutrinos have been observed empirically. Or if you MUST nitpick: We have detected an actual entity which behaves exactly as predicted for the neutrino.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Oh, and in case you are lurking, Bjarne: You are cementing your reputation as a crackpot if you keep refusing to address the Domus Vista data.

Hans

 

[Paulhoff]

Do you mean how science works?

If so can you please explain why this is the case so I can actually respond to your unsupported proclamation.

Also are you asserting that if someone thinks the way "religious people seem to think" that any science they discuss is wrong? Think you will find that religion means extremely different things to different people.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html

And if one uses the same type thinking that is used to prove religious dogma, yes, they are wrong.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne Wrote: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. Let me make this very simple for you:
Hans Wrote;
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

The values you have mention are all correct.
Mother Cow (and me) is now extremely happy that you now FINALLY begun to used the objective elevations.

Mother Cow really hope that you too (finally) soon will discover that; if you insist that the FAG to be 0.3086mGal (308,4 ugal) it in FACT would mean a cow on the top of the building would be dragged slower towards the Earth as it would without the presence of the building.

I hope you will agree with mother (and me) cow that (according to your own calculations) the FAG-difference-value in fact is 0,592mGal larger as the pull due to both the Earth’s + the Buildings ADG difference.
Or shortly; The buildings seems to have exactly 0,592mGal negative ADG relative ADG at the upper floor...

Do you understand this?

This mean the higher the building is the larger is the risk for the Cow (on the roof of the building) to take off like was it a helicopter?

The Cow logic is therefore idiotic clear, - the FAG CANNOT be 308,4 ugal, it MUST be much less.

And this statement is NOT strange since we do not have heavy underground in this part of the world.

Therefore have I and Mother Cow in more than ½ year (without success) tried to explain you, that you MUST adjust / estimate the FAG until you hit an logical overall acceptable cow-logic pattern.

My friend it is "legal" to adjust the FAG few percent....

And should you seriously try to do this, you certainly would come to the same acknowledgment = >>> that the prevailing thesis MUST fall, simply because you CANNOT “re-establish” such possible overall pattern as the prevailing thesis predict.

BUT what you can “re-establish” by estimating the FAG is ONLY >> THIS >>>>

And as you can see this is based on a estimated FAG = 301 ugal

Download the Excel file and try to show us a possible ADG pattern based on a reasonable adjustment of the FAG >> http://www.science27.com/english/Graph/DV4.xlsx

But PLEASE do not come up with something nuts as for example; + or minus 500ugal at the top of the building and minus 50ugal af ground floor.

PLEASE show us a possible + logical overall pattern based on the objective data you now FINALLY have begun to accept..

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

What do you mean, - “density 1.55”?
I assume you mean density 1550 Kg/m³ right
And you believe that should give you a surface ADG = 2700ugal ?

OK then let’s calculate it
Volume of a ball = 4/3 * Pi * r³4/3 * 3,14 * 3,25 = 143,73 m³Weight = 143,73 m³ * 1550 Kg = 222766 Kg.
ADG = 6,67*10-¹¹ * 222766 Kg /3,25² = 140 ugal

[Minus missing mass due to cavities (Measurement station 4 and access tunnel) estimated to minus 10 ugal = 130 ugal ....]

Not 2700 ugal, - Hans.
Hans again you clearly demonstrate that you have no idea what you are blap la nlap nlap about. You is a factor 20 off .. (again).............

 

[MRC_Hans]

The values you have mention are all correct.
Mother Cow (and me) is now extremely happy that you now FINALLY begun to used the objective elevations.

Bjarne, if you were worth it I might get angry at you, and you won't want that to happen.

I have talked about real elevations for half a year, and you have ignored it till now. You are a little liar, and you are not even good at it.

Mother Cow really hope that you too (finally) soon will discover that; if you insist that the FAG to be 0.3086mGal (308,4 ugal) it in FACT would mean a cow on the top of the building would be dragged slower towards the Earth as it would without the presence of the building.

No.

The FAG is -0.3085mGal/meter. Minus. Thus, the gravity on top of the building is higher than at the same elevation in free air.

I don't know how you get the other idea, and certainly it would devastate your own dreams, if it were true.

I hope you will agree with mother (and me) cow that (according to your own calculations) the FAG-difference-value in fact is 0,592mGal larger as the pull due to both the Earth’s + the Buildings ADG difference.
Or shortly; The buildings seems to have exactly 0,592mGal negative ADG relative ADG at the upper floor...

No. Positive. Is there any part of my calculations you don't understand?

This mean the higher the building is the larger is the risk for the Cow (on the roof of the building) to take off like was it a helicopter?

No.

The Cow logic is therefore idiotic clear, - the FAG CANNOT be 308,4 ugal, it MUST be much less.

Cows ARE idiots, and so are you. The FAG is established and measured fact.

And this statement is NOT strange since we do not have heavy underground in this part of the world.

The local density has very little influence on the FAG. The value I use is the one measured by the DTU.

Therefore have I and Mother Cow in more than ½ year (without success) tried to explain you, that you MUST adjust / estimate the FAG until you hit an logical overall acceptable cow-logic pattern.

No, we must stick to ehat has been observed. Dreams are for dreamers, observations are for scientists.

My friend it is "legal" to adjust the FAG few percent....

A few percent won't make any difference.

And should you seriously try to do this, you certainly would come to the same acknowledgment = >>> that the prevailing thesis MUST fall, simply because you CANNOT “re-establish” such possible overall pattern as the prevailing thesis predict.

Nonsense. You are dreaming.

BUT what you can “re-establish” by estimating the FAG is ONLY >> THIS >>>>

http://www.science27.com/forum/dv4f.jpg

And as you can see this is based on a estimated FAG = 301 ugal

The FAG for the Copenhagen area has been measured to be -0.3086mGal m. However, that is not what fools you, it is the differential approach. Obviously, for a higher elevation step, the FAG will have a greater play.

Download the Excel file and try to show us a possible ADG pattern based on a reasonable adjustment of the FAG >> http://www.science27.com/english/Graph/DV4.xlsx

But PLEASE do not come up with something nuts as for example; + or minus 500ugal at the top of the building and minus 50ugal af ground floor.

PLEASE show us a possible + logical overall pattern based on the objective data you now FINALLY have begun to accept..

Bjarne, I have shown you my calculations. A different FAG will make for a different slope, but that is all. But we know the real FAG, so changing it would be manipulation.

What do you mean, - “density 1.55”?
I assume you mean density 1550 Kg/m³ right

Yes, that is how you express density, in g/cm³. But why would you know such a simple fact?

And you believe that should give you a surface ADG = 2700ugal ?

According to a quick calculation, yes. I don't have it here.

OK then let’s calculate it
Volume of a ball = 4/3 * Pi * r³4/3 * 3,14 * 3,25 = 143,73 m³

Does your calculator need new batteries, or is it mine?

4/3*3.14*3,25=13.6

Hans

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Therefore have I and Mother Cow in more than ½ year (without success) tried to explain you, that you MUST adjust / estimate the FAG until you hit an logical overall acceptable cow-logic pattern.

You do understand that you've just said that the data didn't support your theory so you therefore changed the data until it fit your theory, don't you? And you do understand that this is actually the opposite of science. What you're supposed to do if the data doesn't fit your theory is to change your theory.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, if you were worth it I might get angry at you, and you won't want that to happen.

You sound like a winter depression..

I have talked about real elevations for half a year, and you have ignored it till now. You are a little liar, and you are not even good at it.

Liar me ?
Once again, - manipulation dear.
You are at a forum dear, it is possible to search evidence that proves WHO is the little liar = http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6160596&postcount=1465
As you see you (hopefully) now finally have understood, you CANNOT just based the ADG pattern on lie >>> 100 meter building elevation, when the real elevation (where measurement have taken place) only is 87,5 meter.
You should take some cow-logic lesson as suggestion many times.
These are free, many cows would be happy to teach you.
And you know a cow doesn’t lie, - they also do not try to manipulate WHO is the real liars between humans.
Cows know there is 12,5 meter diffrence between 100 meter and 87,5 meter.
Cows do also know that a difference between 12,5 meter = 12 * 301ugal = 3612ugal.
Cows are far from so stupid that you think.

No.
The FAG is -0.3085mGal/meter. Minus. Thus, the gravity on top of the building is higher than at the same elevation in free air.

Right FAG is MINUS.
If the FAG is based on 0.3085mGal/meter you’ll have ADG = +592mGal (+592ugal) at the top of the building, -

• but only a fragment of that value would then be upwards pull (negative value) at ground floor. (this mean a huge "imbalance")
• And still you would have relative large increasing negative ADG from ground floor towards the COG near 5th floor.

As I wrote such ADG pattern is:

• illogical
• impossible
• and not as expected to the prevailing theory.

You are forced to adjust /estimate the FAG in order to get a better balance between the "+"ADG at the top and "-"ADG at the bottom of the building.
Estimating can only give you a logical result as shown by the Excel file and image above.
It is NOT allowed to manipulate the FAG differently wherever you like, - by pleasure – but ONLY to estimate a certian FAG value per meter .
For exsample 301ugal or 302ugal or 303ugal etc... everywhere = OK
BUT not 308ugal here and 301ugal there and then 212ugal....

Bjarne
OK then let’s calculate it
Volume of a ball = 4/3 * Pi * r3
4/3 * 3,14 * 3,25 = 143,73 m3
Hans
Does your calculator need new batteries, or is it mine?

4/3*3.14*3,25=13.6
Hans

Or is it you that need new glasses.
Try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasses and then notice there was a little 3 above the r. (r³)
And the point dear, you was (again) a factor 20 off.
ADG of the ball/container is ONLY 130ugal
NOT 2700ugal
Do you still deny that ?

 

[MRC_Hans]

You sound like a winter depression..

No, I just get fed up with idiots who insist on insulting others.

Liar me ?
Once again, - manipulation dear.
You are at a forum dear, it is possible to search evidence that proves WHO is the little liar = http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6160596&postcount=1465

Yes, you are a liar and you just proved it. The post you quoted is half a year old and there I tell you that you must get and use the real elevations, just as I said before. Thank you for proving my point.

As you see you (hopefully) now finally have understood, you CANNOT just based the ADG pattern on lie >>> 100 meter building elevation, when the real elevation (where measurement have taken place) only is 87,5 meter.

Are you so dumb that you haven't even looked at the calculations I post or are you just a habitual liar? I have used the correct elevations ever since you published the drawings. I couldn't very well use them before that, since I didn't have them, but YOU have been babling about this for a year, and made conclusions without having the correct elevations.

You should take some cow-logic lesson as suggestion many times.

No thanks, Bjarne, I have seen what cow logic does to people.

These are free, many cows would be happy to teach you.
And you know a cow doesn’t lie, - they also do not try to manipulate WHO is the real liars between humans.
Cows know there is 12,5 meter diffrence between 100 meter and 87,5 meter.
Cows do also know that a difference between 12,5 meter = 12 * 301ugal = 3612ugal.
Cows are far from so stupid that you think.

However, they are apparantly too stupid to notice that I have been using the correct elevations as soon as they were available.

Right FAG is MINUS.
If the FAG is based on 0.3085mGal/meter you’ll have ADG = +592mGal (+592ugal) at the top of the building, -

Soo, in cow math, when you multiply a negative number wuth a positive number, you get a positive value? Well, I supose the number of cow turds is always positive, so that makes some sense.

but only a fragment of that value would then be upwards pull (negative value) at ground floor. (this mean a huge "imbalance")

The FAG is not an upwards pull. Don't you understand this at all?
Which imbalance?

And still you would have relative large increasing negative ADG from ground floor towards the COG near 5th floor.

It turns out that the COG is near the 10th floor.

As I wrote such ADG pattern is:

• illogical
• impossible
• and not as expected to the prevailing theory.

No, it is quite logical that the slope will be steeper for the lower floors, where a much greater mass is concentrated.

You are forced to adjust /estimate the FAG in order to get a better balance between the "+"ADG at the top and "-"ADG at the bottom of the building.

No, we can't adjust the FAG, because it is objectively known. Only liars and the insane change reality to fit their ideas.

Estimating can only give you a logical result as shown by the Excel file and image above.

No.

It is NOT allowed to manipulate the FAG differently wherever you like, - by pleasure – but ONLY to estimate a certian FAG value per meter .
For exsample 301ugal or 302ugal or 303ugal etc... everywhere = OK
BUT not 308ugal here and 301ugal there and then 212ugal....

It is not allowed to adjust it at all.

Or is it you that need new glasses.
Try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasses and then notice there was a little 3 above the r. (r³)

Ahh, yes, I realized the mistake, later. That comes from trying to do math on a late Friday night . Still, it pleases me to see that you have apparantly started to read my posts. Keep up the good work!

ADG of the ball/container is ONLY 130ugal
NOT 2700ugal
Do you still deny that ?

I will revalidate my spreadsheet when I get the time. Not that it makes a difference, right now.

....

Bjarne, how is your sand container built?

Hans