Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Paul]

You sound like a winter depression..

And you sound like an idiot, but that doesn't help the discussion either.

Liar me ?

Yes, you.

Once again, - manipulation dear.

OK Honey bunny, if you stop manipulating the data we won't mention it anymore.

You are at a forum dear, it is possible to search evidence that proves WHO is the little liar...

That's funny, because that post indicates that Hans gave an approximation for the height before the exact data was available.

Later, in post 1529 you said this:

"Unless you know the exact height to each measurement points you can never know the buildings own ADG at any point.​

This is why my friend (Cristian) this week will measure all floor height of (the 5lower floor) again"​

You admit that you don't know height of the floors and yet you still give FAG data as if you do.

Cows do also know that a difference between 12,5 meter = 12 * 301ugal = 3612ugal.

The cows and you are wrong, the difference is 3.8575 mGal.

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,

Yes, minus. Starting fom the baseline measurement at ground level the contibution from the earth falls off at 0.3086 mGal/m; this means that it is 26.3853 mGal less 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")

The contribution from the building is negative for the first few (until just into the 3rd) floors because of the relatively large value for the earth, after the crossover point the values for the building obviously become larger with elevation.

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

Are -0.34, -0.16 and -0.07 mGal large?

You might also have noticed that the negative value decreases towards the 4th floor where it is +0.27mGal

As I wrote such ADG pattern is...

A lot of what you write also turns out to be incorrect.

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 such fudging is required, a perfectly satisfactory result can be obtained by the correct use of even your imprecise data.

ADG of the ball/container is ONLY 130ugal

Actually, without any guessing at reductions it would be 145.465574 µGal






note: I'm learning as I work my way through this so if I've made any silly errors can someone (who's not Bjarne) let me know.

 

[Bjarne]

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.

But you did anyway used elevation straight from you own fantasy.
And you ignored the elevation measurement I have done on each single floor.
The links below speaks its own stupid language.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6160941&postcount=1468
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6164036&postcount=1477
Every cow can easy see who now is lying…

I have used the correct elevations ever since you published the drawings.

Ahhh backpedal.
And who then told you all the floor height was exactly 3 Meter ?
Evidence http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6164036&postcount=1477
Hans do you self a favors, don’t make a bigger fool out of you self as already done.
Nobody except you do not speak about; - “ever since you have published the drawing”
You have for much too long time, - completely ignored my elevation measurement, and believed you was knowing better even though you was several meter off. This is the point...

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

I am off course speaking about your manipulation before that, when you totally were ignoring my elevation measurement floor by floor, and on a such nuts superficial basis you have try to shows fools and beast that you knew better.

Which imbalance?

According to you own religion the negative ADG at Ground floor must have the same value as at the floor, (but just negative).

You cannot replicate such ADG-pattern based on the objective measurement data from Domus Vista, - when you not is allowed to manipulated the FAG at pleasure, but only estimate a stable FAG value meter by meter...

But Hans you will not get that point, I am just wasting my time (again),..

It is not allowed to adjust it at all.

Off course it is and professionals working with this every day (and off course also Mother Cow) can easy confirm this.
The density of the underground varies a lot from place to place; hence the FAG is never the same.
It can easy deviate few percent.
This is why professional also learn special techniques to determinate the FAG from place to place.

That's funny, because that post indicates that Hans gave an approximation for the height before the exact data was available.

Later, in post 1529 you said this:
"Unless you know the exact height to each measurement points you can never know the buildings own ADG at any point.

This is why my friend (Cristian) this week will measure all floor height of (the 5lower floor) again"
You admit that you don't know height of the floors and yet you still give FAG data as if you do.

And this clearly demonstrate that even centimeter difference floor by floor really matter.
BUT according to Hans it seems like several meters deviation not was important. This is the point...

The contribution from the building is negative for the first few (until just into the 3rd) floors because of the relatively large value for the earth, after the crossover point the values for the building obviously become larger with elevation.

Negative ADG is increasing towards the 3rd 4th and 5th floor.
There is no way the prevailing thesis can explain that.
The opposite was expected to should happen, - it doesn’t.

Actually, without any guessing at reductions it would be 145.465574 µGal

• There are cavities.
• We cannot be totally sure about the weight of the sand..

But almost this value yes.

You might also have noticed that the negative value decreases towards the 4th floor where it is +0.27mGal

According to my calculation ADG at 4th floor is;

• minus 0.23mGal seen from ground floor.
• plus 0.23mGal, - if the perspective is seen from the roof.

The point here is not the value difference, - but only that you can see the ADG both as a plus or a minus value, - depending on from where you see it.

If the building was floating in space, the ADG pattern would seen from both the “bottom” and “top” perspective (of the building) - be plus.

But when you see it from the ground floor, - and at the same time on the Earth, - the building’s ADG counteracts the earth’s ADG whereby the ADG, seen from the ground floor perspective will turn from what original was plus and to minus.

I am not sure you will understand this point because it “sound” as a contradiction, but it is NOT.

http://www.science27.com/english/Graph/DV4.xlsx

 

[Paul]

But you did anyway used elevation straight from you own fantasy.

It's called an estimation, and is perfectly fine if it is labelled as such.

And you ignored the elevation measurement I have done on each single floor.

You don't provide elevation, you provide heights for the space between floors.

The links below speaks its own stupid language.

It's called plain English, something you would do well to employ in future.

Every cow can easy see who now is lying…

It's probably still you, or it could be that you have no ability to comprehend what people say to you.

And who then told you all the floor height was exactly 3 Meter ?

I know it's difficult for you, but do try to keep up with the conversation.

What was the estimated height of the building? How many floors are there?

According to you own religion the negative ADG at Ground floor must have the same value as at the floor, (but just negative).

What are you talking about?

You cannot replicate such ADG-pattern based on the objective measurement data from Domus Vista

What pattern?

when you not is allowed to manipulated the FAG at pleasure, but only estimate a stable FAG value meter by meter...

You've been told repeatedly that no manipulation is needed, the standard value of 0.3086 mGal is sufficient.

And this clearly demonstrate that even centimeter difference floor by floor really matter.

That depends entirely on how accurate you need to be. Your data neither require nor provide any such accuracy.

BUT according to Hans it seems like several meters deviation not was important. This is the point...

Yes, if only you would get it and move on.

Negative ADG is increasing towards the 3rd 4th and 5th floor.

Ignoring the data in the part you trimmed from that quote doesn't make it go away. As shown the negative value decreases with height until it becomes positive when it increases.

There is no way the prevailing thesis can explain that.
The opposite was expected to should happen, - it doesn’t.

Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us about how you came to that opinion.

But almost this value yes

Then why did you use a different inaccurate value?

According to my calculation ADG at 4th floor is;

minus 0.23mGal seen from ground floor.
plus 0.23mGal, - if the perspective is seen from the roof.

According to your own data it is measured at 0.27 mGal

If the building was floating in space, the ADG pattern would seen from both the “bottom” and “top” perspective (of the building) - be plus.

You mean if you measured under a completely different set of circumstances the data would be different.

But when you see it from the ground floor, - and at the same time on the Earth, - the building’s ADG counteracts the earth’s ADG whereby the ADG, seen from the ground floor perspective will turn from what original was plus and to minus.

We don't see the figures, or guess them or imagine what they might be, they have been measured, that is what the values are.

I am not sure you will understand this point because it “sound” as a contradiction, but it is NOT.

I'm very sure that you do not undestand what you think you are saying.

 

[Bjarne]

You don't provide elevation, you provide heights for the space between floors

And if you add these values you will have the exact elevation to a certain point...

 

[Paul]

And if you add these values you will have the exact elevation to a certain point...

Except that if you do that you are still 11.65m off for the height of the building. Even allowing for architectural structures on the roof, that's quite a difference for someone who complains about cm.

 

[Bjarne]

Except that if you do that you are still 11.65m off for the height of the building. Even allowing for architectural structures on the roof, that's quite a difference for someone who complains about cm.

Look at the drawings
In the lift tower measurement haven't been executed.

 

[MRC_Hans]

But you did anyway used elevation straight from you own fantasy.
And you ignored the elevation measurement I have done on each single floor.
The links below speaks its own stupid language.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6160941&postcount=1468
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6164036&postcount=1477
Every cow can easy see who now is lying…

Indeed it is, and it is you (or you are ridiculously ignorant). I clearly stated that I was using an estimated elevation. How come I'm a liar when estimating a value that is otherwise unavailable, but it is OK for you to estimate the FAG, even though it is known?

As soon as you published the drawing, I found the correct elevations and used them.

Ahhh backpedal.

Ahh, I see you learnt a new word, there. Now you only need to learn to use it the right way.

And who then told you all the floor height was exactly 3 Meter ?
Evidence http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6164036&postcount=1477
Hans do you self a favors, don’t make a bigger fool out of you self as already done.

Nobody did. I estimated it from the hight of the building and the number of floors.

Nobody except you do not speak about; - “ever since you have published the drawing”
You have for much too long time, - completely ignored my elevation measurement, and believed you was knowing better even though you was several meter off. This is the point...

I did not have access to your elevations. You MAY have published them somewhere, but I have better things to do than wade through all your nonsense. However, as soon as I saw the drawing, I could insert he correct elevations.

I am off course speaking about your manipulation before that, when you totally were ignoring my elevation measurement floor by floor, and on a such nuts superficial basis you have try to shows fools and beast that you knew better.

No manipulation. I clearly stated why I used the values I used, and anyway, Bjarne, the result got even MORE obvious AFTER the right elevations were inserted.

According to you own religion the negative ADG at Ground floor must have the same value as at the floor, (but just negative).

Do you mean the top floor? No, it doesnt' have to be the same. Only for a completely homegenous object. The building is obviously not homogenous.

You cannot replicate such ADG-pattern based on the objective measurement data from Domus Vista, - when you not is allowed to manipulated the FAG at pleasure, but only estimate a stable FAG value meter by meter...

I have not manipulated the FAG. I used DTU's value.

But Hans you will not get that point, I am just wasting my time (again),..

I won't get your point, because you don't have a point.

Off course it is and professionals working with this every day (and off course also Mother Cow) can easy confirm this.
The density of the underground varies a lot from place to place; hence the FAG is never the same.
It can easy deviate few percent.
This is why professional also learn special techniques to determinate the FAG from place to place.

Yes, and I took the FAG value that the professionals at DTU had determined and published.

And this clearly demonstrate that even centimeter difference floor by floor really matter.
BUT according to Hans it seems like several meters deviation not was important. This is the point...

Lying again. The overall picture is the same, but it got clearer once the right elevations were inserted.

Negative ADG is increasing towards the 3rd 4th and 5th floor.
There is no way the prevailing thesis can explain that.
The opposite was expected to should happen, - it doesn’t.

The slope is the same all the way. Look at my graph, look at my formulas.

According to my calculation ADG at 4th floor is;

• minus 0.23mGal seen from ground floor.
• plus 0.23mGal, - if the perspective is seen from the roof.

The point here is not the value difference, - but only that you can see the ADG both as a plus or a minus value, - depending on from where you see it.

If the building was floating in space, the ADG pattern would seen from both the “bottom” and “top” perspective (of the building) - be plus.

No. There is no such thing as a negative ADG. However, the ADG at the top and bottom of the building are, of course, in opposite directions, both on earth and in space.

But when you see it from the ground floor, - and at the same time on the Earth, - the building’s ADG counteracts the earth’s ADG whereby the ADG, seen from the ground floor perspective will turn from what original was plus and to minus.

Because here it subtracts from the ADG of Earth.

I am not sure you will understand this point because it “sound” as a contradiction, but it is NOT.

Bjarne, you have just explained the obvious, and I have known it all the time. You see, unlike some people, I don't need to get my knowledge from the cows; I can think for myself.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Except that if you do that you are still 11.65m off for the height of the building. Even allowing for architectural structures on the roof, that's quite a difference for someone who complains about cm.

The highest measurement was executed at the floor of the top residential floor. There is another ceiling, and an elevator machinery penthouse to reach the official boasing hight of 100m.

Obviously, the mass above the highest measuring station will skew the result a little bit, but I don't think it is important.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

I clearly stated that I was using an estimated elevation.

A cow would never be so ignorant because they know in less than 1/1000000000000000000000000000 second that estimate elevation can result in several thousand ugal off.

I did not have access to your elevations.

Crap, this link have been there all the time, since the measurement took place, as well as images published at this thread, - repeated many times.
http://www.science27.com/english/Graph/DV4.xlsx

Do you mean the top floor? No, it doesnt' have to be the same. Only for a completely homegenous object. The building is obviously not homogenous.

”Almost the same”
The point > you must estimate the FAG until you hit a overall logical pattern, but not manipulate the FAG.

Not negative few ugal in the bottom and 500ugal at the top. But Hans I do not think that you know what relative meassuremnet is about.

Yes, and I took the FAG value that the professionals at DTU had determined and published.

What is your source?
Anyway the FAG can vary few percent. Expert working with this every day has told me so.

Even though few percent is not much it is enough to give you a completely wrong overall pattern.

The slope is the same all the way. Look at my graph, look at my formulas.

It makes no sense to look at your graph because the FAG is not correct.
The next measurement we will do, we will use 80% of the time to determinate the FAG.
We would not do that it there were no reason to do so.

No. There is no such thing as a negative ADG. However, the ADG at the top and bottom of the building are, of course, in opposite directions, both on earth and in space.

Quibbling, call it want you want, you know what I mean.

Because here it subtracts from the ADG of Earth.

Right.

Bjarne, you have just explained the obvious, and I have known it all the time. You see, unlike some people, I don't need to get my knowledge from the cows; I can think for myself.

Ohhh no Hans.
You will be surprise the day you serious begin to socialize with cows.
Cows are never a factor 20 off.
Cows know how much exact elevation matter.
Cows read statements (included measured elevation) before they criticize anything.
I could read 7 books why cows IQ are much higher than humans.
Enough Quibbling, this week we will start construction of the container. So time for the fanatic religion is running out. .

 

[Paul]

The highest measurement was executed at the floor of the top residential floor. There is another ceiling, and an elevator machinery penthouse to reach the official boasing hight of 100m.

Because Bjarne approached this with total disregard for accuracy or rigour, every time I look something up it merely adds to the confusion.

The elevation is a good example: the plans Bjarne provided in pdf (which are inaccurate because they do not feature the extra two floors added to the original design) give a residential floor to floor height of 2.8m, the roof space (labelled tagetage) seems to be 2.25m.

At the bottom of the building there is a basement, a stue or stuen (presumably the ground floor?) and two more commercial floors before the residential begins.

Bjarne has used 2.8, 4.2, 3.85 and 3.85m as the values for the first 4 floors, however 2.8m is the basement with the ground floor being 4.2m. This gives all the residential floors the correct height but makes all Bjarne's elevations wrong.

As an aside, if you add all the floors and the basement and the roof space and make the elevator tower an extra five metres (which is very generous because it runs up through the roof space) the building is still only 97.55m. I don't know where the claimed architectural height of 101.95m comes from.

Obviously, the mass above the highest measuring station will skew the result a little bit, but I don't think it is important.

Me neither, but then we weren't complaining about a perceived error of a metre being really important.

 

[Paul]

I just plugged the correct height data into the spreadsheet and it smoothed out the graph nicely and gave an ADG range for the building from 0 to 0.5915mGal.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Because Bjarne approached this with total disregard for accuracy or rigour, every time I look something up it merely adds to the confusion.

The elevation is a good example: the plans Bjarne provided in pdf (which are inaccurate because they do not feature the extra two floors added to the original design) give a residential floor to floor height of 2.8m, the roof space (labelled tagetage) seems to be 2.25m.

At the bottom of the building there is a basement, a stue or stuen (presumably the ground floor?) and two more commercial floors before the residential begins.

Bjarne has used 2.8, 4.2, 3.85 and 3.85m as the values for the first 4 floors, however 2.8m is the basement with the ground floor being 4.2m. This gives all the residential floors the correct height but makes all Bjarne's elevations wrong.

As an aside, if you add all the floors and the basement and the roof space and make the elevator tower an extra five metres (which is very generous because it runs up through the roof space) the building is still only 97.55m. I don't know where the claimed architectural height of 101.95m comes from.

Exactly. Bjarne expects me to glean the elevations from various numbers in his spreadsheet. The advantage of the drawing is that is shows actual elevations. But of course it has some complications, which Bjarne hasn't even noticed, which shows us all how sloppy his way of working is: If you look closely at the drawing, you will note that it shows a 28 story building!

Elsewhere in the substantial documentation is the explanation how two extra floors were added later in the project.

But we all know that Bjarne is never botherd by facts.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Crap, this link have been there all the time, since the measurement took place, as well as images published at this thread, - repeated many times.
http://www.science27.com/english/Graph/DV4.xlsx

Ahh, well Bjarne, I don't know how to break this to you in a gentle way, so let me be blunt: I would never trust your data! Heck, if you told me the time of the day, I would double-check it. I will only use original data, like data in the DTU report or the original drawing.

Don't take it too personal; it is simply good science to only ever use reliable data.

”Almost the same”
The point > you must estimate the FAG until you hit a overall logical pattern, but not manipulate the FAG.

To change a known value to get the result you want is manipulation. Your tendency to do just that is the reason I will NEVER trust information from you.

Not negative few ugal in the bottom and 500ugal at the top. But Hans I do not think that you know what relative meassuremnet is about.

Bjarne I know more about measurement methods that you will ever learn. I happen to be a professional.

What is your source?
Anyway the FAG can vary few percent. Expert working with this every day has told me so.

My source is exactly the expert you talked with.

Even though few percent is not much it is enough to give you a completely wrong overall pattern.

Which is exactly the reason you can't just make your own estimations.

It makes no sense to look at your graph because the FAG is not correct.
The next measurement we will do, we will use 80% of the time to determinate the FAG.
We would not do that it there were no reason to do so.

Then your graph also makes no sense.
Then your whole experiment was a waste of time.

I could read 7 books why cows IQ are much higher than humans.

Yes? References, please.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Enough Quibbling, this week we will start construction of the container. So time for the fanatic religion is running out. .

Yes. Your fanatic religion.

Now, do make that container strong enough, OK? We won't want any accidents. Anything less than reinforced concrete will be unsafe.

Hans

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

A cow would never be so ignorant because they know in less than 1/1000000000000000000000000000 second that estimate elevation can result in several thousand ugal off.

So you can't estimate one of the measurements by even a tiny amount, but you can completely make up the results if the results you get aren't the ones you want?

 

[Marcus]

Sorry to interrupt, I was just wondering where one might find one of these super smart engineering cows Bjarne keeps talking about? Does he also claim to be a cow whisperer?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Exactly. Bjarne expects me to glean the elevations from various numbers in his spreadsheet. The advantage of the drawing is that is shows actual elevations. But of course it has some complications, which Bjarne hasn't even noticed, which shows us all how sloppy his way of working is: If you look closely at the drawing, you will note that it shows a 28 story building!

Elsewhere in the substantial documentation is the explanation how two extra floors were added later in the project.

Oh, I notice Paul already mentioned this. Funny, however, that Bjarne hasn't mentioned it, but then, what is a couple of floors more or less, between cows?

Hans

 

[Paul]

Oh, I notice Paul already mentioned this.

It's OK -sniff- I wasn't feeling ignored -sniff- or anything.

Funny, however, that Bjarne hasn't mentioned it,

Well, it's such a tricky thing. It took me at least 10 minutes looking at a couple of badly copied elevations in a language I don't read.

but then, what is a couple of floors more or less, between cows?

The difference between sirloin and tartare.

 

[Paul]

Sorry to interrupt, I was just wondering where one might find one of these super smart engineering cows Bjarne keeps talking about?

At the mooniversity.











I really am very sorry about that.

Does he also claim to be a cow whisperer?

He does talk a lot of bull.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Sorry to interrupt, I was just wondering where one might find one of these super smart engineering cows Bjarne keeps talking about? Does he also claim to be a cow whisperer?

Paul beat me to the best joke, but about the whispering: Judging from the quality of Bjarne's 'engineering', the end of the cow he gets it from is not particularly associated with whispering.

Hans