Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

The cause of Acceleration Due to Gravity (ADG); - is the relative change in "density" of space per unit distance.
Or (in other words) the relative level space is stretching per meter.

No.

But the relative change of space density per unit distance is expected to be stable towards the center of a homogeneous mass, - and hence also towards the center of the container (the experiment).

No. It wasn't in the Domus Vista, it isn't in borehole experiments.

This mean that the spring inside the CG5 will not change /strength or release due to influence from the container, (when measuring either at the surface or inside the container).
The spring will only stretch or release due to the change of the FAG.

To meet this, you will need to measure the same in a full and empty container.

Or in other words;
Let's say we will measure +150µgal on the top of the container.
We shall not expect to measure more than +150µgal inside the COG of the container (due to the mass of the contianer).
So we have a difference between the 2 thesis >>> zero and +150µgal
Earlier prediction, - 3 times so strong is therefore not correct.
http://www.science27.com/forum/CylEx.jpg

It has nothing to do with the value.

Notice
This is not change of the theory, this still predict stable ADG towards the COG

You have no idea what you are talking about. However, I'm not in the mood for another round of your manipulations and bickering: Have the DTU people calculate the ADG curves in your experiment and include it in the report together with an evaluation of how it fits the established law of gravity. If they say it contradicts it, I'll listen.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

This only demonstrates that you do not understand your own ideas or their theoretical consequences.

"The gravity survey was tied to the absolute gravity station Copenhagen University (Timmen et al., 2008). The reference gravity value is 981446.595 +/- 0.003 mGal. This value was held fixed (within the error bars) in the adjustment of the measured gravity data."
​

Do you even read the reports DTU Space send you?

The thing is, Bjarne has noticed that the gravimeter they use is a relative gravimeter. He doesn't understand what this means, but he thinks it means that the should subtract the absolute measurement made in one station from the absolute measurement on the next floor.

He doesn't realize that most instruments are relative; his bathroom scale, his car's spedometer, a standard voltmeter, a thermometer, hygrometer, barometer, even his wrist-watch is a relative measuring instrument.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne
This mean that the spring inside the CG5 will not change /strength or release due to influence from the container, (when measuring either at the surface or inside the container).
The spring will only stretch or release due to the change of the FAG.
Hans
To meet this, you will need to measure the same in a full and empty container.

You mean the same elevation > empty and full, - yes this is exactly what we will are measuring.

Bjarne
Or in other words;
Let's say we will measure +150µgal on the top of the container.
We shall not expect to measure more than +150µgal inside the COG of the container (due to the mass of the container).
So we have a difference between the 2 thesis >>> zero and +150µgal
Hans
It has nothing to do with the value.

According to the new theory ADG at the surface and inside a (homogeneous) body is the same. (Stable,). What you do believe is irrelevant.

Bjarne
This is not change of the theory, this still predict stable ADG towards the COG
Hans
You have no idea what you are talking about. However, I'm not in the mood for another round of your manipulations and bickering:

I do talk about the cause/ nature of gravity, - the cause is; matter is absorbing space.
The result must be stable ADG towards the COG.
This is what the new theory predicts.
Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

Have the DTU people calculate the ADG curves in your experiment and include it in the report together with an evaluation of how it fits the established law of gravity. If they say it contradicts it, I'll listen.

What “ADG curves” ?
The FAG is now measured, and YES we (a DTU) did measure all the elevations too.
We did also measure in the center 75% full (325 cm) and at the top (650cm). – But as I wrote, I believe we are close to only 50µgal difference this is not convincing….

The thing is, Bjarne has noticed that the gravimeter they use is a relative gravimeter.
He doesn't understand what this means, but he thinks it means that the should subtract the absolute measurement made in one station from the absolute measurement on the next floor.
He doesn't realize that most instruments are relative; his bathroom scale, his car's speedometer, a standard voltmeter, a thermometer, hygrometer, barometer, even his wrist-watch is a relative measuring instrument.

As I have written many times; - a relative gravimeter is (almost) only a stupid spring.
The point here is to understand the new theory, and hence;

• the cause of gravity,
• the nature of gravity,
• and especially the nature of ADG, - relative to that stupid spring in the instrument. .

The cause of Acceleration Due to Gravity (ADG); - is the relative change in "space-density" per unit distance.

The point, - doesn’t matter how deep inside you are inside a gravity field, which mean inside the mass - the ADG “slope” / or if you prefer; - the relative change of “space-density” per distance is always the same (inside a homogeneous mass)...
Therefore the stupid spring inside the stupid relative gravimeter is also the same "tension" - And as I wrote ONLY the FAG affect the spring inside the container..

And this mean that the ADG value measured at the surface of a (homogeneous) body, is the same everywhere inside the body, - also at the COG.

This is what we are researching..

We are already in the process to build the next container.

Visit us the day we will measure ADG at the top and the COG of the 100 % full container, - then you too can check all you want.

 

[Paul]

I do talk about the cause/ nature of gravity, - the cause is; matter is absorbing space.

No it isn't.

The result must be stable ADG towards the COG.

No it mustn't.

This is what the new theory predicts.

How?

Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

What's relevant is that it is nonsense.

What “ADG curves” ?

The ones you get when you plot your data on a graph.

We did also measure in the center 75% full (325 cm) and at the top (650cm).

You didn't fill the container, so you can't have measured at the top.

– But as I wrote, I believe we are close to only 50µgal difference this is not convincing….

Ah, I see, if you don't agree with it, it's not convincing. Why do you hold these beliefs with no visible support?

As I have written many times; - a relative gravimeter is (almost) only a stupid spring

Yes, you have. The point is that you seem to think that precludes obtaining absolute values from it.

The point here is to understand the new theory

You don't have a theory.

The cause of Acceleration Due to Gravity (ADG); - is the relative change in "space-density" per unit distance.

No it isn't.

Why don't you try your 'theory' on one of the real scientists from DTU Space next time you see them?

The point, -

At last...

doesn’t matter how deep inside you are inside a gravity field

Yes it does.

which mean inside the mass

No it doesn't.

(a space vacuum)

No it isn't.

the ADG “slope” / or if you prefer; - the relative change of “space-density” per distance is always the same (inside a homogeneous mass)...

Hang on, are you now saying that the ADG changes uniformly within a homogeneous mass?

Therefore the stupid spring inside the stupid relative gravimeter is also the same "tension"

Which is not what you just said.

And as I wrote ONLY the FAG affect the spring inside that body..

Why would the free air gradient operate inside a homogeneous mass?

And this mean that the ADG value measured at the surface of a (homogeneous) body, is the same everywhere inside the body, - also at the COG.

You can't even keep your ideas straight within one paragraph.

 

[MRC_Hans]

According to the new theory ADG at the surface and inside a (homogeneous) body is the same. (Stable,).

Yes, according to your belief.

What you do believe is irrelevant.

What we believe is irrelevant, what facts show is not.

I do talk about the cause/ nature of gravity, - the cause is; matter is absorbing space.

According to your belief.

The result must be stable ADG towards the COG.
This is what the new theory predicts.

No, this is what your belief is. There is no theory.

What “ADG curves” ?

The cows understand this.

The FAG is now measured, and YES we (a DTU) did measure all the elevations too.
We did also measure in the center 75% full (325 cm) and at the top (650cm). – But as I wrote, I believe we are close to only 50µgal difference this is not convincing….

Why is it not convincing?

As I have written many times; - a relative gravimeter is (almost) only a stupid spring.

Springs are generally stupid. The gravimeter is a stupid spring that shows absolute gravity.

The point here is to understand the new theory,

You don't have a new theory. You have some inconsistent ramblings. You don't even understand the implications of your ideas. As I have told you before, and as you keep ignoring, the thermodynamics of your "theory" don't work out.

The cause of Acceleration Due to Gravity (ADG); - is the relative change in "space-density" per unit distance.

No.

The point, - doesn’t matter how deep inside you are inside a gravity field, which mean inside the mass - the ADG “slope” / or if you prefer; - the relative change of “space-density” per distance is always the same (inside a homogeneous mass)...

No.

Therefore the stupid spring inside the stupid relative gravimeter is also the same "tension" - And as I wrote ONLY the FAG affect the spring inside the container..

No. You know the fun thing is that this particular property is just an extra invention of yours. Your "space-density" idea does not imply this at all.

And this mean that the ADG value measured at the surface of a (homogeneous) body, is the same everywhere inside the body, - also at the COG.

Which means that you would get a distinct shift in the direction of the ADG inside an object. Which is clearly contradicted by your own Domus Vista measurements.

This is what we are researching..

You fumbling have nothing to do with research. You are simply wasting time and money while making measurements that you will subsequently ignore or fudge because they don't support your dreams.

We are already in the process to build the next container.

Have fun.

Visit us the day we will measure ADG at the top and the COG of the 100 % full container, - then you too can check all you want.

No thanks, I'm not getting anywhere near your contraptions. I'll wait for the DTU report.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Which means that you would get a distinct shift in the direction of the ADG inside an object. Which is clearly contradicted by your own Domus Vista measurements.

Sweep your own hose.
According to Domus Vista, - you have never shown any possible ADG pattern, based on an estimation of the FAG.
It is not enough just to claim you have; ADG +350µgal at the top of the building (which is impossible) and almost nothing at Ground Floor (which also is impossible). .

So why do you not just use the FAG you believe is all right and then show us all a result, for example + 50µgal at the top and -50µgal at the bottom of that building, - and zero in the COG, - or something like that that sound probable or reliable ?

Let me answer; - you cannot, - because the only possible way is hence to manipulate the FAG, -“the baseline crap”. – You can’t show a OK ADG pattern by estimating the FAG, - right ?
If you could you have done it long ago.
Instead you have invented the baseline crap....

You fumbling have nothing to do with research.
You are simply wasting time and money while making measurements that you will subsequently ignore or fudge because they don't support your dreams.

Have you ever considered to be a priest, a bishop, or a pope ?
Øhhh waste of money ?
Do you mean CERN ?
And what lost of time ? - Do you mean 5000 "scientist" world wide hunting a fantasy particle ??

I mean search for a fantasy particle that doesn’t exist ? – 50.000.000.000.00 DKK – Also yours money Hans..

And you know many people also donate money to the Vatican etc. ...
What waste of money are you really talking about, - those you have lost because you also believed in the Higgs?

Well I have nothing against religion, - but always remember to distinguish between the scientific method and religion, - especially before you sound off too much.

Do you really believe that inner ADG is proven ?
Is it really possible to be more omniscient, superficial, silly, stupid and naive?

 

[Paul]

So why do you not just use the FAG you believe is all right and then show us all a result,

OK.

Here is your data, adjusted to show correct floor heights and with 2 columns removed due to size restrictions, with my additions to the table calculated by the software and then plotted onto the graph.

 

[Paul]

Is it really possible to be more omniscient, superficial, silly, stupid and naive?

Obviously you know everything, but I'm pretty sure that a) trying to extend the superlative is futile and b) even you would find it almost impossible to be both omniscient and superficial, silly, stupid and naive at the same time.

 

[Paulhoff]

Here's the deal, Bjarne stilll hasn't show why Dark Energy is an illusion, will someone with balls shut this thread down.

Paul

 

[Bjarne]

OK.

Here is your data, adjusted to show correct floor heights and with 2 columns removed due to size restrictions, with my additions to the table calculated by the software and then plotted onto the graph.

1.
600µgal is impossible, - the mass of the building is only 50.000.000 kg
Try agian.

2.
Where are the COG ?

3.
Furthermore, try to explain; - doesn’t matter what you do, - you will in fact get acceleration from ground floor towards 3th floor.
You must look at the local values and interpret these..
You should expect the opposite…(!)

 

[nvidiot]

You are making (if that's possible really) even less sense than usual bjarne.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Sweep your own hose.
According to Domus Vista, - you have never shown any possible ADG pattern, based on an estimation of the FAG.

I have shown my calculations. They are here in this thread.

It is not enough just to claim you have; ADG +350µgal at the top of the building (which is impossible) and almost nothing at Ground Floor (which also is impossible).

That is not what I claim.

So why do you not just use the FAG you believe is all right and then show us all a result, for example + 50µgal at the top and -50µgal at the bottom of that building, - and zero in the COG, - or something like that that sound probable or reliable ?

I use the FAG found by the experts, and I get a negative ADG at the bottom, a positive one on the top and zero in the calculated COG, with a (fairly) smooth slope in between. I have posted the graph in this thread.

Let me answer; - you cannot, - because the only possible way is hence to manipulate the FAG, -“the baseline crap”. – You can’t show a OK ADG pattern by estimating the FAG, - right ?
If you could you have done it long ago.
Instead you have invented the baseline crap....

You are lying again. This seems to have become a habit. I have posted my calculations and the resultant graph. ALL based on DTU data and the official drawing of the building. No manipulation.

I mean search for a fantasy particle that doesn’t exist ? –

How do you know it doesn't exist?

How can WE know if it really doesn't exist? Only by searching for it.

What waste of money are you really talking about,

I am talking about the money YOU are wasting, arranging poorly designed experiments that you don't really understand, and the results of which you will subsequently ignore.

but always remember to distinguish between the scientific method and religion, - especially before you sound off too much.

Say that to yourself.

Is it really possible to be more omniscient, superficial, silly, stupid and naive?

I suggest you look up the hard words before you use them. Here is a small intelligence test for you (you can ask the cows to help you, if it's too hard):

Which of the words below does not belong in the group?

a) omniscient
b) superficial
c) silly
d) stupid
e) naive

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

1.
600µgal is impossible, - the mass of the building is only 50.000.000 kg
Try agian.

According to the DTU data we can estimate the mass of the building to approximately 75,000,000 kg. The 50,000,000kg are mentioned in a pre-project, and deals with a smaller building (you should study your sources with greater care).

2.
Where are the COG ?

It appears to be just below the floor of the 10th story.

3.
Furthermore, try to explain; - doesn’t matter what you do, - you will in fact get acceleration from ground floor towards 3th floor.
You must look at the local values and interpret these..
You should expect the opposite…(!)

No acceleration. The gravity slope is steeper, but that is to be expected; not only is the building structure more massive there, but the lower 3 floors are surrounded by other buildings.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

1.
600µgal is impossible, - the mass of the building is only 50.000.000 kg
Try agian.

No. The ~600 comes from the fact that Paul's graph simply starts at zero, with no estimation of the position of the COG. However, you can't add the ADG from one side of the mass with the ADG from the other side.

The ADG is what it is, at any spot.

Hans

 

[Paul]

1.
600µgal is impossible, - the mass of the building is only 50.000.000 kg
Try agian.

You can blap blap blap all you like, it's your data.

What is your problem with the data?

Furthermore, try to explain; - doesn’t matter what you do, - you will in fact get acceleration from ground floor towards 3th floor.

You need to look at the graph again.

Imagine if all the floors were of equal height, or if the x-axis were longer.

You must look at the local values and interpret these..

Again, it's your data.

 

[MRC_Hans]

What is your problem with the data?

I think that is painfully obvious: They don't support his claims.

Hans

 

[Paul]

I think that is painfully obvious: They don't support his claims.

If he admitted that, he'd have to admit that it meant agreeing with everyone else.

 

[MRC_Hans]

If he admitted that, he'd have to admit that it meant agreeing with everyone else.

Yeah, well,.... I hope for his own sake that he hasn't based his budget on that Nobel Prize.

But I suppose it's really a win-win situation for Bjarne: Either he gets his idea vindicated, or he can feed his prosecution complex and keep thinking the world is against him. After all, when you are on the bottom of a hole, all directions lead up.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne’
So why do you not just use the FAG you believe is all right and then show us all a result, for example + 50µgal at the top and -50µgal at the bottom of that building, - and zero in the COG, - or something like that that sound probable or reliable ?
Hans’
I use the FAG found by the experts, and I get a negative ADG at the bottom, a positive one on the top and zero in the calculated COG, with a (fairly) smooth slope in between. I have posted the graph in this thread.

Impossible,
if you believe the FAG is about 308,5 µgal /m you would not have any COG, instead you would have decreasing ADG from the bottom of the building and towards the ground floors.

This was the reason for the silo experiment.

Take a serious look at the calculation below.

You can easy see that all the measurement on all floors do have stronger ADG as the FAG.

This is in no way something you should expect according your religion.

So where is the COG dear?

Hans honestly, a brain damage cow can see that in this case there is no COG...
But I guess you will just continue to ignore the fact...

Why do you think we made systematical measurement ?

Bjarne
Where is the COG?
Hans
It appears to be just below the floor of the 10th story.

Nonsense, if the FAG really is 308,5 µgal /m there are no COG, only decreasing ADG from the top to the bottom of the building.

According to the prevailing theses, - > The ADG curve MUST cross the FAG (green line), and become negative - otherwise there is no COG.

So how can we get the ADG line below the green line - dear ?

 

[Paul]

Impossible,

Possible and demonstrated.

if you believe the FAG is about 308,5 µgal /m

That's what it is, it's also what you have used, albeit in an odd way, in your own table.

you would not have any COG, instead you would have increasing ADG from the bottom of the building and towards the ground floors.

Two things spring to mind: the first being that you don't appear to have any idea what you are trying to say, and the second is that the ground floor is at the bottom of the building and there is only one of it.

Take a serious look at the calculation below

You appear to be the only one who hasn't done that.

So where is the COG dear?

You've been told enough times.

Why do you think we made systematical measurement ?

It's not the measurement that's wrong, it's your inability to process your own data.

Nonsense, if the FAG really is 308,5 µgal /m there are no COG, only increasing ADG from the top to the bottom of the building.

This is why you have been asked repeatedly for a baseline surface gravity value. The fact that you don't appear to understand why also goes some way to explain why you can't grasp the data presented to you.