Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Paul]

Of course there is.

No there isn't.

If you are standing in free air the “natural” ADG lost of the Earth is at its maximum. For example MINUS 308,5 µgal/m (FAG).

You're going to go and spoil it all by saying something stupid aren't you.

So soon you walk inside Domus Vista you expect the building to pulls you extra upwards... pointless rambling snipped

Which it does.

BUT the opposite happens in Domus Vista.

And I was right.

The ADG in that building is stronger everywhere, relative to a FAG line, - relative what it would have been without the building. – There is no upwards pull that reinforce the FAG.

Read the data. Understand the data. Come back when you can explain clearly why you would believe this.

THIS IS A FACT

Only if you use "it's complete nonsense" as your definition of fact.

The rest of you post is exactly as expected, you have not answered one single question.

Actually, you haven't asked any sensible questions and you can't understand the explanations provided.

And if you did you would be force the admit that the data from Domus Vista shows that there are no upwards pull at the lower floors,

I will explicitly and for the record answer this: you are wrong, your data show this and you appear to be so hard of understanding that you cannot follow any of the explanations you have been given.

instead there is increasing ADG doesn’t matter where you are at this building.

No there isn't.

Exactly as expected.

Only by you.

The question is not how ADG is measured or not, but only how much a Jupiter moon would pull you upwards.

Behaving like a child doesn't excuse your basic confusion of units, or perhaps you don't understand that a gal is already a unit of acceleration - 1 cm/s².

Let us say a gravimeter is standing at a 1 meter table...

I don't know why, but I'll indulge you:

Removing all the unnecessary crap, you have an unknown ADG reduced by 308.5 µGal then further reduced by 100 µGal.

This would make the relative ADG at 1 metre 408.5 µGal less.



Now, you tell us what the point of that was.

you know the politician way you always does when you are losing a discussion.

How are your responses for the last few days comming?

 

[Bjarne]

Removing all the unnecessary crap, you have an unknown ADG reduced by 308.5 µGal then further reduced by 100 µGal.
This would make the relative ADG at 1 metre 408.5 µGal less.

Trapped.
So in order to get upwards pull, you must have a larger negative value than the FAG.
This apply for a huge planet coming close to the Earth.
This apply for the Moon hanging above you head.
And this “should” apply for the mass of Domus Vista at the lower floors..
BUT the problem is that there are no such large negative upwards pull , larger as the negative FAG since the ADG inside the building is everywhere LOWER as the Minus 308.5 µGal , and therefore you have in fact instead downwards pull, - not upwards.
Can you see the cow logic now ?
I guess you can, - but not that would want to admit it.
Either will Hans.
Believe me Hans have already discovered the trap, and now he is fleeing from answering the questions.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6838304&postcount=2857

 

[Reality Check]

Trapped.
So in order to get upwards pull, you must have a larger negative value than the FAG.

Trapped.
You are still ignorant about what FAG is and what Hans stated.

1. The free air gradient (FAG) is how the Earth's gravitational field varies. It is not a acceleration due to gravity (ADG). It is used to calculate the ADG at a height above the surface of the Earth.
2. Hans clearly stated "relative ADG":
   

   Removing all the unnecessary crap, you have an unknown ADG reduced by 308.5 µGal then further reduced by 100 µGal.
   This would make the relative ADG at 1 metre 408.5 µGal less.

The simple fact is that to get an net upward pull you need a body above you exerting a greater ADG than the Earth.

 

[Paul]

You are still ignorant about what FAG is and what Hans stated... ...Hans clearly stated "relative ADG"...

I know Hans actually knows what he's talking about, and posts more actual information than I do, but I'm not invisible.

 

[Bjarne]

Trapped.
You are still ignorant about what FAG is and what Hans stated.

1. The free air gradient (FAG) is how the Earth's gravitational field varies. It is not a acceleration due to gravity (ADG). It is used to calculate the ADG at a height above the surface of the Earth.
2. Hans clearly stated "relative ADG":
   This is the clumsiest explanation I ever have heard.
   The FAG is a result of the Earth lost of gravity per distance, towards open space.

The simple fact is that to get an net upward pull you need a body above you exerting a greater ADG than the Earth.

I am not speaking about a greater NET upwards pull, - but only about; some upwards pull.

Measurement in Domus Vista proves that such is not true at all in that building, when the FAG is 308.5 µGal .

The naked true is that before you can have any upwards pull the ADG must be more negative as the FAG, so simple is that.

This is not the case in Domus Vista, which therefore means if the FAG is 308.5 µGal in that area (Frederiksberg), you do only have downwards pull, from top to the bottom, no upwards at all.

Therefore I have returned my attention to the Silo measurement.

I have not got the last report (full silos /measurement late August 2010) .
I also did not ask, - the conclusion I have made so far is based on rough data.
This can go very wrong.
Now I have asked anyway to send me these data.
These could contribute to solve that Domus mystery.
Maybe the COG could anyway be at the bottom of a body standing on the Earth.
The merging / zero point (the COG) could very well be between the building and the Earth, - which mean in the cellar, - exactly like discussed in this threat earlier.

 

[steenkh]

The naked true is that before you can have any upwards pull the ADG must be more negative as the FAG, so simple is that.

People are trying to tell you that it does not make sense to compare ADG and FAG. The FAG is a gradient. This is like a hill with a gradient of 2 meters per meter. At one point the hill might be 30 meters high, and 1 meter onwards, the hill will be 32 meters high. It would not make sense to subtract the 30 meters from the 2 meters per meter, and likewise it makes no sense to subtract the ADG from the FAG.

 

[Reality Check]

I am not speaking about a greater NET upwards pull, - but only about; some upwards pull.

Measurement in Domus Vista proves that such is not true at all in that building, when the FAG is 308.5 µGal .

The naked true is that before you can have any upwards pull the ADG must be more negative as the FAG, so simple is that.

You are still wrong.

The naked truth is that

• the FAG is not an acceleration.
• Any mass above a point exerts an upward pull. The roof above me is pulling on me.
• In order to have a net upward pull (i.e. gravity is upwards) the ADG from the mass above you must be greater than the ADG from the mass below you.

The mesurements in Domus Vista show that the ADG due to the building varies: Bjarne's completely debunked "central gravity"

 

[Paul]

Trapped.

Hoist with your own petard.

So in order to get upwards pull, you must have a larger negative value than the FAG.

The thing that pulls hardest wins.

This apply for a huge planet coming close to the Earth.

Does it have more mass?

This apply for the Moon hanging above you head.

Funny, I seem to be firmly attached to this planet.

And this “should” apply for the mass of Domus Vista at the lower floors..
BUT the problem is that there are no such large negative upwards pull ,

The problem is that you have incomplete data.

What is the exact local FAG?
What is the natural ADG at the site of Domus Vista?

 

[Bjarne]

People are trying to tell you that it does not make sense to compare ADG and FAG.

It is not a question about to compare the ADG curve with the FAG or not but to add and deduct.
The gravimeter doesn’t care where contribution comes from or how much ADG is lost or won because of this and that.
It does only measure the overall value.
We must understand why the stupid spring does what it does.
Otherwise we are mores stupid as the gravimeter.

The naked truth is that

• the FAG is not an acceleration.
• Any mass above a point exerts an upward pull. The roof above me is pulling on me.

Yes, this is also the way I see and have argued until now.
But the confusion is what does really happen when the FAG really should be 108,5 µGal/m by Frederiksberg where that building stand ?

• In order to have a net upward pull (i.e. gravity is upwards) the ADG from the mass above you be greater than the ADG from the mass below you.

This is a good point, even though this is not exactly the question, - it seems to lead to the answer.
Because between two object gravity (ADG) is cancelling out component wise.
Long ago I demonstrated that at www.science27.com by these 2 images, you still can find at the site;

Above in this thread I was asking; what would happen with the gravimeter / ADG measurement standing at a 1 meter table (FAG minus 308,5 µGal/m) when suddenly a Big planet would passing close to mother Earth, and exerting a pull of 100µGal ?

Well as you can see by the images above I knew the answer years ago, (but forgot it).
The gravimeter would only measure a relatoive diffrence from GF = 208,5 µGal/m – not 408,5 µGal/m as one easy could believe, and still there is a upwards pull, also even though the value 208,5 µGal/m is less negative as the FAG.

How is that possible?
The answer is already in this theory, (as well in the old) - look at the image again, - it happens because we say; gravity (ADG) is canceling out component wise between two bodies.
And this means (translated to the new theory) that the relative change in "density" of space per unit distance is flattening between two bodies.

I think I after to have carry 1 ton iron to the drilling machine and back , to prepare to build the new container I went sugar cold.
Some unsound cake has turned on the cow logic again.

The problem we have when the FAG is 308,5 µGal/m is hence that ALL the mass of Domus Vista will pull upwards, (no pull downwards) if the FAG really is 308,5 µGal/m.
The ADG curve must break and return to the FAG– Otherwise nothing makes sense. (It cannot just continue to decrease)

The only way this is possible is by estimating a weaker FAG.
I have suggested 301 µGal/m. This will solve the problem.

But as we can see, this mean good bye to the old thesis.
So what we in fact can see is that ADG is increasing towards the COG. – This is what I suggested years ago. Later I change that to stable ADG.

I am sure we have a lot more to learn, and there are probably still surprises.

 

[steenkh]

It is not a question about to compare the ADG curve with the FAG or not but to add and deduct.

Why do you compare the ADG with the FAG, then?

We must understand why the stupid spring does what it does.
Otherwise we are mores stupid as the gravimeter.

Wise words. You would do well if you listened to what you have been told here.

Yes, this is also the way I see and have argued until now.

No you have not! In a recent post you said

The naked true is that before you can have any upwards pull the ADG must be more negative as the FAG, so simple is that.

Here you are comparing ADG and FAG, and it does not make sense. If you now realise that they cannot be compared, you could at least admit openly that you have made a mistake, and go through all the posts written about and see how your claims fall apart when you stop making these nonsense comparisons.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans, would you mind if I asked you a question?

If one were standing on the Earth, and Jupiter was located directly overhead, at the distance the moon normally occupies, what acceleration would one feel, and in which direction?

One would feel an acceleration towards Earth. However, it would be significantly reduced. The distance to the moon is 328500km and the diameter of Jupiter is 142984km, so Jupiter would reach 1/4 if the way to Earth. The tidal forces would probably tear Earth apart. I'm sure it is possible to calculate the exact acceleration, but I don't know, off my head, just how.

Hans

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Well as you can see by the images above I knew the answer years ago, (but forgot it).

So what you're saying is that you can't even keep track of what your own "theory" says? This is the "theory" you're claiming is both obvious and simple, is it?

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne
Yes, this is also the way I see and have argued until now
Stenkh
No you have not! In a recent post you said
Bjarne
The naked true is that before you can have any upwards pull the ADG must be more negative as the FAG, so simple is that.
Stenkh
Here you are comparing ADG and FAG, and it does not make sense.

It must make sense, because ask the simple question; how fast would a stone fall from a certain floor at Domus Vista now (based on a certain FAG) , - and how fast would it fall if you would remove that building. ?

Hence you'll know exactly how the building effects the stone. - As well if this fits with the prevailing thesis, - or with a new one.

If you now realise that they cannot be compared, you could at least admit openly that you have made a mistake, and go through all the posts written about and see how your claims fall apart when you stop making these nonsense comparisons.

It is nothing wrong to compare how fast a stone fall from a certain elevation, with and without the building.

I can see that even though I am estimating the FAG to 301 µGal/m, we in fact still have a problem, because still the ADG is FASTER on all lower floors as it would be if we would remove the building, - doesn’t matter if the FAG is 301 µGal/m or 308 µGal/m.

Something is completely rotten with the prevailing understanding.

This mean I again have to analyze if the COG anyway is at ground floor.
It simply can be nowhere else.

I mean the long discussion we had before regarding the COG at ground level seems to be the only possibility.

Don’t misunderstand this; I don’t like this.
BUT I cannot decide the rules; only follow where the data leads to.
Don’t say it is impossible to get me to change my mind.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Of course there is.
If you are standing in free air the “natural” ADG lost of the Earth is at its maximum. For example MINUS 308,5 µgal/m (FAG).

FAG means free air gradient. So that is what you measure in free air, but it is simply the gradient with which Earth's gravity falls off according to the square rule as you move away from the center of gravity. It varies slightly due to local conditions, but it is the same whether you are in a building or not; the ADG of Earth falls according the the FAG.

So soon you walk inside Domus Vista you expect the building to pulls you extra up wards, which mean the “lost” of ADG a gravimeter can measure should increase for ensample 25 µgal, whereby the ADG at a certain place would should be decreasing 308,5 µgal/m + for example 25 µgal a certain place, - because the building “should” pull upwards.

No, you have misunderstood this. You are fond of slightly absurd scenarios, so you should be able to appreciate this:

Suppose the Domus Vista was pre-fabricated, and delivered by a giant helicopter. Now, you sit with your gravimeter on the empty foundation and you measure the gravity (let us say the basement is built there, so you sit where the first floor is going to be). You will measure something like 981550.959mGal. This is the baseline gravity (I can explain how I calculate this value, but let's save that for later).

Now the giant helicopter comes and lowers the building to the foundation, over and around you. When the dust has settled, you read your gravimeter again. Now it reads 981547.684mGal. This is 0.390mgal less than before they placed the building over you. Because the building pulls upwards a little.

OK, I hope you are with me still. Now you go to the 1st floor of the building and measure gravity. This takes you 4.3m up wards (according to the drawing). Since the FAG in this area is 0.3086mGal/m (according to DTU), you would expect that gravity was 1.3270mGal lower than on the ground floor. However, you measure 98146.482mGal! This is a difference of only 1.202mGal.

How can this happen? Well, if the AGD of the building was constant all the way to the COG, as certain people claim , we would expect the FAG to apply inside the building, but something else is happening. What is happening is that when you are on the 1st floor, the ground floor now pulls down on you, plus there is not only 29 floors above you, instead of 30. So the up wards pull that we subtract from Earth's gravity is smaller; 0.125mGal, to be precise. Add those to the 1.202, and you get 1.327, exactly the FAG!

So already on the 1st floor of the Domus Vista, we can see that the Bjarne model fails and conventional gravity is correct. The measurements from the subsequent floors only confirm this.

BUT the opposite happens in Domus Vista.

The ADG in that building is stronger everywhere, relative to a FAG line, - relative what it would have been without the building. – There is no up wards pull that reinforce the FAG.

The thing that fools you is that the pull of the building is NOT constant. It falls off as you go up. It is not a linear function, but we can see that on the lowest floors the building has its own inner gradient which is 0.4167mGal/m. Note that this is higher than the FAG of Earth.

How can the comparatively tiny gravity field of a building have a higher 'FAG' than that of Earth?! Well, that is simple: We are 6378100m from the COG of Earth, but we are less than 50m from the COG of the building.

The rest of you post is exactly as expected, you have not answered one single question.

I cannot answer questions that don't make sense.

Hans if you are a coward, simple just ignore the question, or just blap blap blap about something completely different, - you know the politician way you always does when you are losing a discussion.

Bjarne, cut this out, you are behaving like a misfit 5 year old. Anybody reading this thread can see how you have ducked and ignored dozens of questions yourself.

I told you the questions did not make sense. I can see that you have now rephrased them slightly, but they still make very little sense.

Now, READ the explanation I have given you above, and try to understand. Then you may ask questions, and I may try to answer, but do remember that I don't owe you ANY answers. I am doing you a favor and am trying to explain these things to you. If you don't want to understand, well, I really don't give a damn. Your failure to understand physics is not my problem and I'm under no obligation to teach you.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

And this:

THERE IS NO COG in that building…

Even you, Bjarne, must be able to see the absurdity of that remark. How could a boulding, or any object, NOT have a center of gravity? What you might claim (although it would still be wrong) is that we cannot determine the COG from the data. Actually, that was my initial thought as well, but as I have shown, it is actually possible to make a very good estimate of the COG.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Something is completely rotten with the prevailing understanding.

No, there is something rotten with your understanding. You simply don't know how to handle the data. Maybe you are simply unable to understand complex functions, your many other claims seem to confirm this.

Perhaps you should simply give up on physics and get on with your life.

Hans

 

[steenkh]

It must make sense, because ask the simple question; how fast would a stone fall from a certain floor at Domus Vista now (based on a certain FAG) , - and how fast would it fall if you would remove that building. ?

You can add the FAG to the ADG to get a new ADG for another height, but you cannot compare them. Or what did you intend to say when you wrote "the ADG must be more negative as the FAG"?

Don’t say it is impossible to get me to change my mind.

Why not? Evidence certainly does not work, so what could change your mind? Perhaps only crackpot theories even more absurd than your own could do the trick?

 

[Bjarne]

The thing that fools you is that the pull of the building is NOT constant. It falls off as you go up.

It is a simple fact that the measured ADG is about 25µGal/m faster (at the lower floors) as it would have been while without the building.
The gravimeter doesn’t tell any lies. You simple get the opposite result at the lower floors as you should expect. This is a problem.

This mean that ADG is in fact gradually increasing from bottom to the top.
You should expect the exact opposite.
The larger FAG you estimate the greater is that problem.

It is not a linear function, but we can see that on the lowest floors the building has its own inner gradient which is 0.4167mGal/m. Note that this is higher than the FAG of Earth.

What are you talking about ?
Hans you cannot by pleasure ignore a clear plus and turn in into a minus, just by bla bla bla....
You cannot cheat a gravimeter, this way .... can you ?

How can the comparatively tiny gravity field of a building have a higher 'FAG' than that of Earth?! Well, that is simple: We are 6378100m from the COG of Earth, but we are less than 50m from the COG of the building.

This make no sense and is not able to explain that instead of a expected upwards pull inside (on the lower floors) you have instead the completely opposite.

The fact is we have systematical measured gradually increasing downwards pull the further you climb upwards.

I mean try to keep all this so simple as possible. No large helicopter no baseline but only a gravimeter and do only answer how fast does the cow fall from this floor to that floor. - That's it. No irrelevant huge helicopter bla bla bla. .

Doesn’t matter if the FAG is 301 or 308 mGal/m the simple truth is that the gravimeter really does measure faster ADG at the lower floors as it would have done without the building.

Helicopters or baselines speculation are no excuse and no valid explanations.

A falling apple inside the building (lower floors) do simply hit you faster and harder inside that building.

You should expect the opposite.

I am surprise too. (agian)

This is the naked truth the gravimeter tries to tells you.

Don't be stupid to ignore that.
I mean if it in fact is proven a car hit a man with 100/h and it is only allowed to drive 70 km/h, and you tell the police this is an illusion, the real speed is 70/h, - 100 km/h is unreal, - because of baseline and a huge helicopter.
You will risk to be charged for alcohol, drugs or false testimony…

What is your point Hans 100km/h = 100 km/h - not 70 km/h

 

[Paul]

How are you doing with all those answers Bjarne, or are you a liar who isn't as smart as a cow?

It must make sense, because ask the simple question; how fast would a stone fall from a certain floor at Domus Vista now (based on a certain FAG) , - and how fast would it fall if you would remove that building. ?

Depends on the height from which it is dropped, it's mass and the terminal velocity of the stone.

Hence you'll know exactly how the building effects the stone. - As well if this fits with the prevailing thesis, - or with a new one

You are confusing velocity with acceleration.

It is nothing wrong to compare how fast a stone fall from a certain elevation, with and without the building

No, it just makes calculating the gravity of the building more complicated.

I can see that even though I am estimating the FAG to 301 µGal/m,

Why are you doing that?

we in fact still have a problem,

You have a problem.

because still the ADG is FASTER on all lower floors as it would be if we would remove the building

The acceleration is lower than it would be withou the building.

doesn’t matter if the FAG is 301 µGal/m or 308 µGal/m.

It does matter.

Something is completely rotten with the prevailing understanding.

Something is completely rotten with your understanding.

This mean I again have to analyze if the COG anyway is at ground floor.
It simply can be nowhere else.

Even you should be able to understand the concept of the "average location of the weight of an object".

I mean the long discussion we had before regarding the COG at ground level seems to be the only possibility

Are you planning to emerge from the shower saying it was all a dream?

BUT I cannot decide the rules;

Or follow them apparently.

only follow where the data leads to.

That, you most definitely cannot do.

 

[Bjarne]

The acceleration is lower than it would be withou the building.

No ADG is about 25µGal faster per floor at the lower floors