Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Okay, first things first - why are you making up data and saying "let's suppose", rather than using the data that you've already paid to acquire?

Secondly, what does "minus -/+300µGal" mean? -/+ means it's either plus or minus. It can't be minus -/+.

Thirdly, if something accelerated minus x slower than y, then it would be accelerating faster than y.

 

[Bjarne]

Okay, first things first - why are you making up data and saying "let's suppose", rather than using the data that you've already paid to acquire?

I think you misunderstood this. The FAG is not know "excactly" - This is not decive.

Secondly, what does "minus -/+300µGal" mean? -/+ means it's either plus or minus. It can't be minus -/+.

A body "should" have a total pull on the top. - for exsample "+" 300µGal and a negative upwards in the bottum "-" for exsample "-" 300µGal

Thirdly, if something accelerated minus x slower than y, then it would be accelerating faster than y.

It is minus the ADG of the Earth ( FAG ) Free air gradient

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think you misunderstood this. The FAG is not know "excactly" - This is not decive.

It is known, thanks to your own data.

A body "should" have a total pull on the top. - for exsample "+" 300µGal and a negative upwards in the bottum "-" for exsample "-" 300µGal

This doesn't address my comment.

It is minus the ADG of the Earth ( FAG ) Free air gradient

This doesn't address my comment.

 

[Bjarne]

It is known, thanks to your own data.

We have not measured the FAG. I have only estimated 3 possibilities.

This doesn't address my comment.

Express your self better

 

[Paul]

You'll first know when comparing that Ground floor value to relative measurement on a different floor further up.

That, as usual, merely shows your ignorance of the meaning of your own data.

By comparing measurement values on different floors, - you can easy determinate;

By comparing values on different floors you can see the relative values of different floors.

there are no upwards pull and hence no COG at any of the floors at that building.

Why would you expect the relative differences in ADG within the building to be greater than the ADG of the earth?

Or in other words; doesn’t matter from which of the lower floor you drop a stone, - the stone will from all of these floors begin to accelerate faster as it would without the building

You are still wrong, and the problem is that you are wilfully wrong.

Imaging you would remove the building and drop an apple from a latter (1 meter up).
The apple would now begin to accelerate about 9.81 m/s - minus the FAG (which mean let’s just say minus 308µGal/m)... snipped usual fanciful nonsense

Velocity and acceleration are not the same.

The rest of your paragraph is a confused mess of misused terminology, guesswork and pure invention.

BUT what we see it the total opposite.

If you actually read what is posted, including the helpful and properly labelled graphs, you would see that we get exactly what is expected.

A stone is simply falling faster as it “should”.

Stones fall how stones fall, not understanding what you read does not change that.

This mean the prevailing thesis has fallen.

Be sure to mention that to the scientists from DTU Space when you see them. Perhaps you could do it on video so that we can all share you triumph.

 

[Bjarne]

 

[MRC_Hans]

What I am saying is that;

I guess we all believe the COG must be somewhere.

Really?

We probably all agree that there is really no upwards pull in that building

No, we don't agree. There is a distinct upwards pull, as I have calculated for you, and told you about 10 times. Either you are incredibly dense, or you are lying.

This demonstrate a principle that also should apply for the lower parts of the building Domus Vista. - But it doesn’t.

No matter how many times you repeat this, it remains wrong.

The reason is that the COG must relocate when the building is standing on the Earth, - we have discussed that before.

Yes we have discussed it and I have explained why that idea is absurd.

It is a question of unification between 2 bodies, and what then happens inside the bodies.

Nonsense.

The COG cannot be at Ground Floor or any of the other floors, because if so it should be revealed by upwards pull, exactly like the visiting Jupiter planet passing close by the Earth.
So where can the COG possible be?

It is roughly at the tenth floor.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Let us say we will make a ground zero ADG measurement exactly at ground zero when making the next container . ( I think we shall do it)…
I expect ADG to be the same on that spot when the container is full and empty.
Come and join us.
There are always an extra shovel..
At the same time you can check elevation etc...

I suppose this is the closest you will come to admitting that YOU DON'T KOW what the ADG without the building is.

However, since you don't know, you have no basis for your claim that the building pulls down at the ground floor.

You are simply talking nonsense.

Now, Bjarne, do you want me to explain how you find the COG of the building? Or are you to scared to learn the truth?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Really?

No, we don't agree. There is a distinct upwards pull, as I have calculated for you, and told you about 10 times. Either you are incredibly dense, or you are lying.

Is it possible to be more blind ?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6844560&postcount=2900
The gravimeter is measuring significant faster ADG on all floors, as would be possible without the building.

And that's it.

If you accuse me for being a liar you must accuse the gravimeter for exactly the same.

Tell me do you also sometimes accuse the speedometer in your car for lying, more than 10 %

Hans, you have lost. - I did not know you were such bad loser.

Try to comment this post dear.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6844560&postcount=2900

A coward would ignore these simple calculations. .

The simple naked true is that if ADG of a certain spot ( for example on a 1 meter table relative to the ground floor inside Domus Vista) is measured to largerADG as the FAG-decrease at this elevation (which mean less ADG as minus values than the FAG values >> (about) 301 to 308 µGal/m on that 1 meter table), for example minus 280 µGal/m (relative to the ground floor) this mean faster ADG. - About 25 µGal/m faster acceleration as without the building.

If the ADG (according to the prevailing thesis) for example should have been measured to minus 25µGal/m relative to the FAG, (on the lower floors) and hence total minus about minus 315 to minus 330 µGal/m, we would know everything was as expected, that would confirm that there there really was a upwards pull at several spot (lower floors) in that building.

You can easy based on the measured data check that on every spot in that building, - the measured ADG is ALWAYS less negative as the possible FAG values. – Hence a stone will on every spot fall faster inside that building. Also on the lower floors.

But dear Hans, the gravimeter must be a liar too right ?

I did not know that even after that you so crystal clear is up in the corner, that you still would defend a dead thesis in such silly way.

 

[Paul]

The gravimeter is measuring significant faster ADG on all floors, as would be possible without the building.

Still wrong.

And that's it.

Ooh, it's in bold, you must be right.

Hang on, it turns out that you're completely incorrect again.

If you accuse me for being a liar you must accuse the gravimeter for exactly the same

I agree with Hans, you are either lying or you are an idiot.

The gravimeter, on the other hand, is simply a measuring device incapable of artifice.

Tell me do you also sometimes accuse the speedometer in your car for lying, more than 10 %

Again, just a measuring device, it may be inaccurate or badly calibrated but it cannot lie.

Are you accusing DTU Space of using inaccurate or poorly calibrated gravimeters?

Try to comment this post dear.

Well sugar lips, to the extent that post contains anything but flapdoodle it has been addressed.

A coward would ignore these simple calculations. .

The sort of coward that would ignore every piece of salient information in every post? That sort of coward?

The simple naked true is that if ADG of a certain spot... I'm not sure what it was but I snipped it anyway

The measured gravity at the ground floor is 981547684 µGal and at the 1st floor is 981546452 µGal.

The difference is 1201 µGal and the elevation is 4.2 m giving a difference of 286.19 µGal per m.

At 1 m we get 286.19 - 308.6 = -22.41

Therefore you are wrong according to your own data.

But dear Hans, the gravimeter must be a liar too right

Sorry, you can't blame the equipment.

You do not understand the data and how to use them.

I did not know that even after that you so crystal clear is up in the corner, that you still would defend a dead thesis in such silly way.

Are you on acid?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Express your self better

You do a good line in irony, I'll give you that.

I know English isn't your first language, but you can't even get the units of the figures you're using straight, and they aren't dependent on knowledge of English, just a basic understanding of what you're talking about.

 

[steenkh]

Well coward Bjarne, when are you going to answer Hans' question? Just to remind you, the question was a calculation that should be very simple for you to produce:

"The gravimeter reading on the ground floor is 981547.684mGal.
The gravimeter reading in the same place without the building is:________mGal?"

 

[Bjarne]

At 1 m we get 286.19 - 308.6 = -22.41

The Earth ADG minus 286.19 µGal/m means faster acceleration than The Earth ADG minus 308,6µGal/m

22.41 µGal/m faster.

You would expect slower ADG

Therefore, - and because of many other measurement in that building at lower floors, - all confirm the same story, - the old thesis is finish, - dead.

 

[Bjarne]

You do a good line in irony, I'll give you that.

I know English isn't your first language, but you can't even get the units of the figures you're using straight, and they aren't dependent on knowledge of English, just a basic understanding of what you're talking about.

Well I know the cow language, I don’t think you do.

Cows do not use long explanations. The knowledge that comes from cows is very compact. I think it is because they do not want lose energy trying to explain humans something that 99,999% anyway never would understand anyway…

Fore sample here is a piece of cow mathematic.
“The value minus 286.19 µGal is not so negative as the value 308,6µGal/m”

To understand such advance intelligence is only possible when humans either learn the perfect cow language, or spend at least 27 years at a university.

RC for example, after 17 years in a university he still does not understand the cow mathematic.
So I don’t know what is worse, that my English is not perfect or that you (and many others) not do understand the cow language, cow logic or cow mathematic.
Left is only to say muuuuhhh

 

[Reality Check]

RC for example, after 17 years in a university he still does not understand the cow mathematic.

Bjarne for example, cannot read. I have not spent 17 years in university. I have spent 7 years in university.

Bjarne for example, after no years in a university he still does not understand the cow mathematic that his pet cow understands, e.g.

• Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
  First asked 23 October 2009
  The answer continues to be no !

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads(original full list to which more points have been linked)​

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Well I know the cow language, I don’t think you do.

It's true, I don't know any cow language. I do, however, understand basic mathematics and attributing the correct units to figures, which you don't.

Why my ignorance is not a problem is because I'm not trying to communicate with cows. Why your ignorance is a problem is because you are trying to disprove established physics using mathematics.

 

[Paul]

The Earth ADG minus 286.19 µGal/m means faster acceleration than The Earth ADG minus 308,6µGal/m

The FAG is the rate of change of the force of gravity with altitude. It is acceptable to use a value of 308.6 µGal/m.

The decrease in measured gravity in the building is 286.19 µGal/m for the ground floor, which gives us 286.19 µGal.

To find the contribution of the building only we must also remove the effect of the earth at 308.6/m, which in this case gives 308.6 µGal.

Subtracting the one value from the other gives -22.41 µGal. This is lower, therefore, in terms you can understand the building is pulling up at this point.

22.41 µGal/m faster.

No, no, no , no, no.

You would expect slower ADG

And we get it.

Therefore, - and because of many other measurement in that building at lower floors, - all confirm the same story, - the old thesis is finish, - dead.

Are you ever going to accept your own data, or do you propose to convince us that you intellectually incapable of grasping even the most basic of principles?

 

[Paul]

Well I know the cow language, I don’t think you do.

As Sceptic Tank points out, not speaking cow isn't really a handicap for humans.

Cows do not use long explanations.

It doesn't take much to indicate tasty grass or a comfy place to lie down.

The knowledge that comes from cows is very compact.

And mostly about grass.

I think it is because they do not want lose energy trying to explain humans something that 99,999% anyway never would understand anyway…

Yet you believe that they tell you things that you seem to have no hope of grasping.

“The value minus 286.19 µGal is not so negative as the value 308,6µGal/m”

Which proves that cows are idiots, it is in fact 594.79 more negative.

Also, one of those is an acceleration and one is the increase in an acceleration over distance.

Furthermore, the . and , are different decimal marks and not interchangeable within one system, let alone one sentence.

To understand such advance intelligence is only possible when humans either learn the perfect cow language, or spend at least 27 years at a university.

Or we could listen at school when they teach basic physics, so we don't embarrass ourselves later.

So I don’t know what is worse, that my English is not perfect or that you (and many others) not do understand the cow language, cow logic or cow mathematic.

What's worse is that you cannot and will not grasp the concepts you wish to discuss, no matter how often or how simply they are put to you.

 

[Bjarne]

Subtracting the one value from the other gives -22.41 µGal. This is lower, therefore, in terms you can understand the building is pulling up at this point.

If such bended math really was correct it would mean that the building pulls up everywhere.
Do you really belive that?

 

[Bjarne]

Well coward Bjarne, when are you going to answer Hans' question? Just to remind you, the question was a calculation that should be very simple for you to produce:

"The gravimeter reading on the ground floor is 981547.684mGal.
The gravimeter reading in the same place without the building is:________mGal?"

First at all try to understand, gravity is a space vacuum.
Space is gradually stretching increasingly towards the COG
This is the cause of acceleration and mass attraction.

Matter is pulling the space density both from a inwards and outwards direction.
Therefore we shall also expect central space near the COG to be deformed / vacumized.
And therefore shall we expect a ADG pattern roughly as shown by the illustration above.
Notice the relative upwards difference between minus 150µGal and + 150µGal = 300µGal
This pattern is relative to how ADG would be when you would remove the building, and will be proven within short time.

Notice the COG > Minus 150µGal, is not a direction, but a "point".
Notice ; When the gravimater meassure for exsample Minus 50µGal, near the building, it is only measuring that it now is inside a "space vacuum".​