Funny, because what I did is exactly what you did in your own graph with the FAG-ADG column.
Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.
- Thread starter Bjarne
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dark energy
- Status
So the answer is "No, I am incapable of answering or understanding the question and I prefer to spend my time colouring in like a child".
Now, you obviously have no concept of what gravity is, what acceleration is, or why the basement shouldn't be above ground.
Even if that made any sense at all, it would be wrong.
Only you would expect such a pattern and only you would think that guesswork is the way to explain yourself.
It's not relative to anything and has no connection to the actual data.
The centre of gravity is geometric, it is not an acceleration.
When the normal gravity at 56o latitude is 981592131 µGal, why do you expect to record -50 µGal?
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
The gravimeter reading on the ground floor is 981547.684mGal.
The gravimeter reading in the same place without the building is:________mGal?
Your calculations are nonsense. You are mixing up FAG and ADG, and you have no idea what you are talking about.
That statement is nonsense. µGal/m is not an acceleration.
The gravimeter reading on the ground floor is 981547.684mGal.
The gravimeter reading in the same place without the building is:________mGal?
Answer that and you have the key to the whole problem.
Hans
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Well, I suggest you stick with the cows and stay away from math and physics.
I'm sure that is cow mathematics. Any human can see that it is nonsense.
Hans
Next you are going to acquire a pointlessly small set of data from illogically placed devices in an impractically shaped mass?
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
Bjarne
It depend on perspective...
If the perspective; is relative to before the building was placed the graph it is "wrong"
If the perspective is now, it is correct.
It depend on perspective...
If the perspective; is relative to before the building was placed the graph it is "wrong"
If the perspective is now, it is correct.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
Wait, why next? Why not answer the questions you've been asked? You were actually close to a breakthrough back there. Look back a few posts to Paul's post where he demonstrates, using your data, that on the ground floor of the Domus Vista that there is an upwards pull from the building. Look at the maths. Now, you agree with his conclusion that he's shown an upwards pull at the ground floor. So, if you disagree with the maths, demonstrate what you disagree with. Use as few words as possible and instead use mathematics. If you're right, Paul will have to concede the point, because mathematics can't lie.
If he's wrong, show why he's wrong. You've agreed with his conclusions, all you have to do is show that his methodology is wrong. And, if you can't demonstrate that, then perhaps it's time to re-examine your position?
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,087
Bjarne
Next
The next experiment could prove that beneath the “pyramid” ADG = negative, - compared to how it was before the mass was placed. For example minus 200µGal.
On the top of the pyramid, the ADG is positive, for example + 200µGal compared to how it was before the mass was placed.
Well this should not be necessary to prove or ?
The problem is only that “we” believe there is a COG inside a body standing on the ground. This is where everything went wrong.
The Domus Vista measurement clearly proves there is no COG inside a body (building standing on the ground), - simply because the ADG is never slower as the FAG.
The Cog is instead beneath the foundation of the building …This is the only possibility, since the ADG is faster as the FAG, the whole way from the top to the cellar.
Next
The next experiment could prove that beneath the “pyramid” ADG = negative, - compared to how it was before the mass was placed. For example minus 200µGal.
On the top of the pyramid, the ADG is positive, for example + 200µGal compared to how it was before the mass was placed.
Well this should not be necessary to prove or ?
The problem is only that “we” believe there is a COG inside a body standing on the ground. This is where everything went wrong.
The Domus Vista measurement clearly proves there is no COG inside a body (building standing on the ground), - simply because the ADG is never slower as the FAG.
The Cog is instead beneath the foundation of the building …This is the only possibility, since the ADG is faster as the FAG, the whole way from the top to the cellar.
I like the cut of your jib sir.
Space vacuum photo response update: it's still total nonsense.
No.
The FAG has nothing to do with the building. It is still the rate of negative change of the force of gravity with altitude; generally expressed as .3086 mGal/m.
So now you want to prove that a mass attracts?
We've been telling you this from the beginning, suddenly you pretend it's your idea and requires proof from you.
Of course you have the lower measurement in the wrong place, it should be below the mass in the way the other is above it.
One of the places you went wrong is believing there isn't.
You're still wrong about that.
The difference now is that, unless you are such an idiot that someone else is operating your computer for you, you must be lying. It has been explained so many times in different ways and with differing levels of complexity that there is only one conclusion to be drawn.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Translation: I could not get the previous experiment to support my silly ideas, so I try another.
Now that is smart, Bjarne. Since you now predict what the law of gravity tells us, you should have a chance of success.
No, should not be necessary to prove, but some people are thicker than others.
The idea that the COG moves because something is standing on the ground is ... bizarre. And easy to disprove.
The FAG has nothing to do with the COG.
Bjarne, you can't compare ADG and FAG. ADG is in mGal, FAG is mGal/m. You can't compare things that way.
Which is longest, a rattlesnake or a minute?
Which is fastest, a sportscar or a pickpocket?
Which is highest, a kite or a junkie?
Hans
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
- Actually, even if I'm charitable and translate Bjarne's mumbo-jumbo to sensible language, he is still wrong.
What Bjarne is trying to say is that his differential curve shows that the gravity gradient inside the building is not as steep as the FAG.
This is actually true, but he interprets this as if the ADG inside the building is higher than outside, which is nonsense. A lower slope than the FAG is exactly what the law of gravity predicts, because this shows us that on the lower floors the building pulls up, and on the top floors it pulls down.
However, we can't infer anything about the COG from the differential curve. For this we need the absolute curve.
Hans
- Status