Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[steenkh]

Bjarne, you still have not answered Hans' question:

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

Are you that much of a coward that you will not admit that the result is not in your favour, or are you a coward who cannot even admit that you are unable to make the calculation?

 

[Bjarne]

Your baseline is wrong. Period.

No it is not.
A body will fall faster at all floors also the lower floors compared to when the building not was there.
The "zero line" is not a baseline but the FAG line.
The measured this curve / these values are all positive (compared to the FAG) These are all above the FAG line, simply because a body on all floors will fall faster as when the building not was there.

You can read how much faster a stone will fall at the horizontal line to the left in the graph.

A cow can hence easy see everything fits to what actually is measured. There are no measurement values beliw the FAG

The only problem is that everything it no longer fits to your fantasy..

Translation: I could not get the previous experiment to support my silly ideas, so I try another.

The COG of the Silos is also in the bottom, as I stated ½ year ago.
Even though you would measure minus 70µGal in the bottom (by the side) of the silos, this does not prove that there are any upwards pull, but rather that the gravimeter is inside a gravity vacuum.

Exactly as illustrated by the gravimeter at the image above.

This gravimeter you see in the image will also measure negative ADG, but the idea that the cause of this is upwards pull, - is disproven. We are facing a completely different cause of that.

Your calculations are nonsense. You are mixing up FAG and ADG, and you have no idea what you are talking about.

The FAG is how fast a stone would fall if you would remove the building.
The FAG really don’t care where the baseline is. FAG = FAG
Comparing ADG measurement with the FAG will reveal where it is.

The measured ADG is how fast a stone actually falls inside the building.
It is an evident fact that a stone, everywhere inside the building falls faster as is would have done, if the building not was there.

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.

I agree this is not necessary. We will measure the same as both theories predict.
The difference is where the COG really is, and why.

The idea that the COG moves because something is standing on the ground is ... bizarre. And easy to disprove.

It is a fact and already proven.
Every measurement inside Domus Vista and as well as the overall pattern proves this.

The FAG has nothing to do with the COG.

Comparing the FAG and the measured ADG values must reveal where the COG is.
The point where acceleration is faster as the FAG points to the COG. Acceleration slower as the FAG must also point to the COG, but from the opposite direction.

Bjarne, you can't compare ADG and FAG. ADG is in mGal, FAG is mGal/m. You can't compare things that way

This is simple proportional calculation.
Of course you can compare it, exactly as you can compare how fast you can would drive on Jupiter with how fast I moves on the Earth.
Speed is speed.
Mathematics do not care what fantasy you have inside you head, that “should” prevent simple proportional calculation.

Which is longest, a rattlesnake or a minute?
Which is fastest, a sportscar or a pickpocket?
Which is highest, a kite or a junkie?

Rather ask what is the different between acceleration and acceleration.
Or the difference between accelerating 1m/s and 2m/s…

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.

A cow can easy compare and see this is a fact.
A stone would fall faster from 10th floor to the ground as it would if you would remove the building.

THIS is what measurement reveals.

We KNOW the acceleration possibilities in Free air (FAG.)- without the building
We also KNOW the acceleration now inside the building, simply because we have measured it.

Hence we also KNOW that the Acceleration is faster everywhere inside the building as it would be if you would remove it.

Hans honestly, do you really deny that ?

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.

Hans it will not help you to speak about huge helicopters, baseline and slopes and absolute curves. .
We have measured faster acceleration on all the lower floors.
This is not what the theory predicts. So simple is that. Get use to it.

When the police have measured your acceleration / speed to 200km/h per 12 second, it will not help you just to bla blab blab lbla blab la blab la bla.
You will get a fine, and you will pay it. And that’s it.

However, we can't infer anything about the COG from the differential curve. For this we need the absolutte curve

Crap

 

[steenkh]

Crap

Coward.

How about finally filling in the figure in Hans' request?

 

[MRC_Hans]

No it is not.
A body will fall faster at all floors also the lower floors compared to when the building not was there.

No.

The "zero line" is not a baseline but the FAG line.
The measured this curve / these values are all positive (compared to the FAG) These are all above the FAG line, simply because a body on all floors will fall faster as when the building not was there.

You can't compare ADG and FAG.

You can read how much faster a stone will fall at the horizontal line to the left in the graph.

You can read that in the absolue curve, not in the FAG curve.

The COG of the Silos is also in the bottom, as I stated ½ year ago.
Even though you would measure minus 70µGal in the bottom (by the side) of the silos, this does not prove that there are any upwards pull, but rather that the gravimeter is inside a gravity vacuum.

No. There is no such thing as a gravity vacuum.

http://www.science27.com/forum/vacuum2.jpg
Exactly as illustrated by the gravimeter at the image above.

You have not measured those values, they are free fantasy.

This gravimeter you see in the image will also measure negative ADG, but the idea that the cause of this is upwards pull, - is disproven. We are facing a completely different cause of that.

No. How is it disproven? Because you say so??

The FAG is how fast a stone would fall if you would remove the building.

No.

The FAG really don’t care where the baseline is. FAG = FAG

Correct. And hence, FAG /= ADG.

Comparing ADG measurement with the FAG will reveal where it is.

(The COG) Correct, and that is what I have done. It turns out it is just below the 10th floor.

The measured ADG is how fast a stone actually falls inside the building.

Just above, you claim that it is the FAG. Make up your mind. (Hint: ADG is correct)

It is an evident fact that a stone, everywhere inside the building falls faster as is would have done, if the building not was there.

No.

It is a fact and already proven.
Every measurement inside Domus Vista and as well as the overall pattern proves this.

No and no.

Comparing the FAG and the measured ADG values must reveal where the COG is.

Correct, and that is what I have done. It turns out it is just below the 10th floor.

The point where acceleration is faster as the FAG points to the COG. Acceleration slower as the FAG must also point to the COG, but from the opposite direction.

Correct, and that is what I have done. It turns out it is just below the 10th floor.

This is simple proportional calculation.
Of course you can compare it, exactly as you can compare how fast you can would drive on Jupiter with how fast I moves on the Earth.
Speed is speed.

However, ADG is not FAG.

A stone would fall faster from 10th floor to the ground as it would if you would remove the building.

THIS is what measurement reveals.

No.

We KNOW the acceleration possibilities in Free air (FAG.)- without the building

OK, then answer this question:

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

If you can't answer that, then you don't know the acceleration possibilities in Free air without the building.

Hans honestly, do you really deny that ?

No, I don't deny that, because I know the ADG without the building (and it is higher than with the building), but YOU don't know, or you would have answered the question above.

Hans it will not help you to speak about huge helicopters, baseline and slopes and absolute curves. .

I know. You can't and won't understand any of it, but there are other people reading this. They understand.

We have measured faster acceleration on all the lower floors.

Faster than what? Faster than the value you can't fill in in my question?

When the police have measured your acceleration / speed to 200km/h per 12 second, it will not help you just to bla blab blab lbla blab la blab la bla.

You really don't understand the difference between speed and acceleration, do you? (And you slightly flatter my car )

Bjarne, if I accelerate with 20 kmh / sec, how fast will I drive?

Crap

Yes, I think that adequately describes your 'theories', your experiments, and your handling of the data. But then, that is what you get from cows.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Look at the image

And try to explain that why the lower 3 floors contributes with about 50% of the gravity in that building ?

Every cow would know that this is because these are VERY close to the COG, - in the bottom of the building.
There are no other possibilities than this able to explain that…

 

[MRC_Hans]

Look at the image
http://www.science27.com/forum/DomusVistaFebruar2010.jpg
And try to explain that why the lower 3 floors contributes with about 50% of the gravity in that building ?

They don't. The lowest 10 floors contribute 50% of the gravity. But you need to be able to handle integrals to calculate that, so you probably won't go there ......

Every cow would know that this is because these are VERY close to the COG, - in the bottom of the building.

I really don't give hoot what cows think.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

They don't. The lowest 10 floors contribute 50% of the gravity.
I really don't give hoot what cows think.

Hans

Look at your own curve, when reaching 10th floor ADG is about 400Gal, total is 600Gal

Which mean at 10th floor the lower parts contributes 66%

 

[Reality Check]

Look at your own curve, when reaching 10th floor ADG is about 400Gal, total is 600Gal

Look at your own curve, when reaching 10th floor ADG is exactly zero. The ADG at the center of gravity is zero. So according to your curve the "expected estimated ADG" is zero at the 10th floor and that is where you have placed the COG.

Of course you continue to follow the rather idiotic practice of keeping how you calculated this "expected estimated ADG" a secret.

 

[Bjarne]

You can't compare ADG and FAG.

Right this had confused me.
This is very logical after rethinking this.
The interaction between the buildings and the Earth-s gravity is off course cancelling out ADG in the meeting point – off course, - how stupid a mistake…
You are right, you must hang. .
Wait, I will back on the track….

 

[MRC_Hans]

Look at your own curve, when reaching 10th floor ADG is about 400Gal, total is 600Gal

Which mean at 10th floor the lower parts contributes 66%

No, you can't just compare station values. The distance from the COG has to be taken into account, obviously. A small mass far from the COG can balance a large mass near the COG.

This calculation can be quite hairy, but since the slope is fairly linear and since the COG is not very far from the ceometrical center, you can just add up triangles. Triangulate each measuring station with the bottom and with the top. Where those slopes meet, you have your COG.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Right this had confused me.
This is very logical after rethinking this.
The interaction between the buildings and the Earth-s gravity is off course cancelling out ADG in the meeting point – off course, - how stupid a mistake…
You are right, you must hang. .
Wait, I will back on the track….

No problem, realizing mistakes is a good start.

.. Not to put you down, but you have a bit of a way to go.
Feel free to ask questions.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

We have all to reconsider everything again
It seems it is completely wrong to estimate a FAG to 308µGal or just a little below that value.
I got this from DTU yesterday.....

Only 2 places in Denmark (Jylland) the FAG have been measured to more than 308µGal
The FAG at Frederiksberg seems in fact be MUCH lower, and probably lower as 300µGal
It could be so low as 250µGal (such low value are typical in this area / Frederiskberg)
-3.20 microm/s^2/m=-320 microgal/m
Report http://www.science27.com/forum/FAG.pdf
This will completely turn upside down everything we are talking about.
Deceleration inside the building can instead be turned to acceleration.

 

[Bjarne]

Feel free to ask questions

According to the DTU report it seems that the FAG very well could be lower as 300µGal at Frederiksberg.

How will you understand ADG inside that building if the FAG for example is between 301 and 302µGal/m or even lower.

If you want to move the baseline upwards, - fine do it.

We have all compared the ADG pattern to the FAG and estimated an baseline, - according to that.
I guess you and other will continues to do so, - also even though the FAG is much lower now, - right?

You will then could manage to get about for exsample +50µGal in the top and -70µGal in the bottom of the building, - BUT you will also get acceleration towards the center , right ?

Let us assume the FAG = 302µGal -- now will have almost stable ADG (like the new theory predict) from the upper floor and towards 3th floor, right (!)
I mean (almost) stable ADG in more than 85% of the building (!)
Left would only be to ask why is ADG at the 3 lower (heavier) floors not stable ?

Notice the floors from 3rd to 9th is a bit heavier than the upper floors, - hence a little stronger ADG here, - right ...... (!)

Feel free to ask questions

Let's say the FAG = 260µGal/m
How would you now understand the inner ADG pattern of the building ?

 

[MRC_Hans]

We have all to reconsider everything again
It seems it is completely wrong to estimate a FAG to 308µGal or just a little below that value.
I got this from DTU yesterday.....
http://www.science27.com/forum/FAG7.jpg
Only 2 places in Denmark (Jylland) the FAG have been measured to more than 308µGal
The FAG at Frederiksberg seems in fact be MUCH lower, and probably lower as 300µGal
It could be so low as 250µGal (such low value are typical in this area / Frederiskberg)
-3.20 microm/s^2/m=-320 microgal/m
Report http://www.science27.com/forum/FAG.pdf
This will completely turn upside down everything we are talking about.
Deceleration inside the building can instead be turned to acceleration.

Those are not FAG measurements. The FAG will not vary that much, BUT very localized, you can have variations due to surrounding masses.

Ehrm, Bjarne, that is exactly the reason you must make reference measurements.

Overall, however, ALL sources indicate that the FAG is 0.3086mGal/m.
As long as there are no reference measurements on the spot, we must stick to that value.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

http://www.science27.com/forum/FAGx.jpg

According to the DTU report it seems that the FAG very well could be lower as 300µGal at Frederiksberg.

How will you understand ADG inside that building if the FAG for example is between 301 and 302µGal/m or even lower.

You have not shown any report from DTU where they measure, or even estimate, the FAG in the area.

We have all compared the ADG pattern to the FAG and estimated an baseline, - according to that.
I guess you and other will continues to do so, - also even though the FAG is much lower now, - right?

That is the way to do it, but we have no reason to assume a different FAG.

You will then could manage to get about for exsample +50µGal in the top and -70µGal in the bottom of the building, - BUT you will also get acceleration towards the center , right ?

There will be an acceleration towards the COG.

Let us assume the FAG = 302µGal -- now will have almost stable ADG (like the new theory predict) from the upper floor and towards 3th floor, right (!)
I mean (almost) stable ADG in more than 85% of the building (!)
Left would only be to ask why is ADG at the 3 lower (heavier) floors not stable ?

There is no 'new theory'. You can manipulate data to get any result you want, but that will not be evidence. As soon as you estimate data, you introduce imagination.

Let's say the FAG = 260µGal/m
How would you now understand the inner ADG pattern of the building ?

No, let's not say that. There is absolutely no basis for such a figure.

Bjarne, you are getting bogged down in details. There is nothing more to be found from the Domus Vista data. If we use the actual known data, we get the patterns Paul and I have posted, and there is nothing unexpected about that. If you postulate a local anomaly that significantly changes the fag, then all bets are off, because then we simply have to know what it is and how it behaves (you cannot expect a local anomaly to be linear, for example).

It all doesn't really matter, because your model fails on numerous points, iti s not just a question of inner gravity. I have mentioned it several times, but you have ignored it; your gravity model fails on:

- Observed gravity gradients in boreholes.
- The whole thermodynamic model.
- Despite your insistence on the opposite, there is no resistance against movement.
- Observed orbital dynamics.
- Plus, of course, the whole discipline of quantum mechanics and particle models.

It has been both reasonable fun and quite educational (for some of us ) to analyze your gravity measurements, but we are at a dead end, and I can't be bothered much longer.

Earlier today I complimented you on your willingness to admit error. Unfortunately, as I also mentioned, you have a whole lot of errors yet to admit, the basic one being that you don't understand gravity. You don't even understand your own fantasy model.

IF you are willing to learn, then tag along, ask questions, and I and several others here will not mind educationg you. But if you want to continue boosting your fantasy ego by comparing smarter and better educated people with cows, I suggest you go elsewhere.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Those are not FAG measurements. The FAG will not vary that much, BUT very localized, you can have variations due to surrounding masses.

I have it all black on with, or to be exact blue on white, - from DTU in a email from yesterday. But i guess you will accuse me for that this also is lie.
Furthermore you can read here http://www.science27.com/forum/FAG.pdf
And you can see it here>

It is evidently that the FAG can be so "low" as 250µGal/m in Denmark
Hans again you do now know what you bla blap blap about.
You are talking about a Universal / average FAG based on simple proportional calculation GM/r²Reality is different. But I guess it is hopeless to explain you that too.
Are you accusing all people that disagree with you for being liars?

 

[MRC_Hans]

I have it all black on with, or to be exact blue on white, - from DTU in a email from yesterday. But i guess you will accuse me for that this also is lie.

What reason do I have to trust you?

Furthermore you can read here http://www.science27.com/forum/FAG.pdf
And you can see it here>
http://www.science27.com/forum/FAG7.jpg

You already posted that and I commented it.

It is evidently that the FAG can be so "low" as 250µGal/m in Denmark
Hans again you do now know what you bla blap blap about.

You don't read what I post. There can be local gradients, due to surrounding masses, but as long as we don't KNOW what it ACTUALLY is, you can't just insert any convinient value. When you inser a fantasy number, your result becomes fantasy.

You are talking about a Universal / average FAG based on simple proportional calculation GM/r²

Because that is all you have. AND because it seems to make sense, at least for the upper part of the building. There is probably an anomaly around the lower part, due to the surrounding buildings, but we have NO way of guessing what it is. It might as well cause a HIGHER FAG value.

Are you accusing all people that disagree with you for being liars?

Only those I actually catch lying.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Furthermore you can read here http://www.science27.com/forum/FAG.pdf

It is very funny that you post a report where you only undestand half the words, yet you think you are smarter than the guys who wrote it.

ETA: Bjarne, why don't you ask the guys from DTU right out if they think the data support your model, or if they think it disproves the established law of gravity?

Come on, don't be a coward: Ask them to give their answer in writing, on their official letterhead, and post it here.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

What reason do I have to trust you?

This is a saying; Thief believe everybody steel.....
And I believe liars believe everybody are liars.

There can be local gradients, due to surrounding masses

+ the density of the upper crust

Bye Bye Hans, this is enough

 

[steenkh]

Bye Bye Hans, this is enough

One can only hope!