Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Paulhoff]

I was thinking that if I won a lot of money from the Lotto, I may move to Denmark, X, on that list.

Paul

 

[Reality Check]

Exactly so superficial (from A to Z) as expected.
And like if I would say the cow gives milk because it eat grass, and the car can drive because it is gasoline in the tank, and women blab la too much because they have a mouth.
...more mo cow gibberish...--

​

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads​

Yet another fundemantally flawed idea from Bjarne​

 

[Toke]

I was thinking that if I won a lot of money from the Lotto, I may move to Denmark, X, on that list.

Paul

Easy now, he is not the only person in the country.
The rest of us are pretty sane, and supposed to be the happiest in the world.

 

[Paulhoff]

Well, get rid of him and I'll think about it.

Paul

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well, get rid of him and I'll think about it.

Paul

Nah, Denmark is a free country. You are allowed to be bat crazy.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Which pattern of Acceleration Due to Gravity (ADG) shall we expect to measure inside a building like this one
Notice the values I am asking for is primary the values caused by the buildings own gravity, not the one due to the free air gradient.
Data

• Height 100 Meter
• Lenght 70 Meter
• Width 20 Meter
• Weiht (estimated) 40.000.000 KG
• 30 floors

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Would the ADG caused by the building itself be:

• Positive at the top for (for example + 0.100 Micro Gal)
• Zero, or almost zero at the Centre (14 th or 15 th and 16 th floor)
• Negative at the ground floor (for example minus 0.100 Micro Gal)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Or shall we expect ADG due to the buildings own gravity to be almost stable the whole way from the top to the bottom?
(for example + 0.100 Micro Gal)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
Or shall we expect ADG due to the buildings own gravity to decrease the whole way from the top to the bottom?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
Or what shall we expect?

So now come on fellows, show me you are not cissies , and hence answer the question.
---------

 

[MRC_Hans]

Which pattern of Acceleration Due to Gravity (ADG) shall we expect to measure inside a building like this one
Notice the values I am asking for is primary the values caused by the buildings own gravity, not the one due to the free air gradient.


Data

• Height 100 Meter
• Lenght 70 Meter
• Width 20 Meter
• Weiht (estimated) 40.000.000 KG
• 30 floors

Do your own homework. However, you need to know the mass distribution. You can't assume that it is homogenous. First of all, the structure of such a building is more massive in the lower part (because it has to carry more weight), secondly, there will be local mass concentrations (water tanks, elevator machinery, etc).

If you had shown yourself to be a serious researcher, genuinely interested in finding facts, some people here might have been inclined the help you out, but since you have repeatedly insulted everone here, both verbally and intellectually, the best you can hope for is this:

Produce your own calculations, showing full data and methods, then someone might be charitable enough to review it for you.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

1



Would the ADG caused by the building itself be:

• Positive at the top for (for example + 0.100 Micro Gal)
• Zero, or almost zero at the Centre (14 th or 15 th and 16 th floor)
• Negative at the ground floor (for example minus 0.100 Micro Gal)

-

This, and gradually changing trough the building (provided that by positive and negative, resp, you mean directed towards the centre). Except that the zero point would be in the gravity centre of the building, not in the geometrical centre. This is likely to be lower than you mention, probably as low as the 10th floor, but you need to study the structure in some detail to find out. I would expect that drawings should be obtainable from the building authorities. Also, you may find it difficult to extract the effect of the large shopping centre at the base, so you should include that in your calculations.

You know, if science was easy, every cow could do it.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Do your own homework

I have done it, the second ADG measurement (in fact the third) at DOMOS VISTA have been finished. Now you have a change to defend the prevailing theory, - before I crash it.

You can't assume that it is homogenous. First of all, the structure of such a building is more massive in the lower part (because it has to carry more weight), secondly, there will be local mass concentrations (water tanks, elevator machinery, etc).

Correct
There is a lot of such relative small deviations, and many more influences as for example temperature change, air pressure change. But just forget all these relative small “disturbances” , - I am talking about the overall picture, - this is so dominating it can’t in no way be completely covered by any of such influences.

If you had shown yourself to be a serious researcher, genuinely interested in finding facts, some people here might have been inclined the help you out, but since you have repeatedly insulted everone here, both verbally and intellectually, the best you can hope for is this:

This is not the question either.
I have shown my opinion and what I expect according to my theory, now you fellows, guys, and sissies, defend how do you believe (or know) ADG to be , and therefore if the mentioned possible ADG will act.
Is it option 1+2+3+4 ´> http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6066428&postcount=1006

I have the answer, not because I am brainwashed, hypnotised a orthodox believer etc.. – BUT because I have measure it.
Therefore now tell me your version and PLEASE let everyone agree. – Then I will demonstrate how REALETY is.
I will NOT show you the measurement result now. But instead you shall all have a change to demonstrate if your understanding really can compete with the real world.

This, and gradually changing trough the building (provided that by positive and negative, resp, you mean directed towards the centre). Except that the zero point would be in the gravity centre of the building, not in the geometrical centre. This is likely to be lower than you mention, probably as low as the 10th floor, but you need to study the structure in some detail to find out. I would expect that drawings should be obtainable from the building authorities. Also, you may find it difficult to extract the effect of the large shopping centre at the base, so you should include that in your calculations.

You know, if science was easy, every cow could do it.

Hans

WRONG

Try again.

 

[MRC_Hans]

*Yawn* Bjarne, if you think you have made a breakthrough, you should publish in an international scientific journal, not here. We don't issue Nobel prizes, here.

However, if you have not taken the factors I mention into account, don't expect them to take you seriously.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Never mind, here it is:

http://www.science27.com/english/Measurement/Domus.pdf

I assume that is #2.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Never mind, here it is:

http://www.science27.com/english/Measurement/Domus.pdf
I assume that is #2.

Hans

Right
Number "2" - is the answer.
The report shown above is the previous one.
A new is coming soon. This shows central building measurements.
This also clearly shows that ADG is stable from the top of the building to the bottom.
I don't think this is understood.
If so let me hear about it......?

If you can’t, (which I expect is the case) don't be surprise that I will answer why.

Yes I too was surprised, but it does not overturn my theory, - not at all. - In fact it supports my theory...

*Yawn* Bjarne, if you think you have made a breakthrough, you should publish in an international scientific journal, not here. We don't issue Nobel prizes, here.

I believe more measurements must be executed. (the container measurement experiment).
Maybe not. Let's now try to understand the opinion of: REALETY... Because reality has spoken....Only a brainwashed fool will ignore that, but you know, there are a lot of those, so I think what is done so far is not enough.

However, if you have not taken the factors I mention into account, don't expect them to take you seriously.

Don't worry, you can calculate it you self, the free air gradient is 0.3084ms² per meter

You can easy see there is a + 0.0150 MicroGal at each floor, (much more than any disturbing can account for)

In the next container measurement experiment the central tube must continue 6 meter into the underground, - try to guess why?
--

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Great! Now that you're doing math, how about backing up this claim of yours and disproving my evidence:

If you must used force to get a car uphill it MUST come down when the force suddenly (halfway up) disappear.

Nope.

Drive a car halfway up a hill. Park the car, but keep the engine running. Engage the emergency/parking break. Place the car in neutral gear. Turn off the car. Notice the car does not roll down the hill.

Place a coin flat on the ground. Push the coin halfway up a hill. Notice the coin does not come down the hill.

Drive a car to the bottom of a hill. Park the car in neutral with the parking break on. Get several people to push the car halfway up the hill. Notice that it doesn't go down the hill.

Please explain what is, or is not, happening in this photo (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1226/981197857_3b1be44587.jpg)

 

[Paulhoff]

Geee, the gravity gets weaker has one gets farther from the earth, who would have guessed that.

Theory, what theory, I see no math for that theory, meaning a formula.

Paul

 

[MRC_Hans]

Don't worry, you can calculate it you self, the free air gradient is 0.3084ms² per meter

You can easy see there is a + 0.0150 MicroGal at each floor, (much more than any disturbing can account for)

Thank you, nice data. A little tricky to extract from the .pdf, but no matter.

So if you subtract the free air gradient, you get a nice (if somewhat bumpy) slope from the top of the building to the bottom, with gravity being higher at the top. Since we don't know the zero reference (the gravity at that spot if the building had NOT been there) we cannot deduce the center of gravity, however, your measurements are EXACTLY as predicted by established gravity theory:

At the top of the building, you are exposed to the gravity of Earth + the gravity of the building (but - the gradient from altitude).

At the bottom of the building, you are exposed to the gravity of Earth - the gravity of the building.

Between those two points, there is a continuous gradient which crosses zero in the building's center of gravity.

Nice work, Bjarne. You have just disproved your own thesis, but a true scientist accepts that and moves on.

Thank you for playing.

Here is the differential gravity measured by Bjarne's team, when corrected for elevation. As you can see there are a few bumps, but they can be due to local mass concentrations. We don't know exactly what is in that building.

-0.277
-0.467
-0.642
-0.562
-0.470
-0.395
-0.315
-0.225
-0.151
-0.079
0.004
0.073
0.151
0.221
0.294
0.359
0.425
0.498
0.563
0.634
0.705
0.766
0.825
0.896
0.968
1.050
1.118
1.190
1.278
1.345

I will leave it as an exercise to the masochists to calculate the mass of the building from this.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Thank you, nice data. A little tricky to extract from the .pdf, but no matter.

So if you subtract the free air gradient, you get a nice (if somewhat bumpy) slope from the top of the building to the bottom, with gravity being higher at the top. Since we don't know the zero reference (the gravity at that spot if the building had NOT been there) we cannot deduce the center of gravity, however, your measurements are EXACTLY as predicted by established gravity theory:

At the top of the building, you are exposed to the gravity of Earth + the gravity of the building (but - the gradient from altitude).

At the bottom of the building, you are exposed to the gravity of Earth - the gravity of the building.

Between those two points, there is a continuous gradient which crosses zero in the building's center of gravity.

Nice work, Bjarne. You have just disproved your own thesis, but a true scientist accepts that and moves on.

Thank you for playing.

Here is the differential gravity measured by Bjarne's team, when corrected for elevation. As you can see there are a few bumps, but they can be due to local mass concentrations. We don't know exactly what is in that building.

-0.277
-0.467
-0.642
-0.562
-0.470
-0.395
-0.315
-0.225
-0.151
-0.079
0.004
0.073
0.151
0.221
0.294
0.359
0.425
0.498
0.563
0.634
0.705
0.766
0.825
0.896
0.968
1.050
1.118
1.190
1.278
1.345

I will leave it as an exercise to the masochists to calculate the mass of the building from this.

Hans

Based on the first measurement at DOMUS VISTA everyone can check the difference of ADG floor by floor HERE

It is easy to see that the average ADG difference floor by floor is averagely 0.850 MicroGal. - and it is also easy to calculate that free air gradient is only 799 MicroGal.

Hence is is no doubt that ADG is almost stable from the top of the building to the bottom.

The small "bumps" on that path doesn’t change that fact.

Furthermore this report Hans refer to, is not the one that shows CENTRAL measurement. (not the final one)

The old report doesn’t give a clear Picture.
We must wait for the final report.

BUT the old report too shows the same story, but not so clearly.

To make a long history short, - measurements proves that ADG is NOT gradually decreasing towards the center, not from the top to the center and also not from the bottom to the center.

This also proves that this answer is definitive WRONG

Rather it is clear that the ADG is almost stable, yes a little bumpy, but seen from a overall perspective it is rather stable, - from the top to that building and to the ground floor..

The prevailing theory can NOT explain that fact.

And that should be a problem (for those that are awake - not for the prejudiced) .

If you want to ignore that fact 100%, - you are also ignoring 100% of the buildings own gravity.

I mean just pretend that the building not exist and ADG measurement never have been executed AND THE PROBLEM IS SOLVED
--

 

[steenkh]

To make a long history short, - measurements proves that ADG is NOT gradually decreasing towards the center, not from the top to the center and also not from the bottom to the center.

You have not followed a strict protocol where you have corrected for known confounding factors, so to make long story short, your measurements are worthless and they do not show anything of interest.

 

[Bjarne]

You have not followed a strict protocol where you have corrected for known confounding factors, so to make long story short, your measurements are worthless and they do not show anything of interest.

My opinion doesn’t matter
You have a problem, your understanding DO NOT FIT TO REALETY.
Do you want to ignore that?
I too have a “problem” – but a MUCH smaller one.
I am force to move the gravitational center to the ground floor.
But this is in fact not a problem. I am too in a learning process.
Now I expect that measurement UNDER Domus Vista will reveal deceleration towards the gravitional center (at ground level)
After realizing that fact it is not so strange, because local mass of the Earth (under the building MUST off course also be effected.) I haven’t give that "area" any attention, this was a mistake..

To explain that in a simple down to earth cow language:

• Matter sucks space
• Domus Vista also Sucks space, so does the mass under that building
• Therefore a common gravity center occurs between these two reveals.

And therefore the positive (accelerating effect is above the Earth) , - the Negative "decelerating" effects (simular strenght as the buildings ADG) is from few meters inside the Earth and towards the surface. I will make that more clear later.
A new measurement experiment is expected to confirm that. “ The container Measurement Experiment”
But so far it is proven that the prevailing thesis is rubbish.
A better model is necessary

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Any reason why you can't answer my post Bjarne? I think I'll repeat to you something you said:

You have a problem, your understanding DO NOT FIT TO REALETY.
Do you want to ignore that?

 

[steenkh]

My opinion doesn’t matter

Correct. And your measurements do also not matter when you refuse to follow a sensible protocol.

You have a problem, your understanding DO NOT FIT TO REALETY.
Do you want to ignore that?

Our understanding fits reality. Your problem is that you have wasted time and money on producing worthless measurements. If you had made the effort to produce a sensible protocol (and you were offered help here), you might have made measurements that could have been of interest, but now it is just a case of garbage in - garbage out.