Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

The moment of truth

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

Except of course for the fact that your graph is wrong. I won't bother to create a graph, because anyone can see from the list of figures in my post above that it is a nice slope. This list is derived from Bjarne's results. I suspect that he forgot to subtract the free air gradient.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Except of course for the fact that your graph is wrong. I won't bother to create a graph, because anyone can see from the list of figures in my post above that it is a nice slope. This list is derived from Bjarne's results. I suspect that he forgot to subtract the free air gradient.

Hans

There is nothing at all wrong with that graph.
The next one (the container measurement experiment) will be MUCH clearer.

SHOW exactly what is wrong, and make you own, and better - if you can?

 

[Bjarne]

ADG difference flor by floor > The first measurement report > http://www.science27.com/english/Skema2.htm

The next is a little clearer.

 

[Reality Check]

The moment of truth

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

The moment of really bad science from Bjarne
It looks like you have plotted the difference in ADG per floor.
What you missed out was plotting the prediction of your idea, e.g. that the ADG is zero at the middle floor. But that disproves you idea and makes it into a fantasy.

Whay you got really wrong is that the prevailing theory never predicts that your measurements give negative values. It predicts positive values for the ADG due to the Earth + buliding. It is obvious that you have forgotten to subtract the effect of the Earth on your measurements.

This is not strange given:

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
Yet another fundemantally flawed idea from Bjarne​

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

There is nothing at all wrong with that graph.
The next one (the container measurement experiment) will be MUCH clearer.

SHOW exactly what is wrong, and make you own, and better - if you can?

Bjarne, I already explained what is wrong, in considerable detal. You can read it or ignore it. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

Now run off and publish your great discovery in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, what the hell are you waiting for?

Hans

(I apologize for the bold language, but I think Bjarne has sort of set a low standard already)

 

[Bjarne]

The moment of really bad science from Bjarne
It looks like you have plotted the difference in ADG per floor

Make up you mind. What it really looks like is that you haven't understood what you are criticizing.
In the graph I have plotted the measured ADG minus the free air gradient. This should not be so difficult to figure out after 17 years at a University ?

What you missed out was plotting the prediction of your idea, e.g. that the ADG is zero at the middle floor. But that disproves you idea and makes it into a fantasy.

Read above I have several times tries to explain you that the prediction I did is 100% correct, - if the building was floating in space.

CREEDS had confused me (too).
Hence I did not consider that (if the building is on the earth) OFF COURSE both the building and mass in the underground right under the building both contributes to encircle central space, - and this is what the new theory is about – a space vacuum theory.

The gravitational center always occurs as a result of space being consumed.
Therefore when the building is on the earth, - ADG is zero in the center of the gravitational field that the; “building is part of” - to understand that look at the image above.

Whay you got really wrong is that the prevailing theory never predicts that your measurements give negative values.

So what you know is saying is that Hans was wrong ?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6066553&postcount=1008

It predicts positive values for the ADG due to the Earth + building. It is obvious that you have forgotten to subtract the effect of the Earth on your measurements. This is not strange given:

Amigo RC,
We are here talking about 100 Microgal.
After 17 years at a University do people learn how much 100 MicroGal is ?
It is cow logic obvious that I am not counting the Earth's ADG (in that graph) at all.
It is also cow logic clear, that the ADG pull away from the earth must be understood as negative effect.
It is subtracted.
And it seesm also to be obviously that you have no idea what you are criticizing.
--

 

[MRC_Hans]

And it seesm also to be obviously that you have no idea what you are criticizing.
--

Fine, Bjarne! How great you are! Now, off you go and publish your stuff!

Mustn't keep the world in suspense any longer! What are you waiting for?

Shoo!

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Fine, Bjarne! How great you are! Now, off you go and publish your stuff!

Mustn't keep the world in suspense any longer! What are you waiting for?

Shoo!

Hans

In think I have learned that creeds very are deeply rooted .

As I wrote many times, it can very well be compared with religious fanaticism.
Evidence MUST be overwhelming, - also even though I am only attacking and disproving a weak mathematical thesis.

Even if I have obviously evidence in my hands, - people will instead accuse me for manipulation, being stupid, bribery, crazy, crank etc. – This is normally, - it always happens. Look at history.

Today i will try to see if a pyramid could be a possible target for measurement too.

************************************************** ******************************
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Max Planck
************************************************** ******************************
http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/coke_zero_robot.jpg

 

[MRC_Hans]

In think I have learned that creeds very are deeply rooted .

As I wrote many times, it can very well be compared with religious fanaticism.
Evidence MUST be overwhelming, - also even though I am only attacking and disproving a weak mathematical thesis.

Even if I have obviously evidence in my hands, - people will instead accuse me for manipulation, being stupid, bribery, crazy, crank etc. – This is normally, - it always happens. Look at history.

Today i will try to see if a pyramid could be a possible target for measurement too.

Hah, and you call the rest of us loosers.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Hah, and you call the rest of us loosers.

Hans

If someone is losing a discussion he can according to cow logic not be a winner.
Here where I live we call a cow a cow and a spade a spade. This is not “forbidden”.
It also doesn’t seems to be forbidden (public) to accused me for being a crank, crackpot, crazy, and my thought;. “rablende”
I do not tell my mother this, (also not the moderator) so that she can punish those as did.
So just carry on.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Just publish.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

Make up you mind. What it really looks like is that you haven't understood what you are criticizing.
In the graph I have plotted the measured ADG minus the free air gradient. This should not be so difficult to figure out after 17 years at a University ?

Ok. Now I understand: you cannot read numbers. I spent 6 yerars at university.
The graph of your

Read above I have several times tries to explain you that the prediction I did is 100% correct, - if the building was floating in space.

The building is not floating in space and so your "prediction" was wrong.

CREEDS had confused me (too).

SCIENCE still has you confused.

So what you know is saying is that Hans was wrong ?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6066553&postcount=1008

Hans was right as he was talking about ADG minus the free air gradient.
I was right as I was talking about the ADG due to the Earth + buliding.

Now you have to show your working for the "prevailing theory" line. Otherwise your graph is still wrong.

Amigo RC,
We are here talking about 100 Microgal.

Amigo Bjarne
We are here not talking about 100 Microgal.
We are talking about your measurements.

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
Yet another fundemantally flawed idea from Bjarne​

 

[Reality Check]

The real ADG values due to the buildings own gravity is ONLY 0.025 MicroGal.

The real ADG values due to the buildings own gravity (mesurements minus free air gradient) is ONLY between -0.562 and 1.345 MicroGal

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

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
Yet another fundemantally flawed idea from Bjarne​

 

[Bjarne]

Ok. Now I understand: you cannot read numbers. I spent 6 yerars at university.

But here you wrote 8 years. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6078788&postcount=1102

6 + 8 years = 14 years.

+ the 3 years Hans did not count = 17 Years at the University.

This proves I was right.

 

[MRC_Hans]

But here you wrote 8 years. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6078788&postcount=1102

6 + 8 years = 14 years.

+ the 3 years Hans did not count = 17 Years at the University.

This proves I was right.

Indeed! - Quite as well as everything else you prove.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

For those that don't understand what is up and down in this discussion:

Look at this table > http://www.science27.com/english/Skema2.htm

You can for example see that the ADG difference between ground floor and first floor is measured to 1.202 mGal

The free air gradient is 0.3048 mGal per meter.

Now multiply 0.3048 mGal with the altitude difference between the two first measurements point of the building.

For example between ground floor and 1st floor. (which is 335 cm).


******************************************************************

You can easy calculate that the free air gradient here totally is 1.021 mGal.

Which mean the buildings own ADG is here >

• the measured ADG 1.202 mGal

...............[minus

• the free air gradient 1.021 mGal

Result = +0.181 mGal

******************************************************************


Which mean a stone at first floor would fall faster as it would had, - without the building.

BUT according to the prevailing thesis, - gravity on lower floors (below the buildings physical center) "should" pull upwards (counteract gravity) starting with about (the calculated) minus 0.100 mGal at Ground floor.

This is not what have been measured, (but in fact the opposite).
The excactly same pattern repeat it self any of the other floors.

In the same way we have also not measured that ADG is plus 0.100 mGal faster acc. near the roof of the building.
The buildings own acc. is n fact only measured to plus 25 % of the expected value.

We can also see that RC had agreed how to calculate the ADG of that building > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6078788&postcount=1102

The Mass of the building can easy be calculated when estimating the volume of the concrete used (floor and walls) ( to 35.000.000 Kilo)

According to the prevailing thesis the buildings own ADG should then not could be more that the already mentioned (+/-)100 mGal.


This also mean RC almost 1300% contradict himself when he claims > Quote :

The real ADG values due to the buildings own gravity (measurements minus free air gradient) is ONLY between -0.562 and 1.345 MicroGal

If this really should be true, the building should almost be compact concrete without space for people to live.

I thought 17 years at a University would give more reliable statements than such.
-----

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Hey Bjarne, remember how you claimed a car driven halfway up a hill will come down? Remember how I demolished that claim? Got anymore proof about your silly claim?

 

[ArcturusA]

Bjarne:

Ignoring the fact that you're completely wrong for a moment, you need to get to grips with your units.

When talking about microgal, I've seen you use both mGal and MGal, which mean completely different things.

MGal = MegaGal = 10⁶ Gal
mGal = MilliGal = 10^-3 Gal
μGal = MicroGal = 10^-6 Gal

Start using those correctly, otherwise your numbers are difficult to follow.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne:
Ignoring the fact that you're completely wrong for a moment.

Just correct what you might think is wrong.

When talking about microgal, I've seen you use both mGal and MGal, which mean completely different things.
MGal = MegaGal = 10⁶ Gal
mGal = MilliGal = 10^-3 Gal
μGal = MicroGal = 10^-6 Gal
Start using those correctly, otherwise your numbers are difficult to follow.

Right
OK thank's for the advice
Should you discover same kind of repeated incorrect English errors, don't hesitate to tell me.

 

[Reality Check]

For those that don't understand what is up and down in this discussion:
....
I thought 17 years at a University would give more reliable statements than such
-----

For those that don't understand what is up and down in this discussion:

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
Yet another fundemantally flawed idea from Bjarne
​

and the fact that Bjarne cannot read numbers:​

I spent 6 yerars at university not 17.
​