Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

Thanks, glad to see I did not misunderstand something.
I read the first report of measurements and it looked like a professional hired to do the measurements.
And yes if the results were unusual they would have reacted.

Yes, he had DTU do it (originally my suggestion, BTW ). Must have cost him a fair bit.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

It is so cow logic simple………..
If RC and Hans would fall through the lift shaft from 15th floor to ground floor and MOTHER COW would measurement ADG 15 different places at their path, - there is not be one single point of measurement that proves any negative ADG (upwards gravity pull) due to the building gravity.
http://www.science27.com/english/Skema2.htm
Hence: the old religion is DEAD.
DISPROVEN
BASTA.

 

[MRC_Hans]

It is so cow logic simple………..
If RC and Hans would fall through the lift shaft from 15th floor to ground floor and MOTHER COW would measurement ADG 15 different places at their path, - there is not be one single point of measurement that proves any negative ADG (upwards gravity pull) due to the building gravity.
http://www.science27.com/english/Skema2.htm
Hence: the old religion is DEAD.
DISPROVEN
BASTA.

Apparantly Bjarne actually thinks the conventional law of gravity predicts that gravity is negative on the lower floors of large buildings. Well, somehow, I'm not overly surprised; it's really more or less on par with his understanding of most other subjects.

Bjarne, weren't you surprised already when you entered the building and saw that people were not walking on the ceilings?

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

It is so cow logic simple………..
If RC and Hans would fall through the lift shaft from 15th floor to ground floor and MOTHER COW would measurement ADG 15 different places at their path, - there is not be one single point of measurement that proves any negative ADG (upwards gravity pull) due to the building gravity.
http://www.science27.com/english/Skema2.htm
Hence: the old religion is DEAD.
DISPROVEN
BASTA.

It is so cow logic simple………..
If Bjarne would fall through the lift shaft from 15th floor to ground floor and MOTHER COW would measurement ADG 15 different places at their path, - there is not be one single point of measurement that proves any constant ADG (gravity pull) due to the building gravity.
Hence: the Bjarne fantasy is DEAD.
DISPROVEN
BASTA.

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

 

[MRC_Hans]

Mmmmm, seems to be an echo in here?

....ere?

....e?


Hans

 

[Complexity]

So Bjarne actually spent money on this nonsense?

That is so funny!

He is only the third Bjarne I've encountered. Bjarne Stroustrup and Bjarne Rubble did nothing to prepare me for this one.

 

[Bjarne]

Treating the building as a sphere rather than a rectangular block is an approximation. We should not be surprised if the result is off by 75%.

You do measure the same 25% ADG due to the building own gravity on ALL floors...
THAT “should” be a surprised (for those that the authoritarian still not have succeeded to brainwash).

But I think that a bigger source of error is the fact we have to take his word for the mass of the building as 35,000,000 kg. This is unlikely to be a correct figure since

A senile cow can calculate that
Each floor have 20 cm concrete there are 31 such floors /roof.
H * W * L
Vertical Weight = 70 * 20 * 6,2 Meter = 8680m3 * 2300 KG (Per cubic) = 19.964.000 KG
Horizontal Weight = estimated to almost the same as the vertical weight.

Ehr, no. After the measurement results were in, you modified your theory.

It is not modified > when the building was floating in space, everything is exactly like predicted.
Even though we know now (or should know) the Gravitational center moves to the ground floor, this actually give me one more shot to predict that in this case negative ADG is beneath ground floor.

What would you say the day this is proven – Muu Moo ØØhhh og Møøhh or Muuøææhh ?

(I did NOT predict that the buildings gravitational center would be stable, but 5%t of my brain could have been damage - the due to the authoritarian brainwash, so I did the same mistake like many other to belive...)

No, that does not have to be on the 15th floor. It will be at the gravity center of the building that is the point where the mass above and the mass below are equal. That is not likely to be in the geometrical center of the building.

Even if you "shoot" 2 meter wrong, from the exact mass center, - ADG will not be much different (not more than 0.010 mGal) according to the prevailing creeds you support - So my frind Hans YOU HAVE A BAD EXCUSE. - BASTA...

Yes, there is. Study the figures I have posted earlier. They are calculated from YOUR data.

I think nobody understand this, also not RC even though have been 17 years in a university.
RC believes ADG according to you calculation should be the same as we can expect to the Cheops Pyramid. Thousand time too much….
Come on Hans... and make your calculations > cow logic clear, - ..so that also RC can understand...
What about making a graph where you shows the measured values and the the expected. ? - so like I have done - Afraid ?

OK, Bjarne, I just wanted to make sure you hadn't simply misunderstood. That is not the case, I can see. You are desperately hanging on to your faulty interpretation of your quite mundane data.

The theory follows the cow logic simple fact, according to wherewe must accept the space vacuum center inside a mass.

It's only a question for matter to encircle central space, - like cowboys encircle a herd of wild cows. (The Earth too is figurative a big “cowboy” too, that helps the real cowboys so that no cow escape into the underground.)
Off course this is a little tricky to think so "complicated" for a cowboy.

So the measurement result DO NOT SURPRISE, - contrary according to the new theory it is much more logic that the center (when the building is on the earth) moves to ground floor, because of the mass of the Earth also helps to encircle a central point of space.

The center of gravity cannot be deducted, since we cannot know the actual baseline, so the zero crossing @ the 11th floor is arbitrary.

This is completely crap.
The “zero line” merge in the mass center of the building, according to your religion.
BUT doesn’t matter if you chose the starting point at 12th, 13th , 14th 15th, 16th or 17th floor YOUR RELIGION WILL BE PROVEN WRONG,
YOU ARE NOT BE ABLE TO MEASSURE ANY NEGATIVE ADG ANYWHERE TOWARDS THE GROUND FLOOR.

Apparantly Bjarne actually thinks the conventional law of gravity predicts that gravity is negative on the lower floors of large buildings

I have already make clear that “negative ADG” only means that you can register a pull upwards always from the Earth, which mean that the FAG (free air gradient) is weaker THAN 0.3048 m/s²

• THIS HAVE NOT BEEN MEASSURED ANYWHERE IN THAT BUILDING…
• THEREFORE THE PREVAILING RELIGION IS DEAD.
• AND YOU GUYS HAVE LOST THIS DICUSSION .

...................

 

[Toke]

So Bjarne actually spent money on this nonsense?

Maybe, another possibility is that instead of offering mere money, he have carefully explained his theories to the physicist in question and gotten his corporation by promising to share the Nobel price.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You do measure the same 25% ADG due to the building own gravity on ALL floors...
THAT “should” be a surprised (for those that the authoritarian still not have succeeded to brainwash).

No, that is as predicted. Of course there will be local variations, but they will be below the noise floor.

A senile cow can calculate that
Each floor have 20 cm concrete there are 31 such floors /roof.
H * W * L
Vertical Weight = 70 * 20 * 6,2 Meter = 8680m3 * 2300 KG (Per cubic) = 19.964.000 KG
Horizontal Weight = estimated to almost the same as the vertical weight.

Yeah, and the building consists only of concrete slabs, right?
There are no supporting beams, dividing walls, heavy equipment, water tanks, etc?

It is not modified > when the building was floating in space, everything is exactly like predicted.

Yes, originally you predicted that it would behave as an entity.

Even though we know now (or should know) the Gravitational center moves to the ground floor, this actually give me one more shot to predict that in this case negative ADG is beneath ground floor.

The center of gravity does not move. That is too absurd, even for a cow. Do try to think.

What would you say the day this is proven – Muu Moo ØØhhh og Møøhh or Muuøææhh ?

I will say the same as when I encounter a week with two thursdays.

Even if you "shoot" 2 meter wrong, from the exact mass center, - ADG will not be much different (not more than 0.010 mGal) according to the prevailing creeds you support - So my frind Hans YOU HAVE A BAD EXCUSE. - BASTA...

The local variations of gravity are far larger than the total gravity of the building. But of course, you forgot to do that part of you homework, too.

Come on Hans... and make your calculations > cow logic clear, - ..What about making a graph where you shows the measured values and the the expected. ? - so like I have done - Afraid ?

I have provided the numbers. Make your own graph. (I made the graph, but I won't take the trouble to upload it for posting.)


.... The rest of your post was 100% gibberish.

Hans

 

[Toke]

I will say the same as when I encounter a week with two thursdays.

That can happen when sailing across the pacific, not that I imagine you would do that, or say anything specific. [/nitpick]

 

[Reality Check]

In reply to

Actually to be charitable, Bjarne did not get the math wrong.

His ignorance comes in that he does not realize that the "spherical cow" approximation is an approximation !

Treating the building as a sphere rather than a rectangular block is an approximation. We should not be surprised if the result is off by 75%.


But I think that a bigger source of error is the fact we have to take his word for the mass of the building as 35,000,000 kg. This is unlikely to be a correct figure since

• He is quite inept at math and physics (The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads).
• He does not show how he arrived at the figure for the building's mass.
• He does not give the error in the mass.
• I suspect that he has completely ignored the fact that buildings have foundations.

Bjarne gives how he calculated the mass of Domus Vista:

A senile cow can calculate that
Each floor have 20 cm concrete there are 31 such floors /roof.
H * W * L
Vertical Weight = 70 * 20 * 6,2 Meter = 8680m3 * 2300 KG (Per cubic) = 19.964.000 KG
Horizontal Weight = estimated to almost the same as the vertical weight.

I see that I was right and that the senile cow is still wrong.

• He makes a guess that each floor/roof is the same.
• He throws in an unknown number for the density of the construction material. This may be the density of concrete or just a number he guessed at. It may be that Domus Vista is constructed of solid concrete. It is likely that there is also iron reinforcing and that the floors are not rectangular blocks.
• He does exacty what I suspected - ignored the foundations.
• He still is ignorant of the basic physics of stating estimates with errors.

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

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Each floor have 20 cm concrete there are 31 such floors /roof.
H * W * L
Vertical Weight = 70 * 20 * 6,2 Meter = 8680m3 * 2300 KG (Per cubic) = 19.964.000 KG
Horizontal Weight = estimated to almost the same as the vertical weight.

Could you please tell me your units of measurements for the values of 20 and 70?

Simple question.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I read the first ten pages of this topic. Are the remaining 24 as hopeless?

 

[Giggywig]

I read the first ten pages of this topic. Are the remaining 24 as hopeless?

It only gets worse.

 

[Complexity]

I read the first ten pages of this topic. Are the remaining 24 as hopeless?

I've done a careful analysis of Bjarne's posts on pages 1 through 19 of this thread and distilled them down to the following four posts of the Best of Bjarne:

1244
1235
1245
1247

An alternate name for this collection is The Cow Chronicles.

There is no science in these excerpts because there is no science in his posts.

There are cows everywhere, however.

Be careful where you step.

 

[Bjarne]

No, that is as predicted. Of course there will be local variations, but they will be below the noise floor.

It is so clear that we here speak about a stable ADG, small “bumps” yes, but NOT “a hill” .
Such small bumps, - we shall expect. – The magnitude of these will be significant reduce in the next measurement; due to such can be done in a more quite surroundings and a homogeneous mass used.

Yeah, and the building consists only of concrete slabs, right?
There are no supporting beams, dividing walls, heavy equipment, water tanks, etc?

Off course, and therefore you will, have “small bumps” – these are easy possible to deal with, - the real “problem” is that the prevailing religion predict not only small up and down bumps, - BUT “a hill” – such hill is not found, - even not a shadow of it.,

The center of gravity does not move. That is too absurd, even for a cow. Do try to think.

This too will be proven amigo Hans, - it is simple to do, because it is simple to measure negative ADG in the underground beneath this container (when it is full of sand)

I would, if I was you be more carefully to defend a thesis that you should be able to see it dead.

I will say the same as when I encounter a week with two thursdays.

So the day negative ADG (which mean lower ADG as the FAG) beneath the container is systematically proven (decreasing with /r²) you believe one week have 2 Thursdays?
Would it that day be Ok we call the blue car for you ?

The local variations of gravity are far larger than the total gravity of the building. But of course, you forgot to do that part of you homework, too.

No it is not, and in fact we do not need to discuss how much each single local field disturbs, because the building is symmetric, - hence disturbing, - for example the concrete floor near to the measurement point (above and below) - counteracts each other. Especially at the center of the building we should expect perfect balance that matter. . Furthermore if you are far away (10 to 50 meter) from such local small gravitational field, the influence is insignificant.

I have provided the numbers. Make your own graph. (I made the graph, but I won't take the trouble to upload it for posting.)

I think nobody understand you numbers, even not professor RC, and probably also not yourself.

He makes a guess that each floor/roof is the same.

Each floor thickness has been measured, except the roof.

He throws in an unknown number for the density of the construction material

Liar, the floor is 20 cm thick concrete...

He does exactly what I suspected - ignored the foundations.

Liar
You have a little larger ADG due to ground floor fundation, (compared to the FAG) already measured, this will decrease based on /r², and merge with the building, and exactly this you can and will measure too.

I am aware of that, - it is not strong enough radical to wrench the pattern we have seen. Something completely different is going on. .

Furthermore it is only beneath the carrying construction part you have heavy foundation, - the floor (at ground floor) is not thicker as the mentioned 20 cm.

Could you please tell me your units of measurements for the values of 20 and 70

Meter

He still is ignorant of the basic physics of stating estimates with errors.

Ohh no first at all the devise can measure accuracies between 5-10 microgal.
There is not must left for "errors".
Gravity-Noise is a different story, - we have been that through as well ; > small bumps up and down, - but still a "averagely straight line.

A straight line is a straight line, - a hill that doesn’t exist is a hill that doesn’t exist, - exactly like an invisible not existing cow, - is an invisible not existing cow. (I suppose).
But off course many can’t see that, (the cow on the hill do not exist, either does the hill) - It could be due to the 660 KG heavy anti-crackpot glasses, (made by 99% dark matter).
There is off course already a solution on the track; - further and better ADG measurement experiments will be done.
In my mind the scientific methods is all what counts, - in many others mind, - it is unfortunately only incoherent and cow-illogical believes, prejudiced creeds, and authoritarian mass brainwashed nonsense, - that counts.

 

[Reality Check]

He still is ignorant of the basic physics of stating estimates with errors.

Ohh no first at all the devise can measure accuracies between 5-10 microgal.

Ohh no: You are still ignorant of the basic physics of stating estimates with errors. The estimate is the mass of the buidling.

You never stated the errors in the gravimeter measurements. The actual scientist who did the measurements did.

Each floor thickness has been measured, except the roof.

He throws in an unknown number for the density of the construction material

Liar, the floor is 20 cm thick concrete...

Liar: The floor is 20 cm thick concrete + whatever else is oin it minus whatever holes are in it.

He does exactly what I suspected - ignored the foundations

.

Liar
You have a little larger ADG due to ground floor fundation, (compared to the FAG) already measured, this will decrease based on /r2, and merge with the building, and exactly this you can and will measure too.

I am aware of that, - it is not strong enough radical to wrench the pattern we have seen. Something completely different is going on. .

Liar
You have never stated your calculations that show that the foundations of the building have no measurable effect. All we have is your usual unsupported assertion. Given your obvious ignorance (The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads) this is not enough.

Furthermore it is only beneath the carrying construction part you have heavy foundation, - the floor (at ground floor) is not thicker as the mentioned 20 cm.

That is idiotic. The foundation is under the buidling - it is not the bottom floor. Depending on many factors they can be as much as a third of the weight of a building AFAIK.

But as I have stated before:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Actually to be charitable, Bjarne did not get the math wrong.

His ignorance comes in that he does not realize that the "spherical cow" approximation is an approximation !

Treating the building as a sphere rather than a rectangular block is an approximation. We should not be surprised if the result is off by 75%.

But I think that a bigger source of error is the fact we have to take his word for the mass of the building as 35,000,000 kg. This is unlikely to be a correct figure since

• He is quite inept at math and physics (The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads).
• He does not show how he arrived at the figure for the building's mass.
  He does not give a credible description of how he arrived at the figure for the building's mass.
• He does not give the error in the mass.
• I suspect that he has completely ignored the fact that buildings have foundations.

(emphasis and strikeout added).

And you:

• Are still quite inept at math and physics (The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads).
• Have completely ignored the fact that buildings have foundations just because you want to.
• Not yet given any error estimates for the mass of the building.
• Have not given any evidence that the floors are solid concrete slabs.
  • Do they contain reinforcing?
  • Do they have flat lower surfaces (I have seen some construction methods that have corrugated surfaces)?

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

 

[tusenfem]

A senile cow can calculate that
Each floor have 20 cm concrete there are 31 such floors /roof.
H * W * L
Vertical Weight = 70 * 20 * 6,2 Meter = 8680m3 * 2300 KG (Per cubic) = 19.964.000 KG
Horizontal Weight = estimated to almost the same as the vertical weight.

Well, this danish cow is really senile if (s)he gets this result, the 20 is in cm, thus your answer has to be divided by 100.
I have no idea what the 70 is and I have no idea why 31 does not appear in the calculation of the mass.

You are one senile old cow, Bjarne.

 

[Reality Check]

Any response to this Bjarne?

Another bit of ignorance from you worthy of exposing to the world so:

First asked 14th July 2010
Bjarne,
What is the exact meaning of E=mc^2?

Hint:
Mass–energy equivalence.

 

[Reality Check]

Any response to this Bjarne?

Another baseless bit of crap from you but maybe I am wrong. So show me wrong, Bjarne.

First asked 14 July 2010
Bjarne,
State your mathematical proof that black holes have no "huge invisible mass inside"
Show the observational evidence that black holes have no "huge invisible mass inside".




Of course this exposes some more ignorance from you

1. The mass of black holes is rarely "huge". Stellar black holes are the size of stars.
2. The mass inside is never invisible. The gravity of black holes is frequently measured.
   What you mean is that black holes do not emit light - they are black.
3. The mass of black holes is measured from their obits and the orbits of other objects around them. This shows that they do have mass and that mass is concentrated in very small volumes.
4. The mass of the super-massive blackholes at the center of galaxies has no correlation with the mass of the galaxy.
   They do have a correlation with the mass of the central bulge of their galaxy. This is to be expected because the stars in the buldge are tought to be the source of the mass of the black hole. However there is a bit of evidence that it is the other way around - black holes form first and drive the formation of the central buldge.

This sounds like more ignorance to add to:

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