Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

Shame on you.

Ha ha. So you think it is your privilege to call others idiots? Can't take his own medicine, heheh.

What a wimp.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Is that your opinion?

No this is the way reality works..

Then please state the precise heights (elevations) for each floor in the Domus Vista, which you have been using to derive your FAG figures.

I have shown you these data at least 15 times.
I think it could be because you are in a unknown dimension that you still have notice it.

You original claim was that it was always true.

I never have used “always” in that context, and I never had the Earth in mind, but only the building.

That is your new ad hoc thesis.

It is a consequence obviously after just a little cow simple thoughtfulness

As I say, it absurd because it implies that the center of gravity of an object should change position when the object is lifted from the ground.

This is not absurd, soon measurement will guide you to such simple “space vacuum” understanding.

I know you don't even know what the word thermodynamics means, but I have to tell you that such a notion is thermodynamically impossible.

Crap.

It would also be very noticeable; I don't expect you to understand why, but among other things, it would make objects seem to 'stick' to the ground, even if there was no actual adhesion.

And this is actually the case; - the mass attraction is strongest where the building meets the ground (and notice the foundation is part of the building) , so now you should have a feeling of what mass attraction really is, and hence nothing but a space vacuum. 2 flys in one hit, capito ?

Dear readers, notice this special tactics from a dishonest debater (I have seen it from others before): It has now dawned on Bjarne that I have been right all along (about the baseline gravity), but instead of admitting it, he pretends it is HIS argument.

Crap
Doesn’t matter how much you hypothetical add or deduct from to “the third column” ground floor (post 1499) you will never reach a pattern that can justify you “baseline” crap.
And this is why you have invented you own FAG. The prevailing thesis is dead, and there is no way to wake it bake to life.
It is too late amigo Hans. IT IS DEFINITIVE DEAD.

Yes, Bjarne, you must know the exact FAG.

Finally…..
I had given up believing this cow simple fact could reach you.
I am honestly surprised that you now finally accept it.

However, as I have said repeatedly, you don't.
You don't because the baseline gravity varies quite a bit from place to place, especially in an area like the Copenhagen area, where the ground consists of various ice age sediments. This variation can be many times the contribution from the building, so, while we can calculate a nice curve, we have no way of placing it over a zero line

Doesn’t matter how much you hypothetical add or deduct from to “the third column” ground floor (post 1499) you will never reach a pattern that can justify you “baseline” crap.
And this is why you have invented you own FAG. The prevailing thesis is dead, and there is no way to wake it bake to life.
It is too late amigo Hans. IT IS DEFINITIVE DEAD.

And where did you get your basic FAG value for the #2 column? Please state, with sufficient precision, the baseline Earth gravity on the spot where Domus Vista stands?

The FAG value for that area I got from DTU, - it is 0.3048 mgal in that area. And my friend even though there was a gold mine below that or let say 30.000.000 Kg pure gold beneath that building it would change that fact that at ground floor the buildings own ADG is big PLUS,- and second floor even bigger plus, - you SHOULD according to the creeds you support expect negative values here, AND you can in NO WAY explain why that POSSITIVE value is INCREASING at 2nd floor. – Except if you one day (against all odds) accept a new theory is necessary.

Unfortunately, you are wrong. There can be considerable local variations. This is obvious, if you care to think about it. If you calculate your own estimated density of the building, you will find that it is quite low. Much lower than water. So even a volume of ground much smaller than the building is much heavier, and small variations in the mass of that will make a big difference.

Mi amigo Hans. FACE IT – it doesn’t matter if you add or deduct let say 100 or 200 microgal at ground floor, - this would not give you the old religion back. IT IS DEAD. The pattern you believe in HAVE NEVER EXSISTED. – It is DISPROVEN…

However, I can tell you that the foundations will be quite heavy.

It doesn’t matter, so long concrete is heavier than the underground, the foundation actually IS PART OF THE BUILDING, and “SHOULD” according to your religion PULL UPWARDS.
The fact is Pull at ground floor is DOWNWARDS.
This happens because the COG is where the building (and the foundation ends)
As already mention the concrete in the underground give you only about a 20% effect, (because it is only the density difference that counts) - this is why ADG is stronger at 2nd floor than at Ground floor. – FACE IT, there is nothing strange in that underground, everything point to a completely cow logic different understanding.

There is a reason for Copenhagen's low skyline (some of our foreign friends have probably wondered why the tallest building in Copenhagen is only 30 floors): The city is standing on old marshlands, and apart from some rather brittle chalk deposits, there is no bedrock for hundreds of meters in depth. So building tall buildings requires massive foundations.

Once gain the buildings ADG is stronger at 2nd floor than at ground floor, and you SHOULD according to you religion expect an upwards pull due to the foundation as well. Mi amigo Hans IT DOSEN’T HAPPEN.

I'm not surprised you could convince the cows. In fact, I don't think they care much.

Maybe one day I should give lectures, - there would be 2 option

1. For the Human race, - but nobody will (or want) to understand anything before about year 2150. It would (if we shall take Max Planck words for granted) > be waste of time.
   
2. The other option is to have lectures for herds of cows, - But I am sure they all will think: why do you waste your time on us, we have known all this the last 70 million years.

Ha ha. So you think it is your privilege to call others idiots? Can't take his own medicine, heheh.
What a wimp.
Hans

You said that, - not me.
I am only saying that the human race is a little slow to understand new knowledge. This is not my invention; history is full of evidence for that this always is so.
We are cows inferior, according to that, but maybe genmanipulation can maybe solve that small problem, when mixing gens from cow’s + bacteria, + vipers, and chicken, - with the human’s brain damage gens.

 

[Paulhoff]

No this is the way reality works..

No, it doesn't work your way. Again, explain how GPS works if you're right.

Paul

 

[MRC_Hans]

I never have used “always” in that context, and I never had the Earth in mind, but only the building.

You are lying. In your original speculations, back at the Danish forum, you said you would have the direction shift in the building.

It is a consequence obviously after just a little cow simple thoughtfulness

Cow thoughtfulness = "I'll change my thesis to fit whatever data come in."

Crap.

Translation: "I have no idea what you are talking about."

Finally…..
I had given up believing this cow simple fact could reach you.
I am honestly surprised that you now finally accept it.

Here, again, Bjarne suddenly takes something I have been trying to explain for ages, and pretend he has explained it to me.

Doesn’t matter how much you hypothetical add or deduct from to “the third column” ground floor (post 1499) you will never reach a pattern that can justify you “baseline” crap.

This is, of course, nonsense, as the value we need to add is a very definite value (appr. 0.7 mGal).

It doesn’t matter, so long concrete is heavier than the underground, the foundation actually IS PART OF THE BUILDING, and “SHOULD” according to your religion PULL UPWARDS.

That's hilarious, Bjarne. Perhaps you should think before you type. How on earth should the foundation be able to pull you upwards, when you are above it.

Even your thesis is not that absurd.

As already mention the concrete in the underground give you only about a 20% effect, (because it is only the density difference that counts)

20% of what? Just recently, you were going on about how 2cm made a HUGE difference, now you say 20% is noting to bother about? Can you make your mind up??

... Seriously, Bjarne, one thing is that you want to discuss your strange thesis, but could you just try to keep your story straight?

Once gain the buildings ADG is stronger at 2nd floor than at ground floor, and you SHOULD according to you religion expect an upwards pull due to the foundation as well. Mi amigo Hans IT DOSEN’T HAPPEN.

No. There is absolutely nothing in current theory that predicts an upwards pull from a mass that is under you. I don't know how you get that bizarro idea.

Hans

 

[dafydd]

Bjarne's ignorant ramblings are really a measure of his mental capacity

Hans

About 1 cc?

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne
I never have used “always” in that context, and I never had the Earth in mind, but only the building.
Hans
You are lying. In your original speculations, back at the Danish forum, you said you would have the direction shift in the building.

1. If you can prove I used the words “always” in that context, I will give you an l luxury yacht.
2. Since you probably not are mind reader I believe you don’t know if it is true or a lie, whether I have claimed that I only had the building in mind and not the Earth. – I simply forgot to consider the influence of the Earth.

Cow thoughtfulness = "I'll change my thesis to fit whatever data come in."

Such perspectives is wrong..
The measurement actually confirms and “completes” that we speak about a space vacuum; - which is the foundation of the theory.
Off course the Earth helps to encircle a central point of space, in the case when a object (building) is standing on the Earth.

We do not talk about any contradiction, but rather about a complete “picture”.
You can compare this too indoors soccer, - also the walls of the building are part of the game, this is not a contradiction, but rather a complete perspective comprehending everything.
BUT this does not necessary means that the walls of the building always are used.

In the same way, when the building is floating in space, the theory seems to be exact as predicted.

PS
More exact height measurement at Domus Vista will be done soon, and can confirms whether the acceleration is stable or increasing towards the center (at ground floor). .

Bjarne
Doesn’t matter how much you hypothetical add or deduct from to “the third column” ground floor (post 1499) you will never reach a pattern that can justify you “baseline” crap.
Hans
This is, of course, nonsense, as the value we need to add is a very definite value (appr. 0.7 mGal).

As I wrote, not a single cow believe you, and 99,74653 % of all the worlds chickens also reject your nuts calculation (or rather manipulation).

That's hilarious, Bjarne. Perhaps you should think before you type. How on earth should the foundation be able to pull you upwards, when you are above it.

It doesn’t matter where ”you are” - this doesn’t change the fact that the buildings own ADG should according to your religion “should” cause a upwards pull. ALSO from the foundation, simply because the foundation have larger density than the underground.

Bjarne
As already mention the concrete in the underground give you only about a 20% effect, (because it is only the density difference that counts)
Hans
20% of what? Just recently, you were going on about how 2cm made a HUGE difference, now you say 20% is noting to bother about? Can you make your mind up??

You concerns is how much foundation there is.
Even though there is A BIG foundation, it only contributes with the difference between the density of concrete (2300 kg./m3) and the (average) of the undergrounds density (1800-1900Kg), which mean a-net effect = 5 to 600 kg per m/3 foundation.

No. There is absolutely nothing in current theory that predicts an upwards pull from a mass that is under you. I don't know how you get that bizarro idea.

Wrong
It off depends on:
1.) How homogeneous the object is + whether the mass density (foundation) is larger then the density of the underground.

If 100% homogeneous + larger foundation density, - you’ll according to your religion ONLY have a upwards pull, towards the buildings center.

If it not completely homogeneous you’ll still (according to your religion) have a upwards pull towards the gravitational building center, but also a relative smaller pull(s) downwards towards the local smaller gravitional center(s) of the foundation.

So seems from a overall perspective, the foundation is parts of the building, and should according to you religion also contributes to the buildings overall gravity.

Notice that at the lower floor of the buildings own ADG is measured to:

• GF +181 microgal
• 1st +282
• 2nd +244
• 3rd +222

As you cow logic easy can see, - the ADG at first floor is about +100 microgal stronger than at ground floor. (!)

Also ADG at 2nd f , 3rd floor (etc..) are also stronger than at ground floor.

There is no way on Earth you can explain this, except when accepting a new theory is necessary.

So now ASK WHY .............

I believe there is a cellar below Ground Floor, and this is why the buildings ADG ONLY at ground floor begins to decrease here, - simply because ground floor is the CENTRAL AT GRAVITY for that building.

This will be checked soon as well.

Hans
You have no idea how to explain the very strong ADG on all the lower floors.

PS.......Correction.
(The buildings is probably much heavier as first estimated, because the concrete thickness measurement of the staircase is not a picture of the concrete thickness in the rest of the building.

 

[MRC_Hans]

As I wrote, not a single cow believe you, and 99,74653 % of all the worlds chickens also reject your nuts calculation (or rather manipulation).

Bjarne, quite frankly, I don't give a damn about your livestock.

It doesn’t matter where ”you are” - this doesn’t change the fact that the buildings own ADG should according to your religion “should” cause a upwards pull. ALSO from the foundation, simply because the foundation have larger density than the underground.

No.

You are just demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about.

As you cow logic easy can see, - the ADG at first floor is about +100 microgal stronger than at ground floor. (!)

Bjarne, there is a shopping center built around the lower floors. All sort of things could result.


Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, there is a shopping center built around the lower floors. .

This is insignificant, compared to the measurement point approximated 5 meter inside the building. (see red arrow)

All sort of things could result.

No not; "all sort of things" could cause a minus 100 microgal suddenly decrease in ADG, ONLY at ground floor. The shopping center cannot, the foundation can also not, - and if you doubt – how can you explain that ADG is + 282 at 1st floor and at ground floor only + 181 microgal.

There is properly a cellar beneath; - such is according to the new theory a kind of "no man’s land" if the density is the same as the surroundings, if it have weaker density than the surrounding, it will cause the buildings ADG to decrease, and this seams what is happening.

Try to get the point; ADG is DECREASING at ground floor, compared to all the other lower floors - if there was some huge positive ADG contribution from the underground ADG “should” increase at ground floor.

Hans you cannot explain this, - and is at really thin ice, - strange you still deny accepting to have lost this discussion, and that a new theory is necessary.

 

[phunk]

No not; "all sort of things" could cause a minus 100 microgal suddenly decrease in ADG, ONLY at ground floor. The shopping center cannot,

Actually, the shopping center can. If you're at the same height as the shopping center, it won't be pulling downward on you. If you're above it, it will be pulling downward.

 

[MRC_Hans]

http://www.science27.com/forum/dvv.jpg
This is insignificant, compared to the measurement point approximated 5 meter inside the building. (see red arrow)

How can you know that?

No not; "all sort of things" could cause a minus 100 microgal suddenly decrease in ADG, ONLY at ground floor. The shopping center cannot, the foundation can also not, - and if you doubt – how can you explain that ADG is + 282 at 1st floor and at ground floor only + 181 microgal.

There are all kinds of structures around and in the lower floors. To say what can cause the reading would be pure guesswork. .. And that I leave to you.

There is properly a cellar beneath;

Probably?? You haven't even investigated? You have arranged for three measuring sessions in the building, and you haven't even investigated if there's a basement?

... One fine scientist you are.

- such is according to the new theory a kind of "no man’s land" if the density is the same as the surroundings, if it have weaker density than the surrounding, it will cause the buildings ADG to decrease, and this seams what is happening.

What new theory? The new one you dreamed up yesterday to fit the data?

Bjarne, face this: Even if there is something 'interesting' in the gravity measurements (which I sincerely doubt), it wouldn't vindicate yout silly space-wind-gravity thesis. Simply because if fails to make sense in several other important areas.

Try to get the point; ADG is DECREASING at ground floor, compared to all the other lower floors - if there was some huge positive ADG contribution from the underground ADG “should” increase at ground floor.

Hans you cannot explain this, - and is at really thin ice, - strange you still deny accepting to have lost this discussion, and that a new theory is necessary.

I don't have to explain it. Any uneven distribution of large masses could explain it. Bjarne, you haven't even explored the building structure. Come back when you can answer these few things:

Where is the elevator machinery located?
Where is the water tank(s) for the sprinkler system located?
How is the pilotation of the building made?
Is there a basement and what is in it?
Where is the building's transformer station located?

Answer these, and I'll probably think of a few more.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Actually, the shopping center can. If you're at the same height as the shopping center, it won't be pulling downward on you. If you're above it, it will be pulling downward.

Right this is according to the prevailing thesis, but still in this case the influence is insignificant.

Bjarne
This is insignificant, compared to the measurement point approximated 5 meter inside the building. (see red arrow)
Hans
How can you know that?

First at all because of the distance to the shopping center.
Secondly because of the flat angel between ground floor at the main building to the shopping center.
Thirdly because of the relative low mass of the shopping center would never could cause a difference in the upward pull (like phunk stated) of 100 microgal.
Furthermore - Hans notice Phunk is right, - the shopping center would pull upwards at ground floor, (according to the existing thesis) - (according to you the foundation should pull downwards and cause the + 181 microgal)
This is a 180 degree and 100% contradiction.

None of those statements is correct, these are much to weak, these contribution is much too weak, and still notice you have + 282 microgal at first floor, (and remarkable + on all lower floors) that completely impossible can be explained either based on old creeds.

What new theory? The new one you dreamed up yesterday to fit the data?
Bjarne, face this: Even if there is something 'interesting' in the gravity measurements (which I sincerely doubt), it wouldn't vindicate yout silly space-wind-gravity thesis. Simply because if fails to make sense in several other important areas.

Comrades ! , - In Denmark we call this > “Jantelov”, it’s a kind of jealousy, but this one is almost 800 times stronger than the sex drive.
“Space wind” is a completely different consequence that doesn’t have anything with this part of the discussion to do .
It is much more difficult to prove that part - and Hans know this. But again; cows have understood this as well in 70 million years.
A lot points to the direction that space is much more “strange like we are used to believe”
Shorly spoken, we are here talking about that; - gravity = space vacuum.
Matter in motion is therefore 110% cow hamrende obviously logical = space vacuum in motion. (Or space Wind)
But as mentioned Hans only tries to confuse people, (like always) he already understands this "language" and where it belong to.

Bjarne
Try to get the point; ADG is DECREASING at ground floor, compared to all the other lower floors - if there was some huge positive ADG contribution from the underground ADG “should” increase at ground floor.

Hans you cannot explain this, - and is at really thin ice, - strange you still deny accepting to have lost this discussion, and that a new theory is necessary.
Hans
I don't have to explain it. Any uneven distribution of large masses could explain it. Bjarne, you haven't even explored the building structure. Come back when you can answer these few things:

Where is the elevator machinery located?
Where is the water tank(s) for the sprinkler system located?
How is the pilotation of the building made?
Is there a basement and what is in it?
Where is the building's transformer station located?
Answer these, and I'll probably think of a few more.

Hans this is all insignificant crap, the whole building (measured 3 different places) shows the exact same pattern. It is sooooo cow objective logic that the prevailing speculation have got a direct hit.

I don't have to explain it. Any uneven distribution of large masses could explain it.

Yehh yehh yehh
Dark matter and dark galaxies, we have hear it all before……..
Hans, - I belive you understand these measurements experiments are executed to KILL the dark matter creeds.
But I believe that VERY soon we shall hear from the authorities that the underground now is full of dark matter and now is PROVEN because THIS is what Bjarne have measured.
COOWWS HHEEEEEELPP MEEEEEEEEE

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne - any answer to:

First asked 27 July 2010
Bjarne,
What exactly do you mean by

Originally Posted by Bjarne
Stars falling into a black hole are ripped apart and disappear as energy, - properly together with the jet.

Astronomers believe that

• Stars do get torn apart, merge with the accretion disk and fall past the event horizon ("into a black hole").
• Jets are not emitted from inside the the black hole. They are emitted from the accretion disk.

My interpretation is that you think that matter falling into a black hole reappears as the jet.

Soon I will add the evidence that matter falling into a black hole does "disappear as energy", that the matter never reappears and that the jets (if any) are from the accretion disk to:
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads

 

[MRC_Hans]

But I believe that VERY soon we shall hear from the authorities that the underground now is full of dark matter and now is PROVEN because THIS is what Bjarne have measured.
COOWWS HHEEEEEELPP MEEEEEEEEE

Bjarne, you are sick. Get help.

Hans

 

[The Man]

COOWWS HHEEEEEELPP MEEEEEEEEE

Perhaps a bake sale with some cow pies, you certainly seem to have quite a lot stockpiled.

 

[Reality Check]

Yehh yehh yehh
Dark matter and dark galaxies, we have hear it all before……..
Hans, - I belive you understand these measurements experiments are executed to KILL the dark matter creeds.
But I believe that VERY soon we shall hear from the authorities that the underground now is full of dark matter and now is PROVEN because THIS is what Bjarne have measured.
COOWWS HHEEEEEELPP MEEEEEEEEE

That is really, really ignorant of you Bjarne if you think that you are detecting dark matter.

What Bjarne has measured is

• not predicted by his fantasy.
  This is because his fantasy has no prediction for the actual experiment - a measurement of the force of gravity in a stairwell at one side of the Domus Vista building. The only thing we have from Bjarne is an unsupported assertion pulled from his pet cow's bottom about measurements through the center of the building.
  If we take his fantasy seriously (which no one with a brain cell would) then he predicts that the ADG due to the building would be constant and zero !
• matches what we expect from Newtonian gravity, i.e. the ADG of the building varies within the building.
  The only surprising feature to me is that the variation is fairly linear (ignoring ground effects from the buidling foundations, the shopping center around the base and other buildings). I would have expected an S-shaped curve for the ADG along one side of a rectangular block.

COOWWS HHEEEEEELPP MEEEEEEEEE THE IGNORANCE CONTINUES: The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads

 

[Toke]

There is no surprise in Bjarnes measurements, the presence of the building, as compared to air, reduce gravity at the lower floors and increase it at the upper.

Bjarne, try to understand, you are wrong, completely wrong.
(Dine theorier har ingen basis i virkeligheden, glem dem, du ser bare fjollet ud)

 

[MRC_Hans]

What Bjarne is talking about, right now, is that the gravity curve, when corrected for a putative Earth gravity factor, shows a curious upturn for the lowest floors: Instead of the smooth negative slope predictable in a homogeneous mass, it turns back to wards zero for the lowest 3 floors.

That is, of course, mildly interesting, but all it shows is that the building is, surprise surprise, NOT a homogeneous mass.

Where Bjarne goes off on a wild goose chase (or is it wild cows?) is that he claims this invalidates the current law of gravity, without realizing that in that case it ALSO invalidates his own thesis. Since both models posit that there will be a force pointing at a center of mass, the upturn of the gravity in Bjarne's shows, in both models, that there must be a mass in the vicinity of the lower floors.

And since there are plenty of candidates, it is, as I say, at best mildly interesting.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

What Bjarne is talking about, right now, is that the gravity curve,

No I do not.
This is a clumsy misleading expression, and comes from the fact that light bends. BUT this does not mean that space bends.
I have before asked how space can bend.

Is space bending;

1. To the right
2. To the left
3. Upwards
4. Inwards

You can’t answer these questions simply because the expression: “bends” is rubbish.
Space is “stretching” – and so is everything, - therefore a light beam bends, - when passing close to a big mass, e.g; the sun.

What really happens is that distance close to the Sun is relative “longer” - therefore a light beam is “pushed” outwards from the Sun, in a “curved” path.
Matter consumes space and the result is = space vacuum.
This affects distances as well, - and cause space near matter to stretch. This is what; "the curvature of space" - really means.

when corrected for a putative Earth gravity factor, shows a curious upturn for the lowest floors:

At ground floor ADG is decreasing 100 microgal compared to first floor. This is quite a lot. (but notice ADG is still possitive at ground floor ( +181 microgal..)
If the cause of the strong ADG at ground floor “should" be; heavy mass in the underground, - why is ADG at ground floor then relative "negative" compared to 1st floor?
It is even a bigger problem to explain why first floor have +100 microgal stronger ADG compared to ground floor (!)
Furthermore all other lower floors also have relative very strong ADG (compared to FAG) also much more than the upper floors, - (it "should" be opposite, according to the prevailling creeds ) (!)

Let now say you would measure on the top of the 10 meter 3 ton concrete pillar, the effect would be only 0,8 microgal or 0.0008 mgal - but because the pillar is inside the underground the effect at ground floor would only be 20% - which mean 0.0002 mgal . As you clearly can see and calculate it is so insignificant a factor not worth mention it. -

The foundation can impossible be to blame, - but is rather a contradiction that immediately strikes you like a sledge hammer. .

Instead of the smooth negative slope predictable in a homogeneous mass, it turns back to wards zero for the lowest 3 floors.

Rubbish, there is not measured any zero ADG in that building, and even if you of some unknown reason, would deduct let’s say 180 microgal from first floor, so that you have zero here, you still would have large + ADG on all other floors.

That is, of course, mildly interesting, but all it shows is that the building is, surprise surprise, NOT a homogeneous mass.

Still you should according to the prevailing creeds not get such large positive ADG measurements at all the lower floors.

Where Bjarne goes off on a wild goose chase (or is it wild cows?) is that he claims this invalidates the current law of gravity,

Crap
I claim that our understanding of gravity (ADG) towards an outwards direction is correct undestood, in this case we know it is a law of gravity.
The new theory only invalidates the current speculation of how inner gravity (inside a mass / or centrally inside an extended mass) must be understood.
This part is never proven, also not with reference to pinprick measurements of the inlands ice.

without realizing that in that case it ALSO invalidates his own thesis.

Complete rubbish.

Since both models posit that there will be a force pointing at a center of mass, the upturn of the gravity in Bjarne's shows, in both models, that there must be a mass in the vicinity of the lower floors.

No there is not such conformity between the old speculation and the new theory, since the center is not the same place.
According to the old speculation we should have about minus 200 microgal at 1st and GF, we have actual the opposite.

You can in no possible way defend the prevailing speculation, - but this is not a problem according to the new theory.

Let me also mention that the building is not only 35.000.000 Kg but properly the double (or more) . I did the first estimation based on the floor thickness at the stair case. But inside the building the floors (and walls) are surly at least 40 cm thick (not only 20cm).

According to the new theory we shall expect,- up to double ADG effect when the object is on the ground.
This is based on the cow-logic that the building is responsible for pulling space for own consumption.

But because the Earth is obstructing for the access to space, (with relative stronger space vacuum) from the side towards the Earth, - like for example shown in the illustration above, we shall probaly expect that the pull on space (due to a object on the ground) instead can double to these direction where there are freee access to open space...
According to the shown exsample we shall hence probaly expect 50% larger ADG in all directions, simple because 50% access is obstructed, - whereby space must be fecthed form a "free access" direction. This will cause ADG to increase (also in the center).

Therefore even though the distance to the gravitational center is double (according to the new theory) , we shall probably not expect a decrease of ADG at the surface with 75%, but only with 50% (compared to the old speculation)
This also could be the cause to why central ADG is so strong. But more surprises can come. The final kill preparations of the sick dark matter idea matter have just begun.

And since there are plenty of candidates, it is, as I say, at best mildly interesting.

It is very interesting that already now it is clearly shown a lot of gravity that not should be inside that building. (according to the old speculation) .
I really really really hope, that the dark matter sect not will take this opportunity to extend their sick incoherent religion to the underground.
But I am very afraid it soon will happen.

 

[MRC_Hans]

No I do not.
This is a clumsy misleading expression, and comes from the fact that light bends. BUT this does not mean that space bends.
I have before asked how space can bend.

Hellooo! I'm talking about the curve of your measured gravity.

At ground floor ADG is decreasing 100 microgal compared to first floor. This is quite a lot.
If the cause of that “should" be the underground, - it is even a bigger problem to explain why first floor have +100 microgal stronger ADG compared to first floor, and all other lower floors also have relative very strong ADG (compared to FAG) also much more than the upper floors, - (it "should" be opposite )
Let now say you would measure on the top of the 10 meter 3 ton concrete pillar,

A fairly small water tank to a sprinkler system will weigh at least 25 tons.

the effect would be only 0,8 microgal or 0.0008 mgal - but because the pillar is inside the underground the effect at ground floor would only be 20% - which mean 0.0002 mgal . As you clearly can see and calculate it is so insignificant a factor not worth mention it. - The fundation can impossible to blame.

Sometimes I think you must be downright crazy. You calculate the value from a 3 ton beam. The foundations of a building like that may weigh thousands of tons. Do you realize just why the Domus Vista is still the tallest building in Copenhagen, after so many years? - The ground consists of gravel and clay, hundreds of meters down. You almost have to float a high-rise building on a concrete pontoon.

But, .... I know, research is for wimps.

Rubbish, there is not measured any zero ADG in that building, and even if you of some unknown reason, would deduct let’s say 180 microgal from first floor, so that you have zero here, you still would have large + ADG on other floors.

We have no way of knowing where the zero point actually is, as I have already said, repeatedly. Actually, if the foundations are heavy enough, they may create a local anomaly so the gravity in the building is always positive, compared to a pre-building baseline.

Still you should not according to the prevailing creeds not get such large positive ADG measurements at all the lower floors.

Bjarne, you have already shown that your understanding of the law of gravity is so poor that you are hardly in a position to state what it predicts. You thought it predicted that the foundation would reduce the gravity on the lower floors.

So what you think in this respect is totally uninteresting.

I claim that our understanding of gravity (ADG) towards an outwards direction is correct undestood, in this case we know it is a law of gravity.
The new theory only invalidates the current speculation of how inner gravity must be understood.
This part is never proven, also not with reference to pinprick measurements of the inlands ice.

Bjarne, you have no idea about that.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

A fairly small water tank to a sprinkler system will weigh at least 25 tons

If such exist near Domus I believe it is in the underground, the effect would be negative, because the density is much less that the density of the underground.
So such as well as a cellar could explain the suddenly ADG decrease at ground floor.

Sometimes I think you must be downright crazy.

Off course I am, people that tells the truth are always “crazy”..

You calculate the value from a 3 ton beam. The foundations of a building like that may weigh thousands of tons. Do you realize just why the Domus Vista is still the tallest building in Copenhagen, after so many years? - The ground consists of gravel and clay, hundreds of meters down. You almost have to float a high-rise building on a concrete pontoon.

Sometimes I believe you are really downright crazy, - since you either; cannot /don’t want/are too lazy, - to calculate the consequence of let say: if the gravimeter at ground floors should be standing right on the top of one of the concrete pillar.
This my friend I did calculate to only 0.0002 mGal, - let now say that there is 10 such pillar "close" to the gravimeter, BUT because of the distance and the angle the effect from these would be almost insignificant, - so little that we in fact can forget it, because the gravimeter wouldn’t be able to measure these “contribution” anyway.

So yes “thousand of ton” – BUT first deduct with 80% because of the density difference between concrete and underground materiel.
Now add the distance and the angel to the other concrete pillars gravitational centers and you’ll see that the effect is only in your head, not in the underground, and not measured by the gravimeter.

But, .... I know, research is for wimps

Ohhh holy cow I am relieved, I thought you would say; research it for; dark matter.

We have no way of knowing where the zero point actually is, as I have already said, repeatedly. Actually, if the foundations are heavy enough, they may create a local anomaly so the gravity in the building is always positive, compared to a pre-building baseline

No because a strong “foundation” is made of concrete pillars, and we have been through that.
Always keep in mind that the effect of concrete inside the underground only gives you 20% effects, since you do only measure the density difference (at ground level).

According to the pre-building baseline, you could try to deduct or add what ever you would believe was that line, - and thereby shows if adding or deducting this or that , - everything fits with the old pattern.
At the same time you could estimated the pull from the underground, - but carefully there could be a cellar, this gives a oppesite result I am afraid.
BUT Hans you cannot re-create that pattern you belive in, by such cow logic simple calculations-experiments.

And once again; - worse at all, - you still cannot explain that ADG is +0.282 mgal at 1st floor and “only” 0.181 mgal at ground floor. – Whereby you still have a HUGE problem to explain where the + 0.100 mgal at 1st floor comes from.
A 99,9999774 % brain damage + at the same time 99,999765 senile cow can understand you cannot """"connect ground floor / the fundation (+0.181mGal) to the first floor (+0.282mGal) """ since there is no measurable “ground connection” from 1st floor to ground floor.

So where does the strong ADG at 1 st floor come from, - and exactly the same question regarding ALL the floors and places at Domus Vista shows the same. Hans you are on VERY VERY VERY thin ice, when you want to keep defending the old creeds.

Bjarne, you have already shown that your understanding of the law of gravity is so poor that you are hardly in a position to state what it predicts. You thought it predicted that the foundation would reduce the gravity on the lower floors.

So what you think in this respect is totally uninteresting.

No it is not.
I KNOW and have in a long time known that the prevailing creeds was wrong.
I have asked myself the question; how would ADG be if the cause of gravity is a “sucking” space vacuum. ?
You remember first I thought ADG must keep accelerating.
Then I thought it was more logical if ADG would be stable towards the gravitational center.
I still believe the last opinion is correct, but YES I too must be prepared for surprises, BUT far from so HUGE as you must be prepared for.

This week, we will get new height measurement from Domus Vista, -My friend Cristian will also try to see if he can check the carrying walls thickness, and floor thickness inside the building , (not at the stair case) - and if there is a cellar.
A building is not an easy target, but so far it is easy to see that everything points to a completely different theory.

I too must bend my head for objective measurement, - this is the scientific methods, - you too should respect this, - but this thread is just a classic example proving how unreasonable stubborn scientific creeds really are...........