Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[Bjarne]

I read the report and I know what it contains.

One more time:
That graph is obviously not the data from the report.

• What have you plotted?
• How did you calculate it?
• Are you aware that you can attach files like (zipped) spreadsheets to posts?

This is the report > http://www.science27.com/english/Measurement/Domus.pdf

You can find the exact same data here > http://www.science27.com/forum/ADGM7.htm - These are the basic for the shown graphs.

What I have done to the data, - answer > nothing.

What I try to show? Answer>
I am showing the difference between the measured ADG data subtracted the FAG, floor by floor.

And as told you 23 times, - I have subtracted about 10 microgal from the standard FAG (308,4 microcal), - and the result is plugged in here>

That is dumb. There is no reason to subtract anything from the FAG.

Such silly statement in fact really only demonstrate who is dumb.

We also need to decide on a baseline value from which the FAG is measured and subtract it.

Completely Crap... ..this is called: manipulation.
Really RC I have wrote all this to you 37 times before above, and LOVE to repeat it again:

You cannot just “invent a baseline”

Tell me are you on the Earth now ?

All what is allowed is to estimate the FAG.
A such is varying from place to place, - depending on the density of the underground.

Behind that building it seems to be about 298 microgal per meter.

If you do not agree, make and show your own estimation of the FAG, and not of a completely fantasy "baseline crap"

So estimating the FAG this is all you can do.

Not inventing a “baseline” .

You simply don’t know what you re blap la blap about RC.

Bjarne
The second graph is based on raw data (4th floor to 29 th floor), already it seems clear that it shows the same stable pattern on these floors
RC
And again:
That graph is obviously not the data from the report.

• What have you plotted?
• How did you calculate it?
• Are you aware that you can attach files like (zipped) spreadsheets to posts?

Dear RC, - I think above I have written this 117 times, and NOTHING gets through to you.

Tell me are there a baseline > 372556324847 microgal above the FAG where you are ?
I mean due to 48 meter lead and concrete in all direction bla la bla p la la. ?

Is that really true?

And what about the huge heavy anti-crackpot glasses you carries, - Does these really contribute to a complete unique baseline in NZ that we normally only find on Jupiter ?

I am waiting for the report from the last measurement . But I guess that point still have not get through the 345 meter concrete baseline in NZ

How heavy can such information really be?

The second graph is based on the raw data I wrote when we was measuring, - on the spot.

Did that point got through the concrete / lead baseline to you ?

I don't think so.

 

[Reality Check]

This is the report > http://www.science27.com/english/Measurement/Domus.pdf

I have read the report. The data in my spreadsheet is from the report.

What I have done to the data, - answer > nothing.

Liar.
The graphs you are shown are not of the data from the report.
Thus What I have done to the data, - answer > someting to produce the graph.

What I try to show? Answer>
I am showing the difference between the measured ADG data subtracted the FAG, floor by floor.

Question: how did you calculkate the difference between the measured ADG data subtracted the FAG, floor by floor?

And as told you 23 times, - I have subtracted about 10 microgal from the standard FAG (308,4 microcal), - and the result is plugged in here>
http://www.science27.com/forum/Cog1.jpg

And as asked you 23 times, why?
But it does not matter since you have still debunked central gravity with your graph.

Such silly statement in fact really only demonstrate who is dumb.

That is dumb. There is no reason to subtract anything from the FAG.
You have supplied no reason.

Completely Crap... ..this is called: manipulation.
Really RC I have wrote all this to you 37 times before above, and LOVE to repeat it again:

Completely Crap... ..this is called: science and mathematics.
The FAG is the free air gradient. It is additional to the ADG at the surface (the baseline) without the building which you have not measured.
If you do not subtract the baseline than you get values like

Ground floor measurement m = 981547.684 milligals
Ground floor FAG = 0.308 milligals per meter
Ground floor height h = 0
ADG = m - (FAG * h) = 981547.684 milligals
​

So according to your twisted logic the ADG of the building is 9.8 m/s^2, i.e. that of the Earth !
Thus you have to subtract something from the above number. The measured value is the ADG of the Earth + the building. So the thing to subtract is the ADG of the Earth at the site (which can be found by tearing down the building and measuring it!).
Therefore we have to pick a value (the baseline) to subtract to get an estimate of the ADG of the building. The variation of the ADG will not be affected by subtracting the baseline.

Your prediction is that the difference in the building's ADG between floors will be zero except for the 3 middle floors.
Your graph is not a line at zero with a spike in the middle.
Is that clear enough for you? If not get your pet cow to explain it to you.

Thus

• Your own data CONFIRMS that the ADG in a roughly homogeneous mass is not a constant.
• The actual measured ADG inside a sphere varies as predicted, i.e. CONFIRMS that the ADG inside the Earth (a roughly homogeneous mass) is not a constant.

 

[Bjarne]

The graphs you are shown are not of the data from the report.

It’s an average
Try to dick you a little up of the concrete bunker, go > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169251&page=47
Use Ctrl + F, write “bumpy” and read the text.

As you (hopefully) can read, - I have several times made it VERY clear that there should be a BUMPY path from 3th floor to 29 th floor.

So either is it because you are too lazy and don’t read what is written, or you simply don’t want to understand ANYTHING.

Minus counteract plus, hence I have drawn a straight “average” line. Cows understood this logic after 7,4 E-709 second.

10 microgal up and 10 microgal down, is according to mother cow averagely 0.

But well I know this is too much for you to understand. I am, afraid there is not much to do about it.

If I told you that it is g-noise-small anomalies are to blame for the bumps, I am sure you still would be completely unable to see any overall pattern but only able to see the creeds fantasy you have been programmed with in the last 17 years at the University.

You know I and cows have not been brain manipulated that last 17 years,. We are completely free to see and understand nature in a innocent way.
I believe this is what makes you believe I am a liar.

A new 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

Question: how did you calculkate the difference between the measured ADG data subtracted the FAG, floor by floor?

I believe this the 118 time I will give you the same answer.
But OK RC let me cut it in cardboard.
Deduct the (estimated) FAG from the ADG measurements.
And ignoring insignificant bumps up and down, that for example cow logic obviously is cause by gust of wind, the lift, small earth crack, trains, roads, herd of cows moving to the cow house, weak local g-noice etc.
That is dumb. There is no reason to subtract anything from the FAG.

You have supplied no reason.

Liar
Try to dick you a little up of the concrete bunker, go > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169251&page=47
Use Ctrl + F, write “rock” – “clay” or “chalk” > ENTER > and read the text.

This is common cow - knowledge my friend RC, - and once again demonstrate who is the dump.

The FAG is the free air gradient.It is additional to the ADG at the surface (the baseline) without the building which you have not measured.

It shows how fast gravity from the Earth decreases, nothing more than this.

All the measurement on all floors clearly demonstrates that ADG is NOT additional, but rather that all values are weaker relative to the FAG

If you do not subtract the baseline than you get values like

There are no "baselines"except in your head.

So according to your twisted logic the ADG of the building is 9.8 m/s^2, i.e. that of the Earth

Liar
I never claimed that.
Every cow can in less as 3,3 E-52 second calculate the value a certain place of the FAG, - it is not necessary to cut that further out in cardboard either.

My mission is not to know which value the ADG of the FAG is a certain place, but ONLY what is the difference between the buildings measured ADG and the FAG.
This logic will a cow brain understand on less a 7,9 E-3574543762 second.

Your prediction is that the difference in the building's ADG between floors will be zero except for the 3 middle floors.

Liar
I never claimed this.
I have claimed the zero point is a point without distance, hence a point you (or a gravimeter) cannot be / measure. It is a "point" beyond everything.

You are either on the one side "plus" or on the other side: "minus".
On both side ADG is stable in a homogeneous mass.

Your graph is not a line at zero with a spike in the middle
Is that clear enough for you? If not get your pet cow to explain it to you.

No not a straight line of zero, - the line above 3th floors is a line of continuous + 10 microgal (after adjusting the FAG to the correct local FAG- value)

Form the foundation and to the 3th floor, there mass is not so symmetric contributed like at the upper floors,- this is properly what makes this area so zig zag..

Exactly these areas will be very interesting to measure at the center of the building.

If the messages still haven't through the concrete to you, - here it is once again: it will not surprise me if the ADG can reach minus 200 microgal on some of these central lower floors.

Tell me now, what would be yours reaction if we next time measure is minus 200 microgal at the 3 th floor ? - PLEASE don’t forget to answer that. -

Tell would you then come out of the bunker and see some daylight ?

It is very clear for me; the point is to make it clear for everyone.
I am confident that the next measurement at the 3 lower floor + cellar (central) in the building will be a even bigger surprise for many.

I hope this is enough to that a scientific magazine will publish it, - If this happens you will fast get huge amount of evidence, also from much better controlled measurements experiments. Because a lot of measurement will then take place, also advanced one. .

It is so easy to get this done properly, - all it really require is in fact only a open mind, and the courage, to admit, YES we could be wrong.

You know the reason to cows are so good is that they are always so open minded.. Cows do not brain wash each other.

A field of Gravity, - is a vacum in the space "density"
Mass attraction between the moon and the Earth, is also due to stronger space vacuum between the bodies.
Matter sucks space, this is what gravity is.

 

[phunk]

Bjarne, your writing is convoluted enough that it's hard to understand when it's not padded with insults. Filling your posts with cow crap doesn't help your case, it makes you look like an angry nutjob. Leave the cow nonsense out, and consider replacing it with concrete examples of calculations.

And consider putting the actual data in your graphs, not averages.

 

[Reality Check]

It’s an average
..snipped usual rant and flooding of the thread...

And how did you calculate this average?
Is it an average over all floors?
Is it an average over a certain number of floors?
Is it a running average and if so over how many floors?

My guess based on the weird graph is that you did the really dumb thing of taking the ground floor ADG (as calculated by your pet cow ?), the 3rd or 4th floor ADG (as calculated by your pet cow ?) and the top floor ADG (as calculated by your pet cow ?) and drew straight lines between them.
But I could be wrong and you can easily make me wrong:

Tell us how you calculated the values on the graph from the measurements.
​

I will even give you a primer on how to do this since your mathematical skills are suspect (Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units First asked 23 October 2009)
Here is how I calculated the values in my graph

Let m be a measurement from your report.
Let h be the height of a floor.
Let FAG be the free air gradient
Let b be a baseline value
Then the ADG of the building is claculated as
ADG = m - (FAG*h) - b
​

In my spreadsheet, I used 3 meters per floor for the height - yes I know that the height is closer to 3.4 meters and varies a bit per floor but this is a first approximation until you suppy the actual values for all floors.
FAG = 0.308 milligals per meter. I selected an baseline for the measuremnt for the top floor because that gave a center of gravity roughly in the middle of the building.

Your prediction is that the ADG will be constant for all floors except the middle one where it will be zero.
So the difference in the building's ADG between floors will be zero except for the 3 middle floors.
Your graph is not a line at zero with a spike in the middle.
So it is obviously a not a graph of the difference in the building's ADG between floors.

Your graph (however you calculated the values) shows that your ADG is not constant in the building. Thus

• Your own data CONFIRMS that the ADG in a roughly homogeneous mass is not a constant.
• The actual measured ADG inside a sphere varies as predicted, i.e. CONFIRMS that the ADG inside the Earth (a roughly homogeneous mass) is not a constant.

Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked!
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)​

My mission is not to know which value the ADG of the FAG is a certain place, but ONLY what is the difference between the buildings measured ADG and the FAG.

And why would you want to follow such a dumb mission?
Your mission should be to find the building's ADG from the measured values (which are the ADG of both the Earth and the building). To do this you need to subtract the FAG from the measured Earth+building values and then subtract the Earth's ADG (a baseline value).

 

[Reality Check]

And as told you 23 times, - I have subtracted about 10 microgal from the standard FAG (308,4 microcal), - and the result is plugged in here>
http://www.science27.com/forum/Cog1.jpg

Just to emphasis that this graph reveals a really dumb idea.
The FAG is the free air gradient. It varies from place to place. The average (global) value is 0.308 milligals per meter. You can either measure it or use the global value.
Once you have the value of the FAG then you can find how the ADG from the Earth varies with height from a base value. The math is easy

ADG from the Earth at a height h = base ADG - (FAG*h)
​

You do not subtract or add an arbitary set of values from the FAG (and it is stupid to do so).
Your graph has a row labelled "local g". It has values of -25, -74, -43, -84, -24 (for floors F, 0-3) and 10 from then on.

So the questions become:

1. What is "local g"?
2. Why is it negative for the first floors and positive for the remainder?
3. Why does it vary for the first floors and stay constant for the remainder?
4. Why did you do the silly act of subtracting this "local g" from the FAG?
5. It is posisble that you have measurments of the local FAG at the heights of the floors but if you have then then why did you use the global FAG at alll?

I have also attached an updated spreadsheet (missed the ground floor, use 3.4 as the average floor height).

 

[Ziggurat]

Filling your posts with cow crap doesn't help your case, it makes you look like an angry nutjob.

If I might be permitted to disagree, think that does help. It reveals the truth.

 

[Island Skeptic]

Don't worry, Bjarne also doesn't understand a thing. The difference is that he makes up fantasies, instead of simply realizing he is in over his head, and get on with his life.

Hans

Don't worry, I wouldn't understand the difference between what either of you would refer to as fantasies vs. possible accuracies.

I am very familiar with being "over my head" (i.e. the experience of reading this thread ) (+ personal "convictions" that i have quite recently realized were probably very, very wrong.... ).

I'm not knowledgeable enough to know which one of you may or may not be "over your heads."

Perhaps you are equally as sharp with equally valid arguments.

Which ever the case might be: any of you who have even a fraction of the mental capacity of understanding the argument itself is a gift which i hope you all treasure.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Summing up.

I have ceased to communicate with Bjarne, because the signal to noise ratio was consistently indistinguishable from zero, however, I notice there is quite a few lurkers on this thread (train wrecks always draw pectators ), so I think it is time to cut through all the cow dung and diversions.

Bjarne has an alternative thesis of gravity. I won't go into details except to say that it flies about as well as your average cow; it violates thermodynamics, common math and simple logic. One prediction of Bjarne's thesis is that the gravity gradient inside a mass is different from that predicted by the accepted law of gravity.

According to conventional gravity, when you pass through a mass, you will experience a diminishing gravital pull, till you reach the center of gravity (COG), where the pull will be zero. Then it will increase in the opposite direction till you reach the other side. The reason for this is that inside the mass, the various parts of the mass pull in different directions. So, if you go into a mine shaft, the ground above you will pull upwards, while the ground below you will pull down.

This has been confirmed observationelly (although Bjarne convinently denies this).

According to Bjarne's thesis, any piece of mass works as a unit, and the gravitational pull is constant towards the COG all through the mass. This means that when you pass the COG, the gravitaional pull will suddenly change direction.

The logic behind this is unclear, and Bjarne has not been able to explain how any given mass 'knows' it is expected to behave like a single piece of mass.

However, unlike the many 'crackpot scientists' Bjarne has commendably set out to back up his ideas with actual observation (one reason I have, after all, had a great deal of patience with him). He hired the Danish Technical University (DTU, a state-owned institution of impeccable integrity) to measure the gravity inside the tallest building he could find, the 30 story Domus Vista in Copenhagen.

The latest many, many posts here have been about the interpretaion of the results. The measurement report contains the absolute gravity measured on each floor of the Domus Vista. The conclusion made by the good DTU people is, diplomatically, that they consider the measurements to be accurate.

Bjarne has published the report here: http://www.science27.com/english/Measurement/Domus.pdf

So the trick is now to deduce the contribution of the building from the total measured value. The measured value, we shall call G_m. Apart from the stated measurement uncertainy we must consider the reported values as fact.

The Earth gravity, I will call G_base, meaning the gravity pull from Earth at the exact spot where the bulding stands.

The final factor is the free air gradient, FAG. As we move away from a mass, conventional gravity posits that the gravitaional pull will diminish with the square of the distance from the center of gravity. This is experimentally and observationally proved, and Bjarne's thesis does not contest this.

Thus, to find the gravitational contribution of the building, we must take the elevation of each measurement, modify the G_base with the FAG, and subtract this value form the measured value G_m. Thus, the formula for the local gravity for each floor is:
G_local = G_m - G_base - FAG X e
Where e is the elevation in meters.

According to conventional gravity, we should get a negative value for for the bottom floor, and a more or less smooth gradient the crosses zero at the gravitational center of the building and is highest at the top floor (because when at the bottom floor, the gravity of the building pulld you up, against Earth gravity, and as you put more and more bulding mass below you, it gradually ends up pulling you down, together with Earth gravity).

Bjarne has changed his story at least once, so I'm not sure what his thesis is supposed to predict.

Now, since the data is in, so what is all the fuss abbout?

Well, to illustrate that, let us try to calculate the value for a random floor, say floor 10.

So G₁₀ = G_m10 - G_base - FAG X e₁₀

Let us insert values.

G_m10 = 981538.353 mGal (according the the report).
FAG = 0.3086 mGal/m (This is the standard value. There are local variations, but that will make little difference)

So far, so good, but now comes trouble:

e₁₀ is the elevation of the measuring station for floor 10, but that value is not stated in the report, and Bjarne has not obtained these values. Since the building is appr 100 meters tall, let us estimate 33m, so
e₁₀ = 33

But it gets worse: We now need the value of Earht gravity for G_base. This is the value we would measure in the exact spot where the building stands, before the building existed. Can't we just get the value from somewhere else? Unfortunately not, because the surface gravity of Earht varies from place to place, depending on what kind of underground you have locally.

So G_base = ?

Does this mean that all is moot? Not quite, becaue although we are not able to determine the center of gravity (COG), we can make a plot of the relative values for the floors. I have done that, Reality Check has done that, and apart from the expected bumps, it shows a smooth gradient from floor 3 and up. For the lowest floors, the slope is different.
However, when making the slope, we used constant values for the elevation of the floors. In other words, we assumed that all floors were equally spaced. However, in the real building, the lowest 3 floors are significantly taller than the rest. We don't have the exact values, but it is obvious that the FAG (free air gradient) to sibtract for these floors must be higher. This more or less evens out the curve, so we get a reasonably straight line.

In other words, despite all Bjarne's antics, his own measurements support the conventional knowledge and disprove his thesis.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

So are Excel also a Liar ?

Small error - wait

 

[Bjarne]

This one included the stange negative value of minus 24 microgal (at 4 th) , - this could be noise too, - but it is easy to see how much the influence /difference is due to that .

We also see much g-noise on 10 upper floors and especialy at 24th.

g-noise on 4th and 22th floor pulls the ADG gradient left in the top and right in the bottum.

 

[Bjarne]

In my spreadsheet, I used 3 meters per floor for the height

This tells everything, -it is not allowed, - so simple is that.

Bjarne's thesis is that the gravity gradient inside a mass is different from that predicted by the accepted law of gravity.

Correction
You mean; the accepted gravity creeds .

The law of daylight is not the law of night.

We have achieved to understand gravity at a superficial level, but not at the (secret) center of gravity.

Therefore we have completely failed to understand

• What is the cause of gravity,
• How is space exactly affected by matter
• How can gravity of a grain of sand reach /affect every corner of the universe
• What is mass attraction really?
• What are black holes
• What is the silly so called dark matter really?
• Why does stairs continue to fall into these black holes
• What pulls these stars?
• And 100 more similar question that we in fact can’t answer except blab la bl la and all the creed “we“have expected.

Understanding that matter consumes space, and that gravity therefore is depression in the space “density” solves ALL these mysteries, and I mean ALL.

We know that space can expend, there is no more need for space expression as this already well known stretching property / density.

According to conventional gravity, when you pass through a mass, you will experience a diminishing gravitionel pull, till you reach the center of gravity (COG),

But this is based on completely superficial believe, - imaging for each meter you walk you ll meet a hungry cow, all the cows on you path want to each 1 kilo grass, for each meter.

So the more you walk you deeper you get below the 100 kilo grass gradient you had when you started to walk the cow-path.

In the same way, all the mass towards the center of a object is hungry for space, - and therefore the ADG decreased gradually (totally graph) more and more and more until the center is reached.

This is for example demonstrated here>’

If any problem, replace the matter of each floor with a hungry cow, - and understand that on the 3 lower floor, and the foundation we have hungry elephants . These eat 5 times so much as cows.

Which mean the more you walk, - the more kilo grass have you lost, compared to when you was started to feed the animal.

It is the exactly same with gravity, the further you reach the center, the more you decrease, - below FAG.

This is why I “predict” that the total depth of ADG in the center most likely will reach minus 500 microgal.

This is a new coherent way to understand gravity, ....

So the trick is now to deduce the contribution of the building from the total measured value.

Volapyk…
The trick is to deduct the influence of the buildings ADG from the free Air Gradient, and you'll from a total perspective ALWAYS gradually get bigger and bigger g-minus relative to FAG, the more you approach the center.

So you can steep by steep, from a global ADG perspective see that you ADG is decreasing hundred of microgal below FAG (near the COG) .

This is the true understanding of gravity.

Starting with this understanding (before the mass brain wash goes turbo) is a good idea.

Advise, do not get blinded by small insignificant details, - try to see the BIG perspective, before getting lost.

 

[phunk]

[qimg]http://www.science27.com/forum/adg7.jpg[/qimg]

This one included the stange negative value of minus 24 microgal (at 4 th) , - this could be noise too, - but it is easy to see how much the influence /difference is due to that .

We also see much g-noise on 10 upper floors and especialy at 24th.

g-noise on 4th and 22th floor pulls the ADG gradient left in the top and right in the bottum.

How did you calculate those values?

Why is the FAG shown as a constant 10 in the graph when it's dependent on altitude?

 

[Bjarne]

How did you calculate those values?

ADG minus FAG (-10microgal below the standard).

Why is the FAG shown as a constant 10 in the graph when it's dependent on altitude?

Based on the average and estimated for the 2 big zig zag g-noise, (one properly gust of wind, "22 th floor" the other "strange one ,- 4th floor") - notice these floors are symmetric and properly have the same mass.

But this is not the most convincing part, - it is only on small piece of a much larger overall "picture"

EVERTHING must fit in. Everything must be able to explain, all based on the same simple logical theory.

The measurement of 1st 2nd 3th floor + cellar / in the center / is the most important part,- So far waiting for the next measurement is all we can do.

I think it all looks promising. – Zig zag and relative small uncertainties, yes, - but already I see clear signs that the overall picture already is nailed.'

PS...The FAG shown in the 2 graph above (post 1990 + 1991) only shows ADG relative to "LOCAL FAG" values not relative to the overall true FAG.

Hope this make sense.

 

[Reality Check]

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

So are Excel also a Liar ?

Small error - wait

No you are Ignorant of basic science - you have not stated what the source of the "Earth g noise" data is.
We do know that it is nothing to do with the Domus Vista measurements.

As far as I can see it is set of measurements of the loudness of your pet cow's farts that you have arbitarily changed to microgals .

Your graph (however you calculated the values) shows that your ADG is not constant in the building. Thus

• Your own data CONFIRMS that the ADG in a roughly homogeneous mass is not a constant.
• The actual measured ADG inside a sphere varies as predicted, i.e. CONFIRMS that the ADG inside the Earth (a roughly homogeneous mass) is not a constant.

Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked!
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)​

 

[Bjarne]

No you are Ignorant of basic science - you have not stated what the source of the "Earth g noise" data is.
We do know that it is nothing to do with the Domus Vista measurements.

It can be very small earthquake, different kind of traffic, and even at the lower floor gust of wind also affect the building, and many more circumstances / smaller influence, for example the lifts in the building.
Weak g-noice is always there.

Your graph (however you calculated the values) shows that your ADG is not constant in the building. Thus

From 3th to 29 floor there is "apparently” ADG increase about + 6 microgal in the top comprared to the start of the line at 3th floor..

As already explained, only two strong disturbances are enough to cause this, - as you can see, - the one at 4th floor and one at 22 th floor.

The one at 4th floor seems strange, the one on 22 floor could be wind gust / in combination with earth g-noise.

Anyway 6 microgal "deviation" is not a lot.

I really cannot see any other possible different pattern able to explain what we are facing, - the old thesis must fall.

Later I will combine the two different graph you see above, because I can see many have been confused ( the local and global pattern).

But first when 100% exact floor height have been measured, /with a tape measure) not a folding rule, - and I will do it myself next time.

Last time when Cristian measured he was not sure if he always added the floor panel (5 cm) or if it can have been added twice.

I think it is all Ok, but we must be exact. (I am only speaking about the lower 3 floors – Especially 3th floor). Anyway small diviation here cannot change al lot either.

 

[Reality Check]

It can be very small earthquake, different kind of traffic, and even at the lower floor gust of wind also affect the building, and many more circumstances / smaller influence, for example the lifts in the building.
Weak g-noice is always there.

That is obvious. Things that influence the measurements ... influence the measurements. That is why the Danish Technical University people took multiple measurements at each floor to establish their standard deviation.
But I forget - you are ignorant of the basics of science. and will have no idea what a standard deviation is. A quick explanation

One way to find out how much error is introduced from the environment and the instrument is to take multiple measurements. The spread in these measurements then indicates the error that you can expect in taking additional measurements. This is expressed as a standard deviation (often called sigma after the Greek letter sigma used to denote it).

If you have a measurement of 981547.684 with a sigma of 0.007 mGal this means that 68% of the measurements are within 1 sigma of the average value, 95% within 2 sigma, 99% within 3 sigma.
If you take another measurement then you expect to get a value within 0.021 mGal of 981547.684 mGal.
​

The point is where did you get these numbers?
Did you pay for a secret project where the ADG in the Diomus Vista was measured constantly and correlated to earthquakes, traffic flow, gust of wind, lifts, etc?

If you want to add a random number to the measured ADG on each floor then feel free to do so - just make it clear that this is what you are doing. It is a dumb thing to do but make it clear that is what you are doung.



Even so your graph (however you calculated the values) shows that your ADG is not constant in the building. Thus

• Your own data CONFIRMS that the ADG in a roughly homogeneous mass is not a constant.
• The actual measured ADG inside a sphere varies as predicted, i.e. CONFIRMS that the ADG inside the Earth (a roughly homogeneous mass) is not a constant.

Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked!
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads
(original full list to which more points have been linked)​

Of course your graphs are useless because you never calculate the buildings ADG. This is how it is done

Let m be a measurement from your report.
Let h be the height of a floor.
Let FAG be the free air gradient.
Let b be a baseline value.
Then the ADG of the building at a floor is calculated as
ADG = m - (FAG*h) - b
​

Check with the DTU if you are still confused or better yet pay them to produce the graph!

 

[Island Skeptic]

Summing up.

(..) Hans

*wiping brow while feeling intellectually smaller by the 10^-40 seconds

I will have to set aside an entire day just to sit down and try to follow this thread. Thank you for your summary, it is very much appreciated and will likely be helpful when i return to study this further!

.....Right now my brain is in no condition for it. *grin*

Aloha & G'nite my brainy friends

 

[MRC_Hans]

I will have to set aside an entire day just to sit down and try to follow this thread. Thank you for your summary, it is very much appreciated and will likely be helpful when i return to study this further!

Don't bother. I'm sure there are much better ways to spend a day in Hawaii.

All this is really the empty intellectual exercise of engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Trust me, your knowledge and understanding of these things is much better than Bjarne's, because, unlike him, you know what you don't know!

Hans

 

[Paul]

To quote the great Seagoon:

Great heavily whispered asides! (aside) Little do they know how little I know about the little they know. If only I knew the little that they know, I'd know a little. I'll have to keep my little ears open you know.