Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

That is right.
The point though is that it is the best scientific theory that we have. It fits the observataions which is a basic requrement for a theory.

Of course Bjarne's fantasy does not even do that.

The Domus Vista data shows that Bjarne's "central gravity" is wrong or useless

Bjarne said:

This is not what I am asking for.
Based on the data we have, show us now where is the COG in that building according to your opinion.
http://www.science27.com/forum/ADGM7.htm

Click to expand...

One more time: Your data is useless in determining the COG. That is a physical fact.
Your data is not measurements of the building's gravity and so it does not go to zero at that COG of the building.
Your data is measurements of the Earth + building gravity. It would to zero at that COG of the Earth + building. This is close to the center of the Earth where you did not take any measurments.

Your data could be adjusted to be just the gravity of the building if you had a proper baseline measurement of the gravity without the building.

We can pick an arbitary baseline, subtract the free air gradient and get the ADG within the building. One selection results in the ADG going to zero in the middle of the building. This was done before. I spent a few minutes doing it again and the result is the Excel 2007 spreadsheet in the attached zip file.

Whatever baseline we select the data shows that the ADG is not constant within the building thus: Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked

Reality Check said:

One more time: Your data is useless in determining the COG. That is a physical fact.
Your data is not measurements of the building's gravity and so it does not go to zero at that COG of the building.
Your data is measurements of the Earth + building gravity. It would to zero at that COG of the Earth + building. This is close to the center of the Earth where you did not take any measurements.

Your data could be adjusted to be just the gravity of the building if you had a proper baseline measurement of the gravity without the building.

We can pick an arbitary baseline, subtract the free air gradient and get the ADG within the building. One selection results in the ADG going to zero in the middle of the building. This was done before. I spent a few minutes doing it again and the result is the Excel 2007 spreadsheet in the attached zip file.

Whatever baseline we select the data shows that the ADG is not constant within the building thus: 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)
​

Click to expand...

Unbelievable that you do both totally ignore the local as well as the global deviation compared to the FAG.

How much further out on Jens Peter Jensen’s Ploughed field is i possible to get (lost) ?




This graph is based on measurement in a "corner" of the building. (1st and 2nd measurement)

You can see clearly strong negative ADG at the 3 lower floors of Domus Vista (that not can be explained based on the prevailing theory)

The reason for the negative strong values at the bottom is that the concrete thickness on the lower floors seems to be MUCH thicker than at all other floors.

The red column shows how much the total negative effect is (on space) compared to FAG.

Or in a more cow logic language: how much space-density is vacuumized in the COG of the building.

The yellow line shows the local deviations compared to the local FAG differences.

Remember a gravitionel field = a space vacuum.
And remember that the result is central space towards the COG gets stronger and stronger effected / vacumized.

THIS is what the measuremnets confirms.

The deeper the curve reach at the COG ( 3th/4th floor), the stronger pull at central space-density. – So simple is that.

THIS is what the overall data reveals.

Notice the FAG value 304,8 microgal per meter is a global value, not a local one, it can easy deviate +/- 20 microgal (compared to the global value) her in this country. (we have e.g: no rocks, there is not much clay under that building etc,..

F = the negative contribution from the foundation.
This is off course unknown, but the foundation contributes to the buildings upwards pull together with the cellar and the mass of and the 3 to 4 upper floors. - So the total negative effect in the COG , in the center of the building can probaly reach 500 microgal. BUT this is a TOTAL value not possible to measure, but only to calculate by adding each negative (or possitive) local contribution.
We can ONLY measure locally > the local increase or decrease, but this doesn’t mean there are no "global" pattern of the building.

Logal g = the gradually stable ADG (migrogal) decrease or increase.

Of course the contribution of mass is different, the FAG is unknown, and we have g-noice etc. Yes the picture is not 100 % clear, but if you really want, you can easy see both the local and global pattern and logic behind.

The underlying "pattern" seems to be accepted by Caroline’s overall 21th dimension coherent cow-logic, - and this tells a lot.

This mean the ADG measured at the roof is much weaker as the (negative) values measured at the 3 heavy lower parts of the building, (due to the heavy lower part)

Remember if mass is twice so compact the comparable effect is 4 double. - Hence a double so compact mass only require 25% distance to counteract +/-.

THIS is what we see.


This shows the expected central values.
It is so far based on rough data, - still waiting for the final report.

Furthermore:
We will measure the cellar and the 3 lower floors; this was not done last time.

Now I see how important this was.

Advise
Take a copy of the image, and store it a save place, so that you not later this year can accuse me for cheating.


And by the way, what have cheated us all?
I guess the fact that it seems that the building COG is at 3th/ 4th floor

Maybe I should try to get the drawings.

Even Caroline Cow is deeply surprised to discover a COG "hanging so low".,

I forgot to show the FAG (red --- line)

Bjarne said:

http://www.science27.com/forum/fag1.jpg
I forgot to show the FAG (red --- line)

Click to expand...

That is not the FAG (free air gradient).
The free air gradiant is 0.3086 milligals per meter. You need to do the obvious and multiply by height to get the acceleration.

Bjarne said:

Unbelievable that you do both totally ignore the local as well as the global deviation compared to the FAG.

You can see clearly strong negative ADG at the 3 lower floors of Domus Vista (that not can be explained based on the prevailing theory)

Click to expand...

That has been expained to you before - you have no idea what the local structures are (or even the structure of Domus Vista is) are so it csould be

• The foundations.
• The shopping center atround the base of the building.
• The other buldings or

• Bjarne said:

  The reason for the negative strong values at the bottom is that the concrete thickness on the lower floors seems to be MUCH thicker than at all other floors.

  Click to expand...

Bjarne said:

The deeper the curve reach at the COG ( 3th/4th floor), the stronger pull at central space-density. – So simple is that.

Click to expand...

So idiotic is that.
The COG of a rectangular building with floors of equal mass is in the center of the middle floor.

If you were anything but a typical ignorant (look up the definition of COG sometime) Internet crank, you would get the building plans fro the Domus Vista and actually calculate the COG.

THIS is what the overall data reveals.

Bjarne's "central gravity" completely debunked

(Added the bit about Bjarne's latest posts)
This "central gravity" is a fantasy for several reasons.

It is a Not Even An Idea
An idea should be stated in a clear enough way so that other people can understand it, understand how predictions from it are derived and make their own predictions from it.
This is not true of "central gravity". Your explanation of it is pitiful - space stretching? or dancing the fandango? Your predictions from it have no connection to "central gravity" except your assertion that they have a connection. That makes the idea and predictions all inside your head, i.e. a fantasy that generates delusions (the delusional aspects are explained below).

Experimentally Debunked 1
Your "central gravity" idea lead to you asserting that the ADG inside a sphere is constant. That is a delusion rather than an prediction because you have ignored the experimental evidence that the prediction is wrong since 2 November 2009 !
Real, tested science (Newtons law of gravity) predicts a varying ADG inside a sphere. The actual measured ADG inside a sphere varies as predicted

Experimentally Debunked (By Bjarne!) 2
The Domus Vista measurements that you paid have done are also interesting. They definitely show that "central gravity" is a fantasy. It is either

1. useless (cannot predict the ADG where the measurements were done - in a stairwell at the side of the building) or
2. wrong because the measurements show a varying ADG due to the building as has been pointed out to you several times.

Bjarne has also posted his figures and graphs that show that the ADG is not constant within the Domus Vista. These are useless since he does not state how he calculated the figures in the graph and gets at least one thing wrong. The free air gradiant is 0.3086 milligals per meter and he does not multiply by height to get the acceleration.
His response is the typical crackpot one - just arbitrarily move the center of gravity of the bulding to a minumum he has at the 3rd/4th floor . That is right - he ignores the actual physics yet again.
He also ignores that his graph has the ADG non-constant around his minimum.

Fantasy from the Debunked Idea
Another idiocy from that "central gravity" fantasy is that the ADG at the center of a sphere is zero. Thus you probably have the rather idiotic idea that the ADG inside a sphere is zero. That is so obviously dumb - people do not float in mid air in basements, subways, mines, submarines, etc.
Alternately you may have the even more idiotic idea to make "central gravity" into even more of a fantasy by pulling another unsupported assertion out of your pet cow's bottom, e.g. that the ADG is constant and suddenly changes to zero at the center.

Basic Physics Violated By the Debunked Idea
The latest "central gravity" delusion is you asserting that the ADG exerted by a body attached to another body is 50% of the expected value. You are even going to was your money testing this between a silo and the Earth. This is a delusion because

1. You pulled the number 50% out of your pet cow's bottom.
2. Atoms do not do not have any idea that the body they are in is attached or not to another body.
   The gravitational force between atoms does not depend on the connectivity.
   Add up the forces and the total force between the bodies does not depend on the connectivity of the bodies.
   Atoms are not your pet cow!
3. It violates a little thing called the conservation of energy by arbitrarily having the gravitational potential energy of the unattached object halve when it becomes attached. Think of lowering your silo onto the ground using a really, really big helicopter.

To Be Experimentally Debunked By Bjarne Again?
It seems that you have hired a hopefully competent person to do the work that you are incapable of doing, i.e. calculate the Newtonian ADG from the filled silo at an specified point under it. This means that they should get to within a reasonable % of the Newtonian value. That in turns means that you will once again disprove "central gravity" with your own money !
I do have an prediction in regard to this:
In conclusion
Every time that you make an unsupported assertion about "central gravity" (like your current fantasy about hurricanes) you make "central gravity" even more idiotic because one or more of the following is true

• The connection between the debunked "central gravity" and your assertion is only in your head. All that you can do draw cartoons about the fantasy.
• The assertion is ruled out by simple physics.
• The assertion is ruled out by experimental evidence.
• The assertion is ruled out by experimental evidence that you pay for! (or "central gravity" is shown to be useless).

That is not the FAG (free air gradient).
The free air gradiant is 0.3086 milligals per meter. You need to do the obvious and multiply by height to get the acceleration.

Click to expand...

According to the answers I have got from professionals the free air gradient is 0,3048 milligal, or 304,8 microgal. But this is a “global” average value.
Off course if you have heavy rock in the underground FAG is stronger and if you have (light) chalk in the underground it will be weaker.

Diviation +/- 20 microgal from place to place is normal.

This explain that the measurement from floor 3 to 29 not shall be compared (locally and overall) with a FAG, within a inteval +20 or minus 20 microgal.

If you chose to add anything (e.g; 5 to 20 microgal) you can easy see this gives a tottally wrong pattern, because in this case you’ll have a pull upward from ground floor (GF) and the whole way to the top of the building, so in fact you have only one option : > to deduct up to 20 microgal.

Doing so, (deducting appr. 10 microgal) you’ll see a clear pattern , which mean that ADG will be averagely + 10 microgal from floor 4 and to the top.
A bit bumpy but still a clear and stable pattern.

Basic Data > http://www.science27.com/forum/ADGM7.htm

To add or deduct 20 microgal to the FAG is all what is allowed method.
There are no strange “baseline” so like you have try to show, - all what you have is FAG line, and as I wrote: - deepening where on earth you are, you can easy estimate it , simple by adding or deduction the mention values.

So there are no excuse for not accepting the FAG, - also not, even though we don’t know how heavy are the foundation is etc.
The foundation pulls upwards, hence more or less mass at the foundation will only give you more lees upwards pull.

So by comparing the local ADG floor by floor with the (estimated / modified) FAG you can easy and systematically (meter by meter) derterminate the local ADG contribution - due to the mass of the building is, - as well as you easy can see how the overall pattern of the ADG of that building is.

THIS is what this discussion is about.

What you have done is: forbidden manipulation.

So the situation is not as difficult as you believe.
We do not have rock here, hence most likely it only sound logical that you’ll have to deduct 10 to 15 microgal from the standard FAG

Simply be deducting 10 microgal gives you the graph below.



Yes, the value at 3th floor looks strange.
The line from GF to 3th floor should have been more horizontal.
I will check the height of the building at all lower floors again, (myself), -soon, and will measure within millimeters accurately.
5 cm height off = 15 microgral.

Furthermore
The cellar and 3 lower floor will be g-measured in the CENTER of the building.
I expect MUCH stronger negative gravity here.
Please remember this prediction.

Already I have rough (positive) g-data from the upper floors.
So RC, you have a very limit “space”, to speculate, (+/- 20 Microgal compared to FAG) I hope you’ll understand that.

What you are trying to do is to manipulate the pattern that is objective measured.

That has been explained to you before - you have no idea what the local structures are (or even the structure of Domus Vista is) are so it could be

• The foundations.
• The shopping center atround the base of the building.
• The other buldings or

Click to expand...

As I wrote above, all this is not so primary important.
Off course a heavy floor / walls ( at the bottum at the building) will contribute comparable more to the local and overall pattern.

BUT all this MUST contribute to: the upwards pull.
The whole point is to see the PATTERN locally and overall, - which actually mean; - is ADG stable or is +/- .

Can you point to whether ADG really decrease towards the center?
Answer: No you cannot, in no way, - except by completely manipulation, and by inventing a completely strange "baseline" that have nothing with anything to do.

Look for instance at all the upper floors (above 3th floor) (form a overall perspective) you can NOT demonstrate the pattern you expect.
It is a bumpy “road”, yes, - but the there is NO overall uphill towards the top, but rather a flat road.


The day you understand that what seems to be a "flat horizontal line", in reality is a line upwards, this is the day you begin to understand central gravity.

So idiotic is that.
The COG of a rectangular building with floors of equal mass is in the center of the middle floor.

Click to expand...

You can’t deny that the whole foundation IS PART OF THE BUILDING, - this part MUST pull upwards, together with the 3 heavy lower floors.
I really believe these parts are enough to counteract the “positive mass” from above the COG, and hence that the COG is at 3th 4th floor.

At least this is the ONLY interpretation you so fare can reach based on the data we have.

I will try to get the drawings; it seems that the foundation must be very deep/heavy.

It is a Not Even An Idea
An idea should be stated in a clear enough way so that other people can understand it, understand how predictions from it are derived and make their own predictions from it.
This is not true of "central gravity". Your explanation of it is pitiful - space stretching? or dancing the fandango? Your predictions from it have no connection to "central gravity" except your assertion that they have a connection. That makes the idea and predictions all inside your head, i.e. a fantasy that generates delusions (the delusional aspects are explained below).

Click to expand...

It is soooooo simple
Gravity = A Space vacuum.
This is why you can see a “depression” in the graph, at the COG.
Unless following the main thread and understanding the central space vacuum, you'll never understand gravity.

Experimentally Debunked 1
Your "central gravity" idea lead to you asserting that the ADG inside a sphere is constant. That is a delusion rather than an prediction because you have ignored the experimental evidence that the prediction is wrong since 2 November 2009 !
Real, tested science (Newtons law of gravity) predicts a varying ADG inside a sphere.

Click to expand...

Systematical measurement with the only purpose: to graph the overall ADG pattern AND the COG have never been executed before.
The measurement done so fare CONFIRMS that ADG in a homogeneous mass is stable.

Fantasy from the Debunked Idea
Another idiocy from that "central gravity" fantasy is that the ADG at the center of a sphere is zero. Thus you probably have the rather idiotic idea that the ADG inside a sphere is zero. That is so obviously dumb - people do not float in mid air in basements, subways, mines, submarines, etc.
Alternately you may have the even more idiotic idea to make "central gravity" into even more of a fantasy by pulling another unsupported assertion out of your pet cow's bottom, e.g. that the ADG is constant and suddenly changes to zero at the center.

Click to expand...

The “center” is not a “place”, but without distance. And hence a “place” where surrounding matter, pulls space from. This creates at space vacuum, or: a gradually increasing “space-density-depression” towards the COG.
Try to make a dumb idiotic Google search on: > “idiotic dumb counterbalance forklift”. The principle is almost the same.

Bjarne said:

According to the answers I have got from professionals the free air gradient is 0,3048 milligal, or 304,8 microgal. But this is a “global” average value.

Click to expand...

Then you are lying about what the professionals stated.
The free air gradient is 0,3048 milligal per meter, or 304,8 microgal per meter (or just Google it if you are smart enough, Bjarne) but this is a global average value.

Bjarne said:

What you have done is: forbidden manipulation.

Click to expand...

What you have done is: invalid mathematics from a position of ignorance

Bjarne said:

The measurement done so fare CONFIRMS that ADG in a homogeneous mass is stable.

Click to expand...

You really are deluded:

• Your own data CONFIRMS that the ADG in a roughly homogeneous mass is unstable.
• 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.

Reality Check said:

Then you are lying about what the professionals stated.
The free air gradient is 0,3048 milligal per meter, or 304,8 microgal per meter (or just Google it if you are smart enough, Bjarne) but this is a global average value.

Click to expand...

Oohh yehh mannn, this is a catastrophic, - I did not mention “meter” ?
You see, - I did not though it was necessary, - at least when I speak with mother cow, she always tell me I do not need to tell here it is per meter, all cows knows this.
This is the reason to now I have stopped to mention it is per meter.

What you have done is: invalid mathematics from a position of ignorance
You really are deluded:

• Your own data CONFIRMS that the ADG in a roughly homogeneous mass is unstable.
• 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!​

Click to expand...

I wonder where the cow logic comes from?
The usual Danish expression is "Logik for burhøns" / "Logics for battery hens"

Bjarne said:

Oohh yehh mannn, this is a catastrophic, - I did not mention “meter” ?
You see, - I did not though it was necessary, - at least when I speak with mother cow, she always tell me I do not need to tell here it is per meter, all cows knows this.
This is the reason to now I have stopped to mention it is per meter.

Click to expand...

So now we agree. You deluded enough to think that your "mother" cow can understand you ! And that your mother is a cow !
The reason that you neglected to mention that it was oer meter is that you are ignorant of that fact. Otherwise you would not have been so dumb as to plot it as a constant.


But the dumbness continues: your graph is invalid in many ways

1. You have the FAG as a straight line when it should vary with height.
2. You have a unlabelled line plotting something that you never state.
3. You never actually plot the ADG inside the bulding because you never remove the correct FAG.
4. Your deluded redefintion of COG to place it at the 3/4th floor really invalidates your fantasy.
5. Your assumnption that the lower floors are higher than the upper ones also invalidates your fantasy.
   It makes the minimum even less like a step which you predict.
   P.S. I would expect that the ground floor would be higher since that is usual building practice for commerical space. The higher floors are less certain.

Bjarne said:

...snipped usual rant and gibberish...

Click to expand...

• Your own data CONFIRMS that the ADG in a roughly homogeneous mass is unstable.
• 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.

You have the FAG as a straight line when it should vary with height.

Click to expand...

Turn it the way you like, in space there is no up and down.
I mean even though you put a cow into a wash-machine, the way it calculates a gravity depression relative to FAG is exactly the same.

You have a unlabelled line plotting something that you never state

Click to expand...

Ohh no, I have stated this years ago, for example read this chapter
http://www.science27.com/english/gravity.html
Or for example illustrated by this image

You never actually plot the ADG inside the building because you never remove the correct FAG.

Click to expand...

I don't understand. You can not "remove" the FAG.
The correct FAG is easy to estimate, it must fit to a overall ADG pattern.

There are a naturally limit here in this country which I believe is maximum minus 20 microcal per meter. This sets the limit.

Your deluded redefintion of COG to place it at the 3/4th floor really invalidates your fantasy.

Click to expand...

I am not “redefining” anything, but only trying to understand and accept objective measurement with an open and flexible mind. I am not a building engineer, and must say a lot had “surprised me” also that the COG seems to be near the 3th floor.

Your assumnption that the lower floors are higher than the upper ones also invalidates your fantasy.

Click to expand...

The 3 lower floors are more than 1 meter higher (total measurement) than the upper floors.
It seems there can be floor thickness at these floors about 1 meter.
Don’t ask me why, but it is a fact that the height at the staircase are more than 1 meter higher than inside the building.
The difference / floor thickness at the upper floors seems to be 30-40 cm.
It is not easy exactly to determinate due to the roof cover.
Today I have got permission to copy the drawings of that building.
I will not do this before the next trip to CPH.

It makes the minimum even less like a step which you predict.
“Steps” ?

Click to expand...

What are you talking about ?
Do you not understand the shown graph ?

P.S. I would expect that the ground floor would be higher since that is usual building practice for commerical space. The higher floors are less certain.

Click to expand...

Now you agree that the lower floors must be higher?
Yes the lower 3 floors are higher.
Make up your mind.

Bjarne said:

Turn it the way you like, in space there is no up and down.
I mean even though you put a cow into a wash-machine, the way it calculates a gravity depression relative to FAG is exactly the same.

Click to expand...

Turn it the way you like, you are still ignorant of the simple fact that the free air gradient is a gradient. It varies with height.

Bjarne said:

I don't understand. You can not "remove" the FAG.

Click to expand...

Yes you can.
There is a mathematical operation called subtraction. What you do is subtract the FAG (multiplied by the height to get the free air acceleration) from the ADG.
Please do not tell me that you do not know how to subtract and multiple !

Bjarne said:

What are you talking about ?
Do you not understand the shown graph ?

Click to expand...

I understand that it is a bunch of gibberish because you never say what you have plotted.
What is the equation that you used?
It looks like you used a spread sheet so you just need to tell us what the column is defined as.

What it looks like is the ADG difference per floor. That means that you have totally debunked your fantasy because you made up that the ADG is constant. Subtract a constant from a constant and you get zero. You should have a striaight line at zero.

Bjarne said:

Now you agree that the lower floors must be higher?
Yes the lower 3 floors are higher.
Make up your mind.

Click to expand...

You are wrong yet again.
I do not agree that the lower floors must be higher.
I think that at least one of the floors (the ground floor) could be higher because that is common practise for the ground floor.
I also know that there are other factors that will influence the gravity at the lower floors, e.g.

• The shopping center surrounding the base of the building.
• Foundations.
• Different thickness of the floors (as you suspect).
• Different contents of the floors.
• Different construction effects.
• The buildings around the Domus Vista.

and maybe another one:
Thus

• Your own data CONFIRMS that the ADG in a roughly homogeneous mass is unstable.
• 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.

Turn it the way you like, you are still ignorant of the simple fact that the free air gradient is a gradient. It varies with height.

Click to expand...

Not in a surprising way.
You can have a very little “sub-influence” from the underground but this is peanuts.

What you do is subtract the FAG (multiplied by the height to get the free air acceleration) from the ADG.

Click to expand...

Exactly, and this is what I have done, both locally and “global”. Nothing new under the sun today.

I understand that it is a bunch of gibberish because you never say what you have plotted.
What is the equation that you used?
It looks like you used a spread sheet so you just need to tell us what the column is defined as
What it looks like is the ADG difference per floor. That means that you have totally debunked your fantasy because you made up that the ADG is constant.

Click to expand...

We measured the ADG on all the floors, nothing is “made up”.

Subtract a constant from a constant and you get zero. You should have a straight line at zero.

Click to expand...

It really surprise me it is possible to read such silly nonsense coming from a person that have spent 17 years at a university,

You are wrong yet again.
I do not agree that the lower floors must be higher.
I think that at least one of the floors (the ground floor) could be higher because that is common practice for the ground floor.

Click to expand...

Yes it is, the ground floor is higher.
It is 40 cm higher than the other 2 lower floors.
I want especially to measure the hight of the 3th floor again it looks strange.
There were some doubt if Cristian always added the height of the floor list; it could have been added twice at 3th floor. – But we speak about maybe - 15 microgal off here.

I also know that there are other factors that will influence the gravity at the lower floors, e.g.

• The shopping center surrounding the base of the building.
• Foundations.
• Different thickness of the floors (as you suspect).
• Different contents of the floors.
• Different construction effects.
• The buildings around the Domus Vista.

and maybe another one:

The ground effect.
This is the gravity from the ground outside the building. This pulls on the floors at an angle and would reduce the ADG on lower floors as seen in your data.
​

Thus

• Your own data CONFIRMS that the ADG in a roughly homogeneous mass is unstable.
• 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.

Click to expand...

Much of this you mention is peanuts.
All this pulls upwards.

But all this chaos is really not points you need to focus so much about, but rather:

1.) Still you have much too strong negative ADG at 3th floor.
2.) At 4th floor this effect is no longer detectable. (!)
3.) The ADG measurement at the center of the building (this summer) – the rough data shows also stable (little bumpy) data on all 26 floors above 3th floors. - These are +20 to 25 microgal on all floors compared to the measurement of the same floors, - measured at the staircase (in the corner of that building).

Now, - - We did not measure ADG on 1st 2nd 3th floor in the CENTER of the building, this summer.
This measurement we did, from 4th to 29 th floor indicate that since 26 central floors has + 25 microgal, - the “depth” of gravity (the space vacuum) must according to this theory be = 26*20 microgal ( a total depth of more than 500 microgal).

Therefore instead, - try to look forward, and predict what is the next surprise we easy could be facing ?

What would you say if the local ADG (compared to the FAG) centrally (only) at 3th floor is measured to minus 200 microgal , when we in the next round will measure that ? - (120 microgal stronger negative ADG as we measured at the 3th floors staircase in the “corner” of the building) ?

Would you still entrench you self behind ramshackle mossy creeds, - that day?

Bjarne said:

We measured the ADG on all the floors, nothing is “made up”.

Click to expand...

That is idiotic Bjarne.
I know that you hired someone to measure the ADG on all the floors, the raw data is not “made up”.

The real idiocy comes when you cannot tell anyone what you did to the raw data to get your graph.
So did you make up the graph?

Bjarne said:

1.) Still you have much too strong negative ADG at 3th floor.
2.) At 4th floor this effect is no longer detectable. (!)
3.) The ADG measurement at the center of the building (this summer) – the rough data shows also stable (little bumpy) data on all 26 floors above 3th floors. - These are +20 to 25 microgal on all floors compared to the measurement of the same floors, - measured at the staircase (in the corner of that building).

Click to expand...

1) I know.
2) I know.
3) I know.
The fact that the ADG per floor is roughly constant makes your idea a fantasy because you made up that the ADG should be constant and so when you subtract the ADG between floors (and correct for FAG) it should be zero.

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.

That is idiotic Bjarne.
I know that you hired someone to measure the ADG on all the floors, the raw data is not “made up”.
The real idiocy comes when you cannot tell anyone what you did to the raw data to get your graph.

Click to expand...

Notice the first graph is not based on raw data, but data already filtered from noise moon etc.
Two gravimeter was used, this give very good data.
You have read the report, so you should know this.

All I did was to subtract 10 microgal from the FAG.
It is not necessary or allowed to do much more than this.



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.

I am still waiting on the rapport.
And we will measure the cellar and 1st 2nd and 3th floor also.

The fact that the ADG per floor is roughly constant makes your idea a fantasy because you made up that the ADG should be constant and so when you subtract the ADG between floors (and correct for FAG) it should be zero.

Click to expand...

Honestly RC so you do believe the building is build of cardboard?
If you expect zero difference relative to the FAG, you expect the weight of the building to be zero.
I do not expect zero, - but a +10 microgal at 26 floors is fine so far, - which shows (and in fact proves) a stable “climb” from a deep space vacuum, and back to the “surface” (FAG).
So the upper floor is more easy to interpret, since these are pretty homogeneous compared to the foundation, cellar and heavy lower floors.
I do find it difficult to see any other logic pattern like that I have shown.
Also the overall pattern seems to point to a completely different pattern as expected. Maybe not convincing so far, but now wait to the lower central measurements is ready.
You will again see a "counteract principle" in action, and this time I expect it to be much stronger and convincing. It will be extremely difficult to explain what minus 150 to -200 microgal is doing at 1st 2nd or 3th floor, except when excepting a new theory.

Bjarne said:

http://www.science27.com/forum/Cog1.jpg
Notice the first graph is not based on raw data, but data already filtered from noise moon etc.
Two gravimeter was used, this give very good data.
You have read the report, so you should know this.

Click to expand...

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?

Bjarne said:

All I did was to subtract 10 microgal from the FAG.
It is not necessary or allowed to do much more than this.

Click to expand...

That is dumb. There is no reason to subtract anything from the FAG.
The ADG inside the building is
We also need to decide on a baseline value from which the FAG is measured and subtract it. Ideally this would be a measurement of the ADG at the ground floor when the building was not there.
I used the top floor measurment because it gave the COG at roughly the 15th floor which is what it should be (see below).

Bjarne said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

You are deluded - it is clear that your graph that it shows the same unstable pattern on these floors.

Bjarne said:

Honestly RC so you do believe the building is build of cardboard?
If you expect zero difference relative to the FAG, you expect the weight of the building to be zero.

Click to expand...

More idiocy, Bjarne. This is not about the FAG, it is about your debunked "central gravity" and how you "prediction" from it is wrong.

I did not get that the ADG inside the building is zero. See the atached spreadsheet.

N.B. The center of gravity for the building is by definition the height where half the mass of the building is above the height and the other half is below the height. That is why for a homogeneous, 30 story building we both agree that the COG is at the 15th floor.
So some person states that the COG is at the 3/4th floor.
That means that the lower 3 floors contain half the mass of the building and that person thinks that the upper 26 floors are made of cardboard !

You made up that the ADG inside the building is constant.
Making it simple enough for your pet cow to understand.
Using B for that value:
The difference between the floors
Thus 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.

WOW.... I would give 10 years of my life to be capable of understanding the mathematical & scientific material debated in this thread. To understand it as much as most of you would allow me to appreciate it even more (which i do -very much so!).

I've tried going back to college and, although i can grasp more simpler concepts and equations, my brain has apparently become too old to retain the info & really, truly understand it all... Arg.

Hoping you all are aware of how incredibly fortunate you are to even understand the arguments/counter-arguments well enough to debate them!

Island Skeptic said:

WOW.... I would give 10 years of my life to be capable of understanding the mathematical & scientific material debated in this thread. To understand it as much as most of you would allow me to appreciate it even more (which i do -very much so!).

I've tried going back to college and, although i can grasp more simpler concepts and equations, my brain has apparently become too old to retain the info & really, truly understand it all... Arg.

Hoping you all are aware of how incredibly fortunate you are to even understand the arguments/counter-arguments well enough to debate them!

Click to expand...

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