Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

[Bjarne]

-
In 100 years we have known that space around an astronomic body bends

1.) But what is “bended space” really?
2.) How can matter connect with space billion of miles away and bend space that fare away?
3.) How can matter cause space to “bend”?
4.) Can space bend without a force / energy is used?

The expanding space deforms space (in an outwards direction).

Gravity also deforms space, but can you imaging which direction etc... without getting confused?
Does gravity deforms space in an opposite inwards direction (opposite to dark energy)?
Does gravity “suck” / consume / contract space?

Allow you self that thought for a minute and you are immediately able to answer question 1 and 2 above:
1.) Bended space (caused by gravity) is the opposite of expansive space (so called dark energy)
2.) Matter contacts space. Like a “domino effect” space fare away hence is affected too..

Left is question 3 and 4. – The answer seems to be that the spin of the elementary particles are responsible fore “pulling space together”.

This was only the introduction.
Following the main thread: - that gravity “sucks” space, - will unravel all gravity mysteries:

the flyby anomalies,
the pioneer anomaly,
dark matter
dark energy
and a lot more

I am not allowed to post any links in the first 15 post. But if you wish you can click my name, click my homepage and read the result of the past two years research I have done. . It’s simple and easy to read and understand.
-

 

[Perpetual Student]

Another one?

 

[Dorfl]

In 100 years we have known that space around an astronomic body bends

1.) But what is “bended space” really?
2.) How can matter connect with space billion of miles away and bend space that far away?
3.) How can matter cause space to “bend”?

These questions seem to be more philosophical than scientific. What anything "really" is or how it "really" works, isn't a question that scientists tend to concern themselves with. We can describe the properties of space, and the way it interacts with matter very well. Isn't that enough?

4.) Can space bend without a force / energy is used?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Masses don't spend energy on curving the space around them. But obviously some energy has to be there for there to be any mass to curve space.

Allow yourself that thought for a minute and you are immediately able to answer question 1 and 2 above:
1.) Bended space (caused by gravity) is the opposite of expansive space (so called dark energy)

Dark energy is the name for whatever it is that is causing space to expand, not for space itself.

2.) Matter contracts space. Like a “domino effect” space far away hence is affected too..

I guess. But how is that different from simply restating the observation that you were trying to explain, that matter affects space really far away?

 

[Bjarne]

Dorfl
These questions seem to be more philosophical than scientific. What anything "really" is or how it "really" works, isn't a question that scientists tend to concern themselves with. We can describe the properties of space, and the way it interacts with matter very well. Isn't that enough?

No it’s not enough if we want to understand the nature of gravity and all the connected mysteries mounting up.
Remember that the theory of relativity once also only was “philosophical” and even not enough to any price.

Bjarne
Can space bend without a force / energy is used?
Dorfl
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Masses don't spend energy on curving the space around them. But obviously some energy has to be there for there to be any mass to curve space.

Energy accumulates, - the result is matter / mass.
You can release that energy any time.
The result is (if you realise it all) expanding space.

Dorfl
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Masses don't spend energy on curving the space around them. But obviously some energy has to be there for there to be any mass to curve space.

Agree. Energy is not “used” as I wrote above. You can release it.

Dorfl
Dark energy is the name for whatever it is that is causing space to expand, not for space itself.

I have explained what dark energy really is, in the chapter: Dark energy.

Bjarne
Matter contracts space. Like a “domino effect” space far away hence is affected too..
Dorfl
I guess. But how is that different from simply restating the observation that you were trying to explain, that matter affects space really far away?

It explains how to understand how matter can “reach” (and affect) space billion miles away from a object. It’s a domino effect. If you contract space one place the domino effect will mean you contract the whole universe. (Even a gain of sand affects the whole Universe). This is also what clearly is revealed mathematically by the (simple): Acceleration due to Gravity equation. (Shown in the chapter: Dark Matter) -- Gravity "sucks" space.

 

[Dorfl]

No it's not enough if we want to understand the nature of gravity and all the connected mysteries mounting up.

Why not?

Remember that the theory of relativity once also only was “philosophical” and even not enough to any price.

It never was. The theory of relativity made testable predictions from the start, which is why it was accepted as quickly as it was.

It explains how to understand how matter can “reach” (and affect) space billion miles away from a object. It’s a domino effect. If you contract space one place the domino effect will mean you contract the whole universe. (Even a gain of sand affects the whole Universe). This is also what clearly is revealed mathematically by the (simple): Acceleration due to Gravity equation. (Shown in the chapter: Dark Matter) -- Gravity "sucks" space.

It still sounds like you're saying "Matter pulls on space nearby, which pulls on space further away". Which is true, but we kind of knew as much already.

Can you show the maths here? Looking up equations on a web–page somewhere rarely tells anyone very much.

 

[Reality Check]

Hi Bjarne,
What kind of manifold does your theory use?
If none then can you point out where you derive that the mathematical structure that you use is locally Euclidean?
Do you have a proof that your theory is Lorentz invariant (at least locally).

Can you indicate where your "simple and easy to read and understand" derivation of Newton's law of gravity from your theory is?

 

[Peter i]

Hello Bjarne!

A notorious bovinophile has entered the forum!

 

[Ziggurat]

1.) But what is “bended space” really?

Space in which the metric has curvature. It's got a rigorous mathematical definition. If you don't understand the definition, then you don't understand the theory. That is not the fault of the theory.

Allow you self that thought for a minute and you are immediately able to answer question 1 and 2 above:
1.) Bended space (caused by gravity) is the opposite of expansive space (so called dark energy)

Nope. Curvature can be positive, negative, or zero (flat), but there is no opposite of curvature.

 

[Leviath]

For those not familiar with Bjarne, here is his homepage:
http://www.science27.com/

 

[Thabiguy]

For those not familiar with Bjarne, here is his homepage:
http://www.science27.com/

Well, the ideas presented at that website are seriously flawed, but man, does it have a visually pleasing design. Compared to the horror of typical woo sites, this one is at least a delight to skim through. Too bad the contents is so useless.

 

[Bjarne]

Too bad the contents is so useless.

What Peter and Paul believes is not important.

This theory predicts that central gravity (in one gravitional field) doesn’t cancel out component wise.
And it predicts that resistance against motion not only applies to acceleration, but also by constant motion.
And a lot more, that impossible can be hidden / ignored forever.

This as well as all the other claims are all only consequences of the simple innocent basic claim, - that bended space = contracted space.

This two mentioned point are relative easy to proof - this is what science is about.

If anything is "wrong" show me the proof, please.

Preparation to prove / disprove this theory has started already.

I am 210% sure this theory is about to start to a revolution in science.

Don’t miss the starting gun. .....

 

[Dancing David]

I am curious as to what you mean here (from the absract)

When 2 objects approach each other the acceleration due to gravity between the two objects decreases while the contraction of space in that region increases.

Decreased acceleration does not mean decreased force of gravity - but only that two gravitational fields are into a unification process and that the two connected gravity properties are changing.


The cause of acceleration due to gravity is simply the relative change in contraction of space per unit distance. The above mentioned point of view is new but not that strange or different from the prevailing understanding..

 

[Dorfl]

And it predicts that resistance against motion not only applies to acceleration, but also by constant motion.

Are you saying that objects in motion will slow down over time?

This two mentioned point are relative easy to proof - this is what science is about.

No. Mathematics is about proving things. Science does not attempt to prove anything.

 

[Reality Check]

Hi Bjarne,
You missed my questions:

What kind of manifold does your theory use?
If none then can you point out where you derive that the mathematical structure that you use is locally Euclidean?
Do you have a proof that your theory is Lorentz invariant (at least locally).

Can you indicate where your "simple and easy to read and understand" derivation of Newton's law of gravity from your theory is?

It also sounds as you have replaced classical mechanics, i.e. acceleration is no longer related to force at least for gravity (as in DD's post).
Can you give your equations for the force of gravity of one object on another and the resulting acceleration of the object?

 

[Bjarne]

I am curious as to what you mean here (from the abstract)

I suggest read the whole theory. Understanding properties of gravity is to understand the proprieties of “nothing” . I have trying my best to put express this.

The point is that gravity have to properties 1.) Mass attraction. 2.) acc. due to gravity.

Imaging, You are walking up a step hill or stairs, hence breathing harder.
This is because the Earth “sucks” space, and you body too.
You body and the Earth “compares” to contract / suck the space between you.
Because matter sucks /contacts space, you body is “sucked” down to Earth.

Imaging, a body between two big objects (Moon and Earth) is attracted by both the Moon and the earth. Between these your weight is weaker. Let’s now say that the Moon has the same mass as the Earth and you are exact between these two bodies. Now you will not be attracted to any of these objects, because space per distances is equally contracted to both directions.

Are you saying that objects in motion will slow down over time?

Both yes and No. It depends on time, place and nearby astronomic bodies rotation velocity.
The Pioneer and the Fly Anomaly and several other mysteries are solved.
To understand this part you will have to read the whole chapter: “The Pioneer Anomaly” and all the links in that chapter. All the evidence claimed here are “written in the stars”. It’s only a question of looking up and see it for you self. One day you will se the final proof, for example from CERN, but already the "proofs" is obviously..

Reality Check

What I am claiming is really not: “a new theory”, but rather a simple and obviously interpretation of what already is known. It is no need to be “too philosophic”, or to have any PHD. It’s so simple everyone can understand it. Both Newton and Einstein’s theories are correct. We know that space bends/deforms/curve (call it what you like). We can measure and calculate it, that’s all fine, - gravity is well understood on the superficial level, - but we have never (seriously) imaging what is really curved space. Here is the cause of the fragmented and incomplete understanding of gravity buried.

Allow you self seriously at least test the thought: is bended space = contracted space.
Follow the main thread, test it with by all means and bases on all knowledge we have, and you will discover that all gravity mysteries are gone...

In the end of the day, you will find that we live in a much simpler universe, without strange dark matter, without unknown dimension, without unknown forces affecting space probes etc…... You will see how matter and space is connected, and the huge consequences of such connection. And you will see how relative small insignificant misunderstanding in the past has lead to a universe full of huge mysteries, no longer necessary.

It always takes time to “tune” into new vibrations. Take you time. Think about it.

 

[Dorfl]

What I am claiming is really not: “a new theory”, but rather a simple and obviously interpretation of what already is known. It is no need to be “too philosophic”, or to have any PHD. It’s so simple everyone can understand it. Both Newton and Einstein’s theories are correct. We know that space bends/deforms/curve (call it what you like). We can measure and calculate it, that’s all fine, - gravity is well understood on the superficial level, - but we have never (seriously) imaging what is really curved space. Here is the cause of the fragmented and incomplete understanding of gravity buried.

Noone is asking for either philosophy or whether you have a PHD. We are asking you to give a mathematical description of your theory—or your interpretation of earlier theories. The need to be able to do that isn't something anyone doing physics gets away from.

Allow you self seriously at least test the thought: is bended space = contracted space. Follow the main thread, test it with by all means and bases on all knowledge we have, and you will discover that all gravity mysteries are gone...

I hope you can appreciate that we all have considered your question whether bent space equals contracted space. That we did not arrive at the answer you wanted does not mean that we haven't seriously thought about it.

 

[Bjarne]

-

We are asking you to give a mathematical description of your theory—or your interpretation of earlier theories. The need to be able to do that isn't something anyone doing physics gets away from.

It’s not necessary with any new revolutionary equations, but rather to understand the underlying reality of what gravity is and how it works and connects with space.
A such understanding is possible based on that we already know. The main point is that matter contracts space. It’s basic not necessary to invent new equation to understand that this happens..

Try to look a little closer to the equation g=MG/r^2 –
You will find that that each time the square increases 75%, then the acceleration of gravity decreases 75%

Why this perfect proportional’s 1:1 ?

Is it a coincidence?

Or does the 300 years old equation express “something” that we haven’t understood?

The answer is that the equations reflect that the force of gravity depends n “available space” , and the equation reflect that gravity sucks / contracts space, - a domino effect, that continues towards infinity.

It’s a beautiful equation that in its true compact essence allready contains everything about what gravity really is and how space and matter must be connected, as well that the relative change of contracted space per distance is the basic for acceleration due to gravity..

Based on that understanding it is obviously to understand that the equation MmG/r^2 reflects: how much space contracts between 2 objects.

To reach that new understanding,- a new invented equation is not the answer, - but rather the existing Newtonian equations are already the means to how we can reach a unified understanding based on everything what we already know about gravity.

Except what is mentioned above, you will find a new equation: F = RM/Qr² at the chapter: The Pioneer anomaly” and you will find a simple new equation in the chapter: Anti Gravity” – I suggest to read these chapter. – But these doesn’t reflect the basic of the theory (you was asking for) but “only” (mathematically) consequences.
-

 

[Dorfl]

Try to look a little closer to the equation g=MG/r^2 –
You will find that that each time the square increases 75%, then the acceleration of gravity decreases 75%

Why this perfect proportional’s 1:1 ?

Is it a coincidence?

Or does the 300 years old equation express “something” that we haven’t understood?

The answer is that the equations reflect that the force of gravity depends on “available space” , and the equation reflect that gravity sucks / contracts space, - a domino effect, that continues towards infinity.

It’s a beautiful equation that in its true compact essence already contains everything about what gravity really is and how space and matter must be connected, as well that the relative change of contracted space per distance is the basic for acceleration due to gravity..

Based on that understanding it is obviously to understand that the equation MmG/r^2 reflects: how much space contracts between 2 objects.

This is exactly the place where you need to be able to show us the maths. You have to explain what space contracting actually means, geometrically, and then show why the law of gravitation follows from it.

What you have written so far is just words. It may be brilliant. It may be nonsense. There is no way for us, or you, to know for certain which it is, until you have tried restating it into mathematics and seen if it gives an quantitatively accurate description of reality.

 

[Dorfl]

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.

Bjarne, I recommend that you read this:

Why Math?

It gives a pretty good explanation of why, perhaps not "revolutionary new equations", but at least a basic mathematical description of your theory, is absolutely necessary for it to be taken seriously by any of part of the scientific community.

 

[Reality Check]

What I am claiming is really not: “a new theory”, but rather a simple and obviously interpretation of what already is known. It is no need to be “too philosophic”, or to have any PHD. It’s so simple everyone can understand it. Both Newton and Einstein’s theories are correct. We know that space bends/deforms/curve (call it what you like). We can measure and calculate it, that’s all fine, - gravity is well understood on the superficial level, - but we have never (seriously) imaging what is really curved space. Here is the cause of the fragmented and incomplete understanding of gravity buried....snip....

General Relativity states that gravitational forces are a consequence of the curvature of spacetime. The R in the Einstein field equation is the Ricci curvature tensor.
You are stating that gravitational forces are a consequence of the contraction of spacetime.
That is not a "a simple and obviously interpretation". That is a statement that GR is wrong. Contraction is not curvature.
Contracted spacetime does not cause any forces.

Many people can imagine what is really curved space.
Many people can imagine what is really contracted space.
Many people can imagine what is really expanded space.
So you are also wrong in stating "we have never (seriously) imaging what is really curved space".

The understanding of gravity is not fragmented - it is one simple equation. The mathematics behind that equation are complex though - that may have confused you.
The understanding of gravity is not complete because no science is ever complete.

So the answer to this thread is:
No.