Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

[Dorfl]

Nowhere.
But still that does not mean that gravity cancel out in the center, - because e.g; 1 meter form the centre the acceleration due to gravity would still be 9.8m/s^2 (if the Earth was a homogeneous mass)

Now we have a testable prediction. You claim that the strength of gravity inside a body should be more or less constant, if your theory is correct. Do you have any experimental data indicating that this is actually the case?

Does anyone else have data indicating that it is not?

 

[Reality Check]

In which direction will that particle start accelerating?

Nowhere.
But still that does not mean that gravity cancel out in the center, - because e.g; 1 meter form the centre the acceleration due to gravity would still be 9.8m/s^2 (if the Earth was a homogeneous mass)

Actually it does mean that gravity cancels out in the center of the Earth considered as a homegenous solid sphere (see this PDF).
1 meter from the center is not the center. It is 1 meter from the center.

You agree with the math of GE (and Newton) and so you have to agree that the gravitaional force within the earth on a body of masss m and a distance r from the center is

F = mgr/r_E
​

The constant g in this equation is the acceleration of gravity as measured at the Earth's surface. The actual acceleration of the body is gr/r_E. It is not a constant.

ETA
I do not know of any experiments that have tested the variation of gravity inside the Earth. There do not seem to any reports listed in the obvious places, e.g. arXiv.
My guess is that the effect is so small that technology has only lately benn able to detect it. This is such a trivial result that it seems unlikely that it would be tested (any inverse square law predicts a linear variation and we have tested that gravity obeys an inverse square law).

 

[Reality Check]

Google "subsurface gravity measurements". There is is a lot of information about mapping subsurface structures by looking at how the force of gravity deviates from the linear law for a homogeneous solid sphere.

 

[sol invictus]

Nowhere.
But still that does not mean that gravity cancel out in the center, - because e.g; 1 meter form the centre the acceleration due to gravity would still be 9.8m/s^2 (if the Earth was a homogeneous mass)

That is in direct contradiction to the predictions of both general relativity and Newtonian gravity. So you were wrong when you said your theory relied on the same equations general relativity does.

That said, could it be true? Absolutely not. While we obviously haven't measured the gravity 1m from the center of the earth, we have measured it under a huge range of circumstances, and all those results are consistent with Einstein (and mostly with Newton, except for rare cases where the gravity is strong enough that the non-linearities in GR become relevant).

 

[Toke]

Google "subsurface gravity measurements". There is is a lot of information about mapping subsurface structures by looking at how the force of gravity deviates from the linear law for a homogeneous solid sphere.

Yes, I have read of such measurements used by geologists including using a satellite and concluding something from bumpiness in its orbit or in ocean surface.

 

[Pixie of key]

There is gravity at all

There is no gravity at all!

No drawing force!

Only pushing force!

It is pressure!

The bending of a light*
The photons also expand and open up energywaves. They push themselves in their energywaves away from each other. The photons coming out of stars are more massive than the old photons of another stars.

The massiver and the thicker the photon is, the less it has exterior surface. The slower the photon expands, the the less it opens up energywaves. The massiver the photon is, the slower the time is.

The photons opening up from the sun don´t have interaction with the old photons. Tha is why they don´t push the old photons away from the sun.

A lot of old photons of different stars come towards the sun. They expand and open up energywaves, by which they make the old photons that pass the sun explode more energy away from the sun.

This is how the light bends because of the variation of the pressure. Not because the sun would bend a space in some marvelous way.

The spaceship has the same energy as the photons have and they both turn or can be turned their orbit of movement for the same reason.


onesimpleprinciple com

 

[Pixie of key]

Thats the way it is going!

The substance does not alter to an energy. The substance itself is energy.

The substance / The energy alters all the time to a less dense substance / energy.

The substance / The energy alters to a less dense energy in a space that has always existed. The space does not increase! The space does not expand or curve!

The whole concept of expanding space has been pulled out of the hat, because people has believed that the pulling force does exist. There is no such force as pulling force!

The Quarks

The quarks are formed out of energy that alters all the time to a less dense energy. The quarks expand and radiate energy waves. These waves the expading qvarks push themselves away from each other.

The quarks absorb more energy from the particles that move through the quarks. When the expanding quarks push themselves away from each other the energy radiating from the quarks pass and pushing becomes weaker.

The quarks continue to expand, at the same time they come closer to each other without actually moving towards each other and the pushing strenghens. An external pressure is directed towards the quarks because more energy from the other atomcores and from those particles that move in an area between the atomcores and radiate their energy towards the atomcores.

The pattern of an atom

The energy of the atomcore alters to a less dense energy. The atom core expands and radiates energywaves that have the nature of electron and
particule. Also the electrons and the particules alter to a less dense energy and radiate their energy as waves.

The atomcore absorbs as if it would fill up more energy towards itselef from those particules that pass the atomcores or through the core. So the
particules also alter to a less dense energy and radiate their energy. The particules also absorb energy towards themselves from the radiation of the other particules.

The electrons continue their journey towards atomcores nearby. They have interaction with the energy waves that they meet. They produce variation of pressure and with confronting energy-wawes new electrons are produced.

These electrons continue their journey towards atomcores nearby etc. After that the energy itself continues towards the atomcore and makes the atomcore to explode in other words to change faster into a less dense energy ect







1. CAN ENERGY OF AN ATOM NUCLEUS/CORE CHANGE?

About 13.8 billion years ago universe -as we see it - had its energy very densely formed. Nowadays the same energy is way more than less condensed.

There is no reason to doubt that same phenomenon couldnt effect on the very same energy that the nucleus of an atom has!

Nucleuses of atoms had accordingly changed for less dense energy. Concomitantly expanding atom nucleuses have radiated their energy in a form of waves which have nature of electrons and particles.

Electrons confront energy-waves from the adjacent atom nucleuses and interact with them. At this point new electrons are born in to them which create changes of pressure into energy-waves that they confront etc.

After the interaction electrons continue towards nucleus of an atom, make the nucleus explode their energy to that very same direction where that electron came. Because of that the expanding nucleus trembles to opposing direction and so forth.


2. All the time particles move through and past atom nucleuses which also change to less dense energy and radiate their energy in waves. Quarks ? fuel up? i.e. absorb this ?raw-material? (energy) all the time and so the recycling of the energy continues.

After some period of time energy of the quarks energy can change at which point quark has won?t have any of that energy which it earlier had?

It raises up the question, Does for example cores of the atoms in old buildings switched their energy upon a time, hence there wouldn?t be any of that energy which the building had just after the construction?

Stars and planets are like big ?fish traps? or ?fish nets? which absorb more and more of that same ?raw material? (energy) which from everything around us constructs. In the same time they change to contain less and less dense energy.

3. Three dimensional expansion creates a pressure which in other hand creates all the expanding objects radiate themselves i.e. energy in waves which have the character of different energy concentration etc.

Density of the eternal energy changes in the eternal space, which will never change!







The atomcores that transform into a less dense energy control each others trasformation into a less dense energy with an energy that radiates from themselves.

The stars that transform into a less dense energy control each others trasformation into a less dense energy with an energy that the stars radiate towards each other.

The galaxies that transform into a less dense energy control each others
trasformation into a less dense energy with an energy that the galaxies radiate towards each other.

The groups of galaxies that transform into a less dense energy control each others trasformation into a less dense energy with an energy that they radiate towards each other.

The particules (like photons and neutrinos) that transform into a less dense energy control each others transformation with and energy that the neutrinos and the photons radiate towards each other.

The particules that transform into a less dense energy control the transformation of the atomcores that the particules radiate towards the atomcores.

This way the omega is excactly one all the time!

The space really does not curve or bend!

The density of an eternal energy transforms in a ever lasting space that does not transform!










I DEMAND LOGICALITY

We need to expect even a little bit of logicality to the scientific theories.

If I have understood correctly, according to the so called firm interaction the qvarks supposedly interact with each other the stronger the further the qvarks are from each other?

The argument that the qvarks interact stronger when they are further away from each other is not logical nor scientifical.

”The gluons that moderate strong nuclear power have been observed in particle accelerators”.

How does the gluon moderate the gravitation from one qvark to another?
How does the gluon loosen from the qvark?
Why does the gluon move towards another qvark?
How does the gluon make the qvark that is impacted by a gluon to move itself to the same direction from where the gluon itself is coming?
How does the gluon effect the qvark stronger if the qvark is further away from the qvark where the gluon started it´s journey?


In fact the qvark explodes and causes internal pressure to the qvark and this pressure makes qvark to squeeze energy as waves that have the nature of gluons. One example of this theory we have in a shape of guns.

The expanding qvarks have interaction with each other so to say push themselves away from each other the less the further the qvarks from each other are located. This happens because from the qvarks the waves moving forward like in a surface of a ball impact less waves to a qvark nearby when qvark nearby is located further and so on.

So the expanding qvarks can not in any point push themselves away from each other so firmly that they would begin to move further away from each other faster than they expand. When the pushing decreases, relatively the expanding makes the qvarks to reach out for each other even though the qvarks don´t move towards each other.

The gluon does not go to the next qvark and tell it to go in a direction where I just came..

No, the gluon impacts the qvark and makes the energy in that side of the qvark to alter faster into a less dense energy. With this energy the expanding qvark pushes itself away from that expanding qvark where the gluon came ect.

One could assume that a scientifical theory would have even some kind of logicality! The theory of an firm interaction between qvarks is not logical, because the qvarks do not interact stronger with each other the further they are from each other. That´s a fact!

The qvarks also absorb in other words fill up all the time more raw material (=energy) from where everything consits of. This way the recycling of an energy continues in a space that allready exists and does not alter in any ways!

 

[MRC_Hans]

To clarify, as far as I know, Bjarne operates with the concept that gravity effects are caused by bodies, and not by the sum of influence from all the particles that make up those bodies. According to him, two bodies that are brought closer to each other will become one when they make contact, and the gravitational influence will change dramatically in that instant.

I'm not sure about that; in the Danish forum, he talks about proving his hypothesis by measuring gravity inside a large building. He seems to regard the building as one body, although it is obviously in contact with Earth.

But then, why should we expect consistency?

Hans

 

[martu]

I have illustrated and answered this here already, simple and fast to read > http://www.science27.com/english/quantum_physics.html

I’m sorry but it is not clear at all, I have read that page a couple of times and I still do not understand it. For example:

When elementary particles spin they contract space. This has fundamental importance for our understanding of quantum physics.
Pulling together, contracting 'elastic' space requires energy. Therefore the energy of a particle must be proportional to the amount of space such a particle can pull together (bend/contract). This also means that the spin of a particle has its culmination at the point at which space would absorb its entire energy. At such a point the extent of space contraction absorbs all the energy of a particle.
For each spinning particle there is a maximum level (culmination) of the amount of contraction of space it can generate.

This doesn’t make any sense in any way, shape or form. You need some maths here otherwise no one is going to understand you. Define elastic (how elastic is it? Does it obey Hooke's law?), define spin (how fast? What direction? Up\down relative to what?) define the relationship between spin and contraction.

All I get from this that somehow (no mechanism suggested) particles contract space which causes gravity (somehow ) – do you think photons behave this way and contract space? If so doesn’t this imply they have mass according to your theory?

 

[steenkh]

I'm not sure about that; in the Danish forum, he talks about proving his hypothesis by measuring gravity inside a large building. He seems to regard the building as one body, although it is obviously in contact with Earth.

Before you took up the gauntlet in the Danish forum, we had a longish debate with Bjarne about his concept of "bodies", and his rejection of the principle of superposition. (You can find the most important part start here (warning: the link is in Danish)). It seems that mountains can sometimes act as separate bodies, depending on whether they are steep or not, because then they produce a "secondary" gravity field counteracting that of the Earth.

Two bodies would to a certain extent be able to cancel each other's gravity influence on point between them, but if the are brought closer together, their gravity fields according to Bjarne merges at one point and becomes a single field with the combined strength.

Well, I will leave it to Bjarne to elaborate, but it is certainly a major deviation from normal physics to reject the superposition principle and operate with bodies instead of the sum of particles.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, I have read of such measurements used by geologists including using a satellite and concluding something from bumpiness in its orbit or in ocean surface.

Some of the Google results are about doing the gravity measurements underground to look for subsurface features.
Here is one: A new procedure to perform differential underground gravity measurements

The aim of this research is to evaluate the possibility of using underground gravity measurements in order to characterise density anomalies in tunnel surroundings. A measurement procedure which allows estimation of the gravimetrical differential effects in several directions is proposed. Attention is paid to the theoretical aspects and then a method is put forward for carrying out a practical survey.

More relevant is this article from 1952: SUBSURFACE GRAVITY MEASUREMENTS

Gravity data were obtained at approximately 100-foot intervals in a vertical mine shaft 2,916 feet deep. The shaft passed through a region of high positive density contrast, and a local anomaly was observed of plus 14.0 gravity units to minus 17.9 gravity units. Calculations for Bouguer densities were carried out with the gravity measurements. A theoretical sphere that closely approximates the observed data and known conditions is derived from the gravity data.

 

[Bjarne]

--------

So I see that you have thrown away GR since in GR curvature of spacetime produces gravity. Contraction of space cannot produce curvature and so cannot produce gravity.
This contradicts all your statements before about retaining the mathematics (and so the predictions) of GR.

Think about a rubber sheet which has a triangle drawn on it.
What happens to that triangle according to an inhabitant of the rubber sheet if the sheet contracts?
What happens to that triangle according to an inhabitant of the rubber sheet if the sheet curves?.

In the first case the inhabitant sees no change in the triangle. The sum of the angles of the triangle is always 180 degrees. Even lengths remain the same since rulers also contract. The conclusion is that they are in a flat space-time where there is only Newtonian gravity..

I understand you points. - Nice way to describe what you think.
The problem is only that we don’t know excactly how to imaging / how to understand what GR really express. This is why gravity so long have been a mystery.

Remember that 100 years ago not many at all did understood GR, and the same is the case today. We have accepted this theory only because we mathematically and by measurement have been force to do so, not because we understood how GR really works, or which kind of law of nature GR reflects.

Have you ever meet a person that didn’t was totally confused first time he/she hear about GR?

To illustrate that we fundamental really have understood nearly nothing of GR, except that it is a fact, please make the experiment that follows:

Try to look up the sky, Now seriously ask you self:

• What is bended space?
• How does space bend?
• What causes space to bend?
• How is it possible to understand the “dense space” nature of expansive space?
• And is that expensive “dense space” property related to bended space? Yes or No – How can you know for sure?
• How does matter reach (and affect) space far away?
• Why are you sucked down to earth? - Because of space bend?
• What about mass attraction: - if you have 1000 kg on your big toe, what pulls (sucks) the weight so much down to Earth?, - is it “space curvature” that pulls ? – or does the Earth and the 1000 sucks the weight ? – Why does 1 kg give less pain? - Because of space curves ? or because of matter sucks ? – or ?

Don’t believe everything you read in the book. ?
Don’t be satisfied with haft truths.
Confused? - You should be.

Here follows some step to understand where things went wrong:

1.) Accept that “curved space” is a misleading uncompleted expression, only suitable to confuse and prevent you to understand the true nature of GR.

2.) If you resist, - accept there is no evidence that support that space “bends or curves”. Have you ever seen “curved space”? - It’s only an expression invented to try to explain that Einstein discovered “something” very difficult fully to understand. But this doesn’t mean that the basic of GR is wrong, but rather that this discovered was too much for our as well for Einteins imagination.

3.) Now, - try to understand the law of nature hidden in the mentioned proportional 1 : 1 .
Why is “g” 100% proportional with the “amount of space” affected by “g”.
This must reflect a property of space, a law of nature. Do you want to ignore this? - If not you are on the right track to understand the nature of gravity.
Now seriously ask you self: How is it possible to crack that code 1:1? - What could it express?

4.) Try to allow you self the thought that matter sucks space. This explains everything.

5.) Many wonders (first time) they hear about GR, why there is some kind of conflict between Newtonian and relativistic gravity.
Shortly spoken: Why is time dilation / bended space and acceleration due to gravity not 2 parallel lines? These two do not form a synthesis, why?

The fact is: they do. On the superficial level it’s easy to see that these lines are parallel.
If you understand my previously post (39) you will find that these line also are parallel inside an object. This means you can take another step forward, simply because that the Newtonian equation and GR equation reflect the same underlying law of gravity, and form a synthesis: space contracts.

You must always have two parallel lines. In other words: the velocity caused by acceleration due to gravity + time dilatation + the strength of the (so called) curvature/bended of space, is always parallel lines. Add you can even add one more parallel line: distances (in and out side matter) also change proportional to these values.

All these conclusions are only based on consequences by following the main thread: Space contracts.
--------

 

[Reality Check]

Found an experiment that tested Newton's law of gravity down a mine shaft:
S. C. Holding, F. D. Stacey, and G. J. Tuck, Gravity in mines--an investigation of Newton's law. Phys. Rev. D 33, 3487-3494 (1986).

It is mentioned in The measurement of little g: a fertile ground for precision measurement science web page. The experiment "proved more difficult than first imagined because of systematic errors arising from estimating the gravitational contributions from the less than homogeneous surface layers" but there is no mention of a deviation from a linear variation in gravitational force with distance from the center of the Earth. If the force was constant as claimed by Bjarne's theory then that would have certainly been found.

Thus Bjarne's theory is wrong for a couple of reasons.
The primary reason is that he states it uses the existing laws of gravity but somehow gets different results. This suggests that he has made a fundemental mistake. The "rejection of the principle of superposition" that has been mentioned would be such a mistake.

Secondly he predicts that the force of gravity is constant inside a homogeneous solid sphere (e.g. the Earth). This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly the force of gravity at the center of the sphere is zero. That would make the constant zero. But we are not in zero gravity as soon as we go underground. Secondly the experimental results is that the force of gravity varies as expected down mine shafts.

 

[sol invictus]

Thus Bjarne's theory is wrong for a couple of reasons.
The primary reason is that he states it uses the existing laws of gravity but somehow gets different results. This suggests that he has made a fundemental mistake. The "rejection of the principle of superposition" that has been mentioned would be such a mistake.

Indeed. The principle of superposition is an immediate consequence of the form of the equations for Newtonian gravity, and it also follows from GR in the limit of weak gravity (where GR becomes Newtonian).

Secondly he predicts that the force of gravity is constant inside a homogeneous solid sphere (e.g. the Earth). This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly the force of gravity at the center of the sphere is zero. That would make the constant zero. But we are not in zero gravity as soon as we go underground. Secondly the experimental results is that the force of gravity varies as expected down mine shafts.

I don't think one needs to look at mine-shaft experiments. The fact that gravity behaves as it does inside the earth is very closely related to the fact that, for example, the force of gravity at the point halfway between two identical masses is zero, and increases smoothly as you move away from that point towards either. What's happening is that the gravitational force cancels exacly at the center, and less and less exactly as you move towards one and away from the other, all in a perfectly smooth way. Experiments like that have been done hundreds of times; the results are always consistent with Newton.

 

[Bjarne]

That is in direct contradiction to the predictions of both general relativity and Newtonian gravity.

Correct Newton thought that gravity would cancel out inside out in the centre of (a homogenous) object. Einstein and Gauss and many more went into that “trap” too.
A small mistake 300 years ago was the rot to all evil.

Now we have a testable prediction. You claim that the strength of gravity inside a body should be more or less constant

Exactly.
I will now try to measure acc due to gravity inside big buildings.
This is maybe not the perfect experiment. But let’s see I think this should be enough.
http://www.science27.com/english/evidence.html

This doesn’t make any sense in any way, shape or form. You need some maths here otherwise no one is going to understand you.

Einstein tried 35 years of his live to show that gravity and the strong force was united.
Even at the on his deathbed he wrote equations.
This part can not be proven mathematically like I see it.
But it’s easy to understand.
If elementary particle pulls space, they must at a certain time work together in a coordinated way. Hence the strong force automatically must emerge, simply because a frequency between interaction (spin up spin down) MUST be the result of chaotic spin / pul.
Compare it with a rowing boat . All 20 man must work together to save energy.

Found an experiment that tested Newton's law of gravity down a mine shaft:

This proves noting.
It is first from about 3300km inside the earth that gravity according to the prevailing theory “should” begin to cancel out. You can not use mines. That’s a problem.

 

[Reality Check]

I understand you points. - Nice way to describe what you think.

It is not what I think.
It is what the mathematics states: a contraction of space is not a curvature of space. They act differently as the rubber sheet analogy shows.

The problem is only that we don’t know excactly how to imaging / how to understand what GR really express. This is why gravity so long have been a mystery.

That is sort of right - we do not know what GR really expresses. In fact we do not know what any scientific theory "really expresses".

The ultimate causes of all forces of nature are a mystery. But that is a more philosophical question than a scientific one. Science is a process that gets us ever closer to those ultimate causes without any guarantee that we will actually find them. What we do find are scientific theories that describe the real universe in more and more detail.

Gravity is not a mystery and has not been for 300 years.

All these conclusions are only based on consequences by following the main thread: Space contracts.

Space could contract.
This has does generate any forces, e.g. gravitational forces.
Look at my triangle in a rubber sheet analogy and see that under contraction the triangle remains the same. The lines remain as straight lines. An object moving in a straight line still moves in a straight line when space contracts.

To get a gravitational force you have to use the rubber sheet analogy where space curves.

This is most easily seen from the actual equations of General Relativity which you claim to know about. They include Ricci curvature tensor - not the "Bjarne contraction tensor".

Your idea is obviously wrong. It has no relationship with the General Relativity.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Before you took up the gauntlet in the Danish forum, we had a longish debate with Bjarne about his concept of "bodies", and his rejection of the principle of superposition. (You can find the most important part start here (warning: the link is in Danish)). It seems that mountains can sometimes act as separate bodies, depending on whether they are steep or not, because then they produce a "secondary" gravity field counteracting that of the Earth.

Two bodies would to a certain extent be able to cancel each other's gravity influence on point between them, but if the are brought closer together, their gravity fields according to Bjarne merges at one point and becomes a single field with the combined strength.

Well, I will leave it to Bjarne to elaborate, but it is certainly a major deviation from normal physics to reject the superposition principle and operate with bodies instead of the sum of particles.

Mmm, I'm sure you are right. I don't think I care much, though. Seems Bjarne's physics are more or less pure fiction. And not even good fiction.

Hans

ETA: And, not being a bovinophile, I'm not sure I want to know Bjarne's definition of 'bodies'.

 

[sol invictus]

Correct Newton thought that gravity would cancel out inside out in the centre of (a homogenous) object. Einstein and Gauss and many more went into that “trap” too.
A small mistake 300 years ago was the rot to all evil.

What ridiculous nonsense. I've done that calculation myself many times, in Newtonian gravity, elecrostatics, general relativity, and other theories. It's easy.

Go ahead and show us where it's wrong, Bjarne.

 

[Bjarne]

What ridiculous nonsense. I've done that calculation myself many times

Many can calculate
and many does it without to know what they are calculating
Gravity is no exception

Go ahead and show us where it's wrong, Bjarne.

Read this:
http://www.science27.com/english/dark_matter.html

 

[Reality Check]

Correct Newton thought that gravity would cancel out inside out in the centre of (a homogenous) object. Einstein and Gauss and many more went into that “trap” too.
A small mistake 300 years ago was the rot to all evil.

The calculation that gravity is zero at the center of a homogenous sphere is quite simple (work out the general equation and put r=0).
I remember doing it as a first year physics undergraduate many years ago. I suspect that I had at least seen the calculation as a high school student.