Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

[MRC_Hans]

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.

So you claim that centuries of scientists got it wrong, and you got it right? You fail in primary school physics (this was established on the Danish forum), but you understand what Einstein & al did not?

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.

See further down.

http://www.science27.com/english/evidence.html

Just some friendly advice: Here, you can only plug your homepage a limited number of times before you will get a warning for spamming.

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.

Again, Bjarne implies that everybody else are idiots.

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.

What if it does not pull space?

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.

Another ad hoc hypothesis to work around the fact that you have just been disproved. Please explain how you need to go 3300km inside Earth to see your effect, but you expect to measure it in the Domus Vista (30 storey house)?

Hans

 

[sol invictus]

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



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

That page doesn't contain a single equation.

I can write down Newton's equation for the force of gravity. I can solve that equation inside a homogeneous sphere of mass. When I do so, I get the same result Newton, Gauss, Einstein, and tens of thousands of physicists and mathematicians got.

You're telling me every single one of us made a mistake. Basically, you're claiming you are better at solving equations than Newton, Gauss, Einstein, Fenynman, and every other physicist and mathematician over the last 350 years, that they are all wrong about this simple problem, and you're right.

Very well, show me where in that standard derivation there is an error. Which step is wrong, and why?

 

[Bjarne]

That page doesn't contain a single equation.

This only proves you haven’t read it.

You're telling me every single one of us made a mistake. Basically, you're claiming you are better at solving equations than Newton, Gauss, Einstein, Fenynman, and every other physicist and mathematician over the last 350 years, that they are all wrong about this simple problem, and you're right.

Excactly.

Another ad hoc hypothesis to work around the fact that you have just been disproved. Please explain how you need to go 3300km inside Earth to see your effect,

The prevailing theory claims gravity cancel outs component wise from that deep.

Imaging the Earth would have the same mass but 2 times so big.
How would contracted space / acc due to gravity be inside the earth?
The answer would be 25% of g today

Why ?

If you have a circle
r = 2
Square =4
Average g = 100
Potential Test: 4 * 100 = 400

Now increase to
R = 4
Square 16
Average g = 25
Potential Test: 16 * 25 = 400

The total gravity (contracted space) potential is the same.
This shows that the prediction could be on the right track...

So you claim that centuries of scientists got it wrong, and you got it right? You fail in primary school physics (this was established on the Danish forum), but you understand what Einstein & al did not?

Finally one that understood.
As I wrote what is mat without imagination?
Answer: maybe ridiculous, so like imagination without mat.

What if it does not pull space?

What if it doesn’t “bend”
Ohhh boy, - big catastrophe, a “religion” will brake down.
All man to the pumps.
(not me I am busy)

Again, Bjarne implies that everybody else are idiots.

Idiots ?, where have read that ?
This thread is a brilliant example that shows that if first man and beat have chosen to believe something, nothing can stop it.
Idiots ? – No.
Mass hypnosis. – Yes.
I think this thread begins to be so negative that I say : thank you for coffee.

 

[sol invictus]

Imaging the Earth would have the same mass but 2 times so big.
How would contracted space / acc due to gravity be inside the earth?
The answer would be 25% of g today
<snip>

You didn't answer my question. It should be very easy for you, since you're much better at solving equations than every single one the greatest mathematical geniuses of the last 350 years:

Very well, show me where in that standard derivation there is an error. Which step is wrong, and why?

 

[steenkh]

I believe that Bjarne's logic goes like this: He thinks he has an instinctive understanding of physics. If the math shows a different result from that instinctive understanding, then the application of the math is wrong. Curiously, he also believes that the mathematical equations are correct, and that is why we get told that

Many can calculate
and many does it without to know what they are calculating

I find it a quite extraordinary concept that you will get different results out of the same equations depending on whether you "understand" what you are calculating or not.

 

[sol invictus]

I believe that Bjarne's logic goes like this: He thinks he has an instinctive understanding of physics. If the math shows a different result from that instinctive understanding, then the application of the math is wrong.

And experiment too, since the last several centuries of experiments directly contradict his "instinctive understanding".

 

[Gate2501]

Wow, I should have read this thread earlier...

Many years ago (5ish), I developed my own revolutionary theory of gravity. I had realized what all the overpaid scientists had missed! Mass was, as I called it, a "space drain". Gravity was the flow of space into the drain. This made so_much_sense to me, that it just had to be right.

About 6 months into filling notepads with my discovery and the implications thereof, I started to realize that... there really were no implications. My theory was exactly the same as GR, just a different mechanism behind everything. That was when it hit me... I had become extremely hung up on a model of reality instead of reality itself. My theory didn't explain anything, and actually made everything MORE confusing by adding an extra layer of wackiness.

I still sympathize with those who posit "space drain" theories. I have seen a few of them out there, but this might be the first one I have seen here on JREF.

 

[Bjarne]

---------

I find it a quite extraordinary concept that you will get different results out of the same equations depending on whether you "understand" what you are calculating or not.

Once again, the equation to calculate central gravity is wrong.

And experiment too, since the last several centuries of experiments directly contradict his "instinctive understanding".

That central gravity acts like we believe are never proven. Also not the way we belive that space “bends”..

How can man and beast possible believe that the pain due to a 1000 kg weight on a big toe is because space “bends”. This is ridiculously

This not only shows that the understanding / expression of GR is based on totally uninspired imagination, but also beyond common sense.

Tell me, how can “bended space” explain that a big stone is heavier that a small stone. Or why lead is heavier than wood.
---------

 

[sol invictus]

Mass was, as I called it, a "space drain". Gravity was the flow of space into the drain. This made so_much_sense to me, that it just had to be right.

That's not entirely wrong, but it's incomplete because it has a major problem. Where does the flow originate? If mass is a drain, what's the source? There's no such thing as negative mass, after all.

For example, suppose you have a single point mass somewhere in otherwise empty space. Then the flow points towards that mass. If you follow one of the flow lines out away from the mass, it can't end anywhere or loop back, so it must go all the way to infinity - and there must be an infinity for the line to "end" on; the space cannot be compact.

That's more or less OK, until you try to understand what happens in a universe like ours. Our universe might be infinite, but observation indicates that it's full of a more or less homogeneous mass density everywhere. So, where are all those flow lines coming from? Infinity is no help, because it's full of mass (this is the gravitational version of Olbers' paradox).

That's actually a completely intractable problem - it has no solution - unless you allow space itself, even away from the mass, to deform in response to these flows. Interestingly, you're more or less inevitably led to something like general relativity purely based on the observation that there is no negative mass and that the universe is homogeneous (of course that's not how Einstein arrived at it, he used the much more powerful principle of general covariance).

 

[sol invictus]

Once again, the equation to calculate central gravity is wrong.

Which equation? Post it here - you can use latex - and tell us precisely how and why it's wrong. That will be very easy for a genius like you.

That central gravity acts like we believe are never proven.

Utter nonsense. It's been tested by thousands of experiments over centuries.

 

[Reality Check]

This only proves you haven’t read it.

That only proves that you do not know what an equation is. There are no equations on that page. Only words and description's of things contracting, increasing, decreasing and maybe spindling.

Also:
You use the term "force of acceleration due to gravity" - something that does not exist. There is no force of "acceleration due to gravity". Gravity is the force. Acceleration is the result of the force. I will blame this on that English is a second language for you.

However when 2 bodies approach each other the force of gravity will increase between them (not decrease as you may be stating). F = GMm/r² means that as r decreases, F increases.

My guess that the arithmetic in your post is based on the above error. It is thus also in error ("average g" should have increased to 400?). That arithmetic thus shows that your idea is wrong.

 

[Bjarne]

Utter nonsense. It's been tested by thousands of experiments over centuries.

Is that something you have dream ?
Its never proven

Notice I wrote ***central**** gravity.

Buy buy focks , this is all too much now...

 

[sol invictus]

Is that something you have dream ?
Its never proven

Nothing in science is ever proven.

Notice I wrote ***central**** gravity.

A meaningless phrase, but I assume you mean the gravity near the mid-point of some arrangement of masses, where the cancellation is near total.

As I said, that's been tested countless times, as have the equations that determine that behavior under all sorts of other conditions.

Buy buy focks , this is all too much now...

You're selling focks?

Now, are you going to answer my question?

Very well, show me where in that standard derivation there is an error. Which step is wrong, and why?

 

[Bjarne]

Well well the expression "bended space" is Ok, but only if we understand why it bend.
It happens because space is contracted.
And that's it.

Now, are you going to answer my question?

How can man and beast possible believe that the pain due to a 1000 kg weight on a big toe is because space “bends”. This is ridiculously

This not only shows that the understanding / expression of GR is based on totally uninspired imagination, but also beyond common sense.

Tell me, how can “bended space” explain that a big stone is heavier that a small stone.? Or why lead is heavier than wood. ?

 

[Toke]

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.

Thank you.
It did sound odd to me if nobody had noticed zero or lower G when descending underground. Guess his error is big enough for me to spot.

 

[sol invictus]

How can man and beast possible believe that the pain due to a 1000 kg weight on a big toe is because space “bends”. This is ridiculously

So you cannot answer my question? You were lying when you said you knew that all those people had made a mistake in solving the equations?

This not only shows that the understanding / expression of GR is based on totally uninspired imagination, but also beyond common sense.

The two halves of that sentence contradict each other.

Tell me, how can “bended space” explain that a big stone is heavier that a small stone.? Or why lead is heavier than wood. ?

The explanation of that using curved space is as simple and beautiful as it gets. All objects follow "straight" lines, the shortest distance between two points (unless acted on by some other force). Since all objects follow the same trajectories, they all experience the same acceleration, and therefore the gravitational force is directly and exactly proportional to their inertial mass.

That's called the equivalence principle.

 

[Bjarne]

So you cannot answer my question?
You were lying when you said you knew that all those people had made a mistake in solving the equations?

Busy right now. I think you have got the point anyway.

.......gravitational force is directly and exactly proportional to their inertial mass

This is only words, and make no sense t all.
What has 1000 kg on you big toe to do with: All objects follow "straight" lines, the shortest distance between two points .......etc...

How do you define : gravitational force ? - What is gravitational force ?

 

[martu]

Bjarne you must have missed my question - do photons have mass in your model?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Complete melt-down anticipated in P-3 posts.

Hans

 

[Dorfl]

Screw this

Debating relativity with CanadaGlass was interesting, and even if it never really got anywhere, I learnt a lot from it. But this thread? A person who has spent years working out a theory isn't going to realise that it's fundamentally useless, no matter what is said to him. Nor am I likely to learn much from people pointing out the flaws in Bjarne's theory: that works with slightly broken theories, but since his is nonsense all the way through, it's unlikely very much will be said about specific problems with it.

I'm off. Good luck everyone!