Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

[Bjarne]

Last attempt to explain why it's a consequence that changing / adding an expression (replacing “bended space” < > “contracted space”) means that our understating of central gravity is wrong.

Let me explain that in 2 steps.

First consider this:

Why does a ship need an Anker?
Stupid question off course, - to resist the current..

The universe is expanding but so far we know not space/distances inside galaxies, solar system or the earth.

1.) How is it possible for space inside gravitational fields to resist the expansion?
2.) How does gravity "anchor" in space? In a way that is at all is possible to bend space even though dark energy resist that to happen?

Imaging the Earth had a 4500 km big hole inside.
Radius and Mass of the Earth would be the same
How would acc due to gravity affect such object?

What would you acceleration due to gravity be :
a) At the surface
b) 1000 km beneath (where the hole was staring)
c) 2000 km beneath

Let me first have your guys opinion, then I will give you mine.

 

[martu]

[qimg]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:BuZf1KEw-MkByM:http://tvndk.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/s4011233.jpg[/qimg]

Last attempt to explain why it's a consequence that changing / adding an expression (replacing “bended space” < > “contracted space”) means that our understating of central gravity is wrong.

Let me explain that in 2 steps.

First consider this:

Why does a ship need an Anker?
Stupid question off course, - to resist the current..

The universe is expanding but so far we know not space/distances inside galaxies, solar system or the earth.

1.) How is it possible for space inside gravitational fields to resist the expansion?
2.) How does gravity "anchor" in space? In a way that is at all is possible to bend space even though dark energy resist that to happen?

[qimg]http://www.science27.com/hole.jpg[/qimg]

Imaging the Earth had a 4500 km big hole inside.
Radius and Mass of the Earth would be the same
How would acc due to gravity affect such object?

What would you acceleration due to gravity be :
a) At the surface
b) 1000 km beneath (where the hole was staring)
c) 2000 km beneath

Let me first have your gays opinion, then I will give you mine.

My bolding - in my opinion you need someone to proof read your posts

 

[Bjarne]

My bolding - in my opinion you need someone to proof read your posts

OK + guys opinion

 

[Ziggurat]

Bjarne, are you familiar with the shell theorem? Because it comes directly from the 1/r² formula you like so much, and if you understand it, it will answer your questions rather trivially.

 

[Skamandros]

[qimg]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:BuZf1KEw-MkByM:http://tvndk.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/s4011233.jpg[/qimg]

Last attempt to explain why it's a consequence that changing / adding an expression (replacing “bended space” < > “contracted space”) means that our understating of central gravity is wrong.

Let me explain that in 2 steps.

First consider this:

Why does a ship need an Anker?
Stupid question off course, - to resist the current..

The universe is expanding but so far we know not space/distances inside galaxies, solar system or the earth.

1.) How is it possible for space inside gravitational fields to resist the expansion?
2.) How does gravity "anchor" in space? In a way that is at all is possible to bend space even though dark energy resist that to happen?

[qimg]http://www.science27.com/hole.jpg[/qimg]

Imaging the Earth had a 4500 km big hole inside.
Radius and Mass of the Earth would be the same
How would acc due to gravity affect such object?

What would you acceleration due to gravity be :
a) At the surface
b) 1000 km beneath (where the hole was staring)
c) 2000 km beneath

Let me first have your guys opinion, then I will give you mine.

OK, example is not riveeling becuase 1000 km is half 2000 is not one third.
If earth has inside 4500 hole then if we go in hole by 1500 then rato is strong for hadrons and spins makes gratiatonal but if ratio is wronge then week force permits repuslion. Gravity anchers by the three spin of the hadrons in space ratio. Bjarne you are confusioning contracton in space of dark energy wich makes expanson by ratio of three. Think of this and be adjusted of formulas.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, are you familiar with the shell theorem?

No.
Anyway try roughly to indicate the acceleration (and direction) you think an object will follows (a+b+c)

How can gravity "grip" space.
Unless gravity does so it can not bend space
So what is the tricks?

What I mean: gravity can be quit strong.
It’s believed so strong as the electromagnetic force right before a Big Bang
(I claim it is excact so strong as the strong force, exactly at the moment at BigBang.)

Anyway....
How is it possible that gravity can bend huge amount of space and with a huge force.
What is the secret , according to how does gravity "gripping” space?
How is it possible ?
Is possible to “unbend” space?

 

[Ziggurat]

No.

That's too bad. It's standard freshman-level university physics. If you want to revise the theory of gravity, it helps to understand what the current theory is, and if you aren't familiar with the shell theorem, then you aren't familiar with current theory. Or even theory from 200 years ago.

Anyway try roughly to indicate the acceleration (and direction) you think an object will follows (a+b+c)

At the outer surface it's g. Inside the inner surface of the shell it's zero, no matter where inside you are. This is a direct result of the shell theorem.

By the way, there are only two possible ways that the shell theorem can possibly be wrong: if gravity is not linear (meaning the field isn't directly proportional to the source) or if it doesn't obey 1/r² scaling. Those break down under general relativity at very strong fields, but general relativity has its own version of the shell theorem which produces very similar results.

 

[Bjarne]

That's too bad. It's standard freshman-level university physics. If you want to revise the theory of gravity, it helps to understand what the current theory is, and if you aren't familiar with the shell theorem, then you aren't familiar with current theory. Or even theory from 200 years ago.

Do you know it wasn’t Niels Bohr that discovered the mathematically logic behind quantum physic, but a low educated Scholl teacher Balder. Or did you know the discovery of electromagnetism (HC Oerted) was only based on words.

At the outer surface it's g.

Agree 9.8 m/s^2

Inside the inner surface of the shell it's zero, no matter where inside you are. This is a direct result of the shell theorem.

So you believe that an object here would not move in any direction, also not towards the surface of the Earth? – Do others agree to that?

What about object c ?

By the way, there are only two possible ways that the shell theorem can possibly be wrong: if gravity is not linear (meaning the field isn't directly proportional to the source) or if it doesn't obey 1/r2 scaling. Those break down under general relativity at very strong fields, but general relativity has its own version of the shell theorem which produces very similar results.

Notice I am not saying GR is wrong; but only the expression “bended space” just doesn’t reflect a complete or perfect understanding. It is possible (and simple) to reach a mush deeper understanding.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you know it wasn’t Niels Bohr that discovered the mathematically logic behind quantum physic, but a low educated Scholl teacher Balder. Or did you know the discovery of electromagnetism (HC Oerted) was only based on words.

And your point is what, exactly?

So you believe that an object here would not move in any direction, also not towards the surface of the Earth? – Do others agree to that?

Whether or not it moves will depend upon whether or not it was moving to begin with. It will feel no net force, and hence no acceleration, due to gravity from the shell. And of course others agree with me, that's why I linked to that shell theorem page. Like I said, this is standard freshman physics. You should be able to find it in almost any half-decent introductory physics textbook, at least if it's calculus-based (algebra-based texts may skip this since the proof requires calculus).

What about object c ?

Same thing.

Notice I am not saying GR is wrong; but only the expression “bended space” just doesn’t reflect a complete or perfect understanding. It is possible (and simple) to reach a mush deeper understanding.

But your understanding of both Newtonian or GR gravity clearly has major holes in it if you weren't familiar with the shell theorem, so how can you conclude that you can reach a deeper understanding when you haven't even mastered a shallow understanding?

 

[Bjarne]

------

But your understanding of both Newtonian or GR gravity clearly has major holes in it if you weren't familiar with the shell theorem, so how can you conclude that you can reach a deeper understanding when you haven't even mastered a shallow understanding?

My mission is not to be lost in others none demonstrable mistakes.

Lets now again assume what would be another consequence : if bended = contracted space.
Hence space must be delivered to the space-consuming matter inside the Earth.

Off course space will now be fetched from an outwards direction, whereby space (and the universe) bends like we know it. BUT space will also be fetched from an inwards direction.

To counteract resistance against bended space around the Earth – 50 % space must be fetched from an inwards direction (and 50% from an outwards direction).

Hence space inside the Earth must be contracted with the same force in both an inwards and outwards direction. We can say the inwards and outwards pull of space must share the work that must be done(between them) .

If this is true also space inside the empty hole of the Earth (that we pretend exist) must continue to contract space towards an inwards direction the whole way to the center, simply because the hunt for space is huge, and also counteracting (as illustrated above).

Imagine an inner central area of the Earth divided into 3 successive areas.
• One area furthest out ‘A’
• One area further in ‘B’
• And one area even further in ‘C’

The matter that is in area ‘A’ is contracting space here.
This means that the matter that lies deeper in the galaxy (area ‘B’) lies ‘behind’ the outer matter (area ‘A’) and thereby in space that is already somewhat contracted (by area ‘A’).
The matter that lies in area ‘B’ and even deeper (in area ‘C’) therefore lies in areas that are becoming more and more contracted as one moves inwards.
Due to this additive force the contraction of space as one move inwards will gradually get stronger.
It’s a kind of inner domino effect exactly like we se space bends in a outwards direction. In a inwards direction space instead must gradually contract stronger, because the access to space is limit/blocked.

This principle, of inwards increasing contraction, will be valid even tough there is a huge hole in the Earth. Space will continue to contract gradually stronger the whole way to the centre.

This is how gravity ”anchors” - “grips” space and resist the opposite force (expending space).

This is also the simple secret how gravity is born.

Even though gravity contracts gradually stronger towards the centre the Earth, - the increasing contraction per distance is the same the whole way to the Earths centre. This is because of a gravitational field is a unity, where the inner pull in space from both direction automatically shares the work that must done.

If an object obstruct the Earth access to “fetch” space, - it will disturb the Earths access to space, - space between the earth and the object will contract stronger and this will force the object down to Earth.

Because of space contracts in an "equal line" the whole way inside the Earth (if it was a homogenous mass) acceleration due to gravity must do the same and hence the acceleration due to gravity must be 9.8 m/s^2 the whole way to the centre of the Earth. .

These consequences of the simple assumption, (that matter contract space) also sometimes surprise me. If we want to understand gravity and all the mysteries related we must fully understand the properties of space.

This law of nature explains the cause of so-called dark matter in galaxy clusters. Central gravity is misunderstood, and that's it.

The cause of the so called dark matter in galaxies – read this

------

 

[Bjarne]

Double post was deleted.

 

[Ziggurat]

My mission is not to be lost in others none demonstrable mistakes.

How do you even know if other people are making mistakes if you don't even know what they're saying?

Hence space inside the Earth must be contracted with the same force in both an inwards and outwards direction.

So you've come up with a prediction which contradicts both Newtonian and General Relativistic gravity. And yet, you think that the mathematical structure of both theories is fine. Sorry, but that's a contradiction. Either your prediction is wrong, or the math of standard gravitational theories is wrong. You can't have both.

 

[Bjarne]

-------------

So you've come up with a prediction which contradicts both Newtonian and General Relativistic gravity. And yet, you think that the mathematical structure of both theories is fine. Sorry, but that's a contradiction. Either your prediction is wrong, or the math of standard gravitational theories is wrong. You can't have both.

We live on the surface of the Earth, not inside.
Our superficially knowledge is properly nearly perfect. Why shouldn’t be so? - I too accept this too, also (nearly) all the mathematics.
Think about a simple example…
Nothing on Jupiter was so that we expected. But this doesn’t mean a complete collapse of all we know, and that we can scrap all out mathematics etc. . It only shows we have more to learn. When we enters unknown areas….

How do you even know if other people are making mistakes if you don't even know what they're saying?

So long we do not speak about evidence, but only hypothesis, (and this is what even GR really is,) we are speaking about different opinions. (I think GR is mainly correct, but we have not been able to imaging space properties and hence failed to reach a deeper undertanding)

After you have read 5 minutes of that I am writing you have the right to say I do not believe you, you are wrong, this is only a hypothesis…. This is yours opinion.
I have the same right; on the other hand I am always willing to learn more, and admit if anything is wrong.

I do not need to know exactly how much other theories predict that acc due to gravity will act inside the earth. f know the principles this is sometimes enough.

For example does gravity inside one gravitational field “interacts” with it self and cancel out component wise. How should that be possible? This is beyond common sense.
But this is something that many people believes, based on properties of gravity that never is understood. How can people determinate properties of a phenomena that we have very poor superficially knowledge about? – This is doomed to fail.

Sorry, that way is not my “religion”. I want to know, and I want to see unified wholes, and not use too much time on incoherent superficially hypotheses.

I am following the main thread of what is the consequence if matte contract space. This leads to relative insignificant collision with few hypotheses, but never with facts. On the other hand I will say that 95% of that what I write supports know facts.

Think about: I claim that there are no gravity mysteries anymore, only contracted spaces. This is a huge statement. It “should” be easy to disprove something so HUGE. 20 mysteries are gone, This “MUST” be too much” But prove to me, where is the red light. ? I haven’t seen it.

-------------

 

[Ziggurat]

We live on the surface of the Earth, not inside.

That is irrelevant. The shell theorem is provable for any linear 1/r² force. The only way the shell theorem could not apply is if gravity was not linear and/or not 1/r². You have not contested either of these conditions, but you claim that a necessary result of them is wrong. That is simply illogical.

But you don't have to take my word for it, why don't you set up an experiment and test the shell theorem yourself? If you are right, then you will have performed a Nobel Prize-winning experiment.

 

[Bjarne]

That is irrelevant. The shell theorem is provable for any linear 1/r2 force.

I guess you mean mathematical provable. – If so, this is off course not enough.

The only way the shell theorem could not apply is if gravity was not linear and/or not 1/r2.

Please illustrate by showing an example

But you don't have to take my word for it, why don't you set up an experiment and test the shell theorem yourself? If you are right, then you will have performed a Nobel Prize-winning experiment.

Can you suggest an experiment how to measure if central gravity?

In some very few cases gravity measurement result (from deep mines) haven’t been as expected (Australia) this had once lead to a search for “a fifth force” and hence lot of measurement, but without it have been possible (beyond any doubt) to prove a deviation from standard models.

Such relative very superficially measurement is all that have been done. But not enough to finally prove how central gravity acts.

My intention is (soon) to measure acc due to gravity, floor by floor, in a 30 floors building (biggest we have here). Measurement inside a huge ball with a homogenous mass would be the much better, anyway, I hope that measure inside the building can be enough to prove / disprove whether the prevailing hypotheses is correct or not. – I expect that (the buildings) acc due to gravity will be the same from floor 30 to 15 – and that the building equally will counteract the acc due to gravity of the Earth from floor 15 to 0.

What do you expect?

 

[LissaLysikan]

In some very few cases gravity measurement result (from deep mines) haven’t been as expected (Australia) this had once lead to a search for “a fifth force” and hence lot of measurement, but without it have been possible (beyond any doubt) to prove a deviation from standard models.

Would be nice if you would support statements like this with some facts.

Such relative very superficially measurement is all that have been done. But not enough to finally prove how central gravity acts.

How can people prove how something you just invented acts when you just invented it? It's not like it's something real they had to work with before!

My intention is (soon) to measure acc due to gravity, floor by floor, in a 30 floors building (biggest we have here). Measurement inside a huge ball with a homogenous mass would be the much better, anyway, I hope that measure inside the building can be enough to prove / disprove whether the prevailing hypotheses is correct or not. – I expect that (the buildings) acc due to gravity will be the same from floor 30 to 15 – and that the building equally will counteract the acc due to gravity of the Earth from floor 15 to 0.

What do you expect?

That you are wrong and the difference is very tiny and follows the equations presented to you already, assuming you have a device that is even capable of measuring the difference over such a small distance.

 

[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..

If you (like Einstein did) ignore that space is “flexible” space, yes then you are right.
But I assume that you know that Einstein changed his mind and later admitted: “his biggest mistake”
Try to see it this way: Matter contracts / consume / suck space. (Matter is: a fast frequency of “thick space”.)
Hence space (mainly) close around matter must be “lacking”, but because the fact that the universe have “density” space will not be “lacking” but rather “thinner” around an object. Anyway you can us the expression “lacking” if you mean that space now is thinner. You can also compare that to also the rubber sheet gets thinner when you press it.

If the cause of bended space is contraction this only can mean that space “density” is susceptible.

Now imaging the Moon and the Earth compete to consume the same space between them.
This mean the “density” of space will be “thinning more out” (between them) since now a limit amount of space most be shared between the Earth and the Moon. In that sense you can say that space between these objects is now “lacking” or you can say that space (because of the lack) space must “bend”.

Would be nice if you would support statements like this with some facts.

I have used 10 minutes to search my bookmarks, but without success try to Google on this: "fifth force mine Australia"

That you are wrong and the difference is very tiny and follows the equations presented to you already, assuming you have a device that is even capable of measuring the difference over such a small distance.

We have one gravimeter in Denmark that can measure 5/1.000.000.000 of “g” – This should be OK. It’s possible to pay for getting a job done.

Notice the primary statement (that space contracts) I am sure this is 100% correct.. But this part is very difficult and properly impossible to prove. This is a shame since this is the basic of the hypothesis.

The purpose by measurement central gravity is only to prove a secondary aspect and yes this is a complex area of science..
The starting point is the facts that both Newtonian Gravity and GR somehow must form an understandable synthesis. If we fully understand not only that space contract but also all the consequences, it must be possible to “unify” these two incoherent theories. I am optimistic

--------------

 

[dlorde]

In some very few cases gravity measurement result (from deep mines) haven’t been as expected (Australia) this had once lead to a search for “a fifth force” and hence lot of measurement, but without it have been possible (beyond any doubt) to prove a deviation from standard models.

Without a reference or more detail, it's not possible to respond specifically to that claim, but it is well known that there are considerable local variations in gravity due to variations in rock density.

Here's a good explanation of the variation of gravity with depth below the Earth's surface.

 

[Bjarne]

Without a reference or more detail, it's not possible to respond specifically to that claim, but it is well known that there are considerable local variations in gravity due to variations in rock density.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Fifth+force+sunk+in+ocean+experiments-a011748067

Yes that's the problem.
Also we don't know anything for sure about the inner iron core

 

[Reality Check]

--------------
If you (like Einstein did) ignore that space is “flexible” space, yes then you are right.

Einstein ignored that space is “flexible” space because “flexible” space does not cause any gravitational force.
He derived GR from the equivalence principle and it emerged that the only deformation of space that produces gravity was (and remains) curvature.

The rest of your post is just the usual thing we see from crackpots all the time. For some reason they are under the delusion that vague descriptions and pretty picture make science. They are just fooling themselves. Anyone with any intelligence quickly sees this.