Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

[Sensation_of_physics]

Just a little off-topic:

you can use latex

How?

that is, what are the tags for activating a latex environment? - the obvious http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex? [\tex] doesn't work.

 

[Reality Check]

The tags are [latex] and [/latex]
So:
[latex]$$ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}} $$[/latex]
gives:

 

[Bjarne]

-----------

So your prediction is that the ADG will be the same value on all 30 floors?

To avoid misunderstandings again, I think you will need a long explanation to that question.

1. I am sure that it requires “force” to bend space also even though any force is used. The accumulation of energy (matter) consumes space hence space contracts.
2. This means that somehow gravity must grip space.
3. Gripping space is only possible because matter encircles inner space of an object.
4. The trick is that matter can not pull more space inwards from the universe than it must pull from inside it self / from the object.
5. Towards an object (e.g: the Earth) space increasingly bends/contracts direct propotional to the volume of space. It’s demonstrates the law for how space is fetched. The distance square law reflects AFD is direct proportional (1:1) to the volume around a objects. And we have also GR mathematics to calculate the same. We can perfectly measure superficial gravity, even though we understand almost nothing about the laws behind.
6. In the inwards direction mathematics is only based on how we believe inner gravity will act. Nothing at all is supported by measurement? - This is why understanding of central gratify is and always have been in completely darkness.
7. To be able to resist the universes resistance to be contracted/bended (towards an object) the amount of space that bends/contracts from the outwards direction also must bend/contracts towards and inwards direction, as demonstrated by the weight image above.
8. Towards an inwards direction the access for space is increasingly limited / trapped. This mean that space towards this direction must contract stronger compared to the outwards direction. Contraction of space from an inwards direction is “a must” –The inwards contraction is necessary for gravity to work, - this is the way gravity anchors and counteracts the resistance against pulling/ contracting/ bending the universe in the outwards direction.
9. We can say for sure say that a greater contraction pressure will affect the inner space. Because (off course) it’s easier for matter to contract space the closer it is the surface of an object. I believe that the “distribution” of the inner half “pressure” and outer “pressure” on space inside a body must be distributed “as a smooth line”. This mean the ADG must be the same in the centre (of a homogenous object) than at the surface. According to my conviction we don’t need any a new equation but only how to calculate “g” at the surface (Gm/r^2) “g” is the same at the centre (in a homogenous mass) .
10. Luckily we have the internet and hopefully it also can be used to positive “teamwork” and not only accusation (mental sick, liar, crackpot) . I mean hopefully things have changes a bit since Keplers days. So everybody is welcome to suggest: how mathematically to describe central gravity, in the case I should succeed to reach some that can see that “something is wrong” with our understanding of central gravity. But agian I do not think it is necessary

What is the difference between this experiment and the other experiments that have measured the ADG as height increases?

I have never heard that central gravity systematically have been measured.
You can measure ADG from satellites, and from ground level, but these are only superficially.

DARK MATTER

Nice picture - does not contain any calculations

I have been asked several times: where are the calculations / equation (for inner gravity).
As shown above (again) you only need to know g, and the fact that gravity MUST have an anchor. Gravity MUST contract inner space.

Bjarne: note that this is how pretty pictures are done in science. Scientists take data and turn them into pretty pictures.

Yes very nice illustration and measurement.
BUT there is NO dark matter in these areas
I have seen it all before.

Dark matter is not only a religion but much worse; it’s a authoritarian superstitious fanatic brainwashing religion beyond common sense.
Just imaging some kind of matter with all these (claimed) very strange properties. It's nothing else but creeds. A lot of billion dollars experiments have been executed long ago, not one has shown even shadows of evidence.
It’s also a religion because its the only true (but only for those hypnotized by that authoritarian sect).

Try to understand the simple fact how gravity works, Without an inner “HUGE” contraction of space gravity can not work.

Because of gravity MUST have an anchor, centrally between cluster of galaxies as well as inside clusters of galaxies you MUST have stronger contracted space, and this is exactly that what NASA have illustrated to have found.

I am not the only infidel. - Try you Google translator and read This


Translated automatically here

-----------

 

[steenkh]

I am not the only infidel. - Try you Google translator and read This

That article is titled "Astronomy is no longer a science but has become a religion", and it is written by a crank who believes that Newton got it right, and Einstein got it wrong. He does not believe that red-shifting is caused by the Doppler effect, and in general that dark matter is based on pseudo science that has been elevated to a religion. It is obvious that Bjarne has been taking his ideas and inspiration from this and similar articles.

 

[Dancing David]

Bjarne, when you start talking about the orthodoxy and religion, it makes it look like sour grapes because you can't formalise or demonstrate your own theory.

It is your fault that you can't present your theory in terms of common physics, nor that you can't formalize it in mathematics. When you come up with a falsifiable prediction, then you will have something to stand on.

Your statement here is nonsense, you do not understand the evidence that supports the theory of dark matter, you don't know what nutrinos are and your ignorance on a subjects is hsowing. You can't say why the theory of dark matter contradicts teh evidence, so you wave youur arms and make foolish political statements like this

Dark matter is not only a religion but much worse; it’s a authoritarian superstitious fanatic brainwashing religion beyond common sense.
Just imaging some kind of matter with all these (claimed) very strange properties. It's nothing else but creeds. A lot of billion dollars experiments have been executed long ago, not one has shown even shadows of evidence.

that is just ignorant again, where , when and by whom? Your imaginary elevs in a hollow tree?

It’s also a religion because its the only true (but only for those hypnotized by that authoritarian sect).

How about you pony up and stop with the political drivel. try addressing the actual theories that support dark matter and then come up with an alternative to explain the data.

Like:

Why do galaxy rotation curves show the charateristics that they do?

 

[Bjarne]

That article is titled "Astronomy is no longer a science but has become a religion", and it is written by a crank who believes that Newton got it right, and Einstein got it wrong. He does not believe that red-shifting is caused by the Doppler effect, and in general that dark matter is based on pseudo science that has been elevated to a religion

Yes I sympathize with the author but I am not a clone.
I like the impression: quotation:
“ a religion dominated by incompetent dreamers”.

It is obvious that Bjarne has been taking his ideas and inspiration from this and similar articles.

No Comrade Stenkh I am my own.

Bjarne, when you start talking about the orthodoxy and religion, it makes it look like sour grapes because you can't formalise or demonstrate your own theory.

Our common imagination is too poor, misty and single-tracked. Mat and imagination must go hand in hand. This is not the case.

What is space?
You would probably instantly say nothing?
But it’s wrong, because how can nothing bend?
So welcome to a discussion about nothing.

Listen now, - all what we know for certain is that space can expand.
This mean we also know for certain that space can contract.
We do not know more than this.

Can you imaging what is bended space ?
Let me answer for you, NO YOU CAN NOT. And nobody can, - this is only a haft truth.
Can you imaging that space contracts, - you should, - because of this is a property we know space must possess.
Instead of inventing new unnecessary space properties, try to be satisfied with the two properties we know space allredy possess.
(It was a big problem to Eintstein to accept these two properties)

Why make thing more differcult as they are? Don't invent more unnecessary properties.
Instead follow the the track (properties we know space possess ) and see where does this bring you. At least do that before you invent more properties... Follow the "gravity contraction property" main thread, and see where it brings you. >> When you return tell me what you saw, and also if you saw new maths, and tell me do you still belive it is necessary that space possess more properties?

It is your fault that you can't present your theory in terms of common physics,

You too are welcome to partipate...
The common physics is the top of the iceberg
The bottom of the iceberg is a bit different than the top.
Be patient comrade, be patient. Rom wasn't drunk at one day.
Remember people are always very sceptical to new thought.
For example at the time Stephen Hawking came to the conclusion that everything comes from nothing, and I think 1000 times before that as well.

nor that you can't formalize it in mathematics. When you come up with a falsifiable prediction, then you will have something to stand on.

You are welcome to participate comrade.

 

[Ziggurat]

You are very unclear. What are you trying to say?

That you believe mutually contradictory things, and don't even know that they are mutually contradictory. Until you can rectify that problem, you will learn nothing, but will continue to deceive yourself. And all the while, you will blame others for not joining you in your willful blindness.

How can you then pretend that you (or other) knows anything about inner central gravity

Learn the proof of the shell theorem and you'll find out. But you didn't even know the shell theorem existed. Sad, really.

 

[Reality Check]

-----------
To avoid misunderstandings again,

You will totally ignore the question which was:

So your prediction is that the ADG will be the same value on all 30 floors?

Yes or no would be an answer.
A better answer would be ab equation stating thow the ADG vaieis in a 30 story building.

-----------
I think you will need a long explanation to that question.

1. I am sure that it requires “force” to bend space also even though any force is used. The accumulation of energy (matter) consumes space hence space contracts.

1. I am sure that it does not require "force" to bend space. The mathematics of general relativity support me. In it mass bends space and the bent space makes paths of object bend. This bending of the paths of objects is an acceleration. An acceleration of an object is described as a force.
2. Energy is equivalent to matter. Matter does not "consume" space. It occupies a volume of space.

This makes the rest of your post wrong. But it is just a bunch of your personal ideas without any evidence so the situation is remains the same.

Now tell us how your prediction for the ADG in a 30 story building was calculated and what the prediction actually is.

Luckily we have the internet and hopefully it also can be used to positive “teamwork” and not only accusation (mental sick, liar, crackpot) . I mean hopefully things have changes a bit since Keplers days. So everybody is welcome to suggest: how mathematically to describe central gravity, in the case I should succeed to reach some that can see that “something is wrong” with our understanding of central gravity. But agian I do not think it is necessary

You really do not know anything about the scientific process. There is no such thing as positive “teamwork” in the sense you mean, i.e. sycophantic catering to the delusions of cranks or the mistakes of people who should know better.
If a scientist cannot defend a theory against their peers then the theory fails. All the internet has done is made it easier for scientists to review other scientists work.

This just happens to be an internet forum about science. If you cannot defend your idea here how can you expect to defend it when you get the the criticism of real scientists (and there are a few of those here too)?

I called you a liar because you lied. You have no mathematical models for your ideas. If you had you would have them on you web site, would produce equations from them in your posts and quote actual numbers.

I called you a crackpot because you fit the defintion of a crackpot or crank. See crank.net to see how common you are.

"Central gravity", i.e. gravity, has already been described mathematically by firstly Newton and then Einstein. Their mathematical descriptions have been used to produce predictions that have been tested by observations and experiments.

There is notthing wrong with the scientific understanding of gravity. It works.
Your idea does not.

Yes very nice illustration and measurement.
BUT there is NO dark matter in these areas
I have seen it all before.

BUT there is dark matter in these areas. The dark matter has separated froim the normal matter. The separated dark matter is in the pictures.
You may have seen it before but it is becoming obvious that you have not understood it.

 

[LissaLysikan]

Ah - so much fun watching someone that failed mathematics and failed physics and was refused his diploma try to teach a fantasy to people that actually have an education, just because he read on a web page somewhere that modern physics is wrong.
He should have gone into conspiracy theories - much more in line with his insistence that logic is wrong and only belief in his ideas is correct.

 

[Reality Check]

Just noticed this obviously statement in your post:

We can say for sure say My personal conviction is that a greater contraction pressure will affect the inner space. Because (off course) it’s easier for matter to contract space the closer it is the surface of an object. I believe that the “distribution” of the inner half “pressure” and outer “pressure” on space inside a body must be distributed “as a smooth line”. This mean the ADG must be the same in the centre (of a homogenous object) than at the surface. According to my conviction we don’t need any a new equation but only how to calculate “g” at the surface (Gm/r^2) “g” is the same at the centre (in a homogenous mass) .

(corrected your poor English)

It has already pointed out that this has been experimentally proved to be wrong. When "g" is measured it decreases with the depth down a mine shaft. You know this since you commented on it.
The inability to understand simple experiments like this is a characteristic of a crackpot.
Ignoring the facts that contradict your conviction is a characteristic of a crackpot.

 

[Bjarne]

I think it begins to sound like a pick up in the the same groove .
Will be back after meassurement

 

[Reality Check]

Great post RC. Do you have an opinion on this? http://www.newscientist.com/article...-hints-at-cracks-in-dark-matter-theories.html

I suspect that a sample of 28 galaxies is too small.
If it is confirmed then the interaction betwwen normal and dark matter being larger then currently estimated seems likely.

 

[Reality Check]

I think it begins to sound like a pick up in the the same groove .
Will be back after meassurement

Just a bit of advice about your measurement.

No one will trust your results if you just dump them into a web page to be ignored forever. Pointing forum users to your results will not work. They have no reason to think that your results are from a valid experiment - or for that matter any experiment ! (there are a lot of liars on the internet).

You need to get your results published in a peer-reviewed journal before they will be trusted. They will then be repeated and verified to becomd verified scientific data.

When you have your measurement, maybe it will explain why your idea about the g being constant underground is so wrong.
Here's a bit of actual science:

• Gravity in mines- An investigation of Newton's law by Holding, Steven C.; Stacey, Frank D.; Tuck, Gary J.
• New force or model-dependent effect in the mine gravity measurements? by Kim, Yeong E.; Klepacki, David J.; Hinze, William J.
• Recent history of tower and mine searches for non-Newtonian gravity by Fischbach, Ephraim; Talmadge, Carrick

For some reason none of these (or other experiments) report that g is constant either below or above ground.

 

[Bjarne]

Just a bit of advice about your measurement.


When you have your measurement, maybe it will explain why your idea about the g being constant underground is so wrong.
Here's a bit of actual science:

• Gravity in mines- An investigation of Newton's law by Holding, Steven C.; Stacey, Frank D.; Tuck, Gary J.
• New force or model-dependent effect in the mine gravity measurements? by Kim, Yeong E.; Klepacki, David J.; Hinze, William J.
• Recent history of tower and mine searches for non-Newtonian gravity by Fischbach, Ephraim; Talmadge, Carrick

For some reason none of these (or other experiments) report that g is constant either below or above ground.

All these are relative superficially measurements.
And as already mention: you do not know for sure about the size and dense, of the inner core, or the dense in the surface. Such measurement will always be doubtful.

 

[Toke]

All these are relative superficially measurements.
And as already mention: you do not know for sure about the size and dense, of the inner core, or the dense in the surface. Such measurement will always be doubtful.

Completely unlike measurements taken in a building with a well known number of stories.

 

[Reality Check]

All these are relative superficially measurements.
And as already mention: you do not know for sure about the size and dense, of the inner core, or the dense in the surface. Such measurement will always be doubtful.

All these are scientific measurements.
None of these measurements depend on the size or density of the inner core. The density of the surface also does not matter. The various densities of the rock and surounding area have to be taken account of and this is done.

As Toke said: Your conviction makes your measurement "always be doubtful". So why are you doing it?

 

[Ziggurat]

All these are relative superficially measurements.
And as already mention: you do not know for sure about the size and dense, of the inner core, or the dense in the surface. Such measurement will always be doubtful.

The density (not dense) of the surface of the earth is known, because we can measure it directly. The density of the core and mantle cannot be measured directly, but they can be measured indirectly through seismic measurements.

Once again, you are not convincing anyone that they are wrong or that you are right, you are only demonstrating how little you know.

 

[Toke]

I do believe that physics and other disciplines are a bit fuzzy* at the (cutting) edges.
But this is too big a divergence not to have been noticed by others than Bjarne.

*There is still research going on, right.

ETA: Noticed is the wrong word, it implies measurements.

 

[Reality Check]

Another point about Bjarne's measurement:
I do hope that when he publishes his scientific paper on the measurement of g in a 30 story building at each story in a peer reviewed journal, that he includes the gravitational influence of the other buildings in the city.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes I sympathize with the author but I am not a clone.
I like the impression: quotation:
“ a religion dominated by incompetent dreamers”.

that is as inaccurate as the rest of your rambling. You can't demonstrate your thoughts coherently or clearly, that is your issue.

No Comrade Stenkh I am my own.



Our common imagination is too poor, misty and single-tracked. Mat and imagination must go hand in hand. This is not the case.

Blah, blah, blah. Rubbish

What is space?
You would probably instantly say nothing?
But it’s wrong, because how can nothing bend?
So welcome to a discussion about nothing.

More naive posturing on your part, if you actually asked someone who studied physics that is not the answer you would get.

Straw argument.