Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

[Ziggurat]

Take you comrade.
This is not a secret...
So fare I have understood could it also be the spacecraft that was out of course.

So now you're not talking about the orbits of the inner planets, but about spacecraft? Make up your mind.

A star compass (invented in Denmark DTU) should be able to encircle what causes the mystery. (Space probe Juno 2011) Something is wrong.

Something is indeed wrong: you're not making any sense. Juno won't be launched until 2011, so it has no relevance to the course of any current spacecraft. And it won't be studying Jupiter's orbit either, it will be studying the composition of Jupiter's atmosphere and its magnetic field. It won't be studying gravity at all.

 

[Reality Check]

Something is indeed wrong: you're not making any sense. Juno won't be launched until 2011, so it has no relevance to the course of any current spacecraft. And it won't be studying Jupiter's orbit either, it will be studying the composition of Jupiter's atmosphere and its magnetic field. It won't be studying gravity at all.

You are right that Bjarne is not making any sense by thinking that a space mission that has not even been launched yet has any relevance to the course of any planet or spacecraft.

However Juno will be also studying Jupiter's gravitational field according to Wikipedia and the Juno web site. This is hoped to reveal more about the internal structure of Jupiter in a similar way that gravity surveys of the Earth reveal things about the internal structure of Earth.

 

[Ziggurat]

However Juno will be also studying Jupiter's gravitational field

I stand corrected. The point of such measurements, I presume, is to probe Jupiter's mass distribution, which can only be done if we already know how gravity behaves. If there is uncertainty about gravity's behavior, it's not possible to extract information about Jupiter's mass distribution, since the measurements themselves depend on both.

 

[Dancing David]

Take you comrade.
This is not a secret...
So fare I have understood could it also be the spacecraft that was out of course.
A star compass (invented in Denmark DTU) should be able to encircle what causes the mystery. (Space probe Juno 2011) Something is wrong.

You keep saying "Something is wrong." but you really need to clarify what.

"Somebody told me they saw it on TV." is not much of an answer.

 

[Bjarne]

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

So now you're not talking about the orbits of the inner planets, but about spacecraft? Make up your mind.

I am just referring to what this friend told me.
A year ago it was also a interview which the inventer of the new space compass (at DR That now that now are removed). The space compass will always know excactly where it is, this is the point.

It was told that space probes must adjust their course a tiny when flying to other planets.
I think this information is related to that my friend told me. The space compass should be able to figure out if the divation is due to that the planes not are “where they should be” - and where we see them.

Well, this was all the “data” I got. I am just a amateur and have not access to everything...
I believe that space probes always will be affected by a force (space wind) that tries to force them around the sun. So you can not aim on a planet, and expect to hit it, unless to include the space wind. Latest in 2011 / 2012 you will know if this statement is a fact.

Something is indeed wrong: you're not making any sense. Juno won't be launched until 2011, so it has no relevance to the course of any current spacecraft. And it won't be studying Jupiter's orbit either, it will be studying the composition of Jupiter's atmosphere and its magnetic field. It won't be studying gravity at all.

I have not say: - gravity
August 2001 camrade
http://nasascience.nasa.gov/missions/juno

You keep saying "Something is wrong." but you really need to clarify what.
"Somebody told me they saw it on TV." is not much of an answer.

Put you self on the track, and you will see.
A revolution is coming before you think

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

 

[Jocce]

You keep saying "Something is wrong." but you really need to clarify what.
"Somebody told me they saw it on TV." is not much of an answer.

Put you self on the track, and you will see.
A revolution is coming before you think

I don't know if you really don't understand or if you just try to handwave here. You have to describe exactly what is wrong with the calculations provided. It's not enough to say "they're not correct".

 

[dafydd]

Put you self on the track, and you will see.
A revolution is coming before you think

I won't be holding my breath.

 

[steenkh]

I believe that space probes always will be affected by a force (space wind) that tries to force them around the sun. So you can not aim on a planet, and expect to hit it, unless to include the space wind.

I have news for you: we have already aimed at, and hit, distant planets without taking hypothetical space winds into consideration.

 

[Bjarne]

I don't know if you really don't understand or if you just try to handwave here. You have to describe exactly what is wrong with the calculations provided. It's not enough to say "they're not correct".

Be patient comrade. So fare it’s "only" a working sketch – working hypothesis if you like..

 

[dafydd]

Be patient comrade. So fare it’s "only" a working sketch – working hypothesis if you like..

A comedy sketch,no doubt.

 

[Bjarne]

sorry double

 

[Bjarne]

A comedy sketch,no doubt.

You mean dark matter, - and that resistance against motion only """should""" apply to acceleration and not to constant velocity.

Yes that’s in deed a joke, and properly the biggest in history.

 

[Jocce]

Be patient comrade. So fare it’s "only" a working sketch – working hypothesis if you like..

Oh I see. You got no proof then. Thought so.

 

[Reality Check]

CORRECTION

1.) / radius (not diameter)
6.67E-11 * 36500000 / 50^2 = 0.0000009743 m/s

2.)
If the building is 100 m height, the width and length should be the same.
Otherwise the total ADG effect will be weaker.
The problem could be that the gravimeter is not enough sensitive.
I am looking for a better building. - A Tower or slim building is not the best option.
The trick's is to encircle central space, - that’s why.

Just saw this post which reminded me of another question. This exercises will help you when you eventually get a site to test at.

Consider doing this test at a massive building with a flat roof and with a gravimeter that was sensitive enough to measure the building's acceleration due to gravity. Use the weight (365000 kg) and height (381 meters, ignoring the spire) of the Empire state building as an example.
According to your theory:

• What would the gravimeter read at a height of 378 meters (the top floor)?
• What would the gravimeter read at a height of 381 meters (the roof)?

 

[Bjarne]

Oh I see. You got no proof then

Coherence comrade, - coherence, common sense & simplicity this is the track to all the proof you want. - If you only need 4 dimension why then invent 7 more (dark matter + higgs crap) etc..

What would the gravimeter read at a height of 378 meters (the top floor)?
What would the gravimeter read at a height of 381 meters (the roof)?

I don't know the weight of the building
But It's should be possible to measure a deviation, and to see if this "line" is according to the prevailing opinio, or according to my, - or maybe something different.

(It’s scamped that it is not done long ago. )

 

[Reality Check]

I don't know the weight of the building
But It's should be possible to measure a deviation, and to see if this "line" is according to the prevailing opinio, or according to my, - or maybe something different.

First asked 22 October 2009:
Consider doing this test at a massive building with a flat roof and with a gravimeter that was sensitive enough to measure the building's acceleration due to gravity. Use the weight (365000 kg) and height (381 meters, ignoring the spire) of the Empire state building as an example.
According to your theory:

• What would the gravimeter read at a height of 378 meters (the top floor)?
• What would the gravimeter read at a height of 381 meters (the roof)?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Coherence comrade, - coherence, common sense & simplicity this is the track to all the proof you want. - If you only need 4 dimension why then invent 7 more (dark matter + higgs crap) etc..

And need to invent an imaginary resistance to motion, no need to invent an imaginary space wind, no need .... wait... .... Hmmm .... Bjarne, I don't think you know what 'coherence' means.

I don't know the weight of the building
But It's should be possible to measure a deviation,

If you don't know the weight (really mass) of the building how can you know if it is within the measuring capability of your instrument and method?

and to see if this "line" is according to the prevailing opinio, or according to my, - or maybe something different.

OK; so how will the line be according to the prevailing therory, and how will it be according to your opinion?

(It’s scamped that it is not done long ago. )

What makes you think it hasn't been done before? In the Danish forum, I directed you to a website that explained how to do such measurements, as a university assignment. When they ask students to do such a task, I think it is because it has been done before, how else should they evaluate the result?

Bjarne, you are again assuming that if you don't know something, then nobody knows. That is very wrong.

Hans

 

[dafydd]

Why are we comrades?

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't know the weight of the building
But It's should be possible to measure a deviation, and to see if this "line" is according to the prevailing opinio, or according to my, - or maybe something different.

What the "prevailing opinion" would predict depends upon the mass distribution of the building. In fact, since the earth is NOT actually spherically symmetric but contains various irregularities, it even depends on where you are and the geological composition of the ground beneath you. If you don't know this stuff (and you clearly don't), then you've got no way of figuring out what the "prevailing opinion" would actually say, and no way to compare it to any measurement.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Why are we comrades?

I think it is some kind of vague insult. In Danish, which is supposedly Bjarne's native language (at least his spelling is somewhat less atrocious in Danish), 'kammerat' (~comrade) is a somewhat condescending way of addressing people, like 'pal'.

Or else he is implying that we are minions of the imagined conspiracy of science suppressors, thus the communistic 'comrade'. I don't know, and I don't really expect sense.

Hans