Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

[W.D.Clinger]

If my brain and you brain was for sale at a action.
Which brain would get the highest bid?

Impossible to tell: the prices are a function of demand divided by supply, and zero divided by zero is undefined.

Will

 

[ferd burfle]

I reject "science" based on fanatic believes and want science (based on objectivity) back

Bjarne, this sounds an awful lot like you think there's a conspiracy among scientists to suppress your ideas. Please don't go there. I can manage a little respect for crackpot science, a few points for imagination if nothing else. But I have zero respect when conspiracy is the excuse for why an idea isn't accepted. That's the argument of a loser.

ferd

 

[MRC_Hans]

Bjarne, this sounds an awful lot like you think there's a conspiracy among scientists to suppress your ideas. Please don't go there. I can manage a little respect for crackpot science, a few points for imagination if nothing else. But I have zero respect when conspiracy is the excuse for why an idea isn't accepted. That's the argument of a loser.

ferd

Bjarne is not going there. He has been there solidly for a long time.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

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

Bjarne, this sounds an awful lot like you think there's a conspiracy among scientists to suppress your ideas

I have never say: conspiracy.
But well its not so bad a expression is it ?
Even when e.g Neil Adams claims: there exists conspiracy in science, - I do not understand such statements literally. It’s to my opinion rather only a simple expression reflecting the following points..
1.) Humans are gregarious animals.
2.) Its never popular to be an outside or even to take side for an outsider.
3.) Many people really don’t know exactly how to understand for example relativity. We have confidence to books and to authorities.
4.) Many thinks that because of the majority believe so and so, then this “must” be right.
5.) Manu learns the books by heart, and never doubts a single word.
6.) And finally Money, - How many billion do you think have been paid out to: dark matter and higgs research and other fantasy projects.

Ask you self the question. If you want to research how increasing CO2 effects cauliflower raising negative you would probably easy get some hundred thousand dollars from your government.
But if you want to research if the climate debate is overreaction and big parts possible is due to naturally causes, The majority would call you a coward, a crackpot, mental ill, and kick you ar…

5 years ago the Danish Prime-minster did not believe in that we was the cause of climate changing’s,. Suddenly he (and many others) changed there mind.
Why? – I mean no new objective scientific evidence had force him (or other) to do so? - So why did he (and others) change their minds?

Do you think that any prime minster today freely can speak if the still doubt that we (CO2) is the cause to climate changing, or that we are to blame for lets say "only" 20 %. ?

Maybe CO2 is causing 99 % of the temperature rise, or maybe only 1 % - We don’t know.

BUT cool facts doesn’t count anymore. Everything what counts is that the majority believe that we are to blame. And whoops suddenly there is no doubt: we are to blame.

And what about science? Does it count anymore ?

Well don’t get me wrong. It’s a good idea to save fossil fuel, - no doubt.
It’s also OK that only the possibility that we are too blame, should be enough to reduce CO2 a lot.
This is NOT the point, the point is how we, human reacts, we are today SURE we are to blame and many of us have completely forgot e.g: that for 1000 years ago the temperature was 1 degree higher in Greenland.

I am not changing track, but just showing that “conspiracy” is many times an automatically unconscious process.

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

 

[steenkh]

I am not changing track, but just showing that “conspiracy” is many times an automatically unconscious process.

More to the point: imagining that there is a conspiracy is probably often an automatically unconscious process within you!

 

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Bjarne
I reject "science" based on fanatic believes and want science (based on objectivity) back

Bjarne, this sounds an awful lot like you think there's a conspiracy among scientists to suppress your ideas. Please don't go there. I can manage a little respect for crackpot science, a few points for imagination if nothing else. But I have zero respect when conspiracy is the excuse for why an idea isn't accepted. That's the argument of a loser.

ferd

I have never say: conspiracy.

That is correct.
Your idea is so obviously wrong that individual people can easily see this:

• Bended space is not contracted space.
  Contraction of space does not produce any curvature of space. "Bended space", i.e. curved space ihas curvature !
  Uniform contraction of space does not produce forces when compared to flat space (no gravity).
  Nonuniform contraction of space needs sinks and sources of space which has other problems as sol victus has mentioned.
• Experiments have already shown that the force of gravity acts as expected within a solid body, e.g. gravimeters sent down a 2 kilometer hole drilled in the Greenland ice cap measured a gravity gradient. This disproves your idea where you assume that the experiment will produce a constant value.

 

[steenkh]

Bended space is not contracted space.

You think this because your are blinded by your religious view that mathematics and logic is part of reality

Experiments have already shown that the force of gravity acts as expected within a solid body, e.g. gravimeters sent down a 2 kilometer hole drilled in the Greenland ice cap measured a gravity gradient. This disproves your idea where you assume that the experiment will produce a constant value.

They have faked the results in order to preserve their world view

 

[ferd burfle]

I have never say: conspiracy.
But well its not so bad a expression is it ?

Thanks for your reply, Bjarne. I think I started a derail with this so I won't reply in detail. The examples and points you listed in your reply sure sound like a conspiracy, even if you don't use that word.

I'm traveling tomorrow but maybe when I get settled I'll start a new thread on the question of whether scientists conspire to suppress new ideas.

ferd

 

[Bjarne]

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

Bended space is not contracted space.
"Bended space", i.e. curved space ihas curvature

You never answered me
1.) WHAT is space
2.) WHAT is bended space.

Well you are free to believe what you want, - just you realize that in the end off the day its all only fantasy....... You don't know what space does and what space doesn’t......or what space is or is not....

Experiments have already shown that the force of gravity acts as expected within a solid body, e.g. gravimeters sent down a 2 kilometer hole drilled in the Greenland ice cap measured a gravity gradient. This disproves your idea where you assume that the experiment will produce a constant value.

It’s a good point. Let me explain what went wrong
At the Earth Poles you can measure stronger ADG compared to the equator.
It’s because the stronger density of the core.
This is off course correct. BUT - now you would expect that if you (at the North Pole) would enter a 2000 metre mine, you would measure stronger ADG because you get closer to the core, and you would expect to measure weaker gravity due to the 2000 meter of mass above (the point of measurement) would cancel out that ADG.
Both these assumptions are wrong, - you’ll get zero effects for both these values.

Why are these wrong?
You will not be able to measure increasing ADG when approaching the core, because this is not the way gravity work. Gravity pulls space together from an inner and outer direction.
Lets say you would measure ADG at the North Pole (If the Earth was a homogenous mass) - exactly halfway to the centre of the Earth (6356 km/2=3178km) gravity would pull space from an outer direction, and from that distance (3178km inside the Earth) and towards the centre gravity pulls in space an inner direction.
We can call the point where gravity pulls from an inner and outer direction for: “the Gravity Pull Balance Point” (GPBP)
This means if the density of the Earth was homogenous you would have an equal ADG everywhere. (except the centre) - (Because of the cause of ADG is how must space contracts per distance) ,

If the mass density of the inner half is let’s say averagely 10 % larger, it would not be possible to measure that from the surface of the Earth.
All what would happen is that the GPBP would just relocating 10% closer to the centre of the Earth because of the balance principle (do remember the the image of the weight and anchor)
Seen from this overall perspective the Earth gravitional field is one united field that doesn’t oppose it self in this case. It’s rather a unity sharing the ”pulling job” that has to be done.
This mean: that even though it at the surface of the Earth (where the average density of the Earth is weaker than in the center) you will still have the same ADG the whole way to the GPBP. (If the upper mass until GPBP is homogeneously distributed)

Off course you will (in the real world) have local anomalies that affect the measurements. But this is in no way a contradiction to the mentioned statement. Still seen from an overall perspective the Earth is one united field off gravity.

Close to let’s say a heavy goldmine you’ll have an area that pulls more space end hence an gravity anomaly. You can only measure how much the deviation is compared to the surrounding mass. In this case you will also have an independent gravity centre (in the goldmine). Even though you can say that such anomaly locally can “cancel out” ADG, - in fact no gravity disappear, it’s only a local transformation process that doesn’t change the overall picture. From an overall perspective you have no “lost”.

We believe that the mass (in your mine at the North Pole) 2000 meter above the Measurement-Point (MP) counteracts (cancel out component wise) and result in weaker measurement. Also this is completely wrong (so long we don’t talk about density variation above the MP)

Imaging a 30 storey building floating in space, - free from gravity of the Suns Earth, etc…
When we assume the mass is homogeneously distributed we will be able to measure the same value of ADG everywhere in that building (in the height direction) “except in the centre

Now let’s imaging that first floor is 10 times so heavy than the other floors.
Now the buildings GPBP would relocate from floor 15 to floor 10.
This mean the buildings GPBP would now be at floor 10.
Hence you would still have stable ADG from the top of the building until floor 10.

But between floor 0 and floor 10 you would have 2 field of gravity (the first floor anomaly and the buildings) that would oppose each other.
Hence you would measure relative larger deviation on the ten lower floors.

But at floor zero you will have the same ADG as at floor 30, because this two field of gravity in the end of the day (from a overall perspective) is a unity. In this case a gravitational field strongly oppose "it self", but only because it has two strong fields of gravity. You can not have two fields of gravity or any opposition so long we talk about a homogeneous mass.

It’s the same way with the Earth. - You can measure that there is stronger density by the North Pole compared to the equator, but you can on that basis only determinate the average density of the total mass of the Earth (from the surface to the centre), - nothing more than that.
This is because the stronger central density has no way to oppose the common field. First when you are on the inner side of the GPBP (more than 3178 km down) you can measure the heavy core anomaly from the inner pull direction. But the outwards pull direction follows its own logic and is not disturbed by the core anomaly.
All what the inner and out pull directions shares with each other is the common GPBP.

The ADG will be stable from the surface of the Earth and many thousand kilometres towards the centre (if we assume that the upper area density is homogeneous).

According to the prevailing theory we believe that the core of the Earth gradually should mean increasing ADG (the closer we get) and hence measurable for instance deep inside a mine... But this is based on that we do not understand that gravity doesn’t only “build up”towards an outwards direction, but also towards an inwards direction. – Space can be contracted from both these direction, - and it does.

As well we believe that mass above the measurement point "should" have the opposite (negative) effect and “cancel out component wise”.

Both these assumptions are wrong and only reflect that we do not understand the true nature of gravity.
---------------

 

[Reality Check]

You never answered me
1.) WHAT is space
2.) WHAT is bended space.
...snipped usual gibberish...

1) Space is that stuff that prevents everything from being at the same position.
2) Bended space is curved space, i.e. space with curvature. It can be flat space (no curvature).
In GR space time is a pseudo-Riemannian manifold or look at Mathematics of General Relativity for a more complete description.

 

[Bjarne]

Space is that stuff that prevents everything from being at the same position.

You mean in the same way that the brain is that stuff that keeps the distance between the ears.?

Bended space is curved space, i.e. space with curvature. It can be flat space (no curvature).

WHAT is curved space ?
WHAT is space with curvature ?

Does space "curve" right out side my windows ?

Does space "curve" in 100 meters altitude?

in 1000 - 2000 - 3000 meters altitude ?

Does space curves EVERYWHERE in ALL altitudes ?

Now tell me WHAT is curved space ?

I remember I long time ago had read beautiful pieces of text from Albert Einstein showing he was philosophizing about: what is the nature of space. But he didn’t know. The end was something like this “space must be something”
Maybe someone of you guys know that text, if so let me please know.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

WHAT is curved space ?
WHAT is space with curvature ?

Suppose you knew how to lay out a triangle in space, composed of three straight line segments, connected pairwise at the vertices. Suppose also that you could measure the angles between the line segments at each vertex.

If your measurements show that the angles add up to 180 degrees, then the space in which you laid out the triangle might be flat. If your measurements add up to something other than 180 degrees, outside the range of measurement error, then the space in which you laid out the triangle is curved.

The above omits a few details, such as how we might go about defining a straight line. That would get us into the realm of physics, so we'll save that for another day.

Will

 

[Reality Check]

You mean in the same way that the brain is that stuff that keeps the distance between the ears.?

Sort of.

Does space "curve" right out side my windows ?

Yes - a gravitational field curves space.

Does space "curve" in 100 meters altitude?

Yes - a gravitational field curves space.

in 1000 - 2000 - 3000 meters altitude ?

Yes - a gravitational field curves space.

Does space curves EVERYWHERE in ALL altitudes ?

Yes - a gravitational field curves space.

Now tell me WHAT is curved space ?

It is a space that is curved, e.g. has a non-zero Ricci curvature tensor.
But WHAT space is (as in a physical thing) is not known.

 

[MRC_Hans]

---------------
It’s a good point. Let me explain what went wrong

Hey! In the long rant thet followed, you completely forgot to explain what went wrong. The arctic drill gravity measurements STILL contradict your claim.

At the Earth Poles you can measure stronger ADG compared to the equator.
It’s because the stronger density of the core.

No. It is because the Earth is not a perfect sphere.

measure weaker gravity due to the 2000 meter of mass above (the point of measurement) would cancel out that ADG.
Both these assumptions are wrong, - you’ll get zero effects for both these values.

They are not assumptions, they are facts. As testified by the mentioned experiment. Deal with it.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

You mean in the same way that the brain is that stuff that keeps the distance between the ears.?

In your case, yes, exactly the same.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Hey! In the long rant thet followed, you completely forgot to explain what went wrong. The arctic drill gravity measurements STILL contradict your claim.

We belive

1.) That gravity above the measurement cancel out
2.) That we must measure stronger ADG when approachingthe core

Both these assumptions are wrong.

No. It is because the Earth is not a perfect sphere.

Just other words for the same thing.

They are not assumptions, they are facts. As testified by the mentioned experiment. Deal with it.

It doesn’t matter which values you measure inside mines, you can always blame :

• The core
• The (claimed) counteracting mass above
• Local anomalies (e.g: the rock density especially below the mine)

For causing these result.

It is obviously that you operate with two very hypothetically factors, that only are build on how we believe these gravity properties works.

You will never be able to prove how central gravity properties works except when systematically measuring e.g; measure central ADG e.g: inside a building
Prepare you self that the prevailing superstition overloads will overturns before the vernal equinox.

Space does only have one single simple property, it’s: flexible and that's it.
It’s no need for unnecessarily superstition overloads.

 

[Ziggurat]

We belive

1.) That gravity above the measurement cancel out
2.) That we must measure stronger ADG when approachingthe core

Both these assumptions are wrong.

No, Bjarne. The two "assumptions" needed to calculate gravitational fields are

1) gravity is linearly dependent upon the source
2) gravity obeys 1/r² distance scaling

Given these two "assumptions", conclusions like the shell theorem are absolute logical requirements. You can't avoid those conclusions unless you violate one or both "assumptions". But both of these "assumptions" have been well tested, so they aren't really assumptions at all.

Actually, there is one more assumption required:
3) the universe is logically consistent

So which one of these assumptions should we abandon, and where is your evidence that any of them are wrong?

 

[MRC_Hans]

We belive

1.) That gravity above the measurement cancel out
2.) That we must measure stronger ADG when approachingthe core

Both these assumptions are wrong.


Just other words for the same thing.





It doesn’t matter which values you measure inside mines, you can always blame :

• The core
• The (claimed) counteracting mass above
• Local anomalies (e.g: the rock density especially below the mine)

For causing these result.

It is obviously that you operate with two very hypothetically factors, that only are build on how we believe these gravity properties works.

You will never be able to prove how central gravity properties works except when systematically measuring e.g; measure central ADG e.g: inside a building
Prepare you self that the prevailing superstition overloads will overturns before the vernal equinox.

Space does only have one single simple property, it’s: flexible and that's it.
It’s no need for unnecessarily superstition overloads.

Bjarne, essentally you are just now simply putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "I'm right! I'm right!"

You have no arguments, just claims. You are rejecting science you don't even understand. You are rejecting evidence just because it does not fit your ideas.

Oh, and your projected experiment where you want to measure gravity in the Domus Vista (or Herlev Hospital, but I'm betting on Domus Vista, because I don't think they'll let you play around in a hospital) will not work. You will not get a result that can be used for anything.

Do you want to know why?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

No, Bjarne. The two "assumptions" needed to calculate gravitational fields are

1) gravity is linearly dependent upon the source
2) gravity obeys 1/r2 distance scaling

So you deny:

That the prevailing theory claims that the further you approach the core the more (stronger) it will affects you measurement
AND
That the prevailing theory claims that mass above the point of measurement counteract ?

You have no arguments, just claims. You are rejecting science you don't even understand. You are rejecting evidence just because it does not fit your ideas.

There are no evidence comrade only believes and misunderstood properties.

You will not get a result that can be used for anything.

Why do you think so ?

 

[Reality Check]

Test of Newton's inverse-square law in the Greenland ice cap

That the prevailing theory claims that the further you approach the core the more (stronger) it will affects you measurement
AND
That the prevailing theory claims that mass above the point of measurement counteract

No he does not.

• Newton's theory predicts as you approach the core the more it will affect your measurement. I have not seen the math done but my guess is that this effect will vary as 1/R^2 where R is the distance from the core (see below).
• Newton's theory uses that fact that the force from the mass above the point of measurement is opposite to the force from the mass below the point of measurement. This leads to the force measured (and so the acceleration on a test body)to vary as r.

If we have a homogeneous, solid sphere then the force on a test body varies as r where r is the distance from the center of the sphere.
Change the center of the homogeneous, solid sphere to have a core of radius R_c and a density different from the rest of the sphere. The core is the equivalent of a sphere of radius R_c with a mass equal to the volume of the core * the density difference. The force on a test body then varies as 1/R^2 above the core's surface where R is the distance from the core.

Since the ice cap experiment did not get close to the core. the core probably had no effect.
But Bjarne should be able to tell us the solution for a homogeneous, solid sphere with a core. After all he must have done the calculation in order to think that it would affect the experiment.

First asked 2 November 2009:
Test of Newton's inverse-square law in the Greenland ice cap
Bjarne's assertion is that the Greenland ice core experiment did not measure a gravity gradient because of the variation of gravity below the Earth as predicted by Newton. He seems to think that this is some sort of effect from the core's gravity.

Bjarne, can you show us the calculation that you did for a homogeneous, solid sphere with a core that demonstrates that the Greenland ice core experiment's result is wrong?