Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

[Ziggurat]

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 ?

Nothing of the sort. But the shell theorem is a necessary consequence of the three "assumptions" I gave above. So I repeat the question which you have refuse to answer: which of those assumptions do you believe must be abandoned? You apparently don't believe in the shell theorem, so you can't keep all three foundations upon which it rests.

It's looking more and more like you have abandoned the third one.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Why do you think so ?

(That Bjarne's measurement in a tall building will not yield a useful result).

What is the estimated gravitational pull of the building (at either end)?

What is the resolution of your instrument?

You have posted both values on the Danish forum, some time back. ...And don't say that you don't bother to look it up, because you MUST know these values to even try to assess the result.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

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).

Well but even though Newton was wrong at that point it doesn’t mean that the distance square law will break together. The core will only show an anomaly in the inner haft of the Earth (explained above).

Newton's theory use 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.

And that wrong so long the mass above the MP is homogeneously.
Only a none homogeneously have its own gravitational centre, and hence only such can created independent gravity and hence oppose.

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?

Because 2 of the factors you used is based on “science fiction”. I have already explained why above.

What is the estimated gravitational pull of the building (at either end)?
What is the resolution of your instrument?

If we assume that a 30 storey building is 1/10 of the Empire state Building its 36500000Kg
Bulding height 100 meter
6.67E-11 * 36500000 / 50^2 = 0.000000974 m/s
DTU have a gravimeter that can meassre 1 nano g = 0.00000005 m/s

 

[Ziggurat]

Quick question, Bjarne: how much math do you know? Have you taken calculus? Do you know how to do integrals? Do you understand vectors?

 

[Reality Check]

Well but even though Newton was wrong at that point it doesn’t mean that the distance square law will break together. The core will only show an anomaly in the inner haft of the Earth (explained above).

Netwon was not wrong. The linear variation with distance inside an homogeneous solid sphere is a direct consequence of the inverse square law. Add a core with a different density and you get is a addition variation by 1/r^2. Add those together and you do not get a constant value for g. You get one that varies as r and 1/r^2. Your theory fails yet again !

What is the "inner haft of the Earth"? If you mean the inner half then you mean that the Test of Newton's inverse-square law in the Greenland ice cap experiment was right. The Earth as a radius of 6,378 kilometers. Half that is much greater than the 2 kilometers that were drilled.

And that wrong so long the mass above the MP is homogeneously.
Only a none homogeneously have its own gravitational centre, and hence only such can created independent gravity and hence oppose.

A non-homogeneous distribution above (and below) the MP will both add to and subtract from the measured gravity depending on the different densities of the masses.

Because 2 of the factors you used is based on “science fiction”. I have already explained why above.

What 2 factors?

The 2 factors in a core + covering sphere are:

• The core. The Earth actuall has a couple of cores defined - maybe you mean the outer core with a raduis of 2890 kilometrers.
• The covering with a thickness for the Earth of 1200 kilometers.

IMO: The variation of g with raduis above the core is gr/r_E + GM_c/r^2

where

• r is the distance above the core (e.g 3487 kilometers).
• r_E is the radius of the Earth.
• g is the acceleration of gravity at the surface of teh Earth.
• M_c is the effective mass of the core due to its different density.

Anyone who knows basic mathematics can see that this equation is not a constant. It varies with r.


If I am wrong then show me where I went wrong.
You must have done the calculation in order to think that it would affect the experiment. Otherwise he is just doing his an unsupported asserion trick that is associated with deluded crackpots.

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?

 

[Bjarne]

What 2 factors?

Read post 289 and try to undertand it.
This answer all you doubts..

Quick question, Bjarne: how much math do you know? Have you taken calculus? Do you know how to do integrals? Do you understand vectors?

It’s irrelevant
This theory does not need more new maths.
Well only for calculating the total distribution of KE in a solar system and galaxy.
But this will rather mean new very heavy software.

This theory is rather a question: - if you are minded for coherent holistic thinking.
As I have written many times, math can do not more.

Math can not show you e.g:

• WHAT is space?
• WHAT is bended space?
• WHAT is mass attraction?
• WHAT causes gravity?
• WHAT is the underlying cause of for that the space volume is proportional 1:1 with the strength of gravity? What is math worth if you do not understand the message?
• HOW is ADG and Mass attraction connected?
• WHAT is dark matter really?
• What is and how are dark matter, gravity and dark energy connected?
• How do gravity and the strong force form a unity?

There are none mathematical answers to these question, but ONLY to gather the puzzle we already have, and to see the writing on the wall everywhere.

If you only think in a cold mathematically way, you will never understand gravity.
Math has reached its limit. Now we only have our mind back to interpret the old fragmented math messages.

It’s all there. It’s like a puzzle of hundred pieces.
All what you need now is imagination, always trying see the complete picture.

So fare it’s “only” a working hypothesis, if you really want to understand the underlying cause of gravity you have a chose: either to use the “drawings” or to work with blindfolds.

Follow the main thread piece by piece, and you will see the complete puzzle form a synthesis.
But first take off you crackpot glasses, the world is always like the eyes see it.

Follows the main thread this will lead you to evidence.

 

[Toke]

How do you send up satellites with maths-less gravity?

 

[Ziggurat]

It’s irrelevant

It's very relevant to this discussion, because it determines how much you can understand of what I could tell you. So do you or do you not know any calculus? Do you or do you not understand vectors?

This theory does not need more new maths.

I'm not talking about new math. I'm talking about math that has been around for a few hundred years.

 

[Bjarne]

How do you send up satellites with maths-less gravity?

Completely irrelevant

I'm not talking about new math. I'm talking about math that has been around for a few hundred years.

And I am talking about it can not bring you any closed to understand the underlaying cause of gravity etc....

 

[Reality Check]

Math can not show you e.g:

• WHAT is space?
• WHAT is bended space?
• WHAT is mass attraction?
• WHAT causes gravity?
• WHAT is the underlying cause of for that the space volume is proportional 1:1 with the strength of gravity? What is math worth if you do not understand the message?
• HOW is ADG and Mass attraction connected?
• WHAT is dark matter really?
• What is and how are dark matter, gravity and dark energy connected?
• How do gravity and the strong force form a unity?

That is right. Mathematics does not "show you" anything directly.
Scientific theories use mathematics to model their description of space, the curvature of space, gravity, dark matter, dark energy, etc. The mathematical models allow testable, falsifiable predictions to be made. These predictions can then be tested by observations and experiments. If a prediction passes a test then this is evidence that the scientific theory is correct. If a prediction fails a test then the scientific theory is wrong.

Your idea has some mathematics, e.g. your totally wrong (y-1) (no units) equation that you are deluded into thinking is an acceleration.

Your idea has the experimentally falsified prediction that g inside the Earth is a constant.

Your idea is wrong.

 

[Toke]

How do you send up satellites with maths-less gravity?

Completely irrelevant

I think some tv viewers would be severely disappointed with your new gravity.

 

[sol invictus]

Math can not show you...

Your ideas about gravity are wrong wherever they aren't gibberish. But your wrongness goes far beyond gravity. You fail to understand the role of science and what it is capable of.

You are correct that we do not know what space is. We also do not know what an electron is. We know how it behaves, we can predict with extreme accuracy what it will do in response to an enormous variety of circumstances, and our predictions are born out time and time again in experiments. In a specific, precise sense, classical general relativity is the best understood and most accurate scientific theory we have now or have ever had, and it is a theory describing the dynamics of space and time. Yet, we still do not know what space "really" is.

The reason we don't know is not because we have the wrong ideas, or haven't listened carefully to enough internet crackpots. It's because we will never and can never know. Science doesn't provide definitive answers. It provides successful models, models which are tremendously useful because they allow us to manipulate our environment in ways that would be utterly inconceivable without the centuries of careful scientific thinking that lie behind them. But we can never know for certain that these models are "true", and indeed, they never have been true in the history of science. They have been good approximations, they have been useful, but so far they have all eventually been replaced with something more powerful and more accurate.

In my opinion your questions are simply not scientific questions, precisely because they can never be answered by science. And as such, while I sometimes enjoy speculating about such things in the company of intelligent and knowledgeable people, I don't ultimately find them very interesting. A question that can never be answered - no matter what experiments are done, no matter what data is collected - is perhaps not a worthwhile question to spend time on. Far better to focus on what we can know, what we can discover, and let that be our guide.

 

[steenkh]

How do you send up satellites with maths-less gravity?

By using holistic thinking

 

[Bjarne]

I think some tv viewers would be severely disappointed with your new gravity.

What I mean is that the satellite orbits have nothing to do with whether an accelerator can measure deceleration or not. I was confused the time you was mention: satellites.
If you mean how satellites are affected by the space wind is all shown here >> www.science27.com/english/Sattelites.htm

You fail to understand the role of science and what it is capable of.

Ohh no I have followed every path until the dead end.
But as you know all roads lead to Roma, - in science all dead ends also leads “somewhere” . People like Einstein and many more was certain that everything dead end must points to a unified field. I am sure that to understand more even math is a dead end. Many times we can not see the wood because it’s too many threes, - even tough the wood is just right in front of us.

You are correct that we do not know what space is. We also do not know what an electron is. We know how it behaves, we can predict with extreme accuracy what it will do in response to an enormous variety of circumstances, and our predictions are born out time and time again in experiments. In a specific, precise sense, classical general relativity is the best understood and most accurate scientific theory we have now or have ever had, and it is a theory describing the dynamics of space and time. Yet, we still do not know what space "really" is.

And we don’t know what bended space really is.
We even can not imaging what bended space is.
In other words the whole foundation for GR is beyond our imagination ability.
That’s in fact a big problem, if we want to reach a deeper understanding of what gravity really is.

The reason we don't know is not because we have the wrong ideas, or haven't listened carefully to enough internet crackpots. It's because we will never and can never know. Science doesn't provide definitive answers. It provides successful models, models which are tremendously useful because they allow us to manipulate our environment in ways that would be utterly inconceivable without the centuries of careful scientific thinking that lie behind them. But we can never know for certain that these models are "true", and indeed, they never have been true in the history of science. They have been good approximations, they have been useful, but so far they have all eventually been replaced with something more powerful and more accurate.

I do not agree.
1.) Its a fact we don’t know what space is, and hence what bended space is? – How can you be sure that the nature of gravity (bended space) not is the exact opposite property than expanding space? – How can you be sure?
2.) And if the unknown bended space is= contracted space, could that lead our understanding further?
3.) We can at least measurement AGD centrally inside e.g; a building, right ? - and probaly much more ?

In my opinion your questions are simply not scientific questions, precisely because they can never be answered by science.

It’s your opinion but its not important. My opinion is opposite, it’s only important if the prediction that follows shows to be correct:

1.) That a particle accelerator can be used (rebuild) to measure deceleration (y-1)
2.) That after 2012 when the new triangulating divice is onboard on Juno we will discover the space wind of the Sun (and the earth) is forcing Juno a tine bit out off course. How much can beforehand be calculated based on what we here have discust.
3.) That if you send a probe/satellite clockwise e.g: around the Earth, - in relative low altitude you’ll clearly be able to discover this object will decelerate. How much can beforehand be calculated based on what we here have discust.
4.) That a homogenously mass never can oppose it self and cancel out ADG component wise.
5.) That ADG will be stabile inside a homogeneous body and only reach zero at the centre.

I am sure we soon can quit a huge load of mysteries, such as dark matter dark energy, unknown forces effecting space probes, the mystery why planets are or have been far from where they "should" be. Why almost all starts are too fast 7 too slow etc etc etc etc.....

Well we will never know what space is, but we certainly can reach a point where the universe is much simpler than today.

 

[MRC_Hans]

If we assume that a 30 storey building is 1/10 of the Empire state Building its 36500000Kg
Bulding height 100 meter
6.67E-11 * 36500000 / 50^2 = 0.000000974 m/s
DTU have a gravimeter that can meassre 1 nano g = 0.00000005 m/s

Right. So you have just under 20 divisions of resolution in the range you need. And you have refused to take tidal effect and the effect of the height of the building into account. ETA: The latter alone will contribute with around 0.0003m/s^2.

In other words, you are not likely to get a useful result. Of course, since according to your hypothesis, you should get a sudden jump in the middle of the building of close to 100ng, it will probably be possible to ascertain that this is not the case, unless you mess up too much.

Still I say you are wasting your time.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

1.) That a particle accelerator can be used (rebuild) to measure deceleration (y-1)

I have already told you that whole generations of particle accelerators would not function if there was such a decelration.

2.) That after 2012 when the new triangulating divice is onboard on Juno we will discover the space wind of the Sun (and the earth) is forcing Juno a tine bit out off course. How much can beforehand be calculated based on what we here have discust.

Go and calulate it, then. There will probalby be some irregularities, but you can only take them as evidence, if you have sucessfully predicted them.

3.) That if you send a probe/satellite clockwise e.g: around the Earth, - in relative low altitude you’ll clearly be able to discover this object will decelerate. How much can beforehand be calculated based on what we here have discust.

I don't think we have had any retrograde sattelites, but many of the spy photo sattelites are in polar orbits; that means that their orbit is perpendicular to the ecliptica. Since they will not benefit from a hypothetical spacewind, we should have noticed deceleration.

Also many of the moons of the outer planets ARE in retrograde orbits. According to your hypothesis, they should slow down. They don't.

4.) That a homogenously mass never can oppose it self and cancel out ADG component wise.

It has be shown that it does.

5.) That ADG will be stabile inside a homogeneous body and only reach zero at the centre.

This has been shown to be wrong.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Right. So you have just under 20 divisions of resolution in the range you need. And you have refused to take tidal effect and the effect of the height of the building into account. ETA: The latter alone will contribute with around 0.0003m/s^2.

We can fast measure from floor 30 to 15, the tidal effect change will be insignificant.
Steep 2 can start by flor 15 to ground. Again the tidal can not destroy the “picture”
Off course the building height is taken into consideration, - it’s only to sort out the deviation.

I have already told you that whole generations of particle accelerators would not function if there was such a deceleration.

And I have allready told I do not accept this religion.
Its not build to measure deceleration exactly as you car is not when you forget to release you handbrake, or the metro or a power station is not build to measure when the staff is are coking coffee etc. It’s only build for exact BANG and the brain knows what to do. If I am a dreamer I am not the only one, I will say you are a bigger want. I have suggested to contact you layer and we can bet what ever you want? Deal with that comrade. ( Or are you a cissy?)

Go and calculate it, then. There will probalby be some irregularities, but you can only take them as evidence, if you have sucessfully predicted them.Everyone can used the equation

ALLREDY NOW you (or other comrades) could visit NASA and say listen cowboys; here are the equations what you are looking for.
Allready now NASA could use the equations and test it on all the data they allready have.
I am sure they will listen, but first priority is to measure gravity centrally in a building.
After 2012 the data will probably be 100 % exact.

I don't think we have had any retrograde satellites, but many of the spy photo satellites are in polar orbits; that means that their orbit is perpendicular to the ecliptica. Since they will not benefit from a hypothetical spacewind, we should have noticed deceleration.

Remember many satellites have special missions, many of them you have “only” radio contact, you can send instruction and receive data, the most are not build to test GR or SR. You will not know if these are e.g; 10 meter off course.

Also many of the moons of the outer planets ARE in retrograde orbits. According to your hypothesis, they should slow down. They don't.

When a moon slows down it will actually move faster around the planet, so the moon will not “slow down” but rather orbit faster.

Only moons directly oppose the planets space wind will be maximum affected

Otherwise KE of the planet will turn over the orbit of a moon . Such a process is weak and to be retrograd takes probably billions of years.

Now imaging that some retograd moons orbit was measured 20 years ago and when measure today the orbit seems to have change. What will we believe ?
That the first measurement was wrong? – Because of bad equipment?
Or that the moons have change orbit / orbit velocity?
Well we would first at all believe that our understanding of kepler is perfect.
Secondly how often are we measuring the orbit of retrograde moons?
I have seen different orbit data on the internet, for the same moons, - but don’t know why.
This is obviously a very good (and cheap) place this theory can be tested.
But as mentioned these moons are slow, and the spacewind from planets much weaker compared to the SW of the Sun.

Bjarne
That a homogenously mass never can oppose it self and cancel out ADG component wise.
Hans
It has be shown that it does.

Are you talking about : shown based on believes or based on objective facts.

Bjarne
That ADG will be stabile inside a homogeneous body and only reach zero at the centre.
Hans
This has been shown to be wrong.

Are you talking about : shown based on believes or based on objective facts?
Only based on believes, so also here you demonstrate how you is a victim of how scientific believes become equal to objective facts. That is a bigger and bigger problem.

And so it goes: E.g NASA has now discovered invisible dark matter. Finally it is proven dark invisible matter exists.
What is the difference when I say that in Copenhagen an invisible robber fleece plenty of shops in the city, and yesterday you saw him (in the name of science).
How can you see something that is invincible? How do you want me to believe you.
What did you saw comrade? - A ghost?

So now tell me how have it been “shown” how central gravity works?.
Are you talking of objective facts / evidence?
I guess you are talking about creeds and only creeds right ?

 

[Reality Check]

And we don’t know what bended space really is.
We even can not imaging what bended space is.
In other words the whole foundation for GR is beyond our imagination ability.
That’s in fact a big problem, if we want to reach a deeper understanding of what gravity really is.

Not knowing what something is not a problem - it is an chance to learn!

We know how bended space acts. We have elegent mathematics that describes it and allows us to test the consequences, e.g. the universe acts as if bended space causes gravity. We do not need to know what it is.

In other words the whole foundation for GR is beyond your understanding.

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne's idea is proven wrong

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?

IMO: The variation of g with raduis above the core is gr/r_E + GM_c/r^2

where

• r is the distance above the core (e.g 3487 kilometers).
• r_E is the radius of the Earth.
• g is the acceleration of gravity at the surface of the Earth.
• M_c is the effective mass of the core due to its different density.

Anyone who knows basic mathematics can see that this equation is not a constant. It varies with r.
Your idea fails yet again !

 

[Bjarne]

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?

I have shown you the principles.
Read post 289 and 296