Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

[Reality Check]

The opposite of contracting space

What is contracting space?

 

[dafydd]

What is contracting space?

Office space in Tokyo?

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think we may also find some between Bjarne's ears.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

A clear circular definition. This is equal to not having any definition at all.

No, we know space have these two properties.
This is enough
We do not need to invent other properties simply because its not necessary.

 

[dafydd]

No, we know space have these two properties.
This is enough
We do not need to invent other properties simply because its not necessary.

You invent stuff all the time.Very entertaining thread.

 

[steenkh]

No, we know space have these two properties.
This is enough
We do not need to invent other properties simply because its not necessary.

It is necessary if you want to know what it means to contract or expand. To know that contraction and expansion are opposites of one another is not the same as knowing what those terms mean. Try again: What is space? What is contracting space? What is expanding space?

 

[Dancing David]

No, we know space have these two properties.
This is enough
We do not need to invent other properties simply because its not necessary.

I am not sure Bjarne that the UNIVERSE expanding is the same as space expanding, butr ten the math is beyond me.

We know expansion is likely because of the Hubble constant, but what is your evidence of the contraction.

 

[MRC_Hans]

No, we know space have these two properties.
This is enough
We do not need to invent other properties simply because its not necessary.

Bjarne, you invent unnecessary stuff all the time.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

It is necessary if you want to know what it means to contract or expand. To know that contraction and expansion are opposites of one another is not the same as knowing what those terms mean. Try again: What is space? What is contracting space? What is expanding space?

I think all sensible people agree that we’ll never get a answer to that.
But the point is: this is what we know . Space have these properties.
If these properties alone can explain gravity, why then invent a new expression: Bended space. – Even though we don’t know if space processes such property.

What happened in Albert Einstein imagination, when he used the expression: "bended" doesn’t proves that this is what sapce does..

What we more know, is that Albert Einstein did not believe that space had these mentioned flexible properties. Also even though his own calculation showed that space had. Later Einstein said: this was his biggest mistake.

Ask you self the question: do you believe that space “bends” just because this was the best expression 100 years ago Einstein could stick on gravity / generel relativity?

Did Einstein at all consider the possibility that bended space could be at least be caused by contracted space ? - No he did not, - because he did not belived that space was flexible.

I think many of you guys anyway have considered how difficult, or rather: really impossible it is to just imaging: WHAT is: bended space? – I mean it doesn’t require any imagination to image that space expand or that it can contract, because this is what space shows us.

So the conclusion is very simple. Science have become something impossible even to imaging.

Don’t you guys think this really is a problem ?

If not keep dreaming, you are not the only one.

 

[MRC_Hans]

What happened in Albert Einstein imagination, when he used the expression: "bended" doesn’t proves that this is what sapce does..

Did Einstein at all consider the possibility that bended space could be at least be caused by contracted space ? - No he did not, - because he did not belived that space was flexible.

Well, actually, if you prefer to think in two dimensions rather than three, you might call bended space contacted space instead. Since it is a simplified analogy anyhow, by all means use what seems to work for you.

This provides no support for your ideas, however, because this bend/contract is a static thing. Your idea requires space to be actually in continuous motion towards a gravity field, which is something entirely different. Especially since you are unable to explain where all this space is coming from, and where it is going.

So the conclusion is very simple. Science have become something impossible even to imaging.

Don’t you guys think this really is a problem ?

Of course it is a problem that the world is so complicated that it tends to defy our imagination. But we don't solve that problem by inventing an imaginary world.

Hans

 

[steenkh]

I think all sensible people agree that we’ll never get a answer to that.

Actually, the rest of the world knows very well what expanding and contracting space means. It is only in your interpretation that it is impossible to define.

But the point is: this is what we know . Space have these properties.

And another point: we do not know that space has the property of being able to contract. We can only observe expansion, and while we may hypothesise that space can then also contract, it is by no means a fact.

If these properties alone can explain gravity

They can't.

Ask you self the question: do you believe that space “bends” just because this was the best expression 100 years ago Einstein could stick on gravity / generel relativity?

No. It is because it has been confirmed by numerous observations.

Did Einstein at all consider the possibility that bended space could be at least be caused by contracted space ? - No he did not, - because he did not belived that space was flexible.

Unadulterated nonsense which you only produce because you believe you are smarter than Einstein. Expansion/contraction and bending are two different things, and Einstein's concept has been confirmed by observations, whereas your concept just leads to contradictions. When these are pointed out to you, you just shout "crap" and close your mind.

 

[Bjarne]

Hans
Well, actually, if you prefer to think in two dimensions rather than three, you might call bended space contacted space instead. Since it is a simplified analogy anyhow,…..

It seems you haven’t got the point.

This provides no support for your ideas,

It does in the moment you realise that matter cause’s space to bend. Holistic thinking makes the difference.
To get it simple lets call space spaghetti, try you and Ms. sweety to eat the same pieces of spaghetti, what will happen? Difficult question no right ?
Yes I guess you know, - gravity like kissing matter. Matter loves space.

however, because this bend/contract is a static thing.

And that exactly was Einstein’s mistake.

Your idea requires space to be actually in continuous motion towards a gravity field, which is something entirely different.

Wrong
Matter consumes space, - space around matter is “thinning out” – this makes the spaghetti tricks.

Especially since you are unable to explain where all this space is coming from, and where it is going.

It’s flexible like the rubber sheet, when thinning out it's “going” into matter.

And another point: we do not know that space has the property of being able to contract. We can only observe expansion, and while we may hypothesise that space can then also contract, it is by no means a fact.

No it’s simple math, - You can mathematical prove that a cow can walk forward you also can prove that it can work backwards (so like Einstein did and didn’t believe). E.g; a Big Crunch is mathematical possibility.

No. It is because it has been confirmed by numerous observations.

But still you need to understand WHAT is bended space, and how can matter cause that to happen, e.g billion of km away ..

Unadulterated nonsense which you only produce because you believe you are smarter than Einstein.

Well Einstein have admitted the fact that de did not believe in a flexible space, and that was his biggest mistake.

Expansion/contraction and bending are two different things, and Einstein's concept has been confirmed by observations,

But still you need to understand WHAT is bended space, and how can matter cause that to happen.

 

[Reality Check]

What happened in Albert Einstein imagination, when he used the expression: "bended" doesn’t proves that this is what sapce does..

Albert Einstein never used the expression: "bended".
He used the equivalence principle and mathematics of space to show that gravity is a mathematical consequence of the curvature of space.

Calling space curved or contracted does not prove that space is curved or contracted.
Measuring that space acts as if it is curved is evidence that space is curved.

Tests of General Relativity:

• Perihelion precession of Mercury.
• Deflection of light by the Sun.
• Gravitational redshift of light.
• Gravitational lensing.
• Light travel time delay testing.
• Frame-dragging tests (ongoing)
• Gravitational waves.
• Cosmological tests.

What we more know, is that Albert Einstein did not believe that space had these mentioned flexible properties. Also even though his own calculation showed that space had. Later Einstein said: this was his biggest mistake.

Albert Einstein never stated the curvature of space was his biggest mistake
He is reported as stating that the cosmological constant was his greatest blunder:

Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder of his life.
-- George Gamow, My World Line, 1970 [1]

 

[Bjarne]

Calling space curved or contracted does not prove that space is curved or contracted.
Measuring that space acts as if it is curved is evidence that space is curved.

Yes but this does not mean that it so like we imaging it to be.
It could be more comparable with invincible elastic spaghetti.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes but this does not mean that it so like we imaging it to be.
It could be more comparable with invincible elastic spaghetti.

That is what I said without the imagining and with science.
The mathematics of GR state that curved space must produce gravity.
The mathematics of GR does not state that space is actually curved.
The physcical evidence is that space is curved because experiments to test GR agree with what GR predicts. Tests of General Relativity:

• Perihelion precession of Mercury.
• Deflection of light by the Sun.
• Gravitational redshift of light.
• Gravitational lensing.
• Light travel time delay testing.
• Frame-dragging tests (ongoing)
• Gravitational waves.
• Cosmological tests.

 

[steenkh]

It could be more comparable with invincible elastic spaghetti.

It could also be compared to a rubber duck. But why should it?

 

[Bjarne]

That is what I said without the imagining and with science.
The mathematics of GR state that curved space must produce gravity.
The mathematics of GR does not state that space is actually curved.
The physcical evidence is that space is curved because experiments to test GR agree with what GR predicts. Tests of General Relativity:
Perihelion precession of Mercury.
Deflection of light by the Sun.
Gravitational redshift of light.
Gravitational lensing.
Light travel time delay testing.
Frame-dragging tests (ongoing)
Gravitational waves.
Cosmological tests.

I can only agree with you.
But now we are back where this thread begun.
If the purpose of science was to mathematically describe a universe that could be "understood" by a computer, you is absolutely right.
BUT this is not the main purpose with science; the main purpose "should" be to make a universe understandable for the human mind.
And here we can finally conclude that science so far have totally failed what concerns GR. Simply because you (and nobody) can in no way imaging: what is bended / curved space or how a sapce property causes gravity?

Therefore science had leaded us to a dead end. BUT this is no dead end. You have so much fragmented knowledge today; it’s only a question to put the puzzles together.

You are satisfied with a stiffly, meaningless picture (beyond possible imagination) of the gravity and hence of big parts of the universe, - It’s your choose.
But I can guarantee you this is a temporary stage, it’s so easy to see the writing on the wall (and on the sky) and it’s so easy to prove how it really is. It will be done, - soon.
Your unnecessarily limited picture of that part of the universe is dying, so be fast to “enjoy” it.

 

[steenkh]

If the purpose of science was to mathematically describe a universe that could be "understood" by a computer, you is absolutely right.
BUT this is not the main purpose with science; the main purpose "should" be to make a universe understandable for the human mind.

Why should the purpose of science be to make the universe understandable for the human mind?

I naively thought that the purpose of science was to bring out the truth. Whether humans can understand it, is not really of concern.

Apparently, you have no knowledge of math. That means that you do not understand how integration calculates the area under a graph, but it is not the purpose of science to invent an alternate reality where integration is understandable for us math-challenged people.

 

[Bjarne]

I naively thought that the purpose of science was to bring out the truth. Whether humans can understand it, is not really of concern.

How can something you can even not imaging: bended / curved space be: "the truth". Yes it’s a mathematical "truth" - but this doesn’t mean it's: the whole truth, or the perfect truth, - it could very well even be a lie.

Did you know it is proven that you mathematical can “prove” something that does not exist?

Even the big Master Einstein did not believe that math always reflect the truth.

Did you know that the big problems with understanding quantum gravity are: that all equations show infinity? Hence almost all scientists believes that it must be “something” wrong with the math,- well in this case I believe math shows the truth, the rest of the world doesn’t.

Mathematically truth is often conflicting with “reality truths” - It’s far from always that math tells the truth and we just do not understand it. Science is full of such contradictions...

Confused?

You should be.

 

[Reality Check]

I can only agree with you.
But now we are back where this thread begun.
If the purpose of science was to mathematically describe a universe that could be "understood" by a computer, you is absolutely right.
BUT this is not the main purpose with science; the main purpose "should" be to make a universe understandable for the human mind.
And here we can finally conclude that science so far have totally failed what concerns GR. Simply because you (and nobody) can in no way imaging: what is bended / curved space or how a sapce property causes gravity?

Therefore science had leaded us to a dead end. BUT this is no dead end. You have so much fragmented knowledge today; it’s only a question to put the puzzles together.

You are satisfied with a stiffly, meaningless picture (beyond possible imagination) of the gravity and hence of big parts of the universe, - It’s your choose.
But I can guarantee you this is a temporary stage, it’s so easy to see the writing on the wall (and on the sky) and it’s so easy to prove how it really is. It will be done, - soon.
Your unnecessarily limited picture of that part of the universe is dying, so be fast to “enjoy” it.

The purpose of science is to mathematically describe a universe that could be understood by people not computers.
Mathematicians, physicists and other scientists are not computers. They understand the universe as described mathematically by GR.

You (Bjarne) can in no way imaging: what is bended / curved space or how a sapce property causes gravity.

The mathematics is complex but that is why people (not computers) study GR for years to understand it and its application to the universe.