Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

[Reality Check]

Try to google on : “gravity is not a force” and not read what you self wrote :
"It does not remove gravity as a force. It explains it as a force resulting from the curvature of space".

Strictly speaking gravity is not a force. I simplified the situation since you have so little knowledge of physics.

More strictly:
General relativity

General relativity is a metric theory of gravitation. At its core are Einstein's equations, which describe the relation between the geometry of a four-dimensional, semi-Riemannian manifold representing spacetime on the one hand, and the energy-momentum contained in that spacetime on the other. Phenomena that in classical mechanics are ascribed to the action of the force of gravity (such as free-fall, orbital motion, and spacecraft trajectories), correspond to inertial motion within a curved geometry of spacetime in general relativity; there is no gravitational force deflecting objects from their natural, straight paths. Instead, gravity corresponds to changes in the properties of space and time, which in turn changes the straightest-possible paths that objects will naturally follow. The curvature is, in turn, caused by the energy-momentum of matter. Paraphrasing the relativist John Archibald Wheeler, spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.

While general relativity replaces the scalar gravitational potential of classical physics by a symmetric rank-two tensor, the latter reduces to the former in certain limiting cases. For weak gravitational fields and slow speed relative to the speed of light, the theory's predictions converge on those of Newton's law of universal gravitation.
As it is constructed using tensors, general relativity exhibits general covariance: its laws—and further laws formulated within the general relativistic framework—take on the same form in all coordinate systems. Furthermore, the theory does not contain any invariant geometric background structures. It thus satisfies a more stringent general principle of relativity, namely that the laws of physics are the same for all observers. Locally, as expressed in the equivalence principle, spacetime is Minkowskian, and the laws of physics exhibit local Lorentz invariance.

 

[dafydd]

I have done that already, and in many different ways.
1.) Matter "consumes space"
2.) Because of that space around matter is "thinning out”. (This is not stange because we know space is flexible. That space is “thinning out” due to gravity, is a better expression as: “bended or curvature”. Because this expression also comprehend the cause of what really happens).
3.) Because of matter between two object demands the same space between, space between two objects is thinning out. If the demand is huge, space gets that more “thin”.
4.) If you walk up a hill the Earth and you body demand the same space between you and you body. SPACE is parts of the game. Space makes the connection, like elastic invisible spaghetti between two hungry persons.

It’s so simple, that we do not need more as we already know: A flexible space is enough, and we know this is a property space have.

Why invent more deforming space properties ? - if more is not necessary.
Why make it more difficult as it is?

That is sheer gibberish.

 

[Bjarne]

Strictly speaking gravity is not a force. I simplified the situation since you have so little knowledge of physics.

Ohh yahh, just blame me for your own mistakes.
But you shouldn’t change you mind: gravity is a force. Newton was right. – BUT its also almost correct to claim : Space bends / curves. Einstein was also (almost right) .

The curvature of space happens because of gravity is a force (the strong interaction) force it to bend. ( or more correctly expressed: to thin out / contract)
An object that tries to escape gravity e.g; a planets in orbit, "challenge" gravity, and hence the strong force that keeps space contracted.
( The expanding universe is a gravity/strong force explosion)

Still we need to know what is mass-attraction?
Try to explain exactly what happens with space between two bodies and how this causes a truck to be dam heavy.
Well I do not mean it, - because I know you have only will fire blank cartridges, expression like: because there is more mass and because space curves.

It’s a dead.
Fundamentally we do not understand gravity properties, much better than the blind man understand his surroundings, based on what he have measured (with steeps).

We should be open for new thought that possible could bring us just one small steep further, - exactly like the blind man should be open for all possible way to extend his horizon.

That is sheer gibberish.

No it’s a predicted new ”framework” that either (easy) can be proven or disproven.

One way is to analyse central gravity measurement (inside buildings), - it’s cheap and easy.
(Here is too much wind at this season). - True scientists should demand the authorities to execute such, also if it’s only is 0, 0001 % that I could be right. – Simply because it’s never objective proven how central gravity acts..

But instead the world is like (sorry to say it) mass hypnotised robots that only can think and act exactly like the book tell us to, - and without the ability to at least ask: could the book content old mossy serious mistakes, - also even though millions unshakable believers believes that the book is infallible?

 

[dafydd]

But instead the world is like (sorry to say it) mass hypnotised robots that only can think and act exactly like the book tell us to, - and without the ability to at least ask: could the book content old mossy serious mistakes, - also even though millions unshakable believers believes that the book is infallible?

What on earth are you rabbiting on about?.Get your meds checked.

 

[Bjarne]

What on earth are you rabbiting on about?.Get your meds checked

That' million of student, only thinks about learning the book by heard, without any doubt that part of it could be crap. All what count is to get good marks. Get your realety checked

 

[Reality Check]

The curvature of space happens because of gravity is a force (the strong interaction) force it to bend. ( or more correctly expressed: to thin out / contract)

You should really stop screaming your ignorance to the world !

• Gravity is not the strong interaction.
• Gravity is the weakest of the forces.
• First asked 11 November 2009:
  
  Bjarne:
  Have you grasped the simple fact that curved space is not contracted space yet?
  
  In flat space the sum of the angles inside a triangle is 180 degrees.
  This is no longer true in curved space.
  Uniform contraction of space does not produce any curvature of space since it is uniform and preserves shapes. Thus a triangle in flat space which has a sum of 180 degrees still has the same sum after uniform contraction.
  
  Uniform contraction of space does not produce forces when compared to flat space (no GR gravity). This is because straight paths in it remain as straight paths. Newton's laws then show that there is no force.
  
  Nonuniform contraction of space needs sinks and sources of space which has other problems as sol victus has mentioned.
  
  My objection to nonuniform contraction of space is more physical (and perhaps wrong). As I see it a point mass acting as a drain of spacetime will create an infinite curvature at its position. In other words it will be a black hole with all the consequences, e.g. instantly exploding because of Hawking radiation.
  
  So far the answer is:
  Bjarne cannot understant the simple fact that curved space is not contracted space.

 

[Reality Check]

That' million of student, only thinks about learning the book by heard, without any doubt that part of it could be crap. All what count is to get good marks. Get your realety checked

What has this got to do science?
Students learn from textbooks. So what?
The basic purpose of a higher education is not the facts that students learn from textbooks whatever undergraduates may think. It is learning how to learn.
As soon as you do post graduate work, the emphasis is different. You learn that you need to stretch the existing science to its limts and hopefully break it. You learn that you have to have the evidence that allows you to defend your theories against criticism.

Scientists get their reputations by destroying textbooks.

Get your reality checked.

 

[Bjarne]

You should really stop screaming your ignorance to the world !
• Gravity is not the strong interaction.
• Gravity is the weakest of the forces.

I am not “screaming”
MANY (and I guess most) scientist believes that the forces are united.
I see it like simple and obviously that:

• The particle spins space together
• The strong interaction keeps space together.

Try to allow you self to let these thought spins through you brain for at least 10 minutes.

Whys does the strong force mix up to this?
Well - when first gravity was born (right after the Big Bang,) particle was spinning and realising space in a chaotically and incohorent way. The result MUST have been to much energy lost.
To spin in a coordinated frequency and to relieve each would save energy.
Hence the strong force was born because of this would save energy.
The strong force ws born because frequencies for common puls and push was born.

You’ll properly never be able to understand this mathematical, because math can not comprehend infinity.
But you can accept is as a logical self explanation consequence that follows the same simple fundamentally claims: - That matter contracts space.

This can only lead to: that the elementary particles spin is to blame for: contracting space.
You are straight on the highway…. where gravity MUST unite with the new born strong (collective) interaction.

What has this got to do science?
Students learn from textbooks. So what?

I think it would be a good idea if all physics book would have the 2 lines text:
There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.
-- J. Robert Oppenheime

 

[Ziggurat]

You’ll properly never be able to understand this mathematical, because math can not comprehend infinity.

I'm always amused when people who know very little math make pronouncements about what math cannot do. It's your own private dogma.

 

[dafydd]

That' million of student, only thinks about learning the book by heard, without any doubt that part of it could be crap. All what count is to get good marks. Get your realety checked

Get your brain checked.

 

[Reality Check]

I am not “screaming”
MANY (and I guess most) scientist believes that the forces are united.



I see it like simple and obviously that:

• The particle spins space together
• The strong interaction keeps space together.

More screaming of your ignorance to the world.


"The particle spins space together" is gibberish.

• What particle?
• What spin?
• What has the particle to do with space being "together".

Try to allow you self to let these thought spins through you brain for at least 10 minutes.

Whys does the strong force mix up to this?
Well - when first gravity was born (right after the Big Bang,) particle was spinning and realising space in a chaotically and incohorent way. The result MUST have been to much energy lost.

• What is the strong force? Do you mean the strong interaction between quarks?
• At what time is "right after the Big Bang"?
• What particle?
• What spin?
• What is your evdence that "particle was spinning and realising space in a chaotically and incohorent way"?
• What energy was lost?
• How much energy is "to much energy lost"?
• If you mean "too much energy lost" - too much energy in regard to what?

To spin in a coordinated frequency and to relieve each would save energy.
Hence the strong force was born because of this would save energy.
The strong force ws born because frequencies for common puls and push was born.

Total nonsense. There is no physical law that states that energy is mimimized (saved). Classically energy is conserved, i.e. the total energy is always the same but you can change its separation into various kinds of energy.

You’ll properly never be able to understand this mathematical, because math can not comprehend infinity.

More ignorance - now you are screaming your ignorance from the hilltops !

Math (and mathematicians) comprehend infinity very well.
What you are really saying is that you do not understand (or more likely are ignorant of) the mathematics that is taught to university students throughout the would. This includes the results of the work of the 1000's of mathematicians over the last 200 years that have investigated the properties of infinity. These properties are often non-intuitive but backed up by mathematical proofs, e.g. Hilbert's Hotel and cardinal numbers.


Scientists use infinity every day in their work. I used infinity every day in my work on my MSc.

But you can accept is as a logical self explanation consequence that follows the same simple fundamentally claims: - That matter contracts space.

First asked 11 November 2009:

Bjarne:
Have you grasped the simple fact that curved space is not contracted space yet?

In flat space the sum of the angles inside a triangle is 180 degrees.
This is no longer true in curved space.
Uniform contraction of space does not produce any curvature of space since it is uniform and preserves shapes. Thus a triangle in flat space which has a sum of 180 degrees still has the same sum after uniform contraction.

Uniform contraction of space does not produce forces when compared to flat space (no GR gravity). This is because straight paths in it remain as straight paths. Newton's laws then show that there is no force.

Nonuniform contraction of space needs sinks and sources of space which has other problems as sol victus has mentioned.

My objection to nonuniform contraction of space is more physical (and perhaps wrong). As I see it a point mass acting as a drain of spacetime will create an infinite curvature at its position. In other words it will be a black hole with all the consequences, e.g. instantly exploding because of Hawking radiation.

So far the answer is:
Bjarne cannot understant the simple fact that curved space is not contracted space.

 

[Reality Check]

I think it would be a good idea if all physics book would have the 2 lines text:
There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.
-- J. Robert Oppenheime

Nice quote. It is exactly what scientists do. In science thaere is no such thing as a "established belief or doctrine". Everything is open to question and improvement.
Dogma

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from

It is a pity that you stick to your dogma that has no evidence for it and is so fatally flawed.

• Doctrine 1: "Bended space is Contracted Space"
  • Curved space is not contracted space
    First Asked 11 November 2009
• Doctrine 2: Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass.
  • Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
    First asked 23 October 2009
• Doctrine 3: Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
  • Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
    First asked 2 November 2009
  • Bjarne's idea is proven wrong (acceleration due to gravity is constant inside a sphere).
    First asked 2 November 2009

 

[dafydd]

"The particle spins space together" is gibberish.

• What particle?
• What spin?
• What has the particle to do with space being "together".
  .[/B]

• 
  
  Space is together man,that's so heavy,it's the hippie view of the universe.Right on!

 

[Bjarne]

More ignorance - now you are screaming your ignorance from the hilltops
Math (and mathematicians) comprehend infinity very well.

Tell me the total mass and distance of the Univers Mr. Omniscient Infinety

 

[Reality Check]

Tell me the total mass and distance of the Univers Mr. Omniscient Infinety

The visible universe has about 10^80 baryons and the co-moving distance to the edge of the visible universe is about 14 billion parasecs.

Of course this has nothing to do with infinity. Infinity is not a number. Infinity is the concept of being without bound.

 

[dafydd]

The visible universe has about 10^80 baryons and the co-moving distance to the edge of the visible universe is about 14 billion parasecs.

Of course this has nothing to do with infinity. Infinity is not a number. Infinity is the concept of being without bound.

A pound to a penny that Bjarne will disagree with this.

 

[Aitch]

A pound to a penny that Bjarne will disagree with this.

And probably that^ as well!

 

[Bjarne]

The visible universe has about 10^80 baryons and the co-moving distance to the edge of the visible universe is about 14 billion parasecs.

Of course this has nothing to do with infinity. Infinity is not a number. Infinity is the concept of being without bound.

A pound to a penny

Ok now unite the 10^80 baryons the 14 billion parasecs infinity, the pound and the penny, and show me the mathematical unification of the strong force and gravity.

 

[Reality Check]

A pound to a penny that Bjarne will disagree with this.

Bjarne's last post means you win dafydd !

He is terminally confused with number, infinity, pounds, pence, gravity and the strong force.

 

[dafydd]

Bjarne's last post means you win dafydd !

He is terminally confused.

Fixed it for you.