Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

Let's see,we've had the Hippie universe,the Napoleonic universe and now the Blakean.Make your mind up.Maybe you should try the Real universe for a change.
That is unlikely.
Remember that you are talking to a gibberish spouting crackpot with some strange delusions indicating a profound ignorance of science:
 
Before you wrote: not infinity.
Read the rest of the port:
In other words the universe is either finite (has a bound) or infinite (has no boundary).
The universe is not "infinity" because the universe is a real physical thing (i.e. everything that there is) and infinity is the concept of being without bounds.
Before I wrote
The universe is not infinity so you are spouting gibberish yet again.
and
Space is "that stuff between objects" sometimes expressed as a physical quantity, e.g. a distance or a volume.
Infinity is a concept.

This may be a Danish/English translation problem. In English infinity is the concept of having no bounds. Something that is infinite has a property describing it that has no bounds. They are different words.
Thus you can say that the size of the universe is either finite or infinite.
You cannot say that the universe is infinity. The definitions of the words are different:
The universe is not "infinity" because the universe is a real physical thing (i.e. everything that there is) and infinity is the concept of being without bounds.
 
This may be a Danish/English translation problem. In English infinity is the concept of having no bounds
I guess so.
Never believe the book.
 
I guess so.
Never believe the book.
Do you mean the Danish/English dictionary you use?
I trust that you can see the difference now.
The universe is not infinity (just like it is not a cow :D).
The universe may be finite in size or the universe may be infinite in size.
 
To my opinion the strong force (interaction) is a frequency that keeps space contracted.

Bjarne, to save yourself from acute embarrassments like the above, I suggest that in the future, you look up the hard words before you use them. .. And if you don't understand the definition, avoid using the word.

That is unless you want to keep showing yourself as a total clown.

Hans
 
This may be a Danish/English translation problem. In English infinity is the concept of having no bounds. Something that is infinite has a property describing it that has no bounds. They are different words.

No, it is not. I'm Danish, too: The Danish word for infinite (uendelig) has the same meaning as the English word.

Instead, it is a Bjarne/Real World translation problem.

Hans
 
Actually, I thought that Bjarne just meant "the universe is infinite" when he wrote "the universe is infinity", but with Bjarne it is difficult to know where incompetence stops and stupidity takes over.
 
Actually, I thought that Bjarne just meant "the universe is infinite" when he wrote "the universe is infinity", but with Bjarne it is difficult to know where incompetence stops and stupidity takes over.
I fear the incompetence does not stop. It just gets augmented by stupidity at some point.

Hans
 
1-space-cows-3-andrea-darlington.jpg
 
I want to go a little deeper into details

What is Contracted space?
Matter consumes space, and hence space is lacking.
The way space compensate for this is by stretching.
The stretching we see towards space (away from a body) is weaker than the stretching of space inside a mass/body.

When we measure ADG in space we can see that ADG decreases away from e.g.; the Earth proportional with the increase amount of space that is affected (1:1).
This only tells about the law of how the effect on space decreases, after gravity do no longer after space (directly).

But inside a mass/object, where this influence of space is born the effect is (off course) stronger..

When matter encircles a central area of space it will (opposite towards the outwards direction) affect the inner spaces increasingly.

img_23.jpg


The matter that is in area ‘A’ is contracting space both from a inner and outer direction..
This means that the matter that lies deeper in the e.g; the Earth (area ‘B’) lies ‘behind’ the outer matter (area ‘A’) and thereby in space that is already somewhat contracted / stretched (by area ‘A’).

Space is consumed by the elementary particles, and hence space inside (and around) a body is “stretching”.
It’s exactly the same property of space known from the expanding universe.

This means inside a body space is stronger affected than outside.
Towards the centre matter must stretch spaces gradually more, simply because this refelct how much space is delevered to a certain place.
ADG reflects how much space is stretched per meter.

Let’s say that space at the surface of the Earth is stretched with a factor 100 and 1 km inside the Earth factor 101.
There is a level difference between factor 100 and 101 = 1.
This level difference reflects how much space is stretched at the surface of the Earth.

Now lets say that 100 km inside the Earth space stretches with factor 200 and 101 km inside the Earth it the factor is 201, - again we see a level change = 1.
This shows a gradually stable requirement of space.

The level change “1” reflects the requirement of space per distance and also if the mass below is homogeneous or not.

If the Earth was more compact, the inner space of the Earth would be stronger affected and hence would the inner ADG also increase.

When we are measuring ADG we are in fact measuring how much space is stretching. Or how much matter contracts / consume space.

In the same way, our bodies consume space, and therefore space is stretches inside and around it.
So does the Earth. We can say space is lacking / bending / deforms / stretches.
ADG1.jpg

Inside the Earth ( inside the red ring) space is more contracted / stretched than outside.
This is why ADG MUST be stronger inside the Earth (or any body) and this then also MUST reflect how much space that is being "delivered"
ADG2.jpg

The blue line shows ADG is stronger inside the Earth.
At the same time the colour ("density" of space") is thinning out (stretching).
 
Last edited:
I find Bjarne somewhat competent in making nice illustrations of stupid concepts.
Does he make them? I suspect he just cuts and pastes them form various sources. Certainly some of the illustrations in his homepathge are lifted from elsewhere.

Hans
 
Matter consumes space, and hence space is lacking.
The way space compensate for this is by stretching.
How long does it take for matter to consume all space?

What does it mean that space is stretched? Does it mean that one cubic meter contains fewer units of space than unstretched space? ;)

How much can space be stretched? Is there a breaking point?
 
Last edited:
How long does it take for matter to consume all space?
The best and only answer is properly Big Crunch, and maybe 13.7 billion years.

What does it mean that space is stretched?
This refers to the expanding property we know space process.

Does it mean that one cubic meter contains fewer units of space than unstretched space?
I don't understand "units"

How much can space be stretched? Is there a breaking point
Well the best question this week.
Nobody knows, if we did, - we would know if and when the expanding of the Universe would stop.
I think a such limit exist, because I believe that BigBang only could have been caused by a previously Big Crunch.
I mean something must have pulled space together so that it could explode. In the same way if a stone is falling down something must have put it up.

In the same way, there is probably a limit for how much space can contract?

I think we will never know.

Maybe math can solve that question one day.
But we must know much more about space properties to know more.
 
First beam collisions at the LHC!
Why has no "kinetic resistance" been detected despite that fact that the beams are closely monitored?
Why has "kinetic resistance" not caused the beams to hit the walls of the ring in the first few meters and not travel the kilometers around the ring?

Answer: "kinetic resistance" does not exist.

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009

Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
First asked 2 November 2009
 
Why has no "kinetic resistance" been detected despite that fact that the beams are closely monitored?
Why has "kinetic resistance" not caused the beams to hit the walls of the ring in the first few meters and not travel the kilometers around the ring?
What is your source that : no resistance have been detected by constant velocity?
 
What is your source that : no resistance have been detected by constant velocity?
I never said that.

Add the fact that every particle accelerator that has ever existed actually worked to this.

First beam collisions at the LHC!
Why has no "kinetic resistance" been detected despite that fact that the beams are closely monitored?
Why has "kinetic resistance" not caused the beams to hit the walls of the ring in the first few meters and not travel the kilometers around the ring?

Answer: "kinetic resistance" does not exist.

Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009

Experimental proof that Bjarne "kinetic resistance" is wrong
First asked 2 November 2009
 
Why has no "kinetic resistance" been detected despite that fact that the beams are closely monitored?
To my opinion only a computer can handle that.
And if it is not programmed to rapport the energy consumption, it will not do it, and nothing will be discovered.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom