Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

[dafydd]

The only cause responsible for connection / interaction between particles, is “teamwork” between partciels - what else. - Spin up and spin down is now because the partciels have noting else to do

Nothing else to do,what on earth do you mean by that?

When particle A pulls space particle B push and if A push B pulls, in or coordinated way with billion of other particles.
This is the strong force.

No it isn't

Is it thinkable that every star or galaxy have its own strong force frequency?

Unthinkable

Try to calculate:
1.) the joule due to resistance agiant motion, and -
2.) due to e.g; heat resistance in the cables.

You calculate it,if you can
.

Do you think they have calculated every single little joule, to any thinkable temperature?
Tkink twice..

Why would they. Who are they?

Think e.g: how much we have cheated us self regarding fusion tha past 50 years.

Cheated? In what way?

The nature of space is not only gravity, but also anti-gravity and gravity at the same time.
Even though space is contracted it also resists being so.

Gibberish

Space have a both an expansive as well as a contraction ability.
I think most scientist agree to that.
If the expansive energy is out of breath, the whole process must be opposite.
In other words the so called”dark matter” between cluster galaxies and between cluster of galaxies etc… must increase´…

Ah,it wasn't absorbent space,it's expansive space,I guessed wrong.Will it be expensive space next?

No, I am saying we can’t even imaging, and an attempt becomes immediately ridiculous.

You would know,ridiculousness is your forte.Stop now,you're only making a fool of yourself.

 

[Bjarne]

I did not ask if it happens already, I asked what it means to stretch or thin out space. Your reluctance to answer this simple question makes me think that it is because you have no idea what this central concept in your ideas means.

You blame science for not knowing exactly what gravity means, and yet you do not know exactly what contraction of space means, although it fills the same role as gravity in your system.

You can choose now:
1.) To be 90 % blind or
2.) to be 50 % blind.

Nothing else to do,what on earth do you mean by that?
Read here

You calculate it, if you can

We have done already somewhere here>> http://debat.ateist.net/forumdisplay.php?f=12

Who are they?

They are scientist at e.g; CERN

Why would they.

If they beforehand must decide how much energy they should let in, they should calculate every lost as well as the variation second by second. Off course > they don’t.

Ah,it wasn't absorbent space, it's expansive space ,I guessed wrong. Will it be expensive space next?

Particles are contracted / absorbed space.
What else?
How can you get a skyscraper or all the stars into the universe at a time it was not larger than almost NOTHING, - do you think ?
I mean: try to follow a BigChrunsh , what would happens ?
Because of matter consumes space inside and around matter, space here stretch’s / bends / deforms / curves....BUT this again depends of how much space exactly now is expanded.
Let’s say that the “density” of space is factor 1000 and inside the Earth is factor 10, - the result is that the Universe would expand 1000:10 or the Universe 100 times when the Earths expands 1 times. This happens….
Simple right ?

 

[steenkh]

You can choose now:
1.) To be 90 % blind or
2.) to be 50 % blind.

I did not ask any questions about blindness, I asked what it means to stretch or thin out space. You start babbling about blindness because you admit that your are fumbling in the dark?

You blame science for not knowing exactly what gravity means, and yet you do not know exactly what contraction of space means, although it fills the same role as gravity in your system.

Particles are contracted / absorbed space.
What else?

But you do not know what contracted / absorbed space is, so you are really making a meaningless statement.

How can you get a skyscraper or all the stars into the universe at a time it was not larger than almost NOTHING, - do you think ?

Compression. These particles have close to no size, so they really stay away from each other because of opposite charges. This charge can be overcome by other forces of nature such as gravity or the strong force. When the energy level is high enough, the particles also fuse.

I mean: try to follow a BigChrunsh , what would happens ?

I just told you. Physicists have described this for years, and there has been no need for crackpot theories like yours that you cannot even formulate so that it is understandable.

 

[dafydd]

You can choose now:
1.) To be 90 % blind or
2.) to be 50 % blind.

Do you know what the word megalomania means?

 

[Bjarne]

I asked what it means to stretch or thin out space

Same as the nature of expanded space.
Hopefully one step foprward for ypu imagination comrade.

But you do not know what contracted / absorbed space is

I do = space spin (energy) = matter

Bjarne
How can you get a skyscraper or all the stars into the universe at a time it was not larger than almost NOTHING, - do you think ?
Steenkh
Compression. These particles have close to no size

And so did the Universe properly also once, if we shall believe modern science.

I just told you. Physicists have described this for years, and there has been no need for crackpot theories like yours that you cannot even formulate so that it is understandable

Then tell me what would happen with e.g; the Earth, - if the Universe would skrink 100% - 500% 1000 %

 

[steenkh]

Same as the nature of expanded space.
Hopefully one step foprward for ypu imagination comrade.

Yet another evasion: You can also not explain what expanded space is, so you are really getting nowhere.

When I first started this line of enquiry, I thought you would do what you do best: making up more meaningless nonsense. However, you seem to have a sore spot here that embarrasses even you! Either you will have to stop beating about the bush, or you should be honest and admit that you do not have the foggiest idea what your key concepts mean.

By the way, have you seen this thread: New Quantum Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime? It is about a physicist named Petr Hořava who has proposed a replacement for Einstein's General Relativity. According to Scientific American the new theory is regarded as promising, and what should interest you most: it does away with dark matter and dark energy!

But according to you, physicists like Hořava are just incompetents rating below cows in their understanding of physics.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You must make up you mind
1.) Either you believe that all you need to do is to enter a equation and press start
2.) Or if you believe that the computer(s) boths monitor exactly where the particles are, the velocity and automatically adjusting the energy supply and velocity.

Neither. The computer monitors the progress and makes corrections, but since it cannot do it fast enough, it must be able to predict the movement of the particles. It would not be able to do that if it was missing an important parameter.

How many measurement per second etc. etc etc. is not importent.

That is an unusually dense comment, even for you.

It takes about 17,600,000 measurements and corrections per seconds to run the Hadron Collider (11,000 rounds per second X 1,600 magnets). That, in itself, is a very tall order, but techically possible, if not for the fact that all this is distributed over a 27km circumference. ... And the small fact that we are talking about 27+ ton magnets. You can't even communicate within a single magnet at such a speed.

Read this article, Bjarne:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

Apart from being very interesting, it should give you an idea about the competencies involved in such a project. Might make you think twice before you compare such people with the cows again.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
Then tell me what would happen with e.g; the Earth, - if the Universe would skrink 100% - 500% 1000 %

Apart from the complete absurdity of the question, it shows just how thin your grasp of even primary school math is: How does something shrink more than 100%?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

ANd BTW, let's put Bjarnes' claim that "CERN would not discover the extra energy spent for kinetic resistance" to sleep once and for all.

From the article linked in my previous post:

The size of the LHC constitutes an exceptional engineering challenge with unique operational issues on account of the huge energy stored in the magnets and the beams.[26][52] While operating, the total energy stored in the magnets is 10 GJ (equivalent to 2.4 tons of TNT) and the total energy carried by the two beams reaches 724 MJ (173 kilograms of TNT).[53]
Loss of only one ten-millionth part (10−7) of the beam is sufficient to quench a superconducting magnet, while the beam dump must absorb 362 MJ (87 kilograms of TNT) for each of the two beams. These immense energies are even more impressive considering how little matter is carrying it: under nominal operating conditions (2,808 bunches per beam, 1.15×1011 protons per bunch), the beam pipes contain 1.0×10−9 gram of hydrogen, which, in standard conditions for temperature and pressure, would fill the volume of one grain of fine sand.

(My bolding). Note how exactly they have to control the energy to make the thing run. This is not a matter of the electricity bill (although that is a concern as well), but those magnets, inspite of their huge size, are as delicate as rotten eggs!

Bjarne, are you sure you still wanna bet?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Yet another evasion: You can also not explain what expanded space is, so you are really getting nowhere.

No, - Not “no where”, but as I wrote a step forward.
A unified provable understanding of gravity is always preferable.
This theory can be proved and will be proven.
Time has come to understand what dark matter and dark energy really is.

I thought you would do what you do best: making up more meaningless nonsense

I did, e.g:

• Forget dark matter, its not matter
• Now you know what mass attraction is.
• You know who ADG works
• And much more.

That's all this is not proven now, - is not important. It will be.

By the way, have you seen this thread

Well, good somebody tries to get rid of the unsound dark matter idea.
Did you read second page of the article: - (The theory is not complete).

Hořava’s theory, however, is far from perfect. Diego Blas, a quantum gravity researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL) in Lausanne has found a “hidden sickness” in the theory when double-checking calculations for the solar system. Most physicists examined ideal cases, assuming, for instance, that Earth and the sun are spheres, Blas explains: “We checked the more realistic case, where the sun is almost a sphere, but not quite.” General relativity pretty much gives the same answer in both the scenarios. But in Hořava gravity, the realistic case gives a wildly different result.
Along with Sergei M. Sibiryakov, also at EPFL, and Oriol Pujolas of CERN near Geneva, Blas has reformulated Hořava gravity to bring it back into line with general relativity. Sibiryakov presented the group’s model in September at a meeting in Talloires, France.
Hořava welcomes the modifications. “When I proposed this, I didn’t claim I had the final theory,” he says. “I want other people to examine it and improve it.”
Gia Dvali, a quantum gravity expert at CERN, remains cautious. A few years ago he tried a similar trick, breaking apart space and time in an attempt to explain dark energy. But he abandoned his model because it allowed information to be communicated faster than the speed of light.
“My intuition is that any such models will have unwanted side effects,” Dvali thinks. “But if they find a version that doesn’t, then that theory must be taken very seriously.”

Neither. The computer monitors the progress and makes corrections, but since it cannot do it fast enough, it must be able to predict the movement of the particles. It would not be able to do that if it was missing an important parameter.
And that was maybe the real cause of the delay in CERN.
Just suggesting

Apart from the complete absurdity of the question, it shows just how thin your grasp of even primary school math is: How does something shrink more than 100%

You know what I mean comrade. .
The Universe have expanded many times, in a BigCrunsh the opposite must happens.
Try seriously to think about that.
How is the Earth affected by the expansion, and why does the Earth not expands so fast as the Universe.
Based on the knowledge we have we know the expansion is 22km/h per 1MLY – This mean that if the Earth would expand proportional to the rests of the Universe it would for some billion years ago only have been > diameter less than 1 mm.
BUT off course the Earth (and space inside galaxies) also MUST expand, since in a Big Crunch it MUST get smaller. – But it happens much slower, - simple because of the contribution to the expansion is estimated by: stretch factors.

The answer is as I mentioned. The space inside the earth is already expanded relative much more that the space in the Universe.
Therefore the explanation is
EXSAMPLE
The density of space the Universe is 1000 and the density of space inside the Earth is 10, the Universe would contribute 100 times so much as the Earth. This is a SIMPLE picture, its fare more complex:
1.) because we can not measure the how much the Earth expands because matter expends too.
2.) because space in the solar system is stretched, in the galaxies as well etc. etc.
If we can put the right factors on all that we will be much wiser.
I am too lazy to begin such calculation.
Math is boring, but I think it can be done all based on knowlege we already have…

ANd BTW, let's put Bjarnes' claim that "CERN would not discover the extra energy spent for kinetic resistance" to sleep once and for all.

From the article linked in my previous post:

........and the total energy carried by the two beams reaches 724 MJ

............Loss of only one ten-millionth

724.000.000 Joule

Loss of only one ten-millionth part = 72 Joule

So fare I remember we have calculated the energy to maintain resistance to about 1 joule

So, what is you problem?

 

[dafydd]

I do = space spin (energy) = matter

Of course,I see it all now!

 

[dafydd]

No, - Not “no where”, but as I wrote a step forward.
A unified provable understanding of gravity is always preferable.
This theory can be proved and will be proven.
Time has come to understand what dark matter and dark energy really is.


I did, e.g:

• Forget dark matter, its not matter
• Now you know what mass attraction is.
• You know who ADG works
• And much more.

That's all this is not proven now, - is not important. It will be.


Well, good somebody tries to get rid of the unsound dark matter idea.
Did you read second page of the article: - (The theory is not complete).




You know what I mean comrade. .
The Universe have expanded many times, in a BigCrunsh the opposite must happens.
Try seriously to think about that.
How is the Earth affected by the expansion, and why does the Earth not expands so fast as the Universe.
Based on the knowledge we have we know the expansion is 22km/h per 1MLY – This mean that if the Earth would expand proportional to the rests of the Universe it would for some billion years ago only have been > diameter less than 1 mm.
BUT off course the Earth (and space inside galaxies) also MUST expand, since in a Big Crunch it MUST get smaller. – But it happens much slower, - simple because of the contribution to the expansion is estimated by: stretch factors.

The answer is as I mentioned. The space inside the earth is already expanded relative much more that the space in the Universe.
Therefore the explanation is
EXSAMPLE
The density of space the Universe is 1000 and the density of space inside the Earth is 10, the Universe would contribute 100 times so much as the Earth. This is a SIMPLE picture, its fare more complex:
1.) because we can not measure the how much the Earth expands because matter expends too.
2.) because space in the solar system is stretched, in the galaxies as well etc. etc.
If we can put the right factors on all that we will be much wiser.
I am too lazy to begin such calculation.
Math is boring, but I think it can be done all based on knowlege we already have…



724.000.000 Joule

Loss of only one ten-millionth part = 72 Joule

So fare I remember we have calculated the energy to maintain resistance to about 1 joule

So, what is you problem?

So the Earth is expanding now? Really you must try to get a grip on reality.

 

[Cuddles]

OK, let's clear a few things up on particle accelerators. Firstly, the positions of individual particles are not measured. There are no instruments in existence capable of doing that, with or without any computers. What is measured is the centre of mass of either the bunches, or usually just the average of the entire beam. Of course, the nominal orbit is extremely easy to calculate, and Bjarne is entirely correct that it could be calculated by his 1992 laptop. Hell, they used to calculate it using slide rules.

The problem is that there are all kinds of errors in manufacturing, positioning and so on, and more importantly there are dynamic errors due to power supplies, temperature variations and so on. In the past, these were either corrected very coarsely by hand, or simply not at all. Now we have computers, we can make feedback systems to correct it much more quickly. However, this can still only deal with deviations on the order of tens or hundreds of microns, and generally operates on the level of 100Hz, while the particles orbit with frequencies of kHz. There are some faster feedback systems starting to be used to control instabilities that can affect a bunch as little as a few turns after measuring it, but these are unlikely to be possible on a machine like the LHC due to its size.

When it comes to energy, that's actually an interesting problem. To a certain degree it's easy enough to work out - you have a magnet with a certain field, so if the particles make a complete circle they must have a particular energy. That's all well and good, but due to calibration issues, changes in the length of the ring due temperature changes, and so on, you only get it accurate to 1% or so, maybe a bit better if you spend more money on tolerances. Actually actively measuring the energy of the particles, without having to rely on the calibration of the dipoles and RF system, turns out to be quite difficult. The only really reliable non-destructive method involves playing around with the polarisation of the particles, takes hours for a single measurement and requires disturbing the beam. It's the sort of thing you may do every few months or years to make sure it's all still as expected, but it's certainly not a continuous measurement made every nanosecond.

However, all this is largely irrelevant to the point I think Bjarne was trying to make, which is about the energy that needs to be continuously given to the particles. This is provided by the RF (radio frequency) power system. Any charged particle gives off photons when it's accelerated, which includes turning when passing through a magnet, and this energy needs to be constantly restored otherwise the particles would just spiral in and hit the walls. Now this is something that can easily be measured, since it's actually nothing to do with the particles. The RF system is essentially just a big power supply, and it's very easy to monitor the various inputs and outputs. This part doesn't even need computers, you could just go and look at a readout dial on the system if you hadn't invented computers yet. If there was a significant amount of extra power being used, you can be sure that someone would actually notice. Given that this must have affected every particle accelerator ever built, you can be reasonably sure someone other than Bjarne might have mentioned it at some point.

So yeah, basically what MRC Hans said.

 

[Bjarne]

Still we are talking about a insignificant maintains of energy, les that your coffee machine, compared to the 724.000.000 Joule you are suing to make it follows the orbit.

Do you think these people are robots, or do also experience counts.
If the experience through the last 50 years is to pump one billion part more energy into the accelerator than expected, how should that be discovered? - and if anyone did do you think they suddenly of that reason would predict the planets to fall down on the Sun ?

BUT, the accelerators can be used to reveal, that there is NO reduce energy consumption at that exact second when the plasma reached constant velocity .

 

[Bjarne]

So the Earth is expanding now?

Yes I believe so.
And you body too.
BUT also that is impossible to discover - since everything does.
BUT relative much less than the 22 km/h per MLY as I wrote.
Everything expands relative to the stretch factor it have. .....
Space that already is very strethes contributes of course relative less. .....
WHY do you think space here(or inside galaxies) should be a exception ?

Tell me just one reason
I guess you can’t
At least not one that sounds logical

 

[dafydd]

Yes I believe so.
And you body too.
BUT also that is impossible to discover - since everything does.
BUT relative much less than the 22 km/h per MLY as I wrote.
Everything expands relative to the stretch factor it have. .....
Space that already is very strethes contributes of propotional less. .....
WHY do you think space here(or inside galaxies) should be a exception ?

Tell me just one reason
I guess you can’t
At least not one that sounds logical

You and logic are complete strangers to each other,I'm out of here.You're on the honour list of crackpots along with Doron,Heiwa,Nationalcosmipolitan,Doc and Yrreg and others too numerous to mention.Now go and vanish back into obscurity.

 

[Bjarne]

You're on the honour list of crackpots along with Doron,Heiwa,Nationalcosmipolitan,Doc and Yrreg and others too numerous to mention.Now go and vanish back into obscurity.

Did't you forgot Neal Adams ?

 

[Reality Check]

Did't you forgot Neal Adams ?

Yes he forgot the crackpot cartoonist Neal Adams.
He also forgot all of the 100's of cranks listed at www.crank.net

 

[steenkh]

No, - Not “no where”, but as I wrote a step forward.

How can your ignorance of basic concepts in your own ideas be a step forward?

A unified provable understanding of gravity is always preferable.
This theory can be proved and will be proven.

As long as you do not explain what is meant by your use of stretching, absorption and so on, there is nothing to prove.

Well, good somebody tries to get rid of the unsound dark matter idea.
Did you read second page of the article: - (The theory is not complete).

Yes, I read the second page of the article. what is your problem? Hořava's theory actually works, even though it is not complete. You want to tell us about a fantasy of yours that you are not able to describe in term that can lead to any predictions; that is known to be against observable facts, and that the little you have presented of equations to back it up has been shown to lead to absurdities, and is in any case mathematically nonsensical. You are not the right person to chuckle at the incompleteness of other theories!

 

[dafydd]

Yes he forgot the crackpot cartoonist Neal Adams.
He also forgot all of the 100's of cranks listed at www.crank.net

Thank you for the link.