Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

[sol invictus]

Busy right now. I think you have got the point anyway.

If the point is "Bjarne is a fraud", then yes, I have got the point.

This is only words, and make no sense t all.

:irony:

What has 1000 kg on you big toe to do with: All objects follow "straight" lines, the shortest distance between two points .......etc...

Everything.

How do you define : gravitational force ? - What is gravitational force ?

The negative of the force required to maintain an object on some trajectory. For example, hang a mass from a spring, with the other end of the spring held at fixed distance from the center of the earth. The force of gravity is minus the force the spring exerts on the mass.

 

[Cuddles]

Curvature can be positive, negative, or zero (flat), but there is no opposite of curvature.

I believe in this case the opposite of curvature is flatulence.

 

[Bjarne]

The negative of the force required to maintain an object on some trajectory. For example, hang a mass from a spring, with the other end of the spring held at fixed distance from the center of the earth. The force of gravity is minus the force the spring exerts on the mass.

Superstition that never is proven.

 

[martu]

Superstition that never is proven.

Proof is for mathematics - do you understand why? I appreciate English isn't your first language but it is an important distinction.

 

[Bjarne]

Proof is for mathematics - do you understand why?

No
If you can see with you own eyes that Venus orbit the Sun, - is that a proof?
If you can measure that acc due to gravity doesn’t cancel out centrally is that a proof?
If you can "prove" the opposite by mat, what do you then believe, measurement or mat?

Did you know that you can mathematical proof things that do not exist? – This is proven by observation. So what is proof?

(No I do not believe that photons have mass. )

 

[Toke]

I think the idea is that you can have (absolute) proofs only in mathematics, in physics you have to settle for really good working models.

 

[Bjarne]

According to several theories this Equivalence may breakdown if still more accurate measurements can be made. Examples of theories are:

Effects inherent in a quantum theory of gravity when such a theory has been constructed. The present theories of General Relativity and Quantum Electrodynamics are not compatible - at least one will have to be modifed.

Sourse Here

Oboy oboy, is the boat leaking ?

 

[Reality Check]

No
If you can see with you own eyes that Venus orbit the Sun, - is that a proof?

No - it is evidence. Science has no proofs.

If you can measure that acc due to gravity doesn’t cancel out centrally is that a proof?

No - it is evidence. Science has no proofs.

Do you hvae a citation to the experiment that "measure that acc due to gravity doesn’t cancel out", e.g. that the force at a point halfway between 2 equal masses is not zero.

If you can "prove" the opposite by mat, what do you then believe, measurement or mat?

Science has no proofs. No scientist "proves" by mathematics.
If a scientific theory makes a testable, fasifiable prediction and that prediction is falsified then that scientific theory is false. It needs to be changed, only applied where it is valid or discarded for a better theory that does produce the observed result.

Did you know that you can mathematical proof things that do not exist? – This is proven by observation. So what is proof?

(No I do not believe that photons have mass. )

One more time: Science has no proofs.

Massive photons are a result of your idea since photons have spin and you assume that spin contracts space and further assume (incorrectly) that contracted space causes gravity. Gravity is a property of mass.

 

[Reality Check]

According to several theories this Equivalence may breakdown if still more accurate measurements can be made. Examples of theories are:

Effects inherent in a quantum theory of gravity when such a theory has been constructed. The present theories of General Relativity and Quantum Electrodynamics are not compatible - at least one will have to be modifed.

Sourse Here

Oboy oboy, is the boat leaking ?

Oboy oboy, aren't you ignorant of the way science and scientists work?

1. New theories are always proposed to try to replace existing theories. There must be 100's of papers on replacements for General Relativity.
2. Any postulate of a scientific theory (like the equivalence prinicple) is always being tested. See the experimental tests of Special Relativity and General Relativity.

Here's another group testing GR and Newton:
University of Washington Eöt-Wash Group

We pioneer new techniques in high-precision studies of weak-field gravity and searches for possible new interactions weaker than gravity. Our scientific goals:

1) Search for experimental signatures of quantum gravity that would violate Einstein's Equivalence Principle and/or the Newtonian inverse-square law at some length scale (which may be anywhere between the inaccessible Planck length and infinity).

2) Probe the largely unexplored region of possible interactions weaker than gravity.

3) Make sensitive tests for new interactions that couple to electron spin.

4) Provide understanding of small short range forces that may affect the LISA gravitational wave experiment.

 

[Bjarne]

------------------

No - it is evidence. Science has no proofs

As I said never believe the books
In my book evidence and proof is the same.

Massive photons are a result of your idea since photons have spin and you assume that spin contracts space and further assume (incorrectly) that contracted space causes gravity. Gravity is a property of mass.

1.) Gravity and the strong force is united. Gravity and photons not. Photons spins space together . The strong interaction keep contracted space together by interaction work/ swop/rest/work/swop/rest/work/swop/res etc............
2.) 100 years ago there was a discussion between two teams of physicists.
On the one side Bohr, Rutherford and Heidelberg and on the other Einstein, Max Plank, and Schrödinger. The question was whether an electron was a particle or a wave.
This debate remains unsettled. A particle could at the same time behave as a particle and as a wave.
Before you tries completely to understand the properties of a photon, try to understand what a photon really is.

I am preparing measurement to test “central gravity”
Now tell me what is g approximately 1000 km inside the earth 2000 km 3000 km 4000 km and 5000km. I am a bit confused since I have hear a lot different.

------------------

 

[Bjarne]

---------------

Oboy oboy, aren't you ignorant of the way science and scientists work?

Ohh Yes, but only when man and beast in the name of Science equalize believes and hypotheses with facts.

The claim that the equivalence principle explain mass contraction is only a hypotheses, not fact?
Also not even though many have chosen to believe so, because Einstein did?

---------------

 

[Reality Check]

The Equivalence principle is only a hypotese OK ?
Something we belive because Einsted did OK ?

That is totally wrong.

The equivalence principle is a hypothesis that is backed up by evidence.
Einstein derived GR from the equivalence principle. Any test of GR is a test of the equivalence principle. GR has been extensively tested. It has passed the tests.

 

[Reality Check]

------------------

As I said never believe the books
In my book evidence and proof is the same.

Then you must be reading a bad Danish/English disctionary.
In science there is no such thing as proof. All trusted scientific theories are backed up by bodies of evidence that show that their predictions are correct.
(I hope this is Danish): Videnskabelig metode

------------------
..snipped..
I am preparing measurement to test “central gravity”
Now tell me what is g approximately 1000 km inside the earth 2000 km 3000 km 4000 km and 5000km. I am a bit confused since I have hear a lot different.

g = the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of an object. For Earth's = 9.8 m/s². It is a constant.
That is its definition. You must know that. It is rather basic.

From Newton's theory of gravity (have you heard of this?) it is easy to derive that F = mgr/r_E
g = 9.8 m/s². for an object of mass m where
r = distance from the center of the Earth.
r_E = the radius of the Earth.

If you want the force at thos radii plug them into the equation.

 

[Reality Check]

Have you understood that your idea means that gravity does not exist yet?

 

[Bjarne]

The equivalence principle is a hypothesis that is backed up by evidence.
Einstein derived GR from the equivalence principle. Any test of GR is a test of the equivalence principle. GR has been extensively tested. It has passed the tests.

Don't mix facts and bogus
The GR hypotheses that "should" explian the cause of mass contraction has not been proven to be correct.

Have you understood that your idea means that gravity does not exist yet?

Really?
Why ?

g = the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of an object. For Earth's = 9.8 m/s2. It is a constant. That is its definition. You must know that. It is rather basic.

From Newton's theory of gravity (have you heard of this?) it is easy to derive that F = mgr/rE
g = 9.8 m/s2. for an object of mass m where
r = distance from the center of the Earth.
rE = the radius of the Earth.

OK
This mean that 3000km from the centre of the Earth you will have acc due to gravity:

6E24 * 9.8 * 3000000 m / 6358000m = 2.77 E 25 m/s^2

Waahhh faster than c, - Something is wrong …..(right?)

 

[Ziggurat]

From Newton's theory of gravity (have you heard of this?) it is easy to derive that F = mgr/r_E

Note that this is ONLY for r < r_E. For r > r_E, we have instead F = mg(r_E/r)²

 

[Leviath]

Don't mix facts and bogus
This mean that 3000km from the centre of the Earth you will have acc due to gravity:

6E24 * 9.8 * 3000000 m / 6358000m = 2.77 E 25 m/s^2

Waahhh faster than c, - Something is wrong …..(right?)

What....the....

 

[Bjarne]

Note that this is ONLY for r < rE. For r > rE, we have instead F = mg(rE/r)2

Still faster than c
I am asking for the equation to calculate acc due to gravity inside the Earth

What....the....

You must be from Texas (fast on the tricker)

Corrected
Don't mix facts and bogus
The GR hypotheses that "should" explian the cause of mass contraction has not been proven to be correct.

 

[Leviath]

Still faster than c

You must be from Texas (fast on the tricker)

You are multiplying mass with acceleration and you get....acceleration. You don't see the error?

And then you compare it to a speed?

It's been years since I studied any physics, what am I missing here?

 

[Reality Check]

Don't mix facts and bogus
The GR hypotheses that "should" explian the cause of mass contraction has not been proven to be correct.

"Mass contraction" does not exist. GR does explain length contraction.

Really?This mean that 3000km from the centre of the Earth you will have acc due to gravity:

6E24 * 9.8 * 3000000 m / 6358000m = 2.77 E 25 m/s^2

Waahhh faster than c, - Something is wrong …..(right?)

Right - your understanding is wrong.
F = force. This is the standard that is used throughout the scientific world. F is not acceleration.

Acceleration used the symbol a (as in F=ma), e.g. a = F/m. Apply this to the equation F = mgr/r_E to get

a = gr/r_E
​

Note that this does not depend on the mass of the object. Anyone who knows about gravity would expect this from Newtons law.

The acceleration on a mass of 6E24 kg 3000km from the center of the Earth is:
a = 9.8 m/s² * 3000000 m / 6358000m = 4.6 m/s^2

Also: Acceleration is not velocity.