Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

[Reality Check]

--------------
Notice the primary statement (that space contracts) I am sure this is 100% correct.. But this part is very difficult and properly impossible to prove. This is a shame since this is the basic of the hypothesis.
-------------

You do realize what you have just said?
It may be your knowledge of English that has let you down but a theory that is "properly impossible to prove" is not a scientific theory. Since you are the only one in the world that is sure that your theory is 100% correct then this makes it your personal religion. It is thus nothing to do with science.

 

[Bjarne]

Einstein ignored that space is “flexible” space because “flexible” space does not cause any gravitational force.

Except when the “flexible” space is the underlying cause of "bended" space.

The rest of your post is just the usual thing we see from crackpots all the time

Which only can mean: that all kind of research and doubt is forbidden, (exactly as questions and doubt is in fanatic religions).
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Oppenheimer

 

[Reality Check]

I My intention is (soon) to measure acc due to gravity, floor by floor, in a 30 floors building (biggest we have here). Measurement inside a huge ball with a homogenous mass would be the much better, anyway, I hope that measure inside the building can be enough to prove / disprove whether the prevailing hypotheses is correct or not. – I expect that (the buildings) acc due to gravity will be the same from floor 30 to 15 – and that the building equally will counteract the acc due to gravity of the Earth from floor 15 to 0.

• Do you expect for the acceleration due to gravity in floors 0 to 15 to be zero? You state that the building does something called "counteract". Otherwise what do you expect it to be?
• How did you calculate that the acceleration due to gravity in floors 15 to 30 is the same?
• What is your equation for the acceleration due to gravity in a building with any number of floors?
• What is your equation for the acceleration due to gravity at an arbitary height above the height of the Earth?
• What is your equation ithe acceleration due to gravity inside a "huge" ball with a homogenous mass.
• How big does "huge" have to be before your equation applies? (bigger than the Earth?)

 

[Reality Check]

Except when the “flexible” space is the underlying cause of "bended" space.

Curved space is by definition "flexible" space".
We are talking about contracted space. Contracted space does not cause gravity.

Which only can mean: that all kind of research and doubt is forbidden, (exactly as questions and doubt is in fanatic religions).
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Oppenheimer

You are wrong.
You can research all you like. Science is built on doubt.
What you cannot do is expect anyone to take you seriously if you act like any internet crackpot and do not provide any actual evidence for your idea.

To do that you will have to get beyond your current "vague descriptions and pretty picture" situation. You will have to express your idea in a mathematical model. That will allow you make predictions. That will turn your idea into a hypothesis.
Once that happens you have done the very first and basic step in creating a new scientific theory. The next thing is the process of publish, review and defence that turns a hypothesis into a scientific theory.
Then there is the process of testing the predictions of the scientific theory that establishes it as credible.

Of course all of this doomed in you case because your basic assumption is wrong: Bended Space is not Contracted Space.
Read and try to understand my previous posts about this, e.g. the rubber sheet model.

 

[Bjarne]

It may be your knowledge of English that has let you down but a theory that is "properly impossible to prove" is not a scientific theory. Since you are the only one in the world that is sure that your theory is 100% correct then this makes it your personal religion. It is thus nothing to do with science.

100% sure, - It’s my opinion comrade. .
If I make rules for others for example that they are crackpots, it rather seems to reflect fanaticism or or religion.

Einstein did never prove his primary statement: that space bends.
He had the same problem.
He proved secondary effects based on the assumption that space bends.
Still GR is a thesis and will always be

In the same way that bended “seems to be correct” because “secondary” observation and measurements fits to the predictions, in the “exactly” same way can “contracted space” probably “only” be logical proven.

The problem is you can not observe properties of space and you can not make experiments with space. The nature of space will always be a secret, but we can at least understand these properties much better, instead of digging trenches and bombard those that tries..

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-theory.htm

 

[Reality Check]

By the way:
Do you know that your web page on Dark Matter never actually addresses dark matter?
The closest you get is a pretty picture of the velocity curve of a galaxy. This was the second piece of evidence to be found for the existence of dark matter. The observational evidence for dark matter is

• The motion of galaxies in galactic clusters.
• Galactic rotation curves (i.e. velocity dispersions).
• The large sscale structure of the univers which fits models including dark matter.
• And the actual observations of dark matter separated from normal matter: Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222 (and even Abell 520)

 

[Reality Check]

100% sure, - It’s my opinion comrade. .
If I make rules for others for example that they are crackpots, it rather seems to reflect fanaticism or or religion.

That is correct you have an opinion. You do not have a theory.

Einstein did never prove his primary statement: that space bends.
He had the same problem.
He proved secondary effects based on the assumption that space bends.
Still GR is a thesis and will always be

Einstein did not have to prove the space bends. The observations that space acts as if it bends.

The problem is you can not observe properties of space and you can not make experiments with space. The nature of space will always be a secret, but we can at least understand these properties much better, instead of digging trenches and bombard those that tries..

Again you are right!
We can understand the properties of space. We do this by creating scientific theories from valid hypotheses and testing them against what the universe tells us about itself.

The problem is that you do not have a valid hypothesis to start from because bended space is not contracted space.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-theory.htm

A quite basic definition of a theory in general. A scientific theory is more than a theory. It includes the process that turns it from an idea into science. The Wikipedia article is much better: Scientific theory.

 

[Bjarne]

Do you expect for the acceleration due to gravity in floors 0 to 15 to be zero? You state that the building does something called "counteract". Otherwise what do you expect it to be?

I expect the buildings acc due to gravity to counteract the Earth from floor 0 to floor 15.

How big does "huge"

This can be a misleading expression. Right before BigBang the contraction of space is HUGE.
In a galaxy too, but compared to Earth insignificant. Read the chapter: ´”relativity” and “background gravity”.

We are talking about contracted space. Contracted space does not cause gravity.

This is not a fact but only your opinion.

What you cannot do is expect anyone to take you seriously if you act like any internet crackpot and do not provide any actual evidence for your idea.

I have provided a lot of logical hint.
It will always be people that only believe the books and even people that hate freedom of speech or opinions that not are according to the book. - It’s not my problem.

You will have to express your idea in a mathematical model.

It’s done.
Can you do better now when you know the “picture” ? - do it.

That will allow you make predictions. That will turn your idea into a hypothesis.

It is already

The next thing is the process of publish, review and defence that turns a hypothesis into a scientific theory.

You know this is a atomic bomb don’t you ?

Then there is the process of testing the predictions of the scientific theory that establishes it as credible.

No testing will start within the comming months.
Removing the blindfolds is always important.

Now comrade think about it took 20 years before man and beast understood GR or SR
In the period before it was only a handful..

 

[sol invictus]

Einstein did never prove his primary statement: that space bends.
He had the same problem.
He proved secondary effects based on the assumption that space bends.
Still GR is a thesis and will always be

That's the case with every theory in science, even the "laws" of physics. You would do well to understand that. It is completely and totally impossible to ever prove (or disprove) anything in science. All one can do is collect evidence that either supports or disfavors some idea.

There is massive evidence that Newtonian gravity is a very accurate approximation to reality. There is a great deal of evidence that general relativity is an even more accurate approximation to reality. There is not the slightest hint that GR is wrong, except possibly in large scale cosmology (and the evidence there is not exactly against GR, it's for something additional beyond what we have observed using electromagnetic radiation).

If you were correct that the shell theorem is wrong, and that gravity doesn't cancel near the center of a symmetric collection of objects, then Newtonian gravity and GR would be completely and totally wrong, because that cancellation is a basic fact about those theories. It's built into their fundamental assumptions and mathematical structure.

But if GR and Newton were wrong, it would be a massive and incredible coincidence that every single test ever done has given results consistent with their predictions. No sane person is ever going to believe that. The only way they could be wrong is in some subtle way, something that modifies them in a way that doesn't affect their results in any experiment done so far. But it's extremely difficult to find such theories.

 

[Reality Check]

I expect the buildings acc due to gravity to counteract the Earth from floor 0 to floor 15.

What does "counteract the Earth" mean?
Does the acc due to gravity go to zero on the first floor?
Does the acc due to gravity decrease on the first floor?
Does the acc due to gravity increase on the first floor?
If the acc due to gravity changes then by how much and how did you calculate it?

This can be a misleading expression. Right before BigBang the contraction of space is HUGE.
In a galaxy too, but compared to Earth insignificant. Read the chapter: ´”relativity” and “background gravity”.

You were the one who used "huge".

So you expect gravity to not act as predicted by Newton or Einstein in a "huge" sphere. They predict a=gr/r_E

• How big is "huge"?
• How did you calculate the size of the sphere?
• What do you predict a is (show your working)?

This is not a fact but only your opinion.

It is not my opinion. It is a simple matter for any intelligent person to see.

Here it is again but simpler:

1. Newton's laws include that a body goes in a straight line when no force is acting upon it.
2. A straight line (geodesic) in spacetime remains as a straight line when spacetime is contracted.
3. So there is no force on an object going along that straight line.
4. Thus contracted space means there is no force on an object travelling in a straight line .
5. Therefore contracted space is not curved space (where there is a force)

P.S. It is quite possible that I am wrong given that GR is not my area of expertise. I am sure that an expert like yoursef can point out my obvious errors!

I have provided a lot of logical hint.
It will always be people that only believe the books and even people that hate freedom of speech or opinions that not are according to the book. - It’s not my problem.

Your problem is that all you have is hints.

You will have to express your idea in a mathematical model.

It’s done.
Can you do better now when you know the “picture” ? - do it.

Liar.
You have provided no mathematical model. A mathematical model involves something which is missing from your idea - mathematics. A mathematical model gives predictions which allow a theory to be tested.
All you have provided is numbers that you have pulled out of thin air (or somewhere more scatological).

It is already

No it is not. It is an idea. Hypothesis requires that it can be tested not only by you with your secret methods of prediction which you refuse to share with anyone but also by other people.

You know this is a atomic bomb don’t you ?

You know this is not a atomic bomb don’t you ?

No testing will start within the comming months.
Removing the blindfolds is always important.

Now comrade think about it took 20 years before man and beast understood GR or SR
In the period before it was only a handful..

Wrong again.
Hundreds of people understood GR and SR within a few months of the appropriate papers being published.

Now comrade think about it took 2 minutes before man and beast understood that your idea was wrong.
In the period after it was millions of people laughing .

 

[Bjarne]

------

If you were correct that the shell theorem is wrong, and that gravity doesn't cancel near the centre of a symmetric collection of objects, then Newtonian gravity and GR would be completely and totally wrong, because that cancellation is a basic fact about those theories. It's built into their fundamental assumptions and mathematical structure.

Easy to claim. - Try to illustrate why?

What does "counteract the Earth" mean?

Cancel out acc due to gravity

Does the acc due to gravity go to zero on the first floor?
Does the acc due to gravity decrease on the first floor?
Does the acc due to gravity increase on the first floor?

From floor 30 to floor 15 I expect that the buildings acc due to gravity (hereafter ADG) have the same values. This ADG will reinforce the ADG of the Earth.

From floor 0 to 15 I expect the buildings ADG also have the same value on all floors.
This ADG will counteract (cancel out) the ADG of the Earth.

If the acc due to gravity changes then by how much and how did you calculate it?

It’s easy, - You will use the equation MG/r^2 and check if the deviations are as excepted or not.

So you expect gravity to not act as predicted by Newton or Einstein in a "huge" sphere.

I expect the same law to apply for even a gain of sand.

How big is "huge"?

How big is the universe?
Huge?
Do you know a grand of sand affects / bends the whole universe?
Is that “HUGE” ?
Everything is relative right ?

How did you calculate the size of the sphere?

Is a based on principle. Look at the weight image above.

Thus contracted space means there is no force on an object travelling in a straight line. Therefore contracted space is not curved space (where there is a force)

Wrong. The cause of bended space is contracted space.
I have explained you that in post 137. This part of the discussion is over.

Your problem is that all you have is hints.

You problem is you have too many mysteries...
I have no problem. My thought forms a synthesis. The impossible had happen, - a simple innocent game with words (bended space = contracted space) have eliminate 20 mysteries, and there is nothing you can do about it, except hair-splitting.
We will always have people that deny seeing the writing on the wall.
But these theories do not only show you writing on the wall but huge capitals letters written on the sky. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5202841#post5202841

Now comrade think about it took 2 minutes before man and beast understood that your idea was wrong.

Its not wrong before you have proven it to be wrong
Hair-spilltting is not prove.

In the period after it was millions of people laughing

It’s healthy to laugh. Let see who the last that laugh comrade.
For some Venus is properly still orbiting the Earth.
Think about all these million that laugh about that Venus was orbiting the Sun.

Do you know that your web page on Dark Matter never actually addresses dark matter?The closest you get is a pretty picture of the velocity curve of a galaxy.

And this is also exactly the same with your religion.

This was the second piece of evidence to be found for the existence of dark matter

Evidence for dark matter does not mean it is matter. JUST GRAVITY.
Since you can not see it you can with the same right claim that NASA has found prove that dark elephants is out in space or dark UFO bases.
NASA have found evidence for not understood gravity and that’s it.

Dark Matter “around” galaxies you will understand the day you understand the true essence of post 130
This law of nature explains the cause of so-called dark matter inside galaxy clusters. Central gravity is misunderstood, and that's it.

The cause of the so called dark matter in galaxies – read this

I begin to be tired of, and do not want to use my time on hair-splitting, superstition and negative attitude and will properly bend of soon.

I will come back after measurements are done.

Sorry,,
Thanks for the discussion.

------

 

[sol invictus]

Easy to claim. - Try to illustrate why?

You can find the derivation in any book that discusses either gravity or electrostatics, including most introductory physics texts. It's something all physics students learn. It's a basic fact about these theories. It's a direct consequence of something called "Gauss' law".

You lied. You said earlier that your theory was identical to GR mathematically, and that the reason you disagree with us about the gravitational force inside the earth is not because your theory is different, but because everyone else made a mistake in their math.

Now it turns out you didn't even know what that math is. You'd never even heard of the shell theorem. You have no idea how it's derived. You don't understand the most basic facts about Newtonian gravity, let alone GR, and yet you're lying and saying you know that every physicist over the last 350 years made mathematical errors.

Edited by LibraryLady: 

Edited for civility.

There's no point in my engaging with you any further; you need help.

 

[Bjarne]

You lied.

I have all the time (as well at the site) clearly shown what I mean.
You have no reason to blacking other with such dirty accusation

You said earlier that your theory was identical to GR mathematically

In the sense that bended space = contracted space yes in deed it is.

and that the reason you disagree with us about the gravitational force inside the earth is not because your theory is different

I have never said that liar...

but because everyone else made a mistake in their math.

And this is to my opinion a fact.

Now it turns out you didn't even know what that math is.

You is not only a liar but also a manipulator.

You don't understand the most basic facts about Newtonian gravity

More lies´

You don't understand the most basic facts about Newtonian gravity

And more

and yet you're lying and saying you know that every physicist over the last 350 years made mathematical errors

Finally a fact (and one more lie)

That kind of behavior is characteristic of mental illness.

No for disrespectful behaviours

God buy.

 

[Leviath]

My intention is (soon) to measure acc due to gravity, floor by floor, in a 30 floors building (biggest we have here). Measurement inside a huge ball with a homogenous mass would be the much better, anyway, I hope that measure inside the building can be enough to prove / disprove whether the prevailing hypotheses is correct or not. – I expect that (the buildings) acc due to gravity will be the same from floor 30 to 15 – and that the building equally will counteract the acc due to gravity of the Earth from floor 15 to 0.

What do you expect?

That you will fail since you have no clue how science works.
That the natural variance in your measurments will be significantly larger than the expected difference in acceleration, rendering your experiment inconclusive.
That you will not report any results once you realise you have failed.

Good luck though. Maybe I'm wrong.

Edit: Oh, and bended space is not equal to contracted space. Thread closed.

 

[Ziggurat]

I guess you mean mathematical provable. – If so, this is off course not enough.

Yes, I mean mathematically provable. And it is indeed enough for our purposes. All it requires are the two things I already mentioned, linear dependence on mass and 1/r² distance dependence. The shell theorem doesn't prove that either of those things is true, but if they are, then the result is indeed provable and proven. One or both of the above conditions MUST be violated or it is not possible for the shell theorem to not apply.

Can you suggest an experiment how to measure if central gravity?

Easy. Measure the force on a small test mass located inside a large mass shell. But hell, you don't even need that: the mass linearity and 1/r² dependence have already been tested and verified. And you already have indicated you believe them to be correct. And really, it's the disconnect between your incompatible beliefs which is your biggest problem. If you simply thought there was some error in either mass linearity or 1/r² dependence, at least one could make sense of your position regarding central gravity. But you hold mutually contradictory beliefs and don't even realize that they are mutually contradictory.

My intention is (soon) to measure acc due to gravity, floor by floor, in a 30 floors building (biggest we have here). Measurement inside a huge ball with a homogenous mass would be the much better, anyway, I hope that measure inside the building can be enough to prove / disprove whether the prevailing hypotheses is correct or not. – I expect that (the buildings) acc due to gravity will be the same from floor 30 to 15 – and that the building equally will counteract the acc due to gravity of the Earth from floor 15 to 0.

What do you expect?

You would need to specify the mass distribution of the building for any meaningful prediction to be formed. If you have formed a prediction on the basis of nothing more than the number of stories the building has, well, you're really just taking a wild guess.

 

[steenkh]

That you will fail since you have no clue how science works.

On the contrary, I predict that he will announce any result he gets as a success.

 

[Bjarne]

Yes, I mean mathematically provable.
And it is indeed enough for our purposes.
All it requires are the two things I already mentioned, linear dependence on mass and 1/r2 distance dependence.

You are very unclear. What are you trying to say?
I suppose that everybody here knows the ADG equation, and I haven’t notice any disbelieve that regards. So fare you comments sound like bla bla bla. What is you problem. I really can not see it?

Notice this thread is about what is the underlying cause of gravity.
You speak about the distance square law. Tell me know do you now the underlying case to that law?
Do you understand the cause of the proportional’s 1:1 (explained above) What does it reflect?
Of course it must be an underlying law of nature right?
This must be what the proportional’s reflect right ?
Of course this same law of nature also must reflect the cause of ADG right?
Do you think these proportional’s is a coincidence?
How do you understand the relating between these proportional’s and the shell theorem ?
I s there any relation? - Yes or No ?
Please you and everybody else, in details try so hard you really can to answer these questions. But please not just: bla bla bla……..

The shell theorem doesn't prove that either of those things is true

Is it then not better to let this old mossy theory rest in this thread?

One or both of the above conditions MUST be violated or it is not possible for the shell theorem to not apply.

Notice I accept the distance square law OK ?

Measure the force on a small test mass located inside a large mass shell.

How ?

But hell, you don't even need that: the mass linearity and 1/r2 dependence have already been tested and verified.

Agree.

And you already have indicated you believe them to be correct.

Yes.

And really, it's the disconnect between your incompatible beliefs which is your biggest problem.

What ?
Sorry, - as I see it, nothing else as: bla bla bla. Empty word without any sense.
Try now to explain what is disconnected except openness to new thought.

If you simply thought there was some error in either mass linearity or 1/r2 dependence,

I don’t

But you hold mutually contradictory beliefs and don't even realize that they are mutually contradictory.

I can not see any contradiction? – You accusation is nothing but only empty words.

You, Newton, Einstein or someone else haven’t understood the proportional’s 1:1 between the strength of ADG and the volume of space affected by ADG.

Also nobody have understood anything about the true cause behind the distance square law. (This law is usually expressed by the proportional 1:2, (but can also be shown as: “ADG : Volume increase” and hence 1:1)

How can you then pretend that you (or other) knows anything about inner central gravity, even though a cow can see that your and our true basics knowledge and understanding of what gravity evidently is a HUGE zero.

How can you guide other to understand the underlying cause of gravity better than mother cow, when all you fundamentally knowledge of the cause of gravity essential is limited to 2 small words (space bends) ? - And things get even worse. Can you explain WHAT bended space is? – No it’s only a misty imagination in your mind.

How can you guide / decide whether the underlying laws of gravity (I have introduced) is false or correct when it is an evidently fact that your knowledge is only insignificant greater than mother cows knogledge?

Nobody had even answered the (simple) question if it requires force to bend space towards and object. This as well as many other fundamentally question (as for example how can matter bend space billion of miles away or how do gravity at all bend space) it not at all understood.

We even have not the slightest idea of the underlying fundamental laws of nature responsible for gravity. I could ask you 100 gravity related question and none can be answered. Simply because we don’t know anything. Don’t you guys think it is completely ridiculously that many believes that they know “a lot” of gravity or even that gravity is no mystery? . – The facts are that we do not even see the top of the iceberg.

You would need to specify the mass distribution of the building for any meaningful prediction to be formed.

Not at all, only to sort out deviations from ADG of the Earth measurement.

If you have formed a prediction on the basis of nothing more than the number of stories the building has, well, you're really just taking a wild guess.

This statement demonstrate how little you know about ADG or how to measure.

I predict that he will announce any result he gets as a success.

Thief thinks everybody steel.
Probably also liars believes everybody lies and manipulators that everybody are manipulators.

 

[Reality Check]

From floor 30 to floor 15 I expect that the buildings acc due to gravity (hereafter ADG) have the same values. This ADG will reinforce the ADG of the Earth.

From floor 0 to 15 I expect the buildings ADG also have the same value on all floors.
This ADG will counteract (cancel out) the ADG of the Earth.

It’s easy, - You will use the equation MG/r^2 and check if the deviations are as excepted or not.

So your prediction is that the ADG will be the same value on all 30 floors?
Or is it that the ADG will be 2 values which change at that 15th floor: above the 15th if will be g plus some value, below the 15th it will g minus some value?
At the ground floor will it be g (the acc due to gravity at the surface of the Earth)?
What is the difference between this experiment and the other experiments that have measured the ADG as height increases?

 

[Reality Check]

Is a based on principle. Look at the weight image above.

Nice picture - does not contain any calcuations.

How did you calculate the size of the sphere?

Wrong. The cause of bended space is contracted space.
I have explained you that in post 137. This part of the discussion is over.

Wrong. The cause of bended space is not contracted space.
You do not show otherwise in post 137.
The properties of contracted space are different from the properties of curved space. This part of the discussion is over.

Evidence for dark matter does not mean it is matter. JUST GRAVITY.
Since you can not see it you can with the same right claim that NASA has found prove that dark elephants is out in space or dark UFO bases.
NASA have found evidence for not understood gravity and that’s it.

Dark Matter “around” galaxies you will understand the day you understand the true essence of post 130
This law of nature explains the cause of so-called dark matter inside galaxy clusters. Central gravity is misunderstood, and that's it.

The cause of the so called dark matter in galaxies – read this

I begin to be tired of, and do not want to use my time on hair-splitting, superstition and negative attitude and will properly bend of soon.

I will come back after measurements are done.

Sorry,,
Thanks for the discussion.

You are displaying your ignorance of science and inability to understand the physics in the supplied links.

Dark matter is not only detected around galaxies. It is also detected in galactic clusters. It is probably responsible for the large scale structure of the universe.

Dark matter has actually been observed separated from normal matter in galactic cluster collisions. In this case what collides is the intra-cluster gas (the stars in the galaxies are so small that the chances of collision are astronomically small).
Gravitational lensing (you know from GR that you agree with) tells astronomers where all of the matter in the colliding clusters is. The light (specifically X-rays) emitted from the gas in the colliding clusters tells astronomers where electromagnetically interacting matter is. There are clumps of matter that are not emitting light. Astronomers call this dark matter.



Here is the situation in the observations in a simplified form:

1. A is a big blob of gas.
2. B is a bib blob of gas.
3. Blob A hits blob A.
   • If the gas is all the same stuff then the result will be another blob of gas.
     It is probable that some of the gas will not not collide. In that case there will be blobs of gas to each side. The size of these outlying blobs will reflect the amount of gas that did not collide.
   • If the gas is a mixture of two kinds of gas , one of which interacts weakly with the other, then the result will be 3 blobs since the weakly interacting gas passes through the other gas.
     The size of these outlying blobs will reflect the amount of gas that did not collide plus the amount of weakly interacting gas.
4. We see 3 blobs.
   The outlyng blobs contain most of the matter.
5. Thus the gas is made of two kinds of gas, one of which interacts weakly with the other.

You may want to read Starts With a Bang's clear description of Dark Matter in his blog entries:

• Dark Matter Part I: How Much Matter is There?
• Dark Matter Part II: How much Normal Matter is there?
• Dark Matter Part III: Dark Matter or Modified Gravity?
• Dark Matter Part 3.5: When Clusters Collide!
• Dear MOND: Time for a New Song! (Dark Matter pt. IV)

He also mentions the fact that astronomers measure the mass istribution of galactic clusters and see that the majority of matter is not visible. Have a look at The Camera that Changed the Universe: Part 4

What can you learn from this? Well, other than all sorts of things about the lensed galaxies, you can learn about dark matter! You see, gravitational lensing only cares about mass, and so we can figure out where -- in a cluster like this -- the mass is distributed. The results are breathtaking.
...See the article for the breathtaking graphic...
What this shows you is that yes, there are spikes where the individual galaxies are. But the cluster is dominated by this giant spherically-distributed mass that's present everywhere, both where there are galaxies and where there aren't. And that has got to be dark matter.

Bjarne: note that this is how pretty pictures are done in science. Scientists take data and turn them into pretty pictures.

Crackpots make up pretty pictures in their heads and publish them on the web. What is worse is that they are then deluded in thinking that this is science.

 

[martu]

Nice picture - does not contain any calcuations.



Wrong. The cause of bended space is not contracted space.
You do not show otherwise in post 137.
The properties of contracted space are different from the properties of curved space. This part of the discussion is over.


You are displaying your ignorance of science and inability to understand the physics in the supplied links.

Dark matter is not only detected around galaxies. It is also detected in galactic clusters. It is probably responsible for the large scale structure of the universe.

Dark matter has actually been observed separated from normal matter in galactic cluster collisions. In this case what collides is the intra-cluster gas (the stars in the galaxies are so small that the chances of collision are astronomically small).
Gravitational lensing (you know from GR that you agree with) tells astronomers where all of the matter in the colliding clusters is. The light (specifically X-rays) emitted from the gas in the colliding clusters tells astronomers where electromagnetically interacting matter is. There are clumps of matter that are not emitting light. Astronomers call this dark matter.



Here is the situation in the observations in a simplified form:

1. A is a big blob of gas.
2. B is a bib blob of gas.
3. Blob A hits blob A.
   • If the gas is all the same stuff then the result will be another blob of gas.
     It is probable that some of the gas will not not collide. In that case there will be blobs of gas to each side. The size of these outlying blobs will reflect the amount of gas that did not collide.
   • If the gas is a mixture of two kinds of gas , one of which interacts weakly with the other, then the result will be 3 blobs since the weakly interacting gas passes through the other gas.
     The size of these outlying blobs will reflect the amount of gas that did not collide plus the amount of weakly interacting gas.
4. We see 3 blobs.
   The outlyng blobs contain most of the matter.
5. Thus the gas is made of two kinds of gas, one of which interacts weakly with the other.

You may want to read Starts With a Bang's clear description of Dark Matter in his blog entries:

• Dark Matter Part I: How Much Matter is There?
• Dark Matter Part II: How much Normal Matter is there?
• Dark Matter Part III: Dark Matter or Modified Gravity?
• Dark Matter Part 3.5: When Clusters Collide!
• Dear MOND: Time for a New Song! (Dark Matter pt. IV)

He also mentions the fact that astronomers measure the mass istribution of galactic clusters and see that the majority of matter is not visible. Have a look at The Camera that Changed the Universe: Part 4


Bjarne: note that this is how pretty pictures are done in science. Scientists take data and turn them into pretty pictures.

Crackpots make up pretty pictures in their heads and publish them on the web. What is worse is that they are then deluded in thinking that this is science.

Great post RC. Do you have an opinion on this? http://www.newscientist.com/article...-hints-at-cracks-in-dark-matter-theories.html