Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

[Bjarne]

--

This is exactly the place where you need to be able to show us the maths.
You have to explain what space contracting actually means, geometrically, and then show why the law of gravitation follows from it.

This is already done (GR). We know space”bends” and we can calculate how much etc…….
It’s no reason two invent the deep plate twice. We will never completely understand what bended space actually mean. Because of space is “nothing”. It’s nature will always be beyond our imagination.

The only way left is to encircle the phenomena. If all what we know about gravity and all gravity related mysteries possible can be understood based on one and the same gravity theory this alone could very well be a important fundamental step forward.

This goals have now theoretical been achieved. Left is only to test if this “step” is correct. The most promising way of proving this is by experiments and by measurement. Do not underestimate these methods.

Ask you self what is mat without imagination
And what is imagination without mat.

You can not say that mat is “the only way”, either you can not say that imagination is. Mat and mind must go hand in hand. Do not underestimate that too.

As I wrote the best possible understanding of what bended space really is allow us to understand gravity in a completely new perspective.
Hence we are able to both understand and predict for example that gravity doesn’t cancel out component wise, this can (and will) easy be measured.
But there are many other methods to test this theory, all based on the basic claim: (that matter contract space), as well indirectly based on consequences e.g: of understanding the cause of the matter space connection – especially those mentioned in the chapter: “The Pioneer anomaly“.

In the end of day it's easy to imaging that several confirmed measurement and experiments all point to one suspect > contracted space... This is the only way..

What you have written so far is just words. It may be brilliant. It may be nonsense. There is no way for us, or you, to know for certain which it is, until you have tried restating it into mathematics and seen if it gives an quantitatively accurate description of reality.

No! - this is incorrect.
Predicted and later positive confirmed measurement and experiment are always huge step forward. Mat is never enought.
And as I wrote, I really can not see any need for more mat, it's all allready there. If someone can deliver more > fine.

It’s not “only” words; it is a possible mind based springboard to a coherent understanding of the nature of gravity and every thing related to gravity. In the past we were researching the nature of gravity with blindfold. Now we can properly do it completely without. This can be a huge step forward and not only “words”.

General Relativity states that gravitational forces are a consequence of the curvature of space-time.

This little aspect of GR is wrong, it’s not proven at all, but only based on what we have believed the past 100 years. Sir Isaac Newton was more correct matter sucks....you body too...

You are stating that gravitational forces are a consequence of the contraction of spacetime.That is not a "a simple and obviously interpretation".

A lot points to that direction, - every gravity mystery disappears automatically based on that interpretation.

Notice the many consequences of a contracted space, is not something I invent, but rather something that is self-explaining.

If you accept “contracted space” you will have at least 20 mysteries less. Just by claiming that matter sucks...
Is that a coincidence do you think ?
--

 

[Ziggurat]

The only way left is to encircle the phenomena. If all what we know about gravity and all gravity related mysteries possible can be understood based on one and the same gravity theory this alone could very well be a important fundamental step forward.

Indeed. But that step was taken, decades ago, with the invention of general relativity.

No! - this is incorrect.
Predicted and later positive confirmed measurement and experiment are always huge step forward. Mat is never enought.

You have clearly not understood his point. Theories can only be tested against experiments, that is true. But you cannot test a theory against experiments unless you make quantitative predictions with your theory, otherwise there is no way to tell whether or not your theory matches experiments. And to make such quantitative predictions, well, you do need math. Which you have not produced.

And as I wrote, I really can not see any need for more mat, it's all allready there.

If the math is really all there, then you have nothing to contribute.

This little aspect of GR is wrong, it’s not proven at all

And yet, the predictions which follow from this all match experiments. So there's no basis on which you can claim it's wrong. It's possible it's wrong, but you have zero evidence of that.

If you accept “contracted space” you will have at least 20 mysteries less.

Nope. By your own admission, the math is already all there, which means the quantitative predictions would be the same, meaning that if there are any unresolved differences between theory and experiment, they will remain. You can't change that until you change the math. Which you won't, or can't, do.

 

[Third Eye Open]

I wonder if Bjarne knows Pixey of Key.

 

[Dorfl]

Ask yourself what is maths without imagination
And what is imagination without maths.

You can not say that maths is “the only way”, either you can not say that imagination is. Maths and mind must go hand in hand. Do not underestimate that too.

Exactly! So far you have only shown us an imaginative picture of how gravity works. For it to be more than a picture, you must be able to give us a mathematical description of it as well.

As I wrote the best possible understanding of what bended space really is allow us to understand gravity in a completely new perspective.
Hence we are able to both understand and predict for example that gravity doesn’t cancel out component wise, this can (and will) easy be measured.
But there are many other methods to test this theory, all based on the basic claim: (that matter contract space), as well indirectly based on consequences e.g: of understanding the cause of the matter space connection– especially those mentioned in the chapter: “The Pioneer anomaly“.

No! - this is incorrect.
Predicted and later positive confirmed measurement and experiment are always huge step forward. Maths is never enough.
And as I wrote, I really can not see any need for more maths, it's all already there. If someone can deliver more > fine.

It’s not “only” words; it is a possible mind based springboard to a coherent understanding of the nature of gravity and every thing related to gravity. In the past we were researching the nature of gravity with blindfold. Now we can properly do it completely without. This can be a huge step forward and not only “words”.

This little aspect of GR is wrong, it’s not proven at all, but only based on what we have believed the past 100 years. Sir Isaac Newton was more correct matter sucks....you body too...

If your description of gravity is mathematically equivalent to that of GR, then you cannot make different predictions than GR. It might make some predictions easier to arrive at, certainly, but it can't make more predictions and it absolutely can't make different predictions.

If GR says that gravity is a consequence of the curvature of space, and your theory is equivalent to GR, then your theory says the same thing. Otherwise it disagrees with GR, and you must be able to describe the disagreement in detail, mathematically.

A lot points to that direction, - every gravity mystery disappears automatically based on that interpretation.

Notice the many consequences of a contracted space, is not something I invent, but rather something that is self-explaining.

If you accept “contracted space” you will have at least 20 mysteries less. Just by claiming that matter sucks...
Is that a coincidence do you think?

So far, the only one who can see how those things follow from assuming bent space is contracted space, is you. That is because language is very imprecise. Mathematics is not, though, which is why you'll need to use it to make yourself understood to us.

 

[Bjarne]

--

Indeed. But that step was taken, decades ago, with the invention of general relativity.

Should that be the end of the road do you think ?

You have clearly not understood his point. Theories can only be tested against experiments that are true. But you cannot test a theory against experiments unless you make quantitative predictions with your theory; otherwise there is no way to tell whether or not your theory matches experiments. And to make such quantitative predictions, well, you do need math. Which you have not produced

Light bends around an astronomic object.
You can predict this, and you can measurer if such consequence of a theory is correct.
You can measure the time it takes to fly the one or the other way round the earth and a lot of other funny things.
But bended space is not and has never been a target for: quantitative predictions.

Nothing has change: - bended/curved/deformed space is still bended/curved/deformed.
All what is new is a simple new expression been added: Contracted space.
This gives you a main thread; it’s up to you if you like to follow this thread.
If you do you will find the exact same consequences as describe at www.science27.com.

EXSAMPLE
One of the consequences is that you will see that matter and space is connected.
We already know since deformed /curved / bended / contracted space follows the rotation. BUT until now you do not know why space follows a rotation body simply because you don’t now how matter and space is connected.
If bended space = contracted space, you will know a lot more about how space and matter is connected.
A consequence of that is that if space in motion also sets matter in motion, simply because now you know how space is connected.
This explain the cause of the (until now) unknown “force” responsible for the Flyby anomalies.
In the same way you can follow the same main thread in several other directions and again and again you will see that this you before thought was big mysteries, is simple and naturally consequences, just by changing an expression, in a way that you mind can understand what is bended space really. That’s all..

Each time the square increases 75%, the acceleration of gravity decreases 75%?
Have somebody ever understood why these propotion 1 : 1 ?
It’s easy the equation g = MG/r^2 already refelct why.
Space has some kind of “density” we know that already. - Otherwise space would not could expand.

Now imaging that a canon ball (suddenly) would sucks let’s say 100 m3 space.
How would the “density of space” be around that ball be ?
Difficult question? - No
What would happen with space around that canon ball?
What would happen with all the space the univers?
Would space around the canon ball "bend" ?
Is it possible to show all that mathematical? – YES IT IS.

And it is ALLREDY done ..with thanks to both Isaac Newton and Einstein.
This is really what the 300 years equation g = GM/r^2 really reflect.
The rest is up to you mind, brain, imagination and IQ
Mat can do no more for you.

Well, off course this is not enought, you will demand more facts.
OK follow the main thread out in all the corners the basic claim leads you, this will help to reach a coherent understanding.

Or you still must accept the only alternative: dark matter no one ever have seen, 11 dimension also nobode ever have seen, unknown forces that affects space probes, stars that denies to die, even if they "should", starts motion that are too fast and too slowly, and a lot more mysteries.

You can forget all these huge mysteries only by accepting: matter sucks.

Don’t expect to understand this after 1 hours reading.
It have taken me two years to understand my own thought.

If the math is really all there, then you have nothing to contribute.

Except collecting the puzzle.. and finding the small error that prevented us for discover all this long ago.

And yet, the predictions which follow from this all match experiments. So there's no basis on which you can claim it's wrong. It's possible it's wrong, but you have zero evidence of that.

So the fact is that the possibility that a stone falls to earth because it is sucks down to Earth, this can’t be denied, and this is what I wanted to say.
CORRECTION
I wrote above
You body and the Earth “compares” to contract / suck the space between you.
I mean: ”compete”

Nope. By your own admission, the math is already all there, which means the quantitative predictions would be the same, meaning that if there are any unresolved differences between theory and experiment, they will remain. You can't change that until you change the math. Which you won't, or can't, do.

Once again: You can measure gravity/space by measuring time, distances, acceleration due to gravity as well as mass attraction. The deep plate is already invented. There are no other possibilities. If you do not agree Tell me which values do you want to insert in the "new equation"?

You can only follow the consequences. For example if matter really sucks space and that is the cause of gravity, it’s a consequence that one field of gravity can not equalize it self component wise.
Exactly like you can say if space really curves, it’s a consequence that light to must curve.

Exactly! So far you have only shown us an imaginative picture of how gravity works. For it to be more than a picture, you must be able to give us a mathematical description of it as well.

Once again. It is done.
Even if what I write today "only" is a picture, its a picture that already today forms a synthetic, and eliminates all the problems we have with gravity as well as all the mysteries. So what today maybe is speculation can tomorrow very well be a matter of facts.

If your description of gravity is mathematically equivalent to that of GR, then you cannot make different predictions than GR.

I have done that already. But you haven’t understood why I predict as I do.

So far, the only one who can see how those things follow from assuming bent space is contracted space is you. That is because language is very imprecise. Mathematics is not, though, which is why you'll need to use it to make yourself understood to us.

It’s not correct mat can not do no more, only imagination, experiments and measurement can (and will).
--

 

[steenkh]

I have done that already. But you haven’t understood why I predict as I do.

Could you make it simple for us and explain which formula you use that gives a different prediction in your interpretation and in the traditional GR interpretation? If possible with some concrete values attached?

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
It have taken me two years to understand my own thought.
*snip*

Absolutely priceless!



Hans

 

[Dorfl]

Once again. It is done.
Even if what I write today "only" is a picture, it's a picture that already today forms a synthetic, and eliminates all the problems we have with gravity as well as all the mysteries. So what today maybe is speculation can tomorrow very well be a matter of facts.

The problem is that gravitation isn't mysterious or problematic. GR already does give a perfectly good description of it. Your theory might, for the sake of the argument, be slightly more easy to use, but it cannot provide any new predictions of any sort. So it is at best the equivalent of a new type of scissors with a slightly more comfortable grip. Certainly an improvement, but not likely to revolutionise anything.

I have done that already. But you haven’t understood why I predict as I do.

Let me amend what I said. If you have a theory which is mathematically equivalent to another theory, but this theory makes different predictions than that other theory, then you have done something wrong. Either the theories are not really equivalent, or you've simply made a mistake in applying your theory.

It's not correct maths can not do no more, only imagination, experiments and measurement can (and will).

I agree that maths cannot do any more, once it has provided a complete description of the system we are studying, and manages to make correct predictions all of the time—much like is the case in GR. I cannot see why we would want to do any more, though.

 

[Bjarne]

Could you make it simple for us and explain which formula you use that gives a different prediction in your interpretation and in the traditional GR interpretation? If possible with some concrete values attached?

This theory doesn’t challenge existing mathematical equations, except the equation used to show that acceleration do to gravity must equalize central in one field of gravity.

http://www.science27.com/english/dark_matter.html

It’s correct that equalizing of acceleration do to gravity happens between 2 or several gravitational objects, but incorrect that it also should happened for instance in the center of the earth, or in the center of a (big) building.

It’s easy to come to the opposite conclusion simply based on the fact that matter sucks / contract. Hence nothing cans possible “interact” in one field of gravity. To “cancel out” gravity require opposition.

GR already does give a perfectly good description of it. Your theory might, for the sake of the argument, be slightly more easy to use, but it cannot provide any new predictions of any sort.

It does, Wait and see the result ..

If you have a theory which is mathematically equivalent to another theory, but this theory makes different predictions than that other theory

This is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that it has been ignored even to imaging: What is bended/curved/deformed space, and what are all the consequences of a complete understanding…

 

[Dorfl]

This theory doesn’t challenge existing mathematical equations, except the equation used to show that acceleration do to gravity must equalize central in one field of gravity.

http://www.science27.com/english/dark_matter.html

It’s correct that equalizing of acceleration do to gravity happens between 2 or several gravitational objects, but incorrect that it also should happened for instance in the center of the earth, or in the center of a (big) building.

It’s easy to come to the opposite conclusion simply based on the fact that matter sucks / contract. Hence nothing cans possible “interact” in one field of gravity. To “cancel out” gravity require opposition.

Are you saying that the strength of gravity in the centre of a uniform sphere is not zero?

It does, Wait and see the result ..

If your theory is different from GR in any respects, then I'll be happy to wait for whatever predictions you might make with it. But if it is mathematically equivalent, as you seem to claim, then I know a priori that you can't make predictions that could not have been made from standard GR.

This is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that it has been ignored even to imaging: What is bended/curved/deformed space, and what are all the consequences of a complete understanding…

You are not claiming that your theory makes any new predictions?

 

[Bjarne]

Are you saying that the strength of gravity in the centre of a uniform sphere is not zero?

Yes

If your theory is different from GR in any respects, then I'll be happy to wait for whatever predictions you might make with it. But if it is mathematically equivalent, as you seem to claim, then I know a priori that you can't make predictions that could not have been made from standard GR.

Matter deep inside e.g; the Earth or a galaxy must do a greater work to be able to get that space that matter must have “to survey”

If you read this chapter http://www.science27.com/english/quantum_physics.html
you will see that gravity have “unlimited” force to get that space is must have.

The nature of space is to suck space, doesn’t matter the cost.
Gravity and the strong force is united and both support equal contraction everywhere inside a (homogenously) body.
Since the access to space is blocked towards the inwards direction (e-g: in the earth) all the forces used to contract / suck space must be directed outwards.
Nothing is achieved by: Cancelling out anything.

To cancel out acceleration due to gravity component wise can only happen when a second field of gravity is opposing.

When central gravity must work hard, - nuclear heat release must be a result.
Hence if a planet is very close to the sun, - matter in the inner planet as well as inside the Sun must do a harder work to contract space.
This happens because the elementary particles are “challenged” by the stronger resistance due to stronger space contraction.. More work have to be done to contract space, this can only cause more heat. –(nuclear heat release).

I think this explain why the moon Io have volcanic activity, why Europe have an ocean beneath the ice, why Jupiter release more heat as we thought, and why we centrally in a galaxy have found huge areas, with mysteriously million degree hot gas.

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/08/07/could-jupiter-and-saturn-contain-liquid-metal-helium

http://ing.dk/artikel/57240-et-mysterium-i-maelkevejens-centrum

 

[Dorfl]

Yes.

So, pretend that we have a massive shell with the same density everywhere. We place a particle in the centre of that sphere. In which direction will that particle start accelerating?

Matter deep inside e.g; the Earth or a galaxy must do a greater work to be able to get that space that matter must have “to survey”

If you read this chapter http://www.science27.com/english/quantum_physics.html
you will see that gravity have “unlimited” force to get that space is must have.

The nature of space is to suck space, doesn’t matter the cost.
Gravity and the force is united and both support equal contraction everywhere inside a (homogenously) body.
Since the access to space is blocked towards the inwards direction (e-g: in the earth) all the forces used to contract / suck space must be directed outwards.
Nothing is achieved by: Cancelling out anything.

To cancel out acceleration due to gravity component wise can only happen when a second field of gravity is opposing.

When central gravity must work hard, - nuclear heat release must be a result.
Hence if a planet is very close to the sun, - matter in the inner planet as well as inside the Sun must do a harder work to contract space.
This happens because the elementary particles are “challenged” by the stronger resistance due to stronger space contraction.. More work have to be done to contract space, these can only cause more heat. –(nuclear heat release).

I think this explain why the moon Io have volcanic activity, why Europe have an ocean beneath the ice, why Jupiter release more heat as we thought, and why we centrally in a galaxy have found huge areas, with several mysteriously million degree hot gas.

Once again, this is just words. It also ends in a conclusion which does not follow from GR. This shows that whatever the underlying mathematical structure of your theory is, it is not equivalent to GR. That means that it could be used to make quantifiable predictions, if you'd to the work and actually describe your theory formally—mathematically.

 

[martu]

Each time the square increases 75%, the acceleration of gravity decreases 75%?
Have somebody ever understood why these propotion 1 : 1 ?
It’s easy the equation g = MG/r^2 already refelct why.
Space has some kind of “density” we know that already. - Otherwise space would not could expand.

Hello Bjarne welcome to the forums.

From this portion above why couldn’t space expand if it didn’t have “density”? Is this density merely the average matter per square metre or is it some sort of ether? Finally why is the 75% thing important to your idea?

Oh another finally what do you picture matter ‘as’ exactly? For example consider an electron what do you think it is and how does it contract space?

 

[LissaLysikan]

It’s correct that equalizing of acceleration do to gravity happens between 2 or several gravitational objects, but incorrect that it also should happened for instance in the center of the earth, or in the center of a (big) building.

It’s easy to come to the opposite conclusion simply based on the fact that matter sucks / contract. Hence nothing cans possible “interact” in one field of gravity. To “cancel out” gravity require opposition.

But it never is "one" field of gravity. We talk about the gravity due to the earth, but that is just shorthand for "the sum of the gravitational attraction of all the particles that make up the earth". In the center of the earth you are not in the center of a single gravitational field, you are in the middle of a huge number of them - all opposing, since you are in the middle. So your objection here is based on a simple matter of mistaking the earth for a single object and thus having only one field of gravity. Once you understand this, all the rest of your confusions and imaginings become ... words.

 

[steenkh]

To clarify, as far as I know, Bjarne operates with the concept that gravity effects are caused by bodies, and not by the sum of influence from all the particles that make up those bodies. According to him, two bodies that are brought closer to each other will become one when they make contact, and the gravitational influence will change dramatically in that instant.

 

[martu]

Your page on Quantum Physics here http://www.science27.com/english/quantum_physics.html talks about spin and you say this:

The culmination point of a particle's spin can be either the top of 'spin up' or the bottom of 'spin down' (point B). At both the B-points, the particle has maximum amassed space and minimum spin (speed).

What are up and down relative to exactly? Are you proposing a preferred frame somehow?

 

[Toke]

Haven't somebody bothered to measure gravity inside the earth?
Like a few kilometers down a mineshaft?

According to my (limited) understanding of physics it is a bit lower, and invalidates Bjarne's ideas.

 

[Dorfl]

Your page on Quantum Physics here http://www.science27.com/english/quantum_physics.html talks about spin and you say this:

The culmination point of a particle's spin can be either the top of 'spin up' or the bottom of 'spin down' (point B). At both the B-points, the particle has maximum amassed space and minimum spin (speed).

What are up and down relative to exactly? Are you proposing a preferred frame somehow?

IIRC, up and down are in relation to whatever magnetic field is being applied to a particle. Don't know if that makes sense here, though.

I found what's definitely an error on the same page, though:

A particle could at the same time behave as a particle and as a wave. Our new theory shines new light on this issue.

A particle can act as a particle or as a wave at different times. Never both at the same time, though.

 

[Bjarne]

--

In which direction will that particle start accelerating?

Nowhere.
But still that does not mean that gravity cancel out in the center, - because e.g; 1 meter form the centre the acceleration due to gravity would still be 9.8m/s^2 (if the Earth was a homogeneous mass)

From this portion above why couldn’t space expand if it didn’t have “density”?
Is this density merely the average matter per square metre or is it some sort of ether?

Einstein (and many other) has ask the same question: What is space?

Two thing point to that space have some kind of "density”:

1.) Matter has density. Matter is made of space”accumulated energy / space” . The density of space is just”thinner” than matter.
2.) The expansive space reflects that. Space is “tinning out” when the universe is expanding.

I think we can in our imagination not reach any closer understanding / imagination.

Finally why is the 75% thing important to your idea?

It’s not the 75% that is important but that you normally are used to think about gravity decrease per distance and hence the proportional 1:2 (If the distance double “*2” gravity (g) decrease “*4” = 2:4 = 1:2
You can ask why this proportion (1:2), what does it tell us. – The answer is nothing.

First when you turn it to a different perspective, as shown above it makes sense.
The square increase (space) is now proportional to gravity decrease. Now you get the proportional 1 : 1
This is important because if you are “adding” the double space, - gravity (g) decrease doubles too.
Hence you will see that “g” depends of the volume of space, and is proportional to the “amount of space”
This show the mathematically logic behinds: how gravity is “thinning out” in the direction of infinity (domino effect.)
This mean contracted space around a body is “thinning out” the further way you get.
You can now mathematically imaging the true and deepest understanding of what gravity is and what gravity does.
This perspective is not different from the understanding: “curvature of space” – It’s the same story told by 2 different thinkers. All the mats points to the same understanding, gravity suck / contracts space.

Oh another finally what do you picture matter ‘as’ exactly? For example consider an electron what do you think it is and how does it contract space?

I have illustrated and answered this here already, simple and fast to read > http://www.science27.com/english/quantum_physics.html

But it never is "one" field of gravity.

It doesn’t matter. It’s the total contraction that counts.
Also notice we talk about a homogeneous field. Even though the Earth consists of many small gravitational fields, you still also have a overall field.

To clarify, as far as I know, Bjarne operates with the concept that gravity effects are caused by bodies and not by the sum of influence from all the particles that make up those bodies.

Not his is wrong as I wrote above

According to him, two bodies that are brought closer to each other will become one when they make contact, and the gravitational influence will change dramatically in that instant.

I suggest reading this chapter to get i right: http://www.science27.com/english/dark_matter.html

Haven't somebody bothered to measure gravity inside the earth?
Like a few kilometres down a mineshaft?

Yes, this have been done, but is not the point here.

Take a look at this images

This explains it all.
Matter, (the red area) sucks space, space doesn’t care what is up and down. All what counts is that space is consumed and must be delivered.

This means that gravity is born to reflect the law of the space “density”.
Space from the inner area must be contracted much stronger, so that enough space can be delivered everywhere.

Imagine a inner central area of a galaxy divided into 3 successive areas.

• One area furthest out ‘A’
• One area further in ‘B’
• And one area even further in ‘C’

One could also consider these spheres to represent the inner central area of the Earth

The matter that is in area ‘A’ is contracting space here.
This means that the matter that lies deeper in the galaxy (area ‘B’) lies ‘behind’ the outer matter (area ‘A’) and thereby in space that is already somewhat contracted (by area ‘A’).
The matter that lies in area ‘B’ and even deeper (in area ‘C’) therefore lies in areas that are becoming more and more contracted as one moves inwards.
Due to this additive force the contraction of space as one move inwards will gradually get stronger.

Its no reason to that anything cancels out component wise. All what matter is to fetch enough space?

This is not just "words" but rather, it could be a start to a new paradigm that we don’t know yet if it is true, but that can be a fact tomorrow.

--

 

[Reality Check]

So I see that you have thrown away GR since in GR curvature of spacetime produces gravity. Contraction of space cannot produce curvature and so cannot produce gravity.
This contradicts all your statements before about retaining the mathematics (and so the predictions) of GR.

Think about a rubber sheet which has a triangle drawn on it.
What happens to that triangle according to an inhabitant of the rubber sheet if the sheet contracts?
What happens to that triangle according to an inhabitant of the rubber sheet if the sheet curves?

In the first case the inhabitant sees no change in the triangle. The sum of the angles of the triangle is always 180 degrees. Even lengths remain the same since rulers also contract. The conclusion is that they are in a flat spacetime where there is only Newtonian gravity.

In the second case the sum of the angles of the triangle changes. The inhabitant can determine that they are in a curved spacetime and thus Newtonian gravity is an approximation to General Relativity.

One more time: Bended space is not equal to contracted space.