Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

[Bjarne]

-
In 100 years we have known that space around an astronomic body bends

1.) But what is “bended space” really?
2.) How can matter connect with space billion of miles away and bend space that fare away?
3.) How can matter cause space to “bend”?
4.) Can space bend without a force / energy is used?

The expanding space deforms space (in an outwards direction).

Gravity also deforms space, but can you imaging which direction etc... without getting confused?
Does gravity deforms space in an opposite inwards direction (opposite to dark energy)?
Does gravity “suck” / consume / contract space?

Allow you self that thought for a minute and you are immediately able to answer question 1 and 2 above:
1.) Bended space (caused by gravity) is the opposite of expansive space (so called dark energy)
2.) Matter contacts space. Like a “domino effect” space fare away hence is affected too..

Left is question 3 and 4. – The answer seems to be that the spin of the elementary particles are responsible fore “pulling space together”.

This was only the introduction.
Following the main thread: - that gravity “sucks” space, - will unravel all gravity mysteries:

the flyby anomalies,
the pioneer anomaly,
dark matter
dark energy
and a lot more

I am not allowed to post any links in the first 15 post. But if you wish you can click my name, click my homepage and read the result of the past two years research I have done. . It’s simple and easy to read and understand.
-

[Perpetual Student]

Another one?

[Dorfl]

In 100 years we have known that space around an astronomic body bends

1.) But what is “bended space” really?
2.) How can matter connect with space billion of miles away and bend space that far away?
3.) How can matter cause space to “bend”?

These questions seem to be more philosophical than scientific. What anything "really" is or how it "really" works, isn't a question that scientists tend to concern themselves with. We can describe the properties of space, and the way it interacts with matter very well. Isn't that enough?

4.) Can space bend without a force / energy is used?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Masses don't spend energy on curving the space around them. But obviously some energy has to be there for there to be any mass to curve space.


Allow yourself that thought for a minute and you are immediately able to answer question 1 and 2 above:
1.) Bended space (caused by gravity) is the opposite of expansive space (so called dark energy)

Dark energy is the name for whatever it is that is causing space to expand, not for space itself.

2.) Matter contracts space. Like a “domino effect” space far away hence is affected too..

I guess. But how is that different from simply restating the observation that you were trying to explain, that matter affects space really far away?

[Bjarne]

Dorfl
These questions seem to be more philosophical than scientific. What anything "really" is or how it "really" works, isn't a question that scientists tend to concern themselves with. We can describe the properties of space, and the way it interacts with matter very well. Isn't that enough?
No it’s not enough if we want to understand the nature of gravity and all the connected mysteries mounting up.
Remember that the theory of relativity once also only was “philosophical” and even not enough to any price.

Bjarne
Can space bend without a force / energy is used?
Dorfl
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Masses don't spend energy on curving the space around them. But obviously some energy has to be there for there to be any mass to curve space.
Energy accumulates, - the result is matter / mass.
You can release that energy any time.
The result is (if you realise it all) expanding space.

Dorfl
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Masses don't spend energy on curving the space around them. But obviously some energy has to be there for there to be any mass to curve space.
Agree. Energy is not “used” as I wrote above. You can release it.

Dorfl
Dark energy is the name for whatever it is that is causing space to expand, not for space itself.
I have explained what dark energy really is, in the chapter: Dark energy.


Bjarne
Matter contracts space. Like a “domino effect” space far away hence is affected too..
Dorfl
I guess. But how is that different from simply restating the observation that you were trying to explain, that matter affects space really far away?
It explains how to understand how matter can “reach” (and affect) space billion miles away from a object. It’s a domino effect. If you contract space one place the domino effect will mean you contract the whole universe. (Even a gain of sand affects the whole Universe). This is also what clearly is revealed mathematically by the (simple): Acceleration due to Gravity equation. (Shown in the chapter: Dark Matter) -- Gravity "sucks" space.

[Dorfl]

No it's not enough if we want to understand the nature of gravity and all the connected mysteries mounting up.

Why not?

Remember that the theory of relativity once also only was “philosophical” and even not enough to any price.

It never was. The theory of relativity made testable predictions from the start, which is why it was accepted as quickly as it was.

It explains how to understand how matter can “reach” (and affect) space billion miles away from a object. It’s a domino effect. If you contract space one place the domino effect will mean you contract the whole universe. (Even a gain of sand affects the whole Universe). This is also what clearly is revealed mathematically by the (simple): Acceleration due to Gravity equation. (Shown in the chapter: Dark Matter) -- Gravity "sucks" space.

It still sounds like you're saying "Matter pulls on space nearby, which pulls on space further away". Which is true, but we kind of knew as much already.

Can you show the maths here? Looking up equations on a web–page somewhere rarely tells anyone very much.

[Reality Check]

Hi Bjarne,
What kind of manifold does your theory use?
If none then can you point out where you derive that the mathematical structure that you use is locally Euclidean?
Do you have a proof that your theory is Lorentz invariant (at least locally).

Can you indicate where your "simple and easy to read and understand" derivation of Newton's law of gravity from your theory is?

[Peter i]

Hello Bjarne!

A notorious bovinophile has entered the forum!

[Ziggurat]

1.) But what is “bended space” really?

Space in which the metric has curvature. It's got a rigorous mathematical definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature_of_Riemannian_manifolds). If you don't understand the definition, then you don't understand the theory. That is not the fault of the theory.

Allow you self that thought for a minute and you are immediately able to answer question 1 and 2 above:
1.) Bended space (caused by gravity) is the opposite of expansive space (so called dark energy)

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

[Leviath]

For those not familiar with Bjarne, here is his homepage:
http://www.science27.com/

[Thabiguy]

For those not familiar with Bjarne, here is his homepage:
http://www.science27.com/

Well, the ideas presented at that website are seriously flawed, but man, does it have a visually pleasing design. Compared to the horror of typical woo sites, this one is at least a delight to skim through. Too bad the contents is so useless.

[Bjarne]

Too bad the contents is so useless.

What Peter and Paul believes is not important.

This theory predicts that central gravity (in one gravitional field) doesn’t cancel out component wise.
And it predicts that resistance against motion not only applies to acceleration, but also by constant motion.
And a lot more, that impossible can be hidden / ignored forever.

This as well as all the other claims are all only consequences of the simple innocent basic claim, - that bended space = contracted space.

This two mentioned point are relative easy to proof - this is what science is about.

If anything is "wrong" show me the proof, please.

Preparation to prove / disprove this theory has started already.

I am 210% sure this theory is about to start to a revolution in science.

Don’t miss the starting gun. .....

[Dancing David]

I am curious as to what you mean here (from the absract)

When 2 objects approach each other the acceleration due to gravity between the two objects decreases while the contraction of space in that region increases.

Decreased acceleration does not mean decreased force of gravity - but only that two gravitational fields are into a unification process and that the two connected gravity properties are changing.


The cause of acceleration due to gravity is simply the relative change in contraction of space per unit distance. The above mentioned point of view is new but not that strange or different from the prevailing understanding..

[Dorfl]

And it predicts that resistance against motion not only applies to acceleration, but also by constant motion.

Are you saying that objects in motion will slow down over time?

This two mentioned point are relative easy to proof - this is what science is about.

No. Mathematics is about proving things. Science does not attempt to prove anything.

[Reality Check]

Hi Bjarne,
You missed my questions:
What kind of manifold does your theory use?
If none then can you point out where you derive that the mathematical structure that you use is locally Euclidean?
Do you have a proof that your theory is Lorentz invariant (at least locally).

Can you indicate where your "simple and easy to read and understand" derivation of Newton's law of gravity from your theory is?
It also sounds as you have replaced classical mechanics, i.e. acceleration is no longer related to force at least for gravity (as in DD's post).
Can you give your equations for the force of gravity of one object on another and the resulting acceleration of the object?

[Bjarne]

I am curious as to what you mean here (from the abstract)

I suggest read the whole theory. Understanding properties of gravity is to understand the proprieties of “nothing” . I have trying my best to put express this.

The point is that gravity have to properties 1.) Mass attraction. 2.) acc. due to gravity.

Imaging, You are walking up a step hill or stairs, hence breathing harder.
This is because the Earth “sucks” space, and you body too.
You body and the Earth “compares” to contract / suck the space between you.
Because matter sucks /contacts space, you body is “sucked” down to Earth.

Imaging, a body between two big objects (Moon and Earth) is attracted by both the Moon and the earth. Between these your weight is weaker. Let’s now say that the Moon has the same mass as the Earth and you are exact between these two bodies. Now you will not be attracted to any of these objects, because space per distances is equally contracted to both directions.

Are you saying that objects in motion will slow down over time?
Both yes and No. It depends on time, place and nearby astronomic bodies rotation velocity.
The Pioneer and the Fly Anomaly and several other mysteries are solved.
To understand this part you will have to read the whole chapter: “The Pioneer Anomaly” and all the links in that chapter. All the evidence claimed here are “written in the stars”. It’s only a question of looking up and see it for you self. One day you will se the final proof, for example from CERN, but already the "proofs" is obviously..

Reality Check
What I am claiming is really not: “a new theory”, but rather a simple and obviously interpretation of what already is known. It is no need to be “too philosophic”, or to have any PHD. It’s so simple everyone can understand it. Both Newton and Einstein’s theories are correct. We know that space bends/deforms/curve (call it what you like). We can measure and calculate it, that’s all fine, - gravity is well understood on the superficial level, - but we have never (seriously) imaging what is really curved space. Here is the cause of the fragmented and incomplete understanding of gravity buried.

Allow you self seriously at least test the thought: is bended space = contracted space.
Follow the main thread, test it with by all means and bases on all knowledge we have, and you will discover that all gravity mysteries are gone...

In the end of the day, you will find that we live in a much simpler universe, without strange dark matter, without unknown dimension, without unknown forces affecting space probes etc…... You will see how matter and space is connected, and the huge consequences of such connection. And you will see how relative small insignificant misunderstanding in the past has lead to a universe full of huge mysteries, no longer necessary.

It always takes time to “tune” into new vibrations. Take you time. Think about it.

[Dorfl]

What I am claiming is really not: “a new theory”, but rather a simple and obviously interpretation of what already is known. It is no need to be “too philosophic”, or to have any PHD. It’s so simple everyone can understand it. Both Newton and Einstein’s theories are correct. We know that space bends/deforms/curve (call it what you like). We can measure and calculate it, that’s all fine, - gravity is well understood on the superficial level, - but we have never (seriously) imaging what is really curved space. Here is the cause of the fragmented and incomplete understanding of gravity buried.

Noone is asking for either philosophy or whether you have a PHD. We are asking you to give a mathematical description of your theory—or your interpretation of earlier theories. The need to be able to do that isn't something anyone doing physics gets away from.

Allow you self seriously at least test the thought: is bended space = contracted space. Follow the main thread, test it with by all means and bases on all knowledge we have, and you will discover that all gravity mysteries are gone...

I hope you can appreciate that we all have considered your question whether bent space equals contracted space. That we did not arrive at the answer you wanted does not mean that we haven't seriously thought about it.

[Bjarne]

-
We are asking you to give a mathematical description of your theory—or your interpretation of earlier theories. The need to be able to do that isn't something anyone doing physics gets away from.

It’s not necessary with any new revolutionary equations, but rather to understand the underlying reality of what gravity is and how it works and connects with space.
A such understanding is possible based on that we already know. The main point is that matter contracts space. It’s basic not necessary to invent new equation to understand that this happens..

Try to look a little closer to the equation g=MG/r^2 –
You will find that that each time the square increases 75%, then the acceleration of gravity decreases 75%

Why this perfect proportional’s 1:1 ?

Is it a coincidence?

Or does the 300 years old equation express “something” that we haven’t understood?

The answer is that the equations reflect that the force of gravity depends n “available space” , and the equation reflect that gravity sucks / contracts space, - a domino effect, that continues towards infinity.

It’s a beautiful equation that in its true compact essence allready contains everything about what gravity really is and how space and matter must be connected, as well that the relative change of contracted space per distance is the basic for acceleration due to gravity..

Based on that understanding it is obviously to understand that the equation MmG/r^2 reflects: how much space contracts between 2 objects.

To reach that new understanding,- a new invented equation is not the answer, - but rather the existing Newtonian equations are already the means to how we can reach a unified understanding based on everything what we already know about gravity.

Except what is mentioned above, you will find a new equation: F = RM/Qr² at the chapter: The Pioneer anomaly” and you will find a simple new equation in the chapter: Anti Gravity” – I suggest to read these chapter. – But these doesn’t reflect the basic of the theory (you was asking for) but “only” (mathematically) consequences.
-

[Dorfl]

Try to look a little closer to the equation g=MG/r^2 –
You will find that that each time the square increases 75%, then the acceleration of gravity decreases 75%

Why this perfect proportional’s 1:1 ?

Is it a coincidence?

Or does the 300 years old equation express “something” that we haven’t understood?

The answer is that the equations reflect that the force of gravity depends on “available space” , and the equation reflect that gravity sucks / contracts space, - a domino effect, that continues towards infinity.

It’s a beautiful equation that in its true compact essence already contains everything about what gravity really is and how space and matter must be connected, as well that the relative change of contracted space per distance is the basic for acceleration due to gravity..

Based on that understanding it is obviously to understand that the equation MmG/r^2 reflects: how much space contracts between 2 objects.

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.

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.

[Dorfl]

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.

Bjarne, I recommend that you read this:

Why Math? (http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/12/why_math.php)

It gives a pretty good explanation of why, perhaps not "revolutionary new equations", but at least a basic mathematical description of your theory, is absolutely necessary for it to be taken seriously by any of part of the scientific community.

[Reality Check]

What I am claiming is really not: “a new theory”, but rather a simple and obviously interpretation of what already is known. It is no need to be “too philosophic”, or to have any PHD. It’s so simple everyone can understand it. Both Newton and Einstein’s theories are correct. We know that space bends/deforms/curve (call it what you like). We can measure and calculate it, that’s all fine, - gravity is well understood on the superficial level, - but we have never (seriously) imaging what is really curved space. Here is the cause of the fragmented and incomplete understanding of gravity buried....snip....
General Relativity states that gravitational forces are a consequence of the curvature of spacetime. The R in the Einstein field equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations) is the Ricci curvature tensor.
You are stating that gravitational forces are a consequence of the contraction of spacetime.
That is not a "a simple and obviously interpretation". That is a statement that GR is wrong. Contraction is not curvature.
Contracted spacetime does not cause any forces.

Many people can imagine what is really curved space.
Many people can imagine what is really contracted space.
Many people can imagine what is really expanded space.
So you are also wrong in stating "we have never (seriously) imaging what is really curved space".

The understanding of gravity is not fragmented - it is one simple equation. The mathematics behind that equation are complex though - that may have confused you.
The understanding of gravity is not complete because no science is ever complete.

So the answer to this thread is:
No.

[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..

http://www.science27.com/images/img_17.jpg

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? :whistling

[MRC_Hans]

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

Absolutely priceless!

:dl:

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

http://www.science27.com/images/img_4.jpg

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.

http://www.science27.com/images/img_23.jpg

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.

[Dorfl]

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)

Now we have a testable prediction. You claim that the strength of gravity inside a body should be more or less constant, if your theory is correct. Do you have any experimental data indicating that this is actually the case?

Does anyone else have data indicating that it is not?

[Reality Check]

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)
Actually it does mean that gravity cancels out in the center of the Earth considered as a homegenous solid sphere (see this PDF (http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/142E/142E_Lec_9_Gravity.pdf)).
1 meter from the center is not the center. It is 1 meter from the center.

You agree with the math of GE (and Newton) and so you have to agree that the gravitaional force within the earth on a body of masss m and a distance r from the center is
F = mgr/rE
The constant g in this equation is the acceleration of gravity as measured at the Earth's surface. The actual acceleration of the body is gr/rE. It is not a constant.

ETA
I do not know of any experiments that have tested the variation of gravity inside the Earth. There do not seem to any reports listed in the obvious places, e.g. arXiv.
My guess is that the effect is so small that technology has only lately benn able to detect it. This is such a trivial result that it seems unlikely that it would be tested (any inverse square law predicts a linear variation and we have tested that gravity obeys an inverse square law).

[Reality Check]

Google "subsurface gravity measurements". There is is a lot of information about mapping subsurface structures by looking at how the force of gravity deviates from the linear law for a homogeneous solid sphere.

[sol invictus]

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)

That is in direct contradiction to the predictions of both general relativity and Newtonian gravity. So you were wrong when you said your theory relied on the same equations general relativity does.

That said, could it be true? Absolutely not. While we obviously haven't measured the gravity 1m from the center of the earth, we have measured it under a huge range of circumstances, and all those results are consistent with Einstein (and mostly with Newton, except for rare cases where the gravity is strong enough that the non-linearities in GR become relevant).

[Toke]

Google "subsurface gravity measurements". There is is a lot of information about mapping subsurface structures by looking at how the force of gravity deviates from the linear law for a homogeneous solid sphere.

Yes, I have read of such measurements used by geologists including using a satellite and concluding something from bumpiness in its orbit or in ocean surface.

[Pixie of key]

There is no gravity at all!

No drawing force!

Only pushing force!

It is pressure!

The bending of a light*
The photons also expand and open up energywaves. They push themselves in their energywaves away from each other. The photons coming out of stars are more massive than the old photons of another stars.

The massiver and the thicker the photon is, the less it has exterior surface. The slower the photon expands, the the less it opens up energywaves. The massiver the photon is, the slower the time is.

The photons opening up from the sun don´t have interaction with the old photons. Tha is why they don´t push the old photons away from the sun.

A lot of old photons of different stars come towards the sun. They expand and open up energywaves, by which they make the old photons that pass the sun explode more energy away from the sun.

This is how the light bends because of the variation of the pressure. Not because the sun would bend a space in some marvelous way.

The spaceship has the same energy as the photons have and they both turn or can be turned their orbit of movement for the same reason.


onesimpleprinciple com

[Pixie of key]

The substance does not alter to an energy. The substance itself is energy.

The substance / The energy alters all the time to a less dense substance / energy.

The substance / The energy alters to a less dense energy in a space that has always existed. The space does not increase! The space does not expand or curve!

The whole concept of expanding space has been pulled out of the hat, because people has believed that the pulling force does exist. There is no such force as pulling force!

The Quarks

The quarks are formed out of energy that alters all the time to a less dense energy. The quarks expand and radiate energy waves. These waves the expading qvarks push themselves away from each other.

The quarks absorb more energy from the particles that move through the quarks. When the expanding quarks push themselves away from each other the energy radiating from the quarks pass and pushing becomes weaker.

The quarks continue to expand, at the same time they come closer to each other without actually moving towards each other and the pushing strenghens. An external pressure is directed towards the quarks because more energy from the other atomcores and from those particles that move in an area between the atomcores and radiate their energy towards the atomcores.

The pattern of an atom

The energy of the atomcore alters to a less dense energy. The atom core expands and radiates energywaves that have the nature of electron and
particule. Also the electrons and the particules alter to a less dense energy and radiate their energy as waves.

The atomcore absorbs as if it would fill up more energy towards itselef from those particules that pass the atomcores or through the core. So the
particules also alter to a less dense energy and radiate their energy. The particules also absorb energy towards themselves from the radiation of the other particules.

The electrons continue their journey towards atomcores nearby. They have interaction with the energy waves that they meet. They produce variation of pressure and with confronting energy-wawes new electrons are produced.

These electrons continue their journey towards atomcores nearby etc. After that the energy itself continues towards the atomcore and makes the atomcore to explode in other words to change faster into a less dense energy ect







1. CAN ENERGY OF AN ATOM NUCLEUS/CORE CHANGE?

About 13.8 billion years ago universe -as we see it - had its energy very densely formed. Nowadays the same energy is way more than less condensed.

There is no reason to doubt that same phenomenon couldnt effect on the very same energy that the nucleus of an atom has!

Nucleuses of atoms had accordingly changed for less dense energy. Concomitantly expanding atom nucleuses have radiated their energy in a form of waves which have nature of electrons and particles.

Electrons confront energy-waves from the adjacent atom nucleuses and interact with them. At this point new electrons are born in to them which create changes of pressure into energy-waves that they confront etc.

After the interaction electrons continue towards nucleus of an atom, make the nucleus explode their energy to that very same direction where that electron came. Because of that the expanding nucleus trembles to opposing direction and so forth.


2. All the time particles move through and past atom nucleuses which also change to less dense energy and radiate their energy in waves. Quarks ? fuel up? i.e. absorb this ?raw-material? (energy) all the time and so the recycling of the energy continues.

After some period of time energy of the quarks energy can change at which point quark has won?t have any of that energy which it earlier had?

It raises up the question, Does for example cores of the atoms in old buildings switched their energy upon a time, hence there wouldn?t be any of that energy which the building had just after the construction?

Stars and planets are like big ?fish traps? or ?fish nets? which absorb more and more of that same ?raw material? (energy) which from everything around us constructs. In the same time they change to contain less and less dense energy.

3. Three dimensional expansion creates a pressure which in other hand creates all the expanding objects radiate themselves i.e. energy in waves which have the character of different energy concentration etc.

Density of the eternal energy changes in the eternal space, which will never change!







The atomcores that transform into a less dense energy control each others trasformation into a less dense energy with an energy that radiates from themselves.

The stars that transform into a less dense energy control each others trasformation into a less dense energy with an energy that the stars radiate towards each other.

The galaxies that transform into a less dense energy control each others
trasformation into a less dense energy with an energy that the galaxies radiate towards each other.

The groups of galaxies that transform into a less dense energy control each others trasformation into a less dense energy with an energy that they radiate towards each other.

The particules (like photons and neutrinos) that transform into a less dense energy control each others transformation with and energy that the neutrinos and the photons radiate towards each other.

The particules that transform into a less dense energy control the transformation of the atomcores that the particules radiate towards the atomcores.

This way the omega is excactly one all the time!

The space really does not curve or bend!

The density of an eternal energy transforms in a ever lasting space that does not transform!










I DEMAND LOGICALITY

We need to expect even a little bit of logicality to the scientific theories.

If I have understood correctly, according to the so called firm interaction the qvarks supposedly interact with each other the stronger the further the qvarks are from each other?

The argument that the qvarks interact stronger when they are further away from each other is not logical nor scientifical.

”The gluons that moderate strong nuclear power have been observed in particle accelerators”.

How does the gluon moderate the gravitation from one qvark to another?
How does the gluon loosen from the qvark?
Why does the gluon move towards another qvark?
How does the gluon make the qvark that is impacted by a gluon to move itself to the same direction from where the gluon itself is coming?
How does the gluon effect the qvark stronger if the qvark is further away from the qvark where the gluon started it´s journey?


In fact the qvark explodes and causes internal pressure to the qvark and this pressure makes qvark to squeeze energy as waves that have the nature of gluons. One example of this theory we have in a shape of guns.

The expanding qvarks have interaction with each other so to say push themselves away from each other the less the further the qvarks from each other are located. This happens because from the qvarks the waves moving forward like in a surface of a ball impact less waves to a qvark nearby when qvark nearby is located further and so on.

So the expanding qvarks can not in any point push themselves away from each other so firmly that they would begin to move further away from each other faster than they expand. When the pushing decreases, relatively the expanding makes the qvarks to reach out for each other even though the qvarks don´t move towards each other.

The gluon does not go to the next qvark and tell it to go in a direction where I just came..

No, the gluon impacts the qvark and makes the energy in that side of the qvark to alter faster into a less dense energy. With this energy the expanding qvark pushes itself away from that expanding qvark where the gluon came ect.

One could assume that a scientifical theory would have even some kind of logicality! The theory of an firm interaction between qvarks is not logical, because the qvarks do not interact stronger with each other the further they are from each other. That´s a fact!

The qvarks also absorb in other words fill up all the time more raw material (=energy) from where everything consits of. This way the recycling of an energy continues in a space that allready exists and does not alter in any ways!

[MRC_Hans]

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.I'm not sure about that; in the Danish forum, he talks about proving his hypothesis by measuring gravity inside a large building. He seems to regard the building as one body, although it is obviously in contact with Earth.

But then, why should we expect consistency? :rolleyes:

Hans

[martu]

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

I’m sorry but it is not clear at all, I have read that page a couple of times and I still do not understand it. For example:

When elementary particles spin they contract space. This has fundamental importance for our understanding of quantum physics.
Pulling together, contracting 'elastic' space requires energy. Therefore the energy of a particle must be proportional to the amount of space such a particle can pull together (bend/contract). This also means that the spin of a particle has its culmination at the point at which space would absorb its entire energy. At such a point the extent of space contraction absorbs all the energy of a particle.
For each spinning particle there is a maximum level (culmination) of the amount of contraction of space it can generate.

This doesn’t make any sense in any way, shape or form. You need some maths here otherwise no one is going to understand you. Define elastic (how elastic is it? Does it obey Hooke's law?), define spin (how fast? What direction? Up\down relative to what?) define the relationship between spin and contraction.

All I get from this that somehow (no mechanism suggested) particles contract space which causes gravity (somehow ) – do you think photons behave this way and contract space? If so doesn’t this imply they have mass according to your theory?

[steenkh]

I'm not sure about that; in the Danish forum, he talks about proving his hypothesis by measuring gravity inside a large building. He seems to regard the building as one body, although it is obviously in contact with Earth.
Before you took up the gauntlet in the Danish forum, we had a longish debate with Bjarne about his concept of "bodies", and his rejection of the principle of superposition. (You can find the most important part start here (http://debat.ateist.net/showthread.php?p=62159#post62159) (warning: the link is in Danish)). It seems that mountains can sometimes act as separate bodies, depending on whether they are steep or not, because then they produce a "secondary" gravity field counteracting that of the Earth.

Two bodies would to a certain extent be able to cancel each other's gravity influence on point between them, but if the are brought closer together, their gravity fields according to Bjarne merges at one point and becomes a single field with the combined strength.

Well, I will leave it to Bjarne to elaborate, but it is certainly a major deviation from normal physics to reject the superposition principle and operate with bodies instead of the sum of particles.

[Reality Check]

Yes, I have read of such measurements used by geologists including using a satellite and concluding something from bumpiness in its orbit or in ocean surface.
Some of the Google results are about doing the gravity measurements underground to look for subsurface features.
Here is one: A new procedure to perform differential underground gravity measurements (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VFC-3VWNHG8-7&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=11671f087fc1160dea65068bf27b45cf)
The aim of this research is to evaluate the possibility of using underground gravity measurements in order to characterise density anomalies in tunnel surroundings. A measurement procedure which allows estimation of the gravimetrical differential effects in several directions is proposed. Attention is paid to the theoretical aspects and then a method is put forward for carrying out a practical survey.

More relevant is this article from 1952: SUBSURFACE GRAVITY MEASUREMENTS (http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=GPYSA7000017000002000365000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes)

Gravity data were obtained at approximately 100-foot intervals in a vertical mine shaft 2,916 feet deep. The shaft passed through a region of high positive density contrast, and a local anomaly was observed of plus 14.0 gravity units to minus 17.9 gravity units. Calculations for Bouguer densities were carried out with the gravity measurements. A theoretical sphere that closely approximates the observed data and known conditions is derived from the gravity data.

[Bjarne]

--------
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 space-time where there is only Newtonian gravity..


I understand you points. - Nice way to describe what you think.
The problem is only that we don’t know excactly how to imaging / how to understand what GR really express. This is why gravity so long have been a mystery.

Remember that 100 years ago not many at all did understood GR, and the same is the case today. We have accepted this theory only because we mathematically and by measurement have been force to do so, not because we understood how GR really works, or which kind of law of nature GR reflects.

Have you ever meet a person that didn’t was totally confused first time he/she hear about GR?

To illustrate that we fundamental really have understood nearly nothing of GR, except that it is a fact, please make the experiment that follows:

Try to look up the sky, Now seriously ask you self:


What is bended space?
How does space bend?
What causes space to bend?
How is it possible to understand the “dense space” nature of expansive space?
And is that expensive “dense space” property related to bended space? Yes or No – How can you know for sure?
How does matter reach (and affect) space far away?
Why are you sucked down to earth? - Because of space bend? What about mass attraction: - if you have 1000 kg on your big toe, what pulls (sucks) the weight so much down to Earth?, - is it “space curvature” that pulls ? – or does the Earth and the 1000 sucks the weight ? – Why does 1 kg give less pain? - Because of space curves ? or because of matter sucks ? – or ?
Don’t believe everything you read in the book. ?
Don’t be satisfied with haft truths.
Confused? - You should be.

Here follows some step to understand where things went wrong:

1.) Accept that “curved space” is a misleading uncompleted expression, only suitable to confuse and prevent you to understand the true nature of GR.

2.) If you resist, - accept there is no evidence that support that space “bends or curves”. Have you ever seen “curved space”? - It’s only an expression invented to try to explain that Einstein discovered “something” very difficult fully to understand. But this doesn’t mean that the basic of GR is wrong, but rather that this discovered was too much for our as well for Einteins imagination.

3.) Now, - try to understand the law of nature hidden in the mentioned proportional 1 : 1 .
Why is “g” 100% proportional with the “amount of space” affected by “g”.
This must reflect a property of space, a law of nature. Do you want to ignore this? - If not you are on the right track to understand the nature of gravity.
Now seriously ask you self: How is it possible to crack that code 1:1? - What could it express?

4.) Try to allow you self the thought that matter sucks space. This explains everything.

5.) Many wonders (first time) they hear about GR, why there is some kind of conflict between Newtonian and relativistic gravity.
Shortly spoken: Why is time dilation / bended space and acceleration due to gravity not 2 parallel lines? These two do not form a synthesis, why?

The fact is: they do. On the superficial level it’s easy to see that these lines are parallel.
If you understand my previously post (39) you will find that these line also are parallel inside an object. This means you can take another step forward, simply because that the Newtonian equation and GR equation reflect the same underlying law of gravity, and form a synthesis: space contracts.

You must always have two parallel lines. In other words: the velocity caused by acceleration due to gravity + time dilatation + the strength of the (so called) curvature/bended of space, is always parallel lines. Add you can even add one more parallel line: distances (in and out side matter) also change proportional to these values.

All these conclusions are only based on consequences by following the main thread: Space contracts.
--------

[Reality Check]

Found an experiment that tested Newton's law of gravity down a mine shaft:
S. C. Holding, F. D. Stacey, and G. J. Tuck, Gravity in mines--an investigation of Newton's law. Phys. Rev. D 33, 3487-3494 (1986).

It is mentioned in The measurement of little g: a fertile ground for precision measurement science (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+measurement+of+little+g:+a+fertile+ground+for+ precision+...-a0146537917) web page. The experiment "proved more difficult than first imagined because of systematic errors arising from estimating the gravitational contributions from the less than homogeneous surface layers" but there is no mention of a deviation from a linear variation in gravitational force with distance from the center of the Earth. If the force was constant as claimed by Bjarne's theory then that would have certainly been found.

Thus Bjarne's theory is wrong for a couple of reasons.
The primary reason is that he states it uses the existing laws of gravity but somehow gets different results. This suggests that he has made a fundemental mistake. The "rejection of the principle of superposition" that has been mentioned would be such a mistake.

Secondly he predicts that the force of gravity is constant inside a homogeneous solid sphere (e.g. the Earth). This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly the force of gravity at the center of the sphere is zero. That would make the constant zero. But we are not in zero gravity as soon as we go underground. Secondly the experimental results is that the force of gravity varies as expected down mine shafts.

[sol invictus]

Thus Bjarne's theory is wrong for a couple of reasons.
The primary reason is that he states it uses the existing laws of gravity but somehow gets different results. This suggests that he has made a fundemental mistake. The "rejection of the principle of superposition" that has been mentioned would be such a mistake.

Indeed. The principle of superposition is an immediate consequence of the form of the equations for Newtonian gravity, and it also follows from GR in the limit of weak gravity (where GR becomes Newtonian).

Secondly he predicts that the force of gravity is constant inside a homogeneous solid sphere (e.g. the Earth). This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly the force of gravity at the center of the sphere is zero. That would make the constant zero. But we are not in zero gravity as soon as we go underground. Secondly the experimental results is that the force of gravity varies as expected down mine shafts.

I don't think one needs to look at mine-shaft experiments. The fact that gravity behaves as it does inside the earth is very closely related to the fact that, for example, the force of gravity at the point halfway between two identical masses is zero, and increases smoothly as you move away from that point towards either. What's happening is that the gravitational force cancels exacly at the center, and less and less exactly as you move towards one and away from the other, all in a perfectly smooth way. Experiments like that have been done hundreds of times; the results are always consistent with Newton.

[Bjarne]

That is in direct contradiction to the predictions of both general relativity and Newtonian gravity.

Correct Newton thought that gravity would cancel out inside out in the centre of (a homogenous) object. Einstein and Gauss and many more went into that “trap” too.
A small mistake 300 years ago was the rot to all evil.

Now we have a testable prediction. You claim that the strength of gravity inside a body should be more or less constant

Exactly.
I will now try to measure acc due to gravity inside big buildings.
This is maybe not the perfect experiment. But let’s see I think this should be enough.
http://www.science27.com/english/evidence.html

This doesn’t make any sense in any way, shape or form. You need some maths here otherwise no one is going to understand you.
Einstein tried 35 years of his live to show that gravity and the strong force was united.
Even at the on his deathbed he wrote equations.
This part can not be proven mathematically like I see it.
But it’s easy to understand.
If elementary particle pulls space, they must at a certain time work together in a coordinated way. Hence the strong force automatically must emerge, simply because a frequency between interaction (spin up spin down) MUST be the result of chaotic spin / pul.
Compare it with a rowing boat . All 20 man must work together to save energy.

Found an experiment that tested Newton's law of gravity down a mine shaft: This proves noting.
It is first from about 3300km inside the earth that gravity according to the prevailing theory “should” begin to cancel out. You can not use mines. That’s a problem.

[Reality Check]

I understand you points. - Nice way to describe what you think.

It is not what I think.
It is what the mathematics states: a contraction of space is not a curvature of space. They act differently as the rubber sheet analogy shows.


The problem is only that we don’t know excactly how to imaging / how to understand what GR really express. This is why gravity so long have been a mystery.

That is sort of right - we do not know what GR really expresses. In fact we do not know what any scientific theory "really expresses".

The ultimate causes of all forces of nature are a mystery. But that is a more philosophical question than a scientific one. Science is a process that gets us ever closer to those ultimate causes without any guarantee that we will actually find them. What we do find are scientific theories that describe the real universe in more and more detail.

Gravity is not a mystery and has not been for 300 years.


All these conclusions are only based on consequences by following the main thread: Space contracts.
Space could contract.
This has does generate any forces, e.g. gravitational forces.
Look at my triangle in a rubber sheet analogy and see that under contraction the triangle remains the same. The lines remain as straight lines. An object moving in a straight line still moves in a straight line when space contracts.

To get a gravitational force you have to use the rubber sheet analogy where space curves.

This is most easily seen from the actual equations of General Relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations) which you claim to know about. They include Ricci curvature tensor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_curvature_tensor) - not the "Bjarne contraction tensor".

Your idea is obviously wrong. It has no relationship with the General Relativity.

[MRC_Hans]

Before you took up the gauntlet in the Danish forum, we had a longish debate with Bjarne about his concept of "bodies", and his rejection of the principle of superposition. (You can find the most important part start here (http://debat.ateist.net/showthread.php?p=62159#post62159) (warning: the link is in Danish)). It seems that mountains can sometimes act as separate bodies, depending on whether they are steep or not, because then they produce a "secondary" gravity field counteracting that of the Earth.

Two bodies would to a certain extent be able to cancel each other's gravity influence on point between them, but if the are brought closer together, their gravity fields according to Bjarne merges at one point and becomes a single field with the combined strength.

Well, I will leave it to Bjarne to elaborate, but it is certainly a major deviation from normal physics to reject the superposition principle and operate with bodies instead of the sum of particles.Mmm, I'm sure you are right. I don't think I care much, though. Seems Bjarne's physics are more or less pure fiction. And not even good fiction.

Hans

ETA: And, not being a bovinophile, I'm not sure I want to know Bjarne's definition of 'bodies'.

[sol invictus]

Correct Newton thought that gravity would cancel out inside out in the centre of (a homogenous) object. Einstein and Gauss and many more went into that “trap” too.
A small mistake 300 years ago was the rot to all evil.

What ridiculous nonsense. I've done that calculation myself many times, in Newtonian gravity, elecrostatics, general relativity, and other theories. It's easy.

Go ahead and show us where it's wrong, Bjarne.

[Bjarne]

What ridiculous nonsense. I've done that calculation myself many times

Many can calculate
and many does it without to know what they are calculating
Gravity is no exception

Go ahead and show us where it's wrong, Bjarne.

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

[Reality Check]

Correct Newton thought that gravity would cancel out inside out in the centre of (a homogenous) object. Einstein and Gauss and many more went into that “trap” too.
A small mistake 300 years ago was the rot to all evil.
The calculation that gravity is zero at the center of a homogenous sphere is quite simple (work out the general equation and put r=0).
I remember doing it as a first year physics undergraduate many years ago. I suspect that I had at least seen the calculation as a high school student.

[MRC_Hans]

Correct Newton thought that gravity would cancel out inside out in the centre of (a homogenous) object. Einstein and Gauss and many more went into that “trap” too.
A small mistake 300 years ago was the rot to all evil.

So you claim that centuries of scientists got it wrong, and you got it right? You fail in primary school physics (this was established on the Danish forum), but you understand what Einstein & al did not?


I will now try to measure acc due to gravity inside big buildings.
This is maybe not the perfect experiment. But let’s see I think this should be enough.


See further down.


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

Just some friendly advice: Here, you can only plug your homepage a limited number of times before you will get a warning for spamming.


Einstein tried 35 years of his live to show that gravity and the strong force was united.
Even at the on his deathbed he wrote equations.
This part can not be proven mathematically like I see it.
But it’s easy to understand.


Again, Bjarne implies that everybody else are idiots.


If elementary particle pulls space, they must at a certain time work together in a coordinated way. Hence the strong force automatically must emerge, simply because a frequency between interaction (spin up spin down) MUST be the result of chaotic spin / pul.
Compare it with a rowing boat . All 20 man must work together to save energy.


What if it does not pull space?

This proves noting.
It is first from about 3300km inside the earth that gravity according to the prevailing theory “should” begin to cancel out. You can not use mines. That’s a problem.

Another ad hoc hypothesis to work around the fact that you have just been disproved. Please explain how you need to go 3300km inside Earth to see your effect, but you expect to measure it in the Domus Vista (30 storey house)?

Hans

[sol invictus]

Many can calculate
and many does it without to know what they are calculating
Gravity is no exception



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

That page doesn't contain a single equation.

I can write down Newton's equation for the force of gravity. I can solve that equation inside a homogeneous sphere of mass. When I do so, I get the same result Newton, Gauss, Einstein, and tens of thousands of physicists and mathematicians got.

You're telling me every single one of us made a mistake. Basically, you're claiming you are better at solving equations than Newton, Gauss, Einstein, Fenynman, and every other physicist and mathematician over the last 350 years, that they are all wrong about this simple problem, and you're right.

Very well, show me where in that standard derivation there is an error. Which step is wrong, and why?

[Bjarne]

That page doesn't contain a single equation.
This only proves you haven’t read it.

You're telling me every single one of us made a mistake. Basically, you're claiming you are better at solving equations than Newton, Gauss, Einstein, Fenynman, and every other physicist and mathematician over the last 350 years, that they are all wrong about this simple problem, and you're right.
Excactly.

Another ad hoc hypothesis to work around the fact that you have just been disproved. Please explain how you need to go 3300km inside Earth to see your effect,
The prevailing theory claims gravity cancel outs component wise from that deep.

Imaging the Earth would have the same mass but 2 times so big.
How would contracted space / acc due to gravity be inside the earth?
The answer would be 25% of g today

Why ?

If you have a circle
r = 2
Square =4
Average g = 100
Potential Test: 4 * 100 = 400

Now increase to
R = 4
Square 16
Average g = 25
Potential Test: 16 * 25 = 400

The total gravity (contracted space) potential is the same.
This shows that the prediction could be on the right track...

So you claim that centuries of scientists got it wrong, and you got it right? You fail in primary school physics (this was established on the Danish forum), but you understand what Einstein & al did not?
Finally one that understood.
As I wrote what is mat without imagination?
Answer: maybe ridiculous, so like imagination without mat.

What if it does not pull space?
What if it doesn’t “bend”
Ohhh boy, - big catastrophe, a “religion” will brake down.
All man to the pumps.
(not me I am busy)

Again, Bjarne implies that everybody else are idiots.
Idiots ?, where have read that ?
This thread is a brilliant example that shows that if first man and beat have chosen to believe something, nothing can stop it.
Idiots ? – No.
Mass hypnosis. – Yes.
I think this thread begins to be so negative that I say : thank you for coffee.

[sol invictus]

Imaging the Earth would have the same mass but 2 times so big.
How would contracted space / acc due to gravity be inside the earth?
The answer would be 25% of g today
<snip>

You didn't answer my question. It should be very easy for you, since you're much better at solving equations than every single one the greatest mathematical geniuses of the last 350 years:


Very well, show me where in that standard derivation there is an error. Which step is wrong, and why?

[steenkh]

I believe that Bjarne's logic goes like this: He thinks he has an instinctive understanding of physics. If the math shows a different result from that instinctive understanding, then the application of the math is wrong. Curiously, he also believes that the mathematical equations are correct, and that is why we get told that
Many can calculate
and many does it without to know what they are calculating

I find it a quite extraordinary concept that you will get different results out of the same equations depending on whether you "understand" what you are calculating or not.

[sol invictus]

I believe that Bjarne's logic goes like this: He thinks he has an instinctive understanding of physics. If the math shows a different result from that instinctive understanding, then the application of the math is wrong.

And experiment too, since the last several centuries of experiments directly contradict his "instinctive understanding".

[Gate2501]

Wow, I should have read this thread earlier...

Many years ago (5ish), I developed my own revolutionary theory of gravity. I had realized what all the overpaid scientists had missed! Mass was, as I called it, a "space drain". Gravity was the flow of space into the drain. This made so_much_sense to me, that it just had to be right.

About 6 months into filling notepads with my discovery and the implications thereof, I started to realize that... there really were no implications. My theory was exactly the same as GR, just a different mechanism behind everything. That was when it hit me... I had become extremely hung up on a model of reality instead of reality itself. My theory didn't explain anything, and actually made everything MORE confusing by adding an extra layer of wackiness.

I still sympathize with those who posit "space drain" theories. I have seen a few of them out there, but this might be the first one I have seen here on JREF.

[Bjarne]

---------
I find it a quite extraordinary concept that you will get different results out of the same equations depending on whether you "understand" what you are calculating or not.

Once again, the equation to calculate central gravity is wrong.

And experiment too, since the last several centuries of experiments directly contradict his "instinctive understanding".

That central gravity acts like we believe are never proven. Also not the way we belive that space “bends”..

How can man and beast possible believe that the pain due to a 1000 kg weight on a big toe is because space “bends”. This is ridiculously

This not only shows that the understanding / expression of GR is based on totally uninspired imagination, but also beyond common sense.

Tell me, how can “bended space” explain that a big stone is heavier that a small stone. Or why lead is heavier than wood.
---------

[sol invictus]

Mass was, as I called it, a "space drain". Gravity was the flow of space into the drain. This made so_much_sense to me, that it just had to be right.

That's not entirely wrong, but it's incomplete because it has a major problem. Where does the flow originate? If mass is a drain, what's the source? There's no such thing as negative mass, after all.

For example, suppose you have a single point mass somewhere in otherwise empty space. Then the flow points towards that mass. If you follow one of the flow lines out away from the mass, it can't end anywhere or loop back, so it must go all the way to infinity - and there must be an infinity for the line to "end" on; the space cannot be compact.

That's more or less OK, until you try to understand what happens in a universe like ours. Our universe might be infinite, but observation indicates that it's full of a more or less homogeneous mass density everywhere. So, where are all those flow lines coming from? Infinity is no help, because it's full of mass (this is the gravitational version of Olbers' paradox).

That's actually a completely intractable problem - it has no solution - unless you allow space itself, even away from the mass, to deform in response to these flows. Interestingly, you're more or less inevitably led to something like general relativity purely based on the observation that there is no negative mass and that the universe is homogeneous (of course that's not how Einstein arrived at it, he used the much more powerful principle of general covariance).

[sol invictus]

Once again, the equation to calculate central gravity is wrong.

Which equation? Post it here - you can use latex - and tell us precisely how and why it's wrong. That will be very easy for a genius like you.


That central gravity acts like we believe are never proven.


Utter nonsense. It's been tested by thousands of experiments over centuries.

[Reality Check]

This only proves you haven’t read it.

That only proves that you do not know what an equation is. There are no equations on that page. Only words and description's of things contracting, increasing, decreasing and maybe spindling.

Also:
You use the term "force of acceleration due to gravity" - something that does not exist. There is no force of "acceleration due to gravity". Gravity is the force. Acceleration is the result of the force. I will blame this on that English is a second language for you.

However when 2 bodies approach each other the force of gravity will increase between them (not decrease as you may be stating). F = GMm/r2 means that as r decreases, F increases.

My guess that the arithmetic in your post is based on the above error. It is thus also in error ("average g" should have increased to 400?). That arithmetic thus shows that your idea is wrong.

[Bjarne]

Utter nonsense. It's been tested by thousands of experiments over centuries.

Is that something you have dream ?
Its never proven

Notice I wrote ***central**** gravity.

Buy buy focks , this is all too much now...

[sol invictus]

Is that something you have dream ?
Its never proven

Nothing in science is ever proven.

Notice I wrote ***central**** gravity.

A meaningless phrase, but I assume you mean the gravity near the mid-point of some arrangement of masses, where the cancellation is near total.

As I said, that's been tested countless times, as have the equations that determine that behavior under all sorts of other conditions.

Buy buy focks , this is all too much now...

You're selling focks?

Now, are you going to answer my question?

Very well, show me where in that standard derivation there is an error. Which step is wrong, and why?

[Bjarne]

Well well the expression "bended space" is Ok, but only if we understand why it bend.
It happens because space is contracted.
And that's it.

Now, are you going to answer my question?

How can man and beast possible believe that the pain due to a 1000 kg weight on a big toe is because space “bends”. This is ridiculously

This not only shows that the understanding / expression of GR is based on totally uninspired imagination, but also beyond common sense.

Tell me, how can “bended space” explain that a big stone is heavier that a small stone.? Or why lead is heavier than wood. ?

[Toke]

Found an experiment that tested Newton's law of gravity down a mine shaft:
S. C. Holding, F. D. Stacey, and G. J. Tuck, Gravity in mines--an investigation of Newton's law. Phys. Rev. D 33, 3487-3494 (1986).

It is mentioned in The measurement of little g: a fertile ground for precision measurement science (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+measurement+of+little+g:+a+fertile+ground+for+ precision+...-a0146537917) web page. The experiment "proved more difficult than first imagined because of systematic errors arising from estimating the gravitational contributions from the less than homogeneous surface layers" but there is no mention of a deviation from a linear variation in gravitational force with distance from the center of the Earth. If the force was constant as claimed by Bjarne's theory then that would have certainly been found.

Thus Bjarne's theory is wrong for a couple of reasons.
The primary reason is that he states it uses the existing laws of gravity but somehow gets different results. This suggests that he has made a fundemental mistake. The "rejection of the principle of superposition" that has been mentioned would be such a mistake.

Secondly he predicts that the force of gravity is constant inside a homogeneous solid sphere (e.g. the Earth). This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly the force of gravity at the center of the sphere is zero. That would make the constant zero. But we are not in zero gravity as soon as we go underground. Secondly the experimental results is that the force of gravity varies as expected down mine shafts.

Thank you.:)
It did sound odd to me if nobody had noticed zero or lower G when descending underground. Guess his error is big enough for me to spot.

[sol invictus]

How can man and beast possible believe that the pain due to a 1000 kg weight on a big toe is because space “bends”. This is ridiculously

So you cannot answer my question? You were lying when you said you knew that all those people had made a mistake in solving the equations?

This not only shows that the understanding / expression of GR is based on totally uninspired imagination, but also beyond common sense.

The two halves of that sentence contradict each other.

Tell me, how can “bended space” explain that a big stone is heavier that a small stone.? Or why lead is heavier than wood. ?

The explanation of that using curved space is as simple and beautiful as it gets. All objects follow "straight" lines, the shortest distance between two points (unless acted on by some other force). Since all objects follow the same trajectories, they all experience the same acceleration, and therefore the gravitational force is directly and exactly proportional to their inertial mass.

That's called the equivalence principle.

[Bjarne]

So you cannot answer my question?
You were lying when you said you knew that all those people had made a mistake in solving the equations?Busy right now. I think you have got the point anyway.

.......gravitational force is directly and exactly proportional to their inertial mass
This is only words, and make no sense t all.
What has 1000 kg on you big toe to do with: All objects follow "straight" lines, the shortest distance between two points .......etc...

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

[martu]

Bjarne you must have missed my question - do photons have mass in your model?

[MRC_Hans]

Complete melt-down anticipated in P-3 posts.

Hans

[Dorfl]

Debating relativity with CanadaGlass was interesting, and even if it never really got anywhere, I learnt a lot from it. But this thread? A person who has spent years working out a theory isn't going to realise that it's fundamentally useless, no matter what is said to him. Nor am I likely to learn much from people pointing out the flaws in Bjarne's theory: that works with slightly broken theories, but since his is nonsense all the way through, it's unlikely very much will be said about specific problems with it.

I'm off. Good luck everyone!

[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 (http://www.sstd.rl.ac.uk/fundphys/step/)

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 (http://www.sstd.rl.ac.uk/fundphys/step/)

Oboy oboy, is the boat leaking ?

Oboy oboy, aren't you ignorant of the way science and scientists work?
New theories are always proposed to try to replace existing theories. There must be 100's of papers on replacements for General Relativity.
Any postulate of a scientific theory (like the equivalence prinicple) is always being tested. See the experimental tests of Special Relativity (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html) and General Relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity).
Here's another group testing GR and Newton:
University of Washington Eöt-Wash Group (http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/index.html)

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 (http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/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/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.

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/rE

Note that this is ONLY for r < rE. For r > rE, we have instead F = mg(rE/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/rE to get
a = gr/rE
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.

[Bjarne]

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

This is what I thought

"Mass contraction" does not exist.
So the pain you get when having a stone on 1000 kg on you big toe, is some kind of an illusion?
Because of mass contraction (between the earth and the stone) doesn’t exist?
Newton was simply wrong?
Is that what you are saying?
Tell me shall we forget the equation: MmG/r^2
I haven’t got a logic answer to that question?
What causes mass attraction?
Try to explain it so that also mother cow can understand it ………..

[Ziggurat]

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?)

Indeed, something is wrong.

First off, the units on your answer are an acceleration, not a velocity. There is no upper limit I know of to acceleration, and since it doesn't have the same units as velocity, any limit couldn't be equal to c anyways.

Secondly, the fact that your answer is an acceleration and not a force should clue you in that you're doing something wrong. Indeed, as written, the equation should yield a force, NOT an acceleration.

Lastly, I will tell you what exactly your error was. You inserted the mass of the earth, but the mass of the earth is already included implicitly in g. The mass you SHOULD have been using is the mass of whatever test object it is that's being attracted to the earth. One would presumably use something much less massive than the earth itself for this purpose. But regardless, to get an acceleration, you would have to divide out by this mass, so as above, you don't have the right acceleration for any mass.

[Reality Check]

This is what I thought

It is not what you calculated though.


So the pain you get when having a stone on 1000 kg on you big toe, is some kind of an illusion?
Because of mass contraction (between the earth and the stone) doesn’t exist?
Newton was simply wrong?
Is that what you are saying?
Tell me shall we forget the equation: MmG/r^2
I haven’t got a logic answer to that question?
What causes mass attraction?
Try to explain it so that also mother cow can understand it ………..
What are you talking about?
If I hit my toe on a rock mass does not contract. I hit my toe on a rock and feel it.

Please define "mass contraction" so that a simple person like me can understand it.
Try to explain it so that also mother cow can understand it ...........

Newton never mentions "mass contraction". We have not forgotten F= MmG/r^2 (the gravitaional force exerted between 2 bodies of mass M and m a distance r apart). That equation is used to derive that the force on a mass of m inside the Earth is mgr/rE.

You do not have a logic answer to any question.
You do not have a logic answer to the fact that contracting space can never produce gravity.

[sol invictus]

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?)

For someone that claims that he has corrected a mistake that Newton, Gauss, Einstein, and every other physicist and mathematician that lived in the last 350 years made, isn't it a bit strange that you are incapable of performing this utterly trivial bit of algebra, incapable of substituting the correct values into that formula, and incapable of noticing that your result - an acceleration - cannot be compared to c - a speed?

Three possibilities suggest themselves: you're too stupid to recognize your own incompetence (Dunning-Kruger etc. etc.), you're insane, or you're seeking attention and don't believe what you're saying.

[LissaLysikan]

I vote for one, two, and three. Probably a double on the third, considering how often he pushes his own web page as reference.

[Skamandros]

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

This is treu only when the 3 is subjusted. If you take g = Gm1m2/r2 if G is 3 fixtated of the spin of the gravitions. When big rock is on little toe the sis made into ellispses and makes pain. Ellispses only two foci so that is one is what lacks one for the 3. The moon is obriting beacause 3 spins of the hadrons make space like the 2, so it pulls up not down. The wisdom of Gligor Makedonska. Einstein is approximation for special spaces and mases of hadrons in transitation. If the 3 is not in the cooridites of space then gravity is repulsing not contracting. So the hdrons could be of the rule of 4 wich is duble of the 2 not if the three. See all is expained by the three.

[Toke]

Where did Pixie of Key go?

[Mashuna]

Where did Pixie of Key go?

I was wondering the same thing. I was hoping for more of a crank show-down between Pixie claiming everything is expanding, and Bjarne saying it's all contracting.

[Toke]

I was wondering the same thing. I was hoping for more of a crank show-down between Pixie claiming everything is expanding, and Bjarne saying it's all contracting.

Yes, and Skamandros summing it up for clarity.

[Bjarne]

-----------
First off, the units on your answer are acceleration, not a velocity.
Bravo I never asked for F but for a

Secondly, the fact that your answer is acceleration and not a force should clue you in that you're doing something wrong. Indeed, as written, the equation should yield a force, NOT acceleration.
Take it easy comrade
I was asking;
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.

I will tell you what exactly your error was. You inserted the mass of the earth, but the mass of the earth is already included implicitly in g
Not my error
I just have shown the equation was wrong (and still is)
What are you talking about?
What causes mass attraction?
What is mass attraction?
What do you know about it?
What do you believe it is?
Explain it please so clear that mother cow also can understand.

For someone that claims that he has corrected a mistake that Newton, Gauss, Einstein, and every other physicist and mathematician that lived in the last 350 years made, isn't it a bit strange that you are incapable of performing this utterly trivial bit of algebra, incapable of substituting the correct values into that formula, and incapable of noticing that your result - an acceleration - cannot be compared to c - a speed?Easy comrade
I had just make it clear that the equation was wrong (and still is).

The acceleration on a mass of 6E24 kg 3000km from the centre of the Earth is:
a = 9.8 m/s2 * 3000000 m / 6358000m = 4.6 m/s^2
Are you sure
Never hear about that mass above the measurement point (according to our believe) “should” counteract that value you have found.
Still I think the equation is not complete / correct

And don’t forget


What causes mass attraction?
What is mass attraction?
What do you know about it?
What do you believe it is?

Explain it please so clear that mother cow also can understand.
-----------

[steenkh]

Explain it please so clear that mother cow also can understand.
As it has been mentioned before, Bjarne is a bovinophile, so do not be surprised if you explain it to his mother cow, and his reply is "moo"!

[Bjarne]

As it has been mentioned before, Bjarne is a bovinophile, so do not be surprised if you explain it to his mother cow, and his reply is "moo"!

I have just ask Caroline Cow, she are so sorry because she did not understood it.
Can someone be so kind to explain it so mother cow also can understand
What causes mass attraction

[Leviath]

I never asked for F but for a


Yet you calculated force, got the result in acceleration and compared it to velocity. With that in mind there is no wonder why you think every physicist who ever lived the last 350 years is/was wrong, you can't even perform a simple calculation.

I have seen your nonsense on a certain other forum where you also wanted to tell us that evolution is a silly theory, that the Lorenz factor should be considered a force, that the earth is expanding and that the plate tectonics theory is bunk (I'm still waiting for a calculation on that one btw).
I had hoped that you coming to a forum where there are many real physicists would spark a real discussion. But I see the effort was futile and the discussion has gone down the gutter, as usual.

[Bjarne]

Yet you calculated force, got the result in acceleration and compared it to velocity.
No I just demonstrate that I was asking in east and got a answer in west
This doesn’t demonstrate that I am stupid..

I have seen your nonsense on a certain other forum where you also wanted to tell us that evolution is a silly theory, that the Lorenz factor should be considered a force, that the earth is expanding and that the plate tectonics theory is bunk (I'm still waiting for a calculation on that one btw).
Yes I think Niel Adams could be more correct that the prevailing believes.
Let’s start from the beginning
Tell me the earth’s exact diameter

In meter if you can
Or in cm. if you can
Or in mm if you can

And next: - is subduction proven ? Where is the evidence ?
Yes we know the the ocean bottums expands, but do we know why ?

I had hoped that you coming to a forum where there are many real physicists would spark a real discussion.
You mean like that:
I have (serveral times) ask about what causes mass attraction
One """answer""" follows: .
The explanation of that using curved space is as simple and beautiful as it gets. All objects follow "straight" lines, the shortest distance between two points (unless acted on by some other force). Since all objects follow the same trajectories, they all experience the same acceleration,

These parts have absolutely noting with the question to do.

and therefore the gravitational force is directly and exactly proportional to their inertial mass.

And this maybe a answer why UFOs can be observed on the moon. Hence it have also nothing with the question to do either?

The second answer was that mass attraction doesn’t exsist .
When I asked why I did not got any reply

Did you say : “”many real physicists would spark a real discussion”” ????


What causes mass attraction
What do we believe ?
What do we know ?
Still waiting…..
Mother cow is also waiting

[dlorde]

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

Freudian slip? As an example of logic that's ironic. Clearly your book should never be believed, as you so rightly say.

[Bjarne]

Freudian slip? As an example of logic that's ironic. Clearly your book should never be believed, as you so rightly say

And one more exsample:

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

This mean: directy translated : The Scientific Method not evidence.

Never believe the book

[martu]

Did you say : “”many real physicists would spark a real discussion”” ????


What causes mass attraction
What do we believe ?
What do we know ?
Still waiting…..
Mother cow is also waiting


Here's a better list:


I honestly do not think you are intelligent enough to understand any answer we could give you
Your questions are nonsensical
You can't do simple algebra
You have an ego that is, frankly, an ugly trait
Your English isn't good enough to communicate your ideas


Good bye Bjarne, when come back, bring maths.

[Leviath]

No I just demonstrate that I was asking in east and got a answer in west
This doesn’t demonstrate that I am stupid..
It demonstrates you are utterly incapable of expressing yourself precisely. At least east and west can be compared.

Let’s start from the beginning
Tell me the earth’s exact diameter


This thread is not about plate tectonics, so make another thread if you want to discuss that.
And you are very well aware of the fact that no one can give you an exact diameter of the earth. This has been pointed out to you before.

[Bjarne]

Here's a better list:
Bad Loser

It demonstrates you are utterly incapable of expressing yourself precisely. At least east and west can be compared.

Ooohhh yeahh also black and white

And you are very well aware of the fact that no one can give you an exact diameter of the earth. This has been pointed out to you before.
Exactly
and exactly therefore we must be carefully that ”religion”” fanaticism and concrete-believe not will dominate any conclusion. BUT we must be open to that the cause to that Adams claims could be unknown, exactly like Adams claims.
-------------------------------------------------------------
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

[LissaLysikan]

BUT we must be open to that the cause to that Adams claims could be unknown, exactly like Adams claims.


Some things can be attributed to not being conversant with English.
This isn't one of them.
This is just random words strung together, like the filter-bypass text in spam.

[Bjarne]

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:BuZf1KEw-MkByM:http://tvndk.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/s4011233.jpg

Last attempt to explain why it's a consequence that changing / adding an expression (replacing “bended space” < > “contracted space”) means that our understating of central gravity is wrong.

Let me explain that in 2 steps.

First consider this:

Why does a ship need an Anker?
Stupid question off course, - to resist the current..

The universe is expanding but so far we know not space/distances inside galaxies, solar system or the earth.

1.) How is it possible for space inside gravitational fields to resist the expansion?
2.) How does gravity "anchor" in space? In a way that is at all is possible to bend space even though dark energy resist that to happen?

http://www.science27.com/hole.jpg

Imaging the Earth had a 4500 km big hole inside.
Radius and Mass of the Earth would be the same
How would acc due to gravity affect such object?

What would you acceleration due to gravity be :
a) At the surface
b) 1000 km beneath (where the hole was staring)
c) 2000 km beneath

Let me first have your guys opinion, then I will give you mine.

[martu]

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:BuZf1KEw-MkByM:http://tvndk.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/s4011233.jpg

Last attempt to explain why it's a consequence that changing / adding an expression (replacing “bended space” < > “contracted space”) means that our understating of central gravity is wrong.

Let me explain that in 2 steps.

First consider this:

Why does a ship need an Anker?
Stupid question off course, - to resist the current..

The universe is expanding but so far we know not space/distances inside galaxies, solar system or the earth.

1.) How is it possible for space inside gravitational fields to resist the expansion?
2.) How does gravity "anchor" in space? In a way that is at all is possible to bend space even though dark energy resist that to happen?

http://www.science27.com/hole.jpg

Imaging the Earth had a 4500 km big hole inside.
Radius and Mass of the Earth would be the same
How would acc due to gravity affect such object?

What would you acceleration due to gravity be :
a) At the surface
b) 1000 km beneath (where the hole was staring)
c) 2000 km beneath

Let me first have your gays opinion, then I will give you mine.

My bolding - in my opinion you need someone to proof read your posts :D

[Bjarne]

My bolding - in my opinion you need someone to proof read your posts

OK + guys opinion

[Ziggurat]

Bjarne, are you familiar with the shell theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem)? Because it comes directly from the 1/r2 formula you like so much, and if you understand it, it will answer your questions rather trivially.

[Skamandros]

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:BuZf1KEw-MkByM:http://tvndk.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/s4011233.jpg

Last attempt to explain why it's a consequence that changing / adding an expression (replacing “bended space” < > “contracted space”) means that our understating of central gravity is wrong.

Let me explain that in 2 steps.

First consider this:

Why does a ship need an Anker?
Stupid question off course, - to resist the current..

The universe is expanding but so far we know not space/distances inside galaxies, solar system or the earth.

1.) How is it possible for space inside gravitational fields to resist the expansion?
2.) How does gravity "anchor" in space? In a way that is at all is possible to bend space even though dark energy resist that to happen?

http://www.science27.com/hole.jpg

Imaging the Earth had a 4500 km big hole inside.
Radius and Mass of the Earth would be the same
How would acc due to gravity affect such object?

What would you acceleration due to gravity be :
a) At the surface
b) 1000 km beneath (where the hole was staring)
c) 2000 km beneath

Let me first have your guys opinion, then I will give you mine.

OK, example is not riveeling becuase 1000 km is half 2000 is not one third.
If earth has inside 4500 hole then if we go in hole by 1500 then rato is strong for hadrons and spins makes gratiatonal but if ratio is wronge then week force permits repuslion. Gravity anchers by the three spin of the hadrons in space ratio. Bjarne you are confusioning contracton in space of dark energy wich makes expanson by ratio of three. Think of this and be adjusted of formulas.

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, are you familiar with the shell theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem)?

No.
Anyway try roughly to indicate the acceleration (and direction) you think an object will follows (a+b+c)

https://webspace.utexas.edu/cokerwr/www/index.html/curveds.JPG
How can gravity "grip" space.
Unless gravity does so it can not bend space
So what is the tricks?

What I mean: gravity can be quit strong.
It’s believed so strong as the electromagnetic force right before a Big Bang
(I claim it is excact so strong as the strong force, exactly at the moment at BigBang.)

Anyway....
How is it possible that gravity can bend huge amount of space and with a huge force.
What is the secret , according to how does gravity "gripping” space?
How is it possible ?
Is possible to “unbend” space?

[Ziggurat]

No.

That's too bad. It's standard freshman-level university physics. If you want to revise the theory of gravity, it helps to understand what the current theory is, and if you aren't familiar with the shell theorem, then you aren't familiar with current theory. Or even theory from 200 years ago.

Anyway try roughly to indicate the acceleration (and direction) you think an object will follows (a+b+c)

At the outer surface it's g. Inside the inner surface of the shell it's zero, no matter where inside you are. This is a direct result of the shell theorem.

By the way, there are only two possible ways that the shell theorem can possibly be wrong: if gravity is not linear (meaning the field isn't directly proportional to the source) or if it doesn't obey 1/r2 scaling. Those break down under general relativity at very strong fields, but general relativity has its own version of the shell theorem which produces very similar results.

[Bjarne]

That's too bad. It's standard freshman-level university physics. If you want to revise the theory of gravity, it helps to understand what the current theory is, and if you aren't familiar with the shell theorem, then you aren't familiar with current theory. Or even theory from 200 years ago.
Do you know it wasn’t Niels Bohr that discovered the mathematically logic behind quantum physic, but a low educated Scholl teacher Balder. Or did you know the discovery of electromagnetism (HC Oerted) was only based on words.

At the outer surface it's g.
Agree 9.8 m/s^2

Inside the inner surface of the shell it's zero, no matter where inside you are. This is a direct result of the shell theorem.
So you believe that an object here would not move in any direction, also not towards the surface of the Earth? – Do others agree to that?

What about object c ?

By the way, there are only two possible ways that the shell theorem can possibly be wrong: if gravity is not linear (meaning the field isn't directly proportional to the source) or if it doesn't obey 1/r2 scaling. Those break down under general relativity at very strong fields, but general relativity has its own version of the shell theorem which produces very similar results.
Notice I am not saying GR is wrong; but only the expression “bended space” just doesn’t reflect a complete or perfect understanding. It is possible (and simple) to reach a mush deeper understanding.

[Ziggurat]

Do you know it wasn’t Niels Bohr that discovered the mathematically logic behind quantum physic, but a low educated Scholl teacher Balder. Or did you know the discovery of electromagnetism (HC Oerted) was only based on words.

And your point is what, exactly?

So you believe that an object here would not move in any direction, also not towards the surface of the Earth? – Do others agree to that?

Whether or not it moves will depend upon whether or not it was moving to begin with. It will feel no net force, and hence no acceleration, due to gravity from the shell. And of course others agree with me, that's why I linked to that shell theorem page. Like I said, this is standard freshman physics. You should be able to find it in almost any half-decent introductory physics textbook, at least if it's calculus-based (algebra-based texts may skip this since the proof requires calculus).

What about object c ?

Same thing.

Notice I am not saying GR is wrong; but only the expression “bended space” just doesn’t reflect a complete or perfect understanding. It is possible (and simple) to reach a mush deeper understanding.

But your understanding of both Newtonian or GR gravity clearly has major holes in it if you weren't familiar with the shell theorem, so how can you conclude that you can reach a deeper understanding when you haven't even mastered a shallow understanding?

[Bjarne]

------

But your understanding of both Newtonian or GR gravity clearly has major holes in it if you weren't familiar with the shell theorem, so how can you conclude that you can reach a deeper understanding when you haven't even mastered a shallow understanding?

My mission is not to be lost in others none demonstrable mistakes.

Lets now again assume what would be another consequence : if bended = contracted space.
Hence space must be delivered to the space-consuming matter inside the Earth.

Off course space will now be fetched from an outwards direction, whereby space (and the universe) bends like we know it. BUT space will also be fetched from an inwards direction.

http://www.science27.com/w.jpg

To counteract resistance against bended space around the Earth – 50 % space must be fetched from an inwards direction (and 50% from an outwards direction).

Hence space inside the Earth must be contracted with the same force in both an inwards and outwards direction. We can say the inwards and outwards pull of space must share the work that must be done(between them) .

http://www.science27.com/a.jpg

http://www.science27.com/images/img_4.jpg

If this is true also space inside the empty hole of the Earth (that we pretend exist) must continue to contract space towards an inwards direction the whole way to the center, simply because the hunt for space is huge, and also counteracting (as illustrated above).

Imagine an inner central area of the Earth divided into 3 successive areas.
• One area furthest out ‘A’
• One area further in ‘B’
• And one area even further in ‘C’

http://www.science27.com/images/img_23.jpg

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.
It’s a kind of inner domino effect exactly like we se space bends in a outwards direction. In a inwards direction space instead must gradually contract stronger, because the access to space is limit/blocked.

This principle, of inwards increasing contraction, will be valid even tough there is a huge hole in the Earth. Space will continue to contract gradually stronger the whole way to the centre.

This is how gravity ”anchors” - “grips” space and resist the opposite force (expending space).

This is also the simple secret how gravity is born.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3169/2988127704_3c3bbf1963.jpg

Even though gravity contracts gradually stronger towards the centre the Earth, - the increasing contraction per distance is the same the whole way to the Earths centre. This is because of a gravitational field is a unity, where the inner pull in space from both direction automatically shares the work that must done.

If an object obstruct the Earth access to “fetch” space, - it will disturb the Earths access to space, - space between the earth and the object will contract stronger and this will force the object down to Earth.

Because of space contracts in an "equal line" the whole way inside the Earth (if it was a homogenous mass) acceleration due to gravity must do the same and hence the acceleration due to gravity must be 9.8 m/s^2 the whole way to the centre of the Earth. .

These consequences of the simple assumption, (that matter contract space) also sometimes surprise me. If we want to understand gravity and all the mysteries related we must fully understand the properties of space.

This law of nature explains the cause of so-called dark matter in galaxy clusters. Central gravity is misunderstood, and that's it.

The cause of the so called dark matter in galaxies – read this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5202841#post5202841)

------

[Bjarne]

Double post was deleted.

[Ziggurat]

My mission is not to be lost in others none demonstrable mistakes.

How do you even know if other people are making mistakes if you don't even know what they're saying?

Hence space inside the Earth must be contracted with the same force in both an inwards and outwards direction.

So you've come up with a prediction which contradicts both Newtonian and General Relativistic gravity. And yet, you think that the mathematical structure of both theories is fine. Sorry, but that's a contradiction. Either your prediction is wrong, or the math of standard gravitational theories is wrong. You can't have both.

[Bjarne]

-------------
So you've come up with a prediction which contradicts both Newtonian and General Relativistic gravity. And yet, you think that the mathematical structure of both theories is fine. Sorry, but that's a contradiction. Either your prediction is wrong, or the math of standard gravitational theories is wrong. You can't have both.

We live on the surface of the Earth, not inside.
Our superficially knowledge is properly nearly perfect. Why shouldn’t be so? - I too accept this too, also (nearly) all the mathematics.
Think about a simple example…
Nothing on Jupiter was so that we expected. But this doesn’t mean a complete collapse of all we know, and that we can scrap all out mathematics etc. . It only shows we have more to learn. When we enters unknown areas….

How do you even know if other people are making mistakes if you don't even know what they're saying?

So long we do not speak about evidence, but only hypothesis, (and this is what even GR really is,) we are speaking about different opinions. (I think GR is mainly correct, but we have not been able to imaging space properties and hence failed to reach a deeper undertanding)

After you have read 5 minutes of that I am writing you have the right to say I do not believe you, you are wrong, this is only a hypothesis…. This is yours opinion.
I have the same right; on the other hand I am always willing to learn more, and admit if anything is wrong.

I do not need to know exactly how much other theories predict that acc due to gravity will act inside the earth. f know the principles this is sometimes enough.

For example does gravity inside one gravitational field “interacts” with it self and cancel out component wise. How should that be possible? This is beyond common sense.
But this is something that many people believes, based on properties of gravity that never is understood. How can people determinate properties of a phenomena that we have very poor superficially knowledge about? – This is doomed to fail.

Sorry, that way is not my “religion”. I want to know, and I want to see unified wholes, and not use too much time on incoherent superficially hypotheses.

I am following the main thread of what is the consequence if matte contract space. This leads to relative insignificant collision with few hypotheses, but never with facts. On the other hand I will say that 95% of that what I write supports know facts.

Think about: I claim that there are no gravity mysteries (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5202841#post5202841)anymore, only contracted spaces. This is a huge statement. It “should” be easy to disprove something so HUGE. 20 mysteries are gone, This “MUST” be too much” But prove to me, where is the red light. ? I haven’t seen it.

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

[Ziggurat]

We live on the surface of the Earth, not inside.

That is irrelevant. The shell theorem is provable for any linear 1/r2 force. The only way the shell theorem could not apply is if gravity was not linear and/or not 1/r2. You have not contested either of these conditions, but you claim that a necessary result of them is wrong. That is simply illogical.

But you don't have to take my word for it, why don't you set up an experiment and test the shell theorem yourself? If you are right, then you will have performed a Nobel Prize-winning experiment.

[Bjarne]

That is irrelevant. The shell theorem is provable for any linear 1/r2 force.
I guess you mean mathematical provable. – If so, this is off course not enough.

The only way the shell theorem could not apply is if gravity was not linear and/or not 1/r2.

Please illustrate by showing an example

But you don't have to take my word for it, why don't you set up an experiment and test the shell theorem yourself? If you are right, then you will have performed a Nobel Prize-winning experiment.

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

In some very few cases gravity measurement result (from deep mines) haven’t been as expected (Australia) this had once lead to a search for “a fifth force” and hence lot of measurement, but without it have been possible (beyond any doubt) to prove a deviation from standard models.

Such relative very superficially measurement is all that have been done. But not enough to finally prove how central gravity acts.

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?

[LissaLysikan]

In some very few cases gravity measurement result (from deep mines) haven’t been as expected (Australia) this had once lead to a search for “a fifth force” and hence lot of measurement, but without it have been possible (beyond any doubt) to prove a deviation from standard models.

Would be nice if you would support statements like this with some facts.


Such relative very superficially measurement is all that have been done. But not enough to finally prove how central gravity acts.


How can people prove how something you just invented acts when you just invented it? It's not like it's something real they had to work with before!


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 are wrong and the difference is very tiny and follows the equations presented to you already, assuming you have a device that is even capable of measuring the difference over such a small distance.

[Bjarne]

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

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..

If you (like Einstein did) ignore that space is “flexible” space, yes then you are right.
But I assume that you know that Einstein changed his mind and later admitted: “his biggest mistake”
Try to see it this way: Matter contracts / consume / suck space. (Matter is: a fast frequency of “thick space”.)
Hence space (mainly) close around matter must be “lacking”, but because the fact that the universe have “density” space will not be “lacking” but rather “thinner” around an object. Anyway you can us the expression “lacking” if you mean that space now is thinner. You can also compare that to also the rubber sheet gets thinner when you press it.

If the cause of bended space is contraction this only can mean that space “density” is susceptible.

Now imaging the Moon and the Earth compete to consume the same space between them.
This mean the “density” of space will be “thinning more out” (between them) since now a limit amount of space most be shared between the Earth and the Moon. In that sense you can say that space between these objects is now “lacking” or you can say that space (because of the lack) space must “bend”.

Would be nice if you would support statements like this with some facts.
I have used 10 minutes to search my bookmarks, but without success try to Google on this: "fifth force mine Australia"

That you are wrong and the difference is very tiny and follows the equations presented to you already, assuming you have a device that is even capable of measuring the difference over such a small distance.
We have one gravimeter in Denmark that can measure 5/1.000.000.000 of “g” – This should be OK. It’s possible to pay for getting a job done.

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.

The purpose by measurement central gravity is only to prove a secondary aspect and yes this is a complex area of science..
The starting point is the facts that both Newtonian Gravity and GR somehow must form an understandable synthesis. If we fully understand not only that space contract but also all the consequences, it must be possible to “unify” these two incoherent theories. I am optimistic

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

[dlorde]

In some very few cases gravity measurement result (from deep mines) haven’t been as expected (Australia) this had once lead to a search for “a fifth force” and hence lot of measurement, but without it have been possible (beyond any doubt) to prove a deviation from standard models.
Without a reference or more detail, it's not possible to respond specifically to that claim, but it is well known that there are considerable local variations in gravity due to variations in rock density.

Here's a good explanation (http://www.astronomyforum.net/amateur-astronomy-forum/46667-gravity-below-surface-earth.html#post339386) of the variation of gravity with depth below the Earth's surface.

[Bjarne]

Without a reference or more detail, it's not possible to respond specifically to that claim, but it is well known that there are considerable local variations in gravity due to variations in rock density.


http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Fifth+force+sunk+in+ocean+experiments-a011748067

Yes that's the problem.
Also we don't know anything for sure about the inner iron core

[Reality Check]

--------------
If you (like Einstein did) ignore that space is “flexible” space, yes then you are right.

Einstein ignored that space is “flexible” space because “flexible” space does not cause any gravitational force.
He derived GR from the equivalence principle and it emerged that the only deformation of space that produces gravity was (and remains) curvature.

The rest of your post is just the usual thing we see from crackpots all the time. For some reason they are under the delusion that vague descriptions and pretty picture make science. They are just fooling themselves. Anyone with any intelligence quickly sees this.

[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 (http://www.science27.com/english/dark_matter.html) never actually addresses dark matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence) 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 (http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/) and MACS J0025.4-1222 (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2008/32/) (and even Abell 520 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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/rE

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:
Newton's laws include that a body goes in a straight line when no force is acting upon it.
A straight line (geodesic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic)) in spacetime remains as a straight line when spacetime is contracted.
So there is no force on an object going along that straight line.
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)
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 :rolleyes: .

[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://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5202841#post5202841 (http://forums.randi.org/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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5202841#post5202841)

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 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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5202841#post5202841)

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter).



Here is the situation in the observations in a simplified form:
A is a big blob of gas.
B is a bib blob of gas.
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.

We see 3 blobs.
The outlyng blobs contain most of the matter.
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? (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/09/dark_matter_part_i_how_much_ma.php)
Dark Matter Part II: How much Normal Matter is there? (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/09/dark_matter_part_ii_how_much_n.php)
Dark Matter Part III: Dark Matter or Modified Gravity? (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/09/dark_matter_part_iii_dark_matt.php)
Dark Matter Part 3.5: When Clusters Collide! (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/09/dark_matter_part_35_when_clust.php)
Dear MOND: Time for a New Song! (Dark Matter pt. IV) (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/10/dear_mond_time_for_a_new_song.php)
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 (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/05/the_camera_that_changed_the_u4.php)
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter).



Here is the situation in the observations in a simplified form:
A is a big blob of gas.
B is a bib blob of gas.
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.

We see 3 blobs.
The outlyng blobs contain most of the matter.
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? (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/09/dark_matter_part_i_how_much_ma.php)
Dark Matter Part II: How much Normal Matter is there? (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/09/dark_matter_part_ii_how_much_n.php)
Dark Matter Part III: Dark Matter or Modified Gravity? (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/09/dark_matter_part_iii_dark_matt.php)
Dark Matter Part 3.5: When Clusters Collide! (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/09/dark_matter_part_35_when_clust.php)
Dear MOND: Time for a New Song! (Dark Matter pt. IV) (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/10/dear_mond_time_for_a_new_song.php)
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 (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/05/the_camera_that_changed_the_u4.php)


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/dn17892-galaxy-study-hints-at-cracks-in-dark-matter-theories.html

[Sensation_of_physics]

Just a little off-topic:

you can use latex

How?

that is, what are the tags for activating a latex environment? - the obvious [tex] [\tex] doesn't work.

[Reality Check]

The tags are and
So:
$$ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}} $$
gives:
http://www.randi.org/latexrender/latex.php?$$ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}} $$

[Bjarne]

-----------

So your prediction is that the ADG will be the same value on all 30 floors?

To avoid misunderstandings again, I think you will need a long explanation to that question.


I am sure that it requires “force” to bend space also even though any force is used. The accumulation of energy (matter) consumes space hence space contracts.
This means that somehow gravity must grip space.
Gripping space is only possible because matter encircles inner space of an object.
The trick is that matter can not pull more space inwards from the universe than it must pull from inside it self / from the object.
Towards an object (e.g: the Earth) space increasingly bends/contracts direct propotional to the volume of space. It’s demonstrates the law for how space is fetched. The distance square law reflects AFD is direct proportional (1:1) to the volume around a objects. And we have also GR mathematics to calculate the same. We can perfectly measure superficial gravity, even though we understand almost nothing about the laws behind.
In the inwards direction mathematics is only based on how we believe inner gravity will act. Nothing at all is supported by measurement? - This is why understanding of central gratify is and always have been in completely darkness.
To be able to resist the universes resistance to be contracted/bended (towards an object) the amount of space that bends/contracts from the outwards direction also must bend/contracts towards and inwards direction, as demonstrated by the weight image above.
Towards an inwards direction the access for space is increasingly limited / trapped. This mean that space towards this direction must contract stronger compared to the outwards direction. Contraction of space from an inwards direction is “a must” –The inwards contraction is necessary for gravity to work, - this is the way gravity anchors and counteracts the resistance against pulling/ contracting/ bending the universe in the outwards direction.
We can say for sure say that a greater contraction pressure will affect the inner space. Because (off course) it’s easier for matter to contract space the closer it is the surface of an object. I believe that the “distribution” of the inner half “pressure” and outer “pressure” on space inside a body must be distributed “as a smooth line”. This mean the ADG must be the same in the centre (of a homogenous object) than at the surface. According to my conviction we don’t need any a new equation but only how to calculate “g” at the surface (Gm/r^2) “g” is the same at the centre (in a homogenous mass) .
Luckily we have the internet and hopefully it also can be used to positive “teamwork” and not only accusation (mental sick, liar, crackpot) . I mean hopefully things have changes a bit since Keplers days. So everybody is welcome to suggest: how mathematically to describe central gravity, in the case I should succeed to reach some that can see that “something is wrong” with our understanding of central gravity. But agian I do not think it is necessary


What is the difference between this experiment and the other experiments that have measured the ADG as height increases?
I have never heard that central gravity systematically have been measured.
You can measure ADG from satellites, and from ground level, but these are only superficially.

DARK MATTER
Nice picture - does not contain any calculations
I have been asked several times: where are the calculations / equation (for inner gravity).
As shown above (again) you only need to know g, and the fact that gravity MUST have an anchor. Gravity MUST contract inner space.

Bjarne: note that this is how pretty pictures are done in science. Scientists take data and turn them into pretty pictures.
Yes very nice illustration and measurement.
BUT there is NO dark matter in these areas
I have seen it all before.

Dark matter is not only a religion but much worse; it’s a authoritarian superstitious fanatic brainwashing religion beyond common sense.
Just imaging some kind of matter with all these (claimed) very strange properties. It's nothing else but creeds. A lot of billion dollars experiments have been executed long ago, not one has shown even shadows of evidence.
It’s also a religion because its the only true (but only for those hypnotized by that authoritarian sect).

Try to understand the simple fact how gravity works, Without an inner “HUGE” contraction of space gravity can not work.

Because of gravity MUST have an anchor, centrally between cluster of galaxies as well as inside clusters of galaxies you MUST have stronger contracted space, and this is exactly that what NASA have illustrated to have found.

I am not the only infidel. - Try you Google translator and read This (http://ing.dk/artikel/23965-naturvidenskab-astronomi-er-ikke-laengere-videnskab-men-er-blevet-religion?highlight=astronomi+religion)


Translated automatically here (http://translate.google.dk/translate?prev=hp&hl=da&js=y&u=http%3A%2F%2Fing.dk%2Fartikel%2F23965-naturvidenskab-astronomi-er-ikke-laengere-videnskab-men-er-blevet-religion%3Fhighlight%3Dastronomi%2Breligion&sl=da&tl=en&history_state0=)

-----------

[steenkh]

I am not the only infidel. - Try you Google translator and read This (http://ing.dk/artikel/23965-naturvidenskab-astronomi-er-ikke-laengere-videnskab-men-er-blevet-religion?highlight=astronomi+religion)
That article is titled "Astronomy is no longer a science but has become a religion", and it is written by a crank who believes that Newton got it right, and Einstein got it wrong. He does not believe that red-shifting is caused by the Doppler effect, and in general that dark matter is based on pseudo science that has been elevated to a religion. It is obvious that Bjarne has been taking his ideas and inspiration from this and similar articles.

[Dancing David]

Bjarne, when you start talking about the orthodoxy and religion, it makes it look like sour grapes because you can't formalise or demonstrate your own theory.

It is your fault that you can't present your theory in terms of common physics, nor that you can't formalize it in mathematics. When you come up with a falsifiable prediction, then you will have something to stand on.

Your statement here is nonsense, you do not understand the evidence that supports the theory of dark matter, you don't know what nutrinos are and your ignorance on a subjects is hsowing. You can't say why the theory of dark matter contradicts teh evidence, so you wave youur arms and make foolish political statements like this

Dark matter is not only a religion but much worse; it’s a authoritarian superstitious fanatic brainwashing religion beyond common sense.
Just imaging some kind of matter with all these (claimed) very strange properties. It's nothing else but creeds. A lot of billion dollars experiments have been executed long ago, not one has shown even shadows of evidence.

that is just ignorant again, where , when and by whom? Your imaginary elevs in a hollow tree?

It’s also a religion because its the only true (but only for those hypnotized by that authoritarian sect).

How about you pony up and stop with the political drivel. try addressing the actual theories that support dark matter and then come up with an alternative to explain the data.

Like:

Why do galaxy rotation curves show the charateristics that they do?

[Bjarne]

That article is titled "Astronomy is no longer a science but has become a religion", and it is written by a crank who believes that Newton got it right, and Einstein got it wrong. He does not believe that red-shifting is caused by the Doppler effect, and in general that dark matter is based on pseudo science that has been elevated to a religion

Yes I sympathize with the author but I am not a clone.
I like the impression: quotation:
“ a religion dominated by incompetent dreamers”.

It is obvious that Bjarne has been taking his ideas and inspiration from this and similar articles.
No Comrade Stenkh I am my own.

Bjarne, when you start talking about the orthodoxy and religion, it makes it look like sour grapes because you can't formalise or demonstrate your own theory.

Our common imagination is too poor, misty and single-tracked. Mat and imagination must go hand in hand. This is not the case.

What is space?
You would probably instantly say nothing?
But it’s wrong, because how can nothing bend?
So welcome to a discussion about nothing.

Listen now, - all what we know for certain is that space can expand.
This mean we also know for certain that space can contract.
We do not know more than this.

Can you imaging what is bended space ?
Let me answer for you, NO YOU CAN NOT. And nobody can, - this is only a haft truth.
Can you imaging that space contracts, - you should, - because of this is a property we know space must possess.
Instead of inventing new unnecessary space properties, try to be satisfied with the two properties we know space allredy possess.
(It was a big problem to Eintstein to accept these two properties)

Why make thing more differcult as they are? Don't invent more unnecessary properties.
Instead follow the the track (properties we know space possess ) and see where does this bring you. At least do that before you invent more properties... Follow the "gravity contraction property" main thread, and see where it brings you. >> When you return tell me what you saw, and also if you saw new maths, and tell me do you still belive it is necessary that space possess more properties?

It is your fault that you can't present your theory in terms of common physics,
You too are welcome to partipate...
The common physics is the top of the iceberg
The bottom of the iceberg is a bit different than the top.
Be patient comrade, be patient. Rom wasn't drunk at one day.
Remember people are always very sceptical to new thought.
For example at the time Stephen Hawking came to the conclusion that everything comes from nothing, and I think 1000 times before that as well.

nor that you can't formalize it in mathematics. When you come up with a falsifiable prediction, then you will have something to stand on.You are welcome to participate comrade.

[Ziggurat]

You are very unclear. What are you trying to say?

That you believe mutually contradictory things, and don't even know that they are mutually contradictory. Until you can rectify that problem, you will learn nothing, but will continue to deceive yourself. And all the while, you will blame others for not joining you in your willful blindness.

How can you then pretend that you (or other) knows anything about inner central gravity

Learn the proof of the shell theorem and you'll find out. But you didn't even know the shell theorem existed. Sad, really.

[Reality Check]

-----------
To avoid misunderstandings again,

You will totally ignore the question which was:
So your prediction is that the ADG will be the same value on all 30 floors?
Yes or no would be an answer.
A better answer would be ab equation stating thow the ADG vaieis in a 30 story building.

-----------
I think you will need a long explanation to that question.


I am sure that it requires “force” to bend space also even though any force is used. The accumulation of energy (matter) consumes space hence space contracts.


I am sure that it does not require "force" to bend space. The mathematics of general relativity support me. In it mass bends space and the bent space makes paths of object bend. This bending of the paths of objects is an acceleration. An acceleration of an object is described as a force.
Energy is equivalent to matter. Matter does not "consume" space. It occupies a volume of space.
This makes the rest of your post wrong. But it is just a bunch of your personal ideas without any evidence so the situation is remains the same.

Now tell us how your prediction for the ADG in a 30 story building was calculated and what the prediction actually is.


Luckily we have the internet and hopefully it also can be used to positive “teamwork” and not only accusation (mental sick, liar, crackpot) . I mean hopefully things have changes a bit since Keplers days. So everybody is welcome to suggest: how mathematically to describe central gravity, in the case I should succeed to reach some that can see that “something is wrong” with our understanding of central gravity. But agian I do not think it is necessary

You really do not know anything about the scientific process. There is no such thing as positive “teamwork” in the sense you mean, i.e. sycophantic catering to the delusions of cranks or the mistakes of people who should know better.
If a scientist cannot defend a theory against their peers then the theory fails. All the internet has done is made it easier for scientists to review other scientists work.

This just happens to be an internet forum about science. If you cannot defend your idea here how can you expect to defend it when you get the the criticism of real scientists (and there are a few of those here too)?

I called you a liar because you lied. You have no mathematical models for your ideas. If you had you would have them on you web site, would produce equations from them in your posts and quote actual numbers.

I called you a crackpot because you fit the defintion of a crackpot or crank. See crank.net (http://www.crank.net/) to see how common you are.

"Central gravity", i.e. gravity, has already been described mathematically by firstly Newton and then Einstein. Their mathematical descriptions have been used to produce predictions that have been tested by observations and experiments.

There is notthing wrong with the scientific understanding of gravity. It works.
Your idea does not.


Yes very nice illustration and measurement.
BUT there is NO dark matter in these areas
I have seen it all before.
BUT there is dark matter in these areas. The dark matter has separated froim the normal matter. The separated dark matter is in the pictures.
You may have seen it before but it is becoming obvious that you have not understood it.

[LissaLysikan]

Ah - so much fun watching someone that failed mathematics and failed physics and was refused his diploma try to teach a fantasy to people that actually have an education, just because he read on a web page somewhere that modern physics is wrong.
He should have gone into conspiracy theories - much more in line with his insistence that logic is wrong and only belief in his ideas is correct.

[Reality Check]

Just noticed this obviously statement in your post:

We can say for sure say My personal conviction is that a greater contraction pressure will affect the inner space. Because (off course) it’s easier for matter to contract space the closer it is the surface of an object. I believe that the “distribution” of the inner half “pressure” and outer “pressure” on space inside a body must be distributed “as a smooth line”. This mean the ADG must be the same in the centre (of a homogenous object) than at the surface. According to my conviction we don’t need any a new equation but only how to calculate “g” at the surface (Gm/r^2) “g” is the same at the centre (in a homogenous mass) .
(corrected your poor English)

It has already pointed out that this has been experimentally proved to be wrong. When "g" is measured it decreases with the depth down a mine shaft. You know this since you commented on it.
The inability to understand simple experiments like this is a characteristic of a crackpot.
Ignoring the facts that contradict your conviction is a characteristic of a crackpot.

[Bjarne]

I think it begins to sound like a pick up in the the same groove .
Will be back after meassurement

[Reality Check]

Great post RC. Do you have an opinion on this? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17892-galaxy-study-hints-at-cracks-in-dark-matter-theories.html
I suspect that a sample of 28 galaxies is too small.
If it is confirmed then the interaction betwwen normal and dark matter being larger then currently estimated seems likely.

[Reality Check]

I think it begins to sound like a pick up in the the same groove .
Will be back after meassurement
Just a bit of advice about your measurement.

No one will trust your results if you just dump them into a web page to be ignored forever. Pointing forum users to your results will not work. They have no reason to think that your results are from a valid experiment - or for that matter any experiment :)! (there are a lot of liars on the internet).

You need to get your results published in a peer-reviewed journal before they will be trusted. They will then be repeated and verified to becomd verified scientific data.

When you have your measurement, maybe it will explain why your idea about the g being constant underground is so wrong.
Here's a bit of actual science:

Gravity in mines- An investigation of Newton's law (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986PhRvD..33.3487H) by Holding, Steven C.; Stacey, Frank D.; Tuck, Gary J.
New force or model-dependent effect in the mine gravity measurements? (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987PhLB..195..245K) by Kim, Yeong E.; Klepacki, David J.; Hinze, William J.
Recent history of tower and mine searches for non-Newtonian gravity (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991AmJPh..59..200F) by Fischbach, Ephraim; Talmadge, Carrick
For some reason none of these (or other experiments) report that g is constant either below or above ground.

[Bjarne]

Just a bit of advice about your measurement.


When you have your measurement, maybe it will explain why your idea about the g being constant underground is so wrong.
Here's a bit of actual science:

Gravity in mines- An investigation of Newton's law (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986PhRvD..33.3487H) by Holding, Steven C.; Stacey, Frank D.; Tuck, Gary J.
New force or model-dependent effect in the mine gravity measurements? (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987PhLB..195..245K) by Kim, Yeong E.; Klepacki, David J.; Hinze, William J.
Recent history of tower and mine searches for non-Newtonian gravity (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991AmJPh..59..200F) by Fischbach, Ephraim; Talmadge, Carrick
For some reason none of these (or other experiments) report that g is constant either below or above ground.

All these are relative superficially measurements.
And as already mention: you do not know for sure about the size and dense, of the inner core, or the dense in the surface. Such measurement will always be doubtful.

[Toke]

All these are relative superficially measurements.
And as already mention: you do not know for sure about the size and dense, of the inner core, or the dense in the surface. Such measurement will always be doubtful.

Completely unlike measurements taken in a building with a well known number of stories.

[Reality Check]

All these are relative superficially measurements.
And as already mention: you do not know for sure about the size and dense, of the inner core, or the dense in the surface. Such measurement will always be doubtful.
All these are scientific measurements.
None of these measurements depend on the size or density of the inner core. The density of the surface also does not matter. The various densities of the rock and surounding area have to be taken account of and this is done.

As Toke said: Your conviction makes your measurement "always be doubtful". So why are you doing it?

[Ziggurat]

All these are relative superficially measurements.
And as already mention: you do not know for sure about the size and dense, of the inner core, or the dense in the surface. Such measurement will always be doubtful.

The density (not dense) of the surface of the earth is known, because we can measure it directly. The density of the core and mantle cannot be measured directly, but they can be measured indirectly through seismic measurements.

Once again, you are not convincing anyone that they are wrong or that you are right, you are only demonstrating how little you know.

[Toke]

I do believe that physics and other disciplines are a bit fuzzy* at the (cutting) edges.
But this is too big a divergence not to have been noticed by others than Bjarne.

*There is still research going on, right.:)

ETA: Noticed is the wrong word, it implies measurements.

[Reality Check]

Another point about Bjarne's measurement:
I do hope that when he publishes his scientific paper on the measurement of g in a 30 story building at each story in a peer reviewed journal, that he includes the gravitational influence of the other buildings in the city.

[Dancing David]

Yes I sympathize with the author but I am not a clone.
I like the impression: quotation:
“ a religion dominated by incompetent dreamers”.

that is as inaccurate as the rest of your rambling. You can't demonstrate your thoughts coherently or clearly, that is your issue.


No Comrade Stenkh I am my own.



Our common imagination is too poor, misty and single-tracked. Mat and imagination must go hand in hand. This is not the case.

Blah, blah, blah. Rubbish


What is space?
You would probably instantly say nothing?
But it’s wrong, because how can nothing bend?
So welcome to a discussion about nothing.

More naive posturing on your part, if you actually asked someone who studied physics that is not the answer you would get.

Straw argument.

[Ziggurat]

You can't demonstrate your thoughts coherently or clearly, that is your issue.

That might not be true, if the thoughts themselves have no coherence. On the other hand, Incoherent thoughts and incoherent presentation aren't mutually exclusive.

[Reality Check]

Another point about Bjarne's measurement:
I do hope that when he publishes his scientific paper on the measurement of g in a 30 story building at each story in a peer reviewed journal, that he includes the gravitational influence of the other buildings in the city.
It turns out that he is not actually going to measure g.
He is gong to measure the acceleration due to the building's acceleration due to gravity according to his "evidence (http://www.science27.com/english/evidence.html)" web page.
The English is bad but it looks like he expects this quantity (call it gb) will be constant above the building's center of gravity and gb will decrease below the center of gravity. Of course this means that the building will have a non-zero gb at its center of gravity.

The defect in this is easy to see - the top of the building will have a net acceleration into the sky!
Turn the building into an equivalent situation - a satellite in an orbit around the Earth (Bjarne may require it to be geosynchronous). That satellite will then vanish into the Solar System. Someone should tell NASA that they are losing the International Space Station!
Or another equivalent situation - move the same building so that it is in space sitting on a small asteroid. That building will then lift off and vanish into the cosmos.

In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5213952&postcount=137), Bjarne states "We have one gravimeter in Denmark that can measure 5/1.000.000.000 of “g” – This should be OK. It’s possible to pay for getting a job done.". I have my doubts that this will be able to detect gb from the much smaller mass of a buidling, assuming that Bjarne can separate out this from g (from the Earth) and the forces form other sources such as other buildings.
I have probably got the math wrong but 5/1,000,000,000 of g looks like the equivalent g from a rock with the Earth's density with a radius of 15.8 kilometers. That is a fairly large buidling.

[Bjarne]

All these are scientific measurements.
None of these measurements depend on the size or density of the inner core.

You can measure the core form the surface.
Did you know g on the North Pole (radius is 22 km less that equator) Here ADG is stronger than at the equator. No you did not know, this is what you demonstrate. And this is because of the core. The only problem is that we don't know exactly, we believe so. OK ?

The density (not dense) of the surface of the earth is known, because we can measure it directly.
To eliminate doubt you must also test the by drilling. This can be a problem for ex in a mine. You can drill above a mine OK ?
You will always have doubt what your are measuring. But not in building or and object where you know the density (not dense)

Once again, you are not convincing anyone that they are wrong or that you are right, you are only demonstrating how little you know.
And you not convincing that I am wrong.
This is always so.
Measurement is the way to do it.

that is as inaccurate as the rest of your rambling
People must stick to the scientific methods, not to believe, and many do not. Much “science” is today only believes.

It turns out that he is not actually going to measure g.
He is gong to measure the acceleration due to the building's acceleration due to gravity according to his "evidence (http://www.science27.com/english/evidence.html)" web page.
The English is bad but it looks like he expects this quantity (call it gb) will be constant above the building's center of gravity and gb will decrease below the center of gravity. Of course this means that the building will have a non-zero gb at its center of gravity.

Let’s say that the building ADG is 0.00000001m/s (in the length direction) – You should according to my opinion be able to measure that in the whole building. Below the centre it will counteract the Earth, Above the centre it will reinforce the Earths ADG.

The defect in this is easy to see - the top of the building will have a net acceleration into the sky!
Turn the building into an equivalent situation - a satellite in an orbit around the Earth (Bjarne may require it to be geosynchronous). That satellite will then vanish into the Solar System. Someone should tell NASA that they are losing the International Space Station!
Or another equivalent situation - move the same building so that it is in space sitting on a small asteroid. That building will then lift off and vanish into the cosmos.

Can’t see your problem.

In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5213952&postcount=137), Bjarne states "We have one gravimeter in Denmark that can measure 5/1.000.000.000 of “g” – This should be OK. It’s possible to pay for getting a job done.". I have my doubts that this will be able to detect gb from the much smaller mass of a buidling, assuming that Bjarne can separate out this from g (from the Earth) and the forces form other sources such as other buildings.
I have probably got the math wrong but 5/1,000,000,000 of g looks like the equivalent g from a rock with the Earth's density with a radius of 15.8 kilometers. That is a fairly large building.

The Empire state Building have a weight = 365.000.000 Kg – Lets say the building I will measure ADG = 1/10 = 36.500.000 kg height is 100 meter

6.67E-11 * 36500000 / 100^2 = 0.000000243 m/s

The gravimeter can measure = 0.00000005 m/s

Ohh Yeh you have got it wrong (again)

[Bjarne]

All these are scientific measurements.
None of these measurements depend on the size or density of the inner core.

You can measure the core form the surface.
Did you know g on the North Pole (radius is 22 km less that equator) Here ADG is stronger than at the equator. No you did not know, this is what you demonstrate. And this is because of the core. The only problem is that we don't know exactly, we believe so. OK ?

The density (not dense) of the surface of the earth is known, because we can measure it directly.
To eliminate doubt you must also test the by drilling. This can be a problem for ex in a mine. You can drill above a mine OK ?
You will always have doubt what your are measuring. But not in building or and object where you know the density (not dense)

Once again, you are not convincing anyone that they are wrong or that you are right, you are only demonstrating how little you know.
And you not convincing that I am wrong.
This is always so.
Measurement is the way to do it.

that is as inaccurate as the rest of your rambling
People must stick to the scientific methods, not to believe, and many do not. Much “science” is today only believes.

It turns out that he is not actually going to measure g.
He is gong to measure the acceleration due to the building's acceleration due to gravity according to his "evidence (http://www.science27.com/english/evidence.html)" web page.
The English is bad but it looks like he expects this quantity (call it gb) will be constant above the building's center of gravity and gb will decrease below the center of gravity. Of course this means that the building will have a non-zero gb at its center of gravity.

Let’s say that the building ADG is 0.00000001m/s (in the length direction) – You should according to my opinion be able to measure that in the whole building. Below the centre it will counteract the Earth, Above the centre it will reinforce the Earths ADG.

The defect in this is easy to see - the top of the building will have a net acceleration into the sky!
Turn the building into an equivalent situation - a satellite in an orbit around the Earth (Bjarne may require it to be geosynchronous). That satellite will then vanish into the Solar System. Someone should tell NASA that they are losing the International Space Station!
Or another equivalent situation - move the same building so that it is in space sitting on a small asteroid. That building will then lift off and vanish into the cosmos.

Can’t see your problem.

In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5213952&postcount=137), Bjarne states "We have one gravimeter in Denmark that can measure 5/1.000.000.000 of “g” – This should be OK. It’s possible to pay for getting a job done.". I have my doubts that this will be able to detect gb from the much smaller mass of a buidling, assuming that Bjarne can separate out this from g (from the Earth) and the forces form other sources such as other buildings.
I have probably got the math wrong but 5/1,000,000,000 of g looks like the equivalent g from a rock with the Earth's density with a radius of 15.8 kilometers. That is a fairly large building.

The Empire state Building have a weight = 365.000.000 Kg – Lets say the building I will measure ADG, - has a weight 1/10 of Empire state Building = 36.500.000 kg height is 100meter

6.67E-11 * 36500000 / 100^2 = 0.000000243 m/s

The gravimeter can measure = 0.00000005 m/s

Ohh Yeh you have got it wrong (again)

[Pixie of key]

How photons can change direction where photons move?

I know one way! I think you dont know any other way!

Lets put 100 people together move to space.

Now we have energyconcentration like photons. Photons are very small energyconcentration. Inside photons are only energy, just like inside people.

When other side 100 people energyconcentration 10 people open up and push with hand and leg other people far away, then 90 people moving direction change!

This is real science and you can make again that test!

Photons energy have to open up faster other side photons and then photons moving direction can change!

space dont curving at all!

Religious people believe, space curving!

space dont curving!

.

[steenkh]

This is real science and you can make again that test!
Who is this guy, and is he possibly even weirder than Bjarne?

[Pixie of key]

You cant proof, space expanding or curving!

I can proof, energy can exploding all a time and some times faster than other exploding energy expanding in space who dont expanding at all!

You cant proof god! Also you cant proof expanding space.

You can believe, there is god or expanding space.

Expanding and bending space is not even science!

onesimpleprinciple com


.

[dafydd]

Who is this guy, and is he possibly even weirder than Bjarne?

Dunno,but I would like some of what they're smoking.

[MRC_Hans]

The Empire state Building have a weight = 365.000.000 Kg – Lets say the building I will measure ADG, - has a weight 1/10 of Empire state Building = 36.500.000 kg height is 100meter

6.67E-11 * 36500000 / 100^2 = 0.000000243 m/s

The gravimeter can measure = 0.00000005 m/s

Ohh Yeh you have got it wrong (again)That will have to be in your protocol. Also your corrections for tidal forces (allowing for the time difference between measurements, as the whole procedure will take quite some time), instrument drift, and the elevation of each floor above Earth's centre. I gave you a link on how to calculate that on the Danish forum.

And since the precision of your instrument is only 1/5 of the target value, you need to provide a full measurement uncertainty calculation.

Otherwise, you are wasting your time (and money), because whatever result you get can be dismissed as noise.

... Real science is hard work! ;)



Hans

[Toke]

Who is this guy, and is he possibly even weirder than Bjarne?
I think he is using google translator from finnish.

[steenkh]

... Real science is hard work! ;)

That is just your religious attitude! Real science is lots of imagination and a math level comparable to pre-school. Only then can you get the results that will brush away the petrified beliefs of outdated physics, so that even mother cow can understand it! :p

[MRC_Hans]

That is just your religious attitude! Real science is lots of imagination and a math level comparable to pre-school. Only then can you get the results that will brush away the petrified beliefs of outdated physics, so that even mother cow can understand it! :pYou forgot to spell math as 'mat'.

Hans

[Bjarne]

CORRECTION

1.) / radius (not diameter)
6.67E-11 * 36500000 / 50^2 = 0.0000009743 m/s

2.)
If the building is 100 m height, the width and length should be the same.
Otherwise the total ADG effect will be weaker.
The problem could be that the gravimeter is not enough sensitive.
I am looking for a better building. - A Tower or slim building is not the best option.
The trick's is to encircle central space, - that’s why.

[steenkh]

The trick's is to encircle central space, - that’s why.
Are windows allowed? Will it change anything if they are open? If only one is open?

[Reality Check]

You can measure the core form the surface.
Did you know g on the North Pole (radius is 22 km less that equator) Here ADG is stronger than at the equator.
You can measure the core from the surface (seismology). So what?

I know that g is smaller at the poles (North and South). This is because the radius is 22 km less that equator.


No you did not know, this is what you demonstrate. And this is because of the core. The only problem is that we don't know exactly, we believe so. OK ?
Still wrong - I know. I also know the reason. Did you know that the Earth is not a perfect sphere? That it's radius is 22 km less that equator? Can you read your own words?


Can’t see your problem.

The problem is not mine - it is your prediction that all orbits are unstable. The Solar System is ~5 billion years old. According to you every object in orbit around the Sun has been experiencing an outward acceleration for ~5 billion years. Thus the Solar System cannot exist.

Wow. You got it wrong again!

According to you every NASA mission that launched a spacecraft must have failed as the spacecraft was pushed out of the the Solar System by this outward acceleration.
At the very least you are calling NASA so dumb that they did not notice that all spacecraft have an unexplained outward acceleration.
Or maybe you think that they (and all other space agencies) know and there is a massive global conspiracy to hide this.

Wow. You got it wrong again!

The Pioneer anomaly is an inward acceleration. You seem to be under the delusion that your idea explains this. What happened to your outward acceleration?

Wow. You got it wrong again!


The Empire state Building have a weight = 365.000.000 Kg – Lets say the building I will measure ADG, - has a weight 1/10 of Empire state Building = 36.500.000 kg height is 100meter

6.67E-11 * 36500000 / 100^2 = 0.000000243 m/s

The gravimeter can measure = 0.00000005 m/s

Ohh Yeh you have got it wrong (again)
You are right - as I stated my arithmetic was probably wrong and it turns out I was right (it was).
At least it was just arithmetic.

You have the total delusion that "Bended Space = Contracted Space"
Ohh Yeh you have got it wrong (again and again and again and again...)

[Bjarne]

You can measure the core from the surface (seismology). So what?

This as well is no guarantee for anything, - for example also not the cores densit, - comrade.

The problem is not mine - it is your prediction that all orbits are unstable. The Solar System is ~5 billion years old. According to you every object in orbit around the Sun has been experiencing an outward acceleration for ~5 billion years. Thus the Solar System cannot exist.

Wow. You got it wrong again!

According to you every NASA mission that launched a spacecraft must have failed as the spacecraft was pushed out of the the Solar System by this outward acceleration.
At the very least you are calling NASA so dumb that they did not notice that all spacecraft have an unexplained outward acceleration.
Or maybe you think that they (and all other space agencies) know and there is a massive global conspiracy to hide this.

Wow. You got it wrong again!

The Pioneer anomaly is an inward acceleration. You seem to be under the delusion that your idea explains this. What happened to your outward acceleration?

Wow. You got it wrong again!

The Pioneer anomaly is an inward acceleration. You seem to be under the delusion that your idea explains this. What happened to your outward acceleration?
All this only demonstrates that you have read nothing of this you are criticizing.

Please read this and ALL the links, then you will know what this is about:
http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

READ MORE HERE (http://translate.google.dk/translate?hl=da&sl=da&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdebat.ateist.net%2Fshowthread.php%3 Ft%3D4424)

and HERE (http://translate.google.dk/translate?hl=da&sl=da&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdebat.ateist.net%2Fshowthread.php%3 Ft%3D4438")

Wow. You got it all wrong again!

[MRC_Hans]

Another point about Bjarne's measurement:
I do hope that when he publishes his scientific paper on the measurement of g in a 30 story building at each story in a peer reviewed journal, that he includes the gravitational influence of the other buildings in the city.To be fair, the only two 30 story buildings in Denmark (Domus Vista and the Herlev Hospital) are standing fairly solitarily, so I expect influence from other buildings can be largely neglected. What cannot, of course, be neglected, is tidal force, elevation, and measurement uncertainty. All of these have the potential to completely drown out any result he may get.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Please read this and ALL the links, then you will know what this is about:
http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html

Bjarne, let me remind you that in an academic discussion, such as this, you are obliged to present your evidence and explanations here. You cannot refer others to read extensive bodies of text, unless such text is broadly recognized as basic knowledge.

Hans

[Reality Check]

http://www.science27.com/english/the_pioneer_anomaly.html
Wow. You got it all wrong again!
Read it.
Wow. You got it all wrong again!

See the posts in your other thread about the ignorance displayed in that page:

Sensation_of_physics points out that your arbitrary equations leads to "orbital velocities starting from the speed of light and dropping to zero between 0 and 400 m from the center of the sun!". (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5217033&postcount=2)
I point out the simple mistake in the use of units of measurement, i.e. a number without dimensions is a number - it is not an acceleration or velocity. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5220060&postcount=12)

[Bjarne]

Read it.
Wow. You got it all wrong again!

See the posts in your other thread about the ignorance displayed in that page:

Sensation_of_physics points out that your arbitrary equations leads to "orbital velocities starting from the speed of light and dropping to zero between 0 and 400 m from the center of the sun!". (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5217033&postcount=2)
I point out the simple mistake in the use of units of measurement, i.e. a number without dimensions is a number - it is not an acceleration or velocity. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5220060&postcount=12)


The first link is ONLY a HUGE load of manipulation
The second:
Everyone can see that this is wrong.
You have defined y as a numeric quantity. It is just a number. It is not a velocity or an acceleration or a force or anything else with units of measurement.
You then subtract 1 from a numeric quantitiy. The result is obviously not a velocity or an acceleration or a force or anything else with units of measurement.
You arbitarily make this into an acceleration by adding units of measurement to the result.

You make this mistake worse by implying that (1-y) is a velocity when it is actually a number. This is probably a fault with your lack of knowledge of English.

Can you tell us where Sensation_of_physics went wrong with his equations?

In the equation above, (y-1) expresses the transformation factor but it must naturally reflect the value of resistance as well, not only a factor which is able to show an object’s required energy necessary for acceleration and an object’s increase of mass due to higher velocity.

Do you deny that we here talk about negative velocity comrade?
And if not what is the deceleration according to your opinion comrade?

You know it's easy to claim that I am wrong, and you are right, but then you must show the right answer
Can you do that comrade?
Or will you lie and say that we do not speak about negative velocity comrade?

[steenkh]

The first link is ONLY a HUGE load of manipulation

Interesting claim. Can you show us where it has been manipulated? Or will we just have to take your word for it? :whistling

[Reality Check]

The first link is ONLY a HUGE load of manipulation

What is wrong with the HUGE load of manipulation?


In the equation above, (y-1) expresses the transformation factor but it must naturally reflect the value of resistance as well, not only a factor which is able to show an object’s required energy necessary for acceleration and an object’s increase of mass due to higher velocity.

Do you deny that we here talk about negative velocity comrade?
And if not what is the deceleration according to your opinion comrade?

You know it's easy to claim that I am wrong, and you are right, but then you must show the right answer
Can you do that comrade?
Or will you lie and say that we do not speak about negative velocity comrade?
We can talk about velocity, acceleration, force or energy (positive, zero or negative) if you like comrade. This is not a discussion about the values that you have. It is a discussion about the ignorance of basic physics that that web page displays.

1 is a number. v2/c2 is a number. Taking the square root of a number gives you a number.

(1-y) is a number comrade!

Thus (1-y) is thus not an deceleration comrade! It does not have units of m/s^2.
In addition (1-y) is not an negative velocity comrade! It does not have the units of m/s.
If you showed that web page to your high school science teacher then you would be flunked for the basic mistake of putting a number equal to an acceleration. It would be just as valid to have in your web page "(y - 1) = 8.33 × 10−10 kilogram*Coulombs/Kelvin*Amperes" - you would still be funked.

Do you accept that Sensation_of_physics equations are correct?
Or can you show us where Sensation_of_physics went wrong?

[Bjarne]

What is wrong with the HUGE load of manipulation?


We can talk about velocity, acceleration, force or energy (positive, zero or negative) if you like comrade. This is not a discussion about the values that you have. It is a discussion about the ignorance of basic physics that that web page displays.

1 is a number. v2/c2 is a number. Taking the square root of a number gives you a number.

(1-y) is a number comrade!

Thus (1-y) is thus not an deceleration comrade! It does not have units of m/s^2.
In addition (1-y) is not an negative velocity comrade! It does not have the units of m/s.
If you showed that web page to your high school science teacher then you would be flunked for the basic mistake of putting a number equal to an acceleration. It would be just as valid to have in your web page "(y - 1) = 8.33 × 10−10 kilogram*Coulombs/Kelvin*Amperes" - you would still be funked.

Do you accept that Sensation_of_physics equations are correct?
Or can you show us where Sensation_of_physics went wrong?

He claims that according to my “centrifugal force” (space wind) equation RM/Qr^2 compared to the opposite force 1/√(1 - v²/c²) these 2 force will only equalize in one certain orbit. This is either a HUGE misunderstanding showing that he doesn’t understand math or a HUGE load of manipulation.

Since he do not admit his mistake it’s seems to be conscious attempt only to confuse the stupid’s and derail the discussion.
-------------------------------------
There is something rotten in the State of Denmark
Shakespeare.
--------------------------------------


Edit did you see the question to you in post 200 ?

[steenkh]

Since he do not admit his mistake it’s seems to be conscious attempt only to confuse the stupid’s and derail the discussion.
You have not yet pointed to any mistakes. Please enlighten us, where has he misunderstood or manipulated the equations?

[Bjarne]

You have not yet pointed to any mistakes. Please enlighten us, where has he misunderstood or manipulated the equations?

Its DONE
-------------------------------------
There is something rotten in the State of Denmark
Shakespeare.
--------------------------------------

[steenkh]

Its DONE
Do not keep it secret. Show it!

[Dancing David]

That might not be true, if the thoughts themselves have no coherence. On the other hand, Incoherent thoughts and incoherent presentation aren't mutually exclusive.

Fair enough.

[Tricky]

Some posts moved to AAH for incivility. Please discuss the topic and do not include evaluations of fellow members.

[Reality Check]

He claims that according to my “centrifugal force” (space wind) equation RM/Qr^2 compared to the opposite force 1/√(1 - v²/c²) these 2 force will only equalize in one certain orbit. This is either a HUGE misunderstanding showing that he doesn’t understand math or a HUGE load of manipulation.

He does not claim that.
In the inital post, he shows that your claim that the "space wind" and "opposite force" equalize results in objects that move with a defined velocity in orbits less than 400 meters from the Sun.

Try reading and understanding the post:
Sensation_of_physics points out that your arbitrary equations leads to "orbital velocities starting from the speed of light and dropping to zero between 0 and 400 m from the center of the sun!". (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5217033&postcount=2)
It is quite simple mathematics.


Edit did you see the question to you in post 200 ?
Yes.

[Bjarne]

In the inital post, he shows that your claim that the "space wind" and "opposite force" equalize results in objects that move with a defined velocity in orbits less than 400 meters from the Sun.

Try reading and understanding the post:
Sensation_of_physics points out that your arbitrary equations leads to "orbital velocities starting from the speed of light and dropping to zero between 0 and 400 m from the center of the sun!". (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5217033&postcount=2)
It is quite simple mathematics.

Notice what Sensation_of_physics claims is that "all planets" should orbit the same orbit.
This can only mean he have got it all wrong. . Hence such statement or math can I not take seriously.
We talk about a insignificant deviation that e.g: maybe could explain the last unexplain mystery of Mercury's orbit.
This also mean that this could maybe cause Mercury VERY slowly to be thrown out in space.
If this was Sensation_of_physics wanted to say, its a different story.
Everybody can participate to check that out.
I can do that in the future but I will need a lager calculator, mine (10 digits is too small) .
What make all these difficult to calculate is that the inner planets transmit KE to the outer and KE is use to maintain the rotation as well.

A friend told me ½ year ago, that all the inner planets doesn’t seems to be where they should be.
He had seen this in TV
I do know more than this.
It could be nice to hear from you comrades what is this about.

Hopefully the internet can be used not only to tear to pieces people that thinks differently than the authoritarian want us to think
Hopefully somebody can see that this is maybe a track to discover a lot more of the law of the universe.

[Reality Check]

Notice what Sensation_of_physics claims is that "all planets" should orbit the same orbit.

As far as I can see Sensation_of_physics does not claim this.
Please quote his statement that "all planets" should orbit the same orbit.

He does state "Bjarnes Claim is now that the above equlity holds exactly for each planet distance, r, in the solar system and that a slight discrepancy would mean that said planet is in an unstable orbit."
Each = for each individual planet.
Each does not equal all.

[Reality Check]

We talk about a insignificant deviation that e.g: maybe could explain the last unexplain mystery of Mercury's orbit.
This also mean that this could maybe cause Mercury VERY slowly to be thrown out in space.

Do you know that the Solar System has been around for about 5 billion years? That is a VERY long time. Anything happening "VERY slowly" will probably happen.
Thus Mercury has been thrown out in space and the Soar System does not exist!

What is the "last unexplain mystery of Mercury's orbit"?
If you mean it's perihelion advance then you are 96 years out of date. That was the first thing explained by General Relativity.


A friend told me ½ year ago, that all the inner planets doesn’t seems to be where they should be.
He had seen this in TV
I do know more than this.
It could be nice to hear from you comrades what is this about.

As far as I know, your friend was wrong.

[Bjarne]

Bjarne
Notice what Sensation_of_physics claims is that "all planets" should orbit the same orbit.
Realety Check
As far as I can see Sensation_of_physics does not claim this.
Please quote his statement that "all planets" should orbit the same orbit.
It’s done already several times
I suggest only using this thread concerning this question >>> HERE (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5202841#post5202841)


Do you know that the Solar System has been around for about 5 billion years?
That is a VERY long time. Anything happening "VERY slowly" will probably happen.
Thus Mercury has been thrown out in space and the Soar System does not exist!

This shows that you haven’t read the whole chapter and all the links in the chapter: “”The Pioneer Anomaly””.

What is the "last unexplain mystery of Mercury's orbit"?
If you mean it's perihelion advance then you are 96 years out of date.
That was the first thing explained by General Relativity.
Not completely

As far as I know, your friend was wrong.
As far as I know him this is impossible.

[Ziggurat]

A friend told me ½ year ago, that all the inner planets doesn’t seems to be where they should be.

Where they should be according to whom or what? According to Newtonian gravity? Why yes, that's correct: the orbits of the inner planets do not match the predictions of Newtonian gravity. They do match the predictions of general relativity, however. Since general relativity is our most accurate theory of gravity, the inner planets are exactly where they should be.

He had seen this in TV
I do know more than this.
It could be nice to hear from you comrades what is this about.

How the hell would we know what your friend saw on TV? Maybe he saw something about the limits of Newtonian gravity in a good science documentary. Maybe he saw something about alien abductions, Atlantis, the face on Mars, and other nonsense. If you want more information, you'll have to ask your friend, there's very little we can tell yyou about what he might have seen based on what you've told us.

[sol invictus]

Where they should be according to whom or what? According to Newtonian gravity? Why yes, that's correct: the orbits of the inner planets do not match the predictions of Newtonian gravity. They do match the predictions of general relativity, however. Since general relativity is our most accurate theory of gravity, the inner planets are exactly where they should be.



How the hell would we know what your friend saw on TV? Maybe he saw something about the limits of Newtonian gravity in a good science documentary. Maybe he saw something about alien abductions, Atlantis, the face on Mars, and other nonsense. If you want more information, you'll have to ask your friend, there's very little we can tell yyou about what he might have seen based on what you've told us.

Oh come on, Zig. Clearly some half-forgotten thing Bjarne's friend saw on TV is more credible than all the physics text books, NASA documents, scientific papers, and instructional websites out there (not to mention the knowledge base of the posters here). After all, we have it on Bjarne's authority that it's "impossible" that his friend is wrong (even though he doesn't remember what he said).

[Bjarne]

Where they should be according to whom or what?

It was discovered when to travelling to other planets.
Try to google something like: problems gravity Juno planets mysteries etc.....
Let me know what you can find
( One of Juno's task is so far I understand to research this mystery)
ITS A FACT

Space wind ???
Hmmm?

[Ziggurat]

It was discovered when to travelling to other planets.
Try to google something like: problems gravity Juno planets mysteries etc.....
Let me know what you can find
( One of Juno's task is so far I understand to research this mystery)
ITS A FACT

Space wind ???
Hmmm?

When someone makes a claim, the burden is generally upon the person making that claim to provide evidence to support it. Frequently people make claims without providing evidence to support it, claiming that others should find evidence regarding the claims they make. You, however, have managed to outdo those underachievers: you have somehow managed to not even present a claim. Sorry, Bjarne, but I won't find your claim for you.

[Reality Check]

This shows that you haven’t read the whole chapter and all the links in the chapter: “”The Pioneer Anomaly””.

I have read read the whole chapter and all the links in the chapter: “”The Pioneer Anomaly””.
What shows that I have not?


Not completely

Yes completely.


As far as I know him this is impossible.
As far as I know him this is possible (imaginary friends are always wrong :D).

[Reality Check]

It was discovered when to travelling to other planets.
Try to google something like: problems gravity Juno planets mysteries etc.....
Let me know what you can find
( One of Juno's task is so far I understand to research this mystery)
ITS A FACT

Space wind ???
Hmmm?
I Goggled: problems gravity Juno planets mysteries
Which of the 3,040,000 results is a FACT?

[Bjarne]

When someone makes a claim, the burden is generally upon the person making that claim to provide evidence to support it. Frequently people make claims without providing evidence to support it, claiming that others should find evidence regarding the claims they make. You, however, have managed to outdo those underachievers: you have somehow managed to not even present a claim. Sorry, Bjarne, but I won't find your claim for you.

Take you comrade.
This is not a secret...
So fare I have understood could it also be the spacecraft that was out of course.
A star compass (invented in Denmark DTU) should be able to encircle what causes the mystery. (Space probe Juno 2011) Something is wrong.

[Ziggurat]

Take you comrade.
This is not a secret...
So fare I have understood could it also be the spacecraft that was out of course.

So now you're not talking about the orbits of the inner planets, but about spacecraft? Make up your mind.

A star compass (invented in Denmark DTU) should be able to encircle what causes the mystery. (Space probe Juno 2011) Something is wrong.

Something is indeed wrong: you're not making any sense. Juno won't be launched until 2011, so it has no relevance to the course of any current spacecraft. And it won't be studying Jupiter's orbit either, it will be studying the composition of Jupiter's atmosphere and its magnetic field. It won't be studying gravity at all.

[Reality Check]

Something is indeed wrong: you're not making any sense. Juno won't be launched until 2011, so it has no relevance to the course of any current spacecraft. And it won't be studying Jupiter's orbit either, it will be studying the composition of Jupiter's atmosphere and its magnetic field. It won't be studying gravity at all.
You are right that Bjarne is not making any sense by thinking that a space mission that has not even been launched yet has any relevance to the course of any planet or spacecraft.

However Juno will be also studying Jupiter's gravitational field according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_(spacecraft)) and the Juno web site (http://juno.wisc.edu/). This is hoped to reveal more about the internal structure of Jupiter in a similar way that gravity surveys of the Earth reveal things about the internal structure of Earth.

[Ziggurat]

However Juno will be also studying Jupiter's gravitational field

I stand corrected. The point of such measurements, I presume, is to probe Jupiter's mass distribution, which can only be done if we already know how gravity behaves. If there is uncertainty about gravity's behavior, it's not possible to extract information about Jupiter's mass distribution, since the measurements themselves depend on both.

[Dancing David]

Take you comrade.
This is not a secret...
So fare I have understood could it also be the spacecraft that was out of course.
A star compass (invented in Denmark DTU) should be able to encircle what causes the mystery. (Space probe Juno 2011) Something is wrong.

You keep saying "Something is wrong." but you really need to clarify what.

"Somebody told me they saw it on TV." is not much of an answer.

[Bjarne]

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

So now you're not talking about the orbits of the inner planets, but about spacecraft? Make up your mind.

I am just referring to what this friend told me.
A year ago it was also a interview which the inventer of the new space compass (at DR That now that now are removed). The space compass will always know excactly where it is, this is the point.

It was told that space probes must adjust their course a tiny when flying to other planets.
I think this information is related to that my friend told me. The space compass should be able to figure out if the divation is due to that the planes not are “where they should be” - and where we see them.

Well, this was all the “data” I got. I am just a amateur and have not access to everything...
I believe that space probes always will be affected by a force (space wind) that tries to force them around the sun. So you can not aim on a planet, and expect to hit it, unless to include the space wind. Latest in 2011 / 2012 you will know if this statement is a fact.

Something is indeed wrong: you're not making any sense. Juno won't be launched until 2011, so it has no relevance to the course of any current spacecraft. And it won't be studying Jupiter's orbit either, it will be studying the composition of Jupiter's atmosphere and its magnetic field. It won't be studying gravity at all.

I have not say: - gravity
August 2001 camrade
http://nasascience.nasa.gov/missions/juno

You keep saying "Something is wrong." but you really need to clarify what.
"Somebody told me they saw it on TV." is not much of an answer.

Put you self on the track, and you will see.
A revolution is coming before you think

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

[Jocce]

You keep saying "Something is wrong." but you really need to clarify what.
"Somebody told me they saw it on TV." is not much of an answer.
Put you self on the track, and you will see.
A revolution is coming before you think

I don't know if you really don't understand or if you just try to handwave here. You have to describe exactly what is wrong with the calculations provided. It's not enough to say "they're not correct".

[dafydd]

Put you self on the track, and you will see.
A revolution is coming before you think

I won't be holding my breath.

[steenkh]

I believe that space probes always will be affected by a force (space wind) that tries to force them around the sun. So you can not aim on a planet, and expect to hit it, unless to include the space wind.
I have news for you: we have already aimed at, and hit, distant planets without taking hypothetical space winds into consideration.

[Bjarne]

I don't know if you really don't understand or if you just try to handwave here. You have to describe exactly what is wrong with the calculations provided. It's not enough to say "they're not correct".
Be patient comrade. So fare it’s "only" a working sketch – working hypothesis if you like..

[dafydd]

Be patient comrade. So fare it’s "only" a working sketch – working hypothesis if you like..

A comedy sketch,no doubt.

[Bjarne]

sorry double

[Bjarne]

A comedy sketch,no doubt.

You mean dark matter, - and that resistance against motion only """should""" apply to acceleration and not to constant velocity.

Yes that’s in deed a joke, and properly the biggest in history.

[Jocce]

Be patient comrade. So fare it’s "only" a working sketch – working hypothesis if you like..

Oh I see. You got no proof then. Thought so.

[Reality Check]

CORRECTION

1.) / radius (not diameter)
6.67E-11 * 36500000 / 50^2 = 0.0000009743 m/s

2.)
If the building is 100 m height, the width and length should be the same.
Otherwise the total ADG effect will be weaker.
The problem could be that the gravimeter is not enough sensitive.
I am looking for a better building. - A Tower or slim building is not the best option.
The trick's is to encircle central space, - that’s why.
Just saw this post which reminded me of another question. This exercises will help you when you eventually get a site to test at.

Consider doing this test at a massive building with a flat roof and with a gravimeter that was sensitive enough to measure the building's acceleration due to gravity. Use the weight (365000 kg) and height (381 meters, ignoring the spire) of the Empire state building as an example.
According to your theory:

What would the gravimeter read at a height of 378 meters (the top floor)?
What would the gravimeter read at a height of 381 meters (the roof)?

[Bjarne]

Oh I see. You got no proof then
Coherence comrade, - coherence, common sense & simplicity this is the track to all the proof you want. - If you only need 4 dimension why then invent 7 more (dark matter + higgs crap) etc..

What would the gravimeter read at a height of 378 meters (the top floor)?
What would the gravimeter read at a height of 381 meters (the roof)?

I don't know the weight of the building
But It's should be possible to measure a deviation, and to see if this "line" is according to the prevailing opinio, or according to my, - or maybe something different.

(It’s scamped that it is not done long ago. )

[Reality Check]

I don't know the weight of the building
But It's should be possible to measure a deviation, and to see if this "line" is according to the prevailing opinio, or according to my, - or maybe something different.

First asked 22 October 2009:
Consider doing this test at a massive building with a flat roof and with a gravimeter that was sensitive enough to measure the building's acceleration due to gravity. Use the weight (365000 kg) and height (381 meters, ignoring the spire) of the Empire state building as an example.
According to your theory:

What would the gravimeter read at a height of 378 meters (the top floor)?
What would the gravimeter read at a height of 381 meters (the roof)?

[MRC_Hans]

Coherence comrade, - coherence, common sense & simplicity this is the track to all the proof you want. - If you only need 4 dimension why then invent 7 more (dark matter + higgs crap) etc..

And need to invent an imaginary resistance to motion, no need to invent an imaginary space wind, no need .... wait... .... Hmmm .... Bjarne, I don't think you know what 'coherence' means.


I don't know the weight of the building
But It's should be possible to measure a deviation,


If you don't know the weight (really mass) of the building how can you know if it is within the measuring capability of your instrument and method?


and to see if this "line" is according to the prevailing opinio, or according to my, - or maybe something different.


OK; so how will the line be according to the prevailing therory, and how will it be according to your opinion?



(It’s scamped that it is not done long ago. )

What makes you think it hasn't been done before? In the Danish forum, I directed you to a website that explained how to do such measurements, as a university assignment. When they ask students to do such a task, I think it is because it has been done before, how else should they evaluate the result?

Bjarne, you are again assuming that if you don't know something, then nobody knows. That is very wrong.

Hans

[dafydd]

Why are we comrades?

[Ziggurat]

I don't know the weight of the building
But It's should be possible to measure a deviation, and to see if this "line" is according to the prevailing opinio, or according to my, - or maybe something different.

What the "prevailing opinion" would predict depends upon the mass distribution of the building. In fact, since the earth is NOT actually spherically symmetric but contains various irregularities, it even depends on where you are and the geological composition of the ground beneath you. If you don't know this stuff (and you clearly don't), then you've got no way of figuring out what the "prevailing opinion" would actually say, and no way to compare it to any measurement.

[MRC_Hans]

Why are we comrades?I think it is some kind of vague insult. In Danish, which is supposedly Bjarne's native language (at least his spelling is somewhat less atrocious in Danish), 'kammerat' (~comrade) is a somewhat condescending way of addressing people, like 'pal'.

Or else he is implying that we are minions of the imagined conspiracy of science suppressors, thus the communistic 'comrade'. I don't know, and I don't really expect sense.

Hans

[Dancing David]

You mean dark matter, - and that resistance against motion only """should""" apply to acceleration and not to constant velocity.

Yes that’s in deed a joke, and properly the biggest in history.

Wow triple quotes!

So no way you can explain what looks like dark matter yet.

How do probes reach the outer planets, against that resistance?

[Toke]

Regarding bjarne's experiment, I am wondering about the gravity from the mass of a building compared to the changing distance from the center of the earth.

How big would the difference be if he used a basket in a crane instead?
And how big a disturbance is the seismic impact of somebody walking past?

Bjarne, you better do those calculations first to see if you have any chance to measure anything meaningful, and how sensitive is the meter compared to the differences you are looking for.

[Bjarne]

First asked 22 October 2009:
Consider doing this test at a massive building with a flat roof and with a gravimeter that was sensitive enough to measure the building's acceleration due to gravity. Use the weight (365000 kg) and height (381 meters, ignoring the spire) of the Empire state building as an example.
According to your theory:
• What would the gravimeter read at a height of 378 meters (the top floor)?
• What would the gravimeter read at a height of 381 meters (the roof)?

It’s off course a hypnotically question e.g.; We don't know what is the roof made of.
You will have deviation but you will also have an overall picture. “A line” I suppose you know the equation to calculate it.

6.67E-11 * 365000000/378/2 or
6.67E-11 * 365000000/381/2

What the "prevailing opinion" would predict depends upon the mass distribution of the building. In fact, since the earth is NOT actually spherically symmetric but contains various irregularities, it even depends on where you are and the geological composition of the ground beneath you.

ADG must off course also be measured in the area around the building too.

Bjarne, you better do those calculations first to see if you have any chance to measure anything meaningful, and how sensitive is the meter compared to the differences you are looking for.
Its done and shown above
It should be possible..

[Reality Check]

It’s off course a hypnotically question e.g.; We don't know what is the roof made of.
You will have deviation but you will also have an overall picture. “A line” I suppose you know the equation to calculate it.

6.67E-11 * 365000000/378/2 or
6.67E-11 * 365000000/381/2

ADG must off course also be measured in the area around the building too.

Its done and shown above
It should be possible..
Actually you need to state the equation. That looks like GM/(r/2) which has the wrong units for acceleration (isn't dimensional analysis easy!).

While you are at it you can add the calculation for the floor below.
Will it be 6.67E-11 * 365000000/375/2 (assuming 3 meter floors)?

[Bjarne]

Actually you need to state the equation. That looks like GM/(r/2) which has the wrong units for acceleration (isn't dimensional analysis easy!).

While you are at it you can add the calculation for the floor below.
Will it be 6.67E-11 * 365000000/375/2 (assuming 3 meter floors)?



Sorry ^2

[Reality Check]

Sorry ^2
That is Newton's equation not yours.

First asked 22 October 2009:
Consider doing this test at a massive building with a flat roof and with a gravimeter that was sensitive enough to measure the building's acceleration due to gravity. Use the weight (365000 kg) and height (381 meters, ignoring the spire) of the Empire state building as an example.
According to your theory:

What would the gravimeter read at a height of 375 meters (the second to top floor)?
What would the gravimeter read at a height of 378 meters (the top floor)?
What would the gravimeter read at a height of 381 meters (the roof)?

[Reality Check]

An interesting article:
Physicists Test Laws of Universe in Bid to Discover a 'Fifth Force' (http://articles.latimes.com/1987-07-27/news/mn-3949_1_air-force)
One of the 35 projects was a hole bored nearly a mile deep in the Greenland ice cap. A gravimeter was lowered down the hole.

Test of Newton's inverse-square law in the Greenland ice cap (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989PhRvL..62..985A)
An Airy-type geophysical experiment was performed in a 2-km-deep hole in the Greenland ice cap at depths of between 213 and 1673 m in order to explore possible violations of Newton's inverse-square law. The results revealed an anomalous gravity gradient. It is pointed out that the present phenomenon may be due to unexpected geological features in the rock below the ice and that it cannot be unambiguously attributed to a breakdown of Newtonian gravity.
What they mean by an anomalous gravity gradient is that the measured gravity gradient did not meet the predictions of their model.
No Nobel Prize winning announcement that the acceleration due to gravity is constant under the surface of the Earth.

Too bad for your theory.

[Bjarne]

An interesting article:
Physicists Test Laws of Universe in Bid to Discover a 'Fifth Force' (http://articles.latimes.com/1987-07-27/news/mn-3949_1_air-force)
One of the 35 projects was a hole bored nearly a mile deep in the Greenland ice cap. A gravimeter was lowered down the hole.

Test of Newton's inverse-square law in the Greenland ice cap (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989PhRvL..62..985A)

What they mean by an anomalous gravity gradient is that the measured gravity gradient did not meet the predictions of their model.
No Nobel Prize winning announcement that the acceleration due to gravity is constant under the surface of the Earth.

Too bad for your theory.


Too superficially and hence useless.

[dafydd]

Too superficially and hence useless.

Presumably you mean ''too superficial''. Care to give an explanation?

[Reality Check]

Too superficially and hence useless.
An experiment that specifically measures a gravity gradient is not useless.
It confirms Newton and disproves your idea that gravity is constant within a body.