Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

Bjarne said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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)?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
Its done and shown above
It should be possible..
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
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..
Click to expand...
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)?
 
Reality Check said:
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)?
Click to expand...



Sorry ^2
 
Bjarne said:
Sorry ^2
Click to expand...
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)?
 
An interesting article:
Physicists Test Laws of Universe in Bid to Discover a 'Fifth 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
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Reality Check said:
An interesting article:
Physicists Test Laws of Universe in Bid to Discover a 'Fifth 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

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.
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...
I have replied to that already.
We do not know the density of the core.
 
Bjarne said:
I have replied to that already.
We do not know the density of the core.
Click to expand...
What has the density of the core have to do with this experiment?

ETA:
Please cite the paper that shows that the density of the core will have an effect on the experiment.
You did throw out an unfounded assertion many posts ago to the same effect.
 
Last edited:
What has the density of the core have to do with this experiment?
Click to expand...
When you move towards the centre of the Earth ADG measurement will be affected by several different sources.

1.) The total amount of mass
2.) Nearby local anomalies
3.) The inner core ( the closer you will get the stronger anomaly due to the cores density) = “positive deviation”
4.) Mass above the about the measurement point “should” counteract. = “negative deviation”

If you misjudge the density of the core to be heavier (+) as it really is, then you will believe that the (homogeneous) mass above the measurement point is cancelling out component wise (-), (but it doesn’t, the core is just not so heavy). You’ll have no way to distinguish. That’s way such results are uncertain.
 
Bjarne said:
When you move towards the centre of the Earth ADG measurement will be affected by several different sources.

1.) The total amount of mass
2.) Nearby local anomalies
3.) The inner core ( the closer you will get the stronger anomaly due to the cores density) = “positive deviation”
4.) Mass above the about the measurement point “should” counteract. = “negative deviation”

If you misjudge the density of the core to be heavier (+) as it really is, then you will believe that the (homogeneous) mass above the measurement point is cancelling out component wise (-), (but it doesn’t, the core is just not so heavy). You’ll have no way to distinguish. That’s way such results are uncertain.
Click to expand...
1) Right but the mass of the test object is known - it is a gravimeter.
2) Right - but taken in account in the experiment.
3) Wrong - until you can cite your source.
4) Right. This and 1) leads to the linear variation of g with depth.

And we actually know the density of the core.

The variation of g with depth ("gradient") was measured in the experiment.
Thus your theory is wrong unless you can show exactly what went wrong in the experiment.
 
Last edited:
3) Wrong - until you can cite your source.
Click to expand...
I can say the exactly the same reading the hypotheses you believe in.

And we actually know the density of the core
Click to expand...
We believe we know.
Is it observed? - No
Is proven experimentally? - No
Is it proven based on Math? - No not definitive, but only based on a wrong understanding of central ADG.
 
Bjarne said:
I can say the exactly the same reading the hypotheses you believe in.


We believe we know.
Is it observed? - No
Is proven experimentally? - No
Is it proven based on Math? - No not definitive, but only based on a wrong understanding of central ADG.
Click to expand...
Is it observed? - Yes
Is proven experimentally? - Yes
Is it proven based on Math? - Yes
 
Reality Check;5244880]Is it observed? - Yes
Click to expand...

So the inner core of the earth is observed.
Maybe you were there?
I mean 6378 km inside the Earth?
Do you have such submarines in NZ ?

Is proven experimentally? - Yes
Click to expand...
So you know devices that we can put a pressure on matter that big as inside the Earth?

Yeeh yeh, we shall hear a lot before the ears fall of....
Do you have other jokes today, - from down under ?
 
Bjarne said:
So the inner core of the earth is observed.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Ever heard of a branch of science known as seismology? We can use it to observe the core, and even measure the difference in rotation rates between the core and the crust.

So you know devices that we can put a pressure on matter that big as inside the Earth?
Click to expand...

Yes. It's called a diamond anvil cell. And we can get even higher pressures with non-static methods.
 
Indeed. Ever heard of a branch of science known as seismology? We can use it to observe the core, and even measure the difference in rotation rates between the core and the crust.
Click to expand...
This is not observation, but measurement, and not measurement of density.

Bjarne
So you know devices that we can put a pressure on matter that big as inside the Earth?
Ziggurat
Yes. It's called a diamond anvil cell. And we can get even higher pressures with non-static methods.
Click to expand...
Crap.
Try to tell me the pressure in the centre of the Earth compared to that device
 
Bjarne said:
This is not observation, but measurement
Click to expand...

You say that like there's a difference, but there isn't.

Crap.
Try to tell me the pressure in the centre of the Earth compared to that device
Click to expand...

It's in the link I gave:
"The range of static pressure attainable today extends to the estimated pressures at the Earth’s center (~360 GPa)."

And if your ideas about gravity inside a shell are correct, the pressure at the center of the earth should be significantly less than this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom