Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

Bjarne said:
I wrote: you can do both, and you can understand it mathematical too. And when the density get thick enought you can eat it, - and you allready does. What more do you want.
Click to expand...
Less crap and more substance.

And round and round the ring we goes.
Click to expand...
Yes, because you are unwilling to admit that you have no idea what "bending", "stretching", or "density" means. You would rather like to tell us what you can do with those fuzzy terms. Soon you will invent another one because you cannot tell us what "density" is.

You mean like: elementary particles, dark matter, ghosty higgs, plenty science fiction dimension and who knows maybe also invisible elephants are out in space ?
Click to expand...
But we know what dark matter does. You claim that we can observe "stretching" but you do not know what "stretching" does.
 
Less crap and more substance.
Click to expand...
That’s why real scientist measures if possible.
And it is possible to measure central gravity..

You claim that we can observe "stretching" but you do not know what "stretching" does.
Click to expand...
I have mentioned all it does.
Measurement will confirm that prediction.
 
Bjarne said:
I have mentioned all it does.
Click to expand...
Remind us: what was it that stretching does in your system? Deflecting light? Changing geometric angles? Moving matter?

Measurement will confirm that prediction.
Click to expand...
What prediction? Are you talking about your absurd equations that lead all planets around a star towards a single orbit?
 
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas:
  1. "Bended space is Contracted Space"
    Curved space is not contracted space
    First Asked 11 November 2009
  2. Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass.
  3. Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
  4. Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
    First asked 26 November 2009
And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):
 
Reality Check said:
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas:
  1. "Bended space is Contracted Space"
    Curved space is not contracted space
    First Asked 11 November 2009
  2. Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass.
  3. Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
  4. Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
    First asked 26 November 2009
And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):
Click to expand...
I'd call this a high quality Larsen List.

Bjarne, why don't you start addressing these points? :rolleyes:

Hans
 
That's christmas tree,Bjarne,and a very moronic way of avoiding the questions.
 
Can Bjarne understand that the force of gravity is not constant within a solid sphere

First Posted 26 October 2009
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.

Bjarne,
Can you understand that this experiment did not detect constant gravity within the Earth?

Of course he has an explanation: It is the denser core of the Earth!
Why is it the core ? Because Bjarne says it is so :jaw-dropp !

My guess: The variation of g with radius above the core is gr/rE + GMc/r^2 where
  • r is the distance above the core (e.g 3487 kilometers).
  • rE is the radius of the Earth.
  • g is the acceleration of gravity at the surface of the Earth.
  • Mc is the effective mass of the core due to its different density.
Anyone who knows basic mathematics can see that this equation is not a constant. It varies with r.
 
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two threads include:
  1. "Bended space is Contracted Space"
    Curved space is not contracted space
    First Asked 11 November 2009
  2. Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass.
  3. Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
  4. Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
    First asked 26 November 2009
  5. Can Bjarne understand that the force of gravity is not constant within a solid sphere?
    First asked 26 October 2009
  6. Can Bjarne understand the physics behind orbital resonances?
    First asked 3 December 2009
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
  7. Does Bjarne understand orbital mechanics?
    First asked 3 December 2009.
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):
 
Last edited:
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two threads

Time for an updated list of the fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two threads:
  1. "Bended space is Contracted Space"
    Curved space is not contracted space
    First Asked 11 November 2009
  2. Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass.
  3. Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
  4. Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
    First asked 26 November 2009
  5. Can Bjarne understand that the force of gravity is not constant within a solid sphere?
    First asked 26 October 2009
  6. Can Bjarne understand the physics behind orbital resonances?
    First asked 3 December 2009
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
  7. Does Bjarne understand orbital mechanics?
    First asked 3 December 2009.
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
  8. Can Bjarne understand that energy is not a force and cannot "equalize" a force?
    First asked 9 December 2009
    You can expend energy to create a force to equalize a force as a hovering helicopter does. But the simple facts are:
    • Forces are vectors but energy is a number.
    • The SI units of force are Newtons but the SI units of energy is Joules.
  9. Bjarne asks what a particle is!
  10. His simplistic knowledge of physis is betrayed by his delusion that since the force of gravity varies as 1/r^2 (e.g. a factor of 4 when r doubles) then the "speed factor “should” hence have been factor 4 as well" (plust other silly previous posts).
    The Basics of Space Flight: Circular Orbital Motion shows clearly that the mean orbital speed of objects should vary that the inverse of the square root of r. The fact that objects actually act like this in the real universe shocks Bjarne!
And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):
The conclusion is that he is is in the lowest tier of the many internet cranks that we see . The only guy I know of who is "crankier" is TimeCube guy.
 
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two threads

The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two threads include:
  1. "Bended space is Contracted Space"
    Curved space is not contracted space
    First Asked 11 November 2009
  2. Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass. He ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units or acceleration.
  3. Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
  4. Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
    First asked 26 November 2009
  5. Can Bjarne understand that the force of gravity is not constant within a solid sphere?
    First asked 26 October 2009
  6. Can Bjarne understand the physics behind orbital resonances?
    First asked 3 December 2009
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
  7. Does Bjarne understand orbital mechanics?
    First asked 3 December 2009.
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
  8. Can Bjarne understand that energy is not a force and cannot "equalize" a force?
    First asked 9 December 2009.


    You can expend energy to create a force to equalize a force as a hovering helicopter does. But the simple facts are:
    • Forces are vectors but energy is a number.
    • The SI units of force are Newtons but the SI units of energy is Joules.
  9. Bjarne asks what a particle is!
  10. His simplistic knowledge of physis is betrayed by his delusion that since the force of gravity varies as 1/r^2 (e.g. a factor of 4 when r doubles) then the "speed factor “should” hence have been factor 4 as well" (plust other silly previous posts).
    The Basics of Space Flight: Circular Orbital Motion shows clearly that the mean orbital speed of objects should vary that the inverse of the square root of r. The fact that objects actually act like this in the real universe shocks Bjarne!
  11. More of Bjarne's ignorance of simple physics (circular motion).
  12. Bjarne asks "( What is ”radian” ? – 1 orbit)"
  13. Bjarne does not understand that gravitational time dialation has been measured and matches GR. It is not "guessing".
  14. Bjarne's ignorance of GR
  15. Bjarne's ignorance of the electromagnetic spectrum and geometry
And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):
 
Reality Check said:
The conclusion is that he is is in the lowest tier of the many internet cranks that we see . The only guy I know of who is "crankier" is TimeCube guy.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the link.Bjarne certainly has some way to go before he's in that league of lunacy,he's coming up fast on the inside track though.
 
Reality Check said:
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two threads include:
  1. "Bended space is Contracted Space"
    Curved space is not contracted space
    First Asked 11 November 2009
  2. Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass. He ignorantly gives the Lorentz factor - 1 (a number) the units or acceleration.
  3. Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
  4. Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
    First asked 26 November 2009
  5. Can Bjarne understand that the force of gravity is not constant within a solid sphere?
    First asked 26 October 2009
  6. Can Bjarne understand the physics behind orbital resonances?
    First asked 3 December 2009
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
  7. Does Bjarne understand orbital mechanics?
    First asked 3 December 2009.
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
  8. Can Bjarne understand that energy is not a force and cannot "equalize" a force?
    First asked 9 December 2009.


    You can expend energy to create a force to equalize a force as a hovering helicopter does. But the simple facts are:
    • Forces are vectors but energy is a number.
    • The SI units of force are Newtons but the SI units of energy is Joules.
  9. Bjarne asks what a particle is!
  10. His simplistic knowledge of physis is betrayed by his delusion that since the force of gravity varies as 1/r^2 (e.g. a factor of 4 when r doubles) then the "speed factor “should” hence have been factor 4 as well" (plust other silly previous posts).
    The Basics of Space Flight: Circular Orbital Motion shows clearly that the mean orbital speed of objects should vary that the inverse of the square root of r. The fact that objects actually act like this in the real universe shocks Bjarne!
  11. More of Bjarne's ignorance of simple physics (circular motion).
  12. Bjarne asks "( What is ”radian” ? – 1 orbit)"
  13. Bjarne does not understand that gravitational time dialation has been measured and matches GR. It is not "guessing".
  14. Bjarne's ignorance of GR
  15. Bjarne's ignorance of the electromagnetic spectrum and geometry
And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):
Click to expand...

Tell me now honestly, - how stupid / delusional (on a scale from 1 to 10) would you feel you self, when the gravity measurement I have been mentioned will show that my theory is right?
 
Bjarne said:
Tell me now honestly, - how stupid / delusional (on a scale from 1 to 10) would you feel you self, when the gravity measurement I have been mentioned will show that my theory is right?
Click to expand...

So you can't answer those questions.What a surprise.
 
Bjarne said:
Tell me now honestly, - how stupid / delusional (on a scale from 1 to 10) would you feel you self, when the gravity measurement I have been mentioned will show that my theory is right?
Click to expand...
Just make the gravity measurements with a proper protocol, and you will get an apology from me.

If you make your measurements without a proper protocol, you will just have lost the money: nobody will take something seriously that has not adequately covered measurement errors and tide effects.

Besides, all the stupidity that you have revealed until now will not suddenly become the works of a genius by new measurements. The questions to you that you quoted will be as valid afterwards as they are before you make the measurements.
 
Last edited:
So you can't answer those questions. What a surprise.
Click to expand...
I have done several times.
All are ignored
Measurement can't be (I hope).

Just make the gravity measurements with a proper protocol
Click to expand...
It's all cow logic simple.
ADG will NOT decrease towards the centre of the building, it will remain stable.

Besides, all the stupidity that you have revealed until now will not suddenly become the works of a genius by new measurements.
Click to expand...
Soon we will se who is stupid and delusional

Don't forget.
Tell me now honestly, - how stupid / delusional (on a scale from 1 to 10) would you feel you self, when the gravity measurement I have been mentioned will show that my theory is right?
 
Bjarne said:
Tell me now honestly, - how stupid / delusional (on a scale from 1 to 10) would you feel you self, when the gravity measurement I have been mentioned will show that my theory is right?
Click to expand...
The gravity measurements you have mentioned will not be able to embarrass me, because you have not taken any precautions to eliminate confounding factors. In the unlikely case that you get measurements that do not wreck your ideas, these will likely be the result of a faulty setup.
 
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