Orbit Anomalies Solved (?)

[Bjarne]

Abstract

For decades, two aspects of nature have been overlooked and poorly / not understood. The one is an Anisotropic Dark Flow Acceleration (DFA). The other is Relativistic Resistance against Motion (RRM). The consequences for our picture of the Universe are tremendous. (This is a beta version)..

 

PART 1

Anisotropic Dark Flow Acceleration.

In order for even a rather significant Anisotropic Acceleration to be measurable on Earth (e.g. with a gravimeter), it requires rather specific conditions to be present.

Regardless of the inclination of the solar system in proportion to a (theoretical) anisotropic acceleration direction (which in the following will be referred to as the Dark Flow Acceleration direction, in short DFA), it wouldn’t be possible to directly measure such a DFA, even if we presume its magnitudeto be somewhere around 100 µGal.

 

It is somewhat similar to the situation that it is also impossible to measure the acceleration of Earth’s orbit acceleration from Earth (given that everything on Earth is part of the same acceleration frame of reference).

 

 

However, there is an indirect method of measuring DFA. This is illustrated and described in the following.

 

In order to get started, we now presume that DFA is in the direction straight south and that Earth’s orbit inclination relative to DFA is approx. 20 degrees. (It can be different).

 

This means that in case of a solar eclipse, Earth will be affected by a maximum pull towards the Sun and the Moon, and there will therefore also be – at certain times of the year – slight acceleration toward North, away from the DFA direction.

 

The Sun and the Moon’s attraction of Earth (the tidal force) will be different at different places on Earth which means that a testing body on Earth (the red spot in the picture) as well as Earth itself at times are affected differently by two force applications: Partly by the tidal force and as a result partly also by DFA

 

What is important to note is that Earth in the example shown accelerates slightly opposite DFA because of the angular relationship between the tidal force and DFA whereas a testing body on Earth (e.g. on Earth’s night side) will be less (directly) affected by the tidal force than Earth and will, specifically in this situation, be exposed to the DFA force to a higher degree than Earth (this proportion can also be reverse).

This means that as a result of Earth’s rotation, a testing body (a gravimeter) on the right place on Earth will be able to measure DFA’s strength during one earth rotation (24 hours) to the extent that DFA is exposed, which means to the extent that the tidal force affects Earth and the testing body differently (which should not be expected to be more than max. 20 % of DFA’s full force (presumably around max. 15 µGal)).

 

We therefore only have the possibility of measuring a rather small part of DFA in favorable conditions, and only as differences between the two forces.

 

It is the rotation of Earth that over 24 hours may briefly get a (properly placed) gravimeter to measure linear to DFA, thereby measuring changes in the force of acceleration with which a testing body (a gravimeter) is being affected. This will show that the gravimeter is in a variable acceleration frame of reference relative to Earth itself.

Thus, the gravimeter will only measure the difference with which DFA affects Earth and a testing body but will not measure DFA’s full force.

 

The job therefore is to do 24 hours of gravitation measurements at many places on Earth and on those times where solar eclipses cause the biggest possible exposure of DFA.

The next favorable time is Friday 20 March 2015. - It is not certian this is the perfect time, September 13, 2015 could be better and agian 1 September 2016

 

However, an anisotropic acceleration frame of reference with the expected, significant acceleration can have dramatic consequences of all orbits, also for galaxies and cluster which could bring new light to the so-called Dark Matter Phenomenon.

 

It is impossible to claim that these thoughts have been pulled out of thin air.

The cause for the Allais effect may be interpreted based on such unknown acceleration.

 

The next part (2) of the theory have been discussed at this forum before, but a lot was wrong, incomplete and parts 1 was missing.

 

 

PART II

Relativistic Resistances

Preface

We know it requires ever more energy to maintain constant acceleration.

No scientific method has ever proven that such relativistic resistance against motion only applies during the acceleration period. This theory claims that resistance against motion also happens by constant speed. We will refer to this as Relativistic Resistance against Motion (Hereafter “RRM”). This, of course, means that Newton’s first law is incorrect.

 

Basic

A possible cause of this could be that an object’s speed increment causes energy and therefore also mass increment. Due to mass increment, the curvature of space near a moving object also increases.

Space resists deformation (e.g. the release of tension of space results in a gravitational wave). - There are several reasons to believe that the Lorentz transformation (speed of an object converts to; mass/kinetic energy/deformed-space) is a reversible process. Space must have some kind of elastic nature woven together with matter.

 

So the Lorentz transformation is also an expression of the tension increase of space that a fast-moving object exerts. When the force (causing the speed of an object) stops, speed-related tension on space is automatically released too, so the Lorentz transformation factor is also a resistance factor. Relativistic resistance is a reversible process, and the Lorentz equation reflects the magnitude of resistance against motion and the magnitude of possible deceleration at the same time.

 

We have recently discovered several space probe anomalies, some decelerating and some accelerating.

The biggest mystery has been why only small objects were affected and apparently not bigger objects such as astronomic objects.

The answer is that all objects and all orbits are, in fact, affected, but many anomalies cancel out after a certain period, some are still not discovered and some only active in periods. Even Earth is constantly affected.

As a whole, RRM and DFA have several significant consequences. These can be verified and recognized everywhere.
Think about the ice ages. Only 3 million years ago, there were no ice ages. After that, the cycle duration only took 41,000 years, and even the known cause of the current 100,000 year cycles are not strong enough to explain the full cause of ice ages. Some understanding seems to be missing.

On the biggest scale, galaxies and clusters of galaxies are affected as well. That same law of nature is responsible for the strange orbits that we believe is caused by so-called dark matter.

The consequences are that a long list of mysteries resolves itself.

Thinking of RRM as a reversible process combined with DFA leads us to a different understanding of the nature of the Universe whereby all known kinematic orbit and trajectory anomalies and mysteries (listed later below) are solved nearly automatically.

 

PART III

Absolute Motion, Absolute Acceleration, and Relativistic Resistance against Motion

 

Principle 1

As long as there is no orbit acceleration or motion away from the Dark Flow Direction (Hereafter DFD), and the maximum Dark Flow Speed (DFS) has been reached, the Dark Flow Acceleration (DFA), -and Relativistic Resistance against Motion (RRM) - counteract each other.

 

Principle 2

The magnitude of RRM (seen from an absolute motion frame) always depends on true speed. When the dark flow is e.g. 300 km/s and a galaxy moves in the opposite direction at 200 km/s, the true, absolute speed (dark flow) is reduced to 100 km/s and RRM is reduced to only = 5,6 ×10^-8m/s. This means that speed is reduced to 1/3 compared to the dark flow, but RRM is now 9 times less.

 

 

 

Principle 3

RRM is a reversible process.

This means that if no force pushes / pulls an object towards the DFD, the object will decelerate. The RRM affecting an object can be compared to a retracted arrow. All that is required for the retracted, potential, kinetic energy of the arrow to be released is that the force of the string is released. (which also illustrates that motion opposite DFD will cause less RRM, also simple to calculate based on the Lorenz equation)

Release of Retracted Potential Kinetic Energy (in short RRPKE) will affect any object moving more or less away from DFD, depending of the angle of movement away from DFD.

The speed-dependent RRM is the same magnitude due to movement perpendicular to the DFD axis as it is moving straight towards DFD while it is gradually decreasing, starting from perpendicular movement to movement opposite DFD. It will be zero at absolute rest.

From a local perspective, the resulting RRPKE influence will look as if it is positive (accelerating), but seen from an absolute perspective, it will look just a little less negative (less decelerating).

 

Principle 4

Seen from a local perspective, additional motion against any direction is affected by RRM, regardless of the absolute speed of the astronomic object (for instance the Earth or Solar System). RRM must always be calculated based on the Lorentz equation based on a certain reference frame. Even though the Earth is already traveling fast (for example 300 km/s) due to acceleration towards the DFD, this already affects the reference frame (time and distance) that the Earth is part of. This means that time and distances in the reference frame of the Earth are not the same as time and distances in a different or absolute reference frame (observer at absolute rest). Therefore, absolute motion speed can only be calculated ‘correctly’ by an “absolute observer”, not by a “local observer”. ( principle 2 and 3 must off course always be incorporated in any calculation)

 

Principle 5

Absolute speed (and RRM) applies in all directions between perpendiculars and linearly relative to the DFD axis.
Regardless of the angle relationships, all directions in this area will be equally by the aforementioned deceleration. Against the directions between perpendiculars and exact opposite DFD, - RRM also applies, but the impact due to RRPKE must be deducted.

 

Principle 6

DFD and DFA could be against the same direction, but not necessarily, DFA could instead be at 90° relative to DFD, that would indicate that DFA (and Dark Flow) is caused by acceleration due to gravity from our own universe, and not a pull from a another Universe, In that case all cluster of galaxy is orbiting a common barycenter, -like galaxies does in a cluster. That would be the most credible.

 

 

A. Circular Orbits Predominantly Perpendicular Relative to the DFD Axis - (inclination between 45 to 90°)

Astronomic objects following these orbits appears to be unaffected by RMB. But it is not correct.

RMB is a reversible 'elastic' property (see principle 3).
Thus, on the one hand an object orbiting against the DFD will expose to RRM.

But on the other hand, - due to the object is continuously changing direction of movement, a circular orbit is also an expression of equal movement away from a direction in which it before was affected by RMB.
In a complete circular orbit, on the one hand Release of Retracted Potential Kinetic Energy (in short RRPKE) and on the other hand RMB - completely equalize each other since there are equal opposite forces.

 

B. Circular Orbits Predominantly Linear Relative to Relative to the DFD Axis - (inclination between 0 to 45°)

Orbital movement away from the DFD will reduce the absolute speed, and hence cause less RRM.

A planet or spacecraft orbiting away from DFD is therefore less affected by RRM for example relative to the Sun.

We can say such movement triggers RRPKE

The kinetic energy contribution seen from a local perspective appears to be acceleration contribution.

These orbits will also be characterized by perihelion precession anomalies.

 

C. Elliptical orbit Predominantly Perpendicular to the DFD Axis - (inclination between 45 to 90°)

Objects orbiting such orbits are periodically stronger exposed by RMB than RRPKE, and as the result therefore collapsing, obviously proportional to the degree of inclination relative to the DFD.

Also these circuits will also be characterized by perihelion precession anomalies.

D. Elliptical Orbit Predominantly Linear in DFD Axis (0 to 45°) - (inclination between 0 to 45°)

Object orbiting such orbits are periodically stronger exposed to both increased and decreased kinetic energy impact, determined by (on one side) whether periodic motion is not compensated by RRPKE and on the other, whether movement happens away from the DFD.
These orbits cause perturbation, apsis and eccentricity anomalies, depending on the orientation of the orbit inclination relative to DFD. (It is especially during such periods, the missing piece for understanding the ice the mystery to be found.)

 

E. Orbit Rotation Anomalies; - By Motion Opposite DFD .

Beside eccentricity, apsis and perturbation anomalies, already described above RRM and RRPKE is also causing orbit rotation anomalies, these will due to simplicity reason not be covered in this article, since the importance of understanding these are secondary.

 

 

Period 1.

(Predominantly linear DF inclination)

Galaxy orbit Inclination between 0° and 45° relative to Dark Flow will cause galaxies to collapse, simply because motion opposite DFD will disturb the balance between DFA and RRM (principle 1), whereby DFA will be exposed and dominate the orbit which will lead to collapse in the long run.

 

The inclination of secondary orbits, relative to dark flow (such as solar systems), will not collapse (during period 1) but only change their apsis. This is because the motion speeds of secondary orbits are always in addition to the absolute dark flow speed caused by DFA, whereby ‘win’ and ‘lose’ due to different RRM influences periodically counteract each other without local interference from DFA.

 

Period 2.

(Predominantly perpendicular DF inclination)

Due to the absence of (so-called) dark matter, orbit inclination between 45° and 90° (relative to DFA) will allow all kinds of galaxies to expand their size due to the centrifugal force.

This solves one two big mystery. One of these is If the duration of these periods is very long and the inclination relative to DFD is right, ring-galaxies might be the result.

The other is a NASA discovery , links will follow.

Astronomic objects following circular secondary orbits (such as the solar-system) are constantly changing directions (relative to an absolute motion frame) whereby RRM and Release of Retracted Potential Kinetic Energy momentarily equalize each other. Such an orbit therefore peridically more or less unaffected (during period 2).

However, elliptical orbits are characterized by periodically elongated paths, which allow RRM periodically to dominate. Later on, it will be further covered the effects from that, for example for the orbit of Mercury.

 

 

PART 4

Allais Effect and DFA Meassurement Possibilities

 

 

Common for all reported Allais Effect phenomena are Acceleration of the Earth.
All kinds of Allais Effect as well as gravitational anomalies reported by an eclipse, right after an eclipse, or before an eclipse, are all caused due to DFA.
To be able to measure the DFA, two conditions must be met.
The first is that the Earth must accelerate more or less opposite the Dark Flow Direction, (DFD). The second condition is that a test body on the Earth must be differently affected by the force pulling the Earth opposite the Dark Flow Direction.

Even though the Dark Flow Direction (DFD) is against a southern direction, we shall not expect the angular relationship of the orbit inclination of the Earth to be exactly 90° relative to DFA.
This means that by solar (and lunar) eclipse, the moon can exert a slight pull of the Earth away from the DFA, and at the same time exert a different pull in a test body on the Earth.

 

The Cause of Torsion-Balance Anomalies

The Torsion-Balance (hereafter TB) can be disturbed in 2 different ways.

One option is when a TB follows the rotation of the Earth.

 

By an eclipse, the rotation of the Earth brings the TB “under the Moon” – and this means that the TB is due to the rotation of the Earth brought to gradually stronger acceleration towards the Sun/Moon.

This means that the TB can be brought from a stage where it is weakly affected by the DFA and a few hours later increasingly interacting with DFA and finally stronger affected than the Earth. The opposite is also possible. Different acceleration frames trigger anomalies.

 

The TB is bound to the Earth’s rotation, but the different acceleration frame will try to force the TB to follow a different path. Tension will build up between the DFA and the TB, whereby the TB constantly is disturbed. The azimuth of the TB is therefore disturbed randomly.

 

Pendulum Anomalies.

These devices can interact much simpler with the exposed DFA because the pendulum also accelerates. It will not be further covered because it is straightforward.

 

Gravity Measurements

When it comes to gravity measurement, things are a little different.

One requirement is that DFA (also in this case) must be exposed. This means that the Earth must accelerate away from DFA.

The gravimeter must also be in a different acceleration frame than the Earth.

But this is most likely not enough to get a convincing result.

It is not always easy to prove that relatively weak gravitational anomalies were due to the Allais Effect.

On many places on Earth, gravitational anomalies will develop during a period of 12 hours and then decrease the following 12 hours. In other words, the anomalies are elongated and flat and therefore difficult to distinguish from ocean tide water influence etc.

 

But due to the rotation of the Earth, some places are expected to reveal the exposed dark flow acceleration faster.

Close to the 35 to 40 degree latitude, it seems that it is possible to uncover DFA within few hours. This is demonstrated by the gravity measurement illustration done by D.C Misra in North India in 1995..

 

The requirement are as follows:

• The rotation of the Earth
• Combined with the exposed DFA (Earth acceleration opposite DFA)
• Combined with measurement the right place and time (direction)

Gravity measurement must be preferable because gravimeters can measure/tell much more about direction and not only ‘random disturbances’ characterized by anomalies measured by a pendulum.

 

The Allais Effect can contribute to prove that Dark Flow is real, and this will completely change our view on Dark Matter.

 

Consequences will follow...

Edited December 5, 2014 by Bjarne

[Bjarne]

PART 5

Observations & Requirement for new Physics

 

1st
We now know that Jupiter's atmosphere must be created much further from the Sun than Jupiter is now http://www.reasons.org/articles/jupiter-s-migration-miracle
What brought Jupiter here?

2nd
In Saturn's orbit something is also not as expected http://arxivblog.com/?p=702

3rd
We have several times discovered gas-planets too close to a star.
These planets should not even exist; (billions of years after a star is formed) because they should (due to the tidal force) have crashed into their mother star immediately after they were created (after a few million years). http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/27/science/sci-planet27
One example might be Wasp-18th It is inconceivable easily get the suspicion that "something unknown 'must have forced this gas planet toward its star (during billions of years), and long before the time the tidal force has been able to' take over 'and forced it to the last dance.

 

4th
We also know that many asteroids must be created further away from the Sun than they are now.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-01-30/news/46828596_1_asteroids-mars-and-jupiter-solar-system
The article suspect Jupiter for once having been even closer to the sun, and so on mysterious ways removed again, and thus brought asteroids with it.
But such speculation is inconsistent because it seems beyond the fantasy what may have been physically possible (raised more questions than there answers)

Fifth
The water on Earth (and Venus) is also created further away from the Sun than where it is now located.
One could, (in costrast to Jupiter) much easier suspect that asteroids (which should not be so close to the Sun) as well as the solar system very small inner planets, all were brought here by a giant planet the size of Wasb-18 - which crashed on the sun.
Four (of its total hundreds of moons), as well as its asteroids - survived the mother planet's crash, and begun to orbit around the sun.

The water was thus not brought to Earth and Venus, - but a giant gas planet, - where the Earth (and Venus) once were orbiting ice moons, - brought the planets included the water here.

The giant gas-planets last dance of death, then had the side-effect that 4 large moons (the now inner planets of our solar system) that survived the mother planet crash - could be accelerated into space again, in the same way as fly-by accelerating probes further out.

Luckily for us - because the ice-moon, -we call Earth, - thus got a little 'borrowed time'.
But just a short time. Planet-perturbation and the periods in which the solar system orbit inclination is mainly linearly with DFA, - compels periodic elliptical orbit - and precisely this means that the planets again are losing altitude and 'fall' towards the Sun - in those periods when orbits are elliptical and primarily perpendicular to the DFA axis.

 

6th

Unsolved mysteries with the ice ages periods

 

 

7th
Space probes have several times revealed that circular orbit not are effected, by fly-by anomalies, - but elongated orbits, are (sometimes) exactly as this theory explains.

 

8th.
Galaxies strange orbits anomalies (dark matter) and many other mysteries associated with galaxies.

Do dark matter really exsist ?

If this theory is correct, - not at all.

 

9th

Some Galaxies collapses and other extend their size , which is also exactly a predicable consequence of the theoy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwdQbKufsDI

10th
Note here in particular that also not around a galaxies black holes are things not how we think they "should" be, - here continues stars to crash onto the black holes, although they "should" maintain stable orbit. http://www.dr.dk/Videnskab/Videnskab/2006/06/27105328.htm

11th
Equally self-evident logic is it that some galaxies have active black holes and other apparently not.
The answer is again "orbit inclination relative to the DFA" .

 

12th
For several years, astronomers have observed that a handful of the small icy bodies that lie in the so-called "scattered disc" beyond the orbit of the planet Neptune, including the dwarf planet Sedna, deviate from the paths around the sun that would be expected based on the gravitational pulls of all the known objects in the solar system.
http://www.livescience.com/20583-planet-edge-solar-system.html

13th.
The discovery that many small galaxies throughout the universe do not 'swarm' around larger ones like bees do but 'dance' in orderly disc-shaped orbits is a challenge to our understanding of how the universe formed and evolved
"Everywhere we looked we saw this strangely coherent coordinated motion of dwarf galaxies. From this we can extrapolate that these circular planes of dancing dwarfs are universal, seen in about 50 percent of galaxies," said Professor Geraint Lewis.
"This is a big problem that contradicts our standard cosmological models. It challenges our understanding of how the universe works including the nature of dark matter."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140721100418.htm

 

14^th

Mystery of extrasolar planets' eccentric orbits

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0504/19orbits

 

15^th

Is the Pionner Anomaly really solved ?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79814-pioneer-anomaly-still/page-2

Edited December 5, 2014 by Bjarne

[Bjarne]

All In One Illustration

Any addition speed ,relative to the Dark Flow Speed (DDS) , trigger adition local Relatevistiv Resistance Against Motion (RRM) and also adition local Release of Retracted Potential Kinetic Energy (RRPKE), by movement opposite any RRM direction.

 

RRPKE and RMM equalize in orbit A, - provided the orbit is circular.

Orbit B, D and especially orbit C is exposed to larger RRPKE, due to movement opposite the DFD.

 

Elliptical orbits are due to the elongated orbits, proportional to the orbit eccentricity, losing RRPKE support. (in local reference frames), which have a local decelerating effect.

 

The rotation effect “arrow R” will not be covered right now, In order to keep this so simple as possible.

 

A space craft send straight against the direction X, Z or Y will decelerate.

A spacecraft send straight against the direction W or Q will accelerate,

Spacecraft Q, 4 will accelerate 4 times faster than W, - all due to RRPKE.

 

But spacecraft W is also affected by 50% RMB, (spacecraft Q by 0% RMB)

Which mean RRPKE and RRM cancel out on spacecraft W’s path.

 

Always think about any object are parts of both an overall reference frame as well as a local one. An object can relative to the DFD move either neutral, away from or against the DFD, all this counts different, as well as local circumstances also does.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Bjarne

[swansont]

 

PART II

Relativistic Resistances

Preface

We know it requires ever more energy to maintain constant acceleration.

No scientific method has ever proven that such relativistic resistance against motion only applies during the acceleration period. This theory claims that resistance against motion also happens by constant speed. We will refer to this as Relativistic Resistance against Motion (Hereafter “RRM”). This, of course, means that Newton’s first law is incorrect.

 

Basic

A possible cause of this could be that an object’s speed increment causes energy and therefore also mass increment. Due to mass increment, the curvature of space near a moving object also increases.

Space resists deformation (e.g. the release of tension of space results in a gravitational wave). - There are several reasons to believe that the Lorentz transformation (speed of an object converts to; mass/kinetic energy/deformed-space) is a reversible process. Space must have some kind of elastic nature woven together with matter.

 

So the Lorentz transformation is also an expression of the tension increase of space that a fast-moving object exerts. When the force (causing the speed of an object) stops, speed-related tension on space is automatically released too, so the Lorentz transformation factor is also a resistance factor. Relativistic resistance is a reversible process, and the Lorentz equation reflects the magnitude of resistance against motion and the magnitude of possible deceleration at the same time.

 

We have recently discovered several space probe anomalies, some decelerating and some accelerating.

The biggest mystery has been why only small objects were affected and apparently not bigger objects such as astronomic objects.

The answer is that all objects and all orbits are, in fact, affected, but many anomalies cancel out after a certain period, some are still not discovered and some only active in periods. Even Earth is constantly affected.

 

As a whole, RRM and DFA have several significant consequences. These can be verified and recognized everywhere.

Think about the ice ages. Only 3 million years ago, there were no ice ages. After that, the cycle duration only took 41,000 years, and even the known cause of the current 100,000 year cycles are not strong enough to explain the full cause of ice ages. Some understanding seems to be missing.

 

On the biggest scale, galaxies and clusters of galaxies are affected as well. That same law of nature is responsible for the strange orbits that we believe is caused by so-called dark matter.

 

The consequences are that a long list of mysteries resolves itself.

Thinking of RRM as a reversible process combined with DFA leads us to a different understanding of the nature of the Universe whereby all known kinematic orbit and trajectory anomalies and mysteries (listed later below) are solved nearly automatically.

 

PART III

Absolute Motion, Absolute Acceleration, and Relativistic Resistance against Motion

 

Principle 1

As long as there is no orbit acceleration or motion away from the Dark Flow Direction (Hereafter DFD), and the maximum Dark Flow Speed (DFS) has been reached, the Dark Flow Acceleration (DFA), -and Relativistic Resistance against Motion (RRM) - counteract each other.

 

Principle 2

The magnitude of RRM (seen from an absolute motion frame) always depends on true speed. When the dark flow is e.g. 300 km/s and a galaxy moves in the opposite direction at 200 km/s, the true, absolute speed (dark flow) is reduced to 100 km/s and RRM is reduced to only = 5,6 ×10^-8m/s. This means that speed is reduced to 1/3 compared to the dark flow, but RRM is now 9 times less.

 

 

 

 

I thought RRM was an acceleration. Here you give it as a speed. How can I calculate the acceleration, and energy loss, as a function of speed?

[Mordred]

I read through most of this post. My only advise pick up some physics books and learn why our current models exist. This post argues against far too many established and well tested theories to even name them all.

 

The major ones being Newtons laws.

Keplers laws. Our understanding of relativity. As well as LCDM.

 

Yet I see zero math support.

[Bjarne]

 

I thought RRM was an acceleration.

RRM = Relativistic Resistance against Motion.

 

Here you give it as a speed.

You have apoint here.

It is not a deceleration niether a acceleration, but rather a resistance factor..

The result of that is ""deceleration"" (but not linar deceleration) , - it is a speed depending negative “force”

The calculated result is not linear either. – I don’t know what else to call such negatiive speed “factor”.

To keep it all in simple acceleration / deceleration terms makes the language a little easier (I hope)

The language for all this is already complicated enough allready.

 

How can I calculate the acceleration, and energy loss, as a function of speed?

I read through most of this post. My only advise pick up some physics books and learn why our current models exist. This post argues against far too many established and well tested theories to even name them all.

 

The major ones being Newtons laws.

Keplers laws. Our understanding of relativity. As well as LCDM.

 

Yet I see zero math support.

 

1 st law

When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force

 

Not much here on the planet is free, also not in science.

Yes there is a always a price to pay.

 

Parts of Newton’s law, is based on 300 years old observation only of the solar system.

Since then a lot of water have run to the ocean.

 

This theory do not violate these aspect of relativity what is very evident, such as space-time.

But yes GR is maybe not the cause of gravity, this postulate has always been the weakest part of relativity, at least so far I understand.

 

So this is the bill to pay. – and what you get, is a solution where about 25 huge and small mysteries (included the cause of dark matter) is solved.

 

So is the bill really too high?

 

Calculation already shows that this simple innocent theory easy - mathematical - can explain both the Mercury perihelion precession anomaly, as well as the Pioneer anomaly .

And of course the flyby (if I had NASA's orbit data)

 

Calculation will follow

Edited December 6, 2014 by Bjarne

[Mordred]

Newtons laws including the first law is fundamental in far more physics applications that are tested daily to even name them all. Your basing your understanding on how Newton developed his laws. In the last few centuries that law has passed so many rigorous tests in everyday applications that it would require a huge body of evidence and tests to overthrow.

 

Good luck with that.

 

It's a fundamental law in conservation of momentum. Used in particle physics. Used in engineering used in any application involving force. Including everyday machinery. We have numerous machines running whose energy to power calculations and tests of efficiency rely on Newtons first law. If those laws were as you described it would have Been noticed long ago.

 

We measure the amount of energy needed to run machinery everyday. As such Newtons law is one of the MOST tested theories in physics. It's tests are done in everyday applications it is not restricted to just science tests.

Forgot to mention its even tested in particle accelerators. You have no comprehension of just how often Newtons first law has been and is being tested.

Yes it does affect relativity. The math of relativity is based upon Newtons laws. The formulas of relativity would not work if Newtons laws were incorrect.

[swansont]

RRM = Relativistic Resistance against Motion.

 

You have apoint here.

It is not a deceleration niether a acceleration, but rather a resistance factor..

The result of that is ""deceleration"" (but not linar deceleration) , - it is a speed depending negative “force”

The calculated result is not linear either. – I don’t know what else to call such negatiive speed “factor”.

To keep it all in simple acceleration / deceleration terms makes the language a little easier (I hope)

The language for all this is already complicated enough allready.

 

 

 

You need to define what you mean by resistance factor, rather than telling everyone what it isn't.

 

Whether it's linear doesn't matter; if it's a force, it's a force. If it's an acceleration, then fine. These things can be functions of speed. How do we get from your unitless factor to the actual force, or acceleration?

 

It causes a change in motion, so if it's not an acceleration, what is it? More to the point, how does one solve for the motion of an object? You haven't explained how to use this "resistance factor" to do that.

[Bjarne]

Newtons laws including the first law is fundamental in far more physics applications that are tested daily to even name them all. Your basing your understanding on how Newton developed his laws. In the last few centuries that law has passed so many rigorous tests in everyday applications that it would require a huge body of evidence and tests to overthrow.

Please keeps Newton’s laws separated, we are only speaking about a aspect of first law, - (that is only based on astronomical observations. )

Anomalies are so small you cannot detect such unless the speed is pretty large.

So Low speed, - down to earh, - phenomena is not a question..

 

It's a fundamental law in conservation of momentum.

 

Check this...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/galaxies-mysterious-magne

 

A galactic magnetic field is energy, where does it come from do you think ?

What could be "leaking" that energy ?

Matter ?

The stars and planets ?

Or what else?

and how ?

and why ?

One more solved mystery could perhabs be added to the list (?)

 

Forgot to mention its even tested in particle accelerators.

As you can read in the theory, - circular orbits are often not affected (anomalies cancel out instantly).

And even if they were an anomaly it would only be based / could be supported by RRPKE only from DFD, (speed 300 to 600km/s) - and not from the accelerator speed, since this parts cancel out (locally).

Due to the time (split second) ½ accelerator orbit takes, an anomaly would be really, really insignificant and even in some situation cancelled out during the second ½ orbit.

I have already calculated that too, long ago.

 

Good luck with that.

Thank you, notice I will meassure and I think I know how.

This is what real scientist does.

[swansont]

 

As you can read in the theory, - circular orbits are often not affected (anomalies cancel out instantly).

And even if they were an anomaly it would only be based / could be supported by RRPKE only from DFD, (speed 300 to 600km/s) - and not from the accelerator speed, since this parts cancel out (locally).

Due to the time (split second) ½ accelerator orbit takes, an anomaly would be really, really insignificant and even in some situation cancelled out during the second ½ orbit.

 

You haven't presented anything to suggest this; your equation (such as it is) is a scalar equation. Also, there are linear accelerators.

[Bjarne]

 

You need to define what you mean by resistance factor, rather than telling everyone what it isn't.

 

Whether it's linear doesn't matter; if it's a force, it's a force. If it's an acceleration, then fine. These things can be functions of speed. How do we get from your unitless factor to the actual force, or acceleration?

 

It causes a change in motion, so if it's not an acceleration, what is it? More to the point, how does one solve for the motion of an object? You haven't explained how to use this "resistance factor" to do that.

 

I understand your concern

The atmosphere or road friction is both resistance factors impacting moving cars.

Relativistic Resistance against motion is quite so obvious like that.

 

A car uses more energy per mile the faster it accelerates, so does spacecrafts.

The cause of both are resistances factors, - which not itself are deceleration or acceleration, - or a (real) force, but only factors.

What is important is what the resistance factor does, - to a fast of moving object.

 

We can split the original equation in two parts.

The first shows what really happens, - we initially calculate a negative distance.

But this impact on the speed (of an object) is a result of only 1 second of motion, which mean this is where times come into the result.

(= negative motion per one second)

And this is why the equation now changes to the one above.

It still only tell us what have happen during 1 secon of motion, - not more than this.

 

It is not a (linear) deceleration.

 

So to be able to know what happens in the next second we have to do a new calculation, - and a again we get a negative distance per one second, as result.... etc...

To be able to calculate a continuing impact of “negative distance” in one go off course more advanced equations are necessary.

Yes in the end of the day more advanced math must be used, but not necessary at this stage.

 

Now real understanding and measurement is much more important.

 

Roughly the equation can be used, errors are almost insignificant. But yes it is not completely perfect like it is.

 

You haven't presented anything to suggest this; your equation (such as it is) is a scalar equation.

See the reply above

 

Also, there are linear accelerators.

Remember this theory and the prevailing agrees when it comes to relativistic acceleration.

The difference is the new theory claims that, if no force push a object forward, the object will decelerate, -(relativistic) non linear

Edited December 6, 2014 by Bjarne

[swansont]

I understand your concern

The atmosphere or road friction is both resistance factors impacting moving cars.

Relativistic Resistance against motion is quite so obvious like that.

 

A car uses more energy per mile the faster it accelerates, so does spacecrafts.

The cause of both are resistances factors, - which not itself are deceleration or acceleration, - or a (real) force, but only factors.

What is important is what the resistance factor does, - to a fast of moving object.

 

We can split the original equation in two parts.

The first shows what really happens, - we initially calculate a negative distance.

But this impact on the speed (of an object) is a result of only 1 second of motion, which mean this is where times come into the result.

(= negative motion per one second)

And this is why the equation now changes to the one above.

It still only tell us what have happen during 1 secon of motion, - not more than this.

 

It is not a (linear) deceleration.

 

So to be able to know what happens in the next second we have to do a new calculation, - and a again we get a negative distance per one second, as result.... etc...

To be able to calculate a continuing impact of “negative distance” in one go off course more advanced equations are necessary.

Yes in the end of the day more advanced math must be used, but not necessary at this stage.

It's called calculus.

 

 

Now real understanding and measurement is much more important.

 

Pardon my skepticism, but I've heard that many times before.

 

Roughly the equation can be used, errors are almost insignificant. But yes it is not completely perfect like it is.

 

See the reply above

 

No, the reply is still a scalar equation, in which this acceleration depends on speed. There's no information about direction.

 

Remember this theory and the prevailing agrees when it comes to relativistic acceleration.

The difference is the new theory claims that, if no force push a object forward, the object will decelerate, -(relativistic) non linear

 

No, actually, they don't agree, in any scenarios. As presented, your idea (vague as it is) has a scalar dependence on speed. It should affect all particle accelerators. Further, as I noted, there are linear accelerators, so even if you turned it into a vector equation there are problems. If it depends on direction, and I happened to toss a particle in the direction where the acceleration is positive, the particle should speed up — all on its own.

 

In any case, in this extraneous effect, where does the energy go (or come from)?

[Bjarne]

It's called calculus.

So was the first the first calculation made by Balder, when quantum physic begun. But good enough for Niels Bohr to refine Balders initially work. HC Ørsted did no math att all, if came much later by Maxwell.

 

No, the reply is still a scalar equation, in which this acceleration depends on speed. There's no information about direction.

DFD is the absolute RRM direction

 

No, actually, they don't agree, in any scenarios. As presented, your idea (vague as it is) has a scalar dependence on speed. It should affect all particle accelerators.

Above is explained the insignificant anomalies that can apply in circular acclerators.

 

Further, as I noted, there are linear accelerators, so even if you turned it into a vector equation there are problems. If it depends on direction, and I happened to toss a particle in the direction where the acceleration is positive, the particle should speed up — all on its own.

In any case, in this extraneous effect, where does the energy go (or come from)?

No there are no problems, of course if the vector accelerator would be pointing (most likely more or less agianst north) opposite the DFD there would be a initially push from RRPKE

The first 1 second it can be calculated to about 0,0000005 m.

I did not mention it, because it is not worth to write home about

Such contribution i can’t believe would be possible to measure anyway.

Think about how little time 1 shot takes.

 

In any case, in this extraneous effect, where does the energy go (or come from)?

 

I think nobody exactly can describe the nature of space.

My best guess could be, that deformation of space is elastic in its nature

Its most likely in such scenario the nature of RRM must be understood

Edited December 6, 2014 by Bjarne

[swansont]

No there are no problems, of course if the vector accelerator would be pointing (most likely more or less agianst north) opposite the DFD there would be a initially push from RRPKE

The first 1 second it can be calculated to about 0,0000005 m.

 

Let's see the calculation.

 

 

I did not mention it, because it is not worth to write home about

Such contribution i can’t believe would be possible to measure anyway.

Think about how little time 1 shot takes.

Think about how exact the timing has to be for the various stages of a linear accelerator to work properly.

[Mordred]

Space is merely volume filled with the energy density of the universe. Despite pop media literature you find on the internet. It is not a substance. The term spacetime is any mathematical model of space that includes the time component in its geometric dimensions.

 

When they describe spacetime warping stretching etc what they really mean is the gravitational influence influence upon other particles can be described as being warped or stretched. GR never stated spacetime is a substance. That is a common misunderstanding presented by pop media articles. To truly understand the difference I would study the special relativity textbook I posted in your other thread. Or read and study General relativity by Mathius Blah in my signature. Again it's a free distributed textbook.

I think nobody exactly can describe the nature of space.

My best guess could be, that deformation of space is elastic in its nature

Its most likely in such scenario the nature of RRM must be understood

As far as the rest of it goes I'm with Swansort prove it by showing the math not by numerous and random articles. Show us your knowledge specifically. After all it's your model you are presenting no one elses

Think about how exact the timing has to be for the various stages of a linear accelerator to work properly.

Linear accelerators are very impressive on the exact timing controls. I would love to get a look at the control software for the electromagnetic timing. Its a bit off topic but it is extremely impressive when you think about how many individual magnets that must be turned off and on at just the right instance

[Bjarne]

 

Let's see the calculation.

 

Think about how exact the timing has to be for the various stages of a linear accelerator to work properly.

 

Sorry we have a error here, see thecorrection below

 

 

All In One Illustration

 

Bjarne Wrote above

A space craft send straight against the direction X, Z or Y will decelerate.

A spacecraft send straight against the direction W or Q will accelerate,

Spacecraft Q, 4 will accelerate 4 times faster than W, - all due to RRPKE.

Wrong I forgot nothing can escape DFA, (in the long run) - trying to escape DFA, will expose DFA, let say a object moves away from DFA at the speed 300 km/s, this object gets full support from RRPKE (as stated above), but at the same time the object is full exposed to DFA. - DFA will always try to get everything to move at the same Dark Flow Speed. Nothing is allowed to be at rest, relative to Dark Flow.

1.) So the correct answer is in all circular orbits, (also accelerators) - oppsite forces will eqalize, also these pointing agianst DFA.

(Notice there are 2 different equalizing sceneries DFA contra RRPKE and RRM contra RRPKE )

2.) Spacecraft Q, will be affected by less RRM (get RRPKE support) YES - (it looks like a accleration from a local perspective, but is really only less RRM), BUT this "acceleration" is counteracted by the exposed DFA, whereby spacecraft Q seems to be uneffected by any force (no acceleration and no deceleration )

3.) Spacecraft W, will be affected by 50% RRM

4.) Evenif a linar accerator should be pointing right north, RRPKE and DFA will affetcs moving particles, but the 2 forces equalize each other

 

Sorry for the confusion, sometimes I forget part of my own theory. It is sometimes differcult to keep so many "balls" in the "air" at the same time.

 

(how can I install a spell check to forums ?)

 

 

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

The images (to the right) shows 2 galaxies with the same mass, but the density is much different,

This could support that from time to time, depending on the orbit inclination relative to DFD, galaxies periodically collapses or expands.

 

The centrifugal force will (in absence of dark matter) force starts outwards, (during these periods where orbits are Predominantly Perpendicular relative to the DFD)

The inner stars are stronger affected by the centrifugal force than the outer stars, - and therefore ring galaxies must (sometimes) be the result ( if the duration of such period are very long lasting)

 

Already NASA have discovered that galaxies expands more than expected, - and a lot already shows that the opposite all is true.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Bjarne

[Mordred]

Ask yourself this question. Do so in all honesty.

 

,"If you were a scientist reading these calculations and articles. That same scientist tests Newtons first law."

 

Do you honestly believe that one or two basic calculations and a smattering of random articles constitutes sufficient evidence to overthrow a fundamental physics law???? That has Been tested over and over again for 400 years?

 

 

To accomplish what you are attempting will require a several thousand page dissertation style article rift with the calculations of numerous examples and applications in a huge range of experiments.

 

It never stops amazing me how many people think they have solved the mysteries of the universe. However always fail to supply conclusive mathematics and evidence. They almost always make numerous mistakes misguided concepts in your post.

 

If you want to get this proposal seriously looked at. You are going to need to do much much better than what you have presented

 

 

For example show the mathematical 3 dimension change in force acting upon a satellite in every single and possible position in your dark flow image.

 

Hint it will be a formula involving trigonometric functions for coordinates x,y and z.

 

Key word and I cannot stress this enough. "Formula"

In other words pretend your a highly recognized scientist who is interested in your model. He will want to use that formula to perform his own tests and calculations using your EXACT formula.

Are you aware a dark flow would also affect the FLRW metric and more importantly the Einstien field equation?

 

Are you aware dark flow models has been proposed and overthrown by the science community?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow

 

Both WMAP and Planck datasets proved the dark flow theory incorrect

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23340-blow-for-dark-flow-in-plancks-new-view-of-the-cosmos.html#.VIQmQ3NrYTQ

When I get back home next week if you like I can post the lengthy highly technical article overturning dark flow. I believe I still have a copy of it. Though I'm not positive if I saved it or not. (37 gigabytes of pdf files to sort through on physics and cosmology

Yes I know your dark flow model is different than the recognized and overturned model.

 

Your model will fail for the exact same reason the other one did.

 

Both PLANCK and WMAP observational data supports an isotropic universe.

 

(No preferred direction ). The Planck data set can measure the accoustic and temperature of the observable universe with a precision far surpassing your mathematical examples.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Mordred

[Bjarne]

Ask yourself this question. Do so in all honesty.

 

,"If you were a scientist reading these calculations and articles. That same scientist tests Newtons first law."

 

Do you honestly believe that one or two basic calculations and a smattering of random articles constitutes sufficient evidence to overthrow a fundamental physics law???? That has Been tested over and over again for 400 years?

I can only answer the question by questioning...

What exactly have been tested the last 400 years, that specific contradict this theory, and exactly how was it tested?

 

Is first law tested?

Or is first law only based on old observation of the solar system long ago?

 

Is the cause of gravity tested?

 

Relativity is tested, but it seems we never finish. (In 2016 the ISS will get a heavy load of very advanced equipment to test further)

Space deforms. Clock ticks different. Space-time seems to be a fact - This is all untouched by this theory.

 

By the way I sometimes wondered what is the cause of mass attraction is. I mean if I get my feet under a heavy truck wheel I get the impression that gravity really still is a force.

Never mind, - I believe the (main part) of the theory of relativity is very evident.

 

To accomplish what you are attempting will require a several thousand page dissertation style article rift with the calculations of numerous examples and applications in a huge range of experiments.

You know I am only a one man army. My mission is only to trigger a avalanche to see how fast people can run.

 

It never stops amazing me how many people think they have solved the mysteries of the universe. However always fail to supply conclusive mathematics and evidence. They almost always make numerous mistakes misguided concepts in your post.

I did not fail, Rom was not drunk at one day.

 

If you want to get this proposal seriously looked at. You are going to need to do much much better than what you have presented

You know I am only a one man army. I will measure, when time is right. This could easy trigger a avalanche.

If Dark Flow Acceleration is true, much will never be the same.

I am not worrying about the math.

The force of this theory is the overwhelming amount of mysteries; such a simple theory can solve, without to contradict evidently tesed facts.

 

For example show the mathematical 3 dimension change in force acting upon a satellite in every single and possible position in your dark flow image.

All elliptical orbits are more or less affected by anomalies. – The more elliptical the stronger.

The purpose with GPS is not a scientific test, - it is commercial business.

Why do you think ISS will be filled with advanced equipment in 2016 especially to test relativity?

This new equipment can measure anomalies down on the minus 16 scale.

Anomalies in satellite orbits (due to RRM) are very small (max on the minus 12 scale and weaker) - These anomalies are impossible to distinguish from a lot more other influences that impacts satellites, -unless such have a pretty heavy load of advanced equipment on board.

 

 

Hint it will be a formula involving trigonometric functions for coordinates x,y and z.

 

Key word and I cannot stress this enough. "Formula"

In other words pretend your a highly recognized scientist who is interested in your model. He will want to use that formula to perform his own tests and calculations using your EXACT formula.

It is much too early to ask such question. First we have to find out ...

• How fast are we moving relative / opposite to Dark Flow, due to cluster and galaxy motion.
• Which exactly direction is Dark Flow ?
• Is the Dark Flow Acceleration against the same direction or perpendicular relative to Dark Flow. (If perpendicular all matter of the Universe must be orbiting a barycenter of the Universe, - like galaxies orbiting clusters).
• How strong is DFA and a lot more.

Based on this we can tune further in to try to understand how such impact have affected the Earth and Solar system in the past ( e.g; ice ages)

In short, now is first time to measurement, - not to be 110% exact.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Bjarne

[swansont]

 

Evenif a linar accerator should be pointing right north, RRPKE and DFA will affetcs moving particles, but the 2 forces equalize each other

 

That sounds like a giant hand-wave, and also contradictory. First of all, you have not presented them as forces. You have specifically stated that RRPKE is energy and RRM as an acceleration. (No equations, of course) Further, you said that the effect cancel at DFS. Now you're saying that they cancel, seemingly magically, for this one instance, but don't cancel for circular motion — it just averages out. How does that work, exactly?

 

Where's the calculation I asked for?

 

Relativity is tested, but it seems we never finish. (In 2016 the ISS will get a heavy load of very advanced equipment to test further)

Space deforms. Clock ticks different. Space-time seems to be a fact - This is all untouched by this theory.

 

 

How can we tell? You don't have any equations that could be applied to parts of physics you know little about. Unless you can claim to have covered every experiment and model of the last 100 years and know that they are unaffected, I don't see how you can make that claim. You have an absolute reference frame in your model. That isn't going to sit well with relativity.

 

The purpose with GPS is not a scientific test, - it is commercial business.

 

GPS is run by the Air Force and supported by the Navy.

[ajb]

Is first law tested?

Maybe you should think about how the first law would be formulated/stated in the context of general relativity. How is it as Newton stated it related to how we formulate particle motion in general relativity? I'll let you think about this, before posting more details on this. (I guess you have thought about this already?)

 

Now, I would say as general relativity is very well tested, Newton's first law is also well tested, as long as we are careful by what we mean by that.

[Bjarne]

Are you aware dark flow models has been proposed and overthrown by the science community?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow

 

Both WMAP and Planck datasets proved the dark flow theory incorrect

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23340-blow-for-dark-flow-in-plancks-new-view-of-the-cosmos.html#.VIQmQ3NrYTQ

When I get back home next week if you like I can post the lengthy highly technical article overturning dark flow. I believe I still have a copy of it. Though I'm not positive if I saved it or not. (37 gigabytes of pdf files to sort through on physics and cosmology

Yes I know your dark flow model is different than the recognized and overturned model.

 

Your model will fail for the exact same reason the other one did.

 

Both PLANCK and WMAP observational data supports an isotropic universe.

 

(No preferred direction ). The Planck data set can measure the accoustic and temperature of the observable universe with a precision far surpassing your mathematical examples.

 

This article is from sommer 2013 - newer

Notice this is not from Sønder Balle University,but from NASA

 

The "Dark Flow" & Existence of Other Universes --New Claims of Hard Evidence

According to Atrio-Barandela, who has focused on understanding the possible errors in the team's analysis, the new study provides much stronger evidence that the dark flow is real. For example, the brightest clusters at X-ray wavelengths hold the greatest amount of hot gas to distort CMB photons. "When processed, these same clusters also display the strongest KSZ signature -- unlikely if the dark flow were merely a statistical fluke," he said.

In addition, the team, which now also includes Alastair Edge at the University of Durham, England, sorted the cluster catalog into four "slices" representing different distance ranges. They then examined the preferred flow direction for the clusters within each slice. While the size and exact position of this direction display some variation, the overall trends among the slices exhibit remarkable agreement.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/06/the-dark-flow-the-existence-of-other-universes-new-claims-of-hard-evidence.html

Maybe you should think about how the first law would be formulated/stated in the context of general relativity. How is it as Newton stated it related to how we formulate particle motion in general relativity? I'll let you think about this, before posting more details on this. (I guess you have thought about this already?)

 

Now, I would say as general relativity is very well tested, Newton's first law is also well tested, as long as we are careful by what we mean by that.

You have to be more specific

 

How can we tell? You don't have any equations that could be applied to parts of physics you know little about. Unless you can claim to have covered every experiment and model of the last 100 years and know that they are unaffected, I don't see how you can make that claim. You have an absolute reference frame in your model. That isn't going to sit well with relativity.

You too have to be more specific and show exactly which test you think violate this theory

 

That sounds like a giant hand-wave, and also contradictory. First of all, you have not presented them as forces. You have specifically stated that RRPKE is energy and RRM as an acceleration. (No equations, of course) Further, you said that the effect cancel at DFS. Now you're saying that they cancel, seemingly magically, for this one instance, but don't cancel for circular motion — it just averages out. How does that work, exactly?

 

I will come back to this Question

Edited December 7, 2014 by Bjarne

[swansont]

You too have to be more specific and show exactly which test you think violate this theory

 

That's why I need equations, so I can check for myself, rather than mention something and give you an opportunity to say "Whoops, I forgot this loophole" and ignore how things are not self-consistent. The equations will show both self-consistency and compatibility with experiment.

 

You've mentioned calculations before. Do you have the maths, or not?

[ajb]

You have to be more specific

I was hoping not to have to be. Anyway, you think about local Lorentz invariance in general relativity (local inertial frames), the fact that we have have a canonical connection and that 'free' motion, that is motion only under the influence of gravity is described by geodesics.

 

Loosely, Newton's second law means that we have local inertial frames, we also have a connection so that we can compare the velocities at different points on space-time and so we have a notion of comparing to see if the motion is preserved. You can compare this motion with the geodesics.

 

Now as GR is very well tested I would say that the above form of the second law is also well tested.

[Bjarne]

 

That sounds like a giant hand-wave, and also contradictory. First of all, you have not presented them as forces. You have specifically stated that RRPKE is energy and RRM as an acceleration. (No equations, of course) Further, you said that the effect cancel at DFS. Now you're saying that they cancel, seemingly magically, for this one instance, but don't cancel for circular motion — it just averages out. How does that work, exactly?

 

 

I understand you are confused. It took me more than 5 years to be able to have all this in my head, and still it is not easy.

 

I think we have to take all this stepwise..

 

Initially at this stage, ask yourself the question..

If Dark Flow is real, - does it sounds reasonable that there must be some kind of anisotropic acceleration, that pulls it ?

Or what should pull should dark flow without acceleration?

I mean if there is smoke in the horizon it is most likely because it is fire.

 

Now we put a stone into the dark flow, and assume that there is no resistance what so ever?

Would the stone reach c ?

 

Everyone knows the answer must be no., it is impossible utopia.

Something must prevent the stone to reach c.

This “something” is RRM.

 

Sometime Imagination is more important than knowledge (a wise man once said)

At least to understand which kind of “factor” we are up against.

You can call it hand-wave, but imagination is in the end of the day important too.

• RRM is a speed dependent resistance factor
• DFA = Dark Flow Acceleration.
• DFD = Dark Flow Accelration
• DFS = DarkFlow speed

DFA and RRM will cancel out when a certain Dark Flow Sped is reached.

 

An object will due to DFA accelerate, but only until the opposite “force”, - which mean RRM increases to the same (opposite) magnitude as DFA.

 

This mean RRM is not allowing an object (in the Dark Flow) to continue to accelerate, - but only allow a certain speed based on the magnitude of DFA.

This mean if we know that Dark Flow Speed is 300km/s – *DFA and RRM can be calculated be 0,0000005 m/s^2*..

 

DFA is acceleration (most like due to gravity)

BUT this doesn’t mean that the equalizing factor (RRM) also is deceleration (or acceleration).

 

As stated above RRM is not a deceleration either acceleration, *also not even thoug it from a local perspective can look like that.*

The closed we can get to what RRM is; - is a speed depending resistance factor / “force”.

 

The impact is as stated negative nonaligned relativistic resistance.

 

Seen from an absolute reference perspective of rest., a object “O” that moves opposite DFD - with the exact same (absolute) speed as the Dark Flow Speed, - will be at *absolute rest*, - hence no RRM is not acting on it...

This is how it workds seen from a simple overall / absolute reference frame.

 

But RRM can also applies for instant perpendicular orbits relative to DFD .

So soon the influence of both an overall reference frame and local must be understood at the same time, the confusion can easy increase.

 

My last correction today was not the completely right answer...Let me try agian

Release of Retracted Potential Kinetic Energy (in short RRPKE) mean in a absolute reference frame = *less RRM due to motion opposite DFD*.

But in a local reference frame RRPKE is also due to motion away from a local direction what course RRM, which for example all the times happens in a circular orbit, or when a spacecraft moves in the direction discussion above.

 

I have (agian) to correct that, - if spacecraft Q would move opposite DFA with a speed whereby it will reach absolute rest, then and first then there are no RRM affecting it.

If the speed is too low RRM will still affect spacecraft Q - but off course propotional lesser.

 

RRM left will mean decelerating because DFA is stable (not changings) whereby the remains of RRM will dominate..

 

This also mean that accelerators, doesn’t matter whether these are orbital or linear is (and more or less pointing towards oppiste DFA) never are affected, because orbit speed (also opposite Dark Flow) always exceed the opposite dark flow speed, which is necessary to for RRPKE and DFA to cancel out.

 

Left is then a question, what would happen if a liniar accelrator would point towards a local RRM direction, - well nothing because Relatevistic resistance (by accleration) is not a mystery. if suddenly the force that pushed the atoms forward would stop, we would (if we could) register "deceleration".

 

If someone thinks I mathematical can prove RRM or DFA, just forget it.

This is off course not possible.

 

This theory is so fare only a help to remove the blindfold, to be able to know exact where to set in with measurements.

 

Please if still any doubt to what is written above, let us solve this first before going into further details

I was hoping not to have to be. Anyway, you think about local Lorentz invariance in general relativity (local inertial frames), the fact that we have have a canonical connection and that 'free' motion, that is motion only under the influence of gravity is described by geodesics.

 

Loosely, Newton's second law means that we have local inertial frames, we also have a connection so that we can compare the velocities at different points on space-time and so we have a notion of comparing to see if the motion is preserved. You can compare this motion with the geodesics.

 

Now as GR is very well tested I would say that the above form of the second law is also well tested.

Space-time is very well tested - nothing of that is inconsistence with the theory.

If you think there is any test that proves the theory wrong please be more specific.

 

That's why I need equations, so I can check for myself, rather than mention something and give you an opportunity to say "Whoops, I forgot this loophole" and ignore how things are not self-consistent. The equations will show both self-consistency and compatibility with experiment.

 

You've mentioned calculations before. Do you have the maths, or not?

What do you want to calculate?

I have to translate the calculation regarding Mercury’s Perihelion Precession Anomaly

[swansont]

I understand you are confused. It took me more than 5 years to be able to have all this in my head, and still it is not easy.

 

I think we have to take all this stepwise..

 

Initially at this stage, ask yourself the question..

If Dark Flow is real, - does it sounds reasonable that there must be some kind of anisotropic acceleration, that pulls it ?

Or what should pull should dark flow without acceleration?

I mean if there is smoke in the horizon it is most likely because it is fire.

Which is a conjecture on top of an unconfirmed effect.

 

 

Now we put a stone into the dark flow, and assume that there is no resistance what so ever?

Would the stone reach c ?

 

Everyone knows the answer must be no., it is impossible utopia.

Something must prevent the stone to reach c.

This “something” is RRM.

Absolutely zero new physics is required to explain why a massive object does not reach c.

 

Sometime Imagination is more important than knowledge (a wise man once said)

At least to understand which kind of “factor” we are up against.

You can call it hand-wave, but imagination is in the end of the day important too.

• RRM is a speed dependent resistance factor
• DFA = Dark Flow Acceleration.
• DFD = Dark Flow Accelration
• DFS = DarkFlow speed

DFA and RRM will cancel out when a certain Dark Flow Sped is reached.

 

That's not consistent with what you claimed earlier, that they cancel for a linear accelerator.

 

An object will due to DFA accelerate, but only until the opposite “force”, - which mean RRM increases to the same (opposite) magnitude as DFA.

 

This mean RRM is not allowing an object (in the Dark Flow) to continue to accelerate, - but only allow a certain speed based on the magnitude of DFA.

This mean if we know that Dark Flow Speed is 300km/s – *DFA and RRM can be calculated be 0,0000005 m/s^2*..

Still waiting for you to show this calculation.

 

 

DFA is acceleration (most like due to gravity)

BUT this doesn’t mean that the equalizing factor (RRM) also is deceleration (or acceleration).

 

As stated above RRM is not a deceleration either acceleration, *also not even thoug it from a local perspective can look like that.*

The closed we can get to what RRM is; - is a speed depending resistance factor / “force”.

 

The impact is as stated negative nonaligned relativistic resistance.

If it causes speed to change with time, it's an acceleration. You don't win by trying to make up new terminology.

 

 

Seen from an absolute reference perspective of rest., a object “O” that moves opposite DFD - with the exact same (absolute) speed as the Dark Flow Speed, - will be at *absolute rest*, - hence no RRM is not acting on it...

This is how it workds seen from a simple overall / absolute reference frame.

Absolute frames are contrary to relativity.

 

 

But RRM can also applies for instant perpendicular orbits relative to DFD .

So soon the influence of both an overall reference frame and local must be understood at the same time, the confusion can easy increase.

 

My last correction today was not the completely right answer...Let me try agian

Release of Retracted Potential Kinetic Energy (in short RRPKE) mean in a absolute reference frame = *less RRM due to motion opposite DFD*.

But in a local reference frame RRPKE is also due to motion away from a local direction what course RRM, which for example all the times happens in a circular orbit, or when a spacecraft moves in the direction discussion above.

 

I have (agian) to correct that, - if spacecraft Q would move opposite DFA with a speed whereby it will reach absolute rest, then and first then there are no RRM affecting it.

If the speed is too low RRM will still affect spacecraft Q - but off course propotional lesser.

 

RRM left will mean decelerating because DFA is stable (not changings) whereby the remains of RRM will dominate..

 

This also mean that accelerators, doesn’t matter whether these are orbital or linear is (and more or less pointing towards oppiste DFA) never are affected, because orbit speed (also opposite Dark Flow) always exceed the opposite dark flow speed, which is necessary to for RRPKE and DFA to cancel out.

 

Left is then a question, what would happen if a liniar accelrator would point towards a local RRM direction, - well nothing because Relatevistic resistance (by accleration) is not a mystery. if suddenly the force that pushed the atoms forward would stop, we would (if we could) register "deceleration".

By what magic does this only happen when there is no force on the particle? And, of course, there is a force on particles moving in a circle, so how do they feel it when it's absent in a linear accelerator.

 

Sounds very ad-hoc to me.

 

 

If someone thinks I mathematical can prove RRM or DFA, just forget it.

This is off course not possible.

OK then. There's nothing to discuss. Come back when you have a model.