Bjarne-7

You must be more specific with regard to what you want to know. There will not be a deceleration because the opposite force of the LHC counteracts it. How much mass do you want to circulate and at what speed?

What is the problem ? a counteracting force can counteract RR

Newtons 2nd law, resulting forces, very simple, RR is cancelled out ----------------------------------------------------------- This shows galaxy inclination aligned with to the Dark Flow axis

You are misunderstanding this. I'm not saying that "movement" is a variable. I say that you yourself can determine the direction and speed of a spacecraft relative to the Earth. For example, you can calculate an expected deceleration of the pioneer probes based on the speed the pioneer probes had. If we assume that the speed was different, - then the deceleration would also be different. And if we assume that the direction would be different, instead of deceleration you could have experienced acceleration. If you know the direction of absolute rest, then and only then yes. , - The equation only shows tension / resistance in space, - / depending on speed of the moving object. You have to add or deduct acceleration / deceleration - relative to absolute speed. This is only theoretically possible based on an idea of what the absolute speed is. Test can only contribute to reveal the direction of absolute motion depending on whether your result is acceleration or deceleration. It is to send test space craft into space in certain directions and measure them 1.) Accelerate (as flyby anomalies) 2.) Decelerate (as a pioneer the probes) 3.) Whether there are unexpected time dilation anomalies (an example of this is the test of the theory of relativity that is currently taking place on board the ISS) - more such test can be done This is why I wrote "drops out" and In this case, - (can be ignored) And some are effected, others very little, and remember acceleration / deceleration influence cancel ours every orbit. Can you ope this link here or here or here I know you will not accept this, so please read the quate below, and also remmeber the purpose with GPS is not scientific ( test on board ISS is) A lot of factors affect a satellite Space weather Artic Ice variation Baltic Sea mass variation Tidal variation Planet , Sun Moon perturbation Sun & Moon tidal variation Atmospheric collision And a lot more fare about my head. Many are variants, and therefore impossible to predict. Furthermore read this copy Paste Spacecraft Anomalies Whether the NASA MMOD programs focus on protecting the space environment or the spacecraft, monitoring, reporting, and analysis of satellite anomalies are of vital importance. Particulate-induced anomalies could provide valuable validation of environment characterization of objects within critical size ranges (5 mm to 10 cm for debris and 10–11 g for meteoroids) and velocities (7 km/s for debris, up to 72 km/s for meteoroids if in bound solar orbit), as well as a better understanding of operational effects owing to particulate impacts. Satellite anomalies are mission-degrading or mission-terminating events affecting on-orbit operational spacecraft. However, it is not normal procedure to provide information on these anomalies to the public or even to other offices within the same organization, for to a variety of reasons: limited staff for reporting and analysis, concerns about system reputation, desire to protect proprietary information, uncertainty in the meaning or cause of the events, national security, and so on. Depending on their severity, a program operations philosophy, and an available staff, anomalies are recorded and analyzed to some degree. Individual operational satellite programs, such as Iridium, Defense Meteorological Satellites Program, and others, use such information as a means to (1) assess system performance, (2) determine potential changes in operations, or (3) diagnose the cause of an event. There is no standard nomenclature for describing system symptoms associated with anomalies or how they are recorded, shared, resolved, or stored. There is no standard approach to prioritizing steps in a process for addressing an anomaly, including recording, resolution, and/or determination of cause. Many system operators are much more concerned about getting their satellite back into operation than about determining the cause of a failure. Repeat failures often get examined much more rigorously. Typically, the following causes of anomalies are considered: routine failures of parts, electrostatic discharge, single-event upset, command error, particulate impact, and unknown. Unfortunately, there is no standard resolution process to determine the cause of an anomaly. The process of determining a cause is unreliable, and the degree of confidence applied to any one cause is minimal. “Unknown” is attributed to the vast majority of anomaly cases, since it is so difficult to determine exactly what happens in space without dedicated instrumentation to provide insights from on-orbit encounters that adversely affect satellite operations. There may be times when an “unknown” is erroneously attributed to a meteoroid or orbital debris event. Or there may other times when additional data indicates a high probability that the failure was caused by an MMOD event (see Box 10.1). From a flight safety perspective (i.e., protecting the spacecraft), determining the cause of anomalies in space is important to better assess how the system will continue to function and how future systems might perform. I don't understand G is 6,67-E-11, same as Newton used in other equations , I don't see any unit There will be no deceleration as long the power of the LCH is ON, - RR is exposed when rockets burns out of fuel, - or when the necessarily counteracting force in other ways are cancelled ou Spooky Alignment of Quasars Across Billions of Light-years I expected a critical reader to ask me: Why are only quasars effected by the forces I write about , - why are the same pattern not revealed to galaxies, - ? well I can answer, - but now lets see if someone can answer why? its a good exercise to understand the DFA - RR - RRT - Dark Flow / the theory. Yes I can, but first we have to understand what Arp Halton saw

If the motion is increasing absolute motion (for example relative to Earth) - or relative to absolute rest (etc.) , RR will increase too. As long the space force of the space craft equalizes RR, - nothing happens - (except the spacecraft have to burn a little fuel to maintain speed). As soon the space proves burns out of fuel, RR acceleration is oppesite the the absolute motion direction ( seen from a local perspective = deceleration) . True, motion towards a absolutte motion direction , - or oppesite any absolutte motion direction - or something in between etc. - cannot be found purely mathematical by any equation. Absolute motion direction can be found based on analyzing many space probes anomalies. The expectation is that far more acceleration and deceleration anomalies will be measured, but also time dilation anomalies. Right now, for example, the theory of relativity is being tested on the ISS. I hope these are sufficiently specific that one will discover that when moving north there is an SR time dilation anomaly. At the very least, I have an expectation that one can conclude that something is wrong and that the expectations do not quite match what was measured. It will take a very long time to summarize the directions you ask about. But many natural movements of galaxies, solar systems, etc. help us to map this in the future. This also includes inclination anomalies and eccentricity anomalies. The so-called Planet 9, - "signature" - The red circle illustrates where one expects to find the illusory planet 9 Spooky Alignment of Quasars Across Billions of Light-years Mysterious dance of dwarfs may force a cosmic rethink Quote from the article here 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." Sorry I mean g = GM/r 2 The point is the same, but simpler. Let's make a calculation of the acceleration due to gravity of an object that is radius: 1 meter We use the equation Acc (g) =MG/r2 In this case, - r2 "drops out" - (can be ignored) . What remains is in this case Acc (g)= MG M = Mass (Kg) G = a constant without unit. In 300 year we accepted a new law , where the result of Mass multiplied with with a number without unit = Acc ( it should be Kg) What I mean is: - in the mentioned example above , - it is not necessary to deal with r2 just to simplify as much as possible

Imagine an iron ball that has a radius of 1 meter Let's make a calculation of the acceleration due to gravity at a radius of 1 meter We use the equation F=MG/r2 and then Acc = F/M We see that r2 drops out. What remains is F=MG And therefore: Acc = F/M Which is equivalent with : G = F/M How can G (without unit ) be equivalent with an acceleration with units ( m/s2 ) ? We have accepted this the last 300 years. Without understanding how this magic could happen, or what the hidden secret really is . Without complaining or wondering how Mass could convert to acceleration, - - just by multiplying M with G - The result should still have been Mass, right ? - NOT acceleration. Right ? So what is exactly the problem that G (or in my case f ) - is without units ?

Yes, the equation is speed dependent, and so will RM , f, and F therefore too If the motion is exactly same direction as Dark Flow - motion towards this direction will (most likely) increase absolutte speed (speed relative to absolutte rest) , - then there will also be (additional) RR against moving towards that direction. If no force will compensate for the additional RR, the object will decelerate oppesite the absolute motion direction, - as shown by the equation. K is a unitless constant, and does not appear to be necessary " f " = a factor, - which represents both transformation of the the ruler (m) - and of time (s) = ( m/s) Hence the mathematical consequence = f * 1m/s And since the equation shows an object in motion, the transformation of m/s will repeat itself every second the object moves = acceleration, - and therefore the consequence = : f * 1 m/s2

Lets say you will send a space rocket out in space (towards an 100% true absolute motion direction) , - now the vector is known. As soon the rocket burns out of fuel RR- declaration will happens 180 degree opposite the absolute motion direction.

K = 1 f = the transformation factor What the equation shows is that " f " consists of a variable. "f" represent a common proportional extension of both s and m (meter / ruler) The equation therefore shows that when " f " changes (increases its value) , then the RF has to follow. Conversely, the equation also shows that when " f " deteriorates , - and F is constant there will be an excess of F. By other words: " f " represents positive meter/s (or negative) depending on whether "f" increases or decreases its value. Because the equation already shows an object in motion, " f " will repeat its value for every second that as M moves, - and therefore the movement causes M to either accelerate or decelerate. K therefore becomes redundant, as this is already represented by " f "

A NEW RELATEVISTIC LAW Notes This new law is ”similar to: F = MG/r2 The new law don’t need r2 - because this law is about the motion resistance in space. Left from the “similar” old classic law is therefore F =MG . G is the unit-converter factor (constant). In the same way the new law have MK (K as constant instead of G) , Because this is a relativistic law “ f ” - is certainly needed. It looks like the new law only need “ f ” as “double functional” - transformation / unit-converter. - Why ? - we can speculate, - if true properly the answer is "hidden in the math". Exact measurement in the future will properly cause K to drop out og the equation, if not this is a “adjustment parameter”. Left to do is only the test the law by measurements and mathematical calculations.

I will read tomorrow, - before reading you last post, I considered you previous post, and realize you was right, I will try to fix my self, if I don't succeed I will ask for help somewhere. Its too late now.

Its not a classic acceleration, because each second "v" is no longer the same, and "v" is the basic of the equation, so the acceleration its not linear,. - This is properly the reason why we dont see a "clean math", - and that the the expression "acceleration" only is a approximation.- All we have is really a snapshot of the first second. - Then we need to repeat the equation. As I wrote this is rocket science when it is worst. 3000 USD + guaranteed world fame to the one that does the non-linear deceleration equation. It can be done, but NOT simple.. - F is certainly correct, but acc requires math talents

Let's look again at F=GM/r^2=a Of course, all these units are important to us. But mathematically, the units M and r are unimportant, only the numerical values are important. The units make us understand a relationship, but basically we don't know what F is. Units do not contribute to understanding the nature of F In Newton's time, this question was a very hot potato, just as it will be if the law I now assert may/may not be true. A new F - law can very well be built on a factor without unit. Mathematically, the unit in this regard are irrelevant. Experience will determine whether a new F law is right or not. But that not means guarantee that we will reach a deeper understand of the the nature of F. One may wish that F, which is linked to mass and enerti, should contain the same units as F linked to space. But this wishful thinking is mathematically unjustified. I can only agree with you, it sounds very logical, but it is not certain that nature follows our logic Perhaps the exploration of the nature of space is a completely new slate? Again and again we have to realize that we do not have the tools to solve plenty of big challenges that continue to pile up. It requires enormous energy to reach high speeds, - it requires infinite energy to reach c, - therefore there must also be a corresponding resistance. - Something is preventing. - To claim that we know the cause of that is too stupid. - We should be open to possible solutions. Somewhere we have to start to dig deeper into the rabbit hole. The nature of the new Force (Relativist Resistance Agains Motion ) It is usually not the mathematics itself that is decisive for whether the introduction of a new law is accepted or not. But to a much greater extent if it can solve the challenges we are facing. It is therefore interesting to see and understand a little more about how significant an influence we are exposed to when it comes to Dark Flow. Let's say that Dark flow is 1000 km/s - RR = 5.5e-6m/s2 DFA is an equivalent value and therefore also = 5.5e-6m/s2 If a galaxy's inclination is 100% linear with the Dark Flow axis, this will periodically reduce RR by 300km/s = 5e-7m/s2 . This is then the acceleration imbalance between DFA and RR, - and this explains that it is interactions between RR and DFA that are responsible for a galaxy's energy and not the galaxy's / galaxy's own mass. The large orbits are therefore totally controlled by RR and DFA. When an object moves under an atronomic object, this can cancel out DFA. Therefore release of Dark Flow Related Tension (DFRT) happens = 5.5e-6m/s2 In a cosmic context, this is a rather significant factor. Therefore, we will see many more objects (than Oumuamua and Borisov) that move in a way revealing to completely under the control of DFA, - just as galaxies are. And therefore we cannot explain this energy either. This means that we should expect to discover far more objects that move more or less North / South, - and which we wrongly think "must" come from other solar systems. RR is a result of converting kinetic energy to mass. RR requires a force for a cash speed to be maintained. Otherwise, we will see deceleration which occurs opposite to an absolute direction of movement. RR is not a classic force, and therefore will not be able to be combined with other forces. This is maybe also the reason that the mathematic not always is similar to classis Forces. A better understanding of the new F, - can certainly contribute to our having to recognize again and again that such a force is lurking and that we now have a tool to uncover it. It takes a long time to recognize that RR is now exposed and therefore finds it harder to hide.

Usually Yes, but not necessarily when a new law is introduced. Still why exactly c ? Yes, we know that today, but in Newton's time, people had no idea what the cause of gravity was. No one had thought that it was a force, - only Newton. For years he kept his records entirely to himself because he was constantly mopped that he didn't know enough to make such claims, especially what Earth had to do with F. I have read several books about Newton's life, so I know. Units included in the equation GM/r^2 are: m (mass) and r (distance) - but the result is a completely different unit: F. Here the units clearly do not agree with each other. You can allow yourself to do that when you introduce a new law. The result F in the equation GM/r^2 is based, as I wrote above, on M and r, - but purely mathematically these units are meaningless, they could just as well have been without units. - And precisely for this reason, in a new law / equation that also results in F, you can very well use values without unity and still get the result F. Something similar has actually happened before in history. I dont agree. - F=m * a also this equation is a "transformation equation", again you see no connection between the units, - but what you see is kinetic energy converted to M, - it is the "same" (similar) process as you see in the Lorentz Transformation. - It is therefore not mysterious that F can be involved in both equations. Whether one believes this claim is another matter entirely. I've been sitting too much in front of my PC for the last week, and I've had a lot of pain in my shoulders, so I have to take a break.

Why s, - This equation can transform a lot, and properly more as we think, the result is not s, but a factor, - we are allowed to use such as we want. - If that is false or correct is a different story Please wait until I have moved m as I wrote some post earlier - a change will come

I gave the equitation the resulting unit F, so did Newton. If it is a "new" / unknown force, -then its new and unknown. And it required a completely new equation. I am the one that can decide the outcome of that equation, if the outcome is correct or false is a different story.

The force is still a force, - but the the prerequisites may be different Is this not what Newton did ? I mean "associated / converted " mass to a force. None of his fellow students grasped a piece. He was considered odd. Now its about space, off course the parameters must be different. Space is not matter. In the end of the day also transformation of serveral other equations could be necessary, - I mean if the ruler is a variable which consequences would that have ? The only place you mathematically can "grab" the claimed elastic nature of space , - is in a process of transformation, and right here there must be a force hidden. - Like it or not. I think a new law is necessary, no wonder if new math would be "a stranger"

Remember none of the big names you mentioned have solved any of the huge challenges we face in komos. The modification I point out solves them ALL in one fell swoop, - IS it a coincidence? yes I know "m" needs to be moved, looking at it, and will get back I believe that when you introduce a new law, you decide for yourself which unit result it should give. For example what does the speed of light have to do with energy (E=mc^2 ) What do mass and radius have to do with Force (MG/r^2) etc. Also remember that the result of Lorentz transformation is unitless and is used to transform time, mass, energy Not always we are able to understand why equations are like they are. Isacc Newton was critized because he could not explian WHAT gravity was, so much that he delyed to publish his finding for years. Einsten even did have any idear why matter and space somehow must be connected. - etc. etc.

I think 2 new laws are necessary or F/m = Motion Resistance force / deceleration when moving towards any absolute motion direction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ or F/m = Reduced absolutte motion resistance force, - when moving oppesite any absolute motion direction F = RR-Force v = the speed by the travelling observer m = mass of the traveling observer c = the speed og light

No this is wrong equation also, wait Wait ½ hour and the right equation will come

no one told me as clearly as you that what exalt was wrong with the previous equation , in general people are no very helpful when it comes to controversial thinking. So thank you Swansont for your time. I think 2 new laws are necessary when moving agianst any absolute motion direction When moving oppesite any absolute motion direction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By the way, just few days ago realized another strange thing . For a long time I believed that Omuamua belonged to our solar systems because RR, RRT and DFA would prevent escape attempts from our solar system. but I never thought the trajectory would be that strange as I now realized. The trajectory can be roughly compared to throwing a stone in the air. The stone will return by approximately the same path. So will Omuamua. An even better example is Borisov, it moves more or less in parallel with the DFA axis. Under the sun, release of Dark Flow Related Tension causes an significant acceleration opposite to the DFA direction. Motion towards (more or less North) the balance between DFA will be disturbed and again it is (mainly) DFA that forces these comets to lose all speed and turn around. We must expect that there are many objects of this kind that are under DFA's control, and many will move vertical north - south. In the same way, the Pioneer probes will return, but here (mainly) RR and RRT are responsible and these forces are much weaker because they are not exposed to the much stronger Dark Flow force.

My Toyota is 5km/h off relative to GPS and our Audi 7km/h and yes we are both still alive, and furthermore we did not complain or scrap the cars of that reason

Whether to expect acceleration or deceleration depends on whether the direction of movement is increasing or decreasing absolute speed.- this question need long time to research. Or ask a university student / teacher for assistance. (I'm not 25 anymore) . This math is not easy, the acceleration / deceleration depends on speed, and hence not linear. This is rocket science of the worst kind above my head. The equation used so far is good enough as an approximation, based on a unitless factor, but yes a much more refined equation is necessary. This will be solved Yes 1m/s^2 is an acceleration, - and since the measurement not takes place in vacuum the answers must be that s a is a relativistic variable and off course not a local variable.

Right, Observers is assumed to know if their speed (according to your example 30 km/s) is increasing or decreasing the absolutte speed, and If not acceleration or deceleration will tell them. Right No RR don't depend of acceleration, but of local speed, , -according to your example 30 km/s, - Hmm how can I fix this ? - I am a theorist not a mathematician. This question is properly irrelevant now.

Try to put that question in connection with a concrete example, otherwise I'm afraid we're talking past each other