Bjarne-7

Right Let's say that the Reference Observer B is on Earth. And let's say that we have proven that the Earth's absolute speed is 1000 km/s, relative to absolute rest. And let's say you send a probe out in space at 30km/s towards a direction in which means that the probe is now moving 1030 km/s relative to absolute rest. There has been an increase in the absolute speed of the probe. This probe will decelerate due to increased RR. Clocks will tick according to the book. Conversely, if you send a probe towards the opposite direction, the absolute speed will drop to 970km/s for this probe - This probe will accelerate, - due to decreased RR, (+ the clock will tick faster, - not slower) I think what I wrote above with clarify

Yes A moves, - relative to B. B is the reference-observer. A can therefore relative to B increase og decrease his absolute motion (AM) . The result if A is increasing his AM = Deceleration. (RR) - Due to Relativistic Resistance against motion Oppesite if A is decreasing his AM the result is = Acceleration. - Due to Release of Relativistic Tension Furthermore , if DFA is (more or less) cancelled out, - by an astronomic body - we get: Acceleration Due to Release of Dark Flow Related Tension - This is what Allais Effect is about, + Oumuamua's mysterious acceleration + , Flyby anomalies etc.. Where did you get that s ? - Normally s means seconds, - you asked for a definition, - I have give you that, what more do you want ?

1.) The calculation is correct 2.) Whether this speed would cause acceleration or deceleration, - depends on whether that moving observer A is increasing or decreasing his absolute speed relative to another chosen reference-observer B. You therefore need to know in advance in which direction the absolute velocity is increasing or decreasing, and for this purpose an atomic clock must be used, as discussed above. In orbit often happens, first periodically increasing and then decreasing absolute speed, whereby the energy is then conserved by an alternation between variation of mass and velocity. Hence these anomalies cancel out after one orbit. This therefore contributes to increased or decreased orbit-eccentricity and / or orbit-inclination depending on where in the orbit perehelion / perigee (etc) is in relation to the RR and RRT impact. . It can be very difficult to detect such anomalies in the inner solar system, - but in the outer solar system one only needs to look at the signature left by the illusory planet X / 9. The reason for this is time, the more time the larger anomalies. You will find the answer above

v is the speed relative to any observer according to your own choice This mean: All values in the equation are ^2, - you replied while I was editing

I already did, we both did a wrong calculation, if no addition motion, the result is zero, and yes it has to be All values in the equation are ^2 1.) Absolute motion is converted to mass, and back to speed as soon as moving oppesite any absolute motion direction , 2.) and yes centripetal force can cancel out DFA hence RR is released, (RRT) - yes nothing comes from nothing PS I was editing post post 27 while you was writing , please check it, here you find many answers

I also got 1m/s^2 earlier today, Now I get zero. Maybe its because its Sunday. - And no you can not like that calculate absolute rest, - you can calculate RR relative to any observer, also to a observer at absolut rest (if you know one). RR (deceleration) is always oppesite the direction of any absolutte motion increase. The oppesite is also possible , then we refer to it as: - RRT Release of Relativistic Tension The result is therefore acceleration. RRT acceleration is oppesite the force or the resulting forces responsible (for more or less ) canceling out DFA, and hence exposing RRT The centripetal force of an astronomic body can release Relativistic Dark Flow Related Tension , and therefore when Oumuamua, or Space proves are right under astronomic bodies (south) the condition for exposed RRT is met, and we will then see mysterious accelerations not possible to account for. Notice that the Centripetal Force (CP) have to "pay" for converting DFA to RRT, - and many times we will not be able to distingue what is caused by CP and what is caused by RRT. When the centripetal force is cancelling out DFA , - which can happen from a fairly steep angle, - the RRT-acceleration will always be released exactly 180° oppesite DFA Therefore it is difficult to reveal exposed RRT in regularly orbits, (because you will believe, this is just a naturally inclination / eccentricity) and much easier in hyperbolic trajectories, where you have very clear defined expectations

Good question, I will think about it, in the mean time, when reaching c, Why do I get this error result ? It must mean a collapse of the universe right ? and what about the photons then ? Are these always "nowhere" or "everywhere at the same time " ? The equation is in the one end represented by 1 (something) and in the other end results to 0, -(nothing). The remaining 1 number is really just a ratio that stays the same. I don't see it as a big math problem. We know that an infinite amount of energy must be used to reach c, - which means that there must be an increasing resistance on on such path. We also know that when an object has to reach c, it requires infinite energy, - at the same time, for RR it must be a correspondingly tend on the same path, which must mean that RR også continue to increase correspondingly towards the journey towards c. If anyone has a solution to remove the remaining 1, then I would be happy to receive such a suggestion.

What I mean yours "s", (as well as yours ruler and yours reality) is always true, - regardless where you are. Mass + relativistic mass is stretching your reality. - If you want to compare yours " s" to a defined "s", - we used to imaging us a fantasy clock (without any influence of mass) infinity fare away, in the same way with the definition of 1 meter, its the same "observer"

I describe an elastic property of space and mention a large number of mathematical consequences. One of these properties is that space and matter are elastically connected and thus that gravity remains a force. - Sir Isaac Newton has given a neat mathematical account of this force. No need to reinvent the deep dish, - in that respect. I also mention deceleration as a consequence. The only equation I have shown is 100% sufficient to mathematically confirm that the equation matches both Pioneer probes deceleration. Anyone can calculate and raise criticism if it is a lie. I mention RR's opposite, (RRT), again the same equation is used. RRT and RR are just 2 sides of the same coin, - and again you see consistency with the speed deviations measured by flyby anomalies. I have shown that mysterious fast speeds in galaxies and clusters (theoretically) can be easily linked with Dark Flow, - again RR can be calculated with the use of same equation, - and furthermore the same equation can be used to calculate Dark Flow Acceleration (DFA is RR's natural equivalent counterpart, in this regard). The interaction and periodic imbalance between DFA and RR will undoubtedly add enormous kinetic energy to orbits of both stars and galaxies. Here there is already a sea of equations suitable for further calculations, and again I must emphasize - there is no need for more. I could go on all night citing examples of the RR equation being sufficient, also when it comes to quasar-inclination anomalies, and so-called planet 9 anomalies, - and a dozen other. Another criticism you mentioned is questions about the background for a modification of THR. The background is that wherever you look, even under your feet, things are moving with due to mysterious forces we cannot account for. One day we will understand that the evidence for what I claim is everywhere, - impossible to overlook. If there is anything specific that you think I have overlooked, please let me know. The equation is universal, - s , - wherever you are.

And you could tell that to Isac New and Einstein also . - One for mass attraction, - One for SR time dilation and one of GR time dilation... and in fact I see nothing, because Einstein borrowed the most important from Lorentz. Goodbuy swanshort.

You even dont know WHAT math or model you are asking for. Same arrogance and intolerance everywhere.. This is all you need, Everybody can Google that speed. So yes you is lying

Your question initially means that it is necessary to fully understand: What is Dark Matter. There are two things you need to understand, one is already mentioned in post 19, - quote: "RR is also the "force" that prevents astronomical objects from escaping galaxy orbits" The next thing is: where do the excessively large energies come from that causes orbits of stars and the motion of galaxies to move much faster than our current models can account for? The answer is that this energy is actually proof that Dark Flow is a fact. This of course requires an explanation. Dark flow is calculated to be a speed of 600 km/s. No smoke without fire, and similarly there is no Dark Flow Speed without there also being a Dark Flow Acceleration (DFA.) As mentioned, RR is a speed-dependent resistance against motion in the universe. – RR increases as speed increases. DFA, on the other hand, is constant. This means that the RR will increase until the RR-magnitude is the same as the DFA-magnitude. - And thus a constant Dark Flow Speed can be maintained. Due to different orbit inclination, it will there always be periodical motion towards and away from Dark Flow. This will disturb the "balance" between DFA and RR, - whereby you can say that DFA will always oppose any "escape attempt" and in this process larger "mysterious" orbit speed is the result. (So simple is the dark matter solution, - just a game between RR and DFA) From NASA we know the Dark Flow speed is measured to 600km/s and that Dark Flow takes place towards a southern direction. Thus, RR can be calculated, and thus indirectly DFA can be calculated. We therefore have to expect; - increased RR, - and thus increased relativistic mass, - and slower ticking clocks, - when moving south. Whereas movement against Dark Flow gives the complete opposite result, i.e. reduction of RR, and hence faster ticking clocks. This means that with further movement south, the clock will follow the current prediction of the theory of relativity, and therefore tick slower. On the other hand, when moving towards a northerly direction, the clock will tick faster, thus contradicting the current understanding. The theory of relativity is now tested onboard the ISS, - possibly the test is good enough to see that SR does not give the expected result precisely when moving towards a northern direction. When you want to "measure our absolute speed" - it can be done by similar experiments, which will probably be quite a task because you probably have to go up to very high speeds in order to accurately calculate the Earth's absolute speed , - by converting time dilation to speed . And by the way, now i also revealed the 2nd relative small "bill" - the prevailing theory and relativity has to pay for a contemporary upgrade, and as you can see, the gain is again at least 1000 times larger. The mistake Einstein did, was not to take the real nature of space into account. - Space "knows" how much tension there is, - (due to gravity and speed) and clocks reveals that tensions, this is the short answer to your question. So all you need is a hell lot of dynamite and a good clock, then you will know our absolut speed. Mama Mia, this is 10 years ago, a lot has happened since. - To my understanding you are claiming something you haven't defined. What model? I am introducing a model of the universe, is that not enough? You have the math to be able to relate to RR, you have the sky full of evidence. All that really is missing is perhaps the will to want to understand

Now you hit the nail right on the head. I mentioned in my previous post 19, - that there is relatively small "price to pay" for a much-needed "upgrade" of the theory of relativity: - I understand that you have Mercury's perihelion precision anomaly in mind. If you ask me, this mystery was not solved by Albert Einstein. The solution has the same common denominator as the kinematic anomalies I mentioned in the previous post (19). Many more anomalies are hidden everywhere. These are hard to discover because they many cancel out within one orbit, and others not easy to distinguish from what seems to be "naturally", - based on todays understanding I have no problem with either Richard Feynman or the scientific method. Of course, a claim must be tested. But the problem is that it can be difficult for a single person to finance a test, such as sending a probe into space to test a predicted expected deceleration (or acceleration) etc. And difficult to get the scientific community to understand that it is justified as long as there are no evidences. At the moment, I believe that several thousand people work daily to solve the dark matter and dark energy mysteries. Think about what it costs? And think about how simple and cheap the possible solution might be at the end of the day.

no not quite Below I will try to give you an overall impression of what I mean Even a hen can find a nugget of gold There is a great risk that I will be misunderstood. I will now give a general description of what I mean. I can understand that some will think that my claims are fantasy. imagination is the first step to take. It's not necessarily the same as fantasy Imagination eventually opens the door to intuition, - not possible to demonstrate. I very much agree with Einsteins mindset. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The nature of Space The ruler as a proportional relativistic variable is not changing anything of the theory of relativity. Only a very small "window" has been opened, which is the only thing that, with a simple mathematical starting point, can give us an insight into the nature of space, - (which for far too long has been far too superficial and misunderstood). We really don't understand space, - specifically we have no idea what process is responsible for: "curving" around mass. We fundamentally do not even hypothetically or theoretically understand the interaction between space and matter. - And yet we accept the current interpretation of the property of space as an unshakable and absolute truth. It is this often adamant reluctance to use (initially) the ability to imagine that is in reality the obstacle that prevents us from allowing ourselves to move forward and solve the most important challenges in our worldview. As I wrote, the elasticity of space is a key to solving a number of mysteries. It is in this subsequent process where the same "key" again and again proves to be able to open a very long series of doors, (without getting into a mess with scientific facts) - that you are confirmed again and again that you are on right track. Intuition can be defined by the fact that one has achieved a holistic understanding, where both imagination, intellectual understanding and calculation go into a higher unity. But unfortunately not something that is always easy to pass on to others, and not at all when others are often locked in outdated unshakable entrenched notions, and therefore from start to finish are not at all willing to understand. Let me limit myself to defining the overall. - The nature of space is elastic and not necessarily so different from the concept of "the curvature of space" - Energy in GR in the form of mass, - and in SR in the form of relative mass-increase, - is the basic process / cause of any relativistic transformation. - Space and matter are connected elastically. - Gravity is still a force. - An absolute motion reference frame is introduced, this is relative to absolute rest. - SR transformation can go both ways, depending on whether the speed relative to absolute rest is increased or decreased. - Travel through space is associated with relativistic resistance to motion (RR). [see more in-depth below] - True speed is always relative to absolute rest. These changes will only harm the theory of relativity very little, however the gain is 1000 times greater. Relativistic Resistance against Movement (RR) An object's (real) increase in kinetic energy also increases the relativistic mass and thus also proportionally the elastic tension in the surrounding space where a fast moving object is moving at a given time. Because the elastic nature of space and a fast moving object (matter) are linked, - an increase in the elastic nature of space will oppose movement in any direction that results in real speed increase, - (relative to absolute rest). If a certain speed is to be maintained, it therefore requires a constant force with the same strength as RR, in order to thereby be sufficient to counteract RR's influence. - Otherwise, an object will decelerate. Release of Relativistic Resistance against Movement (RRT) An atronomic object can offset the force needed to maintain a certain speed. This creates a new phenomenon which can be called Release of Retracted Tension (RRT) - Which means a deceleration which, depending on the perspective, can look like acceleration. A new Tool RR is the cause of Pioneer anomalies, - RRT and RR is the cause of Flyby anomalies, - an Omuamua's mysterious acceleration (and much more). An orbit can be exposed to greater RR in a certain direction than in another direction, which depends on the absolute speed relative to absolute rest, and therefore on different RR influence. This creates coordinated directional elliptical orbits, and thus the illusion of Planet 9. - And it solves quasars' mysterious coordinating inclination anomalies (and much else). RR is also the "force" that prevents atronomic objects from escaping galaxy orbits (etc The problem is that new thought can be carelessly swept off the table, because you are more focused on not to allow any contradict Einsteins univers, - or not having the right education, etc. For modest means, one could, for example, send a test probe into space and establish that there is actually a mysterious resistance to movement that cannot be swept under the carpet. - Thus, a new study of the nature and new properties of space could begin. In Denmark we have a saying that: the world want to be deceived. Unfortunately, that is probably true.

None. - The math for time dilation is OK and will survive .

Introduction of the ruler as a relativistic variant in a gravity field must, as I mentioned, be understood as a additional proportional relativistic variable. In other words: - time dilation does not change or vanish, and thus neither does GPS and much else. So fare this is only a very small part of an upheaval that will certainly come. If you think the new through to the end, several misinterpretations and thus weaknesses in the theory are revealed. The universe is full of very big mysteries, and seen from that perspective, the theory of relativism solves very little. I have no doubt that a modified version will be a much more effective tool for understanding a large number of great mysteries such as for example: - Dark Matter - Dark Energy - Dark Flow - Flyby anomalies - Planet 9, which (is not a planet) but testifies to something completely different. - Omuamua's Mysterious Orbit - Spooky Alignment of Quasars Across Billions of Light-years here - Pioneer anomalies (Two NASA teams researching this anomaly did not agree) here and here I am absolutely sure that there is a "common thread" running through all of this, and all of these mysteries will be solved by the help of the same common denominator. It would be too extensive to go into all this at the present time, and it is probably also useless until there is solid evidence that a modification of the theory of relativity is necessary.

The good news is there are no conflict, also not after the meter ruler becomes a relativistic transformation factor. It is thought-provoking in itself that it is possible to "manipulate" the ruler, and that there is ample room in the theory of relativity and in our worldview for this to happen, - without there being any immediate outcry or conflict with any scientific facts. Your criticism requires a very long answer (unfortunately). At the end of the 18th century, people were well aware that the Lorentz Transformation had some strange consequences (time dilation and distance shortening). But it was believed that it was probably just mathematical quirks that should not be taken seriously. But the transformation led to Einstein starting to play with thought experiments which were the starting point for the special theory of relativity in the first place, and thus the scientific community was challenged with then very strange thoughts. In a similar way, we owe it to ourselves to seriously ask the question of whether another transformation factor was overlooked? The equation t * v = d is of course an old classical equation. But one must remember that we know that t, - is nowadays also a relativistic variable (whereby the equation loses its classical innocence), - whereby it is legitimate to ask questions about whether "m" (the ruler) always compensates with the same factor for which t transforms (?) Or if it is just (again) mathematical quirks, - not necessary to take serious.. ? Yes, - my suggestion is only a mathematically supported "conjecture" and not a definitive mathematical proof. You can't get a more in-depth "mathematical answer" than this (today). So all left to do is then to ask: - are there at all "space for" another factor of transformation in the theory of relativity or not.? Just like Einstein, you can initially try to understand the consequences of taking "a mathematical quirks" seriously. What are the consequences of introducing yet another transformation factor? Do you right away end up in Utopia and into conflict with well-documented "safe- knowledge"? - No, not at all, right ? Or on the other hand, are there anything that points to that the consequences possible can have the potential to be able to add value to the theory of relativity that can take the theory to a deeper holistic understanding of the whole theory? - (which may then later indirectly lead to tangible evidence of different nature.?) The first thought / image I get is this: It shows that space around an astronomical object appears to be stretching towards an astronomical body, i.e. something that at least resembles an elastic property. Certainly not the intention of the image, but the thought arises: Is the "curvature" of the space in reality an elastic property? Many more thoughts arise: - Is the possible transformation of rulers, - caused by the tension of space ? - Is the variation of the relativistic tension of space (and matter), - causing clocks to tick faster / slower ?. - Is there a an elastic connection between space and matter? - and hence the real cause of gravity ? - Is gravity then still a force (as Newton claimed it to be) ? - Does the fabric absorb "elastic space"? - Is dark energy just, the oppesite, - a disintegrating gravitational field? Many more thoughts follow in the wake. The key word here is "elastic space" which, in terms of understanding, actually does not deviate very much from the previous perception we have of the deformable property of space. So "merely" a "play" with expressions seems to give the theory of relativity "new properties" which may become necessary in the long run. I don't expect any answers to any of the questions asked (right away) - but just point out that a fairly small innocent (mathematically substantiated) addition of a transformation parameter does not necessarily end in chaos, conflict and Utopia, but perhaps can have rather far-reaching consequences that may provide answers to a number of unsolved mysteries. .

Right

That is not the case in this debate, here it is not necessary to measure, but only to compare 1 meter, almost exactly the same way you (using calculation) can compare 1 second

Right, and no surprises I guess

It is possible as I showed in my post-11. But perhaps it is easier for some to relate to when there is speed included. It is only something we pretend for purely pedagogical reasons. Do you know, - can we also measure the ruler precise enough to know if these are any deviation from the vacuum definition? I've been thinking the same thing. The light must cease to move as seen from a outside perspective, which means that the photon must cease to exist. From the point of view of the event horizon, it will move quite normally. It is a contradiction. You are probably also familiar with the BH paradox

With a bit of advanced math, you can calculate that time passes differently at different distances to the center of a gravitational field. In other words, you are comparing different relativistic views of "reality" with each other. This is exactly what you also do with simple math by comparing the length of 1 meter in Bob's apartment with the length of 1 meter in Alice's apartment.

There are no unknown factor(s) in the thought experiment(s) described. We can easily imagine that a time measurement starts and ends simultaneously, it is technically possible. In the first thought experiment, doubts arose about "simultaneity", - yes, - hence it is easier to simplify the experiment rather than arguing into a dead end. . Saturn's orbital period can be directly observed by both Bob and Alice. It doesn't move the goalposts, no not at all, - but simply simplifies the very same principle point. We can also boil it down even more by referring to PETER who lives infinitely far away (in vacuum) where there is no gravity at all. Peter is the only one who meets the conditions to be able to define his 1 meter ruler to be = the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second If the ruler is an invariant, all other observers (whom we assume live in gravitational fields) will not agree with Peter's definition applies from them. In other words, all universal beings (who can do a little math) can provide mathematical proof that all other rulers (comparable to Peter's rules) deviate from PETER's definition of 1 meter. As you can see now, we've excluded everything but 1 meter rulers, which is what it's all about. Now here comes the other side of same coint, if all universal beings agree to the possibility that rulers must be a proportional relativistic variable, - then now the definition of 1 meter is suddenly universal. – It’s a choose we have. Edith The decisive point is still the same, how can the world's best rulers agree with each other at the factory and as soon they are brought to Bob and Alice's apartment they disagree.

The problem arises exactly as soon as you mathematically compare Bob's and Alice's rulers. Try to isolate your thinking to it. And remember that there is no guarantee that the current theory of relativity is the final version. If the ruler is a propotional relatevistic variable the theory of relativty must be modified according to that Edit Can you disprove that he ruler is a proportional relativistic variable ? If not this is an possible option.

Purely mathematically, we have to deal with whether the physical meter is a deformable variable or not, just as we once had to (first theoretically) deal with, - and finally recognize that the passage of time is a provable variable. It is not satisfactory that we then have to close our eyes as soon as things become a little bit complicated or challenging. Constantly asking new questions is what science is all about