swansont

What about the direction of the acceleration? Is v the absolute speed? You don't specify. I asked about the rest frame and you haven't answered. If you're trying to convince people of an idea, being mysterious doesn't help You have to be clear, and provide information. I don't know what this means That doesn't answer the question. If this is true, how is it that planets can maintain their orbital speed? If RR slows them down, shouldn't orbits decay? And faster orbits should decay more quickly. If something is moving at 30 km/s, that's an acceleration of 5 x 10^-9 m/s^2 a*t will gave a change in speed, so in about 6350 years the speed should drop by 1 km/s (I've assumed constant acceleration, but it will decrease slightly) Why hasn't this happened?

That's odd; it was there yesterday And, of course, it's shown visually in fig 4 - the lateral displacement is not the same for the planet P as the star, even though the light path is identical. Where does it say that? The document is an image, so it's not searchable. At least give a page number. You only see the star that's behind the sun during an eclipse. At any other time the sun is too bright. So unless there are eclipses all over the place, all the time, (and there aren't; we only get this effect on earth because the moon and sun have the same angular size) this is not happening. And if this were happening with stars close enough to individually resolve, the positions would be shifting as the stars move around and the deflection changed. Do you have any evidence of this?

It’s your conjecture, and you can’t answer a very basic question about it? What about something traveling at constant speed? Your equation depends on v, but not a. So the net effect is zero?

! Moderator Note In measurement, i.e. degrees of arc, it is defined this way. It’s not based on earth rotation. I can’t tell if you’re overthinking the problem, or underthinking it, but ranting with an agenda is bad faith posting. Science and math don’t defer to your whims. Get over it.

Note that ”perceive” appears here (twice) That’s physiology. Where’s the physics?

Does this mean that every object at rest is accelerating at 1 m/s^2? And as you speed up, this decreases? What is the direction of the acceleration?

Einstein had plenty of math in his SR paper. He showed where it was based in Newtonian physics, and extrapolated based on the idea from E&M that c was invariant. If you see nothing it's because you haven't looked.

What energy is allegedly fluctuating?

I don't see much math at all. I see one equation but not its derivation (i.e. a basis for the equation), or any evidence to back it up. I can't specify details, because I don't know them. That's up to you. It's incumbent on you to back up your claims

The discussion of Fig 4 explains why this is happening; the triangle is different, so the apparent shift is different.

No, that wasn’t the question. Go back and read the exchange; this was about inertial frames vs. preferred frames, and your response was about inertial frames being distinguishable, but your cite was an article about relativity in compact spaces. If we aren’t in a compact space, the article is irrelevant.

If you don’t have math, you don’t have a model. And you should know this is a requirement of posting speculation.

It's a condition of the paper you cited, so if you're going to rely on that for an example, yes, it's absolutely required. Otherwise the conclusions don't apply to the real world, and it's not valid to use it.

Different distances from the sun. Notice how they are asymptotically increasing toward the 1.75 arcsec for infinite separation. 1.75 arcsec is not a large angle. The other listed angles are, of course, smaller.

johnsri has been banned for not posting in good faith We are not a search engine

Do we exist in a compact space?

What is this frame and how do we measure our speed relative to it? ! Moderator Note When you brought this up several years ago you didn't have a model, and it was closed. Has that situation changed? https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86752-orbit-anomalies-solved/

! Moderator Note A speculations offshoot of this discussion has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132976-alternative-to-relativity-split-from-a-problem-to-the-theory-of-relativity/

The statement about 5 solar radii is in a different part of the paper than the planetary numbers. He isn't talking about the same exact thing. In the discussion related to table 1, you can see that he's discussing the difference between Newton and Einstein, and most of that additional bending is happening within 5 solar diameters. ("Near point Q the light path is very nearly the same...")

Citation needed.

Is it your contention that this is new? What tests of GR have not agreed with theory?

What would this be? Relativity has been confirmed by experiment many times, so the answer is that the effect of any new transformation must be no larger than the experimental error of the best experiments we’ve done.

! Moderator Note Questions of this nature can be addressed with a visit to a search engine page. If you’re going to engage people, make it something requiring a human.

Light passing by thousands of stars describes a source on the other side of a galaxy (or the far side of a galaxy, viewed edge-on) which we can’t see, because the source is obscured. The effects would tend to cancel, since the deviations are in different directions. The stars and galaxies we can image aren’t obscured. You have yet to articulate how this deviation is a problem. It’s just a bald assertion. Andromeda, for example, has an angular size of 178x63 arc-minutes. You’re worried about deviations a few orders of magnitude smaller.

But they aren’t significantly further away. The deflection drops off as 1/r