# Alternative to relativity (split from A problem to the theory of relativity ?)

## Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, swansont said:

If something is moving at 30 km/s, that's an acceleration of 5 x 10^-9 m/s^2

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.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

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?

You will find the answer above

Edited by Bjarne-7

• Replies 131
• Created

#### Posted Images

And, for the 6th time, the answer to my question is ....?

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

So what? It still says that there is an acceleration because of velocity, but you also say "RR (deceleration) is always  oppesite any absolutte motion increase."

Yes

1 hour ago, swansont said:

"Motion" and "motion increase" are not the same thing.

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..

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I asked you what you mean by s.

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 ?

Edited by Bjarne-7
##### Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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.

You said “v is the speed relative to any observer according to your own choice” Here you say it’s absolute speed. Those are very different options.

The effects will not necessarily cancel. You haven’t said what the direction of the acceleration is, and speeding up or slowing down could simply make the orbit more elliptical.

9 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

A moves, - relative to B.

B is the reference-observer.

A can there relative to B increase og decrease his absolute motion (AM) .

The result if A is  increasing his AM = Deceleration.

Oppesite if A is decreasing his AM the result is A = Acceleration.

If v is constant, there is no increase in v. An increase in v is an acceleration.

##### Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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 ?

So please confirm that s stand for the variable 'time'

By which do you mean coordinate time, proper time, elapsed time, INR, viscoscity,  or what ?

They are all different but are all measured in seconds.

##### Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, swansont said:

You said “v is the speed relative to any observer according to your own choice”

Right

38 minutes ago, swansont said:

Here you say it’s absolute speed. Those are very different options.

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)

38 minutes ago, swansont said:

If v is constant, there is no increase in v. An increase in v is an acceleration.

I think what I wrote above with clarify

Edited by Bjarne-7
##### Share on other sites

On 11/24/2023 at 11:56 PM, Bjarne-7 said:

Even a hen can find a nugget of gold

But, does the hen recognize what it has found, or is it just a shiny rock that attracts it attention? And for the hen's purposes, a nugget of gold is less valuable than a small rock.  Chickens ingest these small rocks to hold in their gizzards, were they serve in lieu of teeth.  The contractions of the gizzard use the rocks to grind up the grain, etc. into small digestible  bits.  Gold, being a soft metal, serves as a poor substitute for common rocks.

##### Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, studiot said:

So please confirm that s stand for the variable 'time'

By which do you mean coordinate time, proper time, elapsed time, INR, viscoscity,  or what ?

They are all different but are all measured in seconds.

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

##### Share on other sites

What is your variable that is measured in seconds ?

Seconds alone is not a variable.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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.

If the observer is on earth, then the speed is 30 km/s, if v is relative to that observer. Absolute speed doesn’t enter into this, according to your equation.

Once the speed is 30 km/s, there is no change in this motion.

You have to decide if the RR depends on acceleration or not. Your equation says one, your description says another. You need to be consistent

1 hour ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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

You could confirm that 1 m/s^2 is an acceleration, and that s is a unit and not a variable

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

If the observer is on earth, then the speed is 30 km/s, if v is relative to that observer. Absolute speed doesn’t enter into this, according to your equation.

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Once the speed is 30 km/s, there is no change in this motion.

Right

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You have to decide if the RR depends on acceleration or not. Your equation says one, your description says another. You need to be consistent

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You could confirm that 1 m/s^2 is an acceleration, and that s is a unit and not a variable

This question is properly irrelevant now.

Edited by Bjarne-7
##### Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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.

If you are a theoretician then you had better be able to do math

The direction of the acceleration matters.

If it’s the local speed then the effect is not cyclic for an orbit; the local speed is nominally constant.

Quote

This question is properly irrelevant now.

It is not. You have yet to answer studiot’s question.

##### Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

The direction of the acceleration matters.

If it’s the local speed then the effect is not cyclic for an orbit; the local speed is nominally constant.

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.

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

If you are a theoretician then you had better be able to do math

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

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You could confirm that 1 m/s^2 is an acceleration, and that s is a unit and not a variable

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.

Edited by Bjarne-7
##### Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Whether to expect acceleration or deceleration depends on whether the direction of movement is  increasing or decreasing absolute speed.-

Perpendicular motion doesn’t change the absolute speed. Which means the equation can’t be correct

Quote

this question need long time to research.

You’ve had a decade to develop this. This seems pretty fundamental.

##### Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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.

So you had a good idea that turned out to be wrong.

So move on.

The good news is that nobody was killed by your idea.

Unfortunately that does happen with 'good ideas' from time to time, especially if someone clings to them in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

##### Share on other sites

What proportion of properly presented science papers pass review?

##### Share on other sites

7 hours ago, studiot said:

The good news is that nobody was killed by your idea.

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

Edited by Bjarne-7
##### Share on other sites

11 hours ago, swansont said:

You’ve had a decade to develop this.

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.

11 hours ago, swansont said:

This seems pretty fundamental.

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.

Edited by Bjarne-7
##### Share on other sites

No this is wrong equation also, wait

11 hours ago, swansont said:

You’ve had a decade to develop this.

Wait ½ hour and the right equation will come

##### Share on other sites

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

= mass of the traveling observer

c = the speed og light

Edited by Bjarne-7
##### Share on other sites

The algebra is wrong.

##### Share on other sites

A cautionary tally:

Quote

Metric theories include (from simplest to most complex):

(see section Modern theories below)

Non-metric theories include

I guess what I'm saying is, what are the chances? What are the chances that anyone --thinking from intuition plus a bunch of elementary maths-- comes up with something not seen already by one of these people or partially equivalent to it? The battlefield is littered with the corpses of theories.

First order of business should be: Get a rough idea of the map of different directions these alternatives are trying to extend GR into. You don't have to be a master mathematician. But the art of approximations is a must.

And, yes. The algebra is wrong. In particular, your definition of force is unit-dependent. And your acceleration should be (time)-1 dimensional.

When m goes to infinity your "force" goes to 1? What does that even mean?

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

I think 2 new laws are necessary

or  F/m =

Motion Resistance force / deceleration when moving towards any absolute motion direction

As Genady pointed out the algebra is wrong.  Acceleration is not unitless and the force equation makes no sense and has the wrong units.

##### Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, joigus said:

A cautionary tally:

I guess what I'm saying is, what are the chances? What are the chances that anyone --thinking from intuition plus a bunch of elementary maths-- comes up with something not seen already by one of these people or partially equivalent to it? The battlefield is littered with the corpses of theories.

First order of business should be: Get a rough idea of the map of different directions these alternatives are trying to extend GR into. You don't have to be a master mathematician. But the art of approximations is a must.

And, yes. The algebra is wrong. In particular, your definition of force is unit-dependent. And your acceleration should be (time)-1 dimensional.

When m goes to infinity your "force" goes to 1? What does that even mean?

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

25 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

As Genady pointed out the algebra is wrong.  Acceleration is not unitless and the force equation makes no sense and has the wrong units.

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.

Edited by Bjarne-7
##### Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

I believe that when you introduce a new law, you decide for yourself which unit result it should give.

WHAT?!?  That ain't close to how science works.  You can't say you have a 'new' force that has the different units that every other force.  If the 'thing' doesn't have the units of force - it ain't a force

18 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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.

Your inability to understand equations does not mean we can throw out mathematical and logical rules in science and just make stuff up.

22 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Not always we are able to understand why equations are like they are

I really think you should change the "we" to "I".

Edited by Bufofrog
##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

×