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

## Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bjarne-7 said:

K = 1

Thanks, now what are the units of K?

4 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

“ f ” as “double functional” -  transformation / unit-converter.

So what are the units of f?

• Replies 131
• Created

#### Posted Images

1 hour ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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.

That’s not how math works.

The equation says if f has a nonzero value, there is a force. (as long as K and RM are nonzero)

For your description to hold, f would have to depend on the change in some variable, e.g. it could be a derivative.

40 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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.

So an object accelerates in the direction of absolute motion. What direction is that? “south” as you’ve implied before?

##### Share on other sites

On 11/30/2023 at 3:46 PM, swansont said:

The equation says if f has a nonzero value, there is a force. (as long as K and RM are nonzero)

Yes, the equation is speed dependent, and so will RM , f, and F therefore too

On 11/30/2023 at 3:46 PM, swansont said:

So an object accelerates in the direction of absolute motion. What direction is that? “south” as you’ve implied before?

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.

On 11/30/2023 at 3:36 PM, Bufofrog said:

Thanks, now what are the units of K?

K is a unitless constant, and does not appear to be necessary

On 11/30/2023 at 3:36 PM, Bufofrog said:

So what are the units of f?

" 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/s

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

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 ?

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

2 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

If no force will compensate for the additional RR, the object will decelerate oppesite the absolute motion direction, - as shown by the equation

Canceling two negatives here, it will have a positive acceleration in the direction of absolute motion?

This isn’t shown by your equation; it shows no direction and is proportional to an unrevealed factor f.

18 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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

That’s not the equation for gravitational force. F = GMm/r^2

18 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

We see that r2 drops out.

Why? Not because of any valid math you’ve done.

Quote

How can G (without unit ) be equivalent with an acceleration with units ( m/s2 ) ?

G has units and it’s not equivalent to an acceleration

Quote

We have accepted this the last 300 years.

Who is “we”?

Claiming that mass “converts to acceleration” is not part of mainstream physics, and AFAICT has an advocacy of just you.

##### Share on other sites

20 hours ago, swansont said:

Canceling two negatives here, it will have a positive acceleration in the direction of absolute motion?

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) .

20 hours ago, swansont said:

This isn’t shown by your equation; it shows no direction and is proportional to an unrevealed factor f

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."

20 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s not the equation for gravitational force. F = GMm/r^2

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)

20 hours ago, swansont said:

Why? Not because of any valid math you’ve done.

What I mean is: -  in the mentioned example above , - it is not necessary to deal with r2
just to simplify as much as possible

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

4 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

If the motion is increasing absolute motion (for example relative to Earth) - or relative to absolute rest (etc.)  , RR will increase too.

"Motion" isn't a variable in any equation. We have displacement, velocity and acceleration. Using imprecise terminology is a detriment here, not a bonus.

And this is not reflected in your equation.

4 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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).

I'm not interested in that. Just what happens to a celestial object that's moving in space.

4 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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.

Sure it can.

4 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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.

What experiment is this?

4 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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.

GPS satellites have a non-equatorial orbit.

4 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

It will take a very long time to summarize the directions you ask about.

You seem to be able to summarize it in a picture.

4 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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."

You would need to do better. Can you explain the motion of these dwarf galaxies?

4 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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) .

You can't just have it drop out

4 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

What remains is in this case Acc (g)= MG
M = Mass (Kg)
G = a constant without unit.

If this is Newton's gravitational constant, as it is in MG/rthen it has units. If it's not, pick a new letter

4 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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)

This is simply not true. G has units. Force has units. All the terms in the equation have units

4 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

What I mean is: -  in the mentioned example above , - it is not necessary to deal with r2
just to simplify as much as possible

Simplifying does not mean mangling the math.

##### Share on other sites

On 11/25/2023 at 8:56 AM, Bjarne-7 said:

- An absolute motion reference frame is introduced, this is relative to absolute rest.

Example: Consider the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. As far as I know it operates effectively irrespective of Earth's rotation or its orbit around the sun, which constantly changes the LHC's orientation. According to your theory, the LHC's performance should vary with these changes, necessitating regular adjustments? Could you explain how your theory accounts for the consistent operation of the LHC under constant change of orientation? What does the lack of adjustments for absolute motion tell you?

##### Share on other sites

8 hours ago, swansont said:

"Motion" isn't a variable in any equation. We have displacement, velocity and acceleration. Using imprecise terminology is a detriment here, not a bonus.

And this is not reflected in your equation.

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.

8 hours ago, swansont said:

Sure it can.

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.

8 hours ago, swansont said:

What experiment is this?

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

8 hours ago, swansont said:

You can't just have it drop out

This is why I wrote   "drops out"    and In this case, - (can be ignored)

8 hours ago, swansont said:

GPS satellites have a non-equatorial orbit.

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
Many are variants, and therefore impossible to predict.

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.

8 hours ago, swansont said:

This is simply not true. G has units. Force has units. All the terms in the equation have units

I don't understand G is 6,67-E-11, same as Newton used in other equations , I don't see any unit

7 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Example: Consider the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. As far as I know it operates effectively irrespective of Earth's rotation or its orbit around the sun, which constantly changes the LHC's orientation. According to your theory, the LHC's performance should vary with these changes, necessitating regular adjustments? Could you explain how your theory accounts for the consistent operation of the LHC under constant change of orientation? What does the lack of adjustments for absolute motion tell you?

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.

8 hours ago, swansont said:

You would need to do better. Can you explain the motion of these dwarf galaxies?

Yes I can, but first we have to understand what Arp Halton saw

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

55 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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

##### Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Example: Consider the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. As far as I know it operates effectively irrespective of Earth's rotation or its orbit around the sun, which constantly changes the LHC's orientation. According to your theory, the LHC's performance should vary with these changes, necessitating regular adjustments? Could you explain how your theory accounts for the consistent operation of the LHC under constant change of orientation? What does the lack of adjustments for absolute motion tell you?

Newtons 2nd law, resulting forces, very simple, RR is cancelled out

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

This shows galaxy inclination aligned with to the Dark Flow axis

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

Just now, Bjarne-7 said:

Newtons 2nd law, resulting forces, very simple, RR is cancelled out

That does not seem logically coherent with your earlier statements regarding the nature of RR.

##### Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

That does not seem logically coherent with your earlier statements regarding the nature of RR.

What is the problem ?  a counteracting force can counteract RR

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

1 minute ago, Bjarne-7 said:

What is the problem ?

One example: The original post discusses RR as a fundamental property of space interacting with moving objects, not something that can be easily nullified by operational forces of a machine.

##### Share on other sites

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?

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bjarne-7 said:

You must be more specific with regard to what you want to know.

Maybe this helps: draw a simple diagram of LHC and show what forces there are, according to your theory, that cancels? Then we can compare your idea with what is happening according to established physics?

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ghideon said:

One example: The original post discusses RR as a fundamental property of space interacting with moving objects, not something that can be easily nullified by operational forces of a machine.

Also , if possible let me know the force or energy required to keep the a certain mass in orbit at a certain speed.

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

( red orbit= "planet-9" )

Remember that Reduced RR when moving oppesite Dark Flow  - does not mean that an object will accelerate because the  DFA will become correspondingly more exposed ("stronger"), -  as a function of the RR being reduced.

The same principle applies to planet-9, phenomenon, - because also in this case too there is a movement against an absolute direction of movement, which is only possible if this movement also occurs as the result of a force coming from this direction.

56 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Maybe this helps: draw a simple diagram of LHC and show what forces there are, according to your theory, that cancels? Then we can compare your idea with what is happening according to established physics?

I am not sure you quite understand the principles for RR and DFA (etc.) -

So you have to ask me a well defined question and also let me know, mass , speed and required energi / force to keep that en orbit... Otherwise we can easy misunderstand each other.

RR and DFA will try to balance each other if an orbits in a is aligned with the Dark Flow Axis.

(which the RR-force and external gravitational force responsible for planet-9 phenomena,-  not is)

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

2 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Also , if possible let me know the force or energy required to keep the a certain mass in orbit at a certain speed.

No force or energy is required.

##### Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

You are misunderstanding this. I'm not saying that "movement" is a variable.

I said this. I understand this. But the problem is that you are using "motion" in your description despite the fact that it's not a variable. That makes for a confusing explanation, since "motion" does not correspond to a variable. What does motion refer to? Is it velocity? Is it speed?

Your descriptions need to be more precise.

7 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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.

Why assume? We have other probes. There's New Horizons. Voyager 1 and 2 are on different paths. Pioneer 10 and 11 are traveling in opposite directions - is one speeding up while the other slows down? No! They both experience an acceleration toward the sun. (and not south)

7 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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 haven't shown how to determine the frame of absolute rest.

7 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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

And I asked you what the experiment on the ISS is. It has a name, or some other designation. What is it? Can you provide a link?

7 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

This is why I wrote   "drops out"    and In this case, - (can be ignored)

It doesn't drop out. You can cancel it if there is a factor of r^2 elsewhere in the equation that allows this. It can be ignored if r is very large, but then all of the equation approaches zero. What you describe is invalid math.

7 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

And some are effected, others very little, and remember acceleration / deceleration influence cancel ours every orbit.

You've asserted this, but not shown that your assertion is true. And it does not follow from a simple analysis. When a satellite is moving south, it will be moving faster, in an absolute sense, according to your conjecture. It should feel an acceleration to the north. When it's moving north, the opposite should happen. That will skew the orbit. The effects don't cancel, since they happen in different places along the orbit.

In any event, just waving your hands and saying they cancel is not a scientific analysis.

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

I am not sure you quite understand the principles for RR and DFA (etc.) -

That is true. Your descriptions need to be more precise. (as @swansont said above)

2 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

So you have to ask me a well defined question and also let me know, mass , speed and required energi / force to keep that en orbit... Otherwise we can easy misunderstand each other.

Pick any reasonable example of your liking. Also define what you mean by "orbit" is in reference to the circular motion of particles in LHC. @Bufofrog gave a correct answer above for celestial bodies in orbit and I do not know if that is what you mean here.

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

The same principle applies to planet-9, phenomenon

What is this alleged planet 9 phenomenon?

3 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

I am not sure you quite understand the principles for RR and DFA (etc.)

You've done a poor job of explaining this, so you are the person best suited for explaining this, since presumably you understand it.

A proton moves in a circle on earth, in the LHC. What are the RR and DFA forces on it?

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, swansont said:

I said this. I understand this. But the problem is that you are using "motion" in your description despite the fact that it's not a variable. That makes for a confusing explanation, since "motion" does not correspond to a variable. What does motion refer to? Is it velocity? Is it speed?

I have to say I really thought about the difference, - must be velocity

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Why assume? We have other probes. There's New Horizons. Voyager 1 and 2 are on different paths. Pioneer 10 and 11 are traveling in opposite directions - is one speeding up while the other slows down? No! They both experience an acceleration toward the sun. (and not south)

Yes RR is not limited towards a southern direction, there can be several directions at the same time which increase the absolute velocity.  Both (more or less) horizontal and vertical

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You haven't shown how to determine the frame of absolute rest.

Look above, there it is explained. If you travel towards a direction that reduces the absolute speed, time will go fast (not slower than expected). It requires a lot of time and very high speeds to map this precisely. Hence also expected that time will tick at the same rate at all seasons . Wonder if that could be tested somehow ??

2 hours ago, swansont said:

And I asked you what the experiment on the ISS is. It has a name, or some other designation. What is it? Can you provide a link?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

It doesn't drop out.

Right

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You can cancel it if there is a factor of r^2 elsewhere in the equation that allows this. It can be ignored if r is very large, but then all of the equation approaches zero. What you describe is invalid math.

I am only referring to an example where radio does not play a role (1 meter radius)

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You've asserted this, but not shown that your assertion is true. And it does not follow from a simple analysis. When a satellite is moving south, it will be moving faster, in an absolute sense, according to your conjecture. It should feel an acceleration to the north. When it's moving north, the opposite should happen. That will skew the orbit. The effects don't cancel, since they happen in different places along the orbit.

When traveling south, the absolute speed increases, and thus the RR increases, - the result will be deleration towards north, - if there is no counteracting force preventing such deceleration to happen.

Conversely, if you travel north, the absolute speed will deteriorate, thus less RR. Considered in isolation, this means increased acceleration towards the same direction (to the north)

But at the same time as this happens, the balance between RR and DFA changes, which then means that RR and DFA no longer balance each other.
Or you can say DFA is (more or less) exposed, and you will instead decelerate again south (if no counteracting force prevents that to happen.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

In any event, just waving your hands and saying they cancel is not a scientific analysis.

It solves a large number of great mysteries, and is at least something you have to keep in the back of your mind these days when new mysteries pile up, and where they can also be solved in the same fell swoop.  For eaample think of the comets  (Omyamua, Borisov) that "we" mistakenly belives come from other solar systems - and where a Harvard professor even claims must be sent by aliens. - So somethimes its maybe not so bad to have alternative theories.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What is this alleged planet 9 phenomenon?

Its illusionary idea that our have an undiscovered planet and even that our sun is a thief.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

A proton moves in a circle on earth, in the LHC. What are the RR and DFA forces on it?

Insignificant lower speed as expected that easy can be compensated by adding Insignificant more force to the system.

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

That is true. Your descriptions need to be more precise. (as @swansont said above)

Pick any reasonable example of your liking. Also define what you mean by "orbit" is in reference to the circular motion of particles in LHC. @Bufofrog gave a correct answer above for celestial bodies in orbit and I do not know if that is what you mean here.

I prefer that you give an example, but you must know and state how much energy you expect to need to keep an atom in orbit at nearly the speed c. Then I will for comparison calculate how much (little) comparable  importance RR has in the worst possible scenario.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Pioneer 10 and 11 are traveling in opposite directions - is one speeding up while the other slows down? No! They both experience an acceleration toward the sun. (and not south)

The planet Planet-9  "signature" reveals the solar system is affected by "sidewards" (horisontal)  absolute motion.  But certainly fare weaker as Dark Flow, and properly very weak. - if such motion is true  you also have a weak (horisontal)  force (similar to DFA) but weaker, - and hence more or less a similar "force-balancing scenario" as explained, above:

In other words, this force can be far weaker than the RR force responsible for the Pioneer probe's deceleration.

A marked acceleration such as those responsible for the flyby anomalies requires the probes to be under an astronomic object for a period, because during this period they are exposed to Release of Dark Flow related tension, as a result of the astronomic object is cancelling out the influence of DFA. Released of the full potentiel Dark Flow related tension often happens and  is very significant .

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

Has anyone been able to work out what the cause of these : - Spooky Alignment of Quasars Across Billions of Light-years

##### Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Has anyone been able to work out what the cause of these : - Spooky Alignment of Quasars Across Billions of Light-years

The explanation was in the articles that had the click bait title 'spooky alignment'.

##### Share on other sites

What's spooky about it anyway ?

It's spookyness certainly fails my ground pepper test.

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

×