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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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

Do you understand that velocity is a vector, i.e. it has a direction?

1 hour ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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

A vector can only have one direction.

1 hour ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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 ??

You've suggested before that this depends on the speed. Something in the LHC is traveling very close to c, and would have a bigger effect than one would experience on a space probe.

Without an equation, though, one can't quantify this to test it, which why an equation is needed.

1 hour ago, Bjarne-7 said:

ACES was originally supposed to fly in 2012; I remember a number of talks at conferences about PHARAO and a few other projects that got canceled

But it's not currently on the ISS; it's been rescheduled a number of times and now it's supposed to launch in 2025

1 hour ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Right

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

You need to be explicit in your examples.

1 hour ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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)

In which case this will skew the orbit, and also slow the orbit down in places, which will make it more elliptical.

Do we see this?

1 hour ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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.

This is one of the confusing bits, because you don't give us equations.

If these things balance there's no effect, so what's the point?

You need to clearly spell out what happens and under what conditions.

1 hour ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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.

It doesn't explain anything if it doesn't match up with what we observe. The pioneer accelerations are not in the direction you predict. That falsifies your premise.

1 hour ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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

If it's an illusion we can ignore it. Science is interested in real phenomena.

41 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

A phenomenon being unexplained does not mean your idea is right.

To be right it needs to match with observation, meaning the numbers need to match up, and to see this we need valid equations.

• Replies 131
• Created

Posted Images

4 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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.

Ok. Just show the mathematical equations and we'll insert numbers from publicly available CERN data.

(Note: "atom in orbit" is not related to my question as far as I can tell.)

Edited by Ghideon
spelling
Share on other sites

DFA and RR will always try to equalize each other, because everything is in the end of the day under DFA’s control.
Everything must follow Dark Flow. Any escape will be prevented.
If a galaxies inclination deviate just a little from horizontal,  - period of motion more or less opposite DFA, will reduce RR  (RDFRT)  however at the same time DFA will be corresponding exposed.
DFA will start to pull back any escape attempt.
Therefore stars will reach much more velocity than we is able to account for.
Furthermore sidewards RR will prevent starts to escape as well.
These process explains what Dark Matter is about, and solves in “one go” all galaxy and clusters kinematic challenges.

If a galaxy orbit is aligned with the DF Axis , stars will be a throwing ball between DFA/RR  and RDFTR, on that DF-axis.
This will force more and more mass into the centre of these galaxies, and  gradually these galaxies will collapse and because quasars.
This explain and solves the mystery : Spooky Alignment of Quasars Across Billions of Light-years.
If these quasars / galaxies is not changing inclination these are sentenced to death.

If a galaxy moved exactly at the horizontal Axis, -  DFA can not longer hold the galaxy together, the galaxy it self have not enough centripetal force, and as a result a galaxy can spilt  , and so called dwarf galaxy are “ejected” . as observed by Arp Halton.
Later when the inclination again is changing and DFA again get control, DFA and the remaining mother-galaxy will pull back escaping dwarf-galaxies.
This solves a third huge mystery. Mysterious dance of dwarfs may force a cosmic rethink here

As one very easy can see Dark Flow and RR is indispensable, so is the new modified theory of relativity.

11 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Ok. Just show the mathematical equations and we'll insert numbers from publicly available CERN data.

(Note: "atom in orbit" is not related to my question as far as I can tell.)

You already have it, I can calculated it for you, but you have to give me the data, and to be able to compare forces, you have to tell me how much force is need to keep the the atom in orbit. So please cooperate.

14 hours ago, swansont said:

Do you understand that velocity is a vector, i.e. it has a direction?

Yes

14 hours ago, swansont said:

A vector can only have one direction.

Right

14 hours ago, swansont said:

You've suggested before that this depends on the speed. Something in the LHC is traveling very close to c, and would have a bigger effect than one would experience on a space probe.

Without an equation, though, one can't quantify this to test it, which why an equation is needed.

14 hours ago, swansont said:

ACES was originally supposed to fly in 2012; I remember a number of talks at conferences about PHARAO and a few other projects that got canceled

But it's not currently on the ISS; it's been rescheduled a number of times and now it's supposed to launch in 2025

Bad news, but better late as never

14 hours ago, swansont said:

You need to be explicit in your examples.

I have reach the limit for my math skills, if you really think I can ask a mathematical to look at it. Again remember it's a new law of physic.

14 hours ago, swansont said:

In which case this will skew the orbit, and also slow the orbit down in places, which will make it more elliptical.

Do we see this?

As far as I know, we have not observed other orbit-anomalies yet, -  other than the planet-9 signature being strange.
There can be many forces involved.
Gravitational forces can be combined, forces due to RR and RRT cannot.
That is, combined gravitational forces can influence from a few directions, but RRT contributions occur from many directions.
In addition to this, Dark Flow also has a hand in the game.
Because there is also movement (more or less) in that direction.
We know so little, and must content ourselves with stating that until now we have had no tools whatsoever to solve this mystery.
The tools I suggest do not give immediate results.

When we do not know directions, these tools are not useful.
They are tools that first require relatively large testing investments.
The means are there but they are being misused because there is so much unyielding "superstition" in science which is really what prevents us from seeing clearly.

14 hours ago, swansont said:

It doesn't explain anything if it doesn't match up with what we observe. The pioneer accelerations are not in the direction you predict. That falsifies your premise.

No , you have misunderstood this, please read the start of this post, you can see that even though ýou have  RDFRT (or RRT) which in fact is acceleration opposite DF, -  you also have increased exposed DFA  with not will allow any escape attempt.
This principle is not limited to Dark Flow, its a universal principle between all gravitational forces and RR / RRT, - so acceleration is prevented, and hence the result in the end of the day most of the time deceleration.
Only when an orbit in under a atomic object (and DFA cancelled out)  you get significant  release of dark flow related tension,  with only is revealed in some trajectories, because it is nearly almost confused with centripetal force.

14 hours ago, swansont said:

If it's an illusion we can ignore it. Science is interested in real phenomena.

The planet-9 signature is real, its is a real mystery, the suggestion so fare I agree, this is nothing but hocus pocus.

14 hours ago, swansont said:

A phenomenon being unexplained does not mean your idea is right.

To be right it needs to match with observation, meaning the numbers need to match up, and to see this we need valid equations.

Of course, you will see many more anomalies in the time to come.
We have only discovered a few.
All planets have undetected inclinations anomalous (due to DFA).
We don't see them, and think the inclination of the planets is by the book. But we will surely become wiser.
In a large number of areas, a modification of the theory of relativity brings prediction.
Also that the solar system is probably full of comets that do not move in orbits, but up and down on the drak flow axis.
And much much more than that.
We will also see time dilation anomalies that cannot be explained in the future.
Time and time again, you will see that this new simple tool is incredibly effective.
What is needed is to test this modification. Indirectly, it is now (soon) happening onboard ISS.

Share on other sites

The great speed with which we (the solar system) move, as well as the galaxy, galaxy cluster, etc, is moving at  - is mostly due to Dark flow.
All motion can either decrease or increase the absolute speed of the Solar System.
Dark Flow is therefore primarily responsible for movement towards south, but at the same time Dark Flow is responsible for the high speeds we see in all the large orbits (galaxies and galaxy clusters).

Therefore, one must expect that both towards the direction of Dark Flow, but also towards the horizontal direction that the Planet-9 signature reveals, - both are directions that increase the absolute speed.

The force responsible for the Planet-9 signature is therefore probably not found at all in the direction of the absolute horizontal movement direction, but is ultimately also caused by DFA.

This means that the comets that draw the Planet-9 signature will This will force the objects closer to the sun, and on the backside further out in space, and eventually lead to collision with the sun.
This also means that there is only 1 horizontal direction in the solar system which, by virtue of RRT, will receive an acceleration contribution of unknown size.

The contribution must be considered to be significantly less than DFA, because otherwise we would have seen far more significant anomalies.

Any other horizontal direction, than that seen by the planet-9 signature, - (seen from an earth perspective), will properly also cause increasing absolute speed, and hence Relativistic Resistance against movement, to increase, -  and thus deceleration (RR).

We can test RR and RRT by measuring the passage of time in different seasons (and comparing results) if technically possible.

Or we can send probes out in horizontal directions to see if these either either receive accelerate or decelerating contributions, (or are affected neutrally which happens if the RR and RRT contribution is 50/50) - and we can determine if clocks on board the probes either winning or losing time.

Edited by Bjarne-7
Share on other sites

Are we living on an old moon?
Astronomers know that the vast majority of solar systems have planetary orbits that are far more eccentric than in our solar systems.
The Planet-9 signature shows us that when the absolute horizontal speed increases considerably, and thus the horizontal RR increases, then the orbits of the planets must also become far more eccentric, and ultimately collide with the Sun.

This means that many planets will, depending on the strength of the horizontal RR, fast or slow be forced to collision with their mother-star.  - It solves the WASP-18 Mystery, - (The planet that shouldn’t exist) .  here

When a large gas planet collides with the mother-star, some of its moons may survive by orbiting the star instead (witch the did all the time together with the mother-planet)

In other words, this means that Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars once very well were could have been moons that survived the demise of their mother planet.
It also solves the mystery of how water was brought to Earth.

The answer is that it was not water that was brought here to the "planet" - but the moons of a large gas planet that were brought down here.
The moon that we call Earth today was probably reminiscent of Jupiter's ice moon: Europa.
This is yet another example of how a simple modification of the reactivity theory ceaselessly solves every cosmic challenge.

Edited by Bjarne-7
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

I can calculated it for you, but you have to give me the data

If you can calculate it, there must be an equation.

What data is needed?

Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

but you have to give me the data, and to be able to compare forces, you have to tell me how much force is need to keep the the atom in orbit. So please cooperate.

The LHC primarily accelerates protons (and can also accelerate ions). The concept of "atom in orbit" does not apply to the operations and experiments conducted at the LHC at CERN so I do not know what you are asking.

Share on other sites

On 12/4/2023 at 1:55 PM, swansont said:

If you can calculate it, there must be an equation.

What data is needed?

What I like to have is:

speed

and very good if also you or Ghideon can calculate the required to keep an proton (as Ghideon correctly written) in circling the LHC orbit

Share on other sites

If a galaxy moves exactly at the horizontal Axis relative to DFA,

To the explanation above, I would like to add that:
A galaxy orbit that moves horizontally relative to the Dark Flow Axis will, (as mentioned above) , no longer be able to be held together because the galaxy loses the controlling and dominating force (DFA).

When such a galaxy simultaneously moves towards a Horizontal Absolute Motion Direction (HAMD) (at a relatively high speed), - then the galaxy will towards the HAMD be met with increased horizontal-RR , - and stars orbiting oppesite HAMD will accelerate due to release of HAMD related tension ( RRT)
That is, stars that move opposite the HAMD, - are also accelerated opposite the HAMD.
The galaxy itself has far too little gravity to be held together.
Which therefore means that part of a galaxy can escape and form a new galaxy some distance from the old one.
This new  (often dwarf) galaxies will later  (when the galaxy inclination is changing relative to DFA ) try again to unite with the mother galaxy, and therefore dwarf galaxies are often seen in a dance around their mother galaxy.

Edited by Bjarne-7
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bjarne-7 said:

What I like to have is:

speed

and very good if also you or Ghideon can calculate the required to keep an proton (as Ghideon correctly written) in circling the LHC orbit

What do you multiply together with the speed to get the result?

Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

What do you multiply together with the speed to get the result?

there are no deceleration, just a required force is necessary to maintain the already obtained speed. F = RM * f

RM = relativistic Mass

f  = relativistic factor

Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

there are no deceleration, just a required force is necessary to maintain the already obtained speed. F = RM * f

RM = relativistic Mass

f  = relativistic factor

You said you needed the speed.

Why won’t you just answer the question?

Share on other sites

Acceleration misconceptions.

Quote

Some studies have found that students commonly think that the direction of an object's acceleration will always be in the same direction as that object's velocity. Students may, for instance, struggle to grasp that a car coming to a stop at a red light will have an acceleration that is opposite in direction to its velocity.

Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You said you needed the speed.

Why won’t you just answer the question?

It seems like he is making it up as he goes along.

Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

there are no deceleration, just a required force is necessary to maintain the already obtained speed. F = RM * f

RM = relativistic Mass

f  = relativistic factor

You never gave me the orbit speed, now I found it for you, and calculated  the

factor =

RM = M x f

=

F = RM x f

As i wrote insignificant

Edited by Bjarne-7
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bjarne-7 said:

You never gave me the orbit speed, now I found it for you, and calculated  the

factor =

So f is gamma

1 hour ago, Bjarne-7 said:

RM = M x f

=

F = RM x f

As i wrote insignificant

You have a force equated to a mass, which can’t be correct.

But a = F/m, so if this is the case, you have a significant acceleration.

Basically your equation tells us that the acceleration is always 1 m/s^2 which is not consistent with observation.

This has all the appearance of throwing stuff at us and hoping something sticks

Share on other sites

13 hours ago, swansont said:

So f is gamma

Yes f = gamma

13 hours ago, swansont said:

You have a force equated to a mass, which can’t be correct.

But a = F/m, so if this is the case, you have a significant acceleration.

Yes, and as i said serveral times, as long the power of the LHC is ON, there will be no deceleration, because the for of the LHC will prevent that to happen.

13 hours ago, swansont said:

Basically your equation tells us that the acceleration is always 1 m/s^2 which is not consistent with observation.

No, basically the equation have to be understood as a factor showing the stretching both m and s (m/s) , in this case by factor 7062.
7062 m/s is the resistance factor during  (the first) 1 second og motion, and therefore only a "snapshot".
The "acceleration" is to my option not linear, - and therefore Acc = F/MA is only an approximation.
An equation showing the none-linear deceleration must properly be much more advances, - and can certainly be found..

The calculation of the resistance is correct , and can even show how fast it is possible for matter to travel.

1/sqrt(1-299792457.99999999833218^2/299792458^2) = Resistance Factor = 299792500.779925245065209740768742770854284 m/s  - Here you can see that the resistance factor is the same as the speed of light. The possibility to calculate that very exactly cant be so bad.

13 hours ago, swansont said:

This has all the appearance of throwing stuff at us and hoping something sticks

The prevailing understanding of the special theory of relativity is far too superficial.
It is built on how observers compare objective transformation effects and does not go into the subject of how a deeper underlying process is responsible, for example, how t is  stretching at high speeds.

Maybe its the whole world that was sticking to a theory that not was "completed"

Edited by Bjarne-7
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Yes f = gamma

Yes, and as i said serveral times, as long the power of the LHC is ON, there will be no deceleration, because the for of the LHC will prevent that to happen.

No, basically the equation have to be understood as a factor showing the stretching both m and s (m/s) , in this case by factor 7062.
7062 m/s is the resistance factor during  (the first) 1 second og motion, and therefore only a "snapshot".
The "acceleration" is to my option not linear, - and therefore Acc = F/MA is only an approximation.
An equation showing the none-linear deceleration must properly be much more advances, - and can certainly be found..

The calculation of the resistance is correct , and can even show how fast it is possible for matter to travel.

1/sqrt(1-299792457.99999999833218^2/299792458^2) = Resistance Factor = 299792500.779925245065209740768742770854284 m/s  - Here you can see that the resistance factor is the same as the speed of light. The possibility to calculate that very exactly cant be so bad.

The prevailing understanding of the special theory of relativity is far too superficial.
It is built on how observers compare objective transformation effects and does not go into the subject of how a deeper underlying process is responsible, for example, how t is  stretching at high speeds.

Maybe its the whole world that was sticking to a theory that not was "completed"

Edit

It is a fact that it requires more and more force / energy to be able to maintain a certain acceleration whose purpose is to achieve relativistic speeds.
It is also a fact that when the speed approaches c, resistance against speed increment  becomes (in the end of the day)  total (infinity)
I think all mathematicians will agree that this is only possible if a resistance factor follows f (gamma)  1 : 1.

There are no evidence  showing this mathematical fact  only "should be" true while accelerating.
It is not me who commits a crime against this logical fact, but on the contrary, it is the current theory of relativity that has disregarded this factum.

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

I am not sure if I explained good enought that: - if the resistance factory follows gamma 1 : 1 , (and the unit of the resistance factor = is m/s) , then it is possible to calculate the maximum possible speed matter can reach.

At the speed:
299792457.99999999833218000000000000000000 m/s

Resistance against motion will be:
299792500.779925245065209740768742770854284 m/s

Speed at light is :
299792458.00000000000000000000000000000000 m/s
Which mean the resistance and speed of light is (about) the same at the speed shown in the first line above (will not use more time on getting these 2 values to match 100%) but easy possible

The equation is:
Resistance Factor = 1/sqrt(1-299792457.99999999833218^2/299792458^2) = 299792500.779925245065209740768742770854284 m/s

Edited by Bjarne-7
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

It is a fact that it requires more and more force / energy to be able to maintain a certain acceleration whose purpose is to achieve relativistic speeds.

Not force. To keep up an acceleration, you need a constant force, not more and more force. 'Energy' is correct, to keep up the force, you need energy.

30 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

It is also a fact that when the speed approaches c, resistance against speed increment  becomes (in the end of the day)  total (infinity)

Not for the rocket that is accelerating. As long as the rocket has energy to keep the force doing work, it can accelerate. There is no resistance. But for a 'left behind observer', she sees that the speed of the rocket approaches c, but never reaches c. She will also see that the acceleration becomes less and less. But the momentum steadily increases, as long as the force is doing its work.

Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Not force. To keep up an acceleration, you need a constant force, not more and more force. 'Energy' is correct, to keep up the force, you need energy.

So you recognize that you need more and more energy to be able to maintain a certain rate of acceleration?
You probably also recognize that energy (which is used for propulsion) is converted to Force, and that it is therefore ultimately Force that provides momentum. ?

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Not for the rocket that is accelerating. As long as the rocket has energy to keep the force doing work, it can accelerate. There is no resistance.

How do you explain that you have to use more and more Energy to maintain a certain acceleration and at the same time that there is no resistance to this acceleration? - It is a mathematical contradiction. Certainly not something Porsche or Ferrari would agree to.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

But for a 'left behind observer', she sees that the speed of the rocket approaches c, but never reaches c. She will also see that the acceleration becomes less and less. But the momentum steadily increases, as long as the force is doing its work.

This is mathematically irrelevant... When one does not take into account that the meter ruler, mathematically speaking, must be a relativist variable, - then what the other observer allegedly "sees" is also wrong.

Edited by Bjarne-7
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

So you recognize that you need more and more energy to be able to maintain a certain rate of acceleration?

Of course Ekin = ½mv2. The higher the velocity, the more energy you need. That is even in Newtonian mechanics the case.

38 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

How do you explain that you have to use more and more Energy to maintain a certain acceleration and at the same time that there is no resistance to this acceleration? - It is a mathematical contradiction.

Nope. The Lorentz transformations are like a rotation, they change our perspective.

Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Nope. The Lorentz transformations are like a rotation, they change our perspective.

Perception is not the same as (trying to) understand the deeper process that is responsible for the passage of time changing. - And that doesn't explain my question either: How do you explain that you have to use more and more Energy to maintain a certain acceleration and at the same time that there is no resistance to this acceleration? - It is a mathematical contradiction.

Share on other sites

Edited by Bjarne-7
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Perception is not the same as (trying to) understand the deeper process that is responsible for the passage of time changing. - And that doesn't explain my question either: How do you explain that you have to use more and more Energy to maintain a certain acceleration and at the same time that there is no resistance to this acceleration? - It is a mathematical contradiction.

The answer to a person's difficulties in understaning existing names for natural processes is not by introducing fresh imaginary extra processes with fancy names but by putting in the effort to properly understand the ones we already work with.

Once that has been done and there is still a phenomenon that cannot be explained is the time to introduce new ones.

Now one thing about forces, and I don't see any evidence that you understand what is meant by a force, is that all known forces except one, can be shielded against.

How would your proposals work in the case of shielding or not ?

Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

How would your proposals work in the case of shielding or not ?

Try to elaborate on what you mean?