Bjarne-7

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

Correct, they can't possibly do that Right, the problems is not limited to Bob and Alice. Bob and Alice cannot agree about any speed or any distance anywhere in the universe or even at planet Earth, - except in their own gravitational environment. You have good reason to be confused. Remember that the "problem" is not limited to the speed of light. No matter how Bob and Alice tries to relate to distances or speeds in other gravitational environments, they encounter the same problem over and over again. They pretty much always disagree about speeds and distances everywhere in the universe. Imagine that Bob and Alice have measured the orbital period of Saturn's orbit. Bob will naturally say that the orbit-time he has measured is a split second shorter than what Alice has measured. Bob must of course then conclude that this means that the orbit must be shorter than what Alice can conclude, - t * v = d Einstein would probably answer that Bob and Alice must both be right, but it seems that Einstein forgot to tell why? No one will properly dispute that the distance being "d" must be firmly anchored. We know that Bob and Alice define "t" differently, and hence also necessarily must define "v" differently. "v" consists of: - meters "m" per second "s". The only remaining parameter left to "manipulate" is therefore "m" - (the ruler). We need to deal with this rationally, logically and mathematically. And must conclude that different perception of "deformable distances" can not only be due to variation of "t", - but also must include "m", (the ruler) which then must be considered as a proportional relativist variant. This is the only mathematical possibility which can allow Bob and Alice to explain that they measure distances differently. It means when time in a gravitational environment stretches, there is a proportional corresponding stretch of the ruler too. In other words, Bob and Alice rulers are absolutely the same length when they come from the factory. But when Bob and Alice bring them to different gravitational environments, the rulers are changing size (stretching) proportionally with the change / stretch of time. Only this solution can justify the claim that both Bob and Alice are right. The alternative is that nobody is right.. maybe only except for Peter who lives infinitely far away in a environment completely without any gravitation, which means far far far far away.

Correct Correct We cannot conclude that Bob is doing something "wrong", but only that Bob does not agree with Alice, because Bob has measured the travel time for the same photon to be shorter than Alice. Both Alice and Bob measure an event taking place in outer space. - Neither of them is part of the event apart from the fact that they both measure the arrival of the same photon to Earth. But Bob and Alice get 2 different results. (Bob measures the photons journey to take 41 seconds less than the time Alice has measured. ) - This must mean that either c must be a variant and/or Bob and Alice ruler must be a variant. Which of these 2 factors is changing in a gravitational field?

A photon sent from the same source, - 14 billion years earlier, - by the same path, can signal Bob and Alice to start timing when this first photon is received. PS. I am not allowed to post more that 5 post today, so I have to take a brake In the meantime, consider that , we can also imagine that the photon is simply trapped in a skyscraper and reflected between Alice and Bob, endlessly up and down for 14 billion years. The problem is the same. Bob and Alice cannot agree on how far the photon has traveled in 14 billion years. It will not make sense to claim that there is a 41 second difference between Alice's and Bob's perception of simultaneity.

We now assume there is only 1 photon, it is less confusing. The photon can only be emitted at the same moment. Alice and Bob can easily agree to start their timing at the same moment.

Alice will reflect photon-2 , - 90 degree to Bob The path that the two photons travel is exactly the same (except the last 1000 meter) . The time measured is different, - this is a fact, - thus either c, - distance, - cannot be t the same for both Alice and Bob. Or the ruler must be a variant. It is assumed that both photons follow the same route all the way to Alice. In principle, we could imagine that there is only 1 photon, and that Alice measures the travel time it took that one photon, - at the exact moment when she reflects this one photon further on to Bob. On the one hand Alice will measure the travel time to be 1/300,000 of a second longer for the Photon to reach Bob. However, on the other hand Bob can confirm that the journey took 41 seconds less than the time Alice has measured. So the consequence must be that Bob and Alice will never be able to agree, unless either: - the travel distance , - or c, - must be perceived differently by Alice and Bob

It's a thought experiment. Photons can theoretically be fired from the same "cannon", in the exact same direction and with an insignificant split-second interval. I assume that the speed of light does not change because the 2 photons travel the same path. I also don't expect the distance to change, again because the 2 photons travel by the same path. The only rational / logical question that remains is therefore, is it possible that rulers may be relativistic variants?

A thought experiment Let's say that the Earth is 14 billion years old today and that 2 photons from a light source 14 billion light years from us sent 2 photons towards the Earth 14 billion years ago. (4.41504e17seconds) Both photons followed exactly the same path. Allice received both of these photons today. – She reflected the one photons to Bob. Alice lives on top of a skyscraper which is 1000 meters high. Bob lives on the first floor. Bob's clock loses 1e-15 seconds every second compared to Alice's clock. Alice agrees with the theory of relativity that the speed of light is 3e8 m/s and she also agrees that the distance that the photon she received has travelled excatly: 14 billion light years. But Bob disagrees with Alice, - well it took the photon 1/300,000 second longer to reach him at 1st floor, because - (after Alice reflected one of the photon to him) - the photon had to travel an extra 1000 meter . The problem is that Bob's watch shows that the photon has travelled 441 seconds less than the time Alice has measured. (4.41504e17seconds x loss of time factor 1e-15) Now who is right Alice, who 100% agrees with the theory of relativity? Or Bob? If Bob is right, then either the distance to the source that emitted the photon must be 132300000 km shorter than the distance that Alice has agree about, - OR - the speed of light must be faster than c, at least for Bob . or what ?