swansont

I’ve done this with canvas sneakers, back in the day. Modern ones with leather? I ‘m not inclined to do that. Wipe them down if they need it

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

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

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." "Motion" and "motion increase" are not the same thing. I had assumed "s" was seconds, and the equation gave an acceleration Is that correct? Does the answer have to be any more complicated than that?

"six of whom largely supported Democrats and six of whom generally supported Republicans" So basically they would cancel out. And presidential candidates are not relying on the same donors, which was the implication of the previous assertion. ETA: and there's a big asterisk on the numbers "The $3.4 billion from the 12 biggest donors amounts to one in every $13 that all federal campaigns and outside groups raised over the past decade, the analysis shows. Roughly $1.4 billion of that came from the self-funding of the unsuccessful 2020 presidential campaigns of Bloomberg L.P. founder Michael Bloomberg and hedge fund manager Tom Steyer -- with Bloomberg alone dropping more than $1 billion of his own money into his historically expensive presidential bid." So 40% of the contributions were from self-funding of campaigns, and not anyone trying to influence elections because of support for Israel. And that's not the president. A local elected official in a town of 40,000 has no say in foreign policy (that election was for a parish sheriff in Louisiana). —- As to an earlier comment, if a US president were to withhold or restrict aid, would Israel listen to us? What would be the incentive to get to a result that we wanted? Like a cease-fire. Or beyond. Consider that other countries with different agendas, contrary to the US’s, might be willing to step in and replace it.

Alternately you could say that the US has treaties and agreements with them and the president is supposed to honor the letter and spirit of those agreements. https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-israel/#:~:text=The United States and Israel have signed multiple bilateral defense,of Forces Agreement (1994). Israel is the leading global recipient of Title 22 U.S. security assistance under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program. This has been formalized by a 10-year (2019-2028) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). ... The United States and Israel have signed multiple bilateral defense cooperation agreements, to include: a Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement (1952); a General Security of Information Agreement (1982); a Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (1991); and a Status of Forces Agreement (1994). One might note that all of these were in place prior to the current administration. Also "to many of the large donors that almost every POTUS has depended on to win. " suggests that these donors somehow contribute to the winner of the election most of the time. Any evidence that this is true?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What energy is allegedly fluctuating?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do we exist in a compact space?

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

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

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