Bjarne

Yes this is also true But first at all I think Niels Bohr would have say, that this is a different experiment. We can't be sure whether we must expect the same result (resistance against motion). I mean the magnetic field has taken over the control of a moving particle by replaces the particles normally interaction environment with a strong magnetic field. ( we know a little about what a magnetic field really is, so it can be difficult to predict any certain result, according to this question). Still the mass of the particles are increasing, - but the environment is no longer the same. If this not should be important, the orientation of the LHC orbit must be, - The LHC must point more or less towards for example the primary RR direction (constellation Vela / Centaurs) . If the orientation not is 100% aligned, the anomaly must be proportional weaker too. The next to consider is that even though our absolute speed is let's say 300km/s , - RR always starts from zero, in each new reference frame. This mean motion towards the absolute motion direction is not causing lager RR as we expect from a local perspective, but only the exact RR as we expect (during acceleration). This is because the absolute motion speed we already are moving at, already affect us, - (in a very strange way). Speed is changing our reality (time and distance.) So motion towards the absolute motion direction will not cause unexpected larger RR, - seen from a local perspective, - simple because the influences is already transformed to "reality change" . So we shall only expect resistances according to the Lorentz transformation when moving towards the absolute motion direction. I know this is very confused, but this is how SR works. The anomaly will rather be that there are no resistances towards the opposite direction of the constellation Vela / Centaurus. RR will first apply when the absolute motion speed 300 km/s (that already affects us) has been cancel out. At 300km/s the full influence of the possible anomaly can be calculated to 5×10-7m/s² But since the orbit diameter of the LHC is 30 times less the influence can max be 1,66 -7m/s² per ½ orbit. That value will increase much more when approaching c. But the particles will anyway not accelerate faster as the LHC allow it to, it will reach the same speed towards the opposite direction, until they hit the RR "wall" in that direction too. So particles will actual accelerate a tiny bit faster when moving opposite the Vela / Centaurus direction IF the LHC is aligned with the Vela / Centaurus constellation. But as mentioned, maybe the strong LHC magnetic field of the LHC can completely outplay all other influences of the particle, whereby the absolute motion direction in this case not affect it at all. What do you mean by this ? The particles in the LHC are traveling at speeds of 0.999999991 of the speed of light, making their apparent mass 7000 times as large as if they were static. http://www.oxfordspa.../animations/lhc

This is true. But we know it requires ever more energy to reach a diminishing speed increment. We do know that an object's speed increment causes energy and therefore also mass increment. Due to mass increment, the curvature of space near a moving object also increases. The question is therefore, - does space resists deformation (e.g. the release of tension of space results in a gravitational wave, ) ?. If so speed related space deformation = resistance. So we have good reason to believe there are "relativistic resistance" against motion - also even but we have certainly not understood it true nature of it. Resistance is normally = deceleration. If you cycle against strong wind you'll decelerate so soon you being to relax. The nature of relativistic resistance is maybe not more strange like that. We believe resistance only apply by acceleration. But there are no scientific evidence for Newtons first law. This law is only based on medieval observations. We should be more carefully to accept this as certain knowledge. So the Lorentz transformation could very well also be an expression of the tension increase of space that a fast-moving object exerts. When the force (causing the speed of an object) stops, speed-related tension on space is automatically released, so the Lorentz transformation factor is also a deceleration factor. Hence relativistic resistance must be a reversible process, and the Lorentz equation reflects the magnitude of resistance against motion and the magnitude of deceleration at the same time Since the deceleration can't be linear the result only shows what happens the first second. True. I have not proved this yet. But I have predicted what more we shall expect. There are many broad hints, that easy all can point to that that all objects can be affected by relativistic resistances. For example. As mentioned, many believe the orbit of the Earth is understood, - but the ice ages mysteries clearly shows this is not the case. Something seems to be missing.

Update Seen from a local perspective, it looks like galaxies are moving away from the barycenter but the truth (seen from an absolute perspective) is that galaxies always move inwards and always descend - sometimes fast, sometimes slowly. It is ADG of the Universe that causes stars to descend towards the barycenter of the Universe. However, the gravity of clusters and galaxies (only based on visible matter) is enough to curve the inwards path of these systems. This is why all systems are "circling" towards the barycenter of the Universe in big circles (clusters) and small circles (galaxies). Dark Flow, Absolute Motion and Relativistic Resistance Principle 1 As long as there is no motion away from the barycenter of the Universe, ADG of the universe and Relativistic Resistance (RR) counteract each other. These forces counteract each other as soon as the maximum speeds possible (due to ADG of the Universe) have been reached. Principle 2 The magnitude of RR (seen from an absolute motion frame) always depends on true speed relative to the barycentre of the Universe. When the dark flow is 300 km/s (relative to the barycentre) and a galaxy moves in the opposite direction at 200 km/s, the true, absolute speed (dark flow) is reduced to 100 km/s and RR is reduced to only = 5,6 ×10-8m/s. This means that speed is reduced to a 1/3 compared to the dark flow, but RR is now 9 times less. Principle 3 RR is a reversible process. This means that if no force pushes an object towards an absolute motion direction, the object will decelerate. The deceleration can be calculated using the Lorenz equation as shown. Principle 4 Due to ADG of the Universe, motion of a body towards the opposite direction of the dark flow will still cause the object to accelerate towards the barycenter of the Universe. Principle 5 When RR and ADG counteract each other (according to principle 1), an object is prevented from decelerating and it doesn't require any energy to maintain stable speed, only a stable force. This explains why particles moving with a stable speed do not consume more energy than expected during LHC experiments. The magnetic field that maintains the orbit is the same force that prevents deceleration due to RR without any loss or consumption of energy. Principle 6 Acceleration of an object moving away from the barycenter of the Universe can fully or partly counteract ADG of the Universe, whereby such objects also must accelerate according to principle 3. The opposite equalizing acceleration which is already happening is therefore increasing the opposite acceleration. Principle 7 Seen from a local perspective, additional motion towards an absolute motion direction is equally affected by RR, regardless of the absolute speed of the astronomic object. In any case, RR can be calculated based on the Lorentz equation. Even though the Earth is in fact traveling 300 km/s due to ADG of the Universe, this already affects the reality that the Earth is part of. This means that time and distances in the reference frame of the Earth are not the same as time and distances in an absolute reference frame (observer at rest). Therefore, absolute motion speed can only be calculated correctly by an "absolute observer", not by a "local observer". Deceleration also happens regardless of the maximum deceleration possible and can also be calculated based on the Lorenz Equation. In short: everything follows the Lorentz equation and is therefore "parallel realities", and all reference frames are unique and always the "same" for all observers. Note Even though everything moves towards the primary absolute motion direction (the dark flow direction), angular secondary motion relative to the primary flow direction is also absolute motion and so is motion opposite the primary dark flow; it simply requires speed faster than the dark flow. Furthermore, note that our Sun moves 300km/s relative to the background radiation but dark flows are mainly understood as a much faster motion. This theory shows us the reason for this difference: gravity was extreme sometime in the past. The Allais Effect (Pendulum Anomaly by Eclipse). Several different possible scenarios cause the Allais Effect. Common for both are: As soon as the Moon, Earth and Sun start being aligned by each eclipse, the Earth will suddenly accelerate. The acceleration due to the Moon being aligned can be calculated to be about 3.2×10-5m/s². The first scenario is as follows: The strong and sudden acceleration of the Earth (by an eclipse) is more or less directed opposite the dark flow. The sudden acceleration of the Earth (by an ellipse) is stronger than the ADG of the Universe, so the sudden acceleration of the Earth can cancel out the influence of ADG of the Universe; as long as acceleration of the Earth happens more or less opposite the ADG direction of the Universe (Dark Flow). As soon as ADG of the Universe (temporary) is equalized by acceleration towards the opposite direction, 'accumulated' RR will be released whereby the Earth will also accelerate opposite the dark flow direction. This is due to principle 3. Because the pendulum accelerates oppositely during half of its swing, it simply doesn't share the sudden acceleration of the Earth (principle 3) and the pendulum will be disturbed. The second scenario is as follows: The periods when the Solar System accelerates opposite the dark flow direction (due to ADG of the galaxy), acceleration will increase even more than expected according to the prevailing understanding. This is also due to principle 3. But during that period of the year when the Earth moves opposite the motion of the Solar System, the Earth will cancel out the cause of the archived, increased acceleration, simply by accelerating opposite the Solar System. However, since the pendulum does not share the same, sudden acceleration of the Earth and therefore also does not cancel out the acceleration gained like the Earth does, the Pendulum will be disturbed. These were the two acceleration-scenarios relative to the primary absolute motion direction (dark flow), but there are 2 similar acceleration scenarios relative to local frames. These are illustrated in the image to the right. The cause of the eclipse anomalies is a combination of all of these. Therefore, we are to expect that we'll be able to detect pendulum and gravitational anomalies many different places on Earth simultaneously during an ellipse. This statement is consistent with the Bogota Columbia measurement. It has been - and still is - difficult for the scientific community to accept that the Alias Effect is a true mystery [10], but if we remember that such an effect is a simple and inevitable consequence of a 300 year old misunderstanding of and important aspect of nature (Newton's first law), it's wise to think twice whether this anomaly is in reality a broad hint like so many other broad hints also pointing to the same conclusion. Research in this area on a much larger scale is certainly highly recommended. Note The Lorentz Equation (already mentioned in the introduction) can easily be adapted and already proves mathematically any aspect of the theory. This theory is consistent with both observation and mathematics. The real and easiest challenge is to prove the claimed perigee, apogee anomaly of the Moon (cf. the introduction). This is certainly a way to crack the dark matter mystery. Do we live in a Big Crunch ? I have started a separated thread regarding this quotation http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69053-is-the-universe-really-expanding

Source http://www.cosmosmag...d-edge-universe Furthermore Source http://www.dailygala...es-spotted.html And this is exactly what we shall expect, when gravity once went mad, and since then (13,7 billion years ago) was decreasing + when the Universe already now is collapsing

On the one hand, acceleration towards any peripheral absolute motion direction will always "hit the RR wall", but on the other hand, it will also always be accompanied with the fact that opposite motion is always resistance free - but only for a while - until motion towards the opposite direction also becomes absolute. A consequence of this theory is that right now a Big Crunch is taking place. We cannot observe it directly, because the Universe is too big. The images above illustrate dynamic of clusters. Half of the orbit period, galaxies are pulled towards the centre of the Universe (illustrated by the red down arrow), it happens due to acceleration of gravity of the Universe. During this process Relativistic Resistance Against Motion (RR), prevent continual acceleration so soon a certain speed has been reached. For example, if orbit speed of a cluster is 300km/s and directed towards the centre of the Universe, RR can be calculated to 5×10-7m/s². This indirectly shows that that acceleration due to gravity of the Universe must be the same magnitude. Even at such large (constant) speed, acceleration due to gravity of the clusters is more than strong enough to curve the path of galaxies, and force galaxies to orbit the cluster (only based on visible matter). The motion of galaxies, towards the opposite direction (away from the centre of the Universe) causes galaxies to decelerate, also due to acceleration due to gravity of the Universe. The result is that galaxies "circles" inwards, - towards the centre of the Universe, (as shown by the illustration). The prevailing theory claims that cosmological redshift almost is "evidence" for an expanding Universe. But this statement has never past the Scientific Method, whereby a large basic part of our picture of the Universe is based on speculation. This theory claims that the cause of redshifted starlight is that Big Crunch regular happens, and causes gravity to go mad. Redshifted starlight must therefore instead be understood as gravitational redshift, - because of a collapse of a previous Universe, must have been accompanied by extreme gravity (deformed space). A Collapsing universe and hence extreme gravity, - is the cause of Big Bang, and these too also happen regular. This means still today gravity (deformed space) is released from everywhere, - meaning that the dark energy is nothing but a universal gravitational wave from any direction. Simultaneously with release of deformed space, a new Big Crunch is going on, - right now. Which mean if this theory is true, - large parts of the prevailing paradigm must be wrong. More about this part here http://www.sciencefo...ally-expanding/

Where are the evidence ? I cannot prove Oxygen is blue , and I also don't believe it is ? You will have a hard time to convince me, if you would try.

Right But this is what I am doubting. And I believe I have good reason 1. We don't know anything about what happens in to process. 2. Current astronomy is based on a long tradition of observation, and these has in centuries agreed with the math. First recently we have discovered more and more doesn't agree. Every stone must be turned to find where the camel is buried. This is the impression easy to get, especially when suggestion new thought. I am not quite sure whether you have got the point. The "lost" of kinetic energy doesn't happen on small scale, but always on larger one. Earth <<<<<<<< Sun >>>>>>>>>>> Earth >> Absolute motion direction. -1 µ/s ...............-2µ/s.....................-3µ/s The simple illustration above shows, that both the Sun, and the Earth, (doesn't matter whether the Earth moves towards or away from the absolute motion direction). - both the Sun and the Earth always decelerate. Half of he time the deceleration of the Earth is lager than the deceleration of the Sun Sun's , and half of the time less. Form a local perspective it will look like, the Earth is sometime deceleration towards the Sun and sometimes accelerating away from the Sun. But from a global perspective it is all deceleration. So the"lost" KE happens at the galactic level . This is why this is the place we have to look for strange energy emission, - and as the provided link from the previous post shows, there are enough of such to chose between. . Furthermore it is a mystery why matter keeps falling into the black holes of galaxies, - it "should" not http://translate.goo...06/27105328.htm ( Google translate it) It is also a mystery why galactic arms never closes, they "should" after 1 billion years. And as mention, it clearly seems that galaxies can spilt apart, so called dark matter "should" prevent that to happen. Add to that the mystery according to that dark matter not behave as expected in dwarf galaxies, and a lot more.

Well, the energy balance must always be there. You was asking before where the energy will go when a body decelerate, (due to RR). Sooner or later we must solve where this energy originate . http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/07/25/157286520/cosmic-rays-100-years-of-mystery http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=galaxies-mysterious-magne http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/science/space/10galaxy.html So don't believe when somebody tries to tells we know everything about energy processes or energy balance Maybe we have first begun to understand it...

What I am saying is any motion (speed) is comprehended by SR Right, we have medieval observations that tells us that nothing is wrong with the orbits of planets, moons etc. But we also have observations that point to the opposite conclusion, Plenty of it ( Sedna, spacecraft anomalies, Dark flow, galaxies, clusters, and as mention even the Earth's orbit could have such anomaly too, - if we shall have a change fully to understand Ice ages. I am not saying that the Lorentz equation is wrong, and also not that that there are any extra drag. I agree about the amount of mass increase speed is causing, as well as the KE increase and E required.. The point is only that when no force affects an object in motion, - speed related space-time transformations is a reversible process. So long the particles are forced to move with huge speed, in relative small orbits, - a strong magnetic field is required,- the same magnetic field prevent the reversible process to take place, whereby the kinetic energy of the particles (already achieved) are maintained, - and the reversible process prevented, - without that new energy convert is required. So the LHC is not the right environment to test this theory, - and the theory is not dis-proven by that either. As I wrote I believe that in the end of the day, we have to get it down to understanding of astronomic orbit dynamics, - only. Its a large calculation work ahead, - this is to my opinion the only way out of the darkness.

No Distances between object would increase based on a expanding model, which is a pretty simple model. A gravitational based (GR) model, is quite different. The expanding model Have the the problem that we cannot measure local expansions. Such doesn't exist, - they should, - ( the problem is "solved" by adding one more add hoc explanation" to the paradigm) A GR Model When we assume that the expanding concept is wrong, and that gravity in the past was extreme, and since decreasing, time today must ticks faster as yesterday. A Big Crunch or Gravity release, or both simultaneously, - are all difference sides of the same count. These phenomena's are changing all kind of distances, rulers, and speed proportional with change of time. This is the only possible interpretation,- of a universal GR based model. So that too have a small "add hoc" - but not a contradictory one as the expanding model have, - and therefore must more acceptable. Globally there are huge differences , release of stretching space - and hence space-time change, - due to gravity release. - But the effect looks almost the same as a expanding model. It make no sense to go further into such discussion, this is my opinion, and my private conclusion. I am sure that I cannot convenience anybody, and I even will not try to. - But only answering the question. ' The evidences we have can be read in 2 different way, and will probably never get better.

The universe is a huge field of gravity Space time depend on the matter distribution here, accurate as it does anywhere else. Call it back ground space time, if you prefer.

He didn't saw that. And exactly this math allows a Big Crunch, when that what Hubble not saw dosen't exist, Irrelevant No it shows that either it must expand or it must collapse. Both point of view must be proven to be accepted. So why not keep it cool ? This was probably his biggest mistake You don't know whether it is expanding at ll. As i said for me there is no doubt, Big Bang can happen as I wrote. I agree you have no evidence Fine

Let's see. What do you mean? I cannot imagine speed without SR I know this is the official point of view, and this is exactly what I am doubting. So long we have no knowledge at all, - how innocent motion through space can curve space (in and around the mass in motion) , - increase mass, and even change time, - we in fact have a lot more to learn about that issue. It seems to me that space it self is involved of resisting motion, and that is the "dynamo" for the hole (strange) process.. The most obvious way to find out, is to detect whether the Moon has the predicted perigee/apogee anomaly or not. Until then it is my words against others. As I see it, - the point of view you are sharing can only be obtained due to observation, right ? So is that not what it at the end of the day comes down to ?

What are you talking about ? It is not a scientific fact that space is expanding at all. Oxygen is not bly because the sky is blue, except when someone shows the evidence. Oh no, light moving out of gravitation field is known to 'become' redshift. Really ? I always thought it was space it self that was expanding, and not a force acting on matter. As I just wrote, why do you want to involve a force. Space itself I believe don't care about it. I have just taken 3 pieces of certain knowledge from the text-book and put these together step by step... This is not a new theory, but only holistic step by step thinking. 1.) A stone will fall down on the Earth if nothing will push it up. I believe the majority will agree that something similar apply for the Universe, when the speculative repulsive property only is science fiction and therefore not exist. 2.) During a Big Crunch , - I also believe the majority would agree, that gravity (change of space-time) sooner or later will go mad. 3.) Left is only to ask, would that explode, - when matter density become extreme. As I said 3 pieces of a puzzle. No evidence is necessary, nothing is speculation except that such cocktail most likely would blow up. Really ? It is irrelevant. Isaac Newton's colleagues was asked the same question 10.000 times every day. - Since Newton could not answer he must be wrong. This is why he didn't try to publish his finding for years. I could tell you what I believe, but you would only accuse me for being a crank , and a Idiot, so why should I ? I believe Einstein already have answered that question. Properly because nobody have succeeded to quantize space. Is still have nothing with me to do, but only that that idea is speculation. No, I only believe that what goes op must come down, except if something prevent it to. And so will the speculative idea that space is expanding.

Right. But in this context (SR) it require energy to move from one space time reality to a different. The exact same could be the case for GR, even though we also here have no knowledge how matter and space interacts. - We only are aware of the result. The theory of general relativity has shown that classic Newtonian physic not was sufficient. Nothing prevent that a similar acknowledgement can happen again. A lot what we believed was certain knowledge, or certain law of nature, are now doubted to be true or exact, also by serious scientist, in the attempt to try to understand for example the nature of so called dark matter. I see no reason why Newtons first law shall be an exception.

Let's say that matter distribution of the Universe was limit, - and that a Big Crunch was going on. Now we will speed up the process, and therefore tomorrow morning distances between clusters would be much shorter. This would change space time here too, with any doubt. Let's say time was now ticking only half so fast today compared to yesterday, due to larger background gravity (different space-time). Would we discover anything was different, except that clusters was closer, and time ticking slower ? Well the train trip between Barcelona and Valencia took 3 hour yesterday, - would it take 6 hour today ? The distance between Barcelona and Valencia was 300 km yesterday, - therefore yesterday the average speed of the train was 100 km/h Would the average speed today only be 50km/h ? Or would the distance + the ruler + everything else, - have stretched proportional with time- stretch, - and therefore everything looks the same as yesterday, but not be comparable the same? Which mean the trip still would take 3 hours, - but "3 stretched hours" (= 6 comparable hours) ? Or what ? I am afraid decreasing background gravity give you the same result.

Right I think we all agree to that. But unless we know why, - how can we understand anything about the process ?. I know you would properly say it happens because of "reality transformation" or "space time transformation" or you would prefer a different way to express it. But again I have to ask, what is happening in that process? How can the simple fact that something moves, - transform our reality, - transform space it self, - transform distances, - transform time ? I guess you will say, - we don't know. - This is fair enough an answer. BUT We agree it require energy to transform one space time relativity to different one, in that particular case. We also both agree that the required energy is conserved, as mass, - which is part of the new reality. We properly also agree that space / deformation of space it is involved, due to the increased mass. And we also agree that speed is the crankshaft in this process. Now Is that process resistance free ? Its the process automatically reversible ? Space-time is deformed / affected by speed. The influence on space (curvature of space) inside and around the fast moving mass is affected since mass is increasing. Is it resistance free to curve space ? If it was would a gravitational wave then "move" anywhere ? It is not my idea, but I think we all have heard that space must have some kind of elastic property. The whole expanding idea is about that property, and gravity is too, - I believe it will be very differcult to deny that. For example take a look at this image, - it is often used to illustrate the property of space / gravity Never say say never, especially when we never can know..

If you could tell me, in a way that also my grandmother could understand it, - why it require more and more energy to reach a diminish speed increment, I would consider to believe you. And by the way why doesn't it seems to affect the Earth.

Many have the right to say exactly the same, about the speculative idea that cosmological redhift = expansion, - and many does. I believe that there are increasing resistance against that paradigm. Many have the right even to be very angry, because speculation in several cases has taken over the scientific method. Here is for example such person I fully agree with him. Without people like him we could all very easy end up in fantasy land. It is only good that some still can keep it cool, - also even though it can be difficult not to be angry. The pieces I am putting together, - is not a theory, and also not "my theory" It is rather only consequences, that automatically follows, when the speculation , - that redshift = expansion is wrong. In exactly that moment you deny to accept the speculative basic of the idea, - the universe is automatically changing, - to a completely different one. I think many have almost forgot that simple fact.. It have nothing to do with what I believe or what my assertions are, - but only a question, - how would the Universe look like when there are no repulsive force.. We are so single tracked spellbound on that idea is true, - that other possibilities almost not exist. If nothing prevent a stone from falling down, it must fall down., - doesn't matter what I belove or claim. The possibility exist that "we" are wrong. Don't underestimate that.

It would be good to know, but this is not decisive in this context. When distances between clusters is changing, that too would change space-time If I did I would invent new properties and mysteries. I am not going to do that. Such doesn't seem to be necessary. I do not need to prove that the Universe not is expanding, simply because it is never proven that it does. Because there is no evidence that the Universe really expands it simply must collapse. Exactly this is what most likely must happen, and is good supported by mathematics and by knowledge about gravity. So a collapsing Universe right now, is just a naturally consequence, of not accepting that any repulsive force / energy exist, and therefore not a new theory either. But only a statement based on simple logical consequences and existing knowledge. This is as simple as claiming that if there is no force or energy that prevents a stone from falling down on the Earth, then the stone must fall down on the Earth. The next logical point is; What do you expect would happen when all mass of the Universe would gather together? I mean it is difficult (for me at least) to imaging that such Universe not (sooner or later) would explode, due to its extreme density, - wouldn't it be the same to you ?. The main problem is that the expanding space concept is not necessary. Space / gravity already have a build in "stretching property" – think about the stretching rubber sheet from the science lab. If we take this property literally, it must mean that the property of the expanding space concept , must be on collision course, - with the already existing stretching property of space (GR). The possibility exist that not only time, but everything else, also the ruler is stretching proportional with time, due to different gravity magnitude. The problem is that there are no direct way to confirm or disprove it.. Anyway we should be carefully not to invent a property of space, that already exist, - that already is occupied by gravity. Don't be so sure. As I wrote you cannot test how distances are affected (or not affected) due to strong gravity, because how would you compare. Either the ruler is by you or it is a different place. I am saying that a collapse of the Universe and release of gravity (so called dark energy)must happens simultaneously. But the consequences of gravity release from a previous Universe is overshadowing that a Big Crunch happens almost all the time. The influence of gravity release is simply stronger, than the opposite process. Think about that when 1 second today is double so fast as one from yesterday, what would happen when you would receive a photon created yesterday. You would say, this photon must have lost half of its energy But what really had happen is that you today live in a faster ticking reality. Your reality have become blueshift, it is not the photon that have become redshift. This would be a consequence, if it is true that gravity in the past was extreme.

Right, but this part is not fully understood. The sort answer is; that the Centripetal force is "the energy sourse" you ask for, - and still the energy goes temporary to Mass. Let me explain in details. It require more and more energy to reach a diminish speed increment. I don't think this process is fully understood, - only a mathematically fact, so long without true or deep understanding. This theory proclaim that the cause of Relativistic Resistance (RR) is due to, - the space/matter connection. What I mean is; - that we know that matter affects space (curves space). Matter and space is therefore somehow "woven together" / interact which each other. It is the increase of mass (due to speed) and hence the increase of gravity, and hence the increase of matter/space interaction, - I believe we have to blame for the (relativistic resistance), - but only in these cases where matter really moves through space. As I wrote earlier, we are then speaking about, - true motion, - thorough space. This is why I use the expression "absolute motion" . I think you already have understood - but I repeat it just t be sure. Notice , - Absolute motion is not the same as absolute speed. - I agree absolute speed is not possible. All systems, Clusters of galaxies, galaxies, stars, planets and moons are all the time affected by Relativistic Resistance again true absolute motion (RR). Let's now start with the largest system and move downwards. Galaxies On one hand galaxies are losing Potential Gravitational Energy. Due to that (periodical) speed increase, - the centripetal force will come into action, and force the galaxies outwards again. Notice there are no dark matter, hence there are no strong gravity that counteract the centripetal force. The gravity attraction of the systems or only based on visible matter, that influence is insignificant. It is RR that prevents the centripetal force from throwing stars and galaxies out of there orbits. Stars During these periods stars moves towards the same absolute direction of the galaxy these belong to, - these stars too are losing Potential Gravitational Energy. Several million years, the stars will therefore circles inwards of the galaxy. This explain several other mysteries, of galaxies, - we can go into details with that later. During that period the lost of Potential Gravitational Energy is not replaces. Since galaxies periodical are effected by a larger absolute speed, and therefore also RR, - their orbit are smaller than the orbit of clusters. RR make the rules, for how big an orbit can become. We do not need any kind of energy source, to throw the star further outwards, after these have lost potential gravitational energy. The centripetal "force" will do the job, - it doesn't require energy. Right now our Sun could therefore be affected by true motions, that both already affects the sun, as well as the Milkyway. Let's say an observer fare away from the Local Cluster he would see this happen, - he would say the speed of the Sun, relative to the centre of the Local Cluster is 500 km/s This observer would be able to see the consequences (if he was living long enough) , which mean that the Milkyways is circling inwards of the Local Clusters and the Sun is circling inwards of the Milkyway, both due to motion towards the absolute motion direction. RR is therefore already affecting, the Sun due to motion of the mention 2 different systems. Because of that the Sun moves slower , but it will also accelerate due to lost of potential gravity. Now let's imagine that a rocket was launched opposite the Suns motion absolute direction, at the speed 500 km/s relative to the Sun. Seen from an overall perspective, that rocket would not move relative to the centre of the Local Cluster. This mean there would be no absolute motion,and hence also no RR towards the opposite direction. This explain how orbits are maintained, - an object will always try to change the motion direction towards a direction with lees or no RR That as well as the centripetal force explains what "counteracts RR", and all these 3 ingredients keeps orbits going. If we assume clusters of galaxies not is moving, - these barycentre are the absolute reference points of each system. In that case you can only refer to that if you want to know the absolute motion direction. If clusters fox example are orbiting a limit size Universe, the barycentre of the Universe is the absolute reference point. I think experience in the future will learn us more about it. The first challenge is to discover the exact absolute motion direction. Notice we are not speaking about absolute speed, - but an absolute motion frame. Speed is still relative, also for an observer able to observe the absolute motion. RR is following the law of nature that applies for different local space-time ( to say it as short as possible). This theory do not operate with "absolute speed", - but only with absolute motion. There is big difference. The Earth too is mainly affected by RR when moving towards the absolute motion direction. Opposite motion = no RR Perpendicular motion, relative to the Earth or Sun, and relative to the RR / absolute motion direction, - is also affecting a body, - but presumably weaker, - there are several systems in motion, that we belong to, - that all affects us. I don't think anything is wrong with the way we calculate our motion, relative to the Sun, relative to the centre of the Midway, - or relative to the cluster we belong to . We can even measure it relative to the CMBR

I mean if you defend the prevailing theory I guess you also must agree to the idea that Cosmological Redshift is interpreted = And expanding Universe. No no This is not the way it works. I shall not prove the prevailing speculation is wrong. You shall not prove you are innocent. I mean at a certain point, when the density of matter get too extreme a supernova is a result. We don't know what happens in that process, but it is also not decisive. We know it happens, and that is what counts. Off course I have an opinion about what exactly happens, but maybe it would be better to safe you for it, because that is "only" speculation. Anyway here we go, - When matter in a previous Universe has been many times closer, gravity would off course have been different. Both speed and the closer approach between matter have off course been to blame. I believe that gravity at a certain point simply was outplaying the strong nuclear force, - the result was that both the strong force and gravity was lost, (because these 2 are united) - and then BAANG. In the moment when the Big Bang went off, - strong deformation of space was released. With the speed of light gravitational waves, (not from a certain point) - but from everywhere, was moving in all direction. Because the Universe is so big it have still not reach "the end of the world". After a while plasma did again begin to create matter and the forces was re created. I mean the same principle that apply to collapsing stars, - which mean the increase of their density per volume. Something "similar" will off course happen to a collapsing Universe. How do you think that would affects space-time, inside a collapsing star ? - or inside the Universe ? Let us say tomorrow morning, when you wake up, - clusters of the Universe has approaches each other to only the 10% of the distance between each other compared to yesterday. How slow would time tick compared to yesterday? How would background gravity (space time) be, compared to yesterday? ? How would distances be compared to yesterday ? How would redshift be compared to yesterday ? Such kind of speculation make much more sense to me.

Before disagreeing to much lets figure out what we really disagree about. I agree that a Big Bang once did happen, but not that it was a dot of nothing that exploded, and out of that everything came from nothing. This is just too much for my imagination. I'll not say I have a different theory. I just don't accept the prevailing unnecessary speculation. Without that everything is almost self-explanatory. As I said the idea that the Universe is expanding is not necessary. Without it the universe must collapse. Without I have done anything a collapsing Universe must automatically mean that gravity will go mad. And furthermore i cannot see a big problem, to imaging that a big amount of collapsing matter = Big Bang, - exactly like a small amount of collapsing matter ( a supernova) also = "Big"Bang ( or let say Small bang). Well and yes this must mean that cosmological redshift shows us that gravity was more and more "mad" the younger the "Universe" was. I am only collecting a puzzle that have 3 pieces. I mean how differ-cult can that be ? In the prevailing picture, is an extra piece invented , - I cannot see that pieces fit anywhere. The result is therefore a great mystery = dark energy. Why do we disparate need that , - I mean that is almost a bigger mystery ? So in fact we probably agree about a lot, - but just not "what" really was exploding, - why, - and the unnecessary idea that the Universe really is expanding.

Youtupe is a OK way of communicating. It is used for education as well. We have 2 options, either a expanding universe, (that not have passed the scientific methods, and as I said , build on a speculative foundation), or if that expanding idea only is fantasy, - the Universe must collapse. It seems to me that "we" even have not (serious) thought about what would be the consequences of a BigCrunch. Consequences of a a Big Crunch could make probable what trigger a Big Bang. I mean it is already known that that gravity collapse can leads to huge explosion. There are too many unsolved problems with the prevailing understanding, and as I said, I don't like the everything came from nothing, and also not that there are no laws of nature we can blame for gathering or keeping all the entire energy of the Universe together or for triggering that energy. As you can see from the video, there was a pope that liked the idea. - I believe that many religious people easier can except it, because then everything did not come from nothing, - but must have come from Good. According to rational thinking, there must have been something before the Big Bang. Laws of nature must have been responsible for the whole process. The largest part of the the Universe is believed to be so-called dark matter and dark energy. We have no evidence what that really is. We also don't know how matter and space (gravity) interact or what caused BigBang, or the cause of several other cosmological mysteries. We have never had anything that even look like a coherent picture of the Universe. A logical and coherent understanding must be endeavoured, - if that could be possible. I don't see any reason to be satisfied with the very limit incoherent prevailing "understanding", and especially not due to the fact that the picture of the Universe in its foundation only is build on pure speculation. I think it is more fair to take all this in the order it was introduced. Therefore , - you tell me what is the evidence that proves that Cosmological redshift = a Expanding Universe ? The truth is that the Universe must collapse, unless there really are such an expanding force / energy. I don't buy the idea that such force / energy at all really exist, simply because there were in the first place no evidence for exactly that. Ergo without that evidence the universe must collapse. From that down to Earth perspective, - off course the reason for so called Cosmological redshift is simply unsolved. I believe it is fair to ask, - which possibility do we really have to understand what Cosmological redshift really is about? To me there is only one answer, simply because logical there are only one shot, - and this is that gravity must have been mad, once in the past, and since then decreasing. This picture is based on the scientific method, because we know gravity do have such influence on the EM spectre, and we shall expect that a collapsing universe must end its day as a huge explosion ,- we have seen enough supernovas to that we for certain can say, Yes this must result in a HUGE Big Bang. Collapsing matter = Bang I am not inventing new physics, - it is not necessary, - it is so simple as it can be.

After about 67 second you will hear that statement when watching the Video. NRK ( The Norwegian State Television) are involved in the production (I expect they have reason for such statement. ) CMBR can have several other reasons, you can watch that too , - After the 3rd minute , 20 second I believe it is a serious weakness that we have no idea what caused Big bang, - what was before, which law of nature was responsible etc. It is really hard to believe in a half done theory - this is what that really is. They can easy lose their jobs, - you can watch that as well. Right, and exactly that could very well be the trace out of the dead end. It is hard to agree to that. The interpretation, - that cosmological redshift = expansion, - is in fact the foundation in the BigBang theory, - but I geuss you too must agree that this statement never have passed the scientific method. Which mean that the whole of our picture of the universe in its very basic is build on pure speculation. Ok Lets start to assume that the idea that the Universe not is expanding, - I believe we both then will agree that the Universe (instead) must collapse (?). Everything would approach each other right ? Now, what do you think would happen with "back ground gravity" (space-time) here where we are ? Would time tick slower day be day , due to change in back ground gravity ? What would happen in the end of the day ? Would the Universe explode, (do to extreme mass/density gravity) ?