Bjarne

No matter how much you fine-tune a satellite's orbit up front, it needs periodic adjustments. It's usually done through tiny rocket bursts The instability in orbits of our artificial satellites come from a few basic causes: Atmospheric drag and solar wind effects The Earth isn't a perfect uniform sphere but is slightly lumpy, which means its gravitational field isn't uniform Other massive objects in the solar system perturb their orbits with their gravity http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/8391/why-do-artificial-satellites-need-orbit-correction-but-natural-ones-dont If these anomalies not are systematically scientific studied undiscovered contribution cause by RR can easily be hidden. Notice, - the smaller orbit - the smaller anomalies For example the period the ISS is moving almost straight north/south is only about 2000 second. Anomalies have escalating decelerating impact based on continuous uninterrupted period of time. 2000 second (that applies for ISS) doesn’t matter very much. The space probe NEAR was also moving almost straight north / south , but the effective period was about 6 million seconds, - hence occurrence of anomalies had much more time to escalate. Galaxies (linear inclined relative to the DFA direction) have periods with escalating effect during hundred thousand of years, which based on the same simple math can bring them to collapse (quasars) . So when study the north / south anomalies near earth – the space probe NEAR were the best option, ISS the 2nd best. There are GPS satellites too moving more or less north / south, - but there are not enough equipment on board to do serious test (compared what will be the case for the ISS this year). When we want to study anomalies based on elliptical orbits, - Mercury’s orbit is the best option, but unfortunately we have misunderstood the cause of all elliptical perihelion precession anomalies, and is instead blaming the curvature of space for being responsible. Therefore it can be concluded, there is right now only one serious option able to shake the theory of relativity, - and this is the ISS measurement this year

Why do you think I got data somewhere. I do not need any ISS data The dark flow direction is south relative to ecliptic All directions, - objects are affected, - in the one way or the other - not only perpendicular, the paper explain it all http://science27.com/paper.pdf Please also Google satellite anomalies

Correct …Allais effect is so far not a sufficient proof, - but the theory shows how bigger success with such measurements can be achieved, because now it is possible to understand what we up against and therefore it is now easy to predict where and when the mysterious force can be measured. Prediction is important in science, and that step has now been reached. This aspect of science can now happen “in the light”, not in completely darkness anymore. The Lorentz transformation gives you a resistance factor. It only shows you what will happen instantly, and therefore if you use it like I did you will only see what happens the first second. Several conditions are causing GPS satellites anomalies, but so long such anomalies not is scientific analyzed we will not be able to distinguish what really was the cause. The largest anomalies shall be expected when orbits are aligned with the dark flow axis as allready discussed above. Circular orbits predominantly perpendicularly relative to DFA will not reveal any anomalies, because RR and release of RR cancel out, read chapter 3 http://science27.com/paper.pdf Elliptical orbits predominantly perpendicularly relative to DFA will all reveal significant anomalies, http://www.science27.com/mercury (not edited to perfect english but you will understand) Question not understood, The Voyagers was send out before the Pioneer, and tracing anomalies at that time wasent good enought, so fare I remember I red this many years ago

Its danish This mean "error reference sourse not found" it hapen when converting doc to pdf. But references are at last page I will fix it when getting time

It’s already done. You can find the answer at http://science27.com/paper.pdf Go to the chapter "3.Consequnces" I recommend you to read the whole theory from the beginning

I think you misunderstand the essence. This year the theory of relativity is tested in a way that is quite unique. Never before have the theory of relativity been tested in a process where the orbit axis is almost perfect aligned , - North / South to ecliptica This test takes places under almost perfect conditions because the ISS orbit is almost exactly aligned with the dark flow axis. Note that the NEAR spacecraft was also very close to the same axis, and was the probe that had the largest anomaly. You will see anomalies that the theory of relativity cannot account for. The Elastic Universe theory both predicts and solves these anomalies that certainly will shake the scientific community in its foundation. Please take you time to read this theory and exactly what is wrong with the theory of relativity. http://science27.com/paper.pdf Only few satellites had have Scientific SR / GR testing equipment on board. I never hear about any of these was testing the north / south dark flow axis, - and that’s the problem. Why do you think we now is testing on board ISS if it really was not necessary? Furthermore ISS is also equipment with devices that very accurate can measure gravity anomalies, as well as altitude, so that we are absolutely certain what we are dealing with.

The theory have a mathematical framework. And even if you would create advance computer programs to refine the math to better support the theory, which indeed is possible, math is still not enough to convince the scientific community No publisher will accept the theory before it has better hard evidence. Don't worry hard evidence is on its way, - this year.

One year ago I posted this thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86752-orbit-anomalies-solved As I wrote it was only a Beta version of the theory. Today I see very small part of the theory was wrong, these very small issues have been fixed. A new updated version can be read here http://science27.com/paper.pdf One year ago I wrote, in the old thread... If someone thinks I mathematical can prove RRM or DFA, just forget it… This is off course not possible. Swansont then wrote, OK then. There's nothing to discuss. Come back when you have a model. Well, Now I have a “model”, - or rather now the theory can be verified based on hard evidence. But first I want to tell Swansort that he misunderstood - that the theory not could be “proven” mathematically. What I meant was only that math is never enough. Mathematic was also not enough to verify whether the theory of relativity was evident. Even today we are still testing. Of course math can make it plausible whether a theory is correct, and off course math also fully support the theory I was introducing 1 year ago. I have found a suitable name for the theory... The Elastic Universe. Let me make it clear, that already the following hard evidence supports the theory, and off course calculation support that this is mathematically possible. Allais Effect Flyby Anomalies. Galaxy and cluster dynamics Off course I agree this is not enough evidence, still more hard evidence is necessary, and this is what the following prediction is about. Prediction. The magnitudes of orbit anomalies depend on true absolute speed (relative to the Dark Flow Acceleration axis). (DFA) For example, based on e.g. 7.66 km/s (which applies to ISS), the maximum resistance can be calculated to a factor = 3E-10 m/s. and for Near (speed 12.739 km/s) = 9E-10m/s. Special Relativity (SR) can only be correct when understood in an absolute Dark Flow motion reference frame. Motion opposite Dark Flow will reduce Relatevistic Resistance. Of course, this also means that time will go faster when moving opposite DFA. In 2016, it is planned that the ISS will be equipped with advanced testing equipment. We will then realize partly that Special Relativity can only be understood in an absolute Dark Flow reference frame, and also that we do in fact face predictable evidence showing that Dark Flow is real. Furthermore the results of ISS measurement should be significant enough also to reveal that Relativist Resistance is matter of fact. The time dilation during one ISS orbit (opposite the Dark Flow Direction) can be calculated follows: The ISS orbital period = 5561 second. Approximated 20% of that period the ISS is moving more or less straight away from the DFA (zone Z) against North. The ISS will therefore reduce its absolute dark flow speed during that period. The relativistic time dilation (that applies for zone Z) can therefore be calculated based on 5561seconds/5 = 1112 second – multiplied with the already calculated Lorentz transformation (factor 3E-10) which means that an atomic clock on board ISS will gain total (about) 0,0000003 second per orbit. However, according to special relativity, the clock on board of the ISS must lose about 0.0000003 seconds along that path of the orbit (only due to the influence of Special Relativity), - compared to a clock on Earth. When the ISS is traveling north, through zones X and Y (see fig11), it is not moving straight away from the Dark Flow Direction, but only (averagely) 50% of the true speed that applied during travel in zone Z. Because the Lorentz transformation factor must be calculated based on “true speed” relative to the dark flow axis – the relativistic Lorentz transformation factor that apply in zone X and Y is averagely reduced to 5E-11. The gain of time dilation during these 2 periods can thus be calculated to less as 0,0000001 s. per ISS orbit. However, according to special relativity, the clock on board the ISS must always lose the same amount of time regardless which way it is heading. But only approximately 65 % of the orbit time the loss of time will be as predicted by the prevailing theory of relativity. The problem with the prevailing theory of relativity will be that motion during approximated 35% of the ISS orbit (approximately 2000 seconds) the ISS-clock will not lose; (2000s * 3E-10) = total 0,0000006 second per orbit (as expected), - but instead gain a (approximately) total of ; 0,0000004 second. (we shall not expect more than a total gain of 0.0000003 second, sine the ISS is never moving exactly straight away from DFA.) This means that during each ISS orbit we shall according to the new theory expect almost 0,000001 second time dilation that the prevailing theory of relativity cannot account for. Furthermore, it can be calculated that during the other half of the orbit period, (when the ISS is moving more or less straight towards the dark flow RR direction) the ISS will lose altitude, - also approximate 20% of the orbit period. (see Fig11 zone B) Traveling through zones A and C will also contribute to altitude loss, but only approximated 20% of the loss calculated above. The weaker result is due to motion speed relative to the dark flow axis is much weaker during these periods. Total we shall therefore expect a radius loss of 0,00004 meter per ISS orbit, which the prevailing theories and knowledge also cannot account for. The calculation shown above is off course fare from perfect / accurate; - advances software must be developed to handle it. But it (hopefully) gives readers a rough impression of the nature of the theory and what it predicts.

In the mid-1800s there was a widespread belief that light was moving in a elastic ether. The idea was that space may possess an elastic property. Let’s (as a thought experiment) assume that the elastic property of space is responsible for the curvature of space. We know that the gravitational field of the Earth follows the movement of Earth, ....so if the ether and the gravitation field of earth are made of the same elastic “stuff” there are simply no collision with the ether and the earth, right ? How sure can we by that it was correct to reject the existence of a ether back in 1887? Next year, - time dilation measurements. - on board the ISS will, - definitive will prove whether the interpretation was correct. But lets assume we get evidence that show that special relativity must be understood in a absolute reference frame, what would be left of relativity ? I mean still the Lorentz Transformation will be valid. Is the Lorentz Transformation enough to account for GPS and all relativistic effects that so fare is proven correct. http://www.space.com/26897-pharao-atomic-clock-space-station.html

1. Yes I know the centrifugal "force" is not real. The point is only at a certain point the acceleration towards the moon or sun stops due to tat "fictive force” and it can even be calculated as a (fictive) force or acceleration. 2. Right I understand this 3. Let’s say the Acceleration Due to Gravity (ADG) of the moon (affecting the Earth) is 0.00035m/s^2 and ADG of the Earth is 0.0027m/s^2 (in the orbit of the Moon) - Will the Moon and Earth now accelerate towards each other with these factors ? - I guess so, but as i understand your last post ""The moon exerts a force on the earth, and the earth applies an equal an opposite force on the moon"" you are speaking about force. Well yes the force is a combination of the 2 objects pull. But I am speaking about only acceleration. I guess I was right (that the acceleration towards the 2 bodies, is the ADG of each of them as mentioned above) For Earth 0,00035 and for the Moon 0,0027m/s^2 (?)

Is this correct, the acceleration affecting the Earth (towards the Moon and Sun) by new moon can be calculated as follows Acceleration due to gravity of the Earth + Acceleration due to gravity due to the Moon, - minus – the opposite acceleration (centrifugal force) I believe this is correct but wonder if there are other contributions. Now let us say the Earth, Moon, and Sun is not aligned, but the earth is 10 degree from both, before new moon, how does this affect the acceleration due to gravity of the earth (towards the Moon and Sun) What confuse me is by new moon the earth accelerates towards the moon, but normally it is opposite, the Moon accelerates towards the Earth. I know it is newton’s second law that has to be used, but I am a bit confused, exactly how.

Oh yes of course, thanks

So the Moon pulls itself up (or down), due to the different angular relation to the Earth / Sun.(?) This is also what I thought But then the Earth orbit also not happens in a “straight line” The Earth too must then for example pull itself upwards (or downwards) on its path before and after new moon, in these cases where the moon is "above" (or "below") the Earth, - right? So this too must also result in some kind of anomaly similar to the Moon? – If not I simple don’t understand why the motion of the Earth shpuld be a exception . I belive this phenomena is caused due to both the orbits of the Moon as well as the orbit of the Earth is affected - but maybe mostly the moon ?

What is the cause of Saros cycles ? http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/saros.GIF?

He did not took the inclination of venus (up to 3 degree) into account. But the observation is most likely correct..

Lunar Inclination anomaly - Is it true? If not what is the explanation? http://galacticconnection.com/moons-orbit-shifted-34-degrees-twelve-days

The earth accelerates towards perihelion and decelerates towards aphelion Furthermore it accelerates by full moon. How can these 2 factors be calculated, so that I for example is able to know the net result right now, or any given date / time

There are two features of the anomaly, as originally reported, that are not addressed by the thermal solution: periodic variations in the anomaly, and the onset of the anomaly near the orbit of Saturn. First, the anomaly has an apparent annual periodicity and an apparent Earth sidereal daily periodicity with an amplitude greater than the error budget.[36] However, the same paper also states this problem is most likely not related to the anomaly: "The annual and diurnal terms are very likely different manifestations of the same modeling problem. [...] Such a modeling problem arises when there are errors in any of the parameters of the spacecraft orientation with respect to the chosen reference frame." Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly Does anybody have more info about the values of the annual variations?

New Horizons wakes up for historic Pluto encounter New Horizons woke up from hibernation on December 6, 2014 after a 4.8 billion km voyage (3 billion miles) and almost nine years after launch. The spacecraft is now preparing for a six-month encounter with Pluto that begins in January 2015. http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2014/12/08/new-horizons-wakes-up-for-historic-pluto-encounter/ So when do we get the trajectory anomaly news ? Before newyear ? I think so.. Acelerating or decelerating space prove anomaly ? - Starting after or before Jupiter fly by ? - Easy. My nick name is Silencio, it have to be

I understand you are confused. It took me more than 5 years to be able to have all this in my head, and still it is not easy. I think we have to take all this stepwise.. Initially at this stage, ask yourself the question.. If Dark Flow is real, - does it sounds reasonable that there must be some kind of anisotropic acceleration, that pulls it ? Or what should pull should dark flow without acceleration? I mean if there is smoke in the horizon it is most likely because it is fire. Now we put a stone into the dark flow, and assume that there is no resistance what so ever? Would the stone reach c ? Everyone knows the answer must be no., it is impossible utopia. Something must prevent the stone to reach c. This “something” is RRM. Sometime Imagination is more important than knowledge (a wise man once said) At least to understand which kind of “factor” we are up against. You can call it hand-wave, but imagination is in the end of the day important too. RRM is a speed dependent resistance factor DFA = Dark Flow Acceleration. DFD = Dark Flow Accelration DFS = DarkFlow speed DFA and RRM will cancel out when a certain Dark Flow Sped is reached. An object will due to DFA accelerate, but only until the opposite “force”, - which mean RRM increases to the same (opposite) magnitude as DFA. This mean RRM is not allowing an object (in the Dark Flow) to continue to accelerate, - but only allow a certain speed based on the magnitude of DFA. This mean if we know that Dark Flow Speed is 300km/s – *DFA and RRM can be calculated be 0,0000005 m/s^2*.. DFA is acceleration (most like due to gravity) BUT this doesn’t mean that the equalizing factor (RRM) also is deceleration (or acceleration). As stated above RRM is not a deceleration either acceleration, *also not even thoug it from a local perspective can look like that.* The closed we can get to what RRM is; - is a speed depending resistance factor / “force”. The impact is as stated negative nonaligned relativistic resistance. Seen from an absolute reference perspective of rest., a object “O” that moves opposite DFD - with the exact same (absolute) speed as the Dark Flow Speed, - will be at *absolute rest*, - hence no RRM is not acting on it... This is how it workds seen from a simple overall / absolute reference frame. But RRM can also applies for instant perpendicular orbits relative to DFD . So soon the influence of both an overall reference frame and local must be understood at the same time, the confusion can easy increase. My last correction today was not the completely right answer...Let me try agian Release of Retracted Potential Kinetic Energy (in short RRPKE) mean in a absolute reference frame = *less RRM due to motion opposite DFD*. But in a local reference frame RRPKE is also due to motion away from a local direction what course RRM, which for example all the times happens in a circular orbit, or when a spacecraft moves in the direction discussion above. I have (agian) to correct that, - if spacecraft Q would move opposite DFA with a speed whereby it will reach absolute rest, then and first then there are no RRM affecting it. If the speed is too low RRM will still affect spacecraft Q - but off course propotional lesser. RRM left will mean decelerating because DFA is stable (not changings) whereby the remains of RRM will dominate.. This also mean that accelerators, doesn’t matter whether these are orbital or linear is (and more or less pointing towards oppiste DFA) never are affected, because orbit speed (also opposite Dark Flow) always exceed the opposite dark flow speed, which is necessary to for RRPKE and DFA to cancel out. Left is then a question, what would happen if a liniar accelrator would point towards a local RRM direction, - well nothing because Relatevistic resistance (by accleration) is not a mystery. if suddenly the force that pushed the atoms forward would stop, we would (if we could) register "deceleration". If someone thinks I mathematical can prove RRM or DFA, just forget it. This is off course not possible. This theory is so fare only a help to remove the blindfold, to be able to know exact where to set in with measurements. Please if still any doubt to what is written above, let us solve this first before going into further details Space-time is very well tested - nothing of that is inconsistence with the theory. If you think there is any test that proves the theory wrong please be more specific. What do you want to calculate? I have to translate the calculation regarding Mercury’s Perihelion Precession Anomaly

This article is from sommer 2013 - newer Notice this is not from Sønder Balle University,but from NASA The "Dark Flow" & Existence of Other Universes --New Claims of Hard Evidence According to Atrio-Barandela, who has focused on understanding the possible errors in the team's analysis, the new study provides much stronger evidence that the dark flow is real. For example, the brightest clusters at X-ray wavelengths hold the greatest amount of hot gas to distort CMB photons. "When processed, these same clusters also display the strongest KSZ signature -- unlikely if the dark flow were merely a statistical fluke," he said. In addition, the team, which now also includes Alastair Edge at the University of Durham, England, sorted the cluster catalog into four "slices" representing different distance ranges. They then examined the preferred flow direction for the clusters within each slice. While the size and exact position of this direction display some variation, the overall trends among the slices exhibit remarkable agreement. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/06/the-dark-flow-the-existence-of-other-universes-new-claims-of-hard-evidence.html You have to be more specific You too have to be more specific and show exactly which test you think violate this theory I will come back to this Question

I can only answer the question by questioning... What exactly have been tested the last 400 years, that specific contradict this theory, and exactly how was it tested? Is first law tested? Or is first law only based on old observation of the solar system long ago? Is the cause of gravity tested? Relativity is tested, but it seems we never finish. (In 2016 the ISS will get a heavy load of very advanced equipment to test further) Space deforms. Clock ticks different. Space-time seems to be a fact - This is all untouched by this theory. By the way I sometimes wondered what is the cause of mass attraction is. I mean if I get my feet under a heavy truck wheel I get the impression that gravity really still is a force. Never mind, - I believe the (main part) of the theory of relativity is very evident. You know I am only a one man army. My mission is only to trigger a avalanche to see how fast people can run. I did not fail, Rom was not drunk at one day. You know I am only a one man army. I will measure, when time is right. This could easy trigger a avalanche. If Dark Flow Acceleration is true, much will never be the same. I am not worrying about the math. The force of this theory is the overwhelming amount of mysteries; such a simple theory can solve, without to contradict evidently tesed facts. All elliptical orbits are more or less affected by anomalies. – The more elliptical the stronger. The purpose with GPS is not a scientific test, - it is commercial business. Why do you think ISS will be filled with advanced equipment in 2016 especially to test relativity? This new equipment can measure anomalies down on the minus 16 scale. Anomalies in satellite orbits (due to RRM) are very small (max on the minus 12 scale and weaker) - These anomalies are impossible to distinguish from a lot more other influences that impacts satellites, -unless such have a pretty heavy load of advanced equipment on board. It is much too early to ask such question. First we have to find out ... How fast are we moving relative / opposite to Dark Flow, due to cluster and galaxy motion. Which exactly direction is Dark Flow ? Is the Dark Flow Acceleration against the same direction or perpendicular relative to Dark Flow. (If perpendicular all matter of the Universe must be orbiting a barycenter of the Universe, - like galaxies orbiting clusters). How strong is DFA and a lot more. Based on this we can tune further in to try to understand how such impact have affected the Earth and Solar system in the past ( e.g; ice ages) In short, now is first time to measurement, - not to be 110% exact.

Sorry we have a error here, see thecorrection below All In One Illustration Bjarne Wrote above Sorry for the confusion, sometimes I forget part of my own theory. It is sometimes differcult to keep so many "balls" in the "air" at the same time. (how can I install a spell check to forums ?) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The images (to the right) shows 2 galaxies with the same mass, but the density is much different, This could support that from time to time, depending on the orbit inclination relative to DFD, galaxies periodically collapses or expands. The centrifugal force will (in absence of dark matter) force starts outwards, (during these periods where orbits are Predominantly Perpendicular relative to the DFD) The inner stars are stronger affected by the centrifugal force than the outer stars, - and therefore ring galaxies must (sometimes) be the result ( if the duration of such period are very long lasting) Already NASA have discovered that galaxies expands more than expected, - and a lot already shows that the opposite all is true.

So was the first the first calculation made by Balder, when quantum physic begun. But good enough for Niels Bohr to refine Balders initially work. HC Ørsted did no math att all, if came much later by Maxwell. DFD is the absolute RRM direction Above is explained the insignificant anomalies that can apply in circular acclerators. No there are no problems, of course if the vector accelerator would be pointing (most likely more or less agianst north) opposite the DFD there would be a initially push from RRPKE The first 1 second it can be calculated to about 0,0000005 m. I did not mention it, because it is not worth to write home about Such contribution i can’t believe would be possible to measure anyway. Think about how little time 1 shot takes. I think nobody exactly can describe the nature of space. My best guess could be, that deformation of space is elastic in its nature Its most likely in such scenario the nature of RRM must be understood

I understand your concern The atmosphere or road friction is both resistance factors impacting moving cars. Relativistic Resistance against motion is quite so obvious like that. A car uses more energy per mile the faster it accelerates, so does spacecrafts. The cause of both are resistances factors, - which not itself are deceleration or acceleration, - or a (real) force, but only factors. What is important is what the resistance factor does, - to a fast of moving object. We can split the original equation in two parts. The first shows what really happens, - we initially calculate a negative distance. But this impact on the speed (of an object) is a result of only 1 second of motion, which mean this is where times come into the result. (= negative motion per one second) And this is why the equation now changes to the one above. It still only tell us what have happen during 1 secon of motion, - not more than this. It is not a (linear) deceleration. So to be able to know what happens in the next second we have to do a new calculation, - and a again we get a negative distance per one second, as result.... etc... To be able to calculate a continuing impact of “negative distance” in one go off course more advanced equations are necessary. Yes in the end of the day more advanced math must be used, but not necessary at this stage. Now real understanding and measurement is much more important. Roughly the equation can be used, errors are almost insignificant. But yes it is not completely perfect like it is. See the reply above Remember this theory and the prevailing agrees when it comes to relativistic acceleration. The difference is the new theory claims that, if no force push a object forward, the object will decelerate, -(relativistic) non linear