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

[Bjarne-7]

12 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Is this just a feeling you have?

no not quite

12 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Nothing you have said gives me the slightest pause about the viability of relativity.

Below I will try to give you an overall impression of what I mean

12 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

That's nice, but since your not a physicist your opinion counts for little.

Even a hen can find a nugget of gold

12 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

That is quite rather glaring dodge, lol...

There is a great risk that I will be misunderstood. I will now give a general description of what I mean.

12 hours ago, joigus said:

"An upheaval will certainly come..."

I was wondering when you were gonna shut down all pretence that you're doing science and start with the prophetic language.

And there you go. What took you so long?

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.

Edited November 25, 2023 by Bjarne-7

[joigus]

Not Einstein, please. Not that mojo!

I take it back, I take it all back!

Sorry, the joker in me takes over from time to time.

Identifying \( v^{2}/c^{2} \) with the classical potential, inspired in the Newtonian approximation of GR, has been thought of before. It doesn't work, as it doesn't account for all of gravity's degrees of freedom. It's also been discussed in these forums.

I don't have a problem with anybody's education. Neither do I have a problem with contradicting Einstein's universe. Einstein's universe was ruled out many decades ago, so...

And I've got my quotes too:

Quote

 

The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth." But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations--to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess.

 

Quote

The game I play is a very interesting one. It's imagination in a straightjacket, which is this: that it has to agree with the known laws of physics. ... It requires imagination to think of what's possible, and then it requires an analysis back, checking to see whether it fits, whether its allowed, according to what's known, okay?

Guess who said that?

When one has no arguments, quoting great scientists is, I think, the rational equivalent of praying. There goes my prayer.

[Bufofrog]

4 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

proportional relativistic variable

Could you define this?

4 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

We really don't understand space, - specifically we have no idea what process is responsible for: "curving" around mass.

What process are you talking about?  A property of mass is that it curves spacetime (not just space).  The question of why mass has that property is not a science question, it is a philosophical question.  

4 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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.

No scientist think that is the absolute truth.  Relativity is a theory that matches observation and experimentation which is why it is accepted and taught in University.

 

4 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

As I wrote, the elasticity of space is a key to solving a number of mysteries.

No it isn't, it is just something that makes sense to you based on your level of education and intuition, i.e., a guess.  I could ask you the same sort of questions you are asking like "why is space elastic"?  So throwing out a new term does nothing to clear up your problem of why matter bends spacetime.  But space can't be elastic anyway because space isn't a substance.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

An absolute motion reference frame is introduced, this is relative to absolute rest.

What is this frame and how do we measure our speed relative to it?

6 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Relativistic Resistance against Movement (RR)

!

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/

 

[Bjarne-7]

4 hours ago, joigus said:

Identifying v2/c2 with the classical potential, inspired in the Newtonian approximation of GR, has been thought of before. It doesn't work, as it doesn't account for all of gravity's degrees of freedom. It's also been discussed in these forums.

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

4 hours ago, joigus said:

Guess who said that?

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.

Edited November 25, 2023 by Bjarne-7

[Bjarne-7]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What is this frame and how do we measure our speed relative to it?

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.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

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/

 

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
 

Edited November 25, 2023 by Bjarne-7

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

I am introducing a model of the universe, is that not enough?

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

[Bufofrog]

8 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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.

Demonstrably false.

 

14 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

The next thing is: where do the excessively large energies come from that cause stellar orbits 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.

No, that is simply an arm waving supposition not a fact

 

16 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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 magnitude is the same as the DFA. And thus a constant Dark Flow Speed can be maintained.
Due to different orbit inclination 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

This is just word salad.

16 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

From NASA we know the Dark Flow speed is measured at 600km/s and that the Dark Flow takes place towards a southern direction.

This is either a misunderstanding of NASA or a lie.

18 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

We can thus speak of a Dark Flow Direction,
We the therefore have to expect increased RR, and thus increased relativistic mass, and slower ticking clock 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 go slower. On the other hand, when moving in a northerly direction, the clock will go faster, thus contradicting the current understanding.
The relativity theory is now being tested on the ISS, possibly these are 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 and then convert time dilation into 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.,

Pass the the balsamic vinaigrette please.

[Bjarne-7]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

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

You even dont know WHAT math or model you are asking for.  Same arrogance and intolerance everywhere.. This is all you need,       

53 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

This is either a misunderstanding of NASA or a lie.

Everybody can Google that speed.  So yes you is lying

Edited November 25, 2023 by Bjarne-7

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

You even dont know WHAT math or model you are asking for. 

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.

7 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Everybody can Google that speed.  So yes you is lying

It's incumbent on you to back up your claims

[Bjarne-7]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

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

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. 

 

[swansont]

36 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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. 

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.

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

You even dont know WHAT math or model you are asking for.  Same arrogance and intolerance everywhere.. This is all you need,  

I'm sorry, where does s come into it. ?

In other words where have you defined s before in this thread please ?

[Bjarne-7]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

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.

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.

41 minutes ago, studiot said:

I'm sorry, where does s come into it. ?

In other words where have you defined s before in this thread please ?

The equation is universal, - s , - wherever you are.

Edited November 25, 2023 by Bjarne-7

[studiot]

28 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

The equation is universal, - s , - wherever you are.

That is not a definition.

Nor does it direct me to where you have used it and defined it in this thread.

What is s please ?

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

This is all you need,       

 

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?

[Bjarne-7]

11 hours ago, studiot said:

That is not a definition.

Nor does it direct me to where you have used it and defined it in this thread.

What is s please ?

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"

[Bjarne-7]

13 hours ago, swansont said:

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?

Good question, I will think about it, in the mean time,  when reaching c, 

Why do I get this  error result ?   
It must mean a collapse of the universe right ? and what about the photons then ?
Are these always "nowhere" or "everywhere at the same time " ? 

The equation is in the one end represented by 1 (something) and in the other end results to 0, -(nothing).

The remaining 1 number is really just a ratio that stays the same. I don't see it as a big math problem.

We know that an infinite amount of energy must be used to reach c, - which means that there must be an increasing resistance on on such path.
We also know that when an object has to reach c, it requires infinite energy, - at the same time, for RR it must be a correspondingly tend on the same path, which must mean that RR også continue to increase correspondingly towards the journey towards c. 
If anyone has a solution to remove the remaining 1, then I would be happy to receive such a suggestion.

Edited November 26, 2023 by Bjarne-7

[Bjarne-7]

15 hours ago, swansont said:

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?

I also got 1m/s^2 earlier today, Now I get zero. Maybe its because its Sunday. - And no you can not like that calculate absolute rest, - you can calculate RR relative to any observer, also to a observer at absolut rest (if you know one). 

15 hours ago, swansont said:

What is the direction of the acceleration?

RR (deceleration) is always oppesite the direction of any absolutte motion increase. 

The oppesite is also possible , then we refer to it as: - RRT Release of Relativistic Tension
The result is therefore acceleration.
RRT acceleration is oppesite the force or the resulting forces responsible (for more or less ) canceling out DFA, and hence exposing  RRT

The centripetal force of an astronomic body can release Relativistic Dark Flow Related Tension , and therefore when Oumuamua, or Space proves are right under astronomic bodies  (south)  the condition for exposed RRT is met, and we will then see mysterious accelerations not possible to account for. 

Notice that the Centripetal Force (CP)  have to "pay" for converting DFA to RRT, - and many times we will not be able to distingue what is caused by CP and what is caused by RRT.

When the centripetal force is cancelling out DFA , - which can happen  from a fairly steep angle, - the RRT-acceleration will always be released exactly 180° oppesite DFA

Therefore it is difficult to reveal exposed RRT in regularly orbits, (because you will believe, this is just a naturally inclination / eccentricity)  and much easier in hyperbolic trajectories, where you have very clear defined expectations 

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by Bjarne-7

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Good question, I will think about it

It’s your conjecture, and you can’t answer a very basic question about it?

15 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

RR (deceleration) is always  oppesite any absolutte motion increase. 

What about something traveling at constant speed? Your equation depends on v, but not a.

16 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

RRT acceleration is oppesite the force or resulting force ( responsible for more or less ) causing canceling out RR.

So the net effect is zero? 

[Bjarne-7]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It’s your conjecture, and you can’t answer a very basic question about it?

I already did, we both did a wrong calculation, if no addition motion, the result is zero, and yes it has to be

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What about something traveling at constant speed? Your equation depends on v, but not a.

All values in the equation are ^2

1 hour ago, swansont said:

So the net effect is zero? 

1.) Absolute motion is converted to mass, and back to speed as soon as moving oppesite any absolute motion direction ,

2.) and yes centripetal force can cancel out DFA hence RR is released, (RRT)

- yes nothing comes from nothing

PS

I was editing post post 27 while you was writing , please check it, here you find many answers

Edited November 26, 2023 by Bjarne-7

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Bjarne-7 said:

I already did, we both did a wrong calculation, if no addition motion, the result is zero, and yes it has to be

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.

 

1 minute ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Alle værdier i ligningen er ^2

I don't know what this means

1 minute ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Absolute motion is converted to mass, and back to speed as soon as moving oppesite any absolute motion direction 

That doesn't answer the question. 

Quote

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.

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?

[studiot]

6 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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 asked you what you mean by s.

S is the 19th letter of the english alphabet.

Although there are one letter words in the english dictionary, s is not one of them.

s stands for a word, which we can discuss.

 

So for the 5th time of asking, what do you mean by s ?

Or do I need to ask a moderator to enforce the rules here?

[Bjarne-7]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

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.

v is the speed relative to any observer according to your own choice

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I don't know what this means

This mean: All values in the equation are ^2, - you replied while I was editing

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

 This mean: All values in the equation are ^2, - you replied while I was editing

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.

7 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

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 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?