Are Relativistic Resistances Misunderstood?

[Bjarne]

Are Relativistic Resistances Misunderstood?

Preface

It requires more and more energy to reach diminishing speed increment.

It has never been proven that resistance against motion only applies during the acceleration period.

This theory claims that resistance also happens by constant speed.

We will refer to this as Relativistic Resistance (Hereafter "RR").

Thinking of RR as a reversible process will solve all known kinematic orbit and trajectory anomalies and mysteries, - as follows;

 

1.) The Flyby Anomalies.

2.) The cause of the Pioneer Anomalies.

3.) The stars continue to be dragged into the galaxies' black holes. ^{*) note1}

4.) The long term (known) weak eccentricity anomaly of the moon.^{*) note2}

5.) That Spiral galaxies can last much longer than the expected 1 billion years ^*)

6.) The Milankovitch cycle problem of 100,000 years, and all other ice age cycle mysteries ^{*) note3}

7.) How the dwarf planet Sedna come into orbit. ^{*) note5}

8.) The mystery of NGC7603 ^{*) note6}

9.) Stars in a dwarf galaxy swarm like bees in a beehive instead of moving in nice, circular orbits like a spiral galaxy ^{*) note4}

10.) It predicts a periodical short term, relatively large perigee / apogee anomaly of the Moon's orbit, still not discovered.

 

The basic of the theory

An object's speed increment is causing energy and hence also mass increment.

Due to mass increment, the curvature of space near a moving object is also increasing.

Space resists deformation, (e.g. the release of tension of space results in a gravitational wave).

There are therefore several reasons to believe that the Lorentz transformation (whereby speed of an object converts to; mass/kinetic energy/ deformed-space) is a reversible process.

Space must have some kind of "elastic" nature "woven" together with matter.

 

The Lorentz transformation is therefore also an expression of the tension increase of space as a fast-moving object exerts.

When the force (causing the speed of an object) stops, speed-related tension on space is automatically released.

This means that the Lorentz transformation factor also is a deceleration factor.

Relativistic resistance is a reversible process.

Therefore, the Lorentz equation must reflect the magnitude of resistance against motion, and therefore also the magnitude of deceleration at the same time.

 

Thus this article claims that "(y-1)" in the Lorentz equation; [where γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²)], - on the one hand is the factor responsible for how much tension speed of an object is causing on space (due to M and E increase) - but on the other hand, the same transformation factor is also a factor reflecting the resistance against motion.

It only requires a slight modification of the same equation to understand the deceleration aspect mathematically.

 

When the energy / force responsible for accelerating an object stops pushing an object forward, the object must decelerate.

As this is a universal law of nature, all orbits are affected.

We have recently discovered several space probe anomalies, some decelerating and some accelerating.

The biggest mystery related to that has been why only small objects were affected and apparently not bigger objects such as astronomic objects.

The secret is that all objects and all orbits are in fact affected, but these anomalies cancel out after a certain period.

Even the Earth is always affected too.

 

Think about the ice ages.

Only 2 million years ago, there were no ice ages.

After that, the cycle duration only took 41,000 years, and even the 100,000 year cycles nowadays are not strong enough to explain the cause of ice-ages.

On the biggest scale, galaxies and clusters of galaxies are also affected.

Exactly the same law of nature is responsible for the strange orbit we believe is caused by so-called dark matter.

 

 

The cause of decelerating and acceleration Space probe anomalies.

The Pioneer Space Probes must have been travelling towards the RR direction.

When travelling 12240 m/s (as the pioneer 10 space probe did), the deceleration can be calculated to 8.33×10^-10m/s (the first second).

We know that the Pioneer probes were decelerating: (8.74±1.33)×10¹⁰m/s² These values are remarkably similar.

Contrary to that, when space probes move opposite the RR direction, such objects are affected by RR to a lesser degree than the Sun is.

Therefore, such objects will accelerate relative to the Sun. (There could be other contributions to the Pioneer Anomaly as well)

The cause of the Ice ages and Flyby Anomaly (Acc. Space probes Anomalies.)

PERIOD "A" (image to above)

When an orbiting object moves opposite the RR direction, it will accelerate due to less RR relative to the Sun (period "A" in the image to the right).

 

PERIOD "B" (image to above)

An object moving towards the RR direction must decelerate.

However, deceleration in that period will be turned to acceleration immediately because an object will be forced closer to the Sun.

During these periods where aphelion is ahead of the Sun, an orbit will be more elliptical.

This influence will be cancelled out as soon as Aphelion is ahead of the Sun.

This solves all the mysteries related to ice age cycles.

 

The RR influence affecting the orbit of the Earth (based on the modified Lorentz equation shown above) is calculated to be 6.81*10^-9m/s² and hence to a yearly perihelion/aphelion increment / decrement anomaly of about 97 km.

 

Notice.

Of simplicity reasons, the example above shows that RR in this case is directly towards the same direction as the Sun's motion (in the galaxy) , but because galaxies also orbits cluster, RR can be towards any direction.

 

General Principles

When the semi-major axis is almost aligned with the RR direction, this anomaly must be considered as the strongest.

When the semi-major axis is more or less perpendicular, relative to the RR direction, the speed increment anomaly is proportionally reduced.

A larger orbit also means larger acceleration periods and hence stronger anomalies must be expected.

In addition to the speed increment anomalies, we are also to expect that space probes are affected by perigee precision anomalies (still not discovered).

The RR contribution to Ice ages can either be in resonance or dissonance with the perturbation periods.

This solves all ice-ages cycle mysteries.

 

The Perigee Apogee anomaly of the Moon.

This theory predicts that the Moon has an undiscovered short-term orbit anomaly.

During half of the perigee precession period of the Moon, when perigee of the Moon more or less points towards the RR direction (4½ years), the orbit of the moon is forced 50 meters backwards each year (closer to the Earth).

We will refer to that period as; Period "X"

 

The "opposite" happens during the following 4½ years after which apogee points towards the RR direction. We will refer to that as; Period "Y"

During Period "X", the perigee distance is therefore gradually shortened (and the apogee gradually extended) during a 4½ year period, to a total of 250 meters.

 

During period "Y", the opposite happens, and the anomaly gradually cancels out again.

Notice, - This part of the theory does not claim that the size or eccentricity of the moon's orbit is affected due to RR,- during the anomaly described below.

 

The already known eccentricity anomaly of the Moon. ^{*) note2}

During period "X", the Moon is losing just a tiny bit of potential gravitational energy as it is gaining it back in period "Y".

A similar influence of the Moon happens in these periods when the orbit of the Earth gets more elliptical.

This explains the cause of the already known very weak eccentricity anomaly of the Moon. ^{*) note2} However, this anomaly is much weaker than the perigee / apogee period still not discovered.

Right now, the orbit of the Earth is getting more circular (due to RR).

This means that right now, there is an opposite influence affecting the eccentricity anomaly of the Moon.

The result is that the known eccentricity anomaly of the Moon is partly counteracted due to the decreasing eccentricity of the Earth. In reality, the known eccentricity anomaly of the Moon is therefore stronger than discovered so far.

 

Why have we not discovered the hereby claimed Perigee / Apogee anomaly of the Moon?

During the half of an orbit period when the moon moves towards the RR direction (period "B" - image above), it will decelerate.

As the Moon in that process will approach the Earth, deceleration will be turned to acceleration.

However, during the period when the Moon moves opposite the RR direction (period "A"), it will accelerate (due to less RR in that direction), so in that period, the Moon will gain back the kinetic energy lost in the first half of the orbit.

This means that the size of the orbit is not affected due to the relatively large displacement of perigee and apogee.

Neither is the eccentricity affected due to RR.

There is no guarantee that we already should have discovered such relative large perigee / apogee anomaly.

Neither did we discover the long-term (weak) anomaly, even though it has been increasing for decades. ^{*) note2}

Of course, we can easily confirm whether this anomaly is real or not, but that will require very complex calculations compared to the analysing of old LLR (Lunar Laser Ranging experiment) data.

The purpose of the LLR is to monitor the size and eccentricity of the Moon's orbit (and much more), and not to analyse whether apogee and apogee happen exactly where these "must" happen.

So far, we simply have not had any reason to be suspicious; this is why such a relatively large anomaly could have remained undiscovered for this long.

The Moon therefore holds the key to understanding the true cause of so-called dark matter, and much more.

 

Cluster & Galaxy Dynamics

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 becomes absolute.

Therefore, orbiting galaxies in any position will naturally always change direction towards a direction with less RR which means that they are trapped in orbits by RR, constantly seeking a way to escape.

It is the exact same principle that applies to the 'strange' motion of stars of galaxies.

RR is responsible for trapping stars, clusters, gasses etc. and forces it to constantly change direction.

Therefore, we have no reason to maintain the so called Dark Matter paradigm. Mass attraction of clusters and galaxies must be understood as based on visible matter only, and therefore, these are very weak forces.

This new understanding also implies that certain circumstances can lead to situations where galaxies can split apart.

Seen from a local perspective, RR does not always have the same magnitude all around a system; this will lead to a different motion pattern, but this will mainly affect planets and moons as described above.

Seen from an absolute perspective, the magnitude of RR is the same in any absolute and peripheral direction.

This theory is not only hypothetical, - but already supported by observation.

Example 1.

We already know that so called dark matter, not behave as expected, a growing numbers of astrophysicist are therefore sceptical. The following articles can be Google translated, from Danish ^{*) note7, 8 and 9 (Are also to be found in english)}

Example 2.

A growing number of astrophysicist claims that galaxies can split apart.

Under certain circumstances, this is exactly what we are to expect can happen according to this theory (for example NGC7603). ^{*) note6}

The Lorentz Equation (already mentioned in the introduction) can off course very easy be adapted, and does already mathematically prove any aspect of the theory.

This theory is therefore consistence with both observation and mathematical.

The real challenge is; - to prove the claimed perigee, apogee anomaly of the Moon, - (also already mentioned in the introduction).

If we seriously want to crack the dark matter mystery, this is certainly a way to get the job done.

 

 

*) note1 http://translate.goo...06/27105328.htm

*) note2 http://arxiv.org/PS_...1102.0212v3.pdf

*) note3 http://en.wikipedia....nkovitch_cycles

*) note4 http://esciencenews....mystery.deepens

*) note5 http://science.nasa....04/16mar_sedna/

*) note6 http://www.youtube.c...h?v=98QoBf8Z_ms

*) note7 http://ing.dk/artike...-om-moerkt-stof

*) note8 http://natgeo.dk/vid...-om-maelkevejen

*) note9 http://www.youtube.c...h?v=KKURkavlG6E

Edited September 15, 2012 by Bjarne

[swansont]

When the energy / force responsible for accelerating an object stops pushing an object forward, the object must decelerate.

How is energy conserved? If an object decelerates, it must lose energy. Where does it go? If the object maintains constant velocity, it must have an energy source. What is it?

 

Why don't we observe this issue in particle accelerators? Or in any working system that is constructed using special relativity?

[Bjarne]

How is energy conserved? If an object decelerates, it must lose energy. Where does it go? If the object maintains constant velocity, it must have an energy source. What is it?

 

It convert to Mass

 

 

Why don't we observe this issue in particle accelerators?

We do

[swansont]

It convert to Mass

 

We do

That doesn't explain anything. An outside source of energy is required, and a continual increase in mass would be observed. We observe that? Show me a citation.

[Bjarne]

We observe that? Show me a citation.

We know that mass is increasing due to speed

For example try to Google "mass increase lhc"

 

a continual increase in mass would be observed.

The same thing must happen , for example if a stone would accelerate towards a distant galaxy black hole etc. - Or when the Earth or any other astronomic body is moving (for example relative to a central observer) .

This part is therefore not a new hypothesis,- but already a scientific fact.

 

An outside source of energy is required

According to the prevailing understanding of the laws of nature the answer is YES.

 

But the mass increase (due to speed increase) and therefore also what this theory call "Relativistic Resistance "RR", - depends on motion towards an absolute motion direction.

The point here is that true motion through space is important.

 

Let's say the solar system moves 300 km/s towards a certain direction, but the galaxy (Milkyway) moves 300 km/s exact opposite, - the "true absolute motion" of the Sun, - is therefore zero (relative to a central observer) – because both velocities cancel out each other.

Thus does RR and mass increase of course also.

So even though the Solar system (according to this example) is "losing" kinetic energy, - due to motion towards the RR direction, it gets it back momentary, since the influence momentary cancel out, due to the opposite influence.

To make a long history short, nothing in fact happens, simply because there is in fact no (true) absolute motion.

 

Half of an orbit, - an astronomic object can fall due to RR, and YES it is "losing" potential gravitational energy (converted to mass).

But RR has the exact opposite influence as well, - when moving towards the opposite direction.

It is important to understand that all what really counts is absolute motion – through space.

 

So motion opposite the RR direction is "the source" responsible for an objects gains back the "lost" potential gravitational energy.

Moving oppesite the RR direction simply means less RR.

 

During centuries we have not been able to observe that something was wrong.

Nowadays we discover that really many orbits, - not acts like we expect them to..

Even the orbit of the Earth cannot be an exception from the list of orbit mysteries, - so long Ice ages are fare from fully understood.

 

A simple mathematical (already existing) equation can in fact account for all this.

 

Sorry when this is not perfect English. I am doing my best…

Edited September 16, 2012 by Bjarne

[swansont]

We know that mass is increasing due to speed

For example try to Google "mass increase lhc"[/size]

Well, that's relativistic mass, but that's already a part of relativity. You're adding a new term, and not accounting for the energy. So I ask again, where is this energy coming from, and where is it going?

 

According to the prevailing understanding of the laws of nature the answer is YES.

 

But the mass increase (due to speed increase) and therefore also what this theory call "Relativistic Resistance "RR", - depends on motion towards an absolute motion direction.

The point here is that true motion through space is important.

Ah, an absolute frame. How do we tell if we are moving or stationary with respect to this absolute frame?

 

Let's say the solar system moves 300 km/s towards a certain direction, but the galaxy (Milkyway) moves 300 km/s exact opposite, - the "true absolute motion" of the Sun, - is therefore zero (relative to a central observer) – because both velocities cancel out each other.

Thus does RR and mass increase of course also.

So even though the Solar system (according to this example) is "losing" kinetic energy, - due to motion towards the RR direction, it gets it back momentary, since the influence momentary cancel out, due to the opposite influence.

To make a long history short, nothing in fact happens, simply because there is in fact no (true) absolute motion.

We move in a circle about the sun, and we rotate, so out absolute speed must vary on a daily and annual basis. Where are the measurements showing this?

[Bjarne]

Well, that's relativistic mass, but that's already a part of relativity.

Right, but this part is not fully understood.

 

You're adding a new term, and not accounting for the energy.

So I ask again, where is this energy coming from, and where is it going?

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.

 

Ah, an absolute frame. How do we tell if we are moving or stationary with respect to this absolute frame?

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).

 

We move in a circle about the sun, and we rotate, so out absolute speed must vary on a daily and annual basis.

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.

 

Where are the measurements showing this?

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

Edited September 17, 2012 by Bjarne

[ACG52]

This is all complete nonsense.

 

There are no absolute frames of reference, there is no absolute motion, there is no absolute rest and there is no relativistic resistance.

[Bjarne]

This is all complete nonsense.

 

There are no absolute frames of reference, there is no absolute motion, there is no absolute rest and there is no relativistic resistance.

 

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.

[swansont]

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.

Because energy does not depend linearly on speed. Even classically this is so: E = 1/2 mv^2. Start with an energy E1. Each time you add another amount E1, the speed increase is less and less.

 

Relativistically there is an addition effect that the speed of light is invariant, which makes this behavior even more nonlinear.

 

And by the way why doesn't it seems to affect the Earth.

Because there is no absolute frame.

[Bjarne]

Because energy does not depend linearly on speed. Even classically this is so: E = 1/2 mv^2. Start with an energy E1. Each time you add another amount E1, the speed increase is less and less.

 

Relativistically there is an addition effect that the speed of light is invariant, which makes this behavior even more nonlinear.

 

 

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..

Edited September 18, 2012 by Bjarne

[swansont]

Invariant c is an observed reality, and the variation of energy with speed is a direct result.

 

There can be no resistance, because it does not require additional energy to keep something moving at constant speed. That's not even a relativity issue, it's a consequence of Newton's first law.

[Bjarne]

Invariant c is an observed reality, and the variation of energy with speed is a direct result.

Right.

 

There can be no resistance, because it does not require additional energy to keep something moving at constant speed.

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.

 

That's not even a relativity issue, it's a consequence of Newton's first law.

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.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Bjarne

[swansont]

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.

You don't appear to be arguing a consistent point.

 

That it requires energy to change speeds is not limited to SR. However, there is no deceleration, as you contend. Add the energy and you end up at a different speed. You will remain at that speed until some other interaction takes place.

[Bjarne]

You don't appear to be arguing a consistent point.

Let's see.

 

That it requires energy to change speeds is not limited to SR.

What do you mean?

I cannot imagine speed without SR

 

However, there is no deceleration, as you contend.

Add the energy and you end up at a different speed.

You will remain at that speed until some other interaction takes place.

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 ?

Edited September 18, 2012 by Bjarne

[swansont]

Let's see.

 

 

What do you mean?

I cannot imagine speed without SR

Really? Speed is a part of classical physics. A very basic part. It's hard to fathom someone not being able to imagine speed and yet discussing physics.

 

 

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 ?

We don't have to rely on your word vs others. This is science, so yes we need observations, and we have data. Plenty of it. Particle accelerators are built using the concepts of relativity, and they work as designed. If there was an extra drag on the particles, they would not work that way.

[Bjarne]

Really? Speed is a part of classical physics. A very basic part. It's hard to fathom someone not being able to imagine speed and yet discussing physics.

What I am saying is any motion (speed) is comprehended by SR

 

We don't have to rely on your word vs others. This is science, so yes we need observations, and we have data. Plenty of it.

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.

 

Particle accelerators are built using the concepts of relativity, and they work as designed.

If there was an extra drag on the particles, they would not work that way.

 

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.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Bjarne

[swansont]

I am not saying that the Lorentz equation is wrong, and also not that that there are any extra drag.

I guess I was thrown by your claim that there is a drag and a deceleration, and that you require a force to travel at constant speed. Silly me.

[Bjarne]

I guess I was thrown by your claim that there is a drag and a deceleration, and that you require a force to travel at constant speed. Silly me.

 

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...

[swansont]

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 .

That's your problem. Currently accepted physics does not require a force, or input of energy, in order to travel at a constant velocity.

 

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...

Who is telling you we know everything? Not understanding some things is not the same as understanding nothing.

[Bjarne]

That's your problem. Currently accepted physics does not require a force, or input of energy, in order to travel at a constant velocity.

 

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.

 

Who is telling you we know everything? Not understanding some things is not the same as understanding nothing.

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.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Bjarne

[ACG52]

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.

 

This whole thread has absolutely no relationship to physical reality.

 

And that's the only 'absolute' there is.

[Bjarne]

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/

 

Edited September 28, 2012 by Bjarne

[Bjarne]

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/

 

Last year, Kashlinsky's team found an unusual pattern in the movements of galaxy clusters. Instead of expanding at a uniform rate, as predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity and theories of dark energy, clusters of galaxies stream in one particular direction and at greater than expected speeds. They called this weird phenomenon the 'dark flow'. Now, new research from the team has confirmed and extended this flow to three billion light-years from Earth, about one-fifth of the way across the universe. The results have been submitted to The Astrophysical Journal.

Source http://www.cosmosmag...d-edge-universe

 

Furthermore

 

The intense galaxies observed so far cram the mass of a "modern" galaxy into one fifth of the size, and are spinning four times faster than the Milky Way (accounting for differing radii).

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

 

Edited September 29, 2012 by Bjarne

[Bjarne]

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

Edited October 23, 2012 by Bjarne