Bjarne Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) 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. Edited January 17, 2016 by Bjarne
ajb Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 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. This still sounds like a misunderstanding on your part. A physical theory is synonymous with a mathematical model. Without some mathematical framework you do not have a theory. I now assume that you have a mathematical framework? And if you do, the best thing to do is write it up for publication in a peer review journal.
Bjarne Posted January 17, 2016 Author Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) This still sounds like a misunderstanding on your part. A physical theory is synonymous with a mathematical model. Without some mathematical framework you do not have a theory. I now assume that you have a mathematical framework? And if you do, the best thing to do is write it up for publication in a peer review journal. 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. Edited January 17, 2016 by Bjarne
ajb Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 The theory have a mathematical framework.[/size] By definition! Anyway, great. And even if you would advance computer programs to refine the math to b etter support the theory, which indeed is possible, math is still not enough to convince the scientific community[/size] It depends what you want to convince them of. If you have a nice workable framework that does not obviously go against established physics then you could have it published, in my opinion. This depends on the theory and where you want to get it published. No publisher will accept the theory before it has better hard evidence.[/size] It depends on what what have done and where you want to get published. People write papers based on string theory, quantum gravity and so on with little solid agreement with nature. One can propose mathematical frameworks that might be useful in 'real physics'. Don't worry hard evidence is on its way, - this year.[/size] So you mean that you will be able to match your calculation with observation better than existing theory? I wish you luck.
swansont Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 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. How about analyzing the orbits of GPS satellites? They already have "advanced testing equipment" on board. 1
Bjarne Posted January 17, 2016 Author Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) So you mean that you will be able to match your calculation with observation better than existing theory? 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 How about analyzing the orbits of GPS satellites? They already have "advanced testing equipment" on board. 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. Edited January 17, 2016 by Bjarne
John Cuthber Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 Well, all we have to do is wait. Either Bjarne's prediction will be right, or it will be wrong. In the mean time there's nothing much to discuss. Perhaps you would like to do a similar calculation for the GPS satellites whose positions are very well known and tracked, and then explain why your predicted effect isn't seen.
Bjarne Posted January 17, 2016 Author Posted January 17, 2016 Well, all we have to do is wait. Either Bjarne's prediction will be right, or it will be wrong. In the mean time there's nothing much to discuss. Perhaps you would like to do a similar calculation for the GPS satellites whose positions are very well known and tracked, and then explain why your predicted effect isn't seen. 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
John Cuthber Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 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 will wait a year.
Bjarne Posted January 17, 2016 Author Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) Fejl! Henvisningskilde ikke fundet 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 Edited January 17, 2016 by Bjarne
imatfaal Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 [mp][/mp] 1. The Allais effect is hardly a solid foundation upon which to build the edifice of your theory. 2. Your resistance to motion which you describe as a acceleration has units of speed
swansont Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 Only few [/size]satellites had have Scientific SR / GR testing equipment on board.[/size] I never hear about any of these was testing the north / south dark flow axis, - and that’s the problem.[/size] You predict that the ISS will gain 300 ns vs losing it according to SR. Well, GPS satellites have atomic clocks on board. What is the prediction for the GPS satellites. We can compare. Why do you think we now is testing on board ISS if it really was not necessary?[/size] 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.[/size] Clocks going on board the ISS are for certain experiments. They are different types than are on board GPS satellites. Show the prediction for GPS, and we'll see if the clocks on the satellites are good enough to do a comparison.
imatfaal Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 3. Which probes have even small accepted anomalies - btw the answer isn't either of the voyagers
Bjarne Posted January 17, 2016 Author Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) [mp][/mp] 1. The Allais effect is hardly a solid foundation upon which to build the edifice of your theory. 2. Your resistance to motion which you describe as a acceleration has units of speed 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. You predict that the ISS will gain 300 ns vs losing it according to SR. Well, GPS satellites have atomic clocks on board. What is the prediction for the GPS satellites. We can compare. Clocks going on board the ISS are for certain experiments. They are different types than are on board GPS satellites. Show the prediction for GPS, and we'll see if the clocks on the satellites are good enough to do a comparison. 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) 3. Which probes have even small accepted anomalies - btw the answer isn't either of the voyagers 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 Edited January 17, 2016 by Bjarne
Sensei Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) Where did you get data from GPS satellites (or ISS) to analyze? Please attach link for review. Edited January 17, 2016 by Sensei
swansont Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 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 So let's have the numbers. There are three orbital planes. What is the direction of the dark flow? They can't all be perpendicular. What anomalies are you referring to?
Bjarne Posted January 17, 2016 Author Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) Where did you get data from GPS satellites (or ISS) to analyze? Please attach link for review. Why do you think I got data somewhere. I do not need any ISS data So let's have the numbers. There are three orbital planes. What is the direction of the dark flow? They can't all be perpendicular. What anomalies are you referring to? 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 Edited January 17, 2016 by Bjarne
swansont Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 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 "Go Google it" doesn't cut it. This is YOUR conjecture. Are there timing anomalies? Stop stalling and present the clock behavior for GPS satellites.
MigL Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 I've not heard of any satellites having orbital adjustments/corrections because of 'anomalies'. For known and explainable reasons I have, of course What 'anomalies' are we talking about here ?
Bjarne Posted January 18, 2016 Author Posted January 18, 2016 (edited) "Go Google it" doesn't cut it. This is YOUR conjecture. Are there timing anomalies? Stop stalling and present the clock behavior for GPS satellites. 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 Edited January 18, 2016 by Bjarne
ajb Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 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 And none of these are handed okay with existing theory and perturbation theory? I mean, how do people running satellites know how much 'rocket boost' is needed and when?
Bjarne Posted January 18, 2016 Author Posted January 18, 2016 And none of these are handed okay with existing theory and perturbation theory? I mean, how do people running satellites know how much 'rocket boost' is needed and when? Off course you will know how much an orbit is off, and how much is needed to get a satellite back to a preferred orbit. The thing is how to distinguish between different contributions that brought the satellite off? So long you have insufficient equipment available on board, you have not enough scientific data to support you. It’s a pretty heavy load that this year is brought to the ISS, both a atomic clock,, - a altitude measurement device and a gravity measurement devices, so far I remember. This is not without any reason. It has to be perfect done, to be able to close the gap of uncertainties.
ajb Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 Off course you will know how much an orbit is off, and how much is needed to get a satellite back to a preferred orbit. [/size] The thing is how to distinguish between different contributions that brought the satellite off?[/size] I am still confused. Are you claiming that the effects you list cannot fully account for the needed periodic adjustments of satellites? I really do not know what people calculate in this field and how they estimate the effects. Still, I have not come across anyone suggesting that gravity need any modifications, especially given how all the theory is well tested.
swansont Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 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). How do you know this, if you haven't looked at it? WHAT IS YOUR CLOCK/TIME ANALYSIS OF THE GPS SATELLITE ORBITS? Last time I will ask. If you stall again, this gets shut down. Soapboxing is not permitted.
Recommended Posts