ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Allais Effect , Dark Flow , relativity , Theory of Relativity

Reply
Old 26th December 2017, 03:55 PM   #281
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
No. It doesn't.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2017, 04:04 PM   #282
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,888
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
So long we do not know what the strong force really is, ...
Lying about the strong force being unknown does not make any ignorant fantasy about the strong force correct.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2017, 04:09 PM   #283
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,888
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
...
A totally ignorant equation pops up from many years ago! The ignorant part starts with including units ("m/s^2") which make it impossible to use in any other units of measurement, e.g. furlongs per hour^2 or even km/s^2. There is no definition of "RR". There is no derivation for the equation.

The answer to 23 October 2009: Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) after over 8 years is still no !

7 March 2012: Why RR is a fantasy and Bjarne debunks RR again and again!

Last edited by Reality Check; 26th December 2017 at 04:47 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2017, 04:17 PM   #284
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,888
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Perihelion anomalies...
Fantasy about perihelion anomalies which do not exist, with "dark flow" delusions, etc.
The "perihelion anomalies" of Mercury are explained by GR and so are not anomalies ! The stupidity that the orbit of Mercury is affect by a probably nonexistent Dark Flow from mass outside of our observable universe is obvious (think about the inverse square law of gravity).

Abysmal gibberish on cosmological redshift which is not "a photon fighting itself out of a gravitational field", not to do with black holes, etc.

More gibberish on gravitational lensing

An ignorant Shapiro time delay fantasy. This is Shapiro delay
Quote:
The Shapiro time delay effect, or gravitational time delay effect, is one of the four classic solar system tests of general relativity. Radar signals passing near a massive object take slightly longer to travel to a target and longer to return than they would if the mass of the object were not present. The time delay is caused by spacetime dilation which increases the path length.

Last edited by Reality Check; 26th December 2017 at 04:23 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2017, 04:20 PM   #285
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,030
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Now, it does make sense on the unit angle.

Then, can you explain why the metre (a bad calculation of the 10,000 millionth part of the distance from pole to equator) and the second (the 86,400th of a day as it is seen on Earth) have acquired such importance for the very tissue of the universe since 13,700 million years ago?

Why the hell is RR limited to values between 0 and 1 human metre divided by 1 human second squared?

ETA: By the way, nice try in covering your footsteps with that mistake: you edited your post to make it seem like it was right, but the mistaken original is trapped in post #278 which you can't edit
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.

Last edited by aleCcowaN; 26th December 2017 at 04:33 PM.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2017, 09:16 PM   #286
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,953
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
All the time you is adding speed to your allready existing absolute speed, - or reducing it - relative to no motion (seen from an absolute rest frame) you is changing your "relativistic (reality) proportions" - The exact same happens up and down in a gravitational field,


Ah. Then you CANNOT describe an object at absolute rest as I requested in the last line of my post. You don’t even have a theoretical concept for it, yet it is apparently a cornerstone of your physics themed mythology.

How sad that after all this time you still haven’t gone to the effort to think through your ideas. You’re trying to serve half-baked dishes to people accustomed to 4 star dining, all while insisting Michelin will have to add a new star to their rating system just for you.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 01:37 AM   #287
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Ah. Then you CANNOT describe an object at absolute rest as I requested in the last line of my post. You don’t even have a theoretical concept for it, yet it is apparently a cornerstone of your physics themed mythology.

How sad that after all this time you still haven’t gone to the effort to think through your ideas. You’re trying to serve half-baked dishes to people accustomed to 4 star dining, all while insisting Michelin will have to add a new star to their rating system just for you.
I dont know your absolute speed, this is not the same as saying you not is moving - relative to no motion. For example we don't know if we live in a multi universe and how these moves or maybe rotates between each other etc...
It is like you are saying that because no one have the overall perspective, then such doesn't exist.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 01:54 AM   #288
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Now, it does make sense on the unit angle.

Then, can you explain why the metre (a bad calculation of the 10,000 millionth part of the distance from pole to equator) and the second (the 86,400th of a day as it is seen on Earth) have acquired such importance for the very tissue of the universe since 13,700 million years ago?

Why the hell is RR limited to values between 0 and 1 human metre divided by 1 human second squared?

ETA: By the way, nice try in covering your footsteps with that mistake: you edited your post to make it seem like it was right, but the mistaken original is trapped in post #278 which you can't edit
It is not a limit equation.
Regardless the speed you already have you can use it you can use it.
This is possible because time and the ruler is stretching the faster you go.
If you would travel with the speed of light, the length of your ruler is endless (no limit). This will also reflect the ruler used to measure your RR deceleration.
RR must proportional follow the reality transformation effecting you.
Furthermore observations shows it works (Pioneer 10 &11 anomalies)..
You are essential asking why the Lorentz equation is like it is. Don’t you know that?
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 02:04 AM   #289
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
A totally ignorant equation pops up from many years ago! The ignorant part starts with including units ("m/s^2") which make it impossible to use in any other units of measurement, e.g. furlongs per hour^2 or even km/s^2. There is no definition of "RR". There is no derivation for the equation.

The answer to 23 October 2009: Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units) after over 8 years is still no !

7 March 2012: Why RR is a fantasy and Bjarne debunks RR again and again!
Think about how much dumber you will appear if I (a total mathematical idiot) very soon can bring down the fanatic fantasy paradigm you believe in.
Would that be humiliating to you ?
You should think about that your arrogance one day can hit yourself in the neck.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 02:12 AM   #290
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

The stupidity that the orbit of Mercury is affect by a probably nonexistent Dark Flow from mass outside of our observable universe is obvious (think about the inverse square law of gravity).
Think about a significant acceleration allready is measured. http://www.sciepub.com/portal/downlo...faac-3-2-3.pdf

Think about such measurement will happen again. So better start to queue yourself in the neck allready now.

Quote:
The "perihelion anomalies" of Mercury are explained by GR and so are not anomalies ! The stupidity that the orbit of Mercury is affect by a probably nonexistent Dark Flow from mass outside of our observable universe is obvious (think about the inverse square law of gravity).
I suspect the acceleration to be caused by central gravity of our own universe.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 04:17 AM   #291
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,030
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
It is not a limit equation.
Regardless the speed you already have you can use it you can use it.
This is possible because time and the ruler is stretching the faster you go.
If you would travel with the speed of light, the length of your ruler is endless (no limit). This will also reflect the ruler used to measure your RR deceleration.
RR must proportional follow the reality transformation effecting you.
Furthermore observations shows it works (Pioneer 10 &11 anomalies)..
You are essential asking why the Lorentz equation is like it is. Don’t you know that?
I'm essentially reproaching you that, in order to provide a unit to your RR, you fixed the value of a universal constant to 1 when the chosen unit is a combination of arbitrary human units taken from the SI. That is complete and utter BS!!!

As you keep saying that this and that anomalies provided you with experimental data, you'll have no problem to correct again your formula (it is still wrong, face it) to have the proper elements in it.

Still pending the two explanations on how to determine the absolute frame of reference "rest", which you already promised in a cocky tone.

Still pending the equation explaining how the strong force varies with speed, that you have been asked repeatedly.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 04:58 AM   #292
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
I'm essentially reproaching you that, in order to provide a unit to your RR, you fixed the value of a universal constant to 1 when the chosen unit is a combination of arbitrary human units taken from the SI. That is complete and utter BS!!!
No it is just your opinion

Quote:
Still pending the two explanations on how to determine the absolute frame of reference "rest", which you already promised in a cocky tone.
Move oppesite with the same as speed as all the speed adding up the total speed you now is moving, and your are "there" - at absolute rest.
'The ISS test will definitive prove that this is how you will be force to begin to think. The Arctic measurement will indirectly have the same effect. .

Quote:
Still pending the equation explaining how the strong force varies with speed, that you have been asked repeatedly.
Nobody ever claim that. The strong force is part of the process resulting in mass.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 05:26 AM   #293
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,030
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
No it is just your opinion
No, it's a fact. Also an interesting fact that you aren't capable of understanding that.

So far, I got two formulas from you, both inspired in real formulas developed in the past. And both wrong when you put your hand on them: one botched and the other one with an arbitrary unit stuck to it and reassigned to an existent yet misinterpreted concept.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Move oppesite with the same as speed as all the speed adding up the total speed you now is moving, and your are "there" - at absolute rest.
How interesting! Let me summarize it "Stop moving and you'll be at rest". How insightful! Were "those" the two ways to find it?

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
'The ISS test will definitive prove that this is how you will be force to begin to think. The Arctic measurement will indirectly have the same effect. .
"Will prove" and "begin to think" don't go in the same sentence. If they prove something, that something is what they already had in mind. The fact is that what you propose has been suggested since the 1940s, so if something is to be found those people are to be acknowledged and celebrated, not you. Who would find any merit in a random dude who is posting botched formulas and mixed-up notions in marginal forums, in 2018? Bad chance! That train has already departed.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Nobody ever claim that. The strong force is part of the process resulting in mass.
You did.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 07:05 AM   #294
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,213
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
I suspect the acceleration to be caused by central gravity of our own universe.
I suspect you're blathering on about a fantasy. Your continued refusal to accept reality seems to confirm that. (And what if your imagined acceleration were caused by the -non-existent - central gravity of their own universe? Or the sum of all - nonexistent - central gravities of all multiverses?)
Peregrinus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 07:20 AM   #295
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,953
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
I dont know your absolute speed, this is not the same as saying you not is moving - relative to no motion. For example we don't know if we live in a multi universe and how these moves or maybe rotates between each other etc...
It is like you are saying that because no one have the overall perspective, then such doesn't exist.

Your theory depends upon an absolute frame of reference.

You admit this absolute frame of reference is based upon an absolute rest position.

You cannot describe the absolute rest position, upon which your theory hinges, in theoretical terms.

You don’t see a problem with this.

And you want the scientific community to reject Relativity, with about a century of experiments and technology supporting it, in favor of your hot mess of an abortion, based upon a muddled prediction about one experiment on the ISS.

Wow. That’s special.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 09:00 AM   #296
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
at.
and the other one with an arbitrary unit stuck to it and reassigned to an existent yet misinterpreted concept.
Can't see your problem.
You can derive,
  • Time dilation
  • Lenght contraction
  • Ruler extention
  • Mass transformation
  • Energy transformation
- form the same basic equation
As you see the unit continues to change

The only thing that prevent you from accepting that; resistance against motion (a decelerating force) is part of the same transformation reference frame, - is that you do not believe in it. This is irrelevant.

Quote:
How interesting! Let me summarize it "Stop moving and you'll be at rest".
You got it.

Quote:
The fact is that what you propose has been suggested since the 1940s, so if something is to be found those people are to be acknowledged and celebrated, not you.
More Rubbish
Such significant anisotropic acceleration have never been connected to Dark Flow, also not since the 1940s , simply because dark Flow was not known at that time.
It have also not been connected to the theory of relativity, and one of the main reason to that theory will fall.
Furthermore it have never been Cause / Effected explained, in connection to the Allais Effect.
As well as it has never been cause / effect explained , how such accelerating influence is counteracted by Relativistic Resistance Against Motion, and therefore preventing the universe to pretty fast to go mad.

On the one hand you reject all talk about a deceleration force, on he other hand you say that some unknown people back in 1940 allready claimed the same, and that they deserve the all honour.

Make up you mind.
In my ears your sounds like a bad loser, all the gun powder you have left is lies and fake news.

Last edited by Bjarne; 27th December 2017 at 09:06 AM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 09:09 AM   #297
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Your theory depends upon an absolute frame of reference.

You admit this absolute frame of reference is based upon an absolute rest position.

You cannot describe the absolute rest position, upon which your theory hinges, in theoretical terms.

.
WHAT excactly is it to describe, except no motion ?
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 09:10 AM   #298
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,820
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
All the time you is adding speed to your allready existing absolute speed, - or reducing it - relative to no motion (seen from an absolute rest frame) you is changing your "relativistic (reality) proportions" - The exact same happens up and down in a gravitational field,
How does an observer determine their motions relative to the "absolute rest frame" ?

Thank you Bjarne
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 09:11 AM   #299
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,820
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
WHAT excactly is it to describe, except no motion ?
To reference an absolute rest frame, how does one observe or measure their motion regards it?

How does an observer determine their motions relative to the "absolute rest frame" ?

Thank you Bjarne
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 09:20 AM   #300
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
How does an observer determine their motions relative to the "absolute rest frame" ?

Thank you Bjarne
It's a wonderful question to consider.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 09:34 AM   #301
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
To reference an absolute rest frame, how does one observe or measure their motion regards it?

How does an observer determine their motions relative to the "absolute rest frame" ?

Thank you Bjarne
You cannot see it, unless you have a point of reference in rest.

However there is maybe a different method.
If you accelerate an object, constantly, you will have to add more and more energy. In the end of the day you will need infinity energy and get infinity mass.
The point is, it should be easy to conclude that mass in motion MUST interact with space.
So one way is; how can we know how much relativistic mass is caused by speed?
All the mass of an object?
If so then motion is the main force of gravity (and much more that go too far to discuss here)
Only a part?
If so, how much is another influence contributing?
The fact that we do not know, does not mean that this is a dead end. It is rather a challenge for a new paradigm to research.

Last edited by Bjarne; 27th December 2017 at 09:37 AM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 09:58 AM   #302
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,030
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Can't see your problem.
You can derive,
  • Time dilation
  • Lenght contraction
  • Ruler extention
  • Mass transformation
  • Energy transformation
- form the same basic equation
As you see the unit continues to change


you keep dealing with the Lorenz factor as if it had units

Why don't you write down those five equations for our illustration?

It would be nice if you care to provide some vectorial form in the relevant case, at least in the style of



Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
You got it.
I didn't need meeting you nor reading your convoluted brainsore to know what an absolute reference is. You're basically saying nada.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
More Rubbish
Such significant anisotropic acceleration have never been connected to Dark Flow, also not since the 1940s , simply because dark Flow was not known at that time.
It have also not been connected to the theory of relativity, and one of the main reason to that theory will fall.
Furthermore it have never been Cause / Effected explained, in connection to the Allais Effect.
As well as it has never been cause / effect explained , how such accelerating influence is counteracted by Relativistic Resistance Against Motion, and therefore preventing the universe to pretty fast to go mad.

On the one hand you reject all talk about a deceleration force, on he other hand you say that some unknown people back in 1940 allready claimed the same, and that they deserve the all honour.

Make up you mind.
In my ears your sounds like a bad loser, all the gun powder you have left is lies and fake news.
Nincompoopery.

Nobody said that the lump you have gathered was altogether developed in 1940. I said all the elements that you've lumped together have being suggested since the 1940s on. You'll never get credited for what others suggested and others proved.

Read Special Relativity: Will it Survive the Next 101 Years?, 2006, edited by Jürgen Ehlers and Claus Lämmerzahl
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 10:09 AM   #303
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,213
"... resistance against motion (a decelerating force)..."

No. There are two attributes of inertia: one is a tendency to remain at rest, the other is a tendency to maintain a certain velocity. Neither one is a force of any kind.
Peregrinus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 10:28 AM   #304
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,820
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
You cannot see it, unless you have a point of reference in rest.

However there is maybe a different method.
If you accelerate an object, constantly, you will have to add more and more energy. In the end of the day you will need infinity energy and get infinity mass.
The point is, it should be easy to conclude that mass in motion MUST interact with space.
So one way is; how can we know how much relativistic mass is caused by speed?
All the mass of an object?
If so then motion is the main force of gravity (and much more that go too far to discuss here)
Only a part?
If so, how much is another influence contributing?
The fact that we do not know, does not mean that this is a dead end. It is rather a challenge for a new paradigm to research.
Hello Bjarne,
So you can't reference it and your analogy doesn't really demonstrate it.

It means nothing to say it 'might' exist until you show how it can be referenced and demonstrated.

The same applies to the 'string' hypothesis, until a way is found to demonstrate, reference and experiment with it, it is meaningless. However coherent it may be.

You theory seems to actually lack internal consistency, given the 'direction' of your 'dark flow' there should be seasonal perturbations in all planetary orbits, there should be dual perturbations in every single orbit we can observe. It should be visible in binary star orbits, star cluster orbits and internal orbits as well as galactic rotation.

Which with the number of man made satellites would be considerable available to demonstrate.

Where is the effect as suggested by your hypothesis. If dark flow exists as you propose , it should be easily seen across all scales of gravitational orbits. It doesn't take clocks on the ISS, you should see it in every gravitational orbit available, especially on the galaxy scales.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 10:33 AM   #305
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 11,330
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
You cannot see it, unless you have a point of reference in rest.

However there is maybe a different method.
If you accelerate an object, constantly, you will have to add more and more energy. In the end of the day you will need infinity energy and get infinity mass.
The point is, it should be easy to conclude that mass in motion MUST interact with space.
So one way is; how can we know how much relativistic mass is caused by speed?
All the mass of an object?
If so then motion is the main force of gravity (and much more that go too far to discuss here)
Only a part?
If so, how much is another influence contributing?
The fact that we do not know, does not mean that this is a dead end. It is rather a challenge for a new paradigm to research.
If your inane ideas ever actually do make sense, then please make sure to let the rest of us know.

Thanks much.
__________________
08 JAN 2018 > Trump says that he is "Like, Really Smart" and that he is "a Very Stable Genius".
11 JAN 2018 > During an Oval Office meeting, Trump asks "“Why are we having all these people from sh**hole countries come here?”"

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 10:45 AM   #306
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,718
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Think about how much dumber you will appear if I (a total mathematical idiot) very soon can bring down the fanatic fantasy paradigm you believe in.
Would that be humiliating to you ?
You should think about that your arrogance one day can hit yourself in the neck.
Written while gazing into a mirror.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 11:46 AM   #307
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Hello Bjarne,
So you can't reference it and your analogy doesn't really demonstrate it.

It means nothing to say it 'might' exist until you show how it can be referenced and demonstrated.

The same applies to the 'string' hypothesis, until a way is found to demonstrate, reference and experiment with it, it is meaningless. However coherent it may be.

You theory seems to actually lack internal consistency, given the 'direction' of your 'dark flow' there should be seasonal perturbations in all planetary orbits, there should be dual perturbations in every single orbit we can observe. It should be visible in binary star orbits, star cluster orbits and internal orbits as well as galactic rotation.

Which with the number of man made satellites would be considerable available to demonstrate.

Where is the effect as suggested by your hypothesis. If dark flow exists as you propose , it should be easily seen across all scales of gravitational orbits. It doesn't take clocks on the ISS, you should see it in every gravitational orbit available, especially on the galaxy scales.
Dark Flow is pointing South relative to ecliptic.

Yes there are plenty of consequences.
One of these is that DFA and RR also solves the cause of Dark Matter.
The fast galactic orbit speed is caused by the same principle as discussed under the subject: perihelion precession.
DFA is responsible for the large speed, and is even contributing to prevent stars from escaping. RR off course also play a part this.

I am writing a book, mentioning how these 2 factors works together as well how plenty solves of mysteries are easy to solve..

For example in our own solar system, there are lot of hints showing periodical orbit collapse. Naturally, this is what will happen if the orbit inclination periodically is more or less aligned with DFA
This was mentioned at this post..
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=247

You can add much more to that for example why many believe in planets X, - again the signature is DFA and RR, not planet X.

The ISS and Galileo 5 and 6 is dedicated for test of relativity these years.. I have predicted anomalies connected to all these as well.

Last edited by Bjarne; 27th December 2017 at 11:47 AM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 12:05 PM   #308
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,820
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Dark Flow is pointing South relative to ecliptic.
And that is what I am pointing out Bjarne, any body that orbits will respond to this is a bifurcated fashion, it will accelerate more than expected and decelerate at opposite points in any given orbit that is not exactly perpendicular to your 'dark flow'.

I am not talking about procession yet I am saying that your alleged 'force' will impact all orbiting bodies.

So why isn't it seen in the orbital mechanics of most bodies ?

Mercury has an orbital inclination to the ecliptic of 7 degrees, it should speed up and slow down on opposite sides of it's orbit. Does it do that?
Venus is 3.39 and Saturn 2.49, do they?

They should show bifurcated changes in motion as well, much less any earth satellites that orbits that are parallel to your 'dark flow'.

__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 12:20 PM   #309
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,030
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Dark Flow is pointing South relative to ecliptic.
90°? 89° (to conceal its arbitrariness)? That is as convenient as an universal constant value of 1 m/s^2

How do you manage to get the universe to be organized in a way that conceals your mistakes?
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 12:32 PM   #310
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,213
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
90°? 89° (to conceal its arbitrariness)? That is as convenient as an universal constant value of 1 m/s^2

How do you manage to get the universe to be organized in a way that conceals your mistakes?
Does his math include a function for the luminous ether? Phlogiston? Pixie dust? They all seemed (at one time) to obscure one's view of reality. Sort of an under-the-carpet physics.
Peregrinus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 01:46 PM   #311
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
And that is what I am pointing out Bjarne, any body that orbits will respond to this is a bifurcated fashion, it will accelerate more than expected and decelerate at opposite points in any given orbit that is not exactly perpendicular to your 'dark flow'.

I am not talking about procession yet I am saying that your alleged 'force' will impact all orbiting bodies.

So why isn't it seen in the orbital mechanics of most bodies ?

Mercury has an orbital inclination to the ecliptic of 7 degrees, it should speed up and slow down on opposite sides of it's orbit. Does it do that?
Venus is 3.39 and Saturn 2.49, do they?

They should show bifurcated changes in motion as well, much less any earth satellites that orbits that are parallel to your 'dark flow'.

A good and serious question.

There are many factors responsible for that

Large orbit speed, is impacted by stronger EDFA as well as stronger RR effect, therefore the outer planets and objects are very slow to respond on DFA or RR influence.
This leaves the outer objects with a pattern, misinterpreted as caused by planet X , - , however it is a clear DFA / RR signature, we see.

Inclination history is also important.

Not only speed heading directly against DFA counts as absolute speed, angular speed counts as well, and therefore RR will increase if mowing angular in one direction and decrease moving opposite.
This apply when the planets of the solar system moves more or less angular relative to DFA, in the milky way. This as well impacts orbits inclinations.

Moreover,galaxy motion, motion of clusters, as well if the universe is moving, counts as well.

The dominating factor is definitive DFA and this is why you see the same predictable patterns applying for galaxy inclination. - Here you can also clearly see how additional sideways absolute motion , and therefore also RR play an important role.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/spooky-ali...cale-structure

Last edited by Bjarne; 27th December 2017 at 01:57 PM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 02:23 PM   #312
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,030
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
Does his math include a function for the luminous ether? Phlogiston? Pixie dust? They all seemed (at one time) to obscure one's view of reality. Sort of an under-the-carpet physics.
Do you mean like the following hocus pocus?

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
A good and serious question.

There are many factors responsible for that

Large orbit speed, is impacted by stronger EDFA as well as stronger RR effect, therefore the outer planets and objects are very slow to respond on DFA or RR influence.
This leaves the outer objects with a pattern, misinterpreted as caused by planet X , - , however it is a clear DFA / RR signature, we see.

Inclination history is also important.

Not only speed heading directly against DFA counts as absolute speed, angular speed counts as well, and therefore RR will increase if mowing angular in one direction and decrease moving opposite.
This apply when the planets of the solar system moves more or less angular relative to DFA, in the milky way. This as well impacts orbits inclinations.

Moreover,galaxy motion, motion of clusters, as well if the universe is moving, counts as well.

The dominating factor is definitive DFA and this is why you see the same predictable patterns applying for galaxy inclination. - Here you can also clearly see how additional sideways absolute motion , and therefore also RR play an important role.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/spooky-ali...cale-structure
Don't worry, when it's explained it won't be through your "theories".

http://cds.cern.ch/record/1692599/files/p139.pdf
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 02:43 PM   #313
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,213
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Do you mean like the following hocus pocus?

(Insert more of Bjarne's semantic hand-waving. Or the same hand-waving rephrased. Or something.)
Perhaps I was being overly optimistic. I don't think the screed you responded to is good enough to be hocus-pocus. In my experience, really good hocus-pocus brings up a snarling tiger or a pretty young lady. Flowers (usually artificial). A cute little bunny . . . .

Last edited by Peregrinus; 27th December 2017 at 02:44 PM.
Peregrinus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 03:12 PM   #314
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,030
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
Perhaps I was being overly optimistic. I don't think the screed you responded to is good enough to be hocus-pocus. In my experience, really good hocus-pocus brings up a snarling tiger or a pretty young lady. Flowers (usually artificial). A cute little bunny . . . .
That's why I threw that CERN article, so we can help Bjarne to complete his act by throwing those 4 aligned cosmological constants into his sack.

It all boils down to Bjarne adding anything that's not fully explained to the list of things "his theories" do explain. Perturbations on the orbit of Uranus? RR! Neptune discovered? Perturbations on the orbit of Neptune? RR! Pluto discovered? Pluto not having enough mass? RR! Voyagers confirming everything? no, Voyager under RR!

Now it's all "Planet X? No, RR! Sedna orbit? No, RR! Object clustering? RR! what else?"

It doesn't matter he wouldn't hit the nail with his formulas. At 0.6 of light speed his magical RR gives exactly 0.25 m/s^2, at 0.8, 2/3 m/s^2. It's amazing how inspired has the human race been that we chose international units to match numerically his theories. No universal constant needed!

-You said equal
-By I meant proportional ...
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 03:17 PM   #315
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,820
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
A good and serious question.

There are many factors responsible for that

Large orbit speed, is impacted by stronger EDFA as well as stronger RR effect, therefore the outer planets and objects are very slow to respond on DFA or RR influence.
This leaves the outer objects with a pattern, misinterpreted as caused by planet X , - , however it is a clear DFA / RR signature, we see.

Inclination history is also important.

Not only speed heading directly against DFA counts as absolute speed, angular speed counts as well, and therefore RR will increase if mowing angular in one direction and decrease moving opposite.
This apply when the planets of the solar system moves more or less angular relative to DFA, in the milky way. This as well impacts orbits inclinations.

Moreover,galaxy motion, motion of clusters, as well if the universe is moving, counts as well.

The dominating factor is definitive DFA and this is why you see the same predictable patterns applying for galaxy inclination. - Here you can also clearly see how additional sideways absolute motion , and therefore also RR play an important role.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/spooky-ali...cale-structure
Except you haven't shown where this actually happens, you say it does but I see nothing that shows it...

Mere assertion is not enough, the inclination of planetary orbits to the ecliptic is well established. Any planet and this includes Mercury which has a largish inclination and fast motion will show the the effects of moving with/against your 'dark flow' in opposite side os it orbit and for substantial duration except at the nodes where it is highest or lowest relative to the ecliptic.

So where is this data Bjarne, it is exactly not involving the procession of Mecury's orbit, it should be noticeable precisely when Mercury starts to rise and fall above the ecliptic, until it reaches the height or lowest point regards the ecliptic.

So show this data Bjarne, it should be there especially for Mercury. It should show in the motion of Mercury.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 03:37 PM   #316
Crawtator
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 79
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Except you haven't shown where this actually happens, you say it does but I see nothing that shows it...

Mere assertion is not enough, the inclination of planetary orbits to the ecliptic is well established. Any planet and this includes Mercury which has a largish inclination and fast motion will show the the effects of moving with/against your 'dark flow' in opposite side os it orbit and for substantial duration except at the nodes where it is highest or lowest relative to the ecliptic.

So where is this data Bjarne, it is exactly not involving the procession of Mecury's orbit, it should be noticeable precisely when Mercury starts to rise and fall above the ecliptic, until it reaches the height or lowest point regards the ecliptic.

So show this data Bjarne, it should be there especially for Mercury. It should show in the motion of Mercury.
But it doesn't. How odd...

And GR explains it. Hmmm. How odd...
Crawtator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 05:28 PM   #317
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,030
Wasn't this figure clear enough?

http://science27.com/wp-content/uplo...15/05/web4.jpg
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 07:14 PM   #318
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,953
The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017 - Part II

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
It's a wonderful question to consider.


It’s not just a wonderful question to consider. It’s one you need to answer before you can have a workable theory. Without a way to measure against your imagined absolute frame of reference your mythology is about as useful to physics as post-digestion alphabet soup.

You haven’t even bothered to do the remedial work needed to give your mythology legs, let alone prove it.

Whatever happens to relativity, nobody is going to consider your half-baked fecal casserole a viable alternative. Even if you WERE right you’ve done such a piss-poor job fleshing it out nobody will even consider your work if relativity goes out the window.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 07:43 PM   #319
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,953
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
WHAT excactly is it to describe, except no motion ?

No motion relative to what?

Despite everting, you can still be a star.

If you follow the following suggestions, within a year you could have an active fan base advocating your ideas across the Internet and talk radio.

My suggestion that you pursue the Creationist / Flat Earth market is a serious one. You’re the physics equivalent of Kirk Cameron or Kevin Sorbo, their best work is behind them. They chose to work in the explicitly Christian markets because they don’t have the chops to cut it in the general market. You’ve shown repeatedly you asimply can’t construct theories and proofs in the manner needed by real science, but you’re more than capable of meeting Ken Ham standards.

You just need a dash of Jesus to make your ideas marketable.

1. Tweak your criticisms of Relativity to have some religious connotations. Poach some ideas from sites like Conservpedia. Use the arguments against Set Theory and mathematical infinities as your basis. It won’t be hard.

2. Add some descriptions of your absolute frame of reference to have God as the absolute observer. Cook up some equations that allow for local time dilation with an absolute frame of reference.

3. Load your write-up with false humility and winking jabs at real physicists. Model it after some of the mocking criticisms Creationists offer of “Darwinists.” The false modesty is important because your current persona is frankly too arrogant to work for pushing a new idea in a Christian market.

4. Submit your work to a few Christian publishers with a title like, “The Physics Laid out by God,” “Proofs of God in Physics,” or “Einstein was as wrong as Darwin.” Self publish the book and spend a few bucks to advertise it in conservative Christian markets.

5. Don’t worry about if you actually believe in God. There’s precious little genuine faith among the nation’s Megachurch pastors and televangelists. You need a sneering fake empathy for non-believers more than actual faith to make it in those circles.

6. Try to book an appearance on the 700 Club. Get Pat Robertson to endorse you and nothing short of a genocide conviction will make him even think of turning against you. Your critics will be dismissed as servants of Satan.

Do these things and you’ll be a big fish in a small pond. You’ll be able to spread your ideas through your new career as a speaker for Divine Physics.

Bonus points if you can use your ideas to revive the Second Law of Thermodynamics as a “proof” that evolution is impossible.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2017, 11:18 PM   #320
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,373
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Except you haven't shown where this actually happens, you say it does but I see nothing that shows it...

Mere assertion is not enough, the inclination of planetary orbits to the ecliptic is well established. Any planet and this includes Mercury which has a largish inclination and fast motion will show the the effects of moving with/against your 'dark flow' in opposite side os it orbit and for substantial duration except at the nodes where it is highest or lowest relative to the ecliptic.

So where is this data Bjarne, it is exactly not involving the procession of Mecury's orbit, it should be noticeable precisely when Mercury starts to rise and fall above the ecliptic, until it reaches the height or lowest point regards the ecliptic.

So show this data Bjarne, it should be there especially for Mercury. It should show in the motion of Mercury.
This would be a beast to calculate, and require speciel developed software. EDFA and RR will effect all such inclination that not is exact angular. Even if I would calculate it, the world would still be blind and deaf.

My mission is not to get lost in details, so long there are unknown factors, such as: is the universe also moving etc., but mainly to show the overall influence of RR as well as DFA, and predict / prove how these “forces” can be measured..

These 2 factors have several consequences, such as RR, EDFA, DFA as well as what I describe as Addition Sideward Absolute Motion (ASAM) relative to DFA.

However there are most likely more to discover.

10 years ago, I also discussed the following thesis at several forums:
The cause of gravity is; matter absorbing elastic space. Gravity is therefore an elastic property of space.
The elastic space connection between moons and planets is the cause of planet rotation.
The asteroid hitting earth and killing the dinosaurs was a small and very fast orbiting moon responsible for the relative fast rotation of the earth even today.
The retrograde orbit of Venus is caused by the retrograde orbit of the outer planets (seen from a Venus perspective).
Especially, Earth and Jupiter’s pulls the rotation of Venus retrograde.
Also the strange rotation of Uranus is caused by the pull from the orbiting moons.

The deformation of space nearby an astronomic object (a gravitational field) follows motion of matter. A gravitational field is therefore also following the rotation of an astronomic body.
Because (elastic) space and matter is “woven together”, - hence a (fast) rotating gravitational field exerts a (weak) centrifugal force on nearby object.
This especially applies for objects / matter near pulsars or magnetars, but must also be considered to have a weak impact on objects near rotating planets in solar systems, - not allowing moons of neighbor-planets to orbit at the exact same ecliptic inclination plane.
If this also is true in our solar system, - the rotating gravitational fields of the strongest planets will dominate whereas moons belonging to small weak planets are forced to keep a few degree inclination distance to their stronger neighbor.

Saturn and Jupiter (and Neptune) could have forced the moons of Uranus to incline about 10 to 15° relative to ecliptic, whereby the orbit of Uranus was more exposed to ASAM.
ASAM could easy have escalated / forced the inclination of Uranus (and its moons) further to be aligned with DFA, and thereby locked by DFA.

Mercury could also once had have a very fast moving moon, once colliding with the planet .
https://www.space.com/13889-mercury-...l-locking.html

So as you can see, something could easy be missing, there is a most likely more to figure out, the ice gets thinner, and therefore as I wrote my mission is not to walk the plank.

But instead; - to keep my feet on safe ground, and show that there are enough evidence already (and more to come) to justify that DFA and RR will march into science regardless whether fools and beast like it or not.

After that there still is a lot of work to be done and much more to discover.

Last edited by Bjarne; 28th December 2017 at 01:17 AM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:33 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.