The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017

[MRC_Hans]

Esa calculated that 1% probability that it should be possible by coincidence

statistical tests indicate that the probability that this effect can be attributed to randomly oriented polarization vectors is of the order of 1%.

That may be true, but it does not mean that it supports your "theory".


Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Why exactly should the direction of movement have any influence on the inclination of galaxies?

Hans

Because RR applies towards all directions, - except opposite dark flow, given that the speed opposite DF is lower as DF speed.
When moving opposite dark flow Effective Dark Flow acceleration EDFA impact a body - this effect too have a predictable impact.

 

[Bjarne]

That may be true, but it does not mean that it supports your "theory".


Hans

But it at least means that you have nothing better

 

[Daylightstar]

The illustration below, is not something I suddenly made up, but a consequence of the theory. ...

Rubbish.
You 'modeled' your 'illustration' on someone else's illustration which you posted earlier.
Essentially, you steal other people's work and attempt to change it into a consequence of your own 'theory', which is not an actual theory anyway.

 

[Daylightstar]

But it at least means that you have nothing better

You're the one with the claim of having something better but you hang around an internet forum yapping away about your belief instead of contacting ESO/ESA/NASA/ACDC.

Of course, you already understand that ESO/ESA/NASA/ACDC and every other scientist will ..... ehm.... politely ..... decline your idea.

 

[Bjarne]

Rubbish.
You 'modeled' your 'illustration' on someone else's illustration which you posted earlier.
Essentially, you steal other people's work and attempt to change it into a consequence of your own 'theory', which is not an actual theory anyway.

For a long long time I could see that our solar system must be perfectly perpendicularly relative to the DFA axis, - hmmm is this coincidence?
No it is not coincident because DFA and EDFA predicts exact such if no sideward motion relative to DFA.
I began to Google for such strange inclination pattern and BINGO
This is how it works amigo

 

[Bjarne]

You're the one with the claim of having something better but you hang around an internet forum yapping away about your belief instead of contacting ESO/ESA/NASA/ACDC.

Of course, you already understand that ESO/ESA/NASA/ACDC and every other scientist will ..... ehm.... politely ..... decline your idea.

I am not ready to contact, its always more to discover, and u know what I hate thick concrete

 

[MRC_Hans]

Because RR applies towards all directions, - except opposite dark flow, given that the speed opposite DF is lower as DF speed.
When moving opposite dark flow Effective Dark Flow acceleration EDFA impact a body - this effect too have a predictable impact.

Then you need to explain what RR is and why it has anything to do with dark flow. And what dark flow is.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

But it at least means that you have nothing better

No, it does not mean that. However, just because something is unknown, it does not mean you can insert whatever comes into your mind.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Then you need to explain what RR is and why it has anything to do with dark flow. And what dark flow is.

Hans

First at all, what is RR, lets take this first

You know when accelerating a tiny little particle to c - the energy / mass will reach infinity
You also know that F = m*a

So if you want to accelerate the infinity mass you now have, - anywhere, any distance at all, - you need a force with infinity magnitude…..
That should get you to think a little..

Already here you should know that relativistic M increase have the ability to stick to space.
So all you need to do is to take science serious, and just stop exporting things you don’t understand, to psyko realities dimensions that doesn’t exist and no one undrstand, - included you.

So its you that have a problem, if you don’t take mass increase serious, as well as obvious also not F = m*a

 

[MRC_Hans]

First at all, what is RR, lets take this first

You know when accelerating a tiny little particle to c - the energy / mass will reach infinity
You also know that F = m*aSo if you want to accelerate the infinity mass you now have, - anywhere, any distance at all, - you need a force with infinity magnitude…..
That should get you to think a little..

We all know that. Part of theory of relativity (E=MC²)

Explain where the highlighted formula comes in.

The mass increase due to relativistic acceleration is not a form of resistance, it is the mass of the added kinetic energy. It does not imply an energy loss, just energy conversion. And it does not apply at constant speed.

So you still need to explain what Relativistic Resistance is.

Already here you should know that relativistic M increase have the ability to stick to space.

Stick to space? What do you mean?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

We all know that. Part of theory of relativity (E=MC²)

Explain where the highlighted formula comes in.

The mass increase due to relativistic acceleration is not a form of resistance; it is the mass of the added kinetic energy. It does not imply an energy loss, just energy conversion. And it does not apply at constant speed.

Kinetic energy = energy, converted to mass, very very simple, the only problem is that you don't know the process how this happens .

So you still need to explain what Relativistic Resistance is.

Its a process where kinetic energy is converted to mass.

Stick to space? What do you mean?

Hans

Resistance against motion

And yes relativistic mass can be lost, I will come back very soon and show you more details

 

[MRC_Hans]

Kinetic energy = energy, converted to mass, very very simple, the only problem is that you don't know the process how this happens .

It doesn't matter if I know how a process happens or not. We can show that it happens.

Its a process where kinetic energy is converted to mass.

Actually, this is not quite correct. The kinetic energy has, like all energy, a mass (e=mc²). So as you heap kinetic energy on an accelerating object, the mass of the energy adds up. It is still kinetic energy, however.

Resistance against motion

Does not exist. Describe an experiment where resistance against motion can be shown.

And yes relativistic mass can be lost, I will come back very soon and show you more details

Sounds familiar. Seems people who have no evidence use it a lot.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

It doesn't matter if I know how a process happens or not. We can show that it happens.

But a little theoretical understand wouldn’t be so bad.

Actually, this is not quite correct. The kinetic energy has, like all energy, a mass (e=mc²). So as you heap kinetic energy on an accelerating object, the mass of the energy adds up. It is still kinetic energy, however.

Its both, and even a classic equation should tell you that you need more force to move it now.. F=ma

Does not exist. Describe an experiment where resistance against motion can be shown.

Fx Flyby anomalies.. ISS Galileo 5&6 - all this will contribute to bring the existing interpretation down.

Sounds familiar. Seems people who have no evidence use it a lot.

Hans

Latest tomorrow OK ?

 

[Dancing David]

Because RR applies towards all directions, - except opposite dark flow, given that the speed opposite DF is lower as DF speed.
When moving opposite dark flow Effective Dark Flow acceleration EDFA impact a body - this effect too have a predictable impact.

And that is what doesn't make sense, you should have three different values, direction of dark flow, perpendicular to dark flow and opposing dark flow.

 

[Bjarne]

And that is what doesn't make sense, you should have three different values, direction of dark flow, perpendicular to dark flow and opposing dark flow.

The values depend of speed, for perpendicular, and towards Dark flow
I am not sure you understand EDFA ?

 

[Daylightstar]

For a long long time I could see that our solar system must be perfectly perpendicularly relative to the DFA axis, - hmmm is this coincidence?
No it is not coincident because DFA and EDFA predicts exact such if no sideward motion relative to DFA.
I began to Google for such strange inclination pattern and BINGO
This is how it works amigo

Considering your lack of success in promoting your theory, I'd say it doesn't work at all.

 

[Daylightstar]

I am not ready to contact, ...

That much is quite clear

... its always more to discover, ...

With google

... and u know what I hate thick concrete

That's you experiencing the impotency of your ideas.

 

[Dancing David]

The values depend of speed, for perpendicular, and towards Dark flow
I am not sure you understand EDFA ?

My point is that relativistic effects do not vary upon variation of orientation to the 'dark flow'.

There are plenty of processes studied all over the world that would would show a difference depending upon this orientation, yet they do not.

Unless you are saying that it is velocity not orientation that matters.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Its both, and even a classic equation should tell you that you need more force to move it now.. F=ma

Still conventional knowledge. Where is the news?

Fx Flyby anomalies.. ISS Galileo 5&6 - all this will contribute to bring the existing interpretation down.

Uhh, in the flyby anomaly, the spacecraft increases its velocity. Please explain how this is evidence of resistance to movement.

Latest tomorrow OK ?

Whatever.

Hans