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

[The Man]

Its only when moving more or less north , we can measure that something is wrong with relativity, and in this case only with special relativity..

Moving towards all other direction will not reveal any unexpected anomaly.

You can say that a nuclear Plant can be used either Scientific or only commercial, . if focus in only commercial and not scientific, it can blow up. (Tjernobyl)

It's the same with GPS, if one or 2 satellit not behave 100% as expected, its not sure anybody care, - the important goal is that GPS will work properly. Anomalies can easy be ignored, and auto adjustments done to compensate without anybody ask why.


This is why I predict as I do.

How do you define "North"?

keep in mind....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

 

[Bjarne]

Deceleration is just acceleration in the opposite direction. In circular motion a body always has a centripetal acceleration.

Again that the body constantly changes direction means that its momentum is constantly changing. In fact a perihelion precession, regardless of the cause (relativistic, tidal, rotational or perturbations of such), just means that the body arrives back at that point with a different momentum (moving in a different direction) then when it was there the last time. If I recall correctly the reason for the relativistic contribution to the precession is due to the parallel transport of a vector on a closed loop in a curved space.

So emphatically and explicitly momentum should be your focus in examining any perihelion precession, regardless of the cause. While relativistic mass can be representative of momentum, that is a scalar (magnitude only) and momentum is a vector (magnitude and direction). As such relativistic mass obscures the very aspect relevant to a perihelion precession, the change in direction. You’re putting in far too much effort into a quantity (relativistic mass) that simply and explicitly excludes the essential element of the change (direction)..

Principle 4 - RR Directions:
The RR dependent on speed is the same magnitude due to any additional movement perpendicular to the Dark Flow Direction axis (DFD) as it is moving straight towards DFD while it is gradually decreasing, starting from perpendicular movement to movement opposite to DFD (any northern direction).

Acceleration and deceleration must be understood relative to an overall frame of reference..
From a local GR relevant perspective, for example our solar system, its relativ to the the expected speed of a planet / satellit etc..

Also the curvature of light by gravity would hardly “leave the prevailing “curvature of space” paradigm without any evidence at all” even sans GR perihelion precession.

Deformation of space is correct, but the interpretation of what that really means, is partly wrong..

Matter cannot "feel" the deformation of space, and is also not "guided" by any curvature.

The day we understand that the precession anomaly of Mercury not was cause by any curvature of space, - (but as I wrote above) we will realize that at this point Einstein had his mouth to full, simply because GR cannot explain the cause of this very unique and important aspect of science..

And yes left is therefore to understand why then light is bended by gravity, and what is gravity lensing.. I suggest you to read these 2 chapters, - because this theory is really a theory of everything

http://science27.com/gravitational-lensing
http://science27.com/dark-energy

 

[Bjarne]

How do you define "North"?

Relative to ecliptica

 

[The Man]

Principle 4 - RR Directions:
The RR dependent on speed is the same magnitude due to any additional movement perpendicular to the Dark Flow Direction axis (DFD) as it is moving straight towards DFD while it is gradually decreasing, starting from perpendicular movement to movement opposite to DFD (any northern direction).

Acceleration and deceleration must be understood relative to an overall frame of reference..

Whatever reference frame you select deceleration is still just acceleration in the opposite direction (negative acceleration).

Deformation of space is correct, but the interpretation of what that really means, is partly wrong..

OK, so space can be curved but you just interpret that "partly" wrong? If that is your claim then I suggest you change part of your interpretation.

Matter cannot "feel" the deformation of space, and is also not "guided" by any curvature.

Who said "feel" or "guided"? Is this part of your professed partly wrong interpretation?

In a curved space a geodesic is analogues to a straight line in flat space.

The day we understand that the precession anomaly of Mercury not was cause by any curvature of space, - (but as I wrote above) we will realize that at this point Einstein had his mouth to full, simply because GR cannot explain the cause of this very unique and important aspect of science..

Again what I wrote above is that what you wrote above doesn't address the percession in any way or by any cause as you simply don't address the change in direction (momentum) when returning to the same relative location.

And yes left is therefore to understand why then light is bended by gravity, and what is gravity lensing.. I suggest you to read these 2 chapters, - because this theory is really a theory of everything

http://science27.com/gravitational-lensing
http://science27.com/dark-energy

I suggest you just show how "light is bended by gravity" in your model, including calculations.

 

[The Man]

Relative to ecliptica

Define it relative to whatever you want. Again how do you define "north"?

 

[Beady]

Why won't this thread die? Does this forum count as a peer-reviewed journal?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[The Man]

Why won't this thread die?

Like all zombies you have to hit it in the brain hard enough to kill it. Unfortunately, not all notions are locally sourced from the brain.

 

[dasmiller]

It's the same with GPS, if one or 2 satellit not behave 100% as expected, its not sure anybody care, - the important goal is that GPS will work properly. Anomalies can easy be ignored, and auto adjustments done to compensate without anybody ask why.

This is completely wrong. The govt has to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to get a GPS spacecraft on-orbit; they do extensive on-station testing and evaluation of each spacecraft before they declare it operational and it's the nature of GPS that each spacecraft is being constantly, closely monitored from a number of ground sites. No anomaly is ignored. Detailed drag & solar pressure models are created for each spacecraft to compensate for the tiny drag and solar wind effects. Individual clock skips are tracked and collected for long-term analysis. On-orbit data is used to model individual variations in the nav antenna phase centers, because the position of the phase center can affect the precise navigation results.

It is absolutely false to claim that anomalies are simply ignored.

This is why I predict as I do.

I'll stop before I get myself yellow-carded.

 

[Bjarne]

Define it relative to whatever you want. Again how do you define "north"?

If you want to explain which direction you are pointing to, you have to refer to something
The sun have a north and South Pole, you can point towards the direction NORTH relative to such a south / north axis of the suns rotation axis.

 

[dasmiller]

As pointed out serveral time GPS is a Commercial system, not a Scientific. Scientific satellits are completely different. You cannot compare scientific satellits with GPS satellits.

This is so fractally wrong that the typos are an improvement.

First, GPS is procured and operated by the US Air Force, so GPS is "commercial" only to the extent that the USAF is a commercial entity.

Second, there is no sharp distinction between "scientific" and non-scientific tools. Data is data. A custom-designed scientific instrument may have smaller error bars than a commercial-use instrument, but that's simply something the research has to take into account. The researchers who rely on GPS data understand the instrument errors just fine.

Third, many, many groups participate in developing GPS requirements, including the scientific community. It is, then, also a scientific system.

 

[Bjarne]

Whatever reference frame you select deceleration is still just acceleration in the opposite direction (negative acceleration)..

So when you forget to release the handbrake enough and run out of gas, - your car is accelerating towards the opposite direction?
Well if you prefer to make it complicated it’s OK for me.
I prefer to keep it simple, and only conclude your car is decelerating because of the handbrake problem.

In a curved space a geodesic is analogues to a straight line in flat space.

If this was true for both matter and photons -photons too would orbit the Sun and the earth etc..

But since this is not the case, - Einstein invented the idea that photons have larger momentum due to speed, and therefore follows different paths than slower matter-objects.

The photon-momentum claim is nothing but a postulate.

Photons cannot have momentum because these have no mass, - and can in no way be compared to mass-elementary particles.

According to my understanding it is true that mass is “bending” space , -or rather stretching space, - but insignificant, and in no way so dramatically that this can explain the cause of gravity.

Photons and mass-particles are at best equally (insignificant) effected by the “curved space”, - and only mass particle can have momentum.

The curvature is in no way the cause of gravity. – It is the connecting between space consuming particles (mass particles) and the elastic space that is the cause of gravity. Gravity is still a force.

Again what I wrote above is that what you wrote above doesn't address the precession in any way or by any cause as you simply don't address the change in direction (momentum) when returning to the same relative location.

Software able to calculate the effect of what I wrote (above) is necessary.
It is a beast to developed, - but it is logical clear, that the influence already seems to have such alarming impact on deep orbits that no space will be left for Einstein’s postulate, claiming that he solved the cause og mercury's pression anomaly and also not the cause of gravity.

My friend think about that we today know that space-probes are increasing their speed significant, when flying deep into a field of gravity.

Now you have for the first time a tool in the darkness, try instead to use it and see what happens. - And yes there are no space left in the theory of relativity for such new idea.

Sooner or later we have to face that the only way out of the darkness is to modify both GR and SR, - only by doing so a new paradigm can comprehend the huge and growing amount of knowledge and observation that today simply cannot adapt to the prevailing paradigm

 

[Bjarne]

This is completely wrong. The govt has to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to get a GPS spacecraft on-orbit; they do extensive on-station testing and evaluation of each spacecraft before they declare it operational and it's the nature of GPS that each spacecraft is being constantly, closely monitored from a number of ground sites. No anomaly is ignored. Detailed drag & solar pressure models are created for each spacecraft to compensate for the tiny drag and solar wind effects. Individual clock skips are tracked and collected for long-term analysis. On-orbit data is used to model individual variations in the nav antenna phase centers, because the position of the phase center can affect the precise navigation results.

It is absolutely false to claim that anomalies are simply ignored.

.

Wait and see tik tak tik tak tik tak 2016 .... 2017, and u2 will see that the prediction i made is correct, then you can sallow you words again..

My friend think about if GPS really was flawless evidence, - why then testing on ISS and Galileo 5 and 6 these years
Something out there is rotten right ?
This is why

 

[The Man]

If you want to explain which direction you are pointing to, you have to refer to something
The sun have a north and South Pole, you can point towards the direction NORTH relative to such a south / north axis of the suns rotation axis.

Again, as I said, define it relative to whatever you want but I'm still asking you for your definition of your "north". So for the third time how do you define "north".

I'll give you a hand. You said "Relative to ecliptica" do you mean relative to the ecliptic of the orbiting body? If so how is it relative to that ecliptic, is your north/south axis parallel, perpendicular or perhaps at some angle to that ecliptic plane?


It really isn't that hard but you do have to make at least some effort as you will be held to whatever definition you decide.

 

[Bjarne]

This is so fractally wrong that the typos are an improvement.

First, GPS is procured and operated by the US Air Force, so GPS is "commercial" only to the extent that the USAF is a commercial entity.

Second, there is no sharp distinction between "scientific" and non-scientific tools. Data is data. A custom-designed scientific instrument may have smaller error bars than a commercial-use instrument, but that's simply something the research has to take into account. The researchers who rely on GPS data understand the instrument errors just fine.

Third, many, many groups participate in developing GPS requirements, including the scientific community. It is, then, also a scientific system.

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:
1. Atmospheric drag and solar wind effects
2. The Earth isn't a perfect uniform sphere but is slightly lumpy, which means its gravitational field isn't uniform
3. Other massive objects in the solar system perturb their orbits with their gravity

http://space.stackexchange.com/ques...s-need-orbit-correction-but-natural-ones-dont

And in the end of the day, who know which anomaly was caused by what ??

Nobody right ?

(unless a complete scientific setup constantly is available)

 

[dasmiller]

Wait and see tik tak tik tak tik tak 2016 .... 2017, and u2 will see that the prediction i made is correct, then you can sallow you words again..

None of what I said was speculation or prediction, it's all publicly available information about GPS.

My friend think about if GPS really was flawless evidence, - why then testing on ISS and Galileo 5 and 6 these years
Something out there is rotten right ?

Similarly, after Louis Pasteur developed the germ theory of disease, why would anyone else need a microscope? Unless something was rotten with Pasteur's work . . .

But if we work within your worldview, the Galileo spacecraft are no more 'scientific' than the GPS spacecraft, so they're no more useful for science than GPS.

This is why

 

[dasmiller]

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:
1. Atmospheric drag and solar wind effects
2. The Earth isn't a perfect uniform sphere but is slightly lumpy, which means its gravitational field isn't uniform
3. Other massive objects in the solar system perturb their orbits with their gravity

http://space.stackexchange.com/ques...s-need-orbit-correction-but-natural-ones-dont

And in the end of the day, who know which anomaly was caused by what ??

Nobody right ?

(unless a complete scientific setup constantly is available)

Actually, those effects are generally known to very high accuracy. The drag and solar wind effects vary from spacecraft to spacecraft, and that's why the GPS spacecraft have the individualized (and painfully detailed) models that I mentioned above.

And after taking the known effects into account, the orbit anomalies are very small indeed.

BTW, solar photon pressure and outgassing also provide tiny accelerations, so do any non-omnidirectional transmissions.

 

[The Man]

So when you forget to release the handbrake enough and run out of gas, - your car is accelerating towards the opposite direction?

If your assertion is that you just slow down (a negative change in velocity), then yes. To an originally co-moving observer you would be accelerating away to their rear. Similarly in your car as you slow you feel a forward force as you would accelerating backwards from rest.

Well if you prefer to make it complicated it’s OK for me.

You find just opposing directions complicated?

I prefer to keep it simple, and only conclude your car is decelerating because of the handbrake problem.

Cars, handbrakes and gas are all complications that you add evidently just to get the conclusion you also just add by those same, well, complications.

If this was true for both matter and photons -photons too would orbit the Sun and the earth etc..

No they wouldn’t

But since this is not the case, - Einstein invented the idea that photons have larger momentum due to speed, and therefore follows different paths than slower matter-objects.

“have larger momentum due to speed”? What the heck are you talking about? A photon of about the Planck wavelength only has the momentum (Plank momentum) of about 6.5 newton seconds. Comparable to a major league fast ball pitch.

The photon-momentum claim is nothing but a postulate.

See radiation pressure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

Photons cannot have momentum because these have no mass, - and can in no way be compared to mass-elementary particles.

What happened to “Relativistic Mass and Energy are two sides of the same coin”? What is the relation between kinetic energy and momentum? Without rest mass a photon can only have kinetic energy and momentum.

According to my understanding it is true that mass is “bending” space , -or rather stretching space, - but insignificant, and in no way so dramatically that this can explain the cause of gravity.

You need a better understanding

Photons and mass-particles are at best equally (insignificant) effected by the “curved space”, - and only mass particle can have momentum.

Again demonstrably wrong. What is the relation between kinetic energy and momentum?

The curvature is in no way the cause of gravity. – It is the connecting between space consuming particles (mass particles) and the elastic space that is the cause of gravity. Gravity is still a force.

Baseless and ridiculous assertion. “space consuming” you say, how long before all space is, well, consumed?

Software able to calculate the effect of what I wrote (above) is necessary.

From what you wrote above some fundamental mechanical and physical instruction is necessary first. While software can just be made up to give you whatever results you want you first have to nail down the precise physical and mathematical relations in accordance with observational data if you want those two to actually be related.

It is a beast to developed, - but it is logical clear, that the influence already seems to have such alarming impact on deep orbits that no space will be left for Einstein’s postulate, claiming that he solved the cause og mercury's pression anomaly and also not the cause of gravity.

OK, so a course on logic seems necessary as well. Try to be less alarmed and less consumed. Your “space consuming particles (mass particles)” are supposed to consume, well, space not you.

Logically wouldn’t something that is complete and utter crap also be “a beast to developed”? What steps or short cuts might one take to test or ensure said beast ain’t just horse hockey?

My friend think about that we today know that space-probes are increasing their speed significant, when flying deep into a field of gravity.

Now you have for the first time a tool in the darkness, try instead to use it and see what happens. - And yes there are no space left in the theory of relativity for such new idea.

Sooner or later we have to face that the only way out of the darkness is to modify both GR and SR, - only by doing so a new paradigm can comprehend the huge and growing amount of knowledge and observation that today simply cannot adapt to the prevailing paradigm

While I ain’t your friend I’ll still advise you to stop the pointless self-aggrandizing pontifications and just get down to doing some of the actual work. Which of course does mean learning. There is always space for learning no matter (pun intended) how much your mass particles have consumed.

 

[ben m]

The instability in orbits of our artificial satellites come from a few basic causes:
1. Atmospheric drag and solar wind effects
2. The Earth isn't a perfect uniform sphere but is slightly lumpy, which means its gravitational field isn't uniform
3. Other massive objects in the solar system perturb their orbits with their gravity

http://space.stackexchange.com/ques...s-need-orbit-correction-but-natural-ones-dont

And in the end of the day, who know which anomaly was caused by what ??

Nobody right ?

(unless a complete scientific setup constantly is available)

It sounds like you are unaware of the GRACE, Gravity Probe B, and LISA Pathfinder satellites. These are "double" satellites---an outer shell exposed to things like atmospheric drag and solar wind, and an inner object called a "test mass" shielded from everything we know of except gravity. Result: when you take non-gravitational forces out of play, what's left is measurements of gravity and hypothetical gravity anomalies which continue showing perfect agreement with Einstein's theory of GR.

General rule for physics cranks: never, ever, ever assume that something has gone entirely unstudied. Every assertion of the form "none of those ivory-tower dogma-followers ever bothered experimenting on X" I have ever seen has been wrong. Welcome to the list.

 

[fuelair]

Principle 4 - RR Directions:
The RR dependent on speed is the same magnitude due to any additional movement perpendicular to the Dark Flow Direction axis (DFD) as it is moving straight towards DFD while it is gradually decreasing, starting from perpendicular movement to movement opposite to DFD (any northern direction).

Acceleration and deceleration must be understood relative to an overall frame of reference..
From a local GR relevant perspective, for example our solar system, its relativ to the the expected speed of a planet / satellit etc..



Deformation of space is correct, but the interpretation of what that really means, is partly wrong..

Matter cannot "feel" the deformation of space, and is also not "guided" by any curvature.

The day we understand that the precession anomaly of Mercury not was cause by any curvature of space, - (but as I wrote above) we will realize that at this point Einstein had his mouth to full, simply because GR cannot explain the cause of this very unique and important aspect of science..

And yes left is therefore to understand why then light is bended by gravity, and what is gravity lensing.. I suggest you to read these 2 chapters, - because this theory is really a theory of everything

http://science27.com/gravitational-lensing
http://science27.com/dark-energy

You keep on insisting on being wrong. Stuff works that would not work if you were correct. We tend to think you might take that to be a subtle hint that the universe is not on your side here!!!!!!

 

[Darwin123]

But since this is not the case, - Einstein invented the idea that photons have larger momentum due to speed, and therefore follows different paths than slower matter-objects.

The idea that light has a large momentum due to speed was not invented by Einstein. He wasn't THAT smart! Though Einstein was by far smarter than his current detractors, the linear momentum carried by a light beam had been MEASURED by scientists in countless experiments BEFORE Einstein's 1905 article.

Scientists are still measuring the momentum of light in laboratories here on earth without space probes and satellites. Small scale experiments on the laboratory bench have established that light carries momentum. Furthermore, no one has has been able to detect a photon in a vacuum that doesn't travel at 'c'. Light in a vacuum here on earth always travels with a speed of 'c'. Even air doesn't slow down light very much here on earth.

I don't know what universe you live in. However, in my universe the speed of light has been shown to be independent of its source. Therefore, the speed of a photon is always 'c'. However, the momentum of a photon varies even though its speed is constant. The momentum of a photon varies because the inertial mass of the photon varies.

Light exerts radiation pressure which is a mechanical force. Light carries linear momentum because it can exert a mechanical force. Therefore, any amount of light in terms of energy has to have an inertial mass in order to carry the linear momentum.

Photons exert radiation pressure in all reference frames because they have inertial mass. If they didn’t have inertial mass, then they couldn’t exert radiation pressure. Their inertial mass is proportional to their total energy. In that sense they are like any other elementary particle.

A gamma ray photon moving at the speed of light can have the same inertial mass as a electron at rest. The caveat here is that the photon can never be at rest. A photon always travels at the ‘speed of light’. The speed of light in a vacuum can never be zero. The local speed of light in a vacuum always has the same large value often designated by ‘c’.

Photons don’t have rest mass because they can not be at rest in any frame of reference. The photons in a vacuum always travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. Other particles have a rest mass because they can be at rest in at a reference frame. Particles with rest mass always travel slower than the speed of light in any reference frame.

The following is a link describing radiation pressure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
‘Radiation pressure is the pressure exerted upon any surface exposed to electromagnetic radiation. Radiation pressure implies an interaction between electromagnetic radiation and bodies of various types, including clouds of particles or gases. The interactions can be absorption, reflection, or some of both (the common case). Bodies also emit radiation and thereby experience a resulting pressure.
The forces generated by radiation pressure are generally too small to be detected under everyday circumstances; however, they do play a crucial role in some settings, such as astronomy and astrodynamics. For example, had the effects of the sun's radiation pressure on the spacecraft of the Viking program been ignored, the spacecraft would have missed Mars orbit by about 15,000 kilometers.
…
Radiation pressure can be analyzed as interactions by either electromagnetic waves or particles (photons). The waves and photons both have the property of momentum, which allows their interchangeability under classical conditions.
…
Electromagnetic radiation is quantized in particles called photons, the particle aspect of its wave–particle duality. Photons are best explained by quantum mechanics. Although photons are zero-rest mass particles, they have the properties of energy and momentum, thus exhibit the property of mass as they travel at light speed.’

Radiation pressure has been measured a long time before relativity. The following link describes some history of radiation pressure measurements.


http://www.ece.uvic.ca/~bctill/papers/numacoust/Beyer_1978.pdf
‘The history of light radiation pressure goes back more than 200 years to Leonhard Euler.…’

Engineers are measuring radiation pressure in better ways today.

https://mundaylab.umd.edu/wp-content/uploads/Ma_APL_2015.pdf
‘Quantitative measurement of radiation pressure on a microcantilever
in ambient environment
…
Light reflected off a material or absorbed within it exerts radiation pressure through the transfer of momentum. Micro/nano-mechanical transducers have become sensitive enough that radiation pressure can influence these systems. ’


https://books.google.com/books?id=I...epage&q=Einstein 'radiation pressure'&f=false
‘The existence of radiation pressure was well established before Einstein formulated the special theory of relativity.’

Scientists had informally shown that energy is related to inertial mass even before Einstein by considering radiation pressure. Einstein formally proved that that there was a precise equivalence between energy and matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence
‘Mass–energy equivalence arose originally from special relativity as a paradox described by Henri Poincaré.[1] Einstein proposed it in 1905, in the paper Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?, one of his Annus Mirabilis ("Miraculous Year") Papers.[2] Einstein was the first to propose that the equivalence of mass and energy is a general principle and a consequence of the symmetries of space and time.’

Einstein may have been partly motivated by the riddle of radiation pressure when he started to develop special relativity. However, he didn’t discover radiation pressure. Scientists long before him had figured out that energy and inertial mass are equivalent.

The riddle of radiation pressure is this. In Newton’s theory of emchanics, as presented in Principia, energy is not equivalent to inertial mass. You could pump a body up with large amounts of energy without changing the inertial mass of the body by even a small amount. So either radiation pressure doesn’t exist or Principia is sometimes wrong. So the riddle is which is

Einstein preferred to think that Principia was sometimes wrong than reject all the experimental evidence for radiation pressure. If a scientist thinks that Principia is always precisely correct, then he has to explain radiation pressure.

The photon-momentum claim is nothing but a postulate.

Photons cannot have momentum because these have no mass, - and can in no way be compared to mass-elementary particles.

Strangely, the momentum of light has been measured for at least two hundred years starting with Euler. You are SOOOOO wrong.

Or are you claiming that light can carry momentum but photons can not carry momentum?

A photons is a particle of light. Or haven't you heard?

According to my understanding it is true that mass is “bending” space , -or rather stretching space, - but insignificant, and in no way so dramatically that this can explain the cause of gravity.

Photons and mass-particles are at best equally (insignificant) effected by the “curved space”, - and only mass particle can have momentum.

The curvature is in no way the cause of gravity. – It is the connecting between space consuming particles (mass particles) and the elastic space that is the cause of gravity. Gravity is still a force.



Software able to calculate the effect of what I wrote (above) is necessary.
It is a beast to developed, - but it is logical clear, that the influence already seems to have such alarming impact on deep orbits that no space will be left for Einstein’s postulate, claiming that he solved the cause og mercury's pression anomaly and also not the cause of gravity.

My friend think about that we today know that space-probes are increasing their speed significant, when flying deep into a field of gravity.

Now you have for the first time a tool in the darkness, try instead to use it and see what happens. - And yes there are no space left in the theory of relativity for such new idea.

Sooner or later we have to face that the only way out of the darkness is to modify both GR and SR, - only by doing so a new paradigm can comprehend the huge and growing amount of knowledge and observation that today simply cannot adapt to the prevailing paradigm

Gee, there is no light in the Bjarne universe. I am so sorry for you