Hello2

I’m having questions with this: Is it so that the further the galaxie, the larger the redshift? And: Are there galaxies with a constant redshift, or is it so that all galaxies with a redshift have a redshift that is increasing?

We live in a time that increasing climatechanges because of CO2-emissions should worry everybody, while there is little attention in the news for energy-generation by musclepower. People should be aware that saving energy to save the climate became more a necessity, and while there are several examples of energy-generation by musclepower, maybe it is a good idea to do more with such examples?

Light has a constant speed in vacuum of space, and a different constant speed in water, etc. So a light coming from a car standing still is same speed as light from a car that is moving, because also in the atmosphere lightspeed is a constant . But, if an observer is standing still to a lightsource or in motion to a lightsource, speed of light is not the same, while a constant in the atmosphere? Or not?

Do I understand that right: In next video it says: The mass of planet Earth divided by it's radius=it's gravity? Video link removed by moderator Video link removed by moderator

What about the question: Can musclepower be used to improve energy-generation?

Theory: Water originates from very cold area’s in the universe, as in nebulae, and from cold objects far away from their star. And maybe also from very cold polar regions on (dwarf-)planets as Mars and Pluto? Or not?

Earth has an atmosphere that prevents particles to reach Earth’s surface, and the Sun has an atmosphere that prevents particles from the universe to reach the Earth. Or not?

I live in Holland, a small country in W-Europe. Last august we had worst heatwave since ever.

If there is a redshift of light in the universe because of distance, then galaxies that move away with constant velocity seem to move away with acceleration. So there is no need for bigbang-theory?

There are dwarfstars that can become trillions of years? Because of this discussion I looked for video’s saying so, but found only a few, and I made a small compilation: Dwarfstars that can become trillions of years?! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te22LxXq4d0&feature=youtu.be

Hello, I live in Holland and via my facebook I asked it before, but there was a famous solar eclips in 2017, and: How difficult is it to make pictures of a solar eclips, showing the bending of starlight from behind the Sun?

I would like to know more about inertia, or laziness, and I have a question: Galileo was the first to discover that in a vacuum heavy objects don’t fall faster than lighter objects. That was a counter-intuïtive discovery, and I wonder: Is it possible that he also discovered that lighter objects fall faster than heavy ones, and this is also important for the orbits of satellites?

(Do you know next professor: Julius Sumner Miller Lesson 6: Concerning Falling Bodies & Projectiles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV9wIJF6PaE ??) I thought I had seen video’s saying: There is no difference between the gravity on Earth and “falling objects” because of acceleration in that Einstein’s rocket. What I meant to ask was: On Earth there is a difference when falling objects fall in a vacuum or fall in not a vacuum. Is there also that difference in Einstein’s rocket when it is accelerating?

Hello, I would like to know more about falling objects and Einsteins equivalence, and I have a question: The acceleration of falling objects with different weights differ on Earth when it is done in vacuum or not; Is that also the case with ‘falling objects’ as in Einstein’s rocket that is accelerating?

At some moment I found it remarkable that in such video’s there is little talk about the rotation of the Sun, and I started wondering: What would happen to the orbits of planets if the Sun would stop rotating? The Sun contains more than 90% of the mass of the solar system and rotates in about 25 days. Why wouldn’t the planets fall into the Sun if it stopped rotating?