Complexity

They offered me a job doing this and learned me how to do neurological modulation and read specialist code . I have a bank transfer receipt that proves the link .

I believe , know , that there is machine code and a group of people , that use online neurological manipulation to promote terror , murder etc .

Now this must be correct !

Does that say gravity A to B equals Tensor A to B ? Well actually since a while back when I wrote that I've considered changing it and trying to define that in solely energy terms . In my present model that would read E=-E+E/R^3 =0 Which explains everything that exists .

My physics at least is my own physics and not just a repeat of others ! c is falling regardless of what Maxwell or others said . Newton was correct about apples and they fall in a straight line as do falling photons . I wish somebody would seriously help with the math .

Ok, the attractive force in the scenario manifold comes from the -E How would you present that in math ? I'm not very good at math , not a troll . There is nothing wrong with my physics .

I could never hope to win an argument against moderators but all the same I'll attempt it ! Who says there is no tensor force ? Don't you mean that nobody as yet discovered or written a scientific paper on a tensor force ? Gravity is quite clearly a force , the force that keeps things on the ground . My math means nothing to you is the correct statement , the reason is because you don't understand it and are not willing to attempt to understand it . An equivalent to aliens visiting the earth and you telling them their math is meaningless just because you personally don't get it . Likewise I see some of your math seems meaningless . My math on force etc is based on negative energy -E Where all +E is attracted to -E Consider a 4 dimensional manifold X,Y,Z and E Consider at the center of the manifold is a single point -E How would you describe in math the +E of the manifold volume being attracted to the single -E point in a centripetal isotropic manner ? Linear algebra ? I have so far : -Ec^3

You may be correct about my math but I really do understand the nature of forces and the physical aspects involved . Mass curves space-time energy towards it with a linear force of gravity . I disagree , force is everything more or less . The tensor force that is expanding our universe is slightly stronger than the tensor force that holds it together . A tensor force creates linear field lines and mass gravitational force curves these lines to create space-time curvature . Consider a taught bed sheet that was being supported in each corner , then drop an iron ball in the middle of the sheet so the sheet become slightly concave and curved downwards . The force that creates the curve is the gravity linear force pulling down on the iron ball . If there were no gravity ''under the sheet'' , the sheet wouldn't concave as the iron ball would have no weight to cause effect on the form of the taught sheet . P.s People don't want to try and understand my math . Any ''negative'' point of space has gravitational force .

So the answer is not none then because you state there is a force and it is the force between the two poles . I assume you mean the + and - signs . So in essence you are saying a circuit is made ! Ok , can you tell me why a battery will go flat over a period of time when not being used ? Where does the charge go and by what force ?

In my hand I have a 7.5v battery off a RC car that I've been attaching to a fan in a test of aerodynamics . The thought occurred that the battery in my hand retains a charge and the charge retains for a lengthy period . Now when I attach the fan connection and my blades start to revolve , I considered that there is now a current flowing from my battery to the fan , A to B Can you please tell me what force the fan is applying on my battery that creates an inflow of energy , extracting the energy from my battery ? F(X) = ? F is force X is vector a = charge b=wire and fan

Yes I do need to learn and I am always willing to learn . c=F<E Force , energy and the speed of EMR traversing through a vacuum . If a cold volume doesn't attract energy then how do things reach room temperature ? My chicken that is defrosting tells me otherwise ! Gravity is a negative ! There is a difference within an atmosphere and in space . There is also a difference of how a body influences bodies over distances . Obviously things don't fly off the earth because of inertia and the gravitational force is stronger at ground level . I agree a good teacher and a few pages is great also but for a basic introduction into math and physics my math does explain c . I am highly confident that the force = less energy positions

You are correct I do not completely understand ''your'' math on light but neither did you or anybody else until they learnt the math . However , you say my equation is meaningless without learning what it means . Let me try to explain , my math teaches somebody a physical process that removes the need for pages and pages of education learning the physics process . It doesn't give and is not meant to give units and values . The result my math gives is an understanding of the actual physical process . I describe the momentum of light is because there is an applied force of attraction , this force being a sate of being <E . When I described F=<E That is showing the physical process , a physical reason for all spatial motion . I am not talking bollox when we know a cold volume attracts heat .

I don't reject this ! I am talking something different than that , force .

The thread got closed , I did present the math F<E I'd need help to put in units and a measurement .

c is a variable passing through a medium as mediums are variable and not invariant like a vacuum . Isn't that true ? Inertia

I haven't rejected the answers ! I deem you haven't give me an answer yet to my question . I asked pull or push ! Was told neither in answer ! Do you wan't me to believe that light traverses from A to B for no reason at all ? No I haven't ! All that you've said is that it is emitted . Then when I ask for the physics involved in emissions you tell me there is no force , push or pull . How can something emit with no push or pull ? I suggested there is a force of attraction involved to anything that has <E Are you not willing to consider and discuss my suggestion which at least attempts to answer the question ?

Yes you most definite revisit aether but when considering the aether , also consider the semantics and what an aether actually is . We on earth are within the earths electromagnetic field , when we transmit a signal we are effectively transmitting EMR through the electromagnetic field . We could consider the earths EMF an aether if we consider semantics differently in relationship to aether . What is an aether ?

Not pull ! Not push! You must be suggesting by magic then which is an inappropriate answer to somebody who wants the physics answer . This is one of the main problems I've found with science , they seem to have stopped moving on ! Isn't understanding and advancing science suppose to be a scientists fundamental goals ? I personally hate incomplete answers and to me the explanation that light travels at c with no given physical reason is seriously incomplete physics . Refraction and interference are reactions of light when it encounters something , it is not the same thing as light traversing through free space .

Perhaps so ! Ice is not really the subject though although I do see the density argument . Are you aware of super conductor levitation?

I've a different thought on ice for you . What if an iceberg floats because it is has more energy per volume measure than water and is attracted upwards towards the <E of the stratosphere making it seem more buoyant ? c is only constant in a vacuum ! When light passes through a medium the permeability of the medium provides an opposing force to light and slows light down . To say c can't change under the influence of force is just silly when we know about medium effects and permeability .

Isn't the force noticed by the speed of c ? Perhaps the force hasn't been noticed because nobody as considered a force contributing to lights momentum before ? How could anyone notice something if they aren't looking for it ?

The word emitting is a generalized term that is without real explanation of cause . Google search:Emitting - produce and discharge (something, especially gas or radiation). The answer is a shortfall to my question and upconversion takes a detour away from the question . Water flows down a hill because of the force of gravity ! Why can't light flow in a similar manner because of an attractive force ? Look at the Sun for example , the Sun itself has more energy than the surrounding space <E per small volume measure . We know by thermodynamics that high energy is passive to less energy state objects and/or space . We also know the ''emitted'' energy of the earlier mentioned lit candle traverses upwards towards the stratosphere where it is <E compared to within the troposphere per small volume measure . Again suggesting that the >E is attracted to the <E ? Aren't objects at their most dense volume when they have less internal energy i.e cold ?

If there is no answer any of you can give of why ! How can you say I am wrong ? The evidence of thermodynamics and spectral emissions suggests I am correct in my thoughts . Objects in a state of high energy always pass energy to objects in a state of less energy . My suggestion that lower energy is somehow an attractive force is not ''way out there '' over the top in imagination , based without fundamental foundations . Of course I am open minded enough to accept a different answer providing there is some provided facts as I've provided . Can't light have infinite mass ? Point physics and zero point energy? How many photons can occupy a point ?

Radiates by the cause push or pull ? The answer is one of the two answers offered and because of my prior light passing through glass scenario , I am swayed towards pull is the answer ! The thereafter the glass having less energy than the glass . The energy before the glass being the flow of light and as in spectral emissions the flow can't invert as before the glass has higher energy .

If you take an apple and dice it into equal segments or cubes , the answer to what divides the apple in this instance is, yourself divides the apple by applying force with a knife . You would be the ''adverb'' . It is a causality answer and not meaningless . ' I don't consider it is stupid to want the entire answer in full , I consider completeness . We know the effect of light but we do not know at this time the cause of the speed and distribution over a volume . In thermodynamics high energy state objects pass energy to lower energy state objects . The energy traverses to the receiver , the motion isn't magic , there is an answer of why and I believe that answer is an attractive force .