michel123456

After reading your post Phi, I realize that this thread title is not good at all. Too offensive. It was a very bad attempt to get the feedback you talk about...

That is correct but not so simple. Even if you close one eye, the image you get from the other is not like a photograph. With one eye open if you focus on an object close to you then the objects at a distance become blurry. That gives depth.

I took it too.

(bolded mine) That is part of my question. You must first pass through the sign up process, then you post once, then ...nothing. Why? Are we intimidating?

What does that mean? What is your conclusion?

Isn't that gravity?

Where is it?

Your decision is o.k. for me.

Welcome Pselaphinae. I was fast enough today to have a look at your link. Great stuff for whom is interested (I am not but someone else may be) and a lot of enthusiasm. good for you. I find that a clever idea. I don't like it. But if it works why not, I see no harm, everyone is informed and know what is all about. I'd suggest to allow the link for a small period of time (say 24h) so that other members can have a quick look and discuss the concept.

what about energy conservation?

That is exactly my question: how do we know that? How do astronomers measure lateral motion?

I am wasting my time here.

(bolded mine) It is far above my head. What I am really interested in is the following: You have put into mathematical form what happens if photons were in a state of acceleration, right?

I could agree if relativistic physics had set a new unit system. But it has not. what makes "a lot of sense" to you don't make sense at all to me. As I stated above, I thought that "photons in motion" had mass and that a photon's rest mass was null (because a photon is always in motion). Is the following equation correct for a photon? [math]E= m_{rel} c^2[/math]

My question was more about your way of thinking. The process in your mind.

Do astronomers measure lateral velocity at all ?

You will say I am stubborn but [math]m_e[/math] is mass. Ah, at last mass is gone. What are the units of [math]P[/math] ? N/s, or kg m/s IIRC.

(bolded mine) Sure you did explain, I don't understand. You wrote: (bolded mine) What is momentum? I guess not this: because here is mass again. You must be talking about some other momentum without mass. And I thought that photon have no rest mass (because it makes no sense) but that a bunch of traveling photons have mass.

Maybe shoot-and-scoot tactic?

When observing galaxies, astronomers are able to measure their relative velocity to us. How do they measure the eventual lateral velocity when the galaxy motion is not directly aligned with us?

that's confusing: gravity without mass. isn't that mass is the source of gravity? I love your posts Juan. (really, no sarcasm)

It has been established that a massless particle doesn't experience time. A particle of hypothetical negative mass should theoretically experience time reversal. So I understand that regular time is related to regular positive mass. IOW where you have mass you have time and you have gravitation. That should ring a bell.

Thank you for the info. So galaxies that are gravitationally bound will collide?

I was thinking maybe they are afraid to be involved in discussion.

A conjecture is an upgrade of BS. Anyway no one reached the banana yet.