Relative

Global warming I believe, caused by thermodynamic increase, taking more on than we emit. A weak lightning for example, a pulse of electricity. I understand my own ideas, and am trying to convey it into something you know and understand, and today I have learnt more than I knew yesterday. You say a brick has no KE at rest, what about the Kinetics happening inside the brick on a quantum scale? I am not cherry picking, I understand that 0+E = M+, <mass increase> therefore gravity increase, although small and on a tiny scale, with 0 friction, and Fn not applying, only one force is involved. ''The Earth's absorption of solar radiation, followed by its outgoing thermal radiation are the two most important processes that determine the temperature and climate of the Earth.'' The sponge is becoming waterlogged? This may sound silly , does energy have a weight?

''And a Neutron been neutral, can energy pass through a neutral'' If I fired an electrical beam at a Neutral , what would be the effect? Would the neutral absorb the beam?

Tell a lie there is kinetic energy involved. ''Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter. All matter with a temperaturegreater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. When the temperature of the body is greater than absolute zero, interatomic collisions cause the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules to change. ''

So over distance and several years, a 1kg brick would continue to accelerate to higher Velocities? And a Neutron been neutral, can energy pass through a neutral? I disagree, acceleration in an equilibrium of two masses, does not need KE to move, if I was to put more energy output in either of the magnets , the elastic band will expand, hence movement. No kinetic energy of motion needed. So if I have two house bricks in space, that orbited and were binded to a central mass, by balance of F, equaling 0 velocity, centripetal or centrifugal, and I change the thermodynamics of one of the bricks, then the distance between the central mass and the brick will change. , At night , the planet loses heat/energy in the form of infra red radiation, what is the energy loss compared to energy gained in the daytime? ''A system is said to be in thermal equilibrium with itself if the temperature within the system is spatially and temporally uniform.'' The work needed is increase or decrease in mass by thermodynamics?

''In classical statistical mechanics, the equipartition theorem is a general formula that relates the temperature of a system with its average energies. The equipartition theorem is also known as the law of equipartition, equipartition of energy, or simply equipartition. The original idea of equipartition was that, in thermal equilibrium, energy is shared equally among all of its various forms; for example, the average kinetic energy per degree of freedom in the translational motion of a molecule should equal that of its rotational motions.'' In thermal equilibrium, my diagram, all forces are equal to sustain distance? increase either force to gain contracting or expanding?

I thank you for the information , although at this time I do not completely understand it. 1367 Joules of energy per 1 m^2 would be equal to the force? How much force does a Photon exert on matter, would there be enough force to push an house brick through space? How much thermodynamic increase would be needed with no friction to make movement? Does or can the Neutron hold a charge? Does the Proton expand when energy is added? ''An object is gravitationally bound to a massive body, if it doesn't contain enough kinetic energy to escape orbit of that massive body.'' What about thermodynamic increase or decrease of radiation? ''The gravitational binding energy of a system is equal to the negative of the total gravitational potential energy' Is this what I have just drawn has such? Equal to negative?

''In physics, energy is a property of objects'', the sun releases energy in the form of emr, would the objects be Photons? and if so , what about the invisible spectrum, radio waves etc? These waves clearly have energy, do they have force? Is energy not a process created by an object, or put into a object?

I missed out the x sorry , my mistake. ''A ball underwater is in water. The vortex is water. What would the sun's purported vortex consist of? Energy isn't a substance.'' Does energy not have a force?

''It is left as an exercise for the student to show that the torque is identically zero for a centrifugal (or centripetal) force acting on a spherically symmetric body. (it's basically two steps to show this)'' Two steps been?, hint please, I have looked at torque, T=RF, but am at a loss. Do you mean the equilibrium i mention , two forces acting has zero?

Water is a good comparison, however water needs much more F to vortex because of friction, viscosity etc, A ball underwater spinning will create a south and north vortex, and a central body of flow. So a sun in space spinning with no friction should vortex its own energy, by use of its own acting forces? I will try to work out what you just asked me to do.

Centripetal creating inward spirals, centrifugal expanding inward spirals i will look that up , one min... No, I do not think I mean that, unless i do not understand that. Turbulence energy flow by motion....

Whos making stuff up, i am just using current science and physics, its not my stuff, you already know most of the physics im explaining, , but do not see it. the energy twist is space time curvature, Einstein almost had it. Caused by the spin. Imagine a sea of energy and we add/create a vortex, the energy would spiral, and an object that spins and gives off energy will create its own vortex.

''Torque, moment or moment of force (see the terminology below) is the tendency of a force to rotate an object about an axis, fulcrum, or pivot. Just as a force is a push or a pull, a torque can be thought of as a twist to an object.'' the blue squiggly lines represent energy twist, spiraled energy, point of contact is where the right circles energy meets the left circle, a rolling road of energy has such. The suns torque twists its energy...

But there would be torque by centrifugal force and direction of energy flow, A curvature of energies, it would make energy waves...

well actually , for now yes , consider it as gears, and the right circle is static, but spins, there is no friction to prevent the left circle from moving, the linkage is an invisible pink unicorn, For now please just imagine the link has a transparent bar, it will make it easier, I am just checking something in my thinking, So the left circle will rotate around the right circle? Sorry , my mistake i appologise. If the left circle is at an equilibrium and has zero friction, what force would prevent the left circle from rotating around the right circle?

Because of the forces involved, the two circles are connected by an invisible link, the force, There is no friction that can prevent movement

And thank you , I have learnt some new interesting things today. velocity zero If the right circle was to rotate, the left circle would rotate the right circle?

why the sky is blue? wow you know your stuff really well and I will read and re-read this over and over until i get it. is 9.81ms2 applied to the sun and the earth, would the sun accelerate towards the earth at the same V? and how the eck do you get all those symbols up on a keyboard? meaning this

I might not know it all and all i need to know , but can you at least see what I am trying to explain now?

There is nothing complicated about it except to make some maths fit, This is why we ellipse in my opinion by my logic process. The sky is so blue.......

Well you know maths beyond the standard I struggle with, just because I did not learn it, I am getting there knowing formulas, and soon will pick up the rest... I am sorry if my units do not make sense, I just say what I see, I see matter always want to accelerate to matter, so mass been the term you use, MA, and gravity is the force involved, so MAG, I suppose im just giving a formula to the work, force is caused by matter wanting to accelerate by gravity. ''In physics, a force is said to do work when acting on a body there is a displacement of the point of application in the direction of the force Where the earths field meets space, there is a displacement of force at the northern lights? To me the curvature of time and space, is displacement of magnetic field by momentum and velocity. I think the sun does this?

that sounds good thx.

My second formula wold need to show the opposing stopping force, that stops the first force from making a collision of planets. F=m<-a>MF? Force is equal to mass decelerated by magneic field, or emr, ? or both? mass acellerated by gravity

Ok, so firstly I want to do maths for the earth been attracted to the sun and vice versus, F=MAG force is equal to acceleration by gravity, would that be correct?

I am sorry I am really trying, I thought wiki quotes were made up of citations, how can i find a citation for a new theory when it has not yet been written? how can I find maths that has not yet been created? You say no basis in reason, you are then saying that what I have learnt from science, from wiki is garbage. My reasoning is obvious, magnetic field, opposes EMR, your laws state this, Force in the opposite direction, This - "When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body." I do not understand, why my posts keep getting threatened with closure, you can see I am trying, I used wiki quotes to try to convey my thoughts in your terminology. It would be mean of you to close this thread, I am polite, and do try to answer the questions. No one answers my questions, I asked if the diagram of a,b,c,d squares, if the physical process on that was correct, to what I defined with that example, and if that is correct, that does mean my whole gravity concept is possible also. you can not deny that my abcd diagram is possible?