Relative

I have just found this on WIki 1 Mph = 0.000277778 Mps (Miles Per Second) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_hour You are winding me up and already know this? How can MPH not be a science question when It is used for everything?

To me you actually agree without agreeing, yes this - (And note that 1 second can only be equivalent to a distance at a particular speed; it can never be equal to a distance.) MPH etc is all based on our rotation speed, all of distance etc, was worked out based on the Earth's spin. It was invented and made to fit, it is the obvious undeniable logic. example in the video the Tytos guy invents the triangle shaped thing for looking at the stars etc, then years later, the other guy made maths fit his findings. The maths was invented to fit. They do not predict anything, they only give triangulated co ordinates etc, path plotting. There is nothing special about it, agreed the Tytos guy did an extraordinary job for years. But the maths guy, just made things fit. MPh could of never been calculated in those days, there had to be something, i.e 360 degrees split. Where does MPH come from? I have asked several times, does no one know?

Time is considered a dimension, but it certainly is not. There is no logic in that what so ever, where decay is logic. Your time for example is from 0 to an average of about 88 years depending where you live. An apple falls of a tree,it decays, the apples time is up. Corrosion etc, all decay, all by time, I feel strongly that I am correct. A sun dial based on rotation of shadow, split into segments, yes you have told me this, and it suggests 1 second been equal to 0.277 mile. Where did MPH come from, what century? I have two pieces of wood, both of the same size and density. One piece of wood I treat with protection. I will see that piece time travel and still be there in the future. Where as the untreated wood becomes the past. You cryo genically freeze me, I time travel into the future. Buy you can never travel back only forwards in time.

I add a third house brick in the stratosphere, which one cools first? Thank you , I understand that now. I see time has an infinite random variable.... Decay been of a variable, your time is your life spam.

Arr, thank you, you have just fixed my confusion, I see now my error. In the video, it mentions that science really begun in the 17th century, in Prague, because that is where funding started, my curiousness, then automatically thought, what about before the 17th century? By the 17th century time on a clock already existed, and also MPH. Very interesting that in the 17 th century they had no means of any land vehicles that have great speed. If MPH existed before the 17th century, and also time monitored, how did that derive? Time on a clock was invented by the Romans? Or time started to be recorded by the church? Time is not considered has a thing, where the reality is that time is decay. The light pulses of the Caesium clock, is decay of that singularity. Decay that slows down the further away from Earth, radiation been higher at altitude, because it is nearer the Sun? Less thermodynamic output to a greater Energy level, I put an house brick in space , the house brick temperature is 100F. I do the same on Earth Which one cools down first?

Do we see stars at night because they are in the Earth's shadow? ''ASTRONAUTS CAN SEE STARS IN SPACE.'' the internet wants banning . Is it only a camera in space that can not pick them up?

So Satellites are launched similar to the cannon ball? ''The atmosphere absorbs light and makes stars harder to see. That is why the put telescopes in space.'' In Earth daytime yes agreed, why can we see them at night from Earth? If we can see them at night from earth because the illumination of the atmosphere is took away, astronauts should be able to see them in space, it doe's not make any sense unless the view is magnified from Earth by the atmosphere, similar to how water magnifies?

Thank you I understand we travel an elliptical orbit, and would never consider the earth to be the central matter. Interesting though that the epicycles of the planets, would not logically fit the gravity explanation of current? Also I have read about the stars in space, and that astronauts can not see any , or with a camera, but only with a telescope such has the Hubble space telescope that orbits the earth? If the stars are truly 1000's of light years away, then we should not be able see them at all, so why can we see them at night from Earth? Doe's our atmosphere, magnify the perspective view? In the video, there is Newton's simple theory of the cannon ball, so how doe's that work with satellites, where does's the momentum come from? Geostationary satellites maintain a fixed position to Earth co-ordinates, so how do those maintain a fixed position?

I am not trying to find something, I just want to know everything and cover all aspects without leaving out anything. In learning I like to be thorough , and then when I come upon other people with ideas, I can then tell them their faults with their ideas from what I have learnt. Thank you for the provided links, I shall re read all your answers again, in this thread, before I have new questions. Hello , sorry for this , but is this a credible source and accurate information, before I watch the other 4 hrs worth? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr-jOJnhGyE Within the first 20 minutes of the video it mentions planets were thought to orbit backwards and forward, is this true? Do planets have their own circular orbit has well has orbiting the Sun?

Hmmm, yes I can see that, the magnetic field varying where the flow varies?

Yes that, so is the solar wind variance because of the layer variance?

I was just trying to show some context to what I was trying to get at and question about. And I thank you for your answers. ''gravity belt'' , I have forgot what you call it so can not type it in google to find the correct term. The Sun has bands that move in different directions on the Sun?

And all directions been because of the different gravity belts on the Sun? and how do you work out the speed of the Suns rotation with no points to monitor the rotation?

You say fly away, is this flying away in linear momentum? or is it spiralled? I bet spiralled... ''In fluid dynamics, a vortex is a region within a fluid where the flow is mostly oriented around some axis, straight or curved. Such a pattern of motion is called a vortical flow''

''is the apparent force that draws a rotating body away from the center of rotation. It is caused by the inertia of the body as the body's path is continually redirected.'' Centripetal force and gravity? The Sun has belts?

I see your point completely, and will rephrase, The solar winds are caused by rotation? Solar winds always travel outwards from source? Centrifugal direction?

I never said I was correct, I am just imaging the Physics involved and asking about the Physics involved. You are willing in science to except that Einstein's space time curvature , a dent in space exists, although you can not see this in a Physical presence. Except you can see this..... The football sized Sun has greater mass than a single particle of cement dust, so I presume the Sun to be the greater of the attractors? In a near vacuum the dust would move towards the Sun?

Thank you Strange, ''I doubt these forces have any significant affect on the atoms. Until the forces are strong enough to break molecules apart'' I always considered this to be the reason for vibration on a moving object, stress of direction trying to rip the molecules apart. ''They don't really. The fact they are both hot and both fluids would account for any superficial similarities.'' The Sun is a fluid? If i rotated this image at a constant rotation, in a near vacuum, in a sphere shape, to me this resembles the Sun. Maybe my comparisons are a bit over the top, but I can not help seen some sort of connection. The Suns North and South poles have an inlet at the North and an outlet at the South? doughnut type shape with the hole in the middle? The beams of light that are unexplained from Universal systems are inlet and outlets from rotation causing a centripetal and centrifugal flow? You call it solar winds, I call it centrifugal flow!.

And if you took away the attraction of the Earth on the cement dust, the attraction of the cement dust to the ball would be greater?

I thank you, and I do not do God personally, but was curious about the why's the name come about . And My Sun Is in a near perfect vacuum, has a singularity, I will rephrase my question, what happens to all matter that gets drawn into the Sun by gravity? Why do solar flares from the Sun resemble a Lava burst? Secondary questions- A car been A, and a lamp post been B. A, travels at 100 mph towards B. B is static. The collision is at 100 mph, some of the force <F>, is transferred from A to B by the impact. B tries to continue the direction A was travelling at impact point. Any loose objects in A will also continue to travel in the direction A was travelling on impact. B's energy, stopping <F>, forces energy on impact to travel the opposite direction A was travelling, and A becomes crumpled by F of impact. On an atomic level, what effect does this have on the atoms. In motion of A, is there any affect on direction of movement, of electrons?. In another words , if I am accelerating, does the heavier matter, <Protons>, accelerate faster than the lighter electrons? If I stop, does the electron try to over take the Proton? Sorry I think its the other way around , and the Proton would trail? On acceleration the rear of an object becomes heavier? The energy of the accelerating object is transferred opposite direction to momentum? Returning space craft to the Earth, the nose cone burns up because there is an electrical F at the front?

''''So you want to know the gravitational effect of a ball of gas scaled down to the size of a football. In other words, a football. How much gravitational effect does a football have on a bag of cement? Pretty much zero.'' the cement is out of the bags still in powder form? I have heard before of a god particle, this would be a quark?

What does classical Physics actually mean? Ancient Greek's? The Earth's core, we can see that using thermal imaging? If I had a Sun, and for scaling purposes the size of a football. By gravity attraction, or other, my sun attracts two loose mounds of cement , the equivalent to two bags full. What would happen? MY Sun gains mass? My Sun gains weight? My Sun starts to become a solid? The cement forms a group of matter inside the central core of the SUN? I did already consider dissintergrate by the Heat, and remembered that nothing is ever lost. My cement becomes un-fused? My new star becomes more dense and expands? And the speed of Darkness is 0? Perfect pitch black in a perfect vacuum, dark has the energy level of 0? A temperature of 0? And what elements make up a Quark? is it Higg's.

I am still using the Faraday defence, in time maybe I could invent some maths to fit something. ''No universe at all that we know of before the big bang.'' Not quite accurate if you consider that in a contained system, meaning the visual Universe, and been born, created in that system , your only perceived image of that system, could be of only a singularity, meaning one Universe, where has the obvious more logical thought, would be a multi-verse, and we are an enclosed system amongst over systems. We witness closed systems within our own visual Universe, meaning black holes, which are confined to there own singularity , light can not escape, so If you was inside a black hole, then You could only perceive a single Universe. ''A mathematical model — it would include the equation(s) and assumptions that go into the idea, and allow you to divide tests to see if the model works.'' 0 + EMR = light? or more on the lines of this? E= M x C In which I have no idea what that represents.

Science forums always mention models, what exactly is a model? I do not think it is like a sculpture, so what do you mean by a model? ''What would have been dark? There was no universe.'' There would of been no visual Universe because we did not exist to see it, nothing says that our Universe is not apart of a bigger picture, if we could see further. Science defines Universe from what we can see, which according to your own science, I can compare to been inside of a black hole, and especially since the maths of size fits us exactly in a black hole. I believe the Big bang was caused by isotropic force centripetally , a force that by my estimate can only be achieved by your sphere shaped black hole. An implosion that becomes an explosive force to super nova capability. E=mc2 and Einstein's box in space, a Photon from left to right, is not Energy compared to isotropic centripetal pressure?

I do not want to voice my opinions too hard, in fear of thread closure. But I think you are missing the point that dark comes first and light is made, before the Universe begun, it would of been dark, Before stars there can be no light, there never was light has such, light is made, created, apart of a process. There is always EMR now agreed, but before there could not of been has the stars were not made. If today I was able to turn the sun off by a switch, darkness is instant, because darkness is always there were has light is not. I do see light, dark in a totally different context to current thought, and also I see a lot of other science thought I can see a lot deeper into than current thought. To me science thinks it as come a long way, to me, science has got no where, stuck inside the box. Sorry do not shut my post, I am sincere.