Relative

Ok, thank you, so you are saying the Earth and the Moon are a couple and there is a torque involved? Are you saying that forces with no linkage and based on a connection of forces, that there is an energy linkage that creates torque?

Hmm. yes it does , ''An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.'' a spin is motion.

I love probability , some one mentions 32% probability of been selected, untrue in my opinion when random is random,, and random does not have set rules , even probabilities are not accurate in a random system.

Thank you for the answers, added not apart of this thread just to mention - when I referred to it is always dark, this is what I meant. So a medium such as atmosphere, is a conduit for emr?

I am listening still, you went a bit into the complexity side for me to follow sorry.

Yes that is what I was saying, Oxygen, hydrogen etc do not emit emr, that is why we can not remotely see it?

I understand speed of a spin can be altered by aerodynamics on Earth in an atmosphere, but Newtons law states that an object in space that has momentum, whether it be linear or rotational should not slow unless an external acting force opposes it. Ok , so what external force acts on the moon?

Our eyes do not observe things at distance and pick up on the reflected emr of matter? that sounds like remote to me?

Thank you

I partly read the link , I will refer back to the link when I know some basics first about the moon, I am trying not to run before I can walk... Ok I thought that would be the answer, and initial inertia was the big bang. Newtons first law is not been broken then by it been slowed down?

Thank you for the lunar energy link, but my question was what makes the spin, I am not at the energy stage yet,

Oh yes I see what you mean, put a credit to the quote, that particular quote was from an university today page, I would struggle to find it again sorry Yes local to your brain but is the emr signal not defined has remote when objects transmit the signal and eyes are then the receiver of emr?

Thank you for confirming the information is correct that I have read. What is the Physical process that makes the Earth spin?

My apologies for so many questions, The Earth spins, and I have heard the spin is slowing down. Is this true?

at 13-14 years of age I was playing truant and fixing cars with my dads friend, that was just how it was when I was younger. EMR interests me, is it true that the human body needs a low percentage of emr for repair cells to remain in tact?

They did not teach Lorentz force in primary school. well not in my school for sure. And since primary school a lot of none science information has filled my head, it is true you forget more than you know, but I am sure I never covered Lorentz force etc.

thank you a very good explanation, I now know it is called displacement, and one final question, does this have anything to do with time dilation?

I find the formulas and maths hard because often I see one symbol or representation, that means something else in another field. E is electric field, but E is also energy? But you are correct, it might has well be in Latin I would have the same understanding, very little, I used it because of the explanation of it rather than the formula, It is not that I could not understand it, but have never had it explained. Vision is the remote sensing of emr?

Meaning quote to you, not quoting you sorry.

I do not want to sound rude, but the detectors you are talking about, you do not really detect anything that is significant to what I am saying or the dissuades what I am saying. You detect wavelengths, frequencies, energy levels , this has nothing to do with what I am saying, technically light is an illusion and energy conversion by your eyes, it is always dark, and you only see by the frequency adjustment to the radiation, you do and can not deny that in daytime hours you can see through light, but you are not seeing through light, you are seeing through the dark, emr makes the dark ''transparent'' it is undeniable. If any one of you can say they can see through dark without emr then i will admit im incorrect.

and that is why you see matter 0+emr = sight , what else can you put?

And what exactly would you suggest in a way to measure something that can have no maths? Can you imagine if someone tells you that black is white, so yes i am confused adding the word light , i have known that word for a very long time , so to try and cast it out of conversation is difficcult

Does it really matter how my wording comes across when the answers to undeniable physical process have all been yes? People have technically already admitted it by saying yes to questions from myself. There is a word for it, where has there can be no fault in the logic, so every observer has to agree. The logic is rock solid, as solid has darkness looks, but add emr and darkness is no longer solid, we can see through the dark, it is undeniable no matter how hard science tries to add twists. example and thought experiment to concur with what I have said. It is now going dark outside , I can clearly see the difference compared to my radiant energy in my house. Soon it will be too dark outside to see through the dark, but I can still see in my room. Can any one deny this happens?

I could do a model if you wanted , but the point of the model would be pointless to show +frequency = sight in the dark, How can it be a lie when it is based on facts of your own, you say and admit that if we took away certain frequencies it would be dark, so you have to admit that if we add certain frequencies it is light, light is added, The big bang made the sun , the sun makes the light, the light is made by a process, a process that adds light to the dark, making it seam always light. ''Then you are plainly talking nonsense.'' Light is not natural it is made by process on the Sun, it is a natural process, but not natural, the only entity that is for sure 100% a natural , is the dark. I understand why you refer to it as natural, but if you think deeper , it is not actually natural , it is a part of process.

I would argue that light is not really natural, it is only by process that we have by definition light.? Looking out the window now and it is over cast, less radiation pressure on the matter and medium, it is dull, it is darker than when it is more light, I can see clearly a different contrast, brightness, the low level of energy is prohibiting my vision, I do understand very well what is happening, the high frequency is not high enough to see clearly, my eyes need more energy in front of them to see better. Less light and matter will dull in colour, it is not reflecting at the same rate, when it stops reflecting we know it is night time, it will then become a dark object to our visual. I would add that I would consider light as a thing, but not like the thing current thinks it is,