Relative

Brilliant links etc, thanks a lot, And I think after two years finally an answer I understand. ''The frequencies would be pretty close to a blackbody spectrum. It would not be coherent. '' does that mean it would be all mixed up , if so then yes that sounds correct.

Thank you I did not think it was like a laser, did not make sense. So what do the waves look like been emitted from the Sun, if we could see the waves and they were not transparent to our sight? What sort of formation would it have? or grouping?

On explaining else where, they explained that all the spectrum from the Sun , the different waves were layered like a laser works. Where as I think sort of interwoven, and a ''constant oscillation'',my definitions>, My evidence is when we oscillate the spectrum colours we see white, If we could add higher energy we would get a much higher contrast. Shown in my youtube vids. I think the transparency is because our eyes adjusted to the flicker as such, the constant oscillation. And when we see effect of a prism , we are making a set modulation. By angle , angle defining the length. Similar with rainbows and diffraction etc.

I am trying to picture these layered wavelengths, but I still can still not get a Prism to work in the picture. ''Explaining how things don't behave is not a very economical way of doing things'' Yes agreed, but when an action or interaction does not behave the way it should , there is an obvious misuse of Physics. I also agree it could be me, with lack of knowledge and understanding. I move a Prism, X,Y,Z vectors, the spectrum output alters in the sense that red becomes wider or thinner to view, in the colour view, the output. What I call the visible spectrum, a rainbow, diffraction etc. In moving X,Y,Z vectors, one thing does not change, and that is colour order/wavelength, to angle of the prism's sides. How is this possible if EMR is layered, surely as we moved the prism, we would see the colour order changing, as we caught the incident rays /been different wavelengths, different layers??

My confidence is not misplaced, I am confident I will some how, at some time, show proof of some description. And I am still not thinking that anyone clearly understands what I am saying, a simple rewording would be The Sun does not emit overlapping waves of different frequencies that do not change. A Prism would not have the exact same result every time in colour order, that would have to be precise to pick out the over lapping in one segment/section of light every time. A Prism does not show this. You only see the different wavelengths of light from the sun by switching mode of your observation viewer. You are just changing the energy view yourselves. Consider the Prism and how the interaction angle effects the length.

I do know they do not stack up like cars as such, Out of the rubbish I have ever spouted on the Net, my views on emr is my most confident topic, studying it the most. There is no maths to my Hypothesis, it is a relative look at emr, and the transparent state, and what the light/emr does in its transparent state. This Hypothesis if I can find the correct wording, I am confident is 100% true. I will get all my book marks up, and re write it, in hopefully understandable terms, I do know that very few understand my actual dialect by bad wording and bad sentences. I will start by putting my definitions to words, then maybe one way or the other , I can/we can, make a final conclusion. Force - To push on something, to change the direction, against the will of something,impact Mass - anything that is solid , the size and density of something, a group of molecules/energy Pressure - The pressure on a surface area made by force/impact, the pressure contained within a system. Oscillate- to continue change frequency / change of current state Visible light - the out come of interaction with mass or medium of EMR. Transparent light - The EMR we do not see, when light is not seen in a single wave as a colour/ the transparency between your eyes and any mass. Invisible EMR - radio signals etc. Constant - As in the speed of light , unchanging, continued.

Thank you guys for the Help! I can see the learning of the maths may take a while, I do know PI 3.14 lol.... Lol I know pi, I should of said I know what it is but not the values, so thats what the double T is arrrrrrr, Ok back to gravity , the coin in the cup may seem a basic experiment that every one knows the results, but to me it was science and showing that all mass falls at the same rate, making gravity an even force of attraction regardless of size or density. The hammer drop and the feather drop on the moon shows us this. I think I have just stuffed up my own Hypothesis on gravity. If gravity were based on some sort of electrical displacement/direction of energy/energies, then indeed I would have different free fall velocities. Would that be a fair conclusion to my coin drop/tub drop test.?

I am trying to find the maths, I have asked for help with maths. What does the twin capital letter T mean in the formula of a sphere surface? And what formula/ algebra letter would represent direction of an accelerating mass? What symbol would represent inward pressure? I do not know what I am looking for to research the maths. I do know if any one has done this before, I put a 5 pence piece inside a plastic tubular transparent tub with a screw on lid. I accelerated the tub vertically upwards, the 5 pence stayed at the bottom of the tub. I dropped the tub and the 5 pence still stayed at the bottom?

TT Thank you, I have checked the speculation requirement , I have the correct understanding of speculations. A speculation can involve no maths etc,

''I am trying to be as nice as I can to you. You are pulling my strings here.'' I am trying to learn some maths......no strings been pulled. F= A=4πr2 /R to the Earth's core, and yes I have no idea what it actually means yet. I know that is the formula for a spheres surface. So how do I add '' direction'' to a central point in the equation? from all vectors and what does the double t represent? tt i cant do the symbol.

''I don't think any of the "theories" that this topic has presented have been productive. Please, we are trying to help you learn. If you refuse, then we might as well not have this topic.'' So if I refuse to except current Gravity theory we might as well not talk? Can you explain the inertia in satellites then please and the reason gravity works on a satellite to get the rotation of orbital path? I know current theory on gravity, I have learnt current theory gravity. I have learnt the current theory is seemingly flawed by unexplained satellites! and to me a planet trying to go straight only seems plausible if they were been pushed away, and the rotation would happen if they were been attracted to at the same time on a balance of equilibrium. The Earth's mass, of the layers, anything on the surface, is attracted to the center of the Earth, centripetal direction. The Physics for this would have to be F= A=4πr2 /R? may be x rR or no R

Sophie Germain You are in no doubt from the other forum, and again been of a none productive nature in my learning. Again trying to cause a debate completely off subject. I am not biting this time I am afraid, this is a good forum. Mods who know what the words speculation mean, meaning to speculate. Have you any productive answers to my thoughts? Thermodynamics maybe?

Relative thinking. The hammer toss on the Moon. By angular velocity it continued to rotate as it accelerated away. My question - How could a less dense tail end of the hammer handle, over take the heavier weight? This sort of thing has been tried with perpetual motion devices. Is not that by direction of velocity, compared to the gravity of the moon, that the energy/energies, contained in the hammer head where pivoting back and forth like as in AC power!. Along the shaft of the handle. In layman's terms by acceleration, in a linear direction, the energy of the mass is directed always towards gravity. An arrow with a larger tip is accelerated at x velocity in z= vertical vector. Gaining altitude the weight of the tip is directed down the shaft, back towards the Earth's gravity, <gravity drag>. When the arrow loses velocity, the balance of weight starts to restore, the arrow flips 180 degrees and the weight is still trying to find gravity. When I say weight, I refer to direction of either Electron or Proton flow, but probably been the former. The direction of attraction of mass been of energy based contained within that mass compared to the energy contained within the mass with larger gravity. Point taken I should of got his name on and hers. I forgot there names with been continental, Antoine Lavoisier's

I have learnt a lot of science, such as ancient Greeks , Tesla, Newton, Einstein, Faraday, Edison, Maxwell, Some french MIlk drinking guy, a women making a breakthrough , etc. I am learning science with every forum I go on. I like practical, I like to participate in my learning and convey curiousness , I have a huge list of book marks to keep refreshing my knowledge of current thought. I am learning, Honey and Mumford styles I could relate to several. Define the term learning compared to excepting!. You can not tell me to except something that I can not see logically been of 100% exact facts. Until I am convinced by better logic, that the facts are true. If no one can explain where the inertia comes from to make satellites orbital rotational paths, then Gravity is unsolved and open to scientific attack, even if in relatively speaking terms. If no one can explain what happens with EMR in it's transparent state, < what you see between your eyes and your keyboard>, again it is open to debate. I am not attacking science and current thought, it is your science that brought me to my conclusions from what I have learnt. You can not or never should expect a person to except something that does not make sense to them. If it took a year to explain so what , it took Maxwell about 15 years to fit the maths to Faraday's idea. And you think I have not learnt. Strange learnt me a lot, and others too.

Making videos of science, whether accurate or not to any facts, gains comments about science. Comments becoming knowledge. If you look through my videos you will see me make a coloured spectrum block become transparent by speed of sequencing creating high contrast camouflaging the block. It is all science and learning science. I now have CGI software, within one day I self taught myself CGI software, I have a strange learning style , that s all I can say.

A spherical argument that applies to a black hole. Applies to a black hole inside a black hole and so on. Try this, change the nothing particles to Higgs if you like. I imagine a static beginning, the universe was nothing but negative/neutral, and no positive existed. Some how, the slightest of vibrations causing the first ever wave/movement/friction, causing positive energy to start the process. And then because opposites attract, add the formula, firstly we have centripetal pressure that squashes the energy making it rotate. Then an implosion that become a explosion of force, that set the universe in motion. My science may seem a bit gibberish, and i am trying to improve on that. I thought to add, I would add this from another forum I am on. ''Also, what is 'energy volume'? Define it clearly.'' Energy volume is the properties of all mass. Negative energy to the positive energy ratio. Example we heat metal, we increase the metals size, it expands, it as received more positive energy ratio. Example 2 - burn a piece of wood, the volume of positive energy is released, the negative amount of energy is left in the form of ash, And through Thermodynamics of heat exchange, and the Frequency dynamics of radiation, all mass can change its ratio. I am not basing Gravity has been an action of mass attracted to mass, or of a magnetic nature, but has a force of energy ratios contained within that mass.

''Compression isn't a force. It is a consequence of applying a force. What do you think is causing the compression?'' I know compression is not considered a force, but if you were standing in a central point and been forced from all vectors, you would be crushed, ''Also, even if it is the strongest force in the universe, why would it create mass?'' Because two of anything can not occupy the same space, but compression proves that wrong. ''E=mc2 has nothing to do with vectors or spheres.'' I know, but it should. ''Maybe you need to explain what they are meant to mean. It isn't clear. Are you multiplying force by area? Are you trying to equate "a" (acceleration) to "A" (area)?'' The area of sphere, a photon is released from the right travelling to the left e=mc2 The area/volume of a sphere, a photon is released from all vectors/points on the inner of the sphere at the same time, same velocity, travelling centripetal to a central point, that is one big bang.

Compression is the strongest force in the universe. That last post would not let me paste the calculation in proper. And I do not know how do the symbolic symbols using my keyboard. Basically Einstein's box should of been a sphere. And E=mc2 should of considered every vector of a sphere travelling to a central point. That is the ultimate energy and no other force or energy is has strong as that formula I just give. Ha tidy up done.

I have read the first part of the article, I have bookmarked it to read it further, later on when the kids have gone bed. I always considered mass to be formed by compression. F=ma x A=4πr2 and E=<f=mac> x A=4πr2

I understand what you saying about the straight line, and the tangent mentioned. ''Inertia makes them want to carry on in a straight line'' What inertia, where does the inertia come from? Do Satellites accelerate linear, straight at the Tangent position, then stop and rotate with the Earth keeping position? or does the Satellite slow and use thrusters to get into position? And too add, I do not know what the relevance is yet, but the Satellites orbital distance is roughly the same as the Earth's circumference.

Please explain, where does any one get a notion from, that time travel and a time machine is possible? There is no way it is possible.

Originally a solar day was based on one rotation of the Earth compared to the Sun. From point A , 360 degrees, which its origin, could of been measured as a unit of Distance. 24 hours divided into seconds, divided by circumference of the Earth, which gives 2.88333 mile per second. 1 second of clock time , equal to the distance of 2.888333 mile travelled in rotation. Because of fluctuations in the rotation speed, it was decided to use the atomic clock and the caesium 133 etc. However, after study, I have found that the atomic clocks second, was chosen/invented, and has close as possible to an original clock second. So technically science just changed the colour . The second on an atomic clock is the same has a second on any clock. So 2.883333 mile is still one second, dictated my man. ''The Mars day is about 1 hour 40 minutes or 88,775.24409 seconds'' solar or sidereal? ''Only at the equator. I estimate it is about half that where I live. And zero at the North Pole. Is that significant? I'm not sure, because I don't know what you think the significance of 2.88 miles per second is.'' Well, you need zero, you can not have time measured by distance, and time and distance setting the size of the other planets by the look of it.

My reason would be that Geostationary satellites, do not follow the principle rules of gravity. 1st rule - mass is attracted to mass. 2nd rule - An orbiting planet/body, must be trying to travel straight. I do not believe Satellites follow the second rule and should be following the first rule. And yes your assumption of another alias on other forums is correct.

That rules out that out then we can not reverse the distance to a central point.

any one know at what distance and velocity we are seeing the redshift objects moving away in our expanding universe?