Relative

I have no idea, just thought I would share it, and maybe create a universal time, using some other factors. Not sure to be honest I am just a thoughtful mind.

The speed of light ''C'' came later than the original definition of a second. The origin of the second is the issue, a solar year, and now seemingly the second is associated with distance, although time still moves in a stationary position. Mars spin velocity, 539.487 mph mars equator circumference 13,300 miles 13,300/539.487= 24.64 24.64x3600=88704 would that be the correct amount of seconds in a Martian day? I get Mars as 0.14 m/s 13292.95968 That gives this circumference I fiqure solar day?

What do you mean when you say a model, like a diagram? And what sort of evidence meaning maths?

I do apologise, it has sort of left me again for a minute. I can not think the maths now, it came to me then went, I will regroup and get my head around the maths again, My apologies, I will be back and explain where my conclusion came from, I have lost my own idea I had.

I should of used a sidereal day and would have got the other result. In answer to your question , yes if the observer was watching a fixed point. He would see 2.888 miles pass using a solar day timing, and on a sidereal timing. 2.883333m x 86164s = 24860 miles He only see's 2.88 mile passing by of the earth, he does not move, you can work out the other planets and they should fit also.

I used some maths The Earth's spin is 1,038 miles per hour An hour is 3600 so 1038/3600 = 2.888 2.8888 x 86,400 = 249120 miles Earth,s circumference = 24,859.82 miles it is 2.88833333 so slightly off.

What the title says.

I am trying hard to get my head around the maths, I know basic maths, percentages etc, I think I missed Calculus. Geostationary satellites are in accordance to my thinking. They are in an equilibrium place. I think all mass is attracted to energy, and all energy is attracted to mass, and not all mass is attracted to mass. All energy seemingly has centripetal flow around its energy as Faraday's wire test showed. The Earth's core attracting mass, like dust attracted to a television screen. Satellites been in an equilibrium state of attraction, hence why they maintain vector accuracy in line with their transmitting co-ordinates. And continue to be geostationary. The moon is not orbiting then? if it had no escape speed in a linear accelerated direction, how can it orbit? Or is it just a matter of it is connected to the sea, tidally locked so follows the sea? If it is the connected to the sea, why does it not just pull to Earth then if it has no escape velocity?

That is not what I posted.

The moon does not go sideways, the moon is trying to go straight according to gravity theory. The same as the other planets. And I am going to stick my neck out and say, If gravity was true to theory , the planets by velocity and mass are in the wrong order. I will go check the maths for that now but I am guessing I may be correct. I know the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth, and the drag slowed it's rotation. ''Jupiter orbits the sun at an average velocity of 47,002 km/h (29,205 mi/h). This makes it less than half (0.438 times) the Earth's orbital velocity. So the Earth actually overtakes Jupiter every 399 days. Jupiter's orbit size around the Sun is a little over 778 million kilometers wide (483 million miles), which makes it 5.2 times wider than the Earth's. Its orbital circumference is 4.88 billion kilometers (3.03 billion miles) long, 5.2 times longer than the Earth's. Along this orbital path, the closest that Jupiter comes to the Sun (perihelion) is at a distance of 740, 679, 835 km (460, 236, 112 mi), while its farthest distance (aphelion) is 816,001,807 km (507,040,015 miles).'' ''velocity=107,300 km/h '' of the earth Can any one see the maths I am getting at? velocity compared to mass compared to distance from the sun? Does it fit are the planets in the correct places at the correct distance? So if Jupiter is 5.2 times wider and half as slow as the earth , should Jupiter not be closer to the Sun?

I have a question of logic. If a rocket can escape the pull of gravity with relative little velocity but a constant propulsion. Why can the moon not escape at 1.03 km/h?

Thank you you for the explanation. I understand now what you are saying, and to be honest , I am a little amused at the thought of the torsion wire, I would expect different force levels of gravity over the entire planet . My reasoning - we are of egg shape, the test would have to be run on the equator line at the same time of day for each location,and vector towards the Sun. Example I am in the UK, the density of rock etc below my feet is different to the equator.

I apologise to the forum, I forgot this a different forum to the other one. They had a trash can, which I was automatically put in with my ideas. My apologies I did not mean bad intentions. I just got use to been treated badly by other forum. I am not certain that would make a difference to what I am saying, I am not 100% sure on what you are asking though. If you mean the layers of the planet, why would that change!. If not can you explain your question different please. After re-reading, I think you mean like mountains and deep sea etc, the shape of the Earth. I would explain that has erosion, plate shift, and meteor damage over billions of years. Because of Thermodynamics, eventually the Earth's core takes on too much energy trying to equal to the Sun. The energy pressure as in the same as solar flares from the Sun, the Earth's core has to release pressure, I.E Earthquakes. Not a solar flare but a release of its energy.

Gravity pulls inwards to the center if I am not mistaken. At the center is the core. I have seen no other apparent evidence of gravity,been of mass been attracted to mass. Yes I imagine there would be maths, but it would be impossible to know the dimensions of planetary cores compared to mass body. And the Sun has electromagnetism, our core has electromagnetism, they are the same electromagnetism. The mass is different. And that IS how it works.

I understand that maths is important in Physics, but fundamental ideas with valid relative logic should be considered surely. I am quite new to science, And can only create a rough guessed formula. GR= <F=mav> -+ DE Mass accelerated at velocity in direction to energy attraction. Yes I know that is probably meaningless.

Gravity orbitals is explained not by falling, but by a planet trying to travel linear away from the pulling source, hence a circled rotation path of the Sun. And the cannon ball is attracted back to the ground by losing velocity, the core pulling the ball back to the ground.

No the sun tries to pull mass towards it, the suns gravity attracts mass. But the Sun also repels at the same time, the Earth's core, that is the balance of gravity. And I am not trying to force my idea on you, but it is an idea that fits perfect, and also explains the moon and all planets formation.

All mass around the Earth's core is attracted to the core, opposites attract, equal repels.

I have posted straight into the trash can, I know my place. Gravity explained that the Earth wants to go straight/linear, away from the Sun but can not. Like the ball on a string that is attached to a central pole and hit with a racket. It will rotate the pole. NEW idea, it is not the entire Earth that wants to go forward/linear, but only the Earth's core, been equal to the Sun's polarity and been repelled. Where as the crust etc, is been attracted to the Sun, and also attracted to the Earth's core. In short - It is not the Earth trying go straight like Einstein and co thought, but the core itself.

My anolgy represent bumper to bumper but always moving in a linear momentum, but my starting speed from point A, is C, at point B, the medium or obstruction of mass or field, slows my flow down in consideration to congested traffic. If one Photon has X amount of energy, two Photons are twice that energy . The force of energy from point A, is at C , and the slowing down by B, causes the energy to be transferred forward momentum as Einstein's box shows us. To disagree with this, a person would have to disagree with the box.

How would it be Physically possible for anything including Photons to continue at the same velocity, when an obstruction slows down the process been in the way. The following Photons would be slowed by congestion. The congestion would distance all the way back to the source because the flow is constant at c, then slows down for the medium. There would be a backup as in a traffic Jam of cars touching bumper to bumper, If a photon is deemed to have a certain frequency and that frequency been its energy level, when two photons occupy the same space, which is not really according to the laws, the energy frequency will be that of two photons or several photons.. My evidence would be a magnifying glass we can concentrate the Photons, to make more energy over less area.. This shows us that when Photons come in a tighter bunch, there is more energy.

Yes the following photons have the same energy, as when they started their journey from point A, But what happens at point B, and the journey to point B, when the trailing Photons are behind the leading Photons, The Photons meet a medium or mass, are slowed down to cause ''congestion'', the following Photons will back up in the congestion, but momentum will still be carried forward. As Einstein's box shows the force of a linear momentum object, striking a surface, will cause the surface impact force. This force, inertia, then will force the mass of the box the same direction as the moving object. All the energy is transferred forward , linear to the point of impact and direction of impact. I know the photon is mass less, But if Einstein can represent a single Photon this way, then we must presume by radiation pressure, mediums, the slowing down process, that we have a build up of energy. We can not have pressure , unless what is causing the pressure, is continued, backed up to the source. Photons will be backed up to the Sun, in a continued wave. And have I got maths for this, my answer would be no, not at this time, I do not think there is any maths for this.

One point I will add, an object is never 3 dimensional it is always 4 dimensional. 2D and 3D are only different view perspectives. Our visual Universe does indeed fit inside a black hole to exact calculations. As for the rest of your post, I am sorry it sounds a bit gibberish to me.

Yes we see visible light as transparent, invisible, unless we see it making contact with a medium or mass. The transparency is caused by the Photons always wanting to push forward in linear momentum. Energy is transferred , Einstein and special relativity can confirm this, with the box and the photon example. The force of the following Photons will cause radiation pressure. , Light slows down in the medium,when it meets the medium, so where does all the energy go from the following Photons? I believe you can look at Einsteins box again. The following Photons, wave, are accelerating but no where, all the energy is transferred forward linear momentum, hence radiation pressure. It oscillates like a spring between two masses. added.

Thank you yes I do know the Doppler effect. ''But frequency and wavelength is not constant.'' - Yes I know that. I am saying that is why we see visible light as invisible light, we see transparent because in space and in our atmosphere,, The frequency and wavelength constantly changes until it makes contact with a medium or mass that makes the frequency a constant. Mass or medium been the constant, in the sense that the absorbing properties of the mass, the radiation amount absorbed does not change. The prism shows you a constant A cd will diffract a constant mass absorbs at a constant and reflects at a constant