Relative

Thank you strange for your patience, I do not think anyone will ever understand me, I am trying so hard to convey what I mean. And trying to explain , so I can convey what Im asking. White light you call it, but it is not white, it is ''transparent'', it has a much greater contrast to white, white been just a mixture of colors, frequencies. The spectrum wheel spinning, shows you white, but you still see the white through the constant E, the constant E been transparent, White is a mixture of frequencies, that becomes a constant frequency, at a set continued rpm , several different frequencies become a constant frequency , this constant,white, is seen through the natural constant of frequency, that is transparent. The transparent state is also a set frequency. All observers see transparent has the constant , Any change in the natural constant equals change, change is seen?

What part of a brain , contains all the memories and thoughts?

Compare my sentences I edited from wiki , it is the Doppler page ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect The emr from the sun is at a constant F, which to an observer is 0, constant in its transparent state, a constant frequency? We add any difference to that frequency, and we see a change in the frequency through the constant. I.e a red brick, a blue brick, a change in the constant E/frequency state. Light propogates when travelling into the light, hence blue shift. You see a change in the energy constant? Nothing is a colour, colour is a frequency

Are you saying that if you hold up a piece of white paper in front of a white wall, it will be hard to see it? Yes you got it but if i change the frequency of the white paper you see a difference in the constant state? I hope you understand, I will add a diagram and a question You see a change in the energy constant? constant-unchanging, unvariable I think I can use wiki to quote my understandings. and edit slightly to make a sentence. Stationary energy source produces waves at a constant frequency f, and the wave-fronts propagate symmetrically away from the source at a constant speed c. The distance between wave-fronts is the wavelength. All observers will see the same frequency, which will be equal to the actual frequency of the source where f = f0 . f = c + 0/c - 0.7c f0 = 3.33 f0 and an observer behind the source will see a lower frequency The wave fronts in front of the source are now all bunched up at the same point. Is this more understandable from me?

So EMR is transparent? Ok great, you understand this, in the diagram , if I was to send a wavelength from the black part to the YOU, at the exact same frequency as the invisible, transparent ,constant, you would not be able to distinguish the signal from the static? I got go out price a job up be back soon

I know glass is solid, I am just using glass for comparison to ask question. Emr is invisible yes, like this diagram tries to show, imagine inside a box, full of emr, we can see the sides, but between us and the sides it is transparent , by definition of transparent, comparable . there is not an actual word for it We can see through it, if it were dark blue we could not see through it

imagine been in the center of a block of ok, exactly you cant see it, it is as if invisible, so please if you can imagine yourself at the central point inside a huge block of glass. Would you say that is an accurate comparison to something that we can not see, transparent

Thank you , I now know why no one understood me. Can we stick with the 'transparent'' EMR has not got a Physical body, it is mass less, we can see through it . like looking through a solid piece/block of glass yes? unless in spectrum form

EMR, electromagnetic radiation is emitted from the Sun? EMR is made up of a visual spectrum been several different wavelengths and also has invisible wavelengths, such has radio waves? EMR as an whole, a collective, with no interference of its natural state, is transparent? A light bulb , a naked flame, a flashlight all emit a form of EMR? Light is apart of EMR and is said as single particles are known has a Photon? Photons and emr is mass less and do not have a Physical body? EMR has potential energy? Whenever you can see, EMR must be present? EMR is always isotropic from the source? EMR is apparently present in the entire visual universe? Emr's strongest form is black body radiation? Emr decreases in strength over distance? The speed of emr is constant in a vacuum? EMR slows down going through a medium? by diffraction, we can see the visual spectrum? matter absorbs emr? matter also reflects emr? EMR changes the thermodynamics of an house brick? makes it warmer

I understand Newtons laws of motion, and velocity is continued in space without any acting continued force, either way it does not matter, I am sulking, speculation needs evidence now, I thought that was a theory , I am retiring from my learning, I think I know so much but yes obviously i am suffering from dunning and krugger, although I am 100% confident that my logic is correct. I will leave you with this diagram to add to this thread, the maths fits us inside a black hole, gravity of a black hole been isotropic centripetal

Close it , i give up, I can not believe that you can not see what I just said to you and the evidence I showed. It is always dark, emr fills the dark, I give up close it. oh, that was the earth by the way in diagram

Black - a color, dark, without light, radiation at its most compressed wavelength. The sun - red Dwarf, plasma, emits radiation, black body radiation that expands outwards to a weaker infra red radiation. Every one is wrong because of this diagram- The white represents radiation, it fills all of space, and is transparent. Emitted by the sun. the frequency is a constant, no change, none variable to been transparent. I have to add light to dark , in a dark room. Move my diagram around the white and what do you see? I put it into a box so you can see better So move the circle around the box You can see the universe is always dark

Honestly, it is always dark, it is very clever how it works, I am in fear of thread closer after -3 , so will not persist in this thread even though I can prove it to you. I do not want a ban

The force of been propelled by the bow, the energy is transferred into the arrow, the inertia of initial force, the force decays , with flight, the ground always pulls back. Gravity pulls back when something wants to escape, Causes friction Unless the Fn=0 meaning static object.

Evidence- force decreases over distance, it slows down F=ma , You get shot by an arrow at 50 yrds, and I will stand 1000yrds

model We cannot see it has black , we evolved The spectrum, waves, are a change in the constant adjective 1. not changing or varying; uniform; regular; invariable:All conditions during the three experiments were constant. Sats,radios, a change of the energy constant. You use different frequencies, a change in the constant. It is always dark , and i can prove it -2 when i can prove its always dark , really?

Plank Law Inverse square LAW your eyes adjusted to the emr frequency by evolution, you see through transparent emr, The sun only transmits BB radiation, that follows the inverse square law , angle and absorbing showing you the visual spectrum. Change of energy, also creating a different viscosity to the constant viscosity of emr. Hence radio waves, spectrum colors, etc , all wavelengths man made effect the constant.

''In your diagram you are applying a continuous(?) force sideways and therefore the object will continue to accelerate.''YES When you throw a ball, you give it an initial velocity, yes, and then no more force is applied horizontally.YES Therefore it carries on at the same speed horizontally. NOMeanwhile, completely independently, it accelerates downwards.'' Not quite From an instant an arrow is launched it starts to lose energy of the force applied on the arrow from the Bow and the arm pulling the string back, Before the launch, both the bow and the arrow are been attracted by gravity, the force of gravity is already acting on the arrow, from launch , gravity is still attracting the arrow , although the flight is horizontal , G still attracts the arrow, the force is always down, even when horizontal and at maximum velocity, the gravity drags on the arrow, hence what I call gravity drag, the force of the drag taking out the velocity of the arrow slowing it down, eventually the tip drops and then the curve occurs. Fire an arrow vertically , and watch it slow, then eventually a pyramid tip, will flip 180 and return to you. And the net force is zero to the moon? ''The Moon has an external magnetic field that is very weak in comparison to that of the Earth'' The moons magnetic field is not a magnetic field , that you consider a magnetic field, the moons magnetic field is because by electrostatics , the moon absorbs electrons from the sun, it is charged, well maybe? And the moons equilibrium is now offset been repelled by the earth, I understand that but if the velocity drops it does the same thing

Some people would say I am on cloud 9 lol, but I am in England,

Hey?, if i continue to accelerate an object horizontal on a y axis , it continues into space, if i set the velocity of an object to V?, horizontal, it will orbit around the planet, or I can increase the v to have it fly off the planet y axis.

No it slows down or else you would not have curvature, if that were the case it would be linear and angled towards the ground, it loses V to curve, gravity curvature . I have to have velocity that has the force to escape gravity, to keep linear momentum, I fire an arrow and with a pyramid tip on , if there is not enough compensation of acceleration to gravity the arrow will instantly fall, if I give the arrow enough F, the arrow will travel linear. Only when the arrows force runs out, slowing down the arrow, and then gravity takes hold.

I understand the lever arm bit, can you explain Torque using a Fulcrum, ?

You are not considering that an object on the ground still a force pulling it on it equal to the acceleration of 9.81ms2, if i take way the ground the object would accelerate at that? you are also not considering that also the ground is been attracted by the earths center of gravity, the ground also is trying to accelerate at the force equal to acceleration of 9.82ms2. I drop a rock into a natural hole in the Earth and it falls at that acceleration, The ground compresses towards the center of gravity, more dense, centripetal isotropic compression of matter, following the inverse square law, but inwards rather than outwards. Yes gravity weakens square to the inverse outwards, and so does density of matter in the earth. Thank you Thank you and will go over to the torque thread, and look up that Theorem. The stone on the moon will fall at our feet, however if we add horizontal force, the stone will travel further because there is less opposing force from gravity slowing it down. Or gravity drag I call it.

I edited your wording I need to add another diagram associated with the ground pushing back , I see no push back only density? Isotropic centripetal force? Is there a Transverse square law?

And the diagram A general balance of forces, equilibrium, and in the singularity diagram , this would apply to whether it was the sun or the earth has a singularity.