einsteinium

That doesn't make sense...I give you an example of what I'm talking about: Say we had two people with identicle guns and both had to fire from the same spot, one is standing still on the ground and the other was standing on top of a car moving at full speed. Now whos bullet will have the greatest impact velocity with the target? answer: The guy on the car U1 + U2 = V Now lets exchange the guns with radio transmitters now the guy on the moving vehicle will reach the reciever quicker because his initial velocity is added to the initial velocity of the photons moving away from him.

Well if you were travelling away from us at the speed of light your clock will still be tickin anda tockin at its usual rate from your POV but if we looked at your clock from our POV it will appear frozen in time. Maybe because we are seeing the same image over and over or due to the relative velocity of the photons emitting from your clock to us or maybe because the fundamental equations for time break down at this point.

What about seriously dislocated electrons? Could they be floating in space with no protons to cling to or would they undergo transformation forming photons?

I was was just wondering about what would happen if a signal was being transmitted toward us from a transmitter moving at 0.5C. Could the final velocity of the signal be 1.5C. Einstein did state that no matter how fast you are moving, if you turn a lamp on the light will still MOVE AWAY from you at 3E08 m/s so if the transmitter was moving at 0.5C then the signal being transmitting would move away from it at 1.0C giving the signal a resultant velocity of 1.5C relative to your velocity. If this were to happen then the wavelength will be two thirds its original making its frequency 1.5 times the original, kind of like how the sound waves coming from an emergency vehicle sound different as it passes by. Just have a think and you get an idea about what I'm talking about.

The number of valence shell electrons of a particular metal is one of the contributers to its conductivity eg.. Gold has one valence shell electron (Au+), Copper has two valence shell electrons(Cu 2+) In this case Gold is more conductive and less resistive, same applies to Ag+ It's the rate at which the delocalised electrons can swap places with other delocalised electrons when a current is applied.

But what about when a photon reflects off a mirror? It would have to change its velocity vector to move in the opposite direction, like if you throw a bouncing ball toward a wall(v = x m/s), it would accelerate in the opposite direction in order to bounce off and away from the wall(v = -x m/s) I see how they assume that photons have a constant velocity according to the equation, v = u + a.t , But when light refracts through a transparent materiel it does so because its velocity decreases which makes the light bend away from the normal. Now this would involve some form of acceleration or could it be related to the energy levels of the photons. A physics experiment has brought light to an almost stand still using a form of gas which must also involve some form of acceleration in order for the photons to decrease in velocity. Maybe the particle accelerator could help investigate some of the yet to be discovered properties of electromagnetic radiation.

I know what your saying and I agree with you. When I stated "not a perfect orbit" I'm saying that it's an elliptical orbit and the velocity of Mercury during its orbit and its orbital radius will vary which contributes to the impairments of the forces acting upon Mercury at any time. I know all about weight, whenever I hear someone say "what is your weight?" I feel like laughing when they say it in kg somehow. Whenever someone ask me this I answer them with my weight in Newtons or Dynes. I already know about the "toward centre acceleration" which is what I'm saying. An astronaut is RELATIVELY weightless meaning that the gravitational field strength force is equal to his centripital acceleration, his normal force is zero. This doesnt mean that he is weightless, it just means that the gravitational field strength is equal to his centripital acceleration which means they theoretically give him an apparent weightlessness. Apparent weightlessness and true weightlessness Any person or object will experience APPARENT WEIGHTLESSNESS when falling with an acceleration equal to the gravitational field strength. TRUE WEIGHTLESSNESS occurs only in deep space, out of reach of the gravitational field of anything with a mass or when orbital radius tends to infinity, g = G.m / r^2

The centripetal force cancels out the force due to the Sun's gravity making it relatively weightless. It is not a perfect orbit as I have recently stated. The velocity that Mercury moves at wants to throw it out of orbit but the Sun's gravity keeps pulling it back in. For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction. This is what I'm trying to say

Think of it this way, if you have a ball tied to a string then if the ball is not moving then the centripital force is zero. When you start moving it around then it starts gaining centripetal acceleration which is why it starts moving away from the ground (spinning horizontally) The equation, F = mv^2 / r , is for centripetal force. You can rearrange this to, F = m.(2pi.r/t) / r, where t is time interval for one cycle and r is the distance. Three factors, mass, velocity and radius( distance from centre of orbit) It is the centripital force that stops it from plunging back into the sun. That's how satellites orbit the Earth and dont fall back into the atmosphere The centripital acceleration of Mercury is equal to the gravitational pull of the sun This is the centripital force of Mercury F = ( mv^2 ) / r = ( 3.3e23 x 47930.4435^2 ) / 5.7872e10 = 1.3071e22 N This is the Sun's Gravitational Field Strength at Mercury g(sun) = (G.M) / r^2 = (6.67e-11 x 1.98892e30) / (5.7872e10)^2 = 0.03961012072 N/kg This is the weight of Mercury relative to the Sun's Gravity W = m.g = 3.3e23 x 0.03961012072 = 1.3071e22 N Centripital force - weight of Mercury = 0.0000 N to 4 d.p It is an elliptical but these rules still apply for when a planet orbits a star. I had a year 12 project on the same thing, about centripetal force and how satellites are put into a stable orbit http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/circ/node7.html

The reason Mercury does not not fall into the sun is because of its centripital acceleration. Consider an object moving in a circle of radius r with constant angular velocity. The tangential speed is constant, but the direction of the tangential velocity vector changes as the object rotates. Here's a good example, if your in a car when it turns a corner the top half of your body wants to move away from the centre of rotation, tilt your body toward the turn until you reach equilibrium. This is the same as the orbital status of Mercury except in this case Mercury's velocity acts like your angle of tilt, not to high and not to low. The direction of the centripital acceleration is always inwards along the radius vector of the circular motion. The magnitude of the centripetal acceleration is related to the tangential speed and angular velocity.

I have done a number of equations and some have solutions and some dont,ie some work out to have an infinite value. I'm still doing more work to conclude my theories and varify the physical properties. When I said that a black hole acts like a neutron I meant to say that it acts as a giant neutron where there is all neutrinos packed into the space of the black hole making it like a ginormeous neutron and all particles sucked in brake down into neutrinos to increase the mass of the black hole When I mentioned hawking radiation I was referring to the energy level, as you should know, E(photon) = h . f The greater the frequency of the photons, the more energy it has. This energy could act like potential energy giving it enough energy to escape the gravitational field strength but still moves at 3e8 m/s. The bending of light in space could be similiar to refraction, the greater the frequency, the less refraction. E = (h.c^3)/16pi.G.M

Is it possible for an object with a constant acceleration to exceed the speed of light relative to its point of origin? What force would be exerted upon the object if it were to lose acceleration when nearing c ? The particle would be accelerating in the exact opposite direction if Einstein's theory does hold true. But why is the object deccelerating? If it's true that their is no limit on acceleration then what makes a photon accelerate away from its source then accelerate in the opposite direction so that V is not greater than 3e8 m/s ? An impulse of energy must be exerted on a photon to make it accelerate from its source within a givin time interval, according to Newton's first and third laws. If photons reach C instantaneously then A is infinite as t = 0 eg, V = U + At Where V = final velocity (m/s) U = initial velocity (m/s) A = acceleration (m/s^2) t = time (s) 3e8 = U + At either U = 3e8 or time and Acceleration are greater than zero If the initial velocity of a photon is zero then what is the time interval and acceleration for which photons reach C ? It has been found that light does react with gravity, i.e a double vision of a galaxy behind another was found and the scientist believes that the light has been bent in the vacuum due to the gravitational field strength of the galaxy in front causing a double vision to occur.

The acceleration of a photon would be the maximum acceleration (close to infinity minus 1 m/s) i.e a photon reflecting off a mirror due to constructive interference According to Einstein, the faster you move away, the slower your clock ticks relative to the observer. I'm not sure about this but I believe that this is because the light reflected off the traveller travels slower toward the observer, hence making it appear slower Right now at this very moment we are travelling at 28670.942 m/s as we orbit the sun, thats just under one ten thousandth the speed of light

I theorise that when a red giant explodes it forms sub particles of sub atomic particles of which all matter and particles are composed of. That be "sub energy" particles. I believe that a black hole acts like one proton or neutron where it could theoretically have an infinite mass as it converts other forms of matter and energy, ie protons, photons and electrons, into "sub energy" particles of which they first formed from. Hawking radiation may be the resultant of the chemistry like properties of quantum mechanics favouring the foward reaction due to constructive interference and rapid acceleration collisions to produce photons with a significant energy level to escape the gravitational field. Kind of like how a photon that starts at the centre of a star eventually makes it to the surface