C=M+1

[Relative]

C=M+1, nonsense you may say.

 

Galilean laws considered that if an object of mass, was to be, in the center of a nothing, as a

single mass, then distance, direction ,size or speed could not be calculated.

 

All these calculations are relative to mass.

 

Without mass or a reference point there could be no calculation.

 

So time is relative to the observer and the observers distance. A second to us, is relative to us, from our reference point.

 

A different observer would have a different reference point from a nearer ,or further away planet

from the sun. A different observer would have a perceived year, a year would be relative to them, and so would a month, a day, a hour, a minute, a second.

 

So relative to C, is relative to the observer, is relative to mass, is relative to distance, is

relative to time.

 

Imagine C as no speed, 0 mph.

 

Two masses cannot occupy the same space.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Imagine the left of the lines is our sun, one after one photons produced at C, pushing the others outwards at C.

 

Although there speed is zero.

 

We would still see a constant.

 

C=M+1 answers a lot...

[swansont]

C=M+1, nonsense you may say.

 

It is nonsense if you don't explain what the terms mean. Without that, it literally lacks sense.

 

Two masses cannot occupy the same space.

 

Unless they're Bosons. Then they can.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Imagine the left of the lines is our sun, one after one photons produced at C, pushing the others outwards at C.

 

Although there speed is zero.

 

We would still see a constant.

 

There would be no separation if v=0

 

C=M+1 answers a lot...

 

No, not really.

[Delta1212]

You seem to be saying the c is the rate at which photons are produced, and they move at c because they are continuously being displaced by the photons behind them as new ones are produced. Did I understand that correctly?

Edited March 10, 2013 by Delta1212

[Relative]

You seem to be saying the c is the rate at which photons are produced, and they move at c because they are continuously being displaced by the photons behind them as new ones are produced. Did I understand that correctly?

yes,

It is nonsense if you don't explain what the terms mean. Without that, it literally lacks sens

 

 

Unless they're Bosons. Then they can.

 

 

There would be no separation if v=0

An object doe's not need a velocity to move, example - we role a boulder, that boulder only as a velocity at the force we can push it at, we stop that force of push, and the boulder would stand still, the boulder has no velocity.

 

Mass + 1

 

+1 been the force needed or mass needed.

 

Also can the same be said for time,distance, size,

 

As we need two reference points, m+1

 

And if v = 0 i know there would be no separation, it would seem constant, I could not draw a constant

line with my keyboard

sorry.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Relative

[ACG52]

An object doe's not need a velocity to move, example - we role a boulder, that boulder only as a velocity at the force we can push it at, we stop that force of push, and the boulder would stand still, the boulder has no velocity.

 

 

When it's moving it has a velocity. When it's not moving it has no velocity.

 

You're posting nonsense here just as you did at The science forum. Keep it up and you'll be banned here, as you are there.

[Relative]

When it's moving it has a velocity. When it's not moving it has no velocity.

 

You're posting nonsense here just as you did at The science forum. Keep it up and you'll be banned here, as you are there.

No the boulder doe's not have velocity, it only as force put into it, the object of the boulder can not move of it's own accord. It has a velocity of 0. The pushing force as the velocity, which in term is just energy.

 

0 velocity + pressure = movement

 

And no this is not nonsense, it can be this way.....

[Delta1212]

No the boulder doe's not have velocity, it only as force put into it, the object of the boulder can not move of it's own accord. It has a velocity of 0. The pushing force as the velocity, which in term is just energy.

 

0 velocity + pressure = movement

 

And no this is not nonsense, it can be this way.....

But you know that any such pressure would lessen as you moved away from the sun, which would cause light to slow down if this was how it actually worked, right?

[swansont]

An object doe's not need a velocity to move, example - we role a boulder, that boulder only as a velocity at the force we can push it at, we stop that force of push, and the boulder would stand still, the boulder has no velocity.

While it rolls, it has a velocity. If it changes position, it has a velocity. By the definition of velocity. So this is nonsense.

Mass + 1

 

+1 been the force needed or mass needed.

 

Also can the same be said for time,distance, size,

 

As we need two reference points, m+1

What is m? If you add 1 to it, it must be unitless for this to make sense.

[ydoaPs]

 

 

When it's moving it has a velocity. When it's not moving it has no velocity.

 

You're posting nonsense here just as you did at The science forum. Keep it up and you'll be banned here, as you are there.

!

Moderator Note

If you feel a post requires moderation, please use the report button. Any personal advice on posting is off-topic in threads not about posting advice. Such conversations should be conducted via PM.

[Relative]

But you know that any such pressure would lessen as you moved away from the sun, which would cause light to slow down if this was how it actually worked, right?

I am uncertain on the answer, maybe light spreading at distance could define a slow down and a lessening in the pressure.

 

I suppose that would make sense in a way.

[Delta1212]

I am uncertain on the answer, maybe light spreading at distance could define a slow down and a lessening in the pressure.

 

I suppose that would make sense in a way.

But light doesn't slow down. It always travels at exactly the same speed. That's what c represents.

[Relative]

While it rolls, it has a velocity. If it changes position, it has a velocity. By the definition of velocity. So this is nonsense.

 

By the definition of velocity yes, I suppose it is nonsense, I apologize, this is not easy to explain,I will redefine, and say the boulder has no propelling force of its own, unless pressure is added from an external source.

 

 

 

What is m? If you add 1 to it, it must be unitless for this to make sense.

Again not great wording and I have confused my own topic by putting two topics into one.

 

I apologize.

 

M originally meant mass, M+1 meant mass plus mass, as in the known universe without any other mass apart from our planet, time, etc would not exist, not in the sense that we do not decay, just in the sense that we could not put a numeric

value on it.

 

As with also distance, direction, size, Galilean thought's.

 

Then I thought about Photons, photons been a particle. So photons have mass, so came to the conclusion C=M+1, but

thinking now maybe it should be C=P+P, photon plus photon.

 

However reconsidering, c=m+1 makes more sense, if I could project an image of myself, I could be or seem to be in two

places at once, I hope that sounds the right explanation.

 

I am unsure, my formula sounded right at the time I thought of it.

 

The thought of the pressure and Photons having no speed still sounds right, but my formula may be a bit mixed up now.

But light doesn't slow down. It always travels at exactly the same speed. That's what c represents.

Light doe's not slow down relative to us and our closeness to the sun compared with the rest of the universe.

How many billions of years as light had to travel?

We could not travel far enough into space to make assumptions that light does not slow down, and that is if it as speed, as my thought's could actually be how it is, and we would never know the difference.

[Delta1212]

Light doe's not slow down relative to us and our closeness to the sun compared with the rest of the universe.How many billions of years as light had to travel?We could not travel far enough into space to make assumptions that light does not slow down, and that is if it as speed, as my thought's could actually be how it is, and we would never know the difference.

What about the light from stars and galaxies that are lightyears away? Any pressure generated by them would have diminished to almost nothing by the time that light reached us, certainly to less than the outward pressure created by light from the sun. If the movement of light was created by pressure generated by a light source, that pressure should overwhelm any incoming light and prevent it from reaching Earth.

 

Also, if light somehow entered a rest state when not being pushed by other light, then it should stop moving when the source stopped emitting light. That may not be visible with the sun, which doesn't go out, but it would be apparent every time you turned off a light. You'd wind up scattering "at rest" light any time you moved through a newly dark room. Your movement would temporarily create brief flashes of visibility in the dark.

[Relative]

What about the light from stars and galaxies that are lightyears away? Any pressure generated by them would have diminished to almost nothing by the time that light reached us, certainly to less than the outward pressure created by light from the sun. If the movement of light was created by pressure generated by a light source, that pressure should overwhelm any incoming light and prevent it from reaching Earth.

 

Also, if light somehow entered a rest state when not being pushed by other light, then it should stop moving when the source stopped emitting light. That may not be visible with the sun, which doesn't go out, but it would be apparent every time you turned off a light. You'd wind up scattering "at rest" light any time you moved through a newly dark room. Your movement would temporarily create brief flashes of visibility in the dark.

 

Great question Delta, do we know that we recieve light waves from stars?.

 

Example- I shine a torch on you, you walk backwards on a straight path, I can see you, you can see my torch lense glaring.

 

As the distance advances between us, you disapear into the dark, I can no longer see you, but you can still see the torch lense glowing.

 

The point been, the reflectiveness of the light , reflecting of you, diminishes, so how do we know that the light from a star doe's not deminish or spread to such effect?.

 

Transparency of light from the sun, would allow us to see clearly through it any other light source, but doe's this mean the waves make it to the earth from a star?

 

To the second part of your question, why do we not disturb the "rested state", maybe we do, but our eyes can not decode the information fast enough to the brain. Like a strobe effect, but faster.

Our eyes adjust and magnify any light leaking into a dark room, we can see in near pitch black.

 

We can see areas, that the straight beam of light from a gap in the curtains e.t.c, doe's not reach.

 

The slit experiment showed that light , was dark and light, maybe the dark as we see it, is the dark, and maybe our bodies in pitch black, have not got Em radiation to activate the "the rest state".

 

Consider shadows, shadows are starved of light, they are darker patches, shadows. Light travels straight, yet manages to spread around corners....

 

I consider that shadows are not starved of light, but have an obstruction that blocks the activation to a degree of the "rest state particles".

[ACG52]

Great question Delta, do we know that we recieve light waves from stars?.

 

Yes. We see it. They have things called telescopes, which actually look at the light from stars.

 

The slit experiment showed that light , was dark and light, maybe the dark as we see it, is the dark, and maybe our bodies in pitch black, have not got Em radiation to activate the "the rest state".

 

This is meaningless nonsense.

[Relative]

Yes. We see it. They have things called telescopes, which actually look at the light from stars.

 

 

This is meaningless nonsense.

Telescopes do not see light, they only see mass, and the glare of stars. That doe's not prove in any way that light from a star reaches the earth.

My torch example shows this ....

 

Meaningless, I would re consider, who did the double split experiment using their eyes only...oh yes, that was me I

believe.

 

So why would you think or consider by thought's to be meaningless.....

[swansont]

Telescopes do not see light, they only see mass, and the glare of stars.

 

Telescopes see mass? Not light? That gets my WTF of the day.

 

Sorry, no. This is nonsense.

[ACG52]

who did the double split experiment using their eyes only...oh yes, that was me I

believe.

 

 

 

As I recall you squinted at a light bulb through a glass of water. and thought you saw things.

 

That 'double split [sic] experiment'?

[Delta1212]

Do you understand that "glare" and light are the same thing?

[Relative]

As I recall you squinted at a light bulb through a glass of water. and thought you saw things.

 

That 'double split [sic] experiment'?

Through a glass of water, no you would have mass in the way of your visual, try watery eyes. Make your eyes water and

squint with one eye at a neon <standby light on appliance>, do not use red it does not do nothing.Pitch black and a watery eye,try a onion, tiredness, or intoxication, it all works.

 

You think I was joking about the slit experiment with your eye? it works.

 

Do you understand that "glare" and light are the same thing?

Yes I understand that, but glare been in the imeadiate vacinity to source, there is a difference.

 

Telescopes see mass? Not light? That gets my WTF of the day.

 

Sorry, no. This is nonsense.

ACG52 said we look at light through telescopes from stars. We look at mass through telescopes and the light helps us see. The telescope does not see light from stars!

[Delta1212]

Through a glass of water, no you would have mass in the way of your visual, try watery eyes. Make your eyes water and

squint with one eye at a neon <standby light on appliance>, do not use red it does not do nothing.Pitch black and a watery eye,try a onion, tiredness, or intoxication, it all works.

 

You think I was joking about the slit experiment with your eye? it works.

 

Yes I understand that, but glare been in the imeadiate vacinity to source, there is a difference.

 

ACG52 said we look at light through telescopes from stars. We look at mass through telescopes and the light helps us see. The telescope does not see light from stars!

When you look at something, light isn't "helping" you see it. You are seeing the light that bounced off of something and using it to create an image of the thing it bounced off of. In other words, you only see light.

 

So yes, telescopes are used to see light from stars.

[ACG52]

. The telescope does not see light from stars!

 

 

The nonsense get's worse. And will continue to do so.

[swansont]

ACG52 said we look at light through telescopes from stars. We look at mass through telescopes and the light helps us see. The telescope does not see light from stars!

 

Funny, I thought the whole point of putting better optical elements in telescopes was to improve how they collected light. Doesn't explain why it's harder to see the moon when the sun isn't shining on the part we can see. Does it have less mass then?

[Relative]

When you look at something, light isn't "helping" you see it. You are seeing the light that bounced off of something and using it to create an image of the thing it bounced off of. In other words, you only see light.

 

So yes, telescopes are used to see light from stars.

I thought it was our eyes that see the light reflecting and not the telescope....OK you say and I have been told before that light reflects of the object so we can see it.

 

How do we see the sun then, this emits and not reflects light?

[Klaynos]

I thought it was our eyes that see the light reflecting and not the telescope....OK you say and I have been told before that light reflects of the object so we can see it.

 

How do we see the sun then, this emits and not reflects light?

We tend to use detectors other than human eyes. Humans are poor measurement systems.

 

The sun is the star, a rather unremarkable one.