Post by: Starlight on 23/01/2020 13:05:49
= c ?Where E is energy and X is vector .
The linear function of X being a force ?
2ce2a414-f69c-42e2-a014-d7faab1c135f.png (31.68 kB . 1360x641 - viewed 4816 times)Post by: Origin on 23/01/2020 14:45:44
Using a Cartesian coordinate systemNo that is not correct.
E/X = c ?
Where E is energy and X is vector .
The linear function of X being a force ?
Energy has the units kg-m^2/s^2
Force has the units kg-m/s^2
Energy divided by force leaves you with meters. Meters are not a velocity, so obviously there is an error in your equation.
Post by: Starlight on 23/01/2020 15:52:18
Using a Cartesian coordinate systemNo that is not correct.
E/X = c ?
Where E is energy and X is vector .
The linear function of X being a force ?
Energy has the units kg-m^2/s^2
Force has the units kg-m/s^2
Energy divided by force leaves you with meters. Meters are not a velocity, so obviously there is an error in your equation.
The question was- is the speed of light a product of a linear function !
I presented a causality equation of the process that does not require units at this time . An effect cannot occur before its cause .
Post by: Hayseed on 23/01/2020 17:35:05
The linear velocity of light comes from an angular velocity of charge.
Charge is too small to emit light. For for the relative long wavelengths of light, multiple charges, with a charge bond is needed.
The bonding field has the angular velocities of the charge, but the longer lengths for the bond.
The bond is the emitter, a dipole.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/01/2020 17:37:31
The answer to the original question is "no".
Post by: Starlight on 23/01/2020 18:40:38
The answer to the original question is "no".
Then you'd need to explain by what propulsion mechanism a photon was able to travel
?You'd also have to explain why no , as no in itself is not a full answer !
Post by: Origin on 23/01/2020 18:46:52
The question was- is the speed of light a product of a linear function !No, the speed of light through a vacuum is described in Maxwells Equations. LIght and all EM radiation is an oscillating electric and magnetic field.
I presented a causality equation of the process that does not require units at this time .What is a causality equation? The process doesn't require units? What is that supposed to mean? Energy has units. Force has units. Units are kind of inherent to the process!
Post by: Origin on 23/01/2020 18:50:26
Then you'd need to explain by what propulsion mechanism a photon was able to travel ?There is no propulsion. Light can only travel at c through a vacuum. As a matter of fact all massless particles travel at c in a vacuum and they cannot travel less than c in a vacuum.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/01/2020 19:20:11
No
It's the reciprocal of the square root of the product of two electromagnetic properties of a vacuum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation
Post by: alancalverd on 23/01/2020 20:09:32
Then you'd need to explain by what propulsion mechanism a photon was able to travel ?My explanation would be no better or more succinct than that given by Maxwell in 1862. But that wasn't the question.
Post by: evan_au on 23/01/2020 20:35:15
Quote from: OP
E/X= c ?Normally, you would write a linear equation as y=ax+b
- Where x & y are the variables
- a & b are constants (b could be zero; if a=0 it is a degenerate linear function: a constant)
You can write E=hf (Planck's Equation)
- Where E is energy
- h is Plank's constant
- f is the frequency of a photon
- this is a linear equation: E is proportional to f
And you can write c= fλ (or equivalently, f=c/λ)
- where teh constant c is the speed of light
- λ is the wavelength of light
- Again, f is the frequency
- This is not a linear equation: f is inversely proportional to λ
This then produces E=hc/λ, or Eλ/h = c.
- Which is something like what you were asking about. (where X=h/λ)
- But c & h are constants in this equation. You can't change c by changing E
- You can change E by changing λ.
PS: I hope I got this basic algebra correct...
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%E2%80%93Einstein_relation
Post by: Starlight on 23/01/2020 21:16:58
Quote from: OPE/X= c ?Normally, you would write a linear equation as y=ax+b
- Where x & y are the variables
- a & b are constants (b could be zero; if a=0 it is a degenerate linear function: a constant)
You can write E=hf (Planck's Equation)
- Where E is energy
- h is Plank's constant
- f is the frequency of a photon
- this is a linear equation: E is proportional to f
And you can write c= fλ (or equivalently, f=c/λ)
- where teh constant c is the speed of light
- λ is the wavelength of light
- Again, f is the frequency
- This is not a linear equation: f is inversely proportional to λ
This then produces E=hc/λ, or Eλ/h = c.
- Which is something like what you were asking about. (where X=h/λ)
- But c & h are constants in this equation. You can't change c by changing E
- You can change E by changing λ.
My equation specifically ''asks'' about the linear momentum of light and the physical reasoning behind lights speed .
I appreciate your considerate reply but it doesn't directly answer my question in regards to the mechanism behind lights speed .
My logical formula specifically states the physical process and energy divided by a vector space .
I believe that is quite applicable in explaining the question .
In a 4 dimensional format :
E /
=f(x)? c27167eb-fcbe-4eb7-ac66-cde8ca6925fd.png (95.38 kB . 893x600 - viewed 4127 times)Post by: Origin on 23/01/2020 22:11:07
My equation specifically ''asks'' about the linear momentum of light and the physical reasoning behind lights speed .These are nonsensical equations.
I appreciate your considerate reply but it doesn't directly answer my question in regards to the mechanism behind lights speed .
My logical formula specifically states the physical process and energy divided by a vector space .
I believe that is quite applicable in explaining the question .
In a 4 dimensional format :
E / =f(x)?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/01/2020 00:43:31
Post by: PmbPhy on 24/01/2020 00:44:57
Interesting collection of sciency words.Great answer. Exactly right. Its all nonsense.
The answer to the original question is "no".
Post by: PmbPhy on 24/01/2020 00:47:05
The original equation was E/X = c "where....X is a vector". We know that X = h/λ. Unfortunately h/λ is not a vector.If E is energy and X is the magnitude of momentum (a vector) then that expression is true.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/01/2020 00:52:37
An effect cannot occur before its cause .Oh yes it can, by an enormous consensus! Look at the historic record of global temperature. It generally changes about 400 years before the change in CO2 level. Anyone who thinks cause must precede effect is a dangerous and despicable climate change denier!
Post by: PmbPhy on 24/01/2020 00:54:32
My equation specifically ''asks'' about the linear momentum of light and the physical reasoning behind lights speed .The physical meaning of the speed of light comes from Maxwell's equations. and shown to be a function of u_o and e_0, the permeability and permativity of free space. The constancy of light is a postulate and has no derivation.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/01/2020 00:59:47
I stand corrected, sort of. Obviously h/λ is the magnitude of photon momentum but it contains no directional information.The original equation was E/X = c "where....X is a vector". We know that X = h/λ. Unfortunately h/λ is not a vector.If E is energy and X is the magnitude of momentum (a vector) then that expression is true.
Post by: Kryptid on 24/01/2020 01:21:10
Post by: Starlight on 24/01/2020 07:58:42
The constancy of light is a postulate and has no derivation.[ Invalid Attachment ]
p is momentum , hf is light and f(X) is function X
f(X)=F where F is force .
Post by: Starlight on 24/01/2020 08:03:35
My equation specifically ''asks'' about the linear momentum of light and the physical reasoning behind lights speed .These are nonsensical equations.
I appreciate your considerate reply but it doesn't directly answer my question in regards to the mechanism behind lights speed .
My logical formula specifically states the physical process and energy divided by a vector space .
I believe that is quite applicable in explaining the question .
In a 4 dimensional format :
E / =f(x)?
They are explanations of causality and the physical process , they are not meant to have specific units or values . They explain the process .
They are not nonsense and specifically demonstrate that lights speed is a product of a linear force . Light not having its own mechanism of propulsion .
Post by: evan_au on 24/01/2020 11:16:20
Quote from: Starlight
Light not having its own mechanism of propulsion .A wave on the ocean, once started, continues onwards:
- It continues to have a speed
- Despite having no method of propulsion of its own
- And despite having no linear force applied to it.
Maxwell's equations produce a wave motion, which, once started, needs no linear force to propel it.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/01/2020 11:31:58
The physical meaning of the speed of light comes from Maxwell's equations. and shown to be a function of u_o and e_0, the permeability and permativity of free space. The constancy of light is a postulate and has no derivation.Always a pleasure to cross swords in friendly combat with an expert, Pete! I think you underestimate your perceptiveness here.
As you say, Maxwell showed (from classical experiments in electromagnetic induction) that c is a function of μ0 and ε0 only. Now as these are both properties of a vacuum, they cannot change: there is nothing in a vacuum, so none of its properties can evolve or be distorted. Thus c is necessarily a constant.
Post by: Starlight on 24/01/2020 14:00:22
Quote from: StarlightLight not having its own mechanism of propulsion .A wave on the ocean, once started, continues onwards:
- It continues to have a speed
- Despite having no method of propulsion of its own
The wind is the propulsion of ocean waves and an ocean wave ends its onwards journey when it crashes against a shoreline !
A photon has no method of propulsion , emitting is a word without physical explanation .
=f(x)What is function x if not an attractive linear force that is constant in nature?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/01/2020 14:23:01
emitting is a word without physical explanation .The physical explanation is given by the derivation of Maxwell's equations. Any undergraduate textbook or Wikipedia will lead you gently through the maths.
Post by: Kryptid on 24/01/2020 14:26:34
What is function x if not an attractive linear force that is constant in nature?
Forces cause acceleration. Photons travel at a constant speed. So there is no acceleration, and therefore no force, involved.
This user's posting habits look very familiar. Thebox, is that you?
Post by: Starlight on 24/01/2020 16:30:07
What is function x if not an attractive linear force that is constant in nature?
Forces cause acceleration. Photons travel at a constant speed. So there is no acceleration, and therefore no force, involved.
Forces can also cause a constant speed !
Additionally a photon accelerates when exiting glass !
Box?
Post by: Kryptid on 24/01/2020 21:58:58
Forces can also cause a constant speed !
Not in terms of net forces. An airplane traveling at constant speed may have the force of its engines pushing it, but it is receiving an equal force in the form of drag acting in the opposite direction. So the net force is zero. The same thing applies to an object falling at terminal velocity.
Additionally a photon accelerates when exiting glass !
I'm not certain that's true. I think the change in velocity is actually that of the phase velocity and not that of the individual photons that make up the light beam. Someone more knowledgeable about that might help clarify the matter.
Post by: Hayseed on 24/01/2020 22:14:20
Like spinning current causing a phase delay.
Post by: pzkpfw on 24/01/2020 23:11:20
... This user's posting habits look very familiar. Thebox, is that you?
I don't think he's Thebox (who thought light speed was _infinite_), but for amusing cross reference, I believe Starlight posts as Complexity at scienceforums.net [ https://www.scienceforums.net/profile/141169-complexity/ ] Some history there to check.
Nice to see he's learned to trim screen shots.
Post by: Starlight on 25/01/2020 08:22:50
I'm not certain that's true. I think the change in velocity
Regardless of reasoning , a change in velocity represents some sort of force that allows the change in velocity . Applying Newtons laws of motion , when light slows down passing through glass or a medium , there is an external force acting on the lights velocity to slow it down. When the light exits glass or a medium it speeds up again , a force must make it speed up again or it would retain the speed light had whilst passing through the medium .
←f(x) f(x) being a functioning force F !
Post by: syhprum on 25/01/2020 09:12:32
Post by: Starlight on 25/01/2020 10:02:46
Let us think of light as an electromagnetic wave not as a particle its velocity depends on permeability and permittivity of the medium in which it travels when it leaves the glass it adapts to the new medium in which it is travelling.
Permeability of a medium is effectively the force of resistance and causes a ''gravitational'' drag on the EMR that is passing through the medium . The attractive linear force of function (x) allows the EMR to increase in speed once the EMR has left the medium and ''gravitational'' drag . Clouds are a perfect example !
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/01/2020 11:07:39
attractive linear force of function (x)All forces are linear.
What do you think you are talking about?
Post by: Starlight on 25/01/2020 11:25:17
attractive linear force of function (x)All forces are linear.
What do you think you are talking about?
I am talking about the linear momentum of EMR and the quantum mechanics of lights constant speed . Explaining function (x) as being an attractive force that is the cause of lights momentum .
Light having no unique propulsion system but instead being influenced by the f(x) !
Momentum
= f(x) f(x)=F?
Where F is an attractive force !
Post by: Origin on 25/01/2020 17:08:38
Light having no unique propulsion system but instead being influenced by the f(x) !Light does not need a 'propulsion' system so your f(x) is meaningless!
Where F is an attractive force !There is no attractive force involving light!
Post by: The Spoon on 25/01/2020 17:55:32
Post by: Starlight on 26/01/2020 08:59:42
Light does not need a 'propulsion' system so your f(x) is meaningless!
Where F is an attractive force !There is no attractive force involving light!
Really ? Then you can explain clearly to the readers how light manages to leave a flashlights bulb !
I think this must be rather embarrassing for science as the denial is so obviously avoiding truths .
Post by: Starlight on 26/01/2020 09:08:34
I think Kryptid could be right about the OP being the box. The use of meaningless made up equations is a bit of a giveaway...
I do not know this Box you keep mentioning , could this person you mention discuss special relativity ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/01/2020 09:18:23
could this person you mention discuss special relativity ?Yes, with roughly the same level of understanding that you have.
Really ? Then you can explain clearly to the readers how light manages to leave a flashlights bulb !Yes
But some of our readers won't understand it.
Having failed to understand, they will claim that the explanation is wrong, rather than facing the fact that they simply don't have the brains or the background to understand it.
Post by: Starlight on 26/01/2020 09:30:12
could this person you mention discuss special relativity ?Yes, with roughly the same level of understanding that you have.Really ? Then you can explain clearly to the readers how light manages to leave a flashlights bulb !Yes
But some of our readers won't understand it.
Having failed to understand, they will claim that the explanation is wrong, rather than facing the fact that they simply don't have the brains or the background to understand it.
Go on then , explain how light is emitted from a flashlight !
Explain how the light travels from the bulb
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/01/2020 09:37:21
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/01/2020 09:38:12
Then you'd need to explain by what propulsion mechanism a photon was able to travel ?My explanation would be no better or more succinct than that given by Maxwell in 1862. But that wasn't the question.
Post by: Starlight on 26/01/2020 09:39:08
There seems to be a random squiggle at the end of your post.
Hardly random when it is the forum provided math symbols.
Do you not understand vectors ?
is a directional tag a to b .
Post by: Starlight on 26/01/2020 09:40:39
Is the speed of light a product of a linear function ?Is the speed of light a product of a linear function !
That is the question which you are failing to discuss .
=f(x)Post by: Bored chemist on 26/01/2020 10:20:27
Do you not understand vectors ?I understand vectors well enough.
In particular, I understand them well enough that they don't reliably represent the paths of photons.
So, I'm left wondering if your use of the symbol was just a way to indicate that you are both pretentious and ignorant.
But that's beside the point.
Is the speed of light a product of a linear function !No.
It's a constant.
I already told you this (and others said essentially the same thing)
Is the speed of light a product of a linear function ?
No
It's the reciprocal of the square root of the product of two electromagnetic properties of a vacuum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation
Having been told repeatedly that the answer to your question is "no", you keep asking it.
Why do you do that?
Are you hoping that reality will change?
Post by: Starlight on 26/01/2020 10:32:19
Having been told repeatedly that the answer to your question is "no", you keep asking it.
Why do you do that?
Are you hoping that reality will change?
You have provided gibberish to direct questions , something to pass off as an answer that is totally meaningless to the question .
You have to provide the mechanics of lights motion . Light does not travel for no reason .
I'll ask again ! Explain how light travels from a to b when turning on a flashlight ?
Propulsion or attraction ! Only one answer is applicable .
Quote
t's the reciprocal of the square root of the product of two electromagnetic properties of a vacuum.
Meaningless gibberish .
Laws of attraction
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/01/2020 12:45:57
Meaningless gibberish .When you write off the mathematically derived result (from Maxwell's equations) as "meaningless gibberish", what you are actually doing is announcing your own lack of understanding.
You have provided gibberish to direct questionsWhich parts of this don't you understand?
My explanation would be no better or more succinct than that given by Maxwell in 1862.
Post by: Starlight on 26/01/2020 15:23:00
Meaningless gibberish .When you write off the mathematically derived result (from Maxwell's equations) as "meaningless gibberish", what you are actually doing is announcing your own lack of understanding.You have provided gibberish to direct questionsWhich parts of this don't you understand?My explanation would be no better or more succinct than that given by Maxwell in 1862.
Quoting an earlier post :
Quote
I stand corrected, sort of. Obviously h/λ is the magnitude of photon momentum but it contains no directional information.
Maxwell's equations do not explain what my question asks in relationship to force and direction .
=c =f(x)f(x) = ?
What don't you understand about my question ?
Perhaps you'd like the question in 4 dimensional terms ?
/ t =c / t =f(x)I take it from your replies you have no real interest in the discussion of real physics , the aim of discovering new things ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/01/2020 15:36:45
What don't you understand about my question ?I don't understand why you keep asking it, even after it has been answered.
I take it from your replies you have no real interest in the discussion of real physics , the aim of discovering new things ?
The evidence shows that I should say the same about you.
If, as you claim, e/x = c and e/x = f(x) then obviously
f(x) =c
However, given the conventional use of e and x, you are simply wrong- the dimensional analysis doesn't work.
Post by: Starlight on 26/01/2020 17:16:56
What don't you understand about my question ?I don't understand why you keep asking it, even after it has been answered.I take it from your replies you have no real interest in the discussion of real physics , the aim of discovering new things ?
The evidence shows that I should say the same about you.
If, as you claim, e/x = c and e/x = f(x) then obviously
f(x) =c
However, given the conventional use of e and x, you are simply wrong- the dimensional analysis doesn't work.
Obviously function (x) is a force .
F=f(x)
How can you say the dimensional analysis doesn't work when clearly it describes the physical nature of lights speed ?
[ Invalid Attachment ]
The linear momentum of hf is equal to function (x)
A quite simple linear expression and dimensional analysis that anybody should understand !
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/01/2020 17:29:33
How can you say the dimensional analysis doesn't workBecause I know what "dimensional analysis" means.
I'm pretty sure you don't.
You say
e/x = c
C is a velocity and has units of m/s
E, by convention is an energy and has units of kg m/s^2
and x by convention is a distance and has units of metres
So e/x has units of (kilogram.metre /sec/sec) divided by( metres)
ie it has units of kg/s/s
Which are not the same as units of velocity, so whatever e/x it may be, it can not possibly be c.
Go and learn some science, then you might avoid making embarrassingly silly claims.
Post by: Starlight on 26/01/2020 20:45:26
C is a velocity and has units of m/s
E, by convention is an energy and has units of kg m/s^2
and x by convention is a distance and has units of metresWhat don't you understand about my question ?I don't understand why you keep asking it, even after it has been answered.I take it from your replies you have no real interest in the discussion of real physics , the aim of discovering new things ?
The evidence shows that I should say the same about you.
If, as you claim, e/x = c and e/x = f(x) then obviously
f(x) =c
However, given the conventional use of e and x, you are simply wrong- the dimensional analysis doesn't work.
Obviously function (x) is a force .
F=f(x)
How can you say the dimensional analysis doesn't work when clearly it describes the physical nature of lights speed ?
[ Invalid Attachment ]
The linear momentum of hf is equal to function (x)
A quite simple linear expression and dimensional analysis that anybody should understand !
I am talking physics and causality ! You are adding equations that have absolutely nothing to do with the question and physics involved .
I suggest you go learn some physics and how stuff works before you embarrass yourself with your silly claims .
It isn't quite April yet for you to be presenting April fool jokes that are totally unrelated to the question .
If you drove a 4*4 there is work involved , do yo understand what the word work means in physics ?
w =
= f(x) The above needs no units to express the physical functions .
I understand it must be really embarrassing for science after all these years to find out light doesn't have a speed of its own and the thinking in general on lights speed and photons is really sloppy thinking .
Obviously SR is incorrect because of these findings , this including E=mc^2
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/01/2020 20:59:04
You are adding equations that have absolutely nothing to do with the question and physics involved .It is unfortunate that you do not understand how the stuff I posted was relevant.
I understand it must be really embarrassing for science after all these years to find out light doesn't have a speed of its ownThe speed of light has been measured many times.
It exists.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/01/2020 21:00:31
=cThe equations I posted- and which you say are irrelevant, are your equations...
=f(x)
Post by: Starlight on 26/01/2020 21:14:33
=cThe equations I posted- and which you say are irrelevant, are your equations...
=f(x)
Lights speed c is a result of function (x) . Function (x) is a force .
Have you ever noticed a street light and wondered how the light is emitted ?
Now you know ! it is a result of f(x) , an attractive force .
Perhaps you have difficulty in understanding real physics ?
Post by: evan_au on 26/01/2020 21:36:00
Quote from: Starlight
Applying Newtons laws of motion...When the light exits glass or a medium it speeds up again , a force must make it speed up againAccording to Newton's laws of motion, F=ma, where:
- F is the applied force
- m is the mass of the object
- a is the acceleration of the object
- usually F & a vary with time (in the case of rockets, m also varies with time)
However, we know that the rest-mass of a photon is 0.
- Which means, according to F=ma, the force must also be zero
- Effects like refraction occur within 1 wavelength of the change in medium
- For visible light, this means that the change in speed occurs in < 10-14 seconds, so this supposed new force acts for an infinitesimal time.
Similarly, under Newton's laws, applying a force to a physical object for a finite time uses energy.
- This New Theory has not explained where the energy comes from, where it goes to, or why photons keep precisely the same energy, even after passing through many changes of medium.
So we have this mythical "linear force" acting on light; the magnitude of this force is always zero, acts for an infinitesimal period of time, and results in 0 change of energy.
The logical conclusion is that this proposed force is indistinguishable from a world where this "linear force" does not exist.
Post by: Starlight on 26/01/2020 22:29:33
- This New Theory has not explained where the energy comes from, where it goes to, or why photons keep precisely the same energy, even after passing through many changes of medium.
Light energy comes from kinetics and work being done on a quantum level .
Quote
So we have this mythical "linear force" acting on light; the magnitude of this force is always zero, acts for an infinitesimal period of time, and results in 0 change of energy.
Not a mythical linear force , one that has to exist . The magnitude of the force is dependent to volume and mass .
The force acts for an infinite period of time not an infinitesimal period of time .
Additionally the force acts on all spatial bodies including planets , stars etc .
Newtons law of motion explains a body will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force .
A body will also remain in motion if attracted by a linear force that has no boundaries that prevent motion .
This new theory also fits in with planetary orbits and explains the motion of planets ''circular'' loops .
Quote
The logical conclusion is that this proposed force is indistinguishable from a world where this "linear force" does not exist.
3655e28b-f4c2-4e06-b7f0-67bdec7efc8f.png (40.01 kB . 560x435 - viewed 3259 times)Orbits seem to agree with my conclusion of an undiscovered force which has enough magnitude to keep a large mass such as the earth in motion through space . It is not indistinguishable as demonstrated in my diagram .
Post by: Origin on 27/01/2020 01:31:40
Obviously function (x) is a force .Really, in the same post you write that 'function (x)' is both force AND momentum.
The linear momentum of hf is equal to function (x)
That is one helluva function...
Post by: Kryptid on 27/01/2020 05:41:11
Obviously SR is incorrect because of these findings
What experiment was it that falsified special relativity and why haven't we seen it in the news yet?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/01/2020 19:21:45
Perhaps you have difficulty in understanding real physics ?LOL
The real answer is time dependent perturbation theory.
Or, if you prefer a classical interpretation, it's down to Maxwell's equations.
And I suspect that it's you who doesn't understand the physics involved.
However, just in the interests of proving that you are being foolish; how can I see myself in the mirror?
In order to move from the light, to my face and them to the mirror this "attraction" has to change direction.
Post by: Starlight on 28/01/2020 21:40:20
However, just in the interests of proving that you are being foolish; how can I see myself in the mirror?
In order to move from the light, to my face and them to the mirror this "attraction" has to change direction.
Quite obvious the light reflecting off you is reflecting in the mirror back at you . In either instant the light is still being attracted by the f(x) .
Drawing.png (8.65 kB . 351x196 - viewed 1910 times)Reflection is redirection !
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/01/2020 22:08:49
The "thing" that's doing the attracting doesn't move.
Post by: Starlight on 28/01/2020 22:46:12
What stops the attraction being northwards and makes it southwards?
The "thing" that's doing the attracting doesn't move.
Equality and Newtons laws of motion sort of . A photon will remain travelling a straight line unless redirected and a straight light is possibly infinite in any direction which means the f(x) attractive force is constant in any direction .
Function (x) is always equal to f(y) and f(z) if we want to define this in more appropriate 3d terms .