[jan19th1980 (OP)]

Fundamental Theory of Existence.
1. Zero can not divide one.
2. One can not be created from zero. Absolute creation does not exist.
3. One can not be destroyed into zero. Absolute destruction does not exist.
4. One can change into different one. Relative creation and relative destruction exist.
5. There is no beginning for absolute existence.
6. There is no end for absolute existence.
7. There is a beginning and an end to relative existence.
8. There is no God.
9. Velocity of light is relative.
10. Space is emptiness that can be occupied, it is absolute. Time is an indication of change, it is relative.
11. There are three and three space dimensions only. There is only one time dimension.
12. Time travel is not possible and there is only one Universe.
Sagar Gorijala is the author of " Fundamental Theory of Existence ".

[Kartazion]

...
...
9. Velocity of light is relative.
...

Sagar Gorijala is wrong. Speed of light is absolute.

[Kartazion]

So I guess he's got the rest wrong unless you know what you're talking about and are going to explain your OP post to us.

For example he claims that 'there's only one Universe'. How can he claim such a thing?

[jan19th1980 (OP)]

...
...
9. Velocity of light is relative.
...

Sagar Gorijala is wrong. Speed of light is absolute.

Mass of an object is directly proportional to Acceleration.

Mass <=> Acceleration. [ Directly proportional ].

E=M.C square

Light's mass and energy both must be considered.

1/M = C square / Energy.

Mass is inversely proportional to Velocity+Energy relationship.

Velocity of an object is directly proportional to mass ( and acceleration )

Velocity+Energy of light is inversely proportional to mass ( Gravity ).

As Gravity increases Velocity of light decreases.

On moon velocity of light is faster than on Earth and velocity of light is slower on Jupiter than on Earth.

Velocity of light there appears to be constant on Earth and is said to be absolute. When velocity of light is measured on Moon then it is completely clear that Velocity of light is relative. [ Gravity needs to change to observe that velocity of light is relative ].

Velocity of light is relative.

[jan19th1980 (OP)]

So I guess he's got the rest wrong unless you know what you're talking about and are going to explain your OP post to us.

For example he claims that 'there's only one Universe'. How can he claim such a thing?

Time is an indication of change. Higher gravity produces slower change so slow is time
and lower gravity produces faster change so time is relatively faster.
For this reason Time is relative. For this reason time travel is not only impossible but meaningless.
For the same reason there is only one time dimension. Only one time dimension and therefore only one Universe.

[Kartazion]

Mass of an object is directly proportional to Acceleration.

Mass <=> Acceleration. [ Directly proportional ].

E=M.C square

Light's mass and energy both must be considered.

1/M = C square / Energy.

Mass is inversely proportional to Velocity+Energy relationship.

...

The photon is massless. So you can't.

[Bored chemist]

One can not be created from zero.

I forget the detail, but I think one is defined as the number of sets with zero members.

Velocity of light is relative.

Saying that once makes you look ignorant, saying again, after the error was pointed out, makes you look like a troll.

[jan19th1980 (OP)]

One can not be created from zero.

I forget the detail, but I think one is defined as the number of sets with zero members.

Velocity of light is relative.

Saying that once makes you look ignorant, saying again, after the error was pointed out, makes you look like a troll.

Saying the wrong thing does not make me troll, calling someone troll makes you the actual troll. Stop insulting others without understanding science.

And, Velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity, it is not about being with mass or being massless.

Velocity of object with mass is directly proportional to acceleration

Velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity.

The difference between object with mass and velocity of light is, object's velocity is directly propotional to acceleration
and velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity. This is not ignorance. Stop insulting others without understanding physics.

[jan19th1980 (OP)]

What came first?

One can not become zero, one is not equal to zero.
Zero can not become one, zero is not equal to one.
One can not become zero, absolute destruction is not possible.
Zero can not become one, absolute creation is not possible.
One is equal to one, one can change into different one. [ Change ].
One can change into different one, old one becomes new one.
Old one becomes new one, relative creation and relative destruction exist.
Absolute creation is not possible, absolute existence has no beginning, Universe was never created.
Absolute destruction is not possible, absolute existence has no end, Universe can never be destroyed.
Old one becomes new one, relative creation and relative destruction exist, Universe has a change of form.
Existence is a circle? The circle was drawn? The circle simply exists?
What came first?
When we draw a circle we can see that the circle has a beginning point and when it reaches end point it becomes the circle. Circle is also known as a never ending line.
Absolute creation is not possible so the circle of existence was never drawn, it simply exists.
What came first?
Existence was never created so existence has no beginning.
If existence is a variation, which variation came first?
Existence changes, so existence is a variation.
When we talk about first variation we talk about beginning. But, there is no beginning.
If there is a first variation, it means " Zero can become one, zero is equal to one ".
So, there is no first variation. So, there is no beginning.
What came first? Existence has no first or last, change has both first and last.
So, Universe has no beginning and Universe always exists without any first variation and without any last variation.
Change has first and last. One changes into different one.
One - first.
Different one - last.
So, there is no first and there is/are no God or Gods.

[Bored chemist]

Saying the wrong thing does not make me troll,

Saying them repeatedly does.

calling someone troll makes you the actual troll.

No, it doesn't. Grow up.

Stop insulting others without understanding science.

If I didn't understand science, I'd have been sacked decades ago.

And, Velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity,

No, it isn't.
We know  this because satellites- which depend for their design on the speed of light, do not stop working in zero gravity.

Velocity of object with mass is directly proportional to acceleration

It's more complicated than that.

Velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity.

No, it's not. See above.

velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity. T

No, it's not. See above.

Stop insulting others without understanding physics.

I understand the physics a lot better than you seem to.
That's why I can offer actual evidence that the speed of light is not proportional to gravity.
It's also why, on a more abstract level, I can show that you are wrong by dimensional analysis.

[Bored chemist]

Is that meant to be poetry?

[jan19th1980 (OP)]

Saying the wrong thing does not make me troll,

Saying them repeatedly does.

calling someone troll makes you the actual troll.

No, it doesn't. Grow up.

Stop insulting others without understanding science.

If I didn't understand science, I'd have been sacked decades ago.

And, Velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity,

No, it isn't.
We know  this because satellites- which depend for their design on the speed of light, do not stop working in zero gravity.

Velocity of object with mass is directly proportional to acceleration

It's more complicated than that.

Velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity.

No, it's not. See above.

velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity. T

No, it's not. See above.

Stop insulting others without understanding physics.

I understand the physics a lot better than you seem to.
That's why I can offer actual evidence that the speed of light is not proportional to gravity.
It's also why, on a more abstract level, I can show that you are wrong by dimensional analysis.

What? Zero gravity for satellites? When? And, zero gravity only means that velocity of light is not hindered by gravity. Light's velocity is more in that case when compared to velocity of light on Earth. Please understand what you type.
Zero gravity does not mean end of velocity and definitely not the end of satellites.

[jan19th1980 (OP)]

Is that meant to be poetry?

No dear friend, it is not poetry. It also says that big bang is not the first variation.

[Kartazion]

And, Velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity, it is not about being with mass or being massless.
...
Velocity of light is inversely proportional to gravity.
...

AFAIK the speed of light is unchanged by gravity.

[Kartazion]

What came first?

One can not become zero, one is not equal to zero.
Zero can not become one, zero is not equal to one.
One can not become zero, absolute destruction is not possible.
Zero can not become one, absolute creation is not possible.
One is equal to one, one can change into different one. [ Change ].
One can change into different one, old one becomes new one.
Old one becomes new one, relative creation and relative destruction exist.
Absolute creation is not possible, absolute existence has no beginning, Universe was never created.
Absolute destruction is not possible, absolute existence has no end, Universe can never be destroyed.
Old one becomes new one, relative creation and relative destruction exist, Universe has a change of form.
Existence is a circle? The circle was drawn? The circle simply exists?
What came first?
When we draw a circle we can see that the circle has a beginning point and when it reaches end point it becomes the circle. Circle is also known as a never ending line.
Absolute creation is not possible so the circle of existence was never drawn, it simply exists.
What came first?
Existence was never created so existence has no beginning.
If existence is a variation, which variation came first?
Existence changes, so existence is a variation.
When we talk about first variation we talk about beginning. But, there is no beginning.
If there is a first variation, it means " Zero can become one, zero is equal to one ".
So, there is no first variation. So, there is no beginning.
What came first? Existence has no first or last, change has both first and last.
So, Universe has no beginning and Universe always exists without any first variation and without any last variation.
Change has first and last. One changes into different one.
One - first.
Different one - last.
So, there is no first and there is/are no God or Gods.

I think you are confusing discipline. Your description corresponds to philosophy rather than science.

[Bored chemist]

Zero gravity for satellites? When?

All the time; they are in free fall i.e. zero gravity.

zero gravity only means that velocity of light is not hindered by gravity.

If that was true the speed in free fall would be infinite, and it isn't.

Zero gravity does not mean end of velocity and definitely not the end of satellites.

Do you not understand that satellites have electronics and antennae and things that depend on the wavelength of the radiation they are using (typically microwaves and radio).
Antenna design is fundamentally related to the wavelength of the radiation.
The wavelength is related to the speed of that radiation.
So, if the speed changed, the wavelength would change.
If the wavelength changes, the antennae would not work.
if the antennae did not work then the satellites would not work.
You would not be able to get satellite TV signals for example.

But we can.
So you are wrong.

Please understand what you type.

I do understand the things I am typing about.
You clearly do not.
Go and learn.

[jan19th1980 (OP)]

Zero gravity for satellites? When?

All the time; they are in free fall i.e. zero gravity.

zero gravity only means that velocity of light is not hindered by gravity.

If that was true the speed in free fall would be infinite, and it isn't.

Zero gravity does not mean end of velocity and definitely not the end of satellites.

Do you not understand that satellites have electronics and antennae and things that depend on the wavelength of the radiation they are using (typically microwaves and radio).
Antenna design is fundamentally related to the wavelength of the radiation.
The wavelength is related to the speed of that radiation.
So, if the speed changed, the wavelength would change.
If the wavelength changes, the antennae would not work.
if the antennae did not work then the satellites would not work.
You would not be able to get satellite TV signals for example.

But we can.
So you are wrong.

Please understand what you type.

I do understand the things I am typing about.
You clearly do not.
Go and learn.

Dear Friend, the so called zero gravity is not gravity = zero. Do you understand that?
Do you know Michelson–Morley experiment?
Do you know why the misconception that velocity of light is constant?
If someone is on the ground and someone on the moving train what we have is relativity... relative difference.
But, the moving train carries light source not light itself. Light is generated by source of light. The moving train carries source of light but not light itself. Michelson–Morley experiment shows that they measured velocity of light without the change in gravity. Mass of an object is directly proportional to acceleration/gravity and we do not consider energy in the proportionality. So, velocity of an object is directly proportional acceleration or gravity and its velocity is also different on ground and on a moving train. We observe relativity.
Velocity of light is not related to acceleration... why?? Because we can only hold source of light, not light itself.
Velocity of light is related to gravity. In what way?
When we consider velocity of light we not only consider its velocity but we also consider its energy.
C square/Energy is inversely proportional to gravity. Velocity of light is different on the surface of the Earth when compared to velocity of light on the surface of the Moon. Our Moon's gravity is less than the gravity of our planet Earth and this is why Velocity of Light is faster on our Moon when compared to Velocity of light on our planet Earth.
And, the gravity difference is not found for moving light on ground and on moving train.
Velocity of light is not constant.
Velocity of light is relative to change in GRAVITY.
My Friend, this is the case.

[Origin]

Velocity of light is relative to change in GRAVITY.

You have said that several times now.  Could you now please show that this is more than your hunch?  Could you show some math backing that assertion?

This is certainly not enough:  "C square/Energy is inversely proportional to gravity.

[jan19th1980 (OP)]

Velocity of light is relative to change in GRAVITY.

You have said that several times now.  Could you now please show that this is more than your hunch?  Could you show some math backing that assertion?

This is certainly not enough:  "C square/Energy is inversely proportional to gravity.

Can I show some Math other than that particular essential Math? No. Why? I have Vascular Dementia. Celebration of being alive is my reality. Reason: I abused Sugar all my life.

Word of advice: That relationship is not only essential Math, it is fundamental relationship that dictates how light behaves under the influence of gravity. Gravity does not bend space. Gravity bends light. Length, area and volume, the three space dimensions of objects are relative. Space is emptiness that can be occupied. Space itself is absolute. Length is not. Length dimensions are relative. Gravity can not bend space. That is impossible. Gravity bends length dimensions and light. Gravity can not bend emptiness, that is meaningless.

That particular Math is the fundamental plus essential relationship between velocity of light and change in gravity.

Thanks.

[Origin]

Can I show some Math other than that particular essential Math? No. Why? I have Vascular Dementia. Celebration of being alive is my reality.

I am glad that you are celebrating being alive in spite of your illness!

Unfortunately that particular 'equation' does not make any sense by unit analysis.  Not sure exactly what you mean by 'gravity' in this case, but any there is no definition of gravity that has the units of kg.