I need time dilation help please?

I am only a student, like you. I am not a teacher
0 cannot dilate no. K can though. If k=0, k can change to be a different value. It is not set at a solid 0.

K is only a variable when k=>0


When considering time, anything after 0 is instantaneous history so therefore even the smallest increment of measurement is not measuring time but indeed recording history and marking a specific point of history.
Einstein's SR explanation and the use of lasers, rocket ships etc is simply fundamentally flawed in the fact that laser beams are not seen/observed without a medium such as smoke, the light propagating through space ''washes'' out the laser beam. The explanation of a ''zig zag'' beam is also fundamentally flawed, while the observer ''see's'' the laser travelling right to left x-axis zig zagging, the observer is observing light travelling in a straight line to them a Y -axis.

I am afraid that parlour tricks just don't cut it in my reality of facts.

What is this K you keep talking about...
Besides the point. The example of SR using observers and lasers is not flawed at all. It is simply a model.

The light travelling from the diagram to your eyes is linear , It is not zig zagging

This is a flawed argument. The source is the one zig zagging, therefore the distance seems greater. Of course the light from the source is linear, light travels in a linear fashion.

Incorrect . the length of your picture frame is invariant, the space the laser propagates through is an invariant length, 1m is 1m,


The observer does not even see the laser and the laser does not reflect of a surface unless it is a mirrored surface, a mirror would be observer effect, angling the beam is observer effect. If you shun a laser a Y -axis on a spaceship and added smoke to the thought so we could actually see the laser, the laser will remain a Y -axis linearity as the ship moves left to right or vice versus. Please feel free to try this experiment using any laser, the beam remains a linearity and does not reflect without a mirrored surface and does not angle unless we redirect the angle of the laser.

Incorrect . the length of your picture frame is invariant, the space the laser propagates through is an invariant length, 1m is 1m,


The observer does not even see the laser and the laser does not reflect of a surface unless it is a mirrored surface, a mirror would be observer effect, angling the beam is observer effect. If you shun a laser a Y -axis on a spaceship and added smoke to the thought so we could actually see the laser, the laser will remain a Y -axis linearity as the ship moves left to right or vice versus. Please feel free to try this experiment using any laser, the beam remains a linearity and does not reflect without a mirrored surface and does not angle unless we redirect the angle of the laser.

If I was running, and dropped a ball, the ball would travel forwards as it fell due to the fact that it was travelling forwards as it was dropped.

I now see where you are confused in your understanding.
The light itself is linear yes. However, to an observer, the source of the light moves a greater distance. The diagram that i have given shows this pretty clearly.
Due to this 'greater distance' travelled by the source to the observer, the sense of time gets slowed for the source. (speaking model wise)
Now the source will emit light that travels linearly yes. This linear motion of photons coming from the source is drawn as a zig zag across the sky for the observer.
The smoke-laser effect is flawed also. Instead, use a laser of visible light, and track the motion of the impact of the photons onto a surface while the source of the light clock shoots a photon every second. This will also form a zig zag to the observer on the ground.

Yes and the ball is not light is it, a completely different situation involving the relativistic effect of gravity.

But you are clearly wrong, the light between your eyes and any object is clearly not opaque, relatively it is invisible light, a clarity of light propagating through space. Space is ''see through''.


We do not observe beams of light in any sense unless they are man made, the nature of light does not behave this way.

But you are clearly wrong, the light between your eyes and any object is clearly not opaque, relatively it is invisible light, a clarity of light propagating through space. Space is ''see through''.


We do not observe beams of light in any sense unless they are man made, the nature of light does not behave this way.

That is irrelevant

At this point i am sure you are a troll, or you fail to grasp the concept through ignorance to fact. You are going off on a tangent, saying im wrong because light isnt opaque?
That is like me saying youre wrong because my waffles are not made of watermelon.
The diagram i posted clearly shows this effect, watch THIS to solve your issue.

So you think that imaginary beams are relevant to Einstein explanation and the actual truth of observed evidence is irrelevant?

@AlbertXY
What do you think occurs?

You think a student is a troll for questioning the integrity of the knowledge been presented to him?

A decrease in the rate of thermodynamics.