I need time dilation help please?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by AlbertXY
If I shoot you and you shoot me simultaneously the bullets arrive at the same time, we see the ''bullet'' at the same time there is no the sun is 8 minutes in the past.
Simultaneously in what reference frame? If one of us is moving relative to the other (which in the case of the moon and the Earth, we are - in an extremely complicated fashion), two events that occur simultaneously for one of us may not be simultaneous for the other.
Original post by AlbertXY
They are vector calculations and the speed of light ebb and flow between two bodies.
If you travelled from A-B and I vice versus at the speed of light, there would be no net difference in time of the two journeys.
If you travelled from A-B and I vice versus at the speed of light, there would be no net difference in time of the two journeys.
Original post by AlbertXY
v is velocity ,( speed and direction), e signifies it is a vector, , + specifies travelling away from you, - specifies travelling towards you, c is the speed of light
L= 299 792 458 m
t=1s
L= 299 792 458 m
t=1s
Time in whose reference frame? If we both made identical journeys carrying perfect watches, both of our watches would measure the same time, yes. This result holds in special relativity, as it should in any sensible theory. a=a for all a.
Consider instead if only I travel from A to B, while you stay at A. If we both carry perfect watches, your watch will have recorded a shorter time than mine for my travel from A to B. This is what SR says, and has been confirmed countless times by experiment.
Original post by AlbertXY
All frames of reference are equal
What does this mean?
our frame of reference is the light, Mars frame of reference is the light, etc,
The frame of reference of an object is defined to be the frame in which that object is stationary. By the postulate that light travels at c in all reference frames, there can be no reference frame in which light is stationary and hence the concept of a reference frame of light is meaningless.
The caesium is not related to time.
What caesium?
In a vacuum on Mars and Earth we would both agree our light clock is simultaneous and there is no simultaneity.
What does this mean?
Original post by AlbertXY
I am not sure I understand your question.
You said:
Every ''prediction'' science makes is because of the singularity
I'm asking you to define what you mean by 'the singularity'. In mathematics and physics, 'singularity' has quite a precise definition.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Implication
Simultaneously in what reference frame? If one of us is moving relative to the other (which in the case of the moon and the Earth, we are - in an extremely complicated fashion), two events that occur simultaneously for one of us may not be simultaneous for the other.
You are now just quoting present information, this information I deem wrong, so all the present information you quote is irrelevant. All events are simultaneous, there is no simultaneity. You mention a perfect clock, the only perfect ''clock'' that exists is the speed of light. If you had a perfect clock and I had a perfect clock we would both observe no change in time any-time.
The simple fact is that the Caesium clock is not an invariant perfect clock, it is not accurate for recording time.
I'm asking you to define what you mean by 'the singularity'. In mathematics and physics, 'singularity' has quite a precise definition.
If you had read the geometrics part I posted you would know what singularity I refer to.
But in case you don' get it ,
The Box singularity.
In chapter 7 it is mentioned the proposition of a Box singularity. A singularity ''a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space–time when matter is infinitely dense, such as at the centre of a black hole''. However the singularity I mention is of a relativity nature with similarities but not exact to present definition. To define singularity in the terms of understanding the Box singularity , I would like to define the Box singualrity as- The infinitesimally dimension of relative observation. In terms of value we can describe this with the value 0 or n which are equals and can be infinitely small or infinetly large in value relative to the Box singularity. In chapter 6 I mentioned the relativity of observation of two observers expanding their length apart and the relativity of the observed area contraction relative to each other. Now let us consider the details of this and consider the relativistic mirrored ''diamond'' square law between two bodies and take consideration for the stretching of points relatively contracting the X,Y central plane to a box singularity relative to the observers.
Above the model. this applies to any radius (r). A speck of dust not more than ten feet away from you follows this law, all bodies relative to each other follow this law.
p.s Naked science forum retain the copy rights for my diagrams, I retain my intellectual content.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by AlbertXY
An object travelling towards an observer relatively expands , when an object reaches another body , e.g an object on the ground, it as reached its relative rest dimensions and is at its greatest '''black body'' between the two masses.
Time is a defined quantity. The way you define time as 'instantaneous history' is a limitation of human ability to live absolutely in what we define as present. That does not mean that the present does not exist, we do not need to experience absolute present for it to exist. In SR we generally label events in terms of time intervals, i.e the time between events. Your above statement that 'all frames of references are equal' is absolute nonsense. Consider an object traveling at velocity v and then in a short interval dt turns around and moves at velocity -v (relative to an observer). The object will then exist in one frame of reference travelling at v and then subsequently it's frame will then move at -v after it turns around. This cannot be equivalent to the observer's frame as one of them, the object, has experienced an acceleration. This is how we can distinguish between observer and traveller in the case of the 'Twin Paradox'. There is a concept of a proper time interval which is the time interval between two events A and B for which that object is present at both (i.e it's space interval is zero). This time interval is the shortest time interval possible and all other frames relative to it are time dilated.
You also say above that "All events are simultaneous, there is no simultaneity". You say that all events are simultaneous and then immediately contradict the statement. If you had a perfect clock (that yes, would run based on light that travels at c regardless of frame) then of course we would both measure different times if one moved relative to the other. It is quite obvious when you consider the space interval that the light has to travel in both its rest frame and an observer's frame - they are different. The light has to travel a larger distance in the observer's frame (the hypotenuse of a triangle).
"Infinitesimally dimension of relative observation" has no meaning.
What problems do you have with the current derivations of SR?
You say there are no current proofs of SR:
Muon decay or any high energy physics experiment such as at ATLAS or CERN
Stellar abberation
Relativistic doppler effects
Michelson and Morley - experimental evidence for c being constant
Not to mention that there are currently so many ways that you could debunk SR, but nobody has done it, because it is well seated in both experimental proof and mathematical rigour.
"An object moving relative to another expands". This is also wrong. Define what it means for an object to have dimensions. First you need to specify a co-ordinate system and a length in that co-ordinate system. If this object is a cube with side length A I define it as centred on its origin then all of its sides with have co-ordinates +/-(a/2,a/2,a/2), (+/-a/2,a/2,a/2), (a/2,+/-a/2,a/2) and (a/2,a/2,+/-a,2). I define length as deltaS= sqrt[deltax^2+deltay^2+deltaz^2]. If the object is moving towards you then in euclidian space, it does NOT expand by this definition of length relative to any observer. Simply because the co-ordinate system is invariant under translation. What you are saying is that the angle subtended by the extrema of the object and your eye expands. THIS is not length as this is dimensionless (i.e an angle).Before you say something along the lines of "But I see the object larger in my frame as it moves towards me". Yes, the ANGLE simply because the distance between you and the object is decreasing - this is simple geometry come on. If you extend your axis towards the object, you will measure the same length.
You said to have an open mind, but you're stating everybody is wrong and yourself as right. Sorry but your argument of being open minded to be a 'true scientist' is now worthless.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Protoxylic
Sorry but your argument of being open minded to be a 'true scientist' is now worthless.
That is untrue, it is I that am being open minded and you that is being stereo typical and replying with the present Dogma we all know and can observe on Wiki.
The teacher is trying to force discipline and not considering the questions the student has asked.
Do you agree that any measurement no matter how small of an increment the measurement is when regarding time is instantaneous history.
The now , the present is 0, in ten minutes time it will still be 0, 10 minutes marks an increment of history position.
The Caesium atom is not time, is not related to time.
The evidence is clearly flawed , how does the teacher conceive that this is not premise for argument from the student?
I will answer the Dogma questions when I receive an answer .
The time is not zero, you're defining it to be so. I can define anything to be anything it doesn't mean it debunks theory.
Time has elapsed, the time is not zero n seconds later that is a ridiculous statement and one you should be quite embarrassed about.
With anything observable you need a means to measure the observable, you are not measuring it by defining time as instantaneous history and therefore all is zero that is ridiculous.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Time has elapsed, the time is not zero n seconds later that is a ridiculous statement and one you should be quite embarrassed about.
With anything observable you need a means to measure the observable, you are not measuring it by defining time as instantaneous history and therefore all is zero that is ridiculous.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by AlbertXY
You are now just quoting present information, this information I deem wrong, so all the present information you quote is irrelevant.
I am stating the current theory to compare it to yours. That is not irrelevant. All time dilation in SR states is that different reference frames measure the time between the same event to be different. If you disagree with this, your position is that time intervals are constant across all reference frames. Hence you are completely free to specify any reference frame that you like without loss of generality.
So I will ask again, in what reference frame are you asking your questions? Then we can do the calculations, and check whether we get the same results in different frames. If we don't, you will be proven wrong.
All events are simultaneous, there is no simultaneity.
That's a contradiction. But either way, you're just quoting your information, which I deem wrong, so all the information you quote is irrelevant.
See how this game works?
You mention a perfect clock, the only perfect ''clock'' that exists is the speed of light.
The speed of light is not a clock.
If you had a perfect clock and I had a perfect clock we would both observe no change in time any-time.
I have a fairly accurate clock next to me right now, and I'm observing a change in time.
The simple fact is that the Caesium clock is not an invariant perfect clock, it is not accurate for recording time.
I didn't mention Caesium; I proposed a hypothetical perfect clock.
If you had read the geometrics part I posted you would know what singularity I refer to.
But in case you don' get it ,
But in case you don' get it ,
Strangely enough, I haven't read this entire thread. None of what I have read makes much sense!
The Box singularity.
In chapter 7 it is mentioned the proposition of a Box singularity. A singularity ''a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space–time when matter is infinitely dense, such as at the centre of a black hole''. However the singularity I mention is of a relativity nature with similarities but not exact to present definition. To define singularity in the terms of understanding the Box singularity , I would like to define the Box singualrity as- The infinitesimally dimension of relative observation. In terms of value we can describe this with the value 0 or n which are equals and can be infinitely small or infinetly large in value relative to the Box singularity. In chapter 6 I mentioned the relativity of observation of two observers expanding their length apart and the relativity of the observed area contraction relative to each other. Now let us consider the details of this and consider the relativistic mirrored ''diamond'' square law between two bodies and take consideration for the stretching of points relatively contracting the X,Y central plane to a box singularity relative to the observers.
Above the model. this applies to any radius (r). A speck of dust not more than ten feet away from you follows this law, all bodies relative to each other follow this law.
p.s Naked science forum retain the copy rights for my diagrams, I retain my intellectual content.
In chapter 7 it is mentioned the proposition of a Box singularity. A singularity ''a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space–time when matter is infinitely dense, such as at the centre of a black hole''. However the singularity I mention is of a relativity nature with similarities but not exact to present definition. To define singularity in the terms of understanding the Box singularity , I would like to define the Box singualrity as- The infinitesimally dimension of relative observation. In terms of value we can describe this with the value 0 or n which are equals and can be infinitely small or infinetly large in value relative to the Box singularity. In chapter 6 I mentioned the relativity of observation of two observers expanding their length apart and the relativity of the observed area contraction relative to each other. Now let us consider the details of this and consider the relativistic mirrored ''diamond'' square law between two bodies and take consideration for the stretching of points relatively contracting the X,Y central plane to a box singularity relative to the observers.
Above the model. this applies to any radius (r). A speck of dust not more than ten feet away from you follows this law, all bodies relative to each other follow this law.
p.s Naked science forum retain the copy rights for my diagrams, I retain my intellectual content.
But you've forgotten to take into account the light density of the geometric mean-averaged position. Without doing so implicitly, your relativism-styled divergence sequence can only take complexity or hyper infinite values.
What is your level of mathematics education?
Original post by Protoxylic
The time is not zero, you're defining it to be so. I can define anything to be anything it doesn't mean it debunks theory.
Time has elapsed, the time is not zero n seconds later that is a ridiculous statement and one you should be quite embarrassed about.
With anything observable you need a means to measure the observable, you are not measuring it by defining time as instantaneous history and therefore all is zero that is ridiculous.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Time has elapsed, the time is not zero n seconds later that is a ridiculous statement and one you should be quite embarrassed about.
With anything observable you need a means to measure the observable, you are not measuring it by defining time as instantaneous history and therefore all is zero that is ridiculous.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I have had plenty of agreement that anything greater than 0 is a measurement of history. You can not expand 0 without it being in past tense. Please feel free to try it. Time has elapsed,
''past tense: elapsed; past participle: elapsed''
It is not me being ridiculous and it is not me who should feel embarrassed, the teacher is clearly wrong by stating ''The time is not zero, you're defining it to be so'', I am not defining it to be so, it is so and what you are doing is defining it to be some sort of measurement equal to an increment you created in imagination equal to a length .
''With anything observable you need a means to measure the observable''
That would be your eyes.
Original post by Implication
So I will ask again, in what reference frame are you asking your questions?
So I will ask again, in what reference frame are you asking your questions?
My eyes.
Original post by Implication
I have a fairly accurate clock next to me right now, and I'm observing a change in time.
I have a fairly accurate clock next to me right now, and I'm observing a change in time.
You do not observe a change in time, you are not observing the time of the clock, you are observing your own ''time'' observing the clock.
Original post by Implication
But you've forgotten to take into account the light density of the geometric mean-averaged position. Without doing so implicitly, your relativism-styled divergence sequence can only take complexity or hyper infinite values.
What is your level of mathematics education?
But you've forgotten to take into account the light density of the geometric mean-averaged position. Without doing so implicitly, your relativism-styled divergence sequence can only take complexity or hyper infinite values.
What is your level of mathematics education?
My education is unimportant, you are an ignorant teacher if you have missed out reading. posts . I have not forgot to add multidimensional and a new Universal model.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by AlbertXY
You do not observe a change in time, you are not observing the time of the clock, you are observing your own ''time'' observing the clock.
You are, indeed, observing a change in time. Actually exactly that.
This is clearly shown in the derivation of SR.
You seem to not understand what a reference frame is.
Look into the derivation of SR.
edit: and tell me what you think is wrong with it.
edit 2: The fancy pancy images you have posted above show nothing of importance without mathematical rigour showing how you derived these diagrams.
you also need to explain what they represent.
Would also be good if you could explain why these images/theories you proclaim to be so true are superior to the current model.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by The-Spartan
You are, indeed, observing a change in time. Actually exactly that.
This is clearly shown in the derivation of SR.
You seem to not understand what a reference frame is.
Look into the derivation of SR.
edit: and tell me what you think is wrong with it.
edit 2: The fancy pancy images you have posted above show nothing of importance without mathematical rigour showing how you derived these diagrams.
you also need to explain what they represent.
Would also be good if you could explain why these images/theories you proclaim to be so true are superior to the current model.
This is clearly shown in the derivation of SR.
You seem to not understand what a reference frame is.
Look into the derivation of SR.
edit: and tell me what you think is wrong with it.
edit 2: The fancy pancy images you have posted above show nothing of importance without mathematical rigour showing how you derived these diagrams.
you also need to explain what they represent.
Would also be good if you could explain why these images/theories you proclaim to be so true are superior to the current model.
You clearly keep relating to SR then you make presumptions that I do not understand what a reference frame is. All reference frames have one thing in common, observation. All the ''fancy pancy'' diagrams are based on present knowledge, the inverse square law, Lorentz visual contractions and the magnitude of light over radius.
I am using fundamental maths, my idea consists of only 0 and 1 and 0=1.
4.The meaning of maths and maths use dependencies and none dependencies. We must remember that numbers are the invention of logical rules by humans to aid our existence. Numbers do not exist in the Universe, they only exist in our mental interpretation of process by using number equivalents to explain and accurately fit and explain a process or event. . Almost anything we know are interpretations or concepts, we our very likely to never know the ''real thing'' - we observe something, , gain some knowledge about that something and create a concept to describe it. We should not mistake our concepts with the real thing.The Universe exists without numbers and events happen regardless of the numbers involved. It is important that we understand that maths is not the answer to the Universe , it is a way to define a process or event in a different context other than words alone. The process or event always preceding the maths, it is important to recall our history, Maxwell several years later creating the maths to ''fit'' Faraday's findings, the maths a later of the former. However the maths can also be independent to the process in its use of prediction and calculation of the prediction of Universal events.
5.The meaning of limitationWhen we observe limitation, we observe restriction, not only are we restricted to a visual restriction that establishes a finite observation visual Universe, we are restricted to thinking inside of the ''box''and have limitations in our thinking. Any thinking of ''outside'' of the box, can only be deemed to be speculation and hypothesis and never deemed to be fact until a future time of further investigations may lead to new findings beyond our limitations. However, we must not disregard the axioms of the inside of the ''box'' when thinking outside of the ''box''.It is also important that we consider why we have limitation and what is the possible cause(s) of these limitations, not overlooking the diminishing of light over distance, matter reflectivity and the relativity of objects moving away from an observer relatively appear to decrease in size to a point of no existence.
If the teacher had bothered to read the students essay , the teacher would understand why the student feels there is something amiss.
Absolute space k=0 is interwoven with relativistic space k=1.
And what's wrong with SR? just about all of it, it is contradictory to reality.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by AlbertXY
My eyes.
If every single calculation/observation you are making is from your own reference frame, then you will find it a priori impossible to prove special relativistic time dilation false. Such time dilation is by definition a difference in times measured in different reference frames. Hence if you only ever consider one reference frame you will never be able to see any difference.
Original post by AlbertXY
You do not observe a change in time, you are not observing the time of the clock,
Well I can observe the time on my perfect clock at one moment, and then again at a different moment. The change in time will be then be the value of the second less that of the first.
you are observing your own ''time'' observing the clock.
What is 'my own' time? Do you mean time as measured in my reference frame? I thought you'd already stated we were doing all the calculations in your frame!
And how can time observe anything?
Original post by AlbertXY
My education is unimportant, you are an ignorant teacher if you have missed out reading. posts .
Well, I'm not a teacher so that's an easy one. I'm a student of mathematics and physics. I responded to one of the things you said, and have been exchanging posts with you ever since. Why would I read this entire thread to see your individual conversations with twelve other users?
Let's roll with the student-teacher analogy for the moment though. As your teacher, it is of fundamental importance that I know your previous training in mathematics so I can explain concepts to you from a level that you understand. At the very least I need to determine whether you have enough prior knowledge to comprehend the theory.
I have not forgot to add multidimensional and a new Universal model.
What about the hydrodynamic field corrections for each of those pseudo-dimensions?
Those diagrams mean absolutely nothing without context, explanation and labels. Have you ever read a paper from a reputable scientific journal?
Original post by Implication
Those diagrams mean absolutely nothing without context, explanation and labels. Have you ever read a paper from a reputable scientific journal?
Those diagrams mean absolutely nothing without context, explanation and labels. Have you ever read a paper from a reputable scientific journal?
Firstly they are not Psuedo dimensions, I will answer your other questions in a bit,
Look up at the sky at night , pick a distant star, look next to the star where there is no star, there is relative blackness, can you tell me the quantity of the length looking at that vector? I think you will find the quantity is i.
Original post by Implication
What about the hydrodynamic field corrections
What about the hydrodynamic field corrections
Not mentioned in my query.
Original post by Implication
Let's roll with the student-teacher analogy for the moment though. As your teacher, it is of fundamental importance that I know your previous training in mathematics so I can explain concepts to you from a level that you understand. At the very least I need to determine whether you have enough prior knowledge to comprehend the theory.
Let's roll with the student-teacher analogy for the moment though. As your teacher, it is of fundamental importance that I know your previous training in mathematics so I can explain concepts to you from a level that you understand. At the very least I need to determine whether you have enough prior knowledge to comprehend the theory.
I can count to 1, my query involves 0 and 1 and i , I can do some maths educated from the internet .
Original post by AlbertXY
You clearly keep relating to SR then you make presumptions that I do not understand what a reference frame is. All reference frames have one thing in common, observation. All the ''fancy pancy'' diagrams are based on present knowledge, the inverse square law, Lorentz visual contractions and the magnitude of light over radius.
I am using fundamental maths, my idea consists of only 0 and 1 and 0=1.
I am using fundamental maths, my idea consists of only 0 and 1 and 0=1.
Yes, i keep relating to SR because that is (fundamentally) what you are undermining with your theory. Furthermore you are also breaking General relativity, Maxwells equations, the standard model and basically the whole foundation of physics.
Just to address a point: .
Ok now to address question 4. You are asking a philosophical question here, is maths discovered or invented?
Now of course you will shout 'INVENTED' because well, it kind of is. However this does not dismiss all of mathematics to be of human invention. Logic can be found everywhere independent of human intervention.
Secondly Maxwell did not just 'stumble' onto some set of equations that just 'so happened to fit' Faraday findings. They were formulated through mathematical rigor. It was supported by Faradays findings, thats the difference
To address point 5, im not sure what you're getting at. This 'box' is exactly what a reference frame means, you observe from inside your 'box' at your velocity from your point in time...
And about SR, prove that it contradicts reality and your theory does not.
Im not sure what this k value you speak of is either
Original post by AlbertXY
I have had plenty of agreement that anything greater than 0 is a measurement of history. You can not expand 0 without it being in past tense. Please feel free to try it. Time has elapsed,
''past tense: elapsed; past participle: elapsed''
It is not me being ridiculous and it is not me who should feel embarrassed, the teacher is clearly wrong by stating ''The time is not zero, you're defining it to be so'', I am not defining it to be so, it is so and what you are doing is defining it to be some sort of measurement equal to an increment you created in imagination equal to a length .
''With anything observable you need a means to measure the observable''
That would be your eyes.
''past tense: elapsed; past participle: elapsed''
It is not me being ridiculous and it is not me who should feel embarrassed, the teacher is clearly wrong by stating ''The time is not zero, you're defining it to be so'', I am not defining it to be so, it is so and what you are doing is defining it to be some sort of measurement equal to an increment you created in imagination equal to a length .
''With anything observable you need a means to measure the observable''
That would be your eyes.
I'm sorry, we cannot move forward until you stop being so stubborn about your theory of time=0
SR is built in the principal of intervals of time, as soon as you say there is no existence of a time interval then of course you are going to find that everything in SR will be inconsistent in your model of what you think time is.
It is exactly the same as me defining 0=1 and therefore all of maths is incorrect, it is absolutely ridiculous. You can define a time and you can define a time interval. So are you saying you are zero years old? Are you saying it takes 0 time to get from london to scotland? If you say time = 0 then you have grossly violated all laws of physics. You'd define everything to have infinite acceleration when a non-zero force acts on it and you'd define everything to have an undefined acceleration when no force acts on it. Can you not see how absolutely stupid your model is? You are destroying perfectly planted physics just because you think it is hipster to try and debunk a theory when in actual fact, everybody here is laughing at you because you simply cannot accept any of the facts I, or anybody else here, throws at you.
And I don't care about past participles, it does not make any difference to the physics. The English language is a man-made construct that does not affect the physical laws, this is why we define things axiomatically in mathematics and we are careful in where to apply it. Unlike yourself when you seem to think deltat=0 for all events. Just listen to yourself, please.
(edited 8 years ago)
That doesn't make sense. And I'm not sure how you could modify it so that it does make sense and gives an answer that when squared gives -1. I assume that is your convention for what i denotes, since it is the standard and you haven't specified a definition.
Original post by AlbertXY
Not mentioned in my query.
Very good.
Original post by AlbertXY
I can count to 1, my query involves 0 and 1 and i , I can do some maths educated from the internet .
The very concept of speed relies completely upon differential calculus on the real (which is a technical term) numbers, and relating it fully to distance also require the integral calculus. You are deluding yourself if you think you you can disprove the entirety of modern physics without using anything but 0, 1 and the square root of -1.
In your formalism, what is the distance between me and a person who is standing 1 unit of distance away from me in the horizontal direction and 1 unit of distance away from me in the vertical direction? How many units of distance lie between us?
Original post by The-Spartan
Yes, i keep relating to SR because that is (fundamentally) what you are undermining with your theory. Furthermore you are also breaking General relativity, Maxwells equations, the standard model and basically the whole foundation of physics.
Just to address a point: .
Ok now to address question 4. You are asking a philosophical question here, is maths discovered or invented?
Now of course you will shout 'INVENTED' because well, it kind of is. However this does not dismiss all of mathematics to be of human invention. Logic can be found everywhere independent of human intervention.
Secondly Maxwell did not just 'stumble' onto some set of equations that just 'so happened to fit' Faraday findings. They were formulated through mathematical rigor. It was supported by Faradays findings, thats the difference
To address point 5, im not sure what you're getting at. This 'box' is exactly what a reference frame means, you observe from inside your 'box' at your velocity from your point in time...
And about SR, prove that it contradicts reality and your theory does not.
Im not sure what this k value you speak of is either
Just to address a point: .
Ok now to address question 4. You are asking a philosophical question here, is maths discovered or invented?
Now of course you will shout 'INVENTED' because well, it kind of is. However this does not dismiss all of mathematics to be of human invention. Logic can be found everywhere independent of human intervention.
Secondly Maxwell did not just 'stumble' onto some set of equations that just 'so happened to fit' Faraday findings. They were formulated through mathematical rigor. It was supported by Faradays findings, thats the difference
To address point 5, im not sure what you're getting at. This 'box' is exactly what a reference frame means, you observe from inside your 'box' at your velocity from your point in time...
And about SR, prove that it contradicts reality and your theory does not.
Im not sure what this k value you speak of is either
firstly 0 is equal to 1,
0000000000
11111111111
However this will confuse your already confusion of understanding something so simple so perhaps we will leave that be for now.
The box is my user name on another forum, I wanted to call it a quantum singularity, but they said no that was a star trek thing, so i used my user name and called it a box singularity which was quite suiting considering a box square law of light.
I already know it contradicts most of science, I do know how big my idea is and understand why the teachers try to avoid talking to me.
I wish I did not have this idea to be honest, it is quite a scary thought that I may just be right.
Let me take you back a step or two and consider a small scientific experiment using a candle placed in the centre of a huge warehouse, the observer holding the candle does not observe the warehouse walls, do you understand that?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- epq physics question
- Personal statements and extracurriculars
- Boyfriend Can't Finger Me, Hurts like Hell! (virgin)
- My boyfriend’s penis won’t fit in my vagina.. is this normal?
- Access course or alevel
- Further maths help
- Dryness and no sex drive from pill
- English Language Paper 1, Q5
- Any tips for wearing glasses?
- Traumatised! Saw a cat get killed this morning!
- TSR Study Together - STEM vs Humanities!
- Unit 19: Study Skills Portfolio Building
- Punjabi GCSE (AQA) - Need urgent Help
- iDEA Award Silver Entrepreneur Resolution.
- Dropping out
- International students - here's how to apply through Clearing
- Silver Idea Award/ Maker Resolution
- Information Related to CAS
- Is it possible to go from a grade 4 to a 7 or higher in GCSE Maths?
- Student nurse 2300 nmc placement hours
Latest
Last reply 15 minutes ago
AQA A Level Sociology Paper 2 (7192/2) - 4th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 15 minutes ago
R u 18-25 & studying in a England Uni, spare a few mins to fill my survey. 1 wk left.Last reply 18 minutes ago
Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 1 (9ECO 01) - 15th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Posted 25 minutes ago
st. andrews sixth form in cambridgeLast reply 43 minutes ago
Anyone else applying/has applied to UCL's Robotics and AI MEng course??Last reply 1 hour ago
Inlaks, Commonwealth, and Other Scholarships for Indian Students 2024: ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Official University of the Arts London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
LAWYERS: Can I bring an action against my old schoolLast reply 1 hour ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 1 hour ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirms
