I need time dilation help please?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by AlbertXY
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.
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.
I think you will find that actually.
The actual vector distance to that star would be where is your position in space time and is the stars position within it.
Judging from the relative blackness, the universe is only observable. Therefore in fact this vector would be one of two things:
1)infinitely long
2)as long as to the edge of the observable universe (which i may add is expanding at a ridiculously fast rate)
Original post by Implication
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.
i denotes imaginary number, you can imagine the vector I just gave you is any number because space itself does not reflect light, A to i,
Original post by The-Spartan
2)as long as to the edge of the observable universe (which i may add is expanding at a ridiculously fast rate)
2)as long as to the edge of the observable universe (which i may add is expanding at a ridiculously fast rate)
NO, the objects are expanding their length apart, The Hubble red shift shows this, they are decreasing in relative area and the light is shifting to a 0 dimension singularity between the two point sources.
Original post by AlbertXY
i denotes imaginary number, you can imagine the vector I just gave you is any number because space itself does not reflect light, A to i,
Do you know what an imaginary number is? It doesn't just mean 'a number I imagined'. It has an extremely precise definition that is usually summed up in schools by defining it to be the number that gives -1 when squared. If you measure an imaginary distance (or any other physical quantity really), something is seriously wrong with your formalism.
Original post by AlbertXY
NO, the objects are expanding their length apart, The Hubble red shift shows this, they are decreasing in relative area and the light is shifting to a 0 dimension singularity between the two point sources.
YES, the universe is expanding. besides this, it is expanding at an increasing rate, proportional by .
what do you mean the light is 'shifting' to a 0 dimension singularity. You are forgetting about mean flux density of photons along with Maxwells teachings, spectral flux density and not forgetting about the wave-particle duality, save that of harmonics and pretty much everything we know about waves and particles.
As long as light exists in this universe, it cannot be 0 dimensional. Unless you are, of course, implying that light itself is a string, vibrating in over 20 dimensions but actually being dimensionless itself. Which is false.
As to address a point you made earlier, I stand by that .
You may confused with the identity that . This does not imply that .
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Implication
Do you know what an imaginary number is? It doesn't just mean 'a number I imagined'. It has an extremely precise definition that is usually summed up in schools by defining it to be the number that gives -1 when squared. If you measure an imaginary distance (or any other physical quantity really), something is seriously wrong with your formalism.
Well I mean imaginary any number or n-dimensional,
Original post by The-Spartan
As long as light exists in this universe, it cannot be 0 dimensional.
.
As long as light exists in this universe, it cannot be 0 dimensional.
.
No 0=1 I am not confused,
What is the dimension of the invisible man?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by AlbertXY
Well I mean imaginary any number or n-dimensional,
Imaginary and any number are very different terms. You cannot have an imaginary unit of length in real space.
Original post by AlbertXY
No 0=1 I am not confused,
What is the dimension of the invisible man?
What is the dimension of the invisible man?
Ok then, to break this down.
Your proof allows fallacies as such:
Let
Are you trolling me at this point? 0 objects is infact 1 object?
What invisible man do you speak of? he would be still infact 3D in real space, however light will not interact with his molecules. If this is what you mean.Unless you are assuming that he is made of some sort of dark matter, in which case due to current theories would mean he would be a collection of strings vibrating in 6 spatial dimensions.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by The-Spartan
Imaginary and any number are very different terms. You cannot have an imaginary unit of length in real space.
The imaginary number exists like or not, I did not make or put this imaginary number there, We can only imagine any number of a distance that only has one frame of reference. There has to exist two point sources to allow a length to be defined, When we look at the blackness we can only imagine the length of how far it goes beyond the last visual body.
Original post by AlbertXY
No 0=1 I am not confused,
What is the dimension of the invisible man?
What is the dimension of the invisible man?
To clarify, what do you mean 0 = 1? Do you mean your k = 0 and k = 1 cases are analagous, or do you actually mean that the number 1 is mathematically equal to the number 0?
Original post by AlbertXY
The imaginary number exists like or not, I did not make or put this imaginary number there, We can only imagine any number of a distance that only has one frame of reference. There has to exist two point sources to allow a length to be defined, When we look at the blackness we can only imagine the length of how far it goes beyond the last visual body.
You do not have to imagine anything, we dont just plonk coordinates in the depths of space and call them the edge, we have a well defined edge to the universe.
Eventually the edge will become harder to see, as objects lights from the edge will begin to shift into the IR region as they approach from our perspective.
Original post by The-Spartan
Ok then, to break this down.
Your proof allows fallacies as such:
Let
Are you trolling me at this point? 0 objects is infact 1 object?
What invisible man do you speak of? he would be still infact 3D in real space, however light will not interact with his molecules. If this is what you mean.Unless you are assuming that he is made of some sort of dark matter, in which case due to current theories would mean he would be a collection of strings vibrating in 6 spatial dimensions.
Your proof allows fallacies as such:
Let
Are you trolling me at this point? 0 objects is infact 1 object?
What invisible man do you speak of? he would be still infact 3D in real space, however light will not interact with his molecules. If this is what you mean.Unless you are assuming that he is made of some sort of dark matter, in which case due to current theories would mean he would be a collection of strings vibrating in 6 spatial dimensions.
I am not trolling you, consider an empty hard drive , all it contains is zeros, replace one zero with 1, 1 occupies 0. This is the same with time , draw a zero time line
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
then draw 1 seconds
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
One replaces 0 and is equal to 0 position.
Consider we don't start counting from 0 , we always start by saying 1, 1 is an event gone by of continuous 0.
One marks zero .
Then of course we have 1 as one object and 0 as space.
Original post by 16Characters....
To clarify, what do you mean 0 = 1? Do you mean your k = 0 and k = 1 cases are analagous, or do you actually mean that the number 1 is mathematically equal to the number 0?
I am pretty sure he means mathematical, given by this very very rigorous proof:
Original post by AlbertXY
firstly 0 is equal to 1,
0000000000
11111111111
firstly 0 is equal to 1,
0000000000
11111111111
Firstly no, you might not "be right" because you are basing your model on assumptions that do not exist in the physical world, if you are defining 0=1 in your crazy definition of mathematics then you cannot do any level of mathematics as applied to this physical world, because in defining 0=1 you can iteratively define 1=2 and 0=n for any n. This literally violates all laws, including your special little inverse square law that you keep bringing up even though you barely explain what this box singularity is and how the inverse square law applies to it.
Can I ask you some serious questions.
1) If 0=1 is your axiom of choice, please define all the laws of algebra as applied to your model of physics (this does not apply to the real world because of your first axiom
2) Please define all of your new laws of physics (because the above axiom violates all of the laws in the real world - including the inverse square law)
3) If you define 0=1 then you AUTOMATICALLY define a time interval because you defined dt=0 correct? Therefore dt=1 for all dt. Hence all time intervals are 1? But wait, 0=1 therefore 0=n for all n? So are you saying a time interval can take any value you tag to it?
This is pretty entertaining.
Can I ask you some serious questions.
1) If 0=1 is your axiom of choice, please define all the laws of algebra as applied to your model of physics (this does not apply to the real world because of your first axiom
2) Please define all of your new laws of physics (because the above axiom violates all of the laws in the real world - including the inverse square law)
3) If you define 0=1 then you AUTOMATICALLY define a time interval because you defined dt=0 correct? Therefore dt=1 for all dt. Hence all time intervals are 1? But wait, 0=1 therefore 0=n for all n? So are you saying a time interval can take any value you tag to it?
This is pretty entertaining.
Original post by AlbertXY
I am not trolling you, consider an empty hard drive , all it contains is zeros, replace one zero with 1, 1 occupies 0. This is the same with time , draw a zero time line
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
then draw 1 seconds
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
One replaces 0 and is equal to 0 position.
Consider we don't start counting from 0 , we always start by saying 1, 1 is an event gone by of continuous 0.
One marks zero .
Then of course we have 1 as one object and 0 as space.
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
then draw 1 seconds
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
One replaces 0 and is equal to 0 position.
Consider we don't start counting from 0 , we always start by saying 1, 1 is an event gone by of continuous 0.
One marks zero .
Then of course we have 1 as one object and 0 as space.
Ok lets address this slowly.
1)Bits of space in a computer are absolutely not comparable to time.
2)Just because they occupy the same physical space on a hard drive does not make them equal. if then we would have very interesting (albeit absolutely useless) computers.
3)One moment of time does not equal the last. It is the same thing saying that you can break entropy, as if . You are breaking the second (fundamental) law of thermodynamics.
4)If we started counting from 1, there wouldnt be a 0 to consider. 1 in that case would be the start case, and you could perform an offset of -1 to make 1=0. this would be then a hypothetical situation
Original post by Protoxylic
Firstly no, you might not "be right" because you are basing your model on assumptions that do not exist in the physical world, if you are defining 0=1 in your crazy definition of mathematics then you cannot do any level of mathematics as applied to this physical world, because in defining 0=1 you can iteratively define 1=2 and 0=n for any n. This literally violates all laws, including your special little inverse square law that you keep bringing up even though you barely explain what this box singularity is and how the inverse square law applies to it.
Can I ask you some serious questions.
1) If 0=1 is your axiom of choice, please define all the laws of algebra as applied to your model of physics (this does not apply to the real world because of your first axiom
2) Please define all of your new laws of physics (because the above axiom violates all of the laws in the real world - including the inverse square law)
3) If you define 0=1 then you AUTOMATICALLY define a time interval because you defined dt=0 correct? Therefore dt=1 for all dt. Hence all time intervals are 1? But wait, 0=1 therefore 0=n for all n? So are you saying a time interval can take any value you tag to it?
This is pretty entertaining.
Can I ask you some serious questions.
1) If 0=1 is your axiom of choice, please define all the laws of algebra as applied to your model of physics (this does not apply to the real world because of your first axiom
2) Please define all of your new laws of physics (because the above axiom violates all of the laws in the real world - including the inverse square law)
3) If you define 0=1 then you AUTOMATICALLY define a time interval because you defined dt=0 correct? Therefore dt=1 for all dt. Hence all time intervals are 1? But wait, 0=1 therefore 0=n for all n? So are you saying a time interval can take any value you tag to it?
This is pretty entertaining.
At the end of the dots how many digits is there?.............0
At the end of the dots how many digits is there?.............1
yes 0=n because simply 1 length of n
''So are you saying a time interval can take any value you tag to it?''
A time interval anywhere in the Universe is 0, all observers have to agree than any measurement greater than 0 is a past event.
Original post by Protoxylic
Firstly no, you might not "be right" because you are basing your model on assumptions that do not exist in the physical world, if you are defining 0=1 in your crazy definition of mathematics then you cannot do any level of mathematics as applied to this physical world, because in defining 0=1 you can iteratively define 1=2 and 0=n for any n. This literally violates all laws, including your special little inverse square law that you keep bringing up even though you barely explain what this box singularity is and how the inverse square law applies to it.
Can I ask you some serious questions.
1) If 0=1 is your axiom of choice, please define all the laws of algebra as applied to your model of physics (this does not apply to the real world because of your first axiom
2) Please define all of your new laws of physics (because the above axiom violates all of the laws in the real world - including the inverse square law)
3) If you define 0=1 then you AUTOMATICALLY define a time interval because you defined dt=0 correct? Therefore dt=1 for all dt. Hence all time intervals are 1? But wait, 0=1 therefore 0=n for all n? So are you saying a time interval can take any value you tag to it?
This is pretty entertaining.
Can I ask you some serious questions.
1) If 0=1 is your axiom of choice, please define all the laws of algebra as applied to your model of physics (this does not apply to the real world because of your first axiom
2) Please define all of your new laws of physics (because the above axiom violates all of the laws in the real world - including the inverse square law)
3) If you define 0=1 then you AUTOMATICALLY define a time interval because you defined dt=0 correct? Therefore dt=1 for all dt. Hence all time intervals are 1? But wait, 0=1 therefore 0=n for all n? So are you saying a time interval can take any value you tag to it?
This is pretty entertaining.
PRSOM. Im not sure if its entertaining or embarrasing. I need to do some work today
Original post by The-Spartan
4)If we started counting from 1, there wouldnt be a 0 to consider. 1 in that case would be the start case, and you could perform an offset of -1 to make 1=0. this would be then a hypothetical situation
4)If we started counting from 1, there wouldnt be a 0 to consider. 1 in that case would be the start case, and you could perform an offset of -1 to make 1=0. this would be then a hypothetical situation
1 can be any size, 900 mile is 1 length
Sorry my head hurts lol I have had to explain this so many times looking for a simple answer.
Original post by AlbertXY
At the end of the dots how many digits is there?.............0
At the end of the dots how many digits is there?.............1
yes 0=n because simply 1 length of n
''So are you saying a time interval can take any value you tag to it?''
A time interval anywhere in the Universe is 0, all observers have to agree than any measurement greater than 0 is a past event.
At the end of the dots how many digits is there?.............1
yes 0=n because simply 1 length of n
''So are you saying a time interval can take any value you tag to it?''
A time interval anywhere in the Universe is 0, all observers have to agree than any measurement greater than 0 is a past event.
Right boys we can all get back to work now, there's the contradiction we have all been waiting for.
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!
- Punjabi GCSE (AQA) - Need urgent Help
- Unit 19: Study Skills Portfolio Building
- Dropping out
- iDEA Award Silver Entrepreneur Resolution.
- International students - here's how to apply through Clearing
- Silver Idea Award/ Maker Resolution
- Is it possible to go from a grade 4 to a 7 or higher in GCSE Maths?
- Information Related to CAS
- Student nurse 2300 nmc placement hours
