I need time dilation help please?

Right boys we can all get back to work now, there's the contradiction we have all been waiting for.

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.

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.

Actually no because these numbers have units. 900 miles does not equal 1 length. Because if 900 miles = 1 length then does 1800 miles = 2 lengths, this makes sense. But if you define two length scales in the same frame, that is inconsistent.

In other words you cannot say 900 miles is your length scale and at the same time 10 miles is your length scale because that would mean there would be multiple answers for any length in any frame and you wouldn't be able to prove anything geometrically because everything would be a contradiction.

I'm seeing a pattern here, you make an axiom of your own and then act surprised when you apply it to see that it contradicts the physical world. Ok that's obvious and we all know it does that, does it mean it applies to the real world? Does it ****.

There is no contradiction

Ok congrats you have made a new unit of measurement. Does it provide any sort of improvement over the metre? how does it fit in with SI units? Why 900 miles? Have you considered what the dimensions are here? what implications does this have on the current models?
These are the questions that need to be answered for your theory. At the moment, not one has been answered with rigour.

No 1800 = 1 length also.


one ruler is one ruler no matter what the length.

Are you blind?

0=n - you defined it to be so (1)
dt=0 you said this is true in nature (2)

(2) contradicts (1) and also the other way around because now dt=n and therefore time intervals exist.

I think you misunderstand.

You are adding this by ambiguity maybe, d/t=0 when talking about sight, I can see my hand and the sun at the same time.


I provided the maths earlier.


0 to 0 is n-dimensional i a light singularity in any direction,

1 to 1 reflects dimensions of light to produce a length between things.

r1 can be short or long relative to light magnitude. it can also be 0 when two masses are touching.

I understand that 1800 miles is a length, thanks.

So if there are 50 people in a room do you say there is one person?

You are adding this by ambiguity maybe, d/t=0 when talking about sight, I can see my hand and the sun at the same time.


I provided the maths earlier.


0 to 0 is n-dimensional i a light singularity in any direction,

1 to 1 reflects dimensions of light to produce a length between things.

r1 can be short or long relative to light magnitude. it can also be 0 when two masses are touching.

No there is 50 people why would I say there is one person, people are a relative dot compared to the dimensions we are talking about.

what do you mean light singularity. singularity has, as mentioned before, a specific definition that does not coincide with your argument there.

The reflections of light do not magically create distances between objects. Their position in the space time continuum does that.

Light magnitude? whats that? do you mean intensity? flux density? when two masses are touching, where is technically still distance between them...
Not sure what you mean.

Nope, people have dimensions. You are defining people to have zero dimensions, yet another stupid axiom of yours that you will use against standard physics to try and derail it. Stop being stupid now.

I could easily say a length is a dot because people are objects and so is a ruler. So a ruler is a dot therefore your definition of a length is dimensionless. Do you see how many flaws your theory has.

Just forget science a minute and forget you know any science, please tell me what you observe with your eyes ,

In the space between your eyes and any object what colour do you see?

Standing on a train track observing a train travelling away from you what do you observe the area of the trains rear does the greater the radius away from you away it travels?


Let me lead you to understanding by answering the questions truthfully.

Just forget science a minute and forget you know any science, please tell me what you observe with your eyes ,

In the space between your eyes and any object what colour do you see?

Standing on a train track observing a train travelling away from you what do you observe the area of the trains rear does the greater the radius away from you away it travels?


Let me lead you to understanding by answering the questions truthfully.

It is invisible to the human eye

The area decreases through $\frac{1}{r^2}$ which is a well known relationship. (your first axiom breaks this btw, in your world, the train would occupy no space whatsoever wherever it is because the distance is governed by light )

I'm done. I think you are starting to realise the flaws.

(I just said a couple posts ago, the apparent object magnification as it comes closer is a geometric consequence of flat euclidian space - what you are observing is the angle between the extrema of the object (Subtended at your eye) enlarge. You are not witnessing an increase in it's length, extend your ruler outwards and you will realise that the object has the same length. The definition of length is very concrete, stop making other definitions of what you think length is and then you try to apply it to models in which that definition of length isn't used. Your approach to the scientific model is absolutely crazy.