I need time dilation help please?
Scroll to see replies
Space - space is the volume of ''seemingly empty'' distance that surrounds an observer
Distance - An isotropic unbounded quantity of n-dimensional space extending away from the observer
Length -1. A measured distance of finite bounded space between two light reflective or light emitting point sources.
2. A measurement of an objects physical dimensions of its form.
Universe - an unbounded n-dimensional space
Visual Universe - a finite observed length within a Universe
I had already fixed the definitions which people ignore.
Distance - An isotropic unbounded quantity of n-dimensional space extending away from the observer
Length -1. A measured distance of finite bounded space between two light reflective or light emitting point sources.
2. A measurement of an objects physical dimensions of its form.
Universe - an unbounded n-dimensional space
Visual Universe - a finite observed length within a Universe
I had already fixed the definitions which people ignore.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by mphysical
What is L?
What is A?
What is B?
What is d?
What is N?
What is n?
And how can "0 is equal to 1" be true in any universe.
Oh yes, what are Space values?
What is A?
What is B?
What is d?
What is N?
What is n?
And how can "0 is equal to 1" be true in any universe.
Oh yes, what are Space values?
L= length
A = point source
B = point source
d = distance
N= should of been n which is n -dimensional
Original post by mphysical
And how can "0 is equal to 1" be true in any universe.
Oh yes, what are Space values?
And how can "0 is equal to 1" be true in any universe.
Oh yes, what are Space values?
Because of time
and space values are hmmmmm, values, I will have a think about what I mean by space values,
Original post by AlbertXY
Space values are 0 and space time only exists between A and B , two point sources.
L=A to B
d=A to N
0 and 1 are interwoven and 0 is equal to 1.
L= length
A = point source
B = point source
d = distance
N= should of been n which is n -dimensional
L=A to B
d=A to N
0 and 1 are interwoven and 0 is equal to 1.
L= length
A = point source
B = point source
d = distance
N= should of been n which is n -dimensional
So you mean L = A - B. a length between two points.
d=A to N is wrong because if n is multi-dimensional then the distance d needs to be a vector.
Regardless, you haven't proven how you have got from basic principles of
L=A to B and
d=A to N to .....
0 and 1 are interwoven and 0 is equal to 1.
proof means mathematical proof, i.e. start at one equation and get to the final equation
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by AlbertXY
N= should of been n which is n -dimensional
N= should of been n which is n -dimensional
Original post by mphysical
proof means mathematical proof, i.e. start at one equation and get to the final equation
proof means mathematical proof, i.e. start at one equation and get to the final equation
Well I am not Maxwell, I am more of a Faraday. Mathematics is not proof, it is a quantifiable system of numbers that explain the actions.
I start off with the volume of an object then remove that object volume leaving 0 which is equal to n. From any 0 point of space this applies.
Original post by AlbertXY
Well I am not Maxwell, I am more of a Faraday. Mathematics is not proof, it is a quantifiable system of numbers that explain the actions. I start off with the volume of an object then remove that object volume leaving 0 which is equal to n. From any 0 point of space this applies.
Original post by mphysical
If you are submitting a theory then it needs to backed up with either mathematical or experimental proof! You are incapable of either. All you have is an idea which Maxwell's equations prove is impossible and Faraday's experiments show to be nonsense. If you are unsure as to what I am referring then show where the magnetic field is in your 0 point light rods.
Hmm, the magnetic field is the wave, the 0 point light rods travel through the wave like an underwater spear gun, spear, when light encounters a magnetic field it causes a wave, both are normally a rod but hwen the two combine it creates a wave, but not really apart of my theory I only want to do the universal model as n and interwoven 0 and 1.
I already have gravity done, the mechanism of that is space, but that is another story, Neg is attracted to neg and that is the missing piece of the puzzle. Yes you can look upon me with a chilling glance and a thought of Dunning and Kruger, but I assure you the physics involved and present information tell me that neg is attracted to neg.
It all starts with particle X, you can call it a Quark if you like, particle X is said to positive charges, however like wise positive charges repel , therefore there is no way that particle X can adjoin particle X if positive was the attractor, therefore neg must be attracted to neg. Thermal expansion is anti matter, +E = >4/3 pi r³ , -E=<4/3 pi r³
+E=+ion
-E=-ion
+ion↔+ion
-ion→←-ion
gravity
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by AlbertXY
It all starts with particle X, you can call it a Quark if you like, particle X is said to positive charges, however like wise positive charges repel , therefore there is no way that particle X can adjoin particle X if positive was the attractor, therefore neg must be attracted to neg.
Thermal expansion is anti matter, +E = >4/3 pi r³ , -E=<4/3 pi r³
+E=+ion
-E=-ion
Thermal expansion is anti matter, +E = >4/3 pi r³ , -E=<4/3 pi r³
+E=+ion
-E=-ion
Original post by mphysical
Obviously you have never heard of the strong nuclear force. One of the four fundamental forces of nature
The strong nuclear force is negative , the bond you break is negative.
Positive expands, only a negative bond stops positive expanding, negative binds negative, only positive stops the negative totally collapsing to a singularity. (your defintion).
Original post by AlbertXY
It all starts with particle X, you can call it a Quark if you like, particle X is said to positive charges, however like wise positive charges repel , therefore there is no way that particle X can adjoin particle X if positive was the attractor, therefore neg must be attracted to neg.
The strong nuclear force is negative , the bond you break is negative
The strong nuclear force is negative , the bond you break is negative
Even so, negative also repels negative
Original post by mphysical
The binding of atomic and sub-atomic particles is nothing to do with magnetism.
Even so, negative also repels negative
Even so, negative also repels negative
I do not mention magnetism I am talking about charge and polarity of charges.
Negative can not repel negative and positive repels positive or nothing would ever bind together.
However seem's you have mentioned magnetism, let us consider your contradictory statement when regarding Plasma physics and magnetic bottling that allows the binding of sub atomic particles to create plasma.
Oh dear! Your understanding very weak (Excuse the pun. Oh wait, you probably don't get that)In sub-atomic particles, quarks you said, polarity does not exist. The closest property is spin.Negative does repel negative. I think your mean neutral. Particles bind together with the strong nuclear attractionNot sure what you are getting at. The magnetic field does not 'bind' the plasma. Plasma is a soup of ions so energetic that the strong nuclear force is overcome. The magnetic field holds them in place.
Edit: Different temperatures of plasma may be confusing this issue. But you did mention quarks
Original post by AlbertXY
I do not mention magnetism I am talking about charge and polarity of charges.
Original post by AlbertXY
Negative can not repel negative and positive repels positive or nothing would ever bind together.
Original post by AlbertXY
However seem's you have mentioned magnetism, let us consider your contradictory statement when regarding Plasma physics and magnetic bottling that allows the binding of sub atomic particles to create plasma.
Edit: Different temperatures of plasma may be confusing this issue. But you did mention quarks
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by mphysical
But you did mention quarks
Ok let us discuss atomic particles and Quarks. The present model suggest the Proton is made up of three Quarks and the Proton is a positive ,
OK so let us have three Quarks
Q1+q
Q2+q
Q3+q
How do you suggest that +q ''sticks'' together to form a Proton? when evidence shows that +q will repel +q
Original post by AlbertXY
Ok let us discuss atomic particles and Quarks. The present model suggest the Proton is made up of three Quarks and the Proton is a positive ,
OK so let us have three Quarks
Q1+q
Q2+q
Q3+q
How do you suggest that +q ''sticks'' together to form a Proton? when evidence shows that +q will repel +q
OK so let us have three Quarks
Q1+q
Q2+q
Q3+q
How do you suggest that +q ''sticks'' together to form a Proton? when evidence shows that +q will repel +q
Original post by mphysical
Simple. The strong nuclear force
Which by the more than obvious is not a positive, so therefore it must be?
No offence, regardless what present information you post it doe's not answer my queries.
If positive repels positive then obviously positives can not ''stick'' together so therefore
I will lead you, what happens to metal when you add +q?
Then what happens when +q disperses and the metal becomes more -q?
There you go proof, gases also
If positive repels positive then obviously positives can not ''stick'' together so therefore
I will lead you, what happens to metal when you add +q?
Then what happens when +q disperses and the metal becomes more -q?
There you go proof, gases also
(edited 8 years ago)
I learned something useful here, thanksOriginal post by AlbertXY
No offence, regardless what present information you post it doe's not answer my queries.
If positive repels positive then obviously positives can not ''stick'' together so therefore
If positive repels positive then obviously positives can not ''stick'' together so therefore
As he said, that doesn't matter. The attractive force from the strong nuclear force far exceeds the repulsive electrostatic force.
Original post by Alexion
As he said, that doesn't matter. The attractive force from the strong nuclear force far exceeds the repulsive electrostatic force.
and put the minus value where it says strong nuclear force and you have my answer that fits your diagram. Logic and rational thought suggest I am correct on the basis that + and + repel each other. Experiment, metal expansion and gas expansions of charged +ions shows I am correct.
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
