The Student Room Group

I need time dilation help please?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 360
Original post by mphysical
Has he gone?
My favourite had to be his interpretation of quantum chromodynamics

Peroxidation said, it's the 'colour' of the quark that defines whether they attract or repel ..Hilarious


Hilarious? do you actually think an object has colour?

Colour is a perception in the back of your head where the sight cortex is, created by the wave function of light .

Hilarious is the pure attempts at distraction from the questions the student is asking the teachers, if you are a poor teacher and do not know the answers to my questions then do not try to reply with fairy tales hoping I will go away.
Original post by mphysical
x

Original post by AlbertXY
firstly 0 is equal to 1,000000000011111111111However this will confuse your already confusion of understanding something so simple so perhaps we will leave that be for now.


Is probably my favourite. The very rigorous and mathematical proof that 0=10=1 cracked me up some.
Reply 362
Original post by The-Spartan
Is probably my favourite. The very rigorous and mathematical proof that 0=10=1 cracked me up some.


Clearly you creative skills and thinking lacks in the ability to interpret information.


Do you not understand why 0=1?

L=n0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000n

L=111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111




0 is one digit

1 is one digit


3 is one digit


3=1=0


one=3=three=five=four=4=1=0

It al about digits, 1 dimension is one dimension

0 is infinite and so is n and so is 1
Original post by AlbertXY
Clearly you creative skills and thinking lacks in the ability to interpret information.


Do you not understand why 0=1?

L=n0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000n

L=111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111




0 is one digit

1 is one digit


3 is one digit


3=1=0


one=3=three=five=four=4=1=0

It al about digits, 1 dimension is one dimension

0 is infinite and so is n and so is 1

What is this you present to me as a proof...
What is L
What is n
Why are the 0's surrounded by a factor of n2n^2?
Where is your idea of continuity?
What about summations of infinite and finite series, is this also both true and false?
Why is 0 'infinite'
Why does 3=1=0?
What digits is it all about?
1 dimension is (by your logic) not one dimension but 0 and 3 and 5 and 4 dimensions too. By that logic it is also infinite and finite. This is a clear contradiction...
0 is one digit yes, 1 is one digit yes, this does not make them equal. Not even in spatial terms...

This is ridiculous. Use the scientific method.
Provide experimental evidence of either/both disproof of SR/GR or proof of your theory.

Spoiler

Just a side note, if you do not understand quantum chromodynamics then you have no chance on disproving it. Same goes for SR/GR, mathematics and apparently any concept of science.

Do not bash people on here for providing a 'poor answer' ever again after this.
Actually abysmal. :rofl:
Reply 364
Original post by The-Spartan
What is this you present to me as a proof...
What is L
What is n
Why are the 0's surrounded by a factor of n2n^2?
Where is your idea of continuity?
What about summations of infinite and finite series, is this also both true and false?
Why is 0 'infinite'
Why does 3=1=0?
What digits is it all about?
1 dimension is (by your logic) not one dimension but 0 and 3 and 5 and 4 dimensions too. By that logic it is also infinite and finite. This is a clear contradiction...
0 is one digit yes, 1 is one digit yes, this does not make them equal. Not even in spatial terms...

This is ridiculous. Use the scientific method.
Provide experimental evidence of either/both disproof of SR/GR or proof of your theory.

Spoiler

Just a side note, if you do not understand quantum chromodynamics then you have no chance on disproving it. Same goes for SR/GR, mathematics and apparently any concept of science.

Do not bash people on here for providing a 'poor answer' ever again after this.
Actually abysmal. :rofl:


I am afraid my version is more realistic and without contradiction than your useless methods and imagination.

confirm.jpg


''0 is one digit yes, 1 is one digit yes, this does not make them equal. Not even in spatial terms..''

Think , yes it is, and time terms


0 to 0 , a ruler starts at 0 spin it around it ends at zero,


''Why are the 0's surrounded by a factor of ?''


n is space , 0 is space, n to n is a linearity into oblivion from oblivion . L is length, you are trolling me and getting me to repeat myself, stop it.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by AlbertXY
I am afraid my version is more realistic and without contradiction than your useless methods and imagination.

confirm.jpg


''0 is one digit yes, 1 is one digit yes, this does not make them equal. Not even in spatial terms..''

Think , yes it is, and time terms


0 to 0 , a ruler starts at 0 spin it around it ends at zero,


''Why are the 0's surrounded by a factor of ?''


n is space , 0 is space, n to n is a linearity into oblivion from oblivion . L is length, you are trolling me and getting me to repeat myself, stop it.


Are you being serious with that diagram?
Please tell me this is an elaborate joke. That is not real science, that is real banter.
Nope. 1 object does not occupy 0 of the same objects space if the object has a volume in space.
1 second does not equal 0 seconds in the same reference frame. Ever.
0 is not 1 mathematically
the dimensions of 0 and 1 are not the same.
I have stated before, the distance between two points in 3D is given by the Pythagorean method. This is over 2000 years old with countless proofs. Really.
Besides the point space-time isnt euclidean so your 'linearity' goes right out the window.
I am not trolling you really, I am trying to extract at least one morsel of logical reasoning from you. That method, as described above, makes absolutely 0 sense. Maybe 1 sense. Maybe 5 :wink:
Honestly you need evidence for this, not some warped perception of reality or science.
You are trying to disprove one of the most verified theories known.
You are basically breaking everything we know about physics, mechanics, space, time, reality, dimensions, quantum fields, particle physics, the lot.
Reply 366
Original post by The-Spartan
Are you being serious with that diagram?
Please tell me this is an elaborate joke. That is not real science, that is real banter.
Nope. 1 object does not occupy 0 of the same objects space if the object has a volume in space.
1 second does not equal 0 seconds in the same reference frame. Ever.
0 is not 1 mathematically
the dimensions of 0 and 1 are not the same.
I have stated before, the distance between two points in 3D is given by the Pythagorean method. This is over 2000 years old with countless proofs. Really.
Besides the point space-time isnt euclidean so your 'linearity' goes right out the window.
I am not trolling you really, I am trying to extract at least one morsel of logical reasoning from you. That method, as described above, makes absolutely 0 sense. Maybe 1 sense. Maybe 5 :wink:
Honestly you need evidence for this, not some warped perception of reality or science.
You are trying to disprove one of the most verified theories known.
You are basically breaking everything we know about physics, mechanics, space, time, reality, dimensions, quantum fields, particle physics, the lot.



Now this is what I hate about the internet, you return with an explanation we all know of 1=1 .

You do not answer the students query.

Answer the 1st question please from the student


Any measurement greater than zero no matter how small when considering time is instantaneous history

Yes or no ?



P.s Yes my queries destroy science and re-write it to the truth.


added- am I being serious with my diagram? yes, the truth is observed not thought up or explained in maths.

Relativity is what two observers agree on in observation. I ask myself the question and ask myself if I agree on the observation, I either agree or disagree.


If I asked you , do you see single photons travelling from the screen to your eyes , what would your answer be?

I am simply unwinding the damage of imagination has caused.


Let us not imagine single photons travelling from the sun to our eyes, let us explain the quanta whole we see with 0 dimensions that occupies the relative ''empty'' space that is not in shadow.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by AlbertXY
Now this is what I hate about the internet, you return with an explanation we all know of 1=1 .

You do not answer the students query.

Answer the 1st question please from the student


Any measurement greater than zero no matter how small when considering time is instantaneous history

Yes or no ?

Albert i am sure at this point you are bat s*** crazy :rofl:
Please study maths.
And Physics.
Then come back and break them. For now, please go and break something you know... less fundamental.
Im leaving this thread for now. Ill pick it up when you learn what you are breaking/creating.
Reply 368
Original post by The-Spartan
Albert i am sure at this point you are bat s*** crazy :rofl:
Please study maths.
And Physics.
Then come back and break them. For now, please go and break something you know... less fundamental.
Im leaving this thread for now. Ill pick it up when you learn what you are breaking/creating.



There you go see, a failure to answer the simplest of worded questions. You are telling me to go study, hmmm, I am on here on this student forum studying.

I understand the last query question is difficult and puts the teacher in a rather awkward position , I understand the stress the query alone puts on science.

How do you even conceive that asking a question is crazy? The student want's definite answers that are axioms and not make believe.


An axiom is something that is true, my queries are axioms and premise for argument with any teacher including Einstein.



The Universe is this big 4/3 pi

The visual Universe is this big A→B

The visual Universe is expanding A ................................ →B


Because once there was a firmament, but as ''time'' went by, the firmament expanded, telescopes got better, it expanded even more.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by AlbertXY
There you go see, a failure to answer the simplest of worded questions. You are telling me to go study, hmmm, I am on here on this student forum studying.
An axiom is something that is true, my queries are axioms and premise for argument with any teacher including Einstein.
The-Spartan did not answer your question because you did not ask one.
It is impossible to refute anything because you provide no substance to your ideas.
For example:
The Universe is this big 4/3 pi
The visual Universe is this big A→B
The visual Universe is expanding A ....................... →B
What does that even mean? You may as well state that "God is orange"
I don't know what you are doing when not delivering pizzas but you are certainly not studying.
Reply 370
Original post by mphysical
The-Spartan did not answer your question because you did not ask one.
It is impossible to refute anything because you provide no substance to your ideas.
For example:
The Universe is this big 4/3 pi
The visual Universe is this big A→B
The visual Universe is expanding A ....................... →B
What does that even mean? You may as well state that "God is orange"
I don't know what you are doing when not delivering pizzas but you are certainly not studying.


HUh?


the volume of a sphere is devised by the calculation 4/3 pi , I have replaced r with n which represents an unknown radius.


The visual universe is based on the furthest away object we can see from A to B.



Its not that complex

The visual Universe is expanding not the universe is expanding.


nn.jpg
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by AlbertXY
HUh?


the volume of a sphere is devised by the calculation 4/3 pi , I have replaced r with n which represents an unknown radius.




Actually according to you, it is not, because you broke that a long time ago with 0=1. Besides the point your 'axioms' also break this equation, along with any logical Euclidean geometry that goes along with it. (Distance being governed by light between two sources? LOL1\text{LOL}_1)

You cannot claim to prove maths/physics wrong, then use some of their equations in your proof that they are wrong... Thats absolutely brain-dead. LOL2\text{LOL}_2

The universe is not an interwoven mix of light and dark. darkness is the absence of light, it is not its own entity with its own forces. LOL3\text{LOL}_3

Pretty sure the collaboration of all of the patient people on here have slammed your 'theory' into the depths of oblivion far enough. I would like to add one last thing.

010 \not =1


LOL0=1=2=3=4=5=6=7=8=9=n\text{LOL}_{0=1=2=3=4=5=6=7=8=9=n}
Original post by AlbertXY
The visual universe is based on the furthest away object we can see from A to B.
The visual Universe is expanding not the universe is expanding.
If you are trying to say that the 'expansion' of the universe is an illusion because better telescopes mean we can 'see' further then you are mad.
You have to admit that he's persistent.
Reply 374
Original post by mphysical
If you are trying to say that the 'expansion' of the universe is an illusion because better telescopes mean we can 'see' further then you are mad.



Do you not know the difference between a visual expansion and the imaginary expansion of space?


Space is not observed to be red shifting.
Reply 375
Original post by The-Spartan
Actually according to you, it is not, because you broke that a long time ago with 0=1. Besides the point your 'axioms' also break this equation, along with any logical Euclidean geometry that goes along with it. (Distance being governed by light between two sources? LOL1\text{LOL}_1)

You cannot claim to prove maths/physics wrong, then use some of their equations in your proof that they are wrong... Thats absolutely brain-dead. LOL2\text{LOL}_2

The universe is not an interwoven mix of light and dark. darkness is the absence of light, it is not its own entity with its own forces. LOL3\text{LOL}_3

Pretty sure the collaboration of all of the patient people on here have slammed your 'theory' into the depths of oblivion far enough. I would like to add one last thing.

010 \not =1


LOL0=1=2=3=4=5=6=7=8=9=n\text{LOL}_{0=1=2=3=4=5=6=7=8=9=n}


I can prove dark exists, you are clearly wrong, I hold a cardboard box in my hands that has the lid tightly closed, I assure you inside that box it is dark,

box.jpgshad.jpg
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by AlbertXY
I can prove dark exists, you are clearly wrong, I hold a cardboard box in my hands that has the lid tightly closed, I assure you inside that box it is dark,

box.jpg

:colonhash:

Really?
No, but really?
Honestly?
You're not joking?
Please tell me you're joking.
So you're saying that the box is black because there are 'dark photons'?
:rofl:
come on...
Reply 377
Original post by The-Spartan
:colonhash:

Really?
No, but really?
Honestly?
You're not joking?
Please tell me you're joking.
So you're saying that the box is black because there are 'dark photons'?
:rofl:
come on...



No, inside the box is dark energy and CBMR, both are beyond your visual capability, inside the box it is relatively dark, remove our Sun it would be dark. Light is a product not a natural .


Do you have a dimmer switch on your light at home, do you want to try an experiment?

turn the dimmer down notice how the space becomes dim. turn the dimmer up, notice how the space becomes more clear, turn it off notice how the space is now darkness and your vision is limited to 0 length.

However you can still see n distance, there is just nothing reflecting light to see. Shine a laser and observe only a dot.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by AlbertXY
No, inside the box is dark energy and CBMR, both are beyond your visual capability, inside the box it is relatively dark, remove our Sun it would be dark. Light is a product not a natural .


congratulations, you have discovered light. Any other amazing things that you have come across recently? Gravity? How about magnetism?

I give up trying...
Have fun @mphysical
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 379
Original post by The-Spartan
congratulations, you have discovered light. Any other amazing things that you have come across recently? Gravity? How about magnetism?

I give up trying...
Have fun.



I have not discovered light, I have discovered that light has 0 dimension in space in any direction and the universe has no shape . and oh forget it I give up...

Quick Reply

Latest