You are Here: Home >< Physics

# I need time dilation help please? watch

1. (Original post by AlbertXY)
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?

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.
2. (Original post by The-Spartan)
It is invisible to the human eye

It is ''transparent'' to sight yes? We can see through space like seeing through glass.

The area decreases through 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 )

No, you have misunderstood, the area decreases to an eventual 0 point source yes? A point when we can't observe an area of light?

The inverse square law at this point collapses, the light becomes dimensionless a 0 singularity.
3. (Original post by Protoxylic)
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.
You are misunderstanding
4. (Original post by AlbertXY)
[/b]

It is ''transparent'' to sight yes? We can see through space like seeing through glass.

No, you have misunderstood, the area decreases to an eventual 0 point source yes? A point when we can't observe an area of light?
Congratulations, you have shown that humans can see through space. Revelation boys.

The area of the light does not become 0. The intensity of the light reflecting off the train tends towards 0. As you see the problem.
There will still be light coming from the train even if it is from the other side of the universe, it just wont be intense the photons themselves will have the same properties as if it was next door.
5. (Original post by AlbertXY)
[/b]
The inverse square law at this point collapses, the light becomes dimensionless a 0 singularity.
This exact sentence shows your lack of understanding of physics in general.
The inverse square law has never been observed to collapse at any distance.
The photons do not magically implode into some black hole at this distance.
Im actually going to do something productive now however, good luck with your theory if you can formulate any sort of argument. If you win the Nobel prize, please send me a PM.
6. (Original post by The-Spartan)
Congratulations, you have shown that humans can see through space. Revelation boys.

The area of the light does not become 0.

If the area of the object is zero what is the area of light you observe ?

If you look at the blackness ''background'' of space what length do you observe?

And you have clearly not considered the candle.
7. I am sorry but do any of you even understand relativity and length contractions etc?

Here is an inverse collapse to a singularity .

8. and here is from both observers relativeness and a video model of my diagram

see the relationship now?
9. You don't have to not reply because you become stumped, why not try to understand the student?

The student is asking testing questions,

What is time?

Is the limitations of observation of the Universe, simply because of a diminished intensity over radius following the inverse square law of ''light spheres''?

I do not imagine if I started with two light bulbs next to each other, A and B. then expanded A and B a radius apart, eventually neither light bulb will observe each other.
10. time is relative
11. (Original post by Kyx)
time is relative
1. 1.considered in relation or in proportion to something else.

Yes , which means we use things for a comparison such as the movement of the hands of a clock. So how does a comparison that is a variant alter the thing it represents?
Or how does the thing it represents affect the thing we are using for comparison?

Quite simply it does not, in comparison if a drip off a tap slowed down, time does not alter.
12. (Original post by AlbertXY)
1. 1.considered in relation or in proportion to something else.

Yes , which means we use things for a comparison such as the movement of the hands of a clock. So how does a comparison that is a variant alter the thing it represents?
Or how does the thing it represents affect the thing we are using for comparison?

Quite simply it does not, in comparison if a drip off a tap slowed down, time does not alter.
You might perceive the tap to slow down because time has slowed down.
13. (Original post by Kyx)
You might perceive the tap to slow down because time has slowed down.

But a person with any sort of thought knows the drip slows down because of a change in either the taps closure or pressure in the system.
Although a constant drip rate could be used to record time, it would be rather foolish to think that any change in the rate is a change in time.
14. (Original post by AlbertXY)
But a person with any sort of thought knows the drip slows down because of a change in either the taps closure or pressure in the system.
Although a constant drip rate could be used to record time, it would be rather foolish to think that any change in the rate is a change in time.
Not really, since it is perfectly logical that time slowing down would cause the drip rate to appear to slow down
15. (Original post by Kyx)
Not really, since it is perfectly logical that time slowing down would cause the drip rate to appear to slow down

Not really a change in rate of the drip would appear to be a change in the rate of drip, the drip is not related to time in any way other than man made perception to record time.
16. (Original post by AlbertXY)
Not really a change in rate of the drip would appear to be a change in the rate of drip, the drip is not related to time in any way other than man made perception to record time.
Let's start from the beginning.

Do you agree that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light? And that the speed of light is the same for all observers?
17. (Original post by Kyx)
Let's start from the beginning.p

Do you agree that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?
Nothing is a strong word, I would not know to be honest, we are limited to knowledge.

And that the speed of light is the same for all observers?

The speed is the same for all observers, however presently observers from different planets could measure the speed to be different in numerical value,
18. (Original post by AlbertXY)
Nothing is a strong word, I would not know to be honest, we are limited to knowledge.

The speed is the same for all observers, however presently observers from different planets could measure the speed to be different in numerical value,
19. (Original post by AlbertXY)
The speed is the same for all observers, however presently observers from different planets could measure the speed to be different in numerical value,
20. (Original post by Implication)
Yes its explicit, it contradicts present theory by its own theory, If time dilates and a planet X had say half a length of second compared to our second length, then they would measure speed to be different.

### Related university courses

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: April 25, 2016
Today on TSR

### Edexcel C4 Maths Unofficial Markscheme

Find out how you've done here

### 2,798

students online now

Exam discussions

### Find your exam discussion here

Poll

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE