Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyx)
    But that's the thing. If you and the runner both had a clock, they would be ticking at different rates.
    And that has nothing to do with time.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    But when you are making absolute space t=0 and relativistic space t=1 an interwoven space, it shows the true nature of the universe
    What do you mean? What are 'absolute space' and 'relativistic' space?


    before the big bang there was absolute n-dimensional space and the Universe is not expanding, it is simply objects moving away into more space.
    Well this beyond what I'm able to confirm from elementary principles alone, but there isn't much consensus in the scientific literature about what was before the big bang or if it even makes sense to talk of 'before' it!


    Minkowski space time is not independent of matter, it is dependent to matter
    Minkowski spacetime is independent of matter. By definition, it is is 4-dimensional manifold with a flat metric tensor \eta_{\mu \nu} whose components are given by

    (\eta_{\mu \nu}) \equiv \begin{pmatrix}

 1&0  &0& 0\\ 

 0&-1  &0  &0 \\ 

 0& 0 &-1  &0 \\ 

 0& 0 &0  &-1 

\end{pmatrix}.

    Nothing in this definition depends on matter. In general relativity, Minkowski spacetime is a solution to Einstein's equations for a matter-free, mass-free spacetime. If you have mass, your spacetime is not flat and cannot be Minkowski.


    , the value of space time
    Spacetime doesn't have a 'value'.


    and an independent time is 0
    What is an 'independent time'?


    light propagating through space has 0 dimension, the singularity thing I mentioned is 0.
    What do you mean?


    I assure you it all fits and my universal model is very accurate and true.
    Unfortunately I just don't believe you! Look, I know I've asked you 101 questions but there's no need for you to reply. It seems like what you're trying to do here is essentially reformulate the whole of physics in a completely different way. This can probably be done. For example, in his book Science Without Numbers, the philosopher Hartry Field reformulates most of Newtonian gravitation without using numbers. I suspect if there is any extra-terrestrial life out there in the universe, they will have ways of describing physical reality (physics) that look nothing like ours.

    However, whether or not your formalism will be useful - and whether you'll succeed in making something consistent - is a very different matter. Some of the things you've said are flat out wrong, and some of them are so convoluted it's impossible for anyone to work out whether they have any merit. What I recommend you do is put your ideas temporarily aside, and enroll yourself on a higher education course. Physics with mathematics would probably be a good choice of course, and you should probably make sure you get to study some mathematical logic somewhere down the line if you intend to proceed with your 'research'. Chat with your professors about your ideas. Once you have the necessary tools and support that you need, then go back to your ideas properly. Formalise them, correct them, make them rigorous and, above all, make them comprehensible. Then send them off to a research journal. If what you say has merit, you might get lucky and get published. And if you really do successfully find some currently unknown holes in special/general relativity, people will start to take more notice.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Honestly I don't know why you guys are still bothering, I gave up a while ago. You've got to admit though, this guy's been a pretty good troll!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    And that has nothing to do with time.
    ... yes, it does
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Honestly I don't know why you guys are still bothering, I gave up a while ago. You've got to admit though, this guy's been a pretty good troll!
    :dontknow:

    Quite entertaining tbh
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Honestly I don't know why you guys are still bothering, I gave up a while ago. You've got to admit though, this guy's been a pretty good troll!

    What sort of teacher enters a thread and then gives up when the going gets difficult by put forward questions?

    You entered the thread to defend and teach present information to the student, I can only conclude that you giving up means you are beaten by the students questions and ideas and are at a loss for answers .
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)




    Spacetime doesn't have a 'value'.




    What is an 'independent time'?




    What do you mean?
    You ask what do I mean by light propagating through space has 0 dimension, the singularity thing I mentioned is 0.
    I have explained this several times earlier in the thread, And talking threads, consider a 0 diameter thread, that is light propagating through space until it hits something.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    ...and are at a loss for answers .
    I can only agree :cute:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexion)
    I can only agree :cute:
    I have tried to answer my own questions, I can't answer them with any present explanation, so my only conclusion I can possibly have is that my thoughts must be true and accurate.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    I have explained this several times earlier in the thread,
    Maybe, but you are inventing your own terminology, which nobody else has encountered in their studies, so it is not making any sense.
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    light propagating through space has 0 dimension,
    I suggest you look up the word 'propagating' then try to explain how this could possibly have "0 dimension".
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    the singularity thing I mentioned is 0.
    Your command of language is very poor.
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    consider a 0 diameter thread, that is light propagating through space until it hits something.
    You do know quantum mechanics forbids a particle occupying a space smaller than its wavelength?
    Photons 'hit' things all the time, Have you studied the photoelectric effect? What is so different about your 'light'?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mphysical)
    Maybe, but you are inventing your own terminology, which nobody else has encountered in their studies, so it is not
    The problem with trying to explain something new is that all the words are already in use, so it is hard to express something without bending definitions to try and get understanding. It is very hard and ambiguity is a problem.


    A clear sentence is this,

    Any measurement after 0 is instantaneous history, you clearly can read that and that clearly gives me premise for argument with the teacher.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mphysical)
    I suggest you look up the word 'propagating' then try to explain how this could possibly have "0 dimension".

    Propagating = travelling through


    I will say passing through if it makes any difference.


    Look up at the sky, between your eyes and the sky is 0 dimension of light, the clouds have dimensions , you can see the cloud and the dimension of light

    pffff


    try this

    Name:  integ.jpg
Views: 21
Size:  52.4 KB
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    You ask what do I mean by light propagating through space has 0 dimension, the singularity thing I mentioned is 0.
    I have explained this several times earlier in the thread, And talking threads, consider a 0 diameter thread, that is light propagating through space until it hits something.
    I'm going to back out of this conversation now. It clearly isn't going anywhere. I thought we were making progress yesterday with the train experiment, but then you admitted that you already 'knew' what the results of the experiment would be and didn't need to conduct it. This is a fundamentally unscientific. And, as you have already been informed repeatedly, all the experiments of that kind that have been performed completely confirm special relativity.

    I am not a teacher, so please spare me any of the 'poor teachers blame their students' crap. I'm not getting paid, this isn't enjoyable anymore and it certainly isn't productive. There is no benefit in continuing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    I'm going to back out of this conversation now. It clearly isn't going anywhere. I thought we were making progress yesterday with the train experiment, but then you admitted that you already 'knew' what the results of the experiment would be and didn't need to conduct it. This is a fundamentally unscientific. And, as you have already been informed repeatedly, all the experiments of that kind that have been performed completely confirm special relativity.

    I am not a teacher, so please spare me any of the 'poor teachers blame their students' crap. I'm not getting paid, this isn't enjoyable anymore and it certainly isn't productive. There is no benefit in continuing.
    And that is what they all say when they give up, if you want to take it back to train experiment no problem. I know the results will show I am correct because I have sat and watched about 2 hours of trains passing trains and have a pause button to see they are the same length by using the stationary background reference frame, i'e the distance between lamp posts. That is why I am positive the outcome will be positive to what I said.
    The train contracts relative to the reference frame, the reference frame also contracts the further the radius.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    And that is what they all say when they give up, if you want to take it back to train experiment no problem. I know the results will show I am correct because I have sat and watched about 2 hours of trains passing trains and have a pause button to see they are the same length. That is why I am positive the outcome will be positive to what I said.
    Unfortunately, as previously demonstrated, the amount by which the trains contract is of order 1 in 100,000,000,000,000, which is not visible to the naked eye.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    (Original post by Implication)
    Unfortunately, as previously demonstrated, the amount by which the trains contract is of order 1 in 100,000,000,000,000, which is not visible to the naked eye.
    especially since the trains are not travelling at anywhere near 90% of the speed of light.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Unfortunately, as previously demonstrated, the amount by which the trains contract is of order 1 in 100,000,000,000,000, which is not visible to the naked eye.
    Ok I see that as a valued point, however that would be related to thermodynamics and a volume contraction rather than a length contraction due to relative velocity.

    And the problem i s like in such action has a break disc getting heated, things expand when hot not contract.


    4.19 in this video, observe a length expansion of the left train.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLqAJXaoxYs
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Propagating = travelling through
    I said to look up the meaning of 'Propagating' .Instead you have used your limited knowledge, hence you are incorrect.
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Look up at the sky, between your eyes and the sky is 0 dimension of light,
    0 dimension of light. people keep asking you to explain. Instead you give meaningless examples. How about some maths?
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    the clouds have dimensions , you can see the cloud and the dimension of light
    I can see light being scattered by the clouds
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Ok I see that as a valued point, however that would be related to thermodynamics and a volume contraction rather than a length contraction due to relative velocity.

    And the problem i s like in such action has a break disc getting heated, things expand when hot not contract.


    4.19 in this video, observe a length expansion of the left train.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLqAJXaoxYs
    no visible expansion/contraction
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mphysical)
    I said to look up the meaning of 'Propagating' .Instead you have used your limited knowledge, hence you are incorrect.
    0 dimension of light. people keep asking you to explain. Instead you give meaningless examples. How about some maths?
    I can see light being scattered by the clouds

    I swear definitions keep changing, I see your point thank you.


    I will use passing through instead of propagation.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.