You are Here: Home >< Physics

# I need time dilation help please? watch

1. (Original post by mphysical)
0 dimension of light. people keep asking you to explain. Instead you give meaningless examples. How about some maths?

Maths ?

4/3 pi r³ - 4/3 pi r³ = 0

0=n

Because between two 0 point sources , n0000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000 n in any direction.
2. (Original post by AlbertXY)
4/3 pi r³ - 4/3 pi r³ = 0
0=n
Because between two 0 point sources , n0000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000 n in any direction.
If 0 = n then 4/3 pi r³ - 4/3 pi r³ = n so this n0000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000 n
is all n or all zeroes? What does that prove?
3. (Original post by mphysical)
If 0 = n then 4/3 pi r³ - 4/3 pi r³ = n so this n0000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000 n
is all n or all zeroes? What does that prove?

It proves my model of the Universe and my singularity and singularity whole of light passing through space. 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.

ok?
4. (Original post by AlbertXY)
It proves my model of the Universe and my singularity and singularity whole of light passing through space. 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.

ok?
0 cannot be equal to 1

It defies all mathematics.
5. (Original post by AlbertXY)
It proves my model of the Universe and my singularity and singularity whole of light passing through space. 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.
ok?
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?
6. 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

7. (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?

L= length

A = point source

B = point source

d = distance

N= should of been n which is n -dimensional
8. (Original post by mphysical)
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,
9. (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
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
10. (Original post by AlbertXY)
N= should of been n which is n -dimensional
It is should HAVE been
11. (Original post by mphysical)

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.
12. (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.
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.
13. (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
14. (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
Obviously you have never heard of the strong nuclear force. One of the four fundamental forces of nature
15. (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).
16. (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 binding of atomic and sub-atomic particles is nothing to do with magnetism.
Even so, negative also repels negative
17. (Original post by mphysical)
The binding of atomic and sub-atomic particles is nothing to do with magnetism.
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.
18. Oh dear! Your understanding very weak (Excuse the pun. Oh wait, you probably don't get that)
(Original post by AlbertXY)
I do not mention magnetism I am talking about charge and polarity of charges.
In sub-atomic particles, quarks you said, polarity does not exist. The closest property is spin.
(Original post by AlbertXY)
Negative can not repel negative and positive repels positive or nothing would ever bind together.
Negative does repel negative. I think your mean neutral. Particles bind together with the strong nuclear attraction
(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.
Not 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
19. (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
20. (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
Simple. The strong nuclear force

### 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

### He lied about his age

Thought he was 19... really he's 14

### University open days

Wed, 25 Jul '18
2. University of Buckingham
Wed, 25 Jul '18
3. Bournemouth University