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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Oblivion , the red shift of light is observed by the observation of matter that is moving away from an observer. Space is not expanding and neither is the Universe, things are moving away from us into n-dimensional space. The length of light between bodies expands and is stretched relative to observation.
    The expansion does not have to be at the near speed of light either, it is radius that is the cause not speed.
    Thought provoking if not anything else.
    Cheers.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RhaegoTarg)
    Thought provoking if not anything else.
    Cheers.

    Your welcome, however the anything else is more than just thought, it is provable by present facts.


    Fact 1 - Objects moving away from an observer become a visual 2d plane , the object will relatively visual contract to a 0 point source at the boundary of oblivion.

    Fact 2- The inverse square Law, Light diminishes in strength over a greater distance travelled in strength by the ''spreading out''.


    Fact 3 - An observer ''at'' the red shifted point source will observe the observer of the red shift and their point source to also be red shifting, it is impossible to tell which observer is moving.

    Fact 4 - Light passing through space has 0 dimensions in any direction until it interacts with a 3d object. Space is ''see through''.


    Fact 5 - dark and light are interwoven .
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)

    That is interesting , I would say most of what science doe's is not science and border line ''religion'' by set theories being referred to as if the absolute truth.

    Where as the science I consider is only based on strict definition facts of observation and reality.
    I use axiom.s and axiom's don't tell no lies or false hoods of the imagination.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    That is interesting , I would say most of what science doe's is not science and border line ''religion'' by set theories being referred to as if the absolute truth.

    Where as the science I consider is only based on strict definition facts of observation and reality.
    I use axiom.s and axiom's don't tell no lies or false hoods of the imagination.
    You clearly don't understand how science works. Virtually every post that you make demonstrates this.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    You clearly don't understand how science works. Virtually every post that you make demonstrates this.

    Virtually everything the teacher posts is make believe, is science make believe then?

    Do I have to make up fairy tales to do science?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    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 ..
    By ''colour'' you mean charge surely because something that is highly charged glows ''orange''.

    You are using ambiguity, your failure to teach is your poor wording , colour means colour it can't mean colour and mean something else,

    Only dark and light exist, atoms are dark and light, you clearly have no idea of what you are talking about and mentioning colour.
    Hilarious
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (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=1 cracked me up some.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The-Spartan)
    Is probably my favourite. The very rigorous and mathematical proof that 0=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=n00000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000n

    L=111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111 1111111




    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
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (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=n00000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000n

    L=111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111 1111111




    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 n^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:
    Show
    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:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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 n^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:
    Show
    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.

    Name:  confirm.jpg
Views: 71
Size:  42.8 KB


    ''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.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    I am afraid my version is more realistic and without contradiction than your useless methods and imagination.

    Name:  confirm.jpg
Views: 71
Size:  42.8 KB


    ''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
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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 n³

    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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 n³
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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 n³
    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 r³ , 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.


    Name:  nn.jpg
Views: 57
Size:  28.5 KB
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    HUh?


    the volume of a sphere is devised by the calculation 4/3 pi r³ , 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? \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. \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. \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.

    0 \not =1


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

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    You have to admit that he's persistent.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

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

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