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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mphysical)
    Please explain this "rod".
    Imagine between two bodies there is an invisible rod.
    i don't think you know what delta means
    It means change,

    Y is the incident ray, Objects are 3 dimensional, When the light interacts it changes velocity, a sort of ''splat''.


    So "singularity whole" means "empty space". Why don't you say empty space?
    It is impossible to "see" things ouside the human visible spectrum. But intelligent humans use detectors to get around this problem

    It is more than just ''empty space'' , there is Lorentz transformations involved and the inverse square law, relatively an object moving away from an observer contracts to a point of 0 point source, the 3 dimensional light collapsing to a 0 singularity. See the invisible man explanation, and consider light propagating through ''empty space'' in any direction you observe is 0 dimensional.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Imagine between two bodies there is an invisible rod.When the light interacts it changes velocity, a sort of ''splat''.
    So light is not a wave or a particle, it is a rod that splats when it hits an object.
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    relatively an object moving away from an observer contracts to a point of 0 point source, the 3 dimensional light collapsing to a 0 singularity.
    What about an object coming towards?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mphysical)
    What about an object coming towards?

    An object travelling towards an observer relatively expands , when an object reaches another body , e.g an object on the ground, it as reached its relative rest dimensions and is at its greatest '''black body'' between the two masses.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mphysical)
    So light is not a wave or a particle, it is a rod that splats when it hits an object.
    I said imagine , but light from A to B is continuous, and when I shine a torch it is like a light rod and directional in a linear fashion.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    An object travelling towards an observer relatively expands , when an object reaches another body , e.g an object on the ground, it as reached its relative rest dimensions and is at its greatest '''black body'' between the two masses.
    What about the light rods. How do they behave?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mphysical)
    What about the light rods. How do they behave?

    They remain a 0 singularity and Neutral until they interact where the ''tips'' of the ''rod'' oscillate or like you refer to , have wavelength by Y delta xyz.


    The longer the 'rod'' the weaker the magnitude at the point of interaction, . But not forgetting the ''rod'' is a quanta whole of ''empty space'' xyz .
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Does your new theory of gravity and electromagnetism make any useful predictions?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Does your new theory of gravity and electromagnetism make any useful predictions?
    As well as dismissing GR and SR, this new theory puts great strains on Maxwell's equations
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mphysical)
    As well as dismissing GR and SR, this new theory puts great strains on Maxwell's equations
    I meant predictions that weren't already falsified
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Does your new theory of gravity and electromagnetism make any useful predictions?

    Every ''prediction'' science makes is because of the singularity and simply you can see the start and finish simultaneously .


    d/t = +ve(c)=1

    d/t = -ve(c)=1

    net difference t=0
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mphysical)
    As well as dismissing GR and SR, this new theory puts great strains on Maxwell's equations

    It puts great strains on a lot of science, and as yet nobody has proven any of this to be wrong. I want to accept present knowledge and move on but when my own thinking contradicts the knowledge I am learning, I need answers.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I wrote this -

    6.The meaning and value of GeometricGeometry is a branch of maths that is concerned in dealing with the aspects of shape, lines , curves and points , geometrically being a regular existence of lines and shapes thus leading us into a lengthy discussion of the relativeness of Geometry in space.It is important when considering space and in the use of geometry and Minkowski's space-time, that we do not get obsessed into trying to materialise Minkowski's space-time into something other than virtual, ignoring any ''truths'' of axioms such that lines or curves relatively do not exist in space, relatively curves and lines only exist of objects.Einstein's relativity, a theory , which is not an axiom, suggests a curvature of Minkowski's space-time regarding space-time to like'fabric'', however there has never been any physical properties of space observed such as an aether or anything observed of a solidity of space itself. Space is observed as passive, even allowing the propagation of light through space, space offering no resistance to the light. It is of importance though we do not disregard Einstein's work or Minkowski's space-time completely, it has huge value in respect to navigation and co-ordination of events in the visual Universe and some of Einstein's relativity thought is of axiom ''truths'' thus far on our understanding and exclusively to our limitations.In the continuation of geometry, I feel it is of importance we bring to the discussion, the geometrical relative size of the visual universe. It is believed by the big bang theory, that before the big bang , nothing existed , not even time.In the above sense, relatively we can describe nothing in geometrical maths terminology4/3 pi r³ - 4/3 pi r³ = nothingIn this maths use expression, it is not important to consider values or put values, the importance of the equation is to consider any size spherical volume and by taking away equal to itself, it leaves nothing.The big bang also suggests that space is expanding, suggesting the size of the visual Universe is ''growing'' and that space itself is expanding into nothing.However, this is not an axiom of ''truth''and the evidence that is offered of the Hubble observed red shift, is based on the length between two reflective points . Space itself does not reflect light or is observed to be red shifting, only the incident ray of light impacting an object or the reflective invert of light from objects can red shift relative to the Doppler effect. I propose the basis of evidence suggests that objects are moving away from the observer into more space, rather than the unobserved expansion of space, a length expansion into a unknown distance.Thus brings me to an explanation of a limitation, the limitation being that of light and the diminished magnitude of light over a distance from the source, following that of the inverse square law, relative to observation of objects and the observer.In consideration of the diminished light, let us consider an analogy , which is a comparison between one thing and another of similar context.If in thought we imagine a huge empty warehouse that was in complete darkness, in the center of the warehouse is observer (A) and at a length away from observer (A) standing by the warehouse walls was observer (B).Relative to observer (A) they can not observe (B)Relative to observer (B) they can not observe (A)Relatively both observers can concur by voice the axiom truth, that neither observer can observe each other.Now lets us imagine that observer (A) in the center of the huge warehouse was to place a lit candle by their feet.Relative to observer (A) they can still not observe (B)Relative to observer (B) they can observe (A)Relative to both observers, they can concur by voice that this is the axiom truth of the observation.My reasoning for this relationship is that emitted light is a much a greater magnitude than reflected light. Observer B observes light emitted from the candle flame and a greater magnitude of reflection of the light off (A), where as observer (B) only reflects the extended light that is weakened by the inverse square law by time it arrives at (B). The magnitude of light reflected from (B) is not a great enough magnitude by time the invert reaches (A) and the information of observation is ''washed out'' by the candle light surrounding (A).There is no apparent reason why this analogy can not be used on a broader scale of space. We can assume that the axiom holds true on a broader scale, we can assume that the ''black'' background of space, is distance, and objects reflect light or emit light over the distance to identify lengths between objects.(missing surface brightness formula to be added)To extend on this axiom, I would direct the reader to the attention of vanishing points and perspective view. A body in motion travelling away from an observer relative to observation will appear to decrease in size to an eventual point of appearing to not exist, down scaling into nothing.This can be described in analogy by using a train track.If in imagination we are standing on the train track observing a train travelling away from us , relatively we observe the train's observed rear area, scaling down in size.This area contraction can be acquainted to the Lorentz formula and length contraction, length contraction being that of perspective parallel nature, where as the perspective linear view relative nature to motion of the object differs in that the whole area of the viewed object contracts to a point of nothingness relative to a linear velocity between two bodies.Thus brings us to the relative geometrical size of the visual Universe, there is a ''truth'' in that the size is relative to the reflectiveness or the emittance of the furthest away object, there is also a ''truth'' that this does not show us any relative size to the Universe and space itself, this only shows us relative length between objects relative to light.To describe the visual universe in geometrical maths, we can write the expression4/3 pi r(c)³Where r(c) represents the radius of light we observe from a localised point of the Universe corresponding to a distant body and relative to the length of light between bodies.To describe the Universe and N-dimensional space we can apply the maths expression 4/3 pi N³
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Every ''prediction'' science makes is because of the singularity
    What singularity? Do you mean a divergent expression in some mathematical formalism?


    and simply you can see the start and finish simultaneously
    Simultaneity is frame-dependent if the speed of light is constant for all observers. This follows from the time dilation calculation in my first post. In fact, whenever you ask a question about a potentially relativistic problem, it's always prudent to specify a reference frame. A lot of quantities have different values in different reference frames.


    d/t = +ve(c)=1

    d/t = -ve(c)=1

    net difference t=0
    What are these calculations and what are they trying to show?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    What singularity? Do you mean a divergent expression in some mathematical formalism?




    Simultaneity is frame-dependent if the speed of light is constant for all observers. This follows from the time dilation calculation in my first post. In fact, whenever you ask a question about a potentially relativistic problem, it's always prudent to specify a reference frame. A lot of quantities have different values in different reference frames.




    What are these calculations and what are they trying to show?
    They are vector calculations and the speed of light ebb and flow between two bodies.


    If you travelled from A-B and I vice versus at the speed of light, there would be no net difference in time of the two journeys.


    So if you was on the moon looking at me and I looking at you , we see each other simultaneously ,


    1s +ve = 1s -ve


    which says 1 second plus vector is equal to 1 second minus vector at the same speed.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    They are vector calculations and the speed of light ebb and flow between two bodies.
    Can you define the quantities in the equations and specify what the notation +ve(c) and -ve(c) means?


    If you travelled from A-B and I vice versus at the speed of light, there would be no net difference in time of the two journeys.
    Correct. We've performed the same journey, at the same velocity in all reference frames. Of course this isn't possible if we have any mass, but if we pretend we are massless entities - fine.


    So if you was on the moon looking at me and I looking at you , we see each other simultaneously ,
    What do you mean?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)




    What do you mean?

    If I shoot you and you shoot me simultaneously the bullets arrive at the same time, we see the ''bullet'' at the same time there is no the sun is 8 minutes in the past.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Can you define the quantities in the equations and specify what the notation +ve(c) and -ve(c) means?



    v is velocity ,( speed and direction), e signifies it is a vector, , + specifies travelling away from you, - specifies travelling towards you, c is the speed of light


    L= 299 792 458 m

    t=1s
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    What singularity? Do you mean a divergent expression in some mathematical formalism?




    Simultaneity is frame-dependent if the speed of light is constant for all observers.

    All frames of reference are equal, our frame of reference is the light, Mars frame of reference is the light, etc, The caesium is not related to time.

    In a vacuum on Mars and Earth we would both agree our light clock is simultaneous and there is no simultaneity.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    What singularity? Do you mean a divergent expression in some mathematical formalism?

    I am not sure I understand your question.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Ok, so do you want to discuss the opposing facts that shows it can't be that way?
    If time dilation is not a real thing then the existence of the LHC is an impossibility.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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.