Every single experiment in history confirms SR and GR too for that matter.(Original post by AlbertXY)
You think a student is a troll for questioning the integrity of the knowledge been presented to him?
Please refrain from embarrassing yourself further.

 Follow
 121
 08042016 19:19

Revision help in partnership with Birmingham City University

AlbertXY
 Follow
 0 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to AlbertXY
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 122
 08042016 20:26
(Original post by Louisb19)
Every single experiment in history confirms SR and GR too for that matter.
Please refrain from embarrassing yourself further.
Why would one be embarrassed for posing difficult questions in statement form?
It is not me who should be embarrassed, the lack of vigour is not on my part. If you can not convince me by disproving what I said and the errors I have pointed out, then obviously your information is flawed.
added there is not a shred of evidence that shows a time dilation.Last edited by AlbertXY; 08042016 at 20:33. 
 Follow
 123
 08042016 20:46
(Original post by AlbertXY)
Why would one be embarrassed for posing difficult questions in statement form?
It is not me who should be embarrassed, the lack of vigour is not on my part. If you can not convince me by disproving what I said and the errors I have pointed out, then obviously your information is flawed.
added there is not a shred of evidence that shows a time dilation.
By all means write up a scientific paper and receive your nobel prize... 
AlbertXY
 Follow
 0 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to AlbertXY
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 124
 08042016 21:11
(Original post by Louisb19)
I found it really hard to follow what you have said as it lacks any Rigour.
By all means write up a scientific paper and receive your nobel prize...
My paper started with this do you think this is a reasonable start?
Abstract  Representing the Universe in a way that is accurate and true to the relativity of observation, simplistic propositions that are self evidently true that will show us the truth and honesty of various physical phenomenon of the Universe in which the basis of logical process and rational thought will show the justification of the axiom propositions to be true.
The Theory of Realistic.
1. Introduction
2. Explanation of an axiom
3. Defining various definition
4. Defining Theory and Hypothesis
5. The meaning of maths and maths use
6. The meaning of limitation
7. The meaning and value of Geometrics
8. Explaining the constant'constant nature of light
9. Explaining The Box singularity
10. Explaining positive mass and negative mass density function and contrary to belief negative is attracted to negative.
1.Introduction
In reality there exists a fundamental law, a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based. This law being the relativity of something, in which two observers have to equally agree on something. If there is an agreement to disagree about that something, then with a certainty, we know there is an uncertainty about that something. Thus requiring a third, forth or many other observers and opinions to try and devise a rational logical answer about that something. Often we seek evidence to support that something, observation and the relativity of observation between two observers being the rudiment evidence. In this paper, we shall be looking at the rudiment of evidence and the relativity of observation between two observers.
2. Explanation of an axiom
An axiom is something that is self evidently true, it is important we understand that things that are self evidently true, are true, regardless of the “truth” of propositions in this sense is founded exclusively on our limited finite observation of the Universe. We must presume that axiom's observed in our finite visual Universe, coexist to be true in a broader scale of an infinite Universe or Multiverse. There would be no valid reason to assume that our observed physical laws and process is not the same and equal too, on a broader scale. It would be foolish of ourselves to deny axiom's regardless of experimental outcomes, theory or hypothesis.
3.Defining various definition
We should take great consideration and respect for definition, it is universally important that we define simplistic axiom's in a simple understandable manner that clarifies the exact content with strict definition that all readers of the information can easily relate to without misinterpretation of the information by ambiguous meanings. When observing a definition and considering a definition it is of utmost importance we apply the ''truths'' we observe of the thing or phenomenon we are defining. In respect of this I feel a need to define my own definition content to rule out any ambiguity with my meanings. In our visual Universe there is several key axiom definitions that need to be applied.
Space  space is the volume of ''seemingly empty'' distance that surrounds an observer
Distance  An isotropic unbounded quantity of Ndimensional 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 Ndimensional space
Visual Universe  a finite observed length within a Universe
Matter  Solidity or substance that occupies space
Energy  A group category for various types of power.
Power  The ability to do work : the generation of electrical energy at an atomic level
Objects  matter existing in bonded clusters.
mass The rest force measurement of a body at rest relative to an inertial accelerating reference frame.
Motion  the continuous displacement of matter in space
Dimensions The measurement of a physical object : the measurement of a volume of space
Gravity  the property of matter that has directly proportionate attractive ability
.Force  1. The exchange of energy to create work
2. The inertia existing between two bodies at relative rest mass relative to each other.Last edited by AlbertXY; 08042016 at 21:14. 
Implication
 Follow
 27 followers
 18 badges
 Send a private message to Implication
Offline18ReputationRep: Follow
 125
 09042016 13:14
(Original post by AlbertXY)
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.
(Original post by AlbertXY)
They are vector calculations and the speed of light ebb and flow between two bodies.
If you travelled from AB and I vice versus at the speed of light, there would be no net difference in time of the two journeys.(Original post by AlbertXY)
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
Consider instead if only I travel from A to B, while you stay at A. If we both carry perfect watches, your watch will have recorded a shorter time than mine for my travel from A to B. This is what SR says, and has been confirmed countless times by experiment.
(Original post by AlbertXY)
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.
(Original post by AlbertXY)
I am not sure I understand your question.
Every ''prediction'' science makes is because of the singularityLast edited by Implication; 09042016 at 13:18. 
AlbertXY
 Follow
 0 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to AlbertXY
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 126
 10042016 08:28
(Original post by Implication)
Simultaneously in what reference frame? If one of us is moving relative to the other (which in the case of the moon and the Earth, we are  in an extremely complicated fashion), two events that occur simultaneously for one of us may not be simultaneous for the other.
The simple fact is that the Caesium clock is not an invariant perfect clock, it is not accurate for recording time.
I'm asking you to define what you mean by 'the singularity'. In mathematics and physics, 'singularity' has quite a precise definition.
But in case you don' get it ,
The Box singularity.
In chapter 7 it is mentioned the proposition of a Box singularity. A singularity ''a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space–time when matter is infinitely dense, such as at the centre of a black hole''. However the singularity I mention is of a relativity nature with similarities but not exact to present definition. To define singularity in the terms of understanding the Box singularity , I would like to define the Box singualrity as The infinitesimally dimension of relative observation. In terms of value we can describe this with the value 0 or n which are equals and can be infinitely small or infinetly large in value relative to the Box singularity. In chapter 6 I mentioned the relativity of observation of two observers expanding their length apart and the relativity of the observed area contraction relative to each other. Now let us consider the details of this and consider the relativistic mirrored ''diamond'' square law between two bodies and take consideration for the stretching of points relatively contracting the X,Y central plane to a box singularity relative to the observers.
Above the model. this applies to any radius (r). A speck of dust not more than ten feet away from you follows this law, all bodies relative to each other follow this law.
p.s Naked science forum retain the copy rights for my diagrams, I retain my intellectual content.Last edited by AlbertXY; 10042016 at 08:34. 
Protoxylic
 Follow
 44 followers
 14 badges
 Send a private message to Protoxylic
Offline14ReputationRep: Follow
 127
 10042016 09:05
(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.
You also say above that "All events are simultaneous, there is no simultaneity". You say that all events are simultaneous and then immediately contradict the statement. If you had a perfect clock (that yes, would run based on light that travels at c regardless of frame) then of course we would both measure different times if one moved relative to the other. It is quite obvious when you consider the space interval that the light has to travel in both its rest frame and an observer's frame  they are different. The light has to travel a larger distance in the observer's frame (the hypotenuse of a triangle).
"Infinitesimally dimension of relative observation" has no meaning.
What problems do you have with the current derivations of SR?
You say there are no current proofs of SR:
Muon decay or any high energy physics experiment such as at ATLAS or CERN
Stellar abberation
Relativistic doppler effects
Michelson and Morley  experimental evidence for c being constant
Not to mention that there are currently so many ways that you could debunk SR, but nobody has done it, because it is well seated in both experimental proof and mathematical rigour.
"An object moving relative to another expands". This is also wrong. Define what it means for an object to have dimensions. First you need to specify a coordinate system and a length in that coordinate system. If this object is a cube with side length A I define it as centred on its origin then all of its sides with have coordinates +/(a/2,a/2,a/2), (+/a/2,a/2,a/2), (a/2,+/a/2,a/2) and (a/2,a/2,+/a,2). I define length as deltaS= sqrt[deltax^2+deltay^2+deltaz^2]. If the object is moving towards you then in euclidian space, it does NOT expand by this definition of length relative to any observer. Simply because the coordinate system is invariant under translation. What you are saying is that the angle subtended by the extrema of the object and your eye expands. THIS is not length as this is dimensionless (i.e an angle).Before you say something along the lines of "But I see the object larger in my frame as it moves towards me". Yes, the ANGLE simply because the distance between you and the object is decreasing  this is simple geometry come on. If you extend your axis towards the object, you will measure the same length.
You said to have an open mind, but you're stating everybody is wrong and yourself as right. Sorry but your argument of being open minded to be a 'true scientist' is now worthless.Last edited by Protoxylic; 10042016 at 09:12. 
AlbertXY
 Follow
 0 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to AlbertXY
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 128
 10042016 09:50
(Original post by Protoxylic)
Sorry but your argument of being open minded to be a 'true scientist' is now worthless.
That is untrue, it is I that am being open minded and you that is being stereo typical and replying with the present Dogma we all know and can observe on Wiki.
The teacher is trying to force discipline and not considering the questions the student has asked.
Do you agree that any measurement no matter how small of an increment the measurement is when regarding time is instantaneous history.
The now , the present is 0, in ten minutes time it will still be 0, 10 minutes marks an increment of history position.
The Caesium atom is not time, is not related to time.
The evidence is clearly flawed , how does the teacher conceive that this is not premise for argument from the student?
I will answer the Dogma questions when I receive an answer . 
Protoxylic
 Follow
 44 followers
 14 badges
 Send a private message to Protoxylic
Offline14ReputationRep: Follow
 129
 10042016 10:24
The time is not zero, you're defining it to be so. I can define anything to be anything it doesn't mean it debunks theory.
Time has elapsed, the time is not zero n seconds later that is a ridiculous statement and one you should be quite embarrassed about.
With anything observable you need a means to measure the observable, you are not measuring it by defining time as instantaneous history and therefore all is zero that is ridiculous.
Posted from TSR MobileLast edited by Protoxylic; 10042016 at 11:52. 
Implication
 Follow
 27 followers
 18 badges
 Send a private message to Implication
Offline18ReputationRep: Follow
 130
 10042016 12:26
(Original post by AlbertXY)
You are now just quoting present information, this information I deem wrong, so all the present information you quote is irrelevant.
So I will ask again, in what reference frame are you asking your questions? Then we can do the calculations, and check whether we get the same results in different frames. If we don't, you will be proven wrong.
All events are simultaneous, there is no simultaneity.
See how this game works?
You mention a perfect clock, the only perfect ''clock'' that exists is the speed of light.
If you had a perfect clock and I had a perfect clock we would both observe no change in time anytime.
The simple fact is that the Caesium clock is not an invariant perfect clock, it is not accurate for recording time.
If you had read the geometrics part I posted you would know what singularity I refer to.
But in case you don' get it ,
The Box singularity.
In chapter 7 it is mentioned the proposition of a Box singularity. A singularity ''a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space–time when matter is infinitely dense, such as at the centre of a black hole''. However the singularity I mention is of a relativity nature with similarities but not exact to present definition. To define singularity in the terms of understanding the Box singularity , I would like to define the Box singualrity as The infinitesimally dimension of relative observation. In terms of value we can describe this with the value 0 or n which are equals and can be infinitely small or infinetly large in value relative to the Box singularity. In chapter 6 I mentioned the relativity of observation of two observers expanding their length apart and the relativity of the observed area contraction relative to each other. Now let us consider the details of this and consider the relativistic mirrored ''diamond'' square law between two bodies and take consideration for the stretching of points relatively contracting the X,Y central plane to a box singularity relative to the observers.
Above the model. this applies to any radius (r). A speck of dust not more than ten feet away from you follows this law, all bodies relative to each other follow this law.
p.s Naked science forum retain the copy rights for my diagrams, I retain my intellectual content.
What is your level of mathematics education? 
AlbertXY
 Follow
 0 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to AlbertXY
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 131
 10042016 15:22
(Original post by Protoxylic)
The time is not zero, you're defining it to be so. I can define anything to be anything it doesn't mean it debunks theory.
Time has elapsed, the time is not zero n seconds later that is a ridiculous statement and one you should be quite embarrassed about.
With anything observable you need a means to measure the observable, you are not measuring it by defining time as instantaneous history and therefore all is zero that is ridiculous.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I have had plenty of agreement that anything greater than 0 is a measurement of history. You can not expand 0 without it being in past tense. Please feel free to try it. Time has elapsed,
''past tense: elapsed; past participle: elapsed''
It is not me being ridiculous and it is not me who should feel embarrassed, the teacher is clearly wrong by stating ''The time is not zero, you're defining it to be so'', I am not defining it to be so, it is so and what you are doing is defining it to be some sort of measurement equal to an increment you created in imagination equal to a length .
''With anything observable you need a means to measure the observable''
That would be your eyes. 
AlbertXY
 Follow
 0 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to AlbertXY
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 132
 10042016 15:24
(Original post by Implication)
So I will ask again, in what reference frame are you asking your questions? 
AlbertXY
 Follow
 0 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to AlbertXY
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 133
 10042016 15:26
(Original post by Implication)
I have a fairly accurate clock next to me right now, and I'm observing a change in time.

AlbertXY
 Follow
 0 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to AlbertXY
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 134
 10042016 15:34
(Original post by Implication)
But you've forgotten to take into account the light density of the geometric meanaveraged position. Without doing so implicitly, your relativismstyled divergence sequence can only take complexity or hyper infinite values.
What is your level of mathematics education?
My education is unimportant, you are an ignorant teacher if you have missed out reading. posts . I have not forgot to add multidimensional and a new Universal model.
Last edited by AlbertXY; 10042016 at 15:42. 
TheSpartan
 Follow
 9 followers
 6 badges
 Send a private message to TheSpartan
Offline6ReputationRep: Follow
 135
 10042016 15:40
(Original post by AlbertXY)
You do not observe a change in time, you are not observing the time of the clock, you are observing your own ''time'' observing the clock.
This is clearly shown in the derivation of SR.
You seem to not understand what a reference frame is.
Look into the derivation of SR.
edit: and tell me what you think is wrong with it.
edit 2: The fancy pancy images you have posted above show nothing of importance without mathematical rigour showing how you derived these diagrams.
you also need to explain what they represent.
Would also be good if you could explain why these images/theories you proclaim to be so true are superior to the current model.Last edited by TheSpartan; 10042016 at 15:49. 
AlbertXY
 Follow
 0 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to AlbertXY
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 136
 10042016 15:58
(Original post by TheSpartan)
You are, indeed, observing a change in time. Actually exactly that.
This is clearly shown in the derivation of SR.
You seem to not understand what a reference frame is.
Look into the derivation of SR.
edit: and tell me what you think is wrong with it.
edit 2: The fancy pancy images you have posted above show nothing of importance without mathematical rigour showing how you derived these diagrams.
you also need to explain what they represent.
Would also be good if you could explain why these images/theories you proclaim to be so true are superior to the current model.
You clearly keep relating to SR then you make presumptions that I do not understand what a reference frame is. All reference frames have one thing in common, observation. All the ''fancy pancy'' diagrams are based on present knowledge, the inverse square law, Lorentz visual contractions and the magnitude of light over radius.
I am using fundamental maths, my idea consists of only 0 and 1 and 0=1.
4.The meaning of maths and maths use dependencies and none dependencies. We must remember that numbers are the invention of logical rules by humans to aid our existence. Numbers do not exist in the Universe, they only exist in our mental interpretation of process by using number equivalents to explain and accurately fit and explain a process or event. . Almost anything we know are interpretations or concepts, we our very likely to never know the ''real thing''  we observe something, , gain some knowledge about that something and create a concept to describe it. We should not mistake our concepts with the real thing.The Universe exists without numbers and events happen regardless of the numbers involved. It is important that we understand that maths is not the answer to the Universe , it is a way to define a process or event in a different context other than words alone. The process or event always preceding the maths, it is important to recall our history, Maxwell several years later creating the maths to ''fit'' Faraday's findings, the maths a later of the former. However the maths can also be independent to the process in its use of prediction and calculation of the prediction of Universal events.
5.The meaning of limitationWhen we observe limitation, we observe restriction, not only are we restricted to a visual restriction that establishes a finite observation visual Universe, we are restricted to thinking inside of the ''box''and have limitations in our thinking. Any thinking of ''outside'' of the box, can only be deemed to be speculation and hypothesis and never deemed to be fact until a future time of further investigations may lead to new findings beyond our limitations. However, we must not disregard the axioms of the inside of the ''box'' when thinking outside of the ''box''.It is also important that we consider why we have limitation and what is the possible cause(s) of these limitations, not overlooking the diminishing of light over distance, matter reflectivity and the relativity of objects moving away from an observer relatively appear to decrease in size to a point of no existence.
If the teacher had bothered to read the students essay , the teacher would understand why the student feels there is something amiss.
Absolute space k=0 is interwoven with relativistic space k=1.
And what's wrong with SR? just about all of it, it is contradictory to reality.Last edited by AlbertXY; 10042016 at 16:15. 
Implication
 Follow
 27 followers
 18 badges
 Send a private message to Implication
Offline18ReputationRep: Follow
 137
 10042016 16:19
(Original post by AlbertXY)
My eyes.
(Original post by AlbertXY)
You do not observe a change in time, you are not observing the time of the clock,
you are observing your own ''time'' observing the clock.
And how can time observe anything?
(Original post by AlbertXY)
My education is unimportant, you are an ignorant teacher if you have missed out reading. posts .
Let's roll with the studentteacher analogy for the moment though. As your teacher, it is of fundamental importance that I know your previous training in mathematics so I can explain concepts to you from a level that you understand. At the very least I need to determine whether you have enough prior knowledge to comprehend the theory.
I have not forgot to add multidimensional and a new Universal model.
Those diagrams mean absolutely nothing without context, explanation and labels. Have you ever read a paper from a reputable scientific journal? 
AlbertXY
 Follow
 0 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to AlbertXY
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 138
 10042016 16:29
(Original post by Implication)
Those diagrams mean absolutely nothing without context, explanation and labels. Have you ever read a paper from a reputable scientific journal?
Firstly they are not Psuedo dimensions, I will answer your other questions in a bit,
Look up at the sky at night , pick a distant star, look next to the star where there is no star, there is relative blackness, can you tell me the quantity of the length looking at that vector? I think you will find the quantity is i. 
AlbertXY
 Follow
 0 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to AlbertXY
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 139
 10042016 16:33
Not mentioned in my query. 
AlbertXY
 Follow
 0 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to AlbertXY
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 140
 10042016 16:35
(Original post by Implication)
Let's roll with the studentteacher analogy for the moment though. As your teacher, it is of fundamental importance that I know your previous training in mathematics so I can explain concepts to you from a level that you understand. At the very least I need to determine whether you have enough prior knowledge to comprehend the theory.
Related discussions
 Please help on mechanics physics question?
 CfE Higher Physics 2017/18
 The Ultimate "OMG Help me with my EE" Thread
 Mathematical Project on Waves
 Mental Health Support Society XVII
 The Ultimate "OMG Help me with my EE" Thread
 Edexcel 6BIO5 ~ 20h June 2014 ~ A2 Biology
 length contraction help
 Mental Health Support Society XVIII
 Personal statements  if you could be completely honest what ...
Related university courses

Physics with Particle Physics & Cosmology
Swansea University

Physics
University of York

Physics
HeriotWatt University

Physics
University of Hull

Environmental Science and Physics
Keele University

Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
University of St Andrews

Physics with Astrophysics with Professional and Research Placements
University of Bath

Physics with Astrophysics with Science Foundation Year
Keele University

Physics with Nuclear Technology BSc Hons (Sandwich)
University of the West of Scotland

Theoretical Physics (4 years)
University of Birmingham
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.
 charco
 Mr M
 Changing Skies
 F1's Finest
 rayquaza17
 Notnek
 RDKGames
 davros
 Gingerbread101
 Kvothe the Arcane
 TeeEff
 The Empire Odyssey
 Protostar
 TheConfusedMedic
 nisha.sri
 claireestelle
 Doonesbury
 furryface12
 Amefish
 harryleavey
 Lemur14
 brainzistheword
 Rexar
 Sonechka
 TheAnxiousSloth
 EstelOfTheEyrie
 CoffeeAndPolitics
 an_atheist
 Labrador99
 EmilySarah00
 thekidwhogames
 entertainmyfaith
 Eimmanuel