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

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    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.
    Yes, i keep relating to SR because that is (fundamentally) what you are undermining with your theory. Furthermore you are also breaking General relativity, Maxwells equations, the standard model and basically the whole foundation of physics.

    Just to address a point: 0 \not= 1.

    Ok now to address question 4. You are asking a philosophical question here, is maths discovered or invented?
    Now of course you will shout 'INVENTED' because well, it kind of is. However this does not dismiss all of mathematics to be of human invention. Logic can be found everywhere independent of human intervention.
    Secondly Maxwell did not just 'stumble' onto some set of equations that just 'so happened to fit' Faraday findings. They were formulated through mathematical rigor. It was supported by Faradays findings, thats the difference

    To address point 5, im not sure what you're getting at. This 'box' is exactly what a reference frame means, you observe from inside your 'box' at your velocity from your point in time...

    And about SR, prove that it contradicts reality and your theory does not.
    Im not sure what this k value you speak of is either
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    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.
    I'm sorry, we cannot move forward until you stop being so stubborn about your theory of time=0

    SR is built in the principal of intervals of time, as soon as you say there is no existence of a time interval then of course you are going to find that everything in SR will be inconsistent in your model of what you think time is.

    It is exactly the same as me defining 0=1 and therefore all of maths is incorrect, it is absolutely ridiculous. You can define a time and you can define a time interval. So are you saying you are zero years old? Are you saying it takes 0 time to get from london to scotland? If you say time = 0 then you have grossly violated all laws of physics. You'd define everything to have infinite acceleration when a non-zero force acts on it and you'd define everything to have an undefined acceleration when no force acts on it. Can you not see how absolutely stupid your model is? You are destroying perfectly planted physics just because you think it is hipster to try and debunk a theory when in actual fact, everybody here is laughing at you because you simply cannot accept any of the facts I, or anybody else here, throws at you.

    And I don't care about past participles, it does not make any difference to the physics. The English language is a man-made construct that does not affect the physical laws, this is why we define things axiomatically in mathematics and we are careful in where to apply it. Unlike yourself when you seem to think deltat=0 for all events. Just listen to yourself, please.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    That doesn't make sense. And I'm not sure how you could modify it so that it does make sense and gives an answer that when squared gives -1. I assume that is your convention for what i denotes, since it is the standard and you haven't specified a definition.


    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Not mentioned in my query.
    Very good.


    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    I can count to 1, my query involves 0 and 1 and i , I can do some maths educated from the internet .
    The very concept of speed relies completely upon differential calculus on the real (which is a technical term) numbers, and relating it fully to distance also require the integral calculus. You are deluding yourself if you think you you can disprove the entirety of modern physics without using anything but 0, 1 and the square root of -1.

    In your formalism, what is the distance between me and a person who is standing 1 unit of distance away from me in the horizontal direction and 1 unit of distance away from me in the vertical direction? How many units of distance lie between us?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The-Spartan)
    Yes, i keep relating to SR because that is (fundamentally) what you are undermining with your theory. Furthermore you are also breaking General relativity, Maxwells equations, the standard model and basically the whole foundation of physics.

    Just to address a point: 0 \not= 1.

    Ok now to address question 4. You are asking a philosophical question here, is maths discovered or invented?
    Now of course you will shout 'INVENTED' because well, it kind of is. However this does not dismiss all of mathematics to be of human invention. Logic can be found everywhere independent of human intervention.
    Secondly Maxwell did not just 'stumble' onto some set of equations that just 'so happened to fit' Faraday findings. They were formulated through mathematical rigor. It was supported by Faradays findings, thats the difference

    To address point 5, im not sure what you're getting at. This 'box' is exactly what a reference frame means, you observe from inside your 'box' at your velocity from your point in time...

    And about SR, prove that it contradicts reality and your theory does not.
    Im not sure what this k value you speak of is either

    firstly 0 is equal to 1,


    0000000000
    11111111111

    However this will confuse your already confusion of understanding something so simple so perhaps we will leave that be for now.


    The box is my user name on another forum, I wanted to call it a quantum singularity, but they said no that was a star trek thing, so i used my user name and called it a box singularity which was quite suiting considering a box square law of light.

    I already know it contradicts most of science, I do know how big my idea is and understand why the teachers try to avoid talking to me.


    I wish I did not have this idea to be honest, it is quite a scary thought that I may just be right.



    Let me take you back a step or two and consider a small scientific experiment using a candle placed in the centre of a huge warehouse, the observer holding the candle does not observe the warehouse walls, do you understand that?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    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.
    I think you will find that i = \sqrt{-1} actually.
    The actual vector distance to that star would be \sqrt{(x_2-x_1)^2+(y_2-y_1)^2+(z_2-z_1)^2} where \begin{pmatrix} x_1 \\ y_1 \\ z_1 \end{pmatrix} is your position in space time and \begin{pmatrix} x_2 \\ y_2 \\ z_2 \end{pmatrix} is the stars position within it.
    Judging from the relative blackness, the universe is only observable. Therefore in fact this vector would be one of two things:
    1)infinitely long
    2)as long as to the edge of the observable universe (which i may add is expanding at a ridiculously fast rate)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    That doesn't make sense. And I'm not sure how you could modify it so that it does make sense and gives an answer that when squared gives -1. I assume that is your convention for what i denotes, since it is the standard and you haven't specified a definition.

    i denotes imaginary number, you can imagine the vector I just gave you is any number because space itself does not reflect light, A to i,
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The-Spartan)
    2)as long as to the edge of the observable universe (which i may add is expanding at a ridiculously fast rate)


    NO, the objects are expanding their length apart, The Hubble red shift shows this, they are decreasing in relative area and the light is shifting to a 0 dimension singularity between the two point sources.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    i denotes imaginary number, you can imagine the vector I just gave you is any number because space itself does not reflect light, A to i,
    Do you know what an imaginary number is? It doesn't just mean 'a number I imagined'. It has an extremely precise definition that is usually summed up in schools by defining it to be the number that gives -1 when squared. If you measure an imaginary distance (or any other physical quantity really), something is seriously wrong with your formalism.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    NO, the objects are expanding their length apart, The Hubble red shift shows this, they are decreasing in relative area and the light is shifting to a 0 dimension singularity between the two point sources.
    YES, the universe is expanding. besides this, it is expanding at an increasing rate, proportional by H_0.
    what do you mean the light is 'shifting' to a 0 dimension singularity. You are forgetting about mean flux density of photons along with Maxwells teachings, spectral flux density and not forgetting about the wave-particle duality, save that of harmonics and pretty much everything we know about waves and particles.

    As long as light exists in this universe, it cannot be 0 dimensional. Unless you are, of course, implying that light itself is a string, vibrating in over 20 dimensions but actually being dimensionless itself. Which is false.

    As to address a point you made earlier, I stand by that 0 \not = 1.
    You may confused with the identity that 0!=1. This does not imply that 0=1.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Do you know what an imaginary number is? It doesn't just mean 'a number I imagined'. It has an extremely precise definition that is usually summed up in schools by defining it to be the number that gives -1 when squared. If you measure an imaginary distance (or any other physical quantity really), something is seriously wrong with your formalism.

    Well I mean imaginary any number or n-dimensional,
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The-Spartan)

    As long as light exists in this universe, it cannot be 0 dimensional.

    .
    No 0=1 I am not confused,


    What is the dimension of the invisible man?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Well I mean imaginary any number or n-dimensional,
    Imaginary and any number are very different terms. You cannot have an imaginary unit of length in real space.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    No 0=1 I am not confused,


    What is the dimension of the invisible man?
    Ok then, to break this down.
    Your proof allows fallacies as such:
    Let 0=1
    \frac{1}{0} = \frac{0}{0} = \frac{1}{1} = \frac{0}{1} = 1 = 0

    Are you trolling me at this point? 0 objects is infact 1 object?

    What invisible man do you speak of? he would be still infact 3D in real space, however light will not interact with his molecules. If this is what you mean.Unless you are assuming that he is made of some sort of dark matter, in which case due to current theories would mean he would be a collection of strings vibrating in 6 spatial dimensions.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The-Spartan)
    Imaginary and any number are very different terms. You cannot have an imaginary unit of length in real space.

    The imaginary number exists like or not, I did not make or put this imaginary number there, We can only imagine any number of a distance that only has one frame of reference. There has to exist two point sources to allow a length to be defined, When we look at the blackness we can only imagine the length of how far it goes beyond the last visual body.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    No 0=1 I am not confused,


    What is the dimension of the invisible man?
    To clarify, what do you mean 0 = 1? Do you mean your k = 0 and k = 1 cases are analagous, or do you actually mean that the number 1 is mathematically equal to the number 0?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    The imaginary number exists like or not, I did not make or put this imaginary number there, We can only imagine any number of a distance that only has one frame of reference. There has to exist two point sources to allow a length to be defined, When we look at the blackness we can only imagine the length of how far it goes beyond the last visual body.
    You do not have to imagine anything, we dont just plonk coordinates in the depths of space and call them the edge, we have a well defined edge to the universe.
    Eventually the edge will become harder to see, as objects lights from the edge will begin to shift into the IR region as they approach c from our perspective.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The-Spartan)
    Ok then, to break this down.
    Your proof allows fallacies as such:
    Let 0=1
    \frac{1}{0} = \frac{0}{0} = \frac{1}{1} = \frac{0}{1} = 1 = 0

    Are you trolling me at this point? 0 objects is infact 1 object?

    What invisible man do you speak of? he would be still infact 3D in real space, however light will not interact with his molecules. If this is what you mean.Unless you are assuming that he is made of some sort of dark matter, in which case due to current theories would mean he would be a collection of strings vibrating in 6 spatial dimensions.

    I am not trolling you, consider an empty hard drive , all it contains is zeros, replace one zero with 1, 1 occupies 0. This is the same with time , draw a zero time line

    00000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000


    then draw 1 seconds

    11111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111


    One replaces 0 and is equal to 0 position.

    Consider we don't start counting from 0 , we always start by saying 1, 1 is an event gone by of continuous 0.
    One marks zero .



    Then of course we have 1 as one object and 0 as space.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 16Characters....)
    To clarify, what do you mean 0 = 1? Do you mean your k = 0 and k = 1 cases are analagous, or do you actually mean that the number 1 is mathematically equal to the number 0?
    I am pretty sure he means mathematical, given by this very very rigorous proof:

    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    firstly 0 is equal to 1,
    0000000000
    11111111111
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Firstly no, you might not "be right" because you are basing your model on assumptions that do not exist in the physical world, if you are defining 0=1 in your crazy definition of mathematics then you cannot do any level of mathematics as applied to this physical world, because in defining 0=1 you can iteratively define 1=2 and 0=n for any n. This literally violates all laws, including your special little inverse square law that you keep bringing up even though you barely explain what this box singularity is and how the inverse square law applies to it.

    Can I ask you some serious questions.

    1) If 0=1 is your axiom of choice, please define all the laws of algebra as applied to your model of physics (this does not apply to the real world because of your first axiom
    2) Please define all of your new laws of physics (because the above axiom violates all of the laws in the real world - including the inverse square law)
    3) If you define 0=1 then you AUTOMATICALLY define a time interval because you defined dt=0 correct? Therefore dt=1 for all dt. Hence all time intervals are 1? But wait, 0=1 therefore 0=n for all n? So are you saying a time interval can take any value you tag to it?

    This is pretty entertaining.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    I am not trolling you, consider an empty hard drive , all it contains is zeros, replace one zero with 1, 1 occupies 0. This is the same with time , draw a zero time line

    00000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000


    then draw 1 seconds

    11111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111


    One replaces 0 and is equal to 0 position.

    Consider we don't start counting from 0 , we always start by saying 1, 1 is an event gone by of continuous 0.
    One marks zero .



    Then of course we have 1 as one object and 0 as space.
    Ok lets address this slowly.
    1)Bits of space in a computer are absolutely not comparable to time.
    2)Just because they occupy the same physical space on a hard drive does not make them equal. if 0_2 = 1_2 then we would have very interesting (albeit absolutely useless) computers.
    3)One moment of time does not equal the last. It is the same thing saying that you can break entropy, as if \mathrm{d} S = 0. You are breaking the second (fundamental) law of thermodynamics.
    4)If we started counting from 1, there wouldnt be a 0 to consider. 1 in that case would be the start case, and you could perform an offset of -1 to make 1=0. this would be then a hypothetical situation
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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

    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.