You are Here: Home >< Physics

# I need time dilation help please? watch

1. (Original post by Protoxylic)
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.

At the end of the dots how many digits is there?.............0

At the end of the dots how many digits is there?.............1

yes 0=n because simply 1 length of n

''So are you saying a time interval can take any value you tag to it?''

A time interval anywhere in the Universe is 0, all observers have to agree than any measurement greater than 0 is a past event.
2. (Original post by Protoxylic)
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.
PRSOM. Im not sure if its entertaining or embarrasing. I need to do some work today
3. (Original post by The-Spartan)
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

1 can be any size, 900 mile is 1 length

Sorry my head hurts lol I have had to explain this so many times looking for a simple answer.
4. (Original post by AlbertXY)
At the end of the dots how many digits is there?.............0

At the end of the dots how many digits is there?.............1

yes 0=n because simply 1 length of n

''So are you saying a time interval can take any value you tag to it?''

A time interval anywhere in the Universe is 0, all observers have to agree than any measurement greater than 0 is a past event.
Right boys we can all get back to work now, there's the contradiction we have all been waiting for.
5. (Original post by Protoxylic)
Right boys we can all get back to work now, there's the contradiction we have all been waiting for.
6. (Original post by AlbertXY)
1 can be any size, 900 mile is 1 length

Sorry my head hurts lol I have had to explain this so many times looking for a simple answer.
Actually no because these numbers have units. 900 miles does not equal 1 length. Because if 900 miles = 1 length then does 1800 miles = 2 lengths, this makes sense. But if you define two length scales in the same frame, that is inconsistent.

In other words you cannot say 900 miles is your length scale and at the same time 10 miles is your length scale because that would mean there would be multiple answers for any length in any frame and you wouldn't be able to prove anything geometrically because everything would be a contradiction.

I'm seeing a pattern here, you make an axiom of your own and then act surprised when you apply it to see that it contradicts the physical world. Ok that's obvious and we all know it does that, does it mean it applies to the real world? Does it ****.
7. (Original post by AlbertXY)
1 can be any size, 900 mile is 1 length

Sorry my head hurts lol I have had to explain this so many times looking for a simple answer.
Ok congrats you have made a new unit of measurement. Does it provide any sort of improvement over the metre? how does it fit in with SI units? Why 900 miles? Have you considered what the dimensions are here? what implications does this have on the current models?
These are the questions that need to be answered for your theory. At the moment, not one has been answered with rigour.
8. (Original post by Protoxylic)
Actually no because these numbers have units. 900 miles does not equal 1 length. Because if 900 miles = 1 length then does 1800 miles = 2 lengths, this makes sense. But if you define two length scales in the same frame, that is inconsistent.

In other words you cannot say 900 miles is your length scale and at the same time 10 miles is your length scale because that would mean there would be multiple answers for any length in any frame and you wouldn't be able to prove anything geometrically because everything would be a contradiction.

I'm seeing a pattern here, you make an axiom of your own and then act surprised when you apply it to see that it contradicts the physical world. Ok that's obvious and we all know it does that, does it mean it applies to the real world? Does it ****.
No 1800 = 1 length also.

one ruler is one ruler no matter what the length.
9. (Original post by AlbertXY)
Are you blind?

0=n - you defined it to be so (1)
dt=0 you said this is true in nature (2)

(2) contradicts (1) and also the other way around because now dt=n and therefore time intervals exist.
10. (Original post by The-Spartan)
Ok congrats you have made a new unit of measurement. Does it provide any sort of improvement over the metre? how does it fit in with SI units? Why 900 miles? Have you considered what the dimensions are here? what implications does this have on the current models?
These are the questions that need to be answered for your theory. At the moment, not one has been answered with rigour.
I think you misunderstand.
11. (Original post by AlbertXY)
No 1800 = 1 length also.

one ruler is one ruler no matter what the length.
I understand that 1800 miles is a length, thanks.

So if there are 50 people in a room do you say there is one person?
12. (Original post by Protoxylic)
Are you blind?

0=n - you defined it to be so (1)
dt=0 you said this is true in nature (2)

(2) contradicts (1) and also the other way around because now dt=n and therefore time intervals exist.
You are adding this by ambiguity maybe, d/t=0 when talking about sight, I can see my hand and the sun at the same time.

I provided the maths earlier.

0 to 0 is n-dimensional i a light singularity in any direction,

1 to 1 reflects dimensions of light to produce a length between things.

r1 can be short or long relative to light magnitude. it can also be 0 when two masses are touching.
13. (Original post by AlbertXY)
I think you misunderstand.
No i understand, what i gave there was just an example. They are the kind of questions that need to be asked in science, not
'i dont think its correct cause i am correct, because 0=1 and k=0=1 and bang, einstein was wrong, physics is wrong done proven im right'.
14. (Original post by AlbertXY)
You are adding this by ambiguity maybe, d/t=0 when talking about sight, I can see my hand and the sun at the same time.

I provided the maths earlier.

0 to 0 is n-dimensional i a light singularity in any direction,

1 to 1 reflects dimensions of light to produce a length between things.

r1 can be short or long relative to light magnitude. it can also be 0 when two masses are touching.
Sorry none of the above makes any physical sense.

Your statement of the sun implies that there is distance between you and the Sun.
15. (Original post by Protoxylic)
I understand that 1800 miles is a length, thanks.

So if there are 50 people in a room do you say there is one person?

No there is 50 people why would I say there is one person, people are a relative dot compared to the dimensions we are talking about.
16. (Original post by AlbertXY)
You are adding this by ambiguity maybe, d/t=0 when talking about sight, I can see my hand and the sun at the same time.

I provided the maths earlier.

0 to 0 is n-dimensional i a light singularity in any direction,

1 to 1 reflects dimensions of light to produce a length between things.

r1 can be short or long relative to light magnitude. it can also be 0 when two masses are touching.
what do you mean light singularity. singularity has, as mentioned before, a specific definition that does not coincide with your argument there.

The reflections of light do not magically create distances between objects. Their position in the space time continuum does that.

Light magnitude? whats that? do you mean intensity? flux density? when two masses are touching, where is technically still distance between them...
Not sure what you mean.
17. (Original post by AlbertXY)
No there is 50 people why would I say there is one person, people are a relative dot compared to the dimensions we are talking about.
Nope, people have dimensions. You are defining people to have zero dimensions, yet another stupid axiom of yours that you will use against standard physics to try and derail it. Stop being stupid now.

I could easily say a length is a dot because people are objects and so is a ruler. So a ruler is a dot therefore your definition of a length is dimensionless. Do you see how many flaws your theory has.
18. (Original post by The-Spartan)
what do you mean light singularity. singularity has, as mentioned before, a specific definition that does not coincide with your argument there.

The reflections of light do not magically create distances between objects. Their position in the space time continuum does that.

Light magnitude? whats that? do you mean intensity? flux density? when two masses are touching, where is technically still distance between them...
Not sure what you mean.
Just forget science a minute and forget you know any science, please tell me what you observe with your eyes ,

In the space between your eyes and any object what colour do you see?

Standing on a train track observing a train travelling away from you what do you observe the area of the trains rear does the greater the radius away from you away it travels?

19. (Original post by Protoxylic)
Nope, people have dimensions. You are defining people to have zero dimensions, yet another stupid axiom of yours that you will use against standard physics to try and derail it. Stop being stupid now.

I could easily say a length is a dot because people are objects and so is a ruler. So a ruler is a dot therefore your definition of a length is dimensionless. Do you see how many flaws your theory has.
Just forget science a minute and forget you know any science, please tell me what you observe with your eyes ,

In the space between your eyes and any object what colour do you see?

Standing on a train track observing a train travelling away from you what do you observe the area of the trains rear does the greater the radius away from you away it travels?

20. (Original post by AlbertXY)
Just forget science a minute and forget you know any science, please tell me what you observe with your eyes ,

In the space between your eyes and any object what colour do you see?

Standing on a train track observing a train travelling away from you what do you observe the area of the trains rear does the greater the radius away from you away it travels?

Yes! lets imagine i know nothing about science.
Ok let me start by saying that a human is possibly the worst data measuring device known.
but anyway, there is no definition for the colour of that space. It is invisible to the human eye

The area decreases through which is a well known relationship. (your first axiom breaks this btw, in your world, the train would occupy no space whatsoever wherever it is because the distance is governed by light )

### 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

### 970

students online now

Exam discussions

### Find your exam discussion here

Poll

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