0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
then you are just ignoring relativity theory.
The problem is that you are thinking from an infinite light speed reference plane whereas the universe we live in is limited to light speed C.
Quote from: jerrygg38 on 12/07/2016 14:49:26The problem is that you are thinking from an infinite light speed reference plane whereas the universe we live in is limited to light speed C.Now you assume you know what I am thinking and assume there is a problem with what I am thinking in which you would be wrong on both accounts, I am not thinking an infinite speed of light, I already defined that point (c) is 8 light minutes away from (A) and (B).
Quote from: PhysBang on 12/07/2016 13:29:05 then you are just ignoring relativity theory.That would be because this is my theory and not relativity theory , so why do you respond with such an attempt at subjection to another theory?I have done the dimensional analysis of the scenario and L=Lx for all observers.
So we could say that real time never changes with velocity but gravitational or apparent time does. In many respects the universe behaves like it has an infinite light speed reference plane.
That would be because this is my theory and not relativity theory ,
Quote from: Thebox on 12/07/2016 15:24:37That would be because this is my theory and not relativity theory ,OK, so we know that your theory doesn't work. Thanks for the information!
So what part of the reality of my diagrams do you consider is incorrect?
Quote from: Thebox on 12/07/2016 18:12:57So what part of the reality of my diagrams do you consider is incorrect?I'm just assuming that your diagrams are correct in establishing that your theory can't produce time dilation and length contraction. If this is the case, then your theory doesn't match the available empirical evidence. Again, thank you for pointing this out.
Quote from: PhysBang on 12/07/2016 19:25:42Quote from: Thebox on 12/07/2016 18:12:57So what part of the reality of my diagrams do you consider is incorrect?I'm just assuming that your diagrams are correct in establishing that your theory can't produce time dilation and length contraction. If this is the case, then your theory doesn't match the available empirical evidence. Again, thank you for pointing this out.The Einsteinian solution cannot be denied since it is a best fit solution. This does not mean that the universe we live in works that way. All it means is that linear space time with motion or gravitational differences match Einsteins work. The alternate proposal of looking at space and time is deeply philosophical. The writer states that the speed of vision is infinite. to me this necessitates an infinite light speed reference plane. from this plane things are different. A ruler is absolute. A time clock doesn't vary with velocity. We are in a lightspeed C reference plane. Yet if a space ship left the earth and traveled for a million years at high speed, his clock would be slow. the degenerative processes would be reduced. Yet when the space ship returned to the Earth, it would be in the correct time period. It could not return the day before even though its clocks would say so. therefore time is absolute. You cannot return the day before. You cannot faster than lightspeed and return yesterday. The universe we live in only exists from a split second ago, this split second, and a future split second. thus it is a sandwich of three time periods where the difference in time is of the nanosecond range. Yesterday do not exist. It has been erased. And this appears all over the universe simultaneously. So what did Einstein prove? He proved that clocks slow with speed and gravitational fields. He did not prove that yesterday exists. Thus time is absolute. The writer sees that this is true but he does not understand Einsteins variation of mass, length, and time with velocity.
Correct my theory does not match the present empirical evidence,
, my theory shows the present theory to be wrong
The problem is people only look out and never consider looking in, when you look in things look different ,
Quote from: Thebox on 12/07/2016 21:27:45Correct my theory does not match the present empirical evidence,Quote from: phNo, that is entirely wrong. If your theory cannot account for present empirical evidence, then it is not physics and never will be physics.I think you missed the point of that the present empirical evidence is independent to the matter compared to another piece of matterQuote, my theory shows the present theory to be wrongQuote from: phNo, your theory has absolutely nothing to do with present theory because, as you said, you are ignoring what the present theory says and making up your own theory. If you want to show the present theory to be wrong, then you have to actually engage with the present theory rather than simply make up your own stuff.My premise for argument is the ''gin-clear'' of observation, it is hardly made up.QuoteThe problem is people only look out and never consider looking in, when you look in things look different , Quote from: phI'm sure things look very different to you, but you are making no effort to actually learn what other people are saying or doing. You are refusing to look at the world and you are instead looking at the world as you imagine it to be. Very few people will agree with your position, since you are basing your work on ignoring others.Do you think I could make a theory about something if I did not know what was presently thought? You assume I don't understand present science.
No, that is entirely wrong. If your theory cannot account for present empirical evidence, then it is not physics and never will be physics.
No, your theory has absolutely nothing to do with present theory because, as you said, you are ignoring what the present theory says and making up your own theory. If you want to show the present theory to be wrong, then you have to actually engage with the present theory rather than simply make up your own stuff.
I'm sure things look very different to you, but you are making no effort to actually learn what other people are saying or doing. You are refusing to look at the world and you are instead looking at the world as you imagine it to be. Very few people will agree with your position, since you are basing your work on ignoring others.
To me the Universe does not behave like it has an infinite speed of light but rather the reality is the infinite speed of sight.
You assume I don't understand present science.
An objective mind likes to play spot the difference, yet if a spaceship left Earth and travelled at high speed for a million light years and their clock slowed down, the slowing of the clock is only relative to the left behind Earth clock and not relative to the space and time the spaceship is passing through. People miss the huge point that the time dilation of one clock is only relative to another clock and relative to nothing else, a clock is not time.
Quote from: Thebox on 12/07/2016 16:57:43 To me the Universe does not behave like it has an infinite speed of light but rather the reality is the infinite speed of sight. Rubbish,...................................you can't separate the speed of light, which brings it's information to the physical eye we observe with from the faculty of sight. That information is restricted by the speed of light and your "infinite speed of sight" is utter nonsense. We only see this information after that information has traveled to us at the speed of c, 186,282 miles per second. Every thing our eye observes is history, and depending upon how far away it might be, takes the speed of light to reach us, and making statements like; "the infinite speed of sight" shows any knowledgeable scientist your ignorance of the facts.................