0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: timey on 08/02/2016 14:46:38Box, . I am the one with the time theory and the user name timey, OK?Sorry you lost me, what time theory?are you the time cube guy?
Box, . I am the one with the time theory and the user name timey, OK?
Quote from: Thebox on 08/02/2016 15:15:39Quote from: timey on 08/02/2016 14:46:38Box, . I am the one with the time theory and the user name timey, OK?Sorry you lost me, what time theory?are you the time cube guy?G,grief! Ok, look...Jeff said, amongst other implications, that a user who's basis of theory is reflected in a pet user name should sound alarm bells... I illustrated that it was not you he is side swiping with that comment, as you do not have a box theory! Reason why I illustrated this fact is because it was me who he was having a sideways dig at. Do you get it now?No... I'm not the time cube guy, I'm the inverted time theory woman.
I do not know the exact details of the experiment, therefore I hold judgement, I have not observed the experimental procedure and method to discourse and look for human error or observer effect.
added - I found your thread , that must of been time consuming, how exactly does 0 invert?
Quote from: Thebox on 08/02/2016 16:50:06added - I found your thread , that must of been time consuming, how exactly does 0 invert?Well, what-da-ya-know!!! Look at that will ya!!!Cuts straight to the chase or what?Truth is box, that's about the only one tiny part of my whole theory that I cannot quite get a visual on. In my defence, the theory does take the universe all the way back to zero, no other theory does this, but I cannot get a precise mechanism for inverting nothing into something... Not even the tinsiest, tiniest of somethings... Not yet anyway!
Well box, the implications of a cyclic universe that increases in size each cycle does indeed extend to infinity, and does describe the universe from any reference point... I know...I know... It's a bloody long read
LOL! Got to hand it to ya! Indeed... space does not reflect light!So, you're all sorted then? Questions answered to satisfaction? Time dilation does exist, and both lengths and distances subsequently distort?
Quote from: Thebox on 08/02/2016 15:50:46I do not know the exact details of the experiment, therefore I hold judgement, I have not observed the experimental procedure and method to discourse and look for human error or observer effect. Then why don't you take the trouble to find and read the details.I agree with Ethos, little point in discussing things with you if you can't be bothered to make the effort.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 07/02/2016 19:44:46Quote from: alancalverd on 07/02/2016 10:05:20No, I saidQuoteIf you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously [distance is invariant]. If you define b as being the other end of a stick, relativistic contraction will apply if the stick moves relative to an observer. If you don't read the bloody answer, what's the point of asking the bloody question?Thebox please read Alan's answer above through as many times as necessary. It tells you ALL you need to know. You can even come back and ask questions if it is not exactly clear. There is a subtle distinction in what Alan has said that you might miss.Yes I have read that too, several times now, it sounds like Alan is saying space is an invariant but a stick if it moves shrinks in length.
Quote from: alancalverd on 07/02/2016 10:05:20No, I saidQuoteIf you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously [distance is invariant]. If you define b as being the other end of a stick, relativistic contraction will apply if the stick moves relative to an observer. If you don't read the bloody answer, what's the point of asking the bloody question?Thebox please read Alan's answer above through as many times as necessary. It tells you ALL you need to know. You can even come back and ask questions if it is not exactly clear. There is a subtle distinction in what Alan has said that you might miss.
No, I saidQuoteIf you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously [distance is invariant]. If you define b as being the other end of a stick, relativistic contraction will apply if the stick moves relative to an observer. If you don't read the bloody answer, what's the point of asking the bloody question?
If you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously [distance is invariant]. If you define b as being the other end of a stick, relativistic contraction will apply if the stick moves relative to an observer.
Let us use a surfer on a surfboard surfing in space, and parallel to the surfer is another surfer travelling the same speed and direction.s1→→→→→s2→→→→→So what am I looking at in this scenario that contracts?a. the length of the surf board?b. the distance?
Quote from: Colin2B on 08/02/2016 22:32:40I have spent time looking to find nothing , I found a few things on testing light but nothing to with testing lengths. Ethos found it, you didn't look hard enough. Sounds like you are forming your own religion and ignoring contrary evidence.Follow up Ethos's suggestion and read the experiment.
I have spent time looking to find nothing , I found a few things on testing light but nothing to with testing lengths.
Quote from: Thebox on 09/02/2016 00:22:49Quote from: Colin2B on 08/02/2016 22:32:40I have spent time looking to find nothing , I found a few things on testing light but nothing to with testing lengths. Ethos found it, you didn't look hard enough. Sounds like you are forming your own religion and ignoring contrary evidence.Follow up Ethos's suggestion and read the experiment.How am I ignoring when I am searching for it?I can't find it, I can find plenty of stuff that says length contraction can not be tested and has never been tested. Looks like another parlour trick to me using light. [ Invalid Attachment ] And I have seen some demo's using plus and neg, the distance does not change just the pattern in these type examples.
XYZ is not different directions, XYZ is actually 4/3 pi X³X=Y=Z=t0Golden rule 1 - Relative to our consciousness, there is 0t and 0d to ourselves. Everything else is relative to this fundamental principle. Golden rule 2 - Our consciousness expands relative to light magnitude, light magnitude relative to the simultaneous observation of distance. (needs improvement)Golden rule 3 - Our consciousness is the fastest thing that exists, faster than light(needs improvement)
PS consciousness is actually quite slow and nowhere near light speed.
Really ? if consciousness is slower than light , then how come I can consciously observe a distant planet before the light even arrives at my eyes?