0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Apparently the road is the thing that is moving and the cars are stationary on it's own frames. Such frame offers no fiction or resistance cause it's possible, empty.
QuoteApparently the road is the thing that is moving and the cars are stationary on it's own frames. Such frame offers no fiction or resistance cause it's possible, empty. Thank you. Lovely post. I wish there were a smiley that's laughing so hard it has tears.
Quote from: GoC on 19/01/2017 22:19:11No I do not think something from nothing is simple.What is recognizably simple is the following; The Box will continue to believe what ever he chooses to believe, whether it can be supported by experimental evidence or not. The Box is apparently satisfied believing what ever sounds comfortable to his logic and it is a fruitless effort to try and reason with him. He accepts neither Einstein nor the tenants of GR or SR. So why would any of us expect him to accept anything the esteemed members of this noble assemble have to offer?
No I do not think something from nothing is simple.
Science is not based on belief. Science can say what is likely and what not. If you believe in Relativity you are on the wrong track. You could only say that it is extremely likely that Relativity is correct about space-time and gravity for example.If a theory disagrees with experiments, it is wrong, no matter who has written it.Here is a brilliant lecture of R.Feynman about this://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
QuoteThe Box will continue to believe what ever he chooses to believe, whether it can be supported by experimental evidence or not. The Box is apparently satisfied believing what ever sounds comfortable to his logic and it is a fruitless effort to try and reason with him. He accepts neither Einstein nor the tenants of GR or SR. So why would any of us expect him to accept anything the esteemed members of this noble assemble have to offer? It may come as a surprise, but considering that this is a thread dedicated to "New Theories" quote unquote, it should not come as too great a surprise, that many of us here, including myself do not believe in either special relativity or General relativity. But have some patience. Consider the following:- If a car is travelling at 50 kmh and another car is following at 10kmh, then the speed of the speed of the first car is reduced by 10kmh with respect to the second car. If the speed of the second car is increased to 50 kmh then from that point onward the first car has no speed at all with respect to the second car, and does not get any further away from it. If the speed of the second car is increased to 55 kmh then after a while it will catch up with the first car and pass it and if the speed of the first car is not altered then the first car will be left further and further behind. But this would not apply if the second car were chasing a photon and were continuously increasing its speed, while the speed of light remained constant at 3 x108 m/s . Even if the sped of the car increased to 2 .8 x 10 8 kms it could not get even one fraction of a distance closer to the light particle. In short, no matter how fast one chases a photon of light be it 20kmh or 2.8x 108kms the distance between oneself and light continues to increase at precisely the same rate as before; 3 x 108 m/s. Thus beyond the suggestion of a doubt, according to the theory of relativity, the behaviour of light flagrantly contradicts the simplest arithmetic principles essential to explaining the distance relations between objects in space according to their respective positions and velocities. Einstein's special theory is based as he himself said on a free will definition of simultaneity which he acknowledged to be a purely arbitrary or unobservable or unverifiable definition. With all due respect to Einstein, to accept such a contradiction one simply has to believe that nature is perversely illogical.The speeds of most boats, and of some surface-swimming animals, are limited by the fact that they make a wave due to their motion through the water. A boat travels at the same speed as its own waves, and can't go any faster. No matter how hard the boat pushes against the water, it can't make the wave move ahead faster and get out of the way. The wave's speed depends only on the medium. Adding energy to the wave doesn't speed it up, it just increases its amplitude. This is in a certain sense similar to the fact that it is impossible to catch up with the speed of light. So there you have it the bizarre or the banal, the speed of light is constant because it is travelling through a medium like the aether(the banal) or the bizarre, no-one can say why the speed of light is constant, it might depend on some esoteric and unknown property of the Universe.
The Box will continue to believe what ever he chooses to believe, whether it can be supported by experimental evidence or not. The Box is apparently satisfied believing what ever sounds comfortable to his logic and it is a fruitless effort to try and reason with him. He accepts neither Einstein nor the tenants of GR or SR. So why would any of us expect him to accept anything the esteemed members of this noble assemble have to offer?
f a car is travelling at 50 kmh and another car is following at 10kmh, then the speed of the speed of the first car is reduced by 10kmh with respect to the second car. If the speed of the second car is increased to 50 kmh then from that point onward the first car has no speed at all with respect to the second car,
TheBox, despise the miss interpretations it certainly has.for now I'm visualizing something similar to this... This based on the premises that past and future, time, exists only as physical length.
0 thinking will give you 0 understanding.0 motion = 0 time. Time is a measurement of distance traveled by c causing motion. So by logic time is motion and related to c energy. So once again Motion = energy. Time=Energy=motion.We measure time as a function of c energy as a photon distance traveled in a frame. Different frames have a different ratio of their speed to light speed as a reaction rate but measure the same speed of light in a vacuum because the cofounding of the electron travel distance and the photon travel distance. Age as a twin paradox is just a reaction rate of relative frames. Each are in the present with different reaction rates. You are a biological clock as a life cycleThis is abstract thinking that can be followed with geometry of space energy. There is no 0 motion of reaction rate unless your vector and rotation motion is c. You have to go c to have a 0 reaction rate. Mass cannot move at a vector motion of c because mass has to rotate through space while a photon does not. The electron motion is c combining its rotation and vector speed. The medium of space is c motion.Can you see that in your mirror?
Quote from: GoC on 25/01/2017 13:55:530 thinking will give you 0 understanding.0 motion = 0 time. Time is a measurement of distance traveled by c causing motion. So by logic time is motion and related to c energy. So once again Motion = energy. Time=Energy=motion.We measure time as a function of c energy as a photon distance traveled in a frame. Different frames have a different ratio of their speed to light speed as a reaction rate but measure the same speed of light in a vacuum because the cofounding of the electron travel distance and the photon travel distance. Age as a twin paradox is just a reaction rate of relative frames. Each are in the present with different reaction rates. You are a biological clock as a life cycleThis is abstract thinking that can be followed with geometry of space energy. There is no 0 motion of reaction rate unless your vector and rotation motion is c. You have to go c to have a 0 reaction rate. Mass cannot move at a vector motion of c because mass has to rotate through space while a photon does not. The electron motion is c combining its rotation and vector speed. The medium of space is c motion.Can you see that in your mirror?QuoteI understand why you measure time the way you measure time and why you relate it to motion. Apparently notQuoteHowever you are by saying that suggesting that time does not exist in a void of space when the obvious is , even a void exists in time/with time. I also do not think you understand space-time, nowhere in XYZt is motion mentioned, XYZt is the whole of space interwoven which your light and spinning c pass through. Light occupies space-time but is not time. You have no definition of time so how can you comment on time as to what it is or is not?QuoteP.s 0 motion = nothing to time relative to space, space is not moving also. Things move relative to things, but all things move relative to space. Space-time is your ''stationary'' reference frame and at any point can start with the 0 value. I disagree. With any point we can start with the value of c.Quoteadded- if you must equate light with time, equate light destroys time a direct opposite to time. You cannot destroy time. Time is only absent within a BH. Light is relative to time energy c.Quoteadded- light is anti matter, anti matter wants to expand always and permeate through space, G is time, G is space, but I am still uncertain of what property of space or in space is G and t. At any give point of space or the whole of space is the center of G and t. Here is the catch 22. You need to understand that something controls the movement of the electron and photon to be confounded. That energy has to be in space itself because the photon moves in a vacuum. Just because we describe it as a vacuum does not mean nothing exists in the vacuum.Fundamental energy(time and motion c) exists in space not mass.
I understand why you measure time the way you measure time and why you relate it to motion.
However you are by saying that suggesting that time does not exist in a void of space when the obvious is , even a void exists in time/with time. I also do not think you understand space-time, nowhere in XYZt is motion mentioned, XYZt is the whole of space interwoven which your light and spinning c pass through. Light occupies space-time but is not time.
P.s 0 motion = nothing to time relative to space, space is not moving also. Things move relative to things, but all things move relative to space. Space-time is your ''stationary'' reference frame and at any point can start with the 0 value.
added- if you must equate light with time, equate light destroys time a direct opposite to time.
added- light is anti matter, anti matter wants to expand always and permeate through space, G is time, G is space, but I am still uncertain of what property of space or in space is G and t. At any give point of space or the whole of space is the center of G and t.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/01/2017 15:21:06Quote from: GoC on 25/01/2017 13:55:530 thinking will give you 0 understanding.0 motion = 0 time. Time is a measurement of distance traveled by c causing motion. So by logic time is motion and related to c energy. So once again Motion = energy. Time=Energy=motion.We measure time as a function of c energy as a photon distance traveled in a frame. Different frames have a different ratio of their speed to light speed as a reaction rate but measure the same speed of light in a vacuum because the cofounding of the electron travel distance and the photon travel distance. Age as a twin paradox is just a reaction rate of relative frames. Each are in the present with different reaction rates. You are a biological clock as a life cycleThis is abstract thinking that can be followed with geometry of space energy. There is no 0 motion of reaction rate unless your vector and rotation motion is c. You have to go c to have a 0 reaction rate. Mass cannot move at a vector motion of c because mass has to rotate through space while a photon does not. The electron motion is c combining its rotation and vector speed. The medium of space is c motion.Can you see that in your mirror?QuoteI understand why you measure time the way you measure time and why you relate it to motion. Apparently notQuoteHowever you are by saying that suggesting that time does not exist in a void of space when the obvious is , even a void exists in time/with time. I also do not think you understand space-time, nowhere in XYZt is motion mentioned, XYZt is the whole of space interwoven which your light and spinning c pass through. Light occupies space-time but is not time. You have no definition of time so how can you comment on time as to what it is or is not?QuoteP.s 0 motion = nothing to time relative to space, space is not moving also. Things move relative to things, but all things move relative to space. Space-time is your ''stationary'' reference frame and at any point can start with the 0 value. I disagree. With any point we can start with the value of c.Quoteadded- if you must equate light with time, equate light destroys time a direct opposite to time. You cannot destroy time. Time is only absent within a BH. Light is relative to time energy c.Quoteadded- light is anti matter, anti matter wants to expand always and permeate through space, G is time, G is space, but I am still uncertain of what property of space or in space is G and t. At any give point of space or the whole of space is the center of G and t. Here is the catch 22. You need to understand that something controls the movement of the electron and photon to be confounded. That energy has to be in space itself because the photon moves in a vacuum. Just because we describe it as a vacuum does not mean nothing exists in the vacuum.Fundamental energy(time and motion c) exists in space not mass.You are welcome to believe any of the subjective education you learnt. I will pick out one point, you say ''Just because we describe it as a vacuum does not mean nothing exists in the vacuum''.You in this sentence describe that something may exist in the vacuum, recognising that the vacuum is ''empty'' to begin with , Clearly you must understand that full take away full = empty. This something you assume may exist , may exist, but it exists independent of the ''emptiness'' of space. Also you are quite clearly not listening to anybody but your own voice of subjective education. Let us try something simple , please define space in your own words?
Space "now" as a void:
I also disagree with the BB based on BH's and gravity red shift vs. SR red shift.As far as space being a void. What causes the electron to move?