0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
You are actually very lucky to be posting in a forum that is tolerant of new ideas. However, you do not follow the normal rules of mathematics or physics. We can all make things up off the top of our heads but if no one else understands it because it is unclear then how can a sensible debate take place. Science is about the open exchange of ideas and formulas so that they can be scrutinised and subjected to criticism. You can't do that if the terms are freshly invented.
Well your going to ban me soon anyway, I know how this goes I have seen it all too often.
I suppose you can close this now as well, talking in new theories a new theory is obviously not allowed.
New theories require support from evidence of which you have provided little. Speculation is not evidence and demanding others disprove your speculations is bad science.
When someone actually takes me serious, then maybe I will start at the beginning and show all your evidence that says what I say to be true. But of cause I am just an idiot troll.
You have recognized that this overconfidence is a problem in the past, but somehow you always seem to swing around and start spouting the same nonsense that we thought we disproved in the last thread.
The terms on either side of an equals sign MUST be equal. This includes the dimensions that these values are measured in. The expression 1 = 9192631770 doesn't work. If you had said x = 1/9 192 631 770 then you might be able to explain exactly what x represents. If what you are saying is that time is quantised then you have to show how this has been derived. I still have no idea exactly what you mean so I am making a wild guess. This is all I can do since your terms make no sense to me.
start here - my premise is that you can not measure time without using a distance/motion so therefore time that is measured must equal a distance/motion!
Quote from: Thebox on 07/11/2015 19:42:28start here - my premise is that you can not measure time without using a distance/motion so therefore time that is measured must equal a distance/motion!Your terms are confusing Mr. Box. The period of time can be expressed in minutes, seconds, or which ever common measure of time one wishes to choose. However, defining the period of measured time is different than defining time itself. Distance/motion........? You first need to establish what measure of motion your using.Miles/HoursMeters/secondsYour "Distance/motion" is not a proper construction. "Distance/motion" is like say: Miles/Miles per hour and that expression is meaningless.
Distance , motion, velocity or irrelevant when we have not yet worked out how to define time.
Quote from: Thebox on 07/11/2015 21:16:45Distance , motion, velocity or irrelevant when we have not yet worked out how to define time. If you really believe that statement, why do you continue to insist that:"Distance/motion = time"
I do not insist that, I am showing you histories mistake that was not considered until I considered it, history denoted ''distance/motion''=arbitrary time
Quote from: Thebox on 07/11/2015 21:33:35I do not insist that, I am showing you histories mistake that was not considered until I considered it, history denoted ''distance/motion''=arbitrary timeNowhere in history has any respected Physicist made the assertion that Miles/Miles per hour equals time.
No physicist has noticed time was took for granted
MPh was after time you need time for mph, this is what history has done to us. They made a mistake in doing this, now you know why I keep saying it is wrong. No physicist has noticed time was took for granted
Quote from: Thebox on 07/11/2015 21:39:06No physicist has noticed time was took for grantedYou're right. Einstein never considered *time*--this changes everything!
Quote from: Thebox on 07/11/2015 21:39:06MPh was after time you need time for mph, this is what history has done to us. They made a mistake in doing this, now you know why I keep saying it is wrong. No physicist has noticed time was took for grantedMr. Box..................You're not making much sense."Distance/motion=time" Distance can be expressed in Miles.Motion can be expressed in Miles per hour.Miles divided by miles per hour makes no sense.If you don't like the term Miles per Hour, just how would you suggest we replace it?
Still think I am a fool?ok
I think Chiral now gets it and may be able to explain more ''sciency''
You misunderstood my sarcasm. Please reread my post:
I will not call you a fool but I am prepared to say that you're positions are not at all credible.