[timey]

Box, . 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.

[guest39538]

Box, . 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.

Arghh yes I get it now , my mistake sorry. Pleased to meet you inverted time theory lady.  Are you the same person who has made a new time theory but have not quite published the article yet?

A theory something to do with mirrored time running backwards in a parallel universe?

arrows of time ?


added - I found your thread , that must of been time consuming, how exactly does 0 invert?

[Ethos_]

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.

Evidently then, you have only one recourse Mr. Box, purchase your own collider and preform the experiment yourself. Then, which I totally doubt, you'll be able to argue with the professionals at places like CERN. You somehow think you're arguing with us here at TNS when in reality, it is those accomplished scientists at places like CERN that you have your disagreement with. Now really, why should we trust you instead of them when you don't even know what a heavy ion is?

Believe what you wish sir, I'm done offering you examples in an effort to help you grow.

[timey]

added - 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!

[guest39538]

added - 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!

Your theory needs to take the Universe back to 0 but also it needs to take the universe forward to 0∞.

Applicable from any reference point.

[timey]

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

[guest39538]

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

Don't fall into trap of thinking shapes or cycle's just think infinite in any direction from any point, and not think space is expanding or has shape, red-shift is light reflecting from matter, space does not reflect light.

[timey]

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?

[guest39538]

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?

No time dilation exists but does not exist, lengths of space do not contract but objects and energies  might contract.

[timey]

I daresay the answer must lie within, grasshopper...

[Colin2B]

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.

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.

[guest39538]

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.

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.

I have spent time looking to find nothing , I found a few things on testing light but nothing to with testing lengths.   Also I now have some thoughts on distance contraction,  does a telescope contract distance visually?

[alancalverd]

No, I said

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.

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.

If I had meant that , I would have said it. I meant exactly what I said, nothing more, nothing less.

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?

Since they are not moving relative to each other, each sees the other's board as the same length as his own. Which is exactly what I wrote in the first place: contraction is only observed if the stick moves relative to the observer.

Nature is too dumb to cheat: physics only gets complicated if you add unnecessary complications and pointless preconceptions.

[Colin2B]

I 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.

[guest39538]

I 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.

[guest39538]

Parlour tricks

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

XYZ is not different directions, XYZ is actually 4/3 pi X³

X=Y=Z=t₀

Golden rule 1 - Relative to our consciousness, there is 0_t and 0_d 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)

[Colin2B]

XYZ is not different directions, XYZ is actually 4/3 pi X³

X=Y=Z=t₀

Golden rule 1 - Relative to our consciousness, there is 0_t and 0_d 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)

I was going to give you a few references and engage in sensible discussion, but I see you are just interested in going down another rabbit hole.
Discussion is pointless. I can see you are not really interested.
I'm out.

PS consciousness is actually quite slow and nowhere near light speed.

[guest39538]

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?

[tkadm30]

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?

Interesting theory. I believe consciousness is affected by spacetime. However, the power of imagination may create the illusion of the observer, as the speed of consciousness cannot be measured quantitatively.

[Ethos_]

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?

That statement is, without question, the most "unenlightened" response I have ever seen posted on this forum. I felt the need to post a quote for posterities sake out of fear the author might realize the shear ineptitude of it and edit it out before someone else was able to view it. 

Just saying...............................................