0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Likewise I break things down ''things'' down to the naked science, the bare essentials and rudiment of thought, thus being why it is always best to start at the ''beginning''. Maybe in your own mind you think you are breaking things down, however how far can your mind go before it hits the ''wall'' and can go no further. For one to understand one must firstly want to listen, there is not many who like to listen but prefer their own voice .
For something to contract there would be ''cracks'' and once returned to normal velocity we could quite clearly observe no ''cracks''. This is why we have stress levels etc, the sort of science that is real. Also The object would deform , more than likely curve like,
Maybe you are not clever enough to understand me and I am beyond your inability to break down.
P.s Please feel free to try breakdown my ideas about time in other thread. (you will fail)
And you will remain stuck with that misunderstanding so long as you fail to do the maths to check whether it hangs together or not. Look at my numbers and ask yourself how a light clock aligned lengthways in a carriage moving at 0.867c can possibly tick half as often as a stationary clock on the platform when it takes light four times as long to complete a round trip within the moving clock. Look at my interactive diagrams of the MMX again and study how fast the red light pulses move across the screen and how far they travel relative to the apparatus. It's only in the second one with length-contraction that the light on the horizontal arm is able to complete its round trip in the same time as the light on the vertical arm to produce a null result. I've put it all in front of your eyes in clear view and there's nothing more I can do for you if you still can't see it.
Ok lets do it my way with light zig zagging between mirrors.
This is from where the Lorentz contraction came. Zig zagging light making right triangles. I get the same answers as you do in Euclidean space.
Is a clock tick rate more non linear than relativity suggests at higher relative velocities?
Quote from: Thebox on 07/05/2017 21:47:20I doubt that's necessary - if your ideas about time don't fit the facts, they're already broken, but if they fit the facts, they shouldn't be in conflict with my ideas about time.I do not know your ideas of time, however I am quite sure they will be wrong. Like many you avoid getting into conflict with me in my threads because the truth is my breakdown of time is precisely accurate and nobody in the world can break my premise for argument. In fact, nobody or no thing in the entire Universe can break my premise. Most science forums call me the anti-science, because i completely destroy science theory. I never attack facts, I attack the misinterpretations. I challenge you anytime to go over to my thread if you think you are more an expert on time than myself, I assure you though that you are not.
I doubt that's necessary - if your ideas about time don't fit the facts, they're already broken, but if they fit the facts, they shouldn't be in conflict with my ideas about time.
I do not know your ideas of time, however I am quite sure they will be wrong. Like many you avoid getting into conflict with me in my threads because the truth is my breakdown of time is precisely accurate and nobody in the world can break my premise for argument. In fact, nobody or no thing in the entire Universe can break my premise. Most science forums call me the anti-science, because i completely destroy science theory. I never attack facts, I attack the misinterpretations. I challenge you anytime to go over to my thread if you think you are more an expert on time than myself, I assure you though that you are not.
Quote from: Thebox on 08/05/2017 22:33:39I do not know your ideas of time, however I am quite sure they will be wrong. Like many you avoid getting into conflict with me in my threads because the truth is my breakdown of time is precisely accurate and nobody in the world can break my premise for argument. In fact, nobody or no thing in the entire Universe can break my premise. Most science forums call me the anti-science, because i completely destroy science theory. I never attack facts, I attack the misinterpretations. I challenge you anytime to go over to my thread if you think you are more an expert on time than myself, I assure you though that you are not.I spent a lot of time discussing things with you in the past and found you to be incapable of recognising a whole host of errors in your thinking (no matter how clearly they were shown to you and no matter how many different ways they were shown to you). I'm not prepared to spend any more of my time trying to lead a horse to water when it shows every sign of being incapable of drinking - that is a job for AGI to take on, so I'd rather put the time into building AGI. Then you (and anyone else whose thinking is riddled with errors) will have access to a perfect reasoning machine with the patience of a God, and it will be able to demonstrate everything to you directly on the screen with purpose-build interactive diagrams tailored to your needs in real time, which is something that simply isn't practical even for a team of the most capable humans working on you via a forum. Most importantly, it will be able to follow your own rules to the letter and show you how they conflict with each other and generate a mass of contradiction, so that's the best hope for anything being able to help you to tidy up your thinking. No human is going to want to untangle that mess for you, so you're just going to have to be patient and wait for machine assistance.
Quite clearly by your arrogant words...
...you certainly think in some way that yourself is smarter than me, not a hope in hell my friend and I happily challenge you to come over to my time thread to see if you can find fault in my argument?
No doubt you will fail to ''show'' and make excuses of pretending I don't understand or in some way I am ''stupid''.
Do you think I am even trying that hard to think ?
thinking is natural to me and that is something you could not compete with.
Computers are not the answer to anything.
Quote from: Thebox on 09/05/2017 19:22:25Quite clearly by your arrogant words...And you aren't arrogant? You spend most of your time telling people that they're wrong, but you also fail to back up your claims with rational arguments.Quote...you certainly think in some way that yourself is smarter than me, not a hope in hell my friend and I happily challenge you to come over to my time thread to see if you can find fault in my argument?Give me a link to it so that I can look at the first post, and provide a list of any other numbered posts which are essential to your argument so that I don't have to read the whole thread.QuoteNo doubt you will fail to ''show'' and make excuses of pretending I don't understand or in some way I am ''stupid''.What usually happens with you is that you refuse to accept things that are logical requirements, and at that point further discussion becomes pointless.QuoteDo you think I am even trying that hard to think ?I doubt you've ever tried hard to think.Quotethinking is natural to me and that is something you could not compete with.If one plays chess against a pigeon, it generally knocks all your pieces over and defecates on the board, but that doesn't mean it's won.QuoteComputers are not the answer to anything.They will certainly be the answer to this.
Times passes by for any matter in the Universe, but how fast does time pass matter by? One could set a rate and use an equivalent to record the measurement of time! However, one would be by doing this, setting the speed of time by there own equivalents speed/rate.It is interesting that any measurement after 0 becomes instantaneous history no matter what the speed/rate of equivalent ''time''measurement being used. This logic alone overwhelmingly over ruling such premise as time dilation, yet you all still choose to ignore the best scientific mind this world has ever seen.
added - time is the memory of passed events.
I prefer the measurement of past time to be that of a mechanical and constant nature, a normal mechanical clock does the job.
It is not the question of how we measure time though, it is the importance of understanding time and the realisation of that there is no time dilation, time travel or likes.
No past or future and only the present state of matter which ''decays'' in space.
Simultaneity is the stuff of fairy tales and easy to prove incorrect.
One visual universe whole that visual matter exists in a present state, we measure change of the state of matter, but all the measurements are past measurements, ''time'' passes by at an instant and infinite speed for all matter.
Although matter decays at different rates taking into account ''time'' dilation, the rate of true time is constant, decay does not mean different ages. The twin with the relative slower decay clock, does not age less, they just decay less. and last longer in ''time''. The period of time for both twins is synchronous, but the travelling twin who has decayed less, lives longer.
Box,QuoteIt is interesting that any measurement after 0 becomes instantaneous history no matter what the speed/rate of equivalent ''time''measurement being used. This logic alone overwhelmingly over ruling such premise as time dilation, yet you all still choose to ignore the best scientific mind this world has ever seen.QuoteIs that it? What does it mean? The present is momentary and moves on such that what was present becomes past? Time passes at the rate time passes? Nothing revolutionary there - it fits with LET. You should of really posted this in my thread rather than the high jack of Goc's thread. Quite clearly your ability to understand is difficult for you. If you was as smart as you think you are , you would understand what it meant without further explanation from me. Maybe you should read the rest of my thread! you may find it gets really interesting when I show science how naive they have been for the past 100 years or so . However I will leave you with a relative question that the answer should then allow you to understand what ''that'' means. This a question about two observers, one observer is on Earth and one observer is on planet x. Both observers have to devise a way to measure time, both observers decide that 1 rotation of their relative planet would be equal too one day. Planet Earth's rotation speed is differential to that of planet x. Why can't the observers devise time using this method?
It is interesting that any measurement after 0 becomes instantaneous history no matter what the speed/rate of equivalent ''time''measurement being used. This logic alone overwhelmingly over ruling such premise as time dilation, yet you all still choose to ignore the best scientific mind this world has ever seen.
Is that it? What does it mean? The present is momentary and moves on such that what was present becomes past? Time passes at the rate time passes? Nothing revolutionary there - it fits with LET.
You should of really posted this in my thread rather than the high jack of Goc's thread.
Quite clearly your ability to understand is difficult for you. If you was as smart as you think you are , you would understand what it meant without further explanation from me.
Maybe you should read the rest of my thread! you may find it gets really interesting when I show science how naive they have been for the past 100 years or so .
However I will leave you with a relative question that the answer should then allow you to understand what ''that'' means. This a question about two observers, one observer is on Earth and one observer is on planet x. Both observers have to devise a way to measure time, both observers decide that 1 rotation of their relative planet would be equal too one day. Planet Earth's rotation speed is differential to that of planet x. Why can't the observers devise time using this method?
They have both created a measure of time (although it's inaccurate as the rotation speed can vary), and it's possible to convert from one to the other. All we can ever do though is create measures of time without getting any real handle on how fast time runs
Quote from: David Cooper on 10/05/2017 20:09:05They have both created a measure of time (although it's inaccurate as the rotation speed can vary), and it's possible to convert from one to the other. All we can ever do though is create measures of time without getting any real handle on how fast time runs Yes exactly that and if you understand your own words you should understand the difference between a time dilation and a timing dilation? If you do understand then you should realise why there is no time dilation.
The mind I was referring to is my own.
Lets get back to the 0.866025 speed of light. I may have misunderstood Einstein's Relativity with how it handles time as a dimension. I understand time as the energy of motion with energy being of space and not mass. So c = spin particle energy of a stationary existence causing the propagation of a wave on the grid spectrum with the resistance caused by mass, we call a photon. Of course the photon and rotating electron motion being c. Straight vector c for the photon and a rotating vector motion c for the electron.
Lets try to train (excuse the pun) me up a bit. This is titled mechanical relativity. What causes mass to contract with velocity in space?
Quote from: Thebox on 10/05/2017 23:06:23Quote from: David Cooper on 10/05/2017 20:09:05They have both created a measure of time (although it's inaccurate as the rotation speed can vary), and it's possible to convert from one to the other. All we can ever do though is create measures of time without getting any real handle on how fast time runs Yes exactly that and if you understand your own words you should understand the difference between a time dilation and a timing dilation? If you do understand then you should realise why there is no time dilation.If you read carefully and understood everything, you'd have worked out that you are not the only person who doesn't consider "time dilation" to be a dilation of time. Lorentz never took it as that, but I think he used the term, although he may merely have done so when speaking the same language as Einstein. "Time dilation" is certainly not a good term to use for LET where it is merely a clock running slow.QuoteThe mind I was referring to is my own.Then why do you make mistakes all over the place and fail to acknowledge or correct them? I told you when you first posted on this forum that it looked as if you ought to be in the LET camp, but you didn't realise that and you still don't. What is so special about your position and your mind? You denied the role of a fabric of space and insisted that space was nothing, which led to the problem that you had a "nothing" with properties that enabled it to impose three space dimensions on its content, to enable separation of objects by distance, and to impose a speed limit on light through your "nothing". Have you realised yet that your "nothing" must be something?
I am afraid that nothing still means nothing, for something to exist, it has to have nothing to exist in.
You keep mentioning LET, however I do not think you understand this is far more than just time dilation, ...
...they do not say on places I am the ''anti-science'' for no reason.
I do not think you understand that my notions ''destroy'' most theories because I ''destroy'' the very mechanical relativity GOC is talking about that you presently use by equating our present ''speed'' of time to the rotational speed of the Earth .
Quite clearly you do not understand how I have ''stuffed'' science .