Stange Claim From A Physics And Math Forum Thread

[xyz]

It's explained by your misconceptions about length contraction. Pressure has nothing to do with why length contracts.

 

The speed of light has been proven to be constant. If two objects moving relative to each other measure the same speed of light then time dilation and length contraction HAVE to occur. There's no other way to keep the speed of light the same for both of them.

Can you read?  

[A-wal]

Yes but apparently you can't.

 

The consistency of the speed of light is proven, and by extension so is time dilation and length contraction because there's no other way for two observers that are in motion relative to each to measure the same speed of light. It has nothing to do with pressure.

[xyz]

Yes but apparently you can't.

 

The consistency of the speed of light is proven, and by extension so is time dilation and length contraction because there's no other way for two observers that are in motion relative to each to measure the same speed of light. It has nothing to do with pressure.

You obviously missed the point, for something to contract there has to be at least two points of pressure...

Edited March 2, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

No, you're missing the point. Length contraction in space has NOTHING to do with pressure!

 

You can't contract space by putting pressure on it, that's silly.

[xyz]

No, you're missing the point. Length contraction in space has NOTHING to do with pressure!

 

You can't contract space by putting pressure on it, that's silly.

You seem to be reading things ''backwards'', let me take this slow for you.  

 

 

In length contraction at relativistic speeds the object is said to physically contract in length. 

 

I am saying this does not happen, is impossible to happen without at least two points of pressure.  

 

 

 

ok?

[Maine farmer]

Xyz, you seem to be stuck in relativity denial.  Space is as relative as time.  They are intertwined. 

[A-wal]

Trying to be arrogant and patronising doesn't help your case, especially when you have zero understanding what what you're trying to refute.

 

That's not what relativity says. Time dilation and length contraction are never felt by the observer in their own frame of reference. It only applies to objects that are motion relative to an observer.

 

You need to forget what you think you know and start again because you're perception of special relativity and how it works is way off the mark.

[xyz]

Xyz, you seem to be stuck in relativity denial.  Space is as relative as time.  They are intertwined. 

Not at all, the Box singularity is very simple to understand, k=1 and k=0 are intertwined. I understand very well, here is an update on the definitions I will be using in the theory of realistic. 

 

Space - space is the volume of ''empty'' distance that surrounds an observer

 

Distance - An isotropic unbounded quantity of N-dimensional space extending away from the observer

 

Length -1. A measured distance of finite bounded space between two light reflective or light emitting  point sources.

 

2. A measurement of an objects physical dimensions of its form.

 

Universe - an unbounded N-dimensional space

 

Visual Universe - a finite observed length  within a Universe

 

Matter - Solidity or substance that occupies space

 

Energy - A group category for various types of power.

 

Power - The ability to do work. 

 

Objects - matter existing in bonded clusters.

 

mass -The rest force measurement of a body at rest relative to an inertial accelerating reference frame.

 

Motion - the  continuous displacement of matter in space

 

Dimensions- The measurement of a physical object :  the measurement of a volume of space

 

Gravity -  the property of matter that has directly proportionate  attractive ability.

 

 

You are forgetting a theory is a theory , I am not misunderstanding Einstein or Lorentz, ''I am understanding''.  

[xyz]

Trying to be arrogant and patronising doesn't help your case, especially when you have zero understanding what what you're trying to refute.

 

That's not what relativity says. Time dilation and length contraction are never felt by the observer in their own frame of reference. It only applies to objects that are motion relative to an observer.

 

You need to forget what you think you know and start again because you're perception of special relativity and how it works is way off the mark.

I am not being rude, patronising or arrogant, I have a new theory, it differs from all the other theories, you keep pointing out the other theories, my theory is my theory, you seem to not be understanding that my theory is my theory and not what wiki says.

[Maine farmer]

The may I suggest you do not know about force and pressure, an object needs two points of pressure to contract, e.g squeeze a rubber ball, I have a physical real experiment that shows the length doe's not contract, how do you explain that then?

Length contraction isn't really squeezing a rubber ball, it's more analogous to shrinking the space between the atoms.  A rubber ball, or any other object no matter how dense, is mostly empty space.  The object being contracted, if it was a self-aware object, wouldn't be aware due to it's measuring devices being contracted as well.  Does that seem crazy?

Edited March 3, 2016 by Farming guy

[A-wal]

But your 'theory' is based on nothing but misconceptions.

 

You do NOT understand relativity! Virtually every post you've made shows that you don't.

 

Explain how it's possible for two objects that are in motion relative to each other to measure the same speed of light in your theory. If they're in motion relative to each other how could they possible measure the same thing moving at the same speed without time dilation and length contraction?

[xyz]

But your 'theory' is based on nothing but misconceptions.

 

You do NOT understand relativity! Virtually every post you've made shows that you don't.

 

Explain how it's possible for two objects that are in motion relative to each other to measure the same speed of light in your theory. If they're in motion relative to each other how could they possible measure the same thing moving at the same speed without time dilation and length contraction?

huh!  without time dilation and length contraction they always measure it at the same speed, what are you talking about?

 

A simple question, do you understand my theory?

Edited March 3, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

If ship and light passes you and then passes an object that's moving away from you at a third of the speed of light, the second object would measure it moving past them at two thirds the speed of light if it weren't for time dilation and length contraction, but they measure it moving passed them at the same speed as the first object measured it, the speed of light. All non accelerating objects measure it moving at the same speed, proving that they measure time and space at different lengths. There's no actual 'squeezing', it's purely about a difference in measurements, nothing more.

 

You don't have a theory, you have a load of faulty assumptions based on misconceptions.

[xyz]

If ship and light passes you and then passes an object that's moving away from you at a third of the speed of light, the second object would measure it moving past them at two thirds the speed of light if it weren't for time dilation and length contraction, but they measure it moving passed them at the same speed as the first object measured it, the speed of light. All non accelerating objects measure it moving at the same speed, proving that they measure time and space at different lengths. There's no actual 'squeezing', it's purely about a difference in measurements, nothing more.

 

You don't have a theory, you have a load of faulty assumptions based on misconceptions.

If a spaceship passed you, you would not observe any beams of light . That is a parlour trick and not of ''truth''.  

[A-wal]

No no NO! The ship doesn't pass you.

 

Light has been measured to move at the same speed countless times. If a ship is moving away from you then they'd measure light moving at the same speed that you measure it. If it weren't for time dilation and length contraction, light couldn't have a consistent speed and they'd measure moving slower than you do. That's not what happens, it always moves at the same speed as long as you're not accelerating. This means that they measure time and space differently so that each sees the other as length contracted and time dilated. There's no other way that light could move at the same speed relative to two or more objects that are in motion relative to each other.

Edited March 3, 2016 by A-wal

[xyz]

No no NO! The ship doesn't pass you.

 

Light has been measured to move at the same speed countless times. If a ship is moving away from you then they'd measure light moving at the same speed that you measure it. If it weren't for time dilation and length contraction, light couldn't have a consistent speed and they'd measure moving slower than you do. That's not what happens, it always moves at the same speed as long as you're not accelerating. This means that they measure time and space differently so that each sees the other as length contracted and time dilated. There's no other way that light could move at the same speed relative to two or more objects that are in motion relative to each other.

You keep on posting present information is not going to change my theory any. Perhaps you should read this part, still not fully completed. 

 

7. Understanding the constant-'constant of light propagating through space.

 

Light in a vacuum travels at 299 792 458 m / s and is a constant.   Space  is a near perfect vacuum and is ''transparent'' to light, meaning that space allows light to propagate through space unchanging in the constant speed.  Ourselves,  observe a clarity of space in that relatively we can observe distant objects reflecting light and the space between ourselves and the observed object  is not opaque, it is relatively perceived to be  ''see through''.  This observation is relatively constant to all visual observers in any frame of reference that is not in darkness.  

Let us consider the difference of the 3 dimensional objects relative to the surrounding space, relative to  the light.   When we are observing an object we observe a 3 dimensional state of light at the objects exact location, we see this 3 dimensional state of light as spectral colours. A difference to the relativity of the not opaque space observation. There is some ''truth'' in that the light propagating through space is observed has a dimensional whole relative to sight and thus proposing the matter reflecting or emitting light , are 3 dimensional light singularities in a 1 dimension whole of light which is perceived to be a clarity in observation. 

Thus leading us to the proposition of the Box singularity, which we shall discuss in length in the next chapter. 

In continuation of understanding the constant-'constant  let us look at the consistency of relativity observation of the  one dimensional whole of light propagating through space. 

In imagination let us imagine the ''invisible man'' standing but only 10 feet away from us.  It would be a conclusion that it would be impossible to define the dimensions of the ''invisible man''. 

In regards to this we can consider that the ''invisible man'' has no dimensions of width , height length to reflect light at a greater ''band-width'' than the singularity whole .  In any direction of observing a length between eye and object  there is a ''truth'' in that we observe singularity whole which has no apparent dimensions.

Thus leading us to enquire about the nature of light and the existence of the said single particle namely the Photon.  Relatively no observer, observes the existence of a single photon, neither does the observer, observe such as photon packets.  Relatively all observers , observe the singularity whole to be not opaque.  

There is certainly a ''truth'' that we observe dust particles or the falling of rain or snow, but there is no ''truths'' in the relativity of us observing Photons.  

This does not ever conclude that Photons do not exist, it concludes the relativity to observation. 

Edited March 3, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

Just answer the question!

 

How could two observers that are in motion relative to each other possibly measure the same thing moving past them at the same speed without time dilation and length contraction? They couldn't! This proves that they are a real effect. You can ignore it as much as you like but it just makes you look ridiculous.

 

You really are delusional.