Stange Claim From A Physics And Math Forum Thread

[xyz]

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.

Ask a scientist , nothing to do with a box singularity.   I do not mean to sound rude, I have just had enough of trying on all forums. 

[A-wal]

Ask a scientist? What are you talking about? It proves that time dilation and length contraction are a real effect because without them, there's no way for two objects that are in motion relative to each other to measure the same speed of light.

 

Box singularity? A singularity by definition has no dimensional length, it can't be a box. You don't have the first clue what you're talking about but you think you know better than everyone else. It's really annoying.

[xyz]

Ask a scientist? What are you talking about? It proves that time dilation and length contraction are a real effect because without them, there's no way for two objects that are in motion relative to each other to measure the same speed of light.

 

Box singularity? A singularity by definition has no dimensional length, it can't be a box. You don't have the first clue what you're talking about but you think you know better than everyone else. It's really annoying.

Its called a Box singularity after my user name on other forum, and in regards to it uses the inverse square law, I wanted to call it quantum singularity but they told me that is only something out of star trek. 

 

You asked me a question of how can they measure the speed of light to be the same, I said ask a scientist it has nothing to do with my theory and relativistic affects. 

[A-wal]

Its called a Box singularity after my user name on other forum...

Oh, okay. :)

 

You asked me a question of how can they measure the speed of light to be the same, I said ask a scientist it has nothing to do with my theory and relativistic affects. 

You don't think time dilation and length contraction and the fact that they're proven accurate by the consistency of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference because there's no other explanation for how observers that are moving relative to each could measure the same thing moving at the same speed has anything to do with relative effects?

[xyz]

Oh, okay. :)

 

You don't think time dilation and length contraction and the fact that they're proven accurate by the consistency of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference because there's no other explanation for how observers that are moving relative to each could measure the same thing moving at the same speed has anything to do with relative effects?

I meant the relative effects has nothing to do with my version of relative effects. 

[A-wal]

So in your version, how can objects that are in motion relative to each other measure the same thing moving at the same speed without time dilation and length contraction?

[xyz]

So in your version, how can objects that are in motion relative to each other measure the same thing moving at the same speed without time dilation and length contraction?

In my version I posted this on other forum

 

L=X

 

A_t(-ve=c)

 

B_t(+ve=c)

 

 

A_t-B_t=0_t net difference

 

''While the spaceship travels from A to B with an on-board Caesium clock and an observer is on Earth in an inertial reference frame with another Caesium clock, both Caesium clocks lose their synchronisation , the one on Earth remains at ground state while the one in motion experiences time dilation and length contraction, I am timing them both with my very accurate space-time clock of light between the start and finish points of the not opaque clarity of space, and the light travelling from the finishing point to the start point and the invert journey round trip. 

 

My clock shows NO time dilation and no length contraction, the finishing point did not get nearer to my third person observation. 

 

[attachment=21108]

 

 

Velocity does not change, an object travelling 1035 mph will travel  24,901 miles in 24 hours.   This does not alter, 86400 seconds is equal to approx 24,901 miles, 1 second is equal to approx 0.288 mile.   The whole Universe , we have time equal to a distance travelled equal to a speed, we have the speed of time set equal to the speed of the Earth's rotational spin. 

 

 

24,901/86400= approx 0.288 mile 

 

 

Yes you may look with spine chilling glances, you may reply but we use the Caesium atom now, but may I remind you that the cycles of the transition of the Caesium atom were made to equal the old second, changing the ''colour'' of the clock did not change what it was equal to. 

 

In analogy let us imagine we have a camcorder on earth aimed at the moon and a camcorder on the moon aimed at earth, sam on a spaceship on earth had 3 camcorders on-board the spaceship, 1 looking at the moon , one looking at the earth, and 1 recording himself.

 

 

The spaceship sets off to the moon that automatically triggers the camcorders synchronised start.  When sam reaches the moon sensor pad landing zone, the camcorders instantly pause recording. 

 

 

All the camcorders record in synchronisation of the time the photon packets arrive, in real time, 

 

 

 

Now although we think sam has just experienced a slowing time of time, the hard evidence and data on the hard drives of the camcorders, the amount of data space it used, all shows to be equal and shows Sam experienced nothing different to any observer. 

 

In short we use the real time speed of the recordings to time the journeys using the camcorders as a clock. 

 

''Time is the synchronisation of observation''

 

 

If two observers disagree on the synchronisation of observation, they are disagreeing on time and would have to disagree about the speed of light . ''

 

 

I am in the process of writing it up better in my theory. 

 

The first page of my theory is now this - 

 

 

Abstract - Representing the Universe in a way that is accurate and true to the relativity of observation, simplistic propositions that are self evidently true that will show us the truth and honesty of various physical phenomenon of the Universe in which the  basis of  logical process, rational thought and basic science,  will show the justification of  the axiom propositions to be true.

 

The Theory of Realistic.

 

1. Introduction

2. Explanation of  an axiom

3. Defining various definition

4. Defining Theory and Hypothesis

5. The meaning of maths and maths use

6. The meaning of limitation

7. The meaning and value of Geometrics

8. Explaining the constant-'constant nature of light

9. Explaining The Box singularity 

10. Explaining positive mass and negative mass density function and contrary to belief negative is attracted to negative. 

 

1.Introduction

In reality there exists a fundamental law, a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based.   This law being the relativity of something, in which two observers have to equally agree on  something.  If there is an agreement to disagree about that something, then with a certainty, we know there is an uncertainty about that something.  Thus requiring a third, forth or many other observers and opinions to try and devise  a rational logical answer about that something.  Often we seek evidence to support that something, observation and the relativity of observation between two observers being the rudiment evidence. In this paper, we shall be looking at the rudiment of evidence and the relativity of observation between two observers. 

 

Edited March 5, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

If two observers disagree on the synchronisation of observation, they are disagreeing on time and would have to disagree about the speed of light . ''

Your whole argument falls apart right here. The only way that two observers that are moving relative to each other can agree on the speed of light is if they disagree about the measurements of time and space (time dilation and length contraction). Otherwise light couldn't have a consistent speed.

[xyz]

Your whole argument falls apart right here. The only way that two observers that are moving relative to each other can agree on the speed of light is if they disagree about the measurements of time and space (time dilation and length contraction). Otherwise light couldn't have a consistent speed.

No it does not fall apart, light propagating through space is a singularity, you not understanding. 

 

I have wrote it better, maybe you will understand this, still not completed but you should get the idea. 

 

It is important in  the understanding of simultaneity and simultaneous to completely understand time and to build a central or primary rule or principle on which time is based.  Time is the rudiment of existence, time is said to have begun of the big bang some what fourteen billion years ago.  Time is said to be the thing that stops things happening all at once.   Presently we refer to time as a measurement, the movement of the hands of a clock or the present use of Caesium clocks and it is said that  the  integral of the frequency is time,  9,192,631,770 hertz  being equal to one second of time measurement.  In ordinary terms , time is the mechanism that allows us to synchronise our everyday lives, synchronised in respect relative to  the inertial accelerating reference frame of the gravitational constant of the  Earth and relative velocity,  but not simultaneous relative  to other reference frames according to relativity. However it is important we do not overlook the mind experience and the observation of time,   all observers must agree on the observation of time  to be equal. 

 

In thought let us imagine a spaceship that was going to make a journey from the Earth to the Moon.   On Earth Sam holds in his hand the modern technology of a camcorder, onboard the spaceship Sarah also holds an identical camcorder, finally on the Moon , Sid also holds an identical camcorder.

 

Sarah starts the engines on the spaceship and starts her journey from t=0 . 

 

All three observers Sam, Sarah and Sid all synchronise their recording start  on the camcorders, starting to fill the internal storage with observed data in synchronisation with the light and time.   

 

It is not important we need to consider a forth observer or the speed of the journey or a time on a clock recording the journey.

 

Sarah arrives at the Moon to pick up Sid to return Sid to Earth, where Sarah , Sid and Sam compare the observation of the recordings.   

All observers agree they have recorded the exact equal amount of data, all observers agree that they experienced the  same amount of time in either location or in motion.  All observers agree the observation was simultaneous. 

 

In this example we are defining time - ''Time is the synchronisation of observation'

 

Therefore I propose a rudiment principle  that is self evidently true. 

 

Principle - All observers of time must agree that the observation of time is synchronous and constant.

 

Relative maths.

 

If we imagine a single Photon travelling from A → B and a single Photon travelling a parallel journey from B → A over a length of space-time X, we can calculate the net difference of time between the two photons journey times to reveal 0 net difference in time. 

 

L=X

A_t=(+ve=c)

B_t=(-ve=c)

A_t - B_t = 0_t net difference. 

 

 

 

added- the point you are missing is that if you were observing the Caesium clock on-board the aeroplane and claiming a time dilation, you are disagreeing about the synchronised observation of the observers. 

 

 

added - thank you , you have give me the idea I need.  

 

If you was on the moon measuring the speed of light and I was on the Earth measuring the speed of light, and Sarah was on the spaceship measuring the speed of light, if Sarah measures the speed of light to be different than what we measure, we are disagreeing about the speed of light not time. 

Edited March 5, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

No it does not fall apart, light propagating through space is a singularity, you not understanding. 

No, you don't understand! There's no way for two objects that are in motion relative to each other to measure the same speed of light without time dilation and length contraction. The fact that they do measure light moving at the same speed despite the motion relative to each other PROVES that time dilation and length contraction are physically real.

 

Nothing you've said addresses this. You're whole argument is based on faulty assumptions and misunderstandings. You've been told this time and again, yet you continue to make the exact same rudimentary mistakes over and over.

[xyz]

No, you don't understand! There's no way for two objects that are in motion relative to each other to measure the same speed of light without time dilation and length contraction. The fact that they do measure light moving at the same speed despite the motion relative to each other PROVES that time dilation and length contraction are physically real.

 

Nothing you've said addresses this. You're whole argument is based on faulty assumptions and misunderstandings. You've been told this time and again, yet you continue to make the exact same rudimentary mistakes over and over.

You obviously have no interest in discussing, you obvious want to in some way ''preach '' to  me your belief.  What makes you an authority on the Universe?   

 

Do you consider your eyes work different to mine?  

 

Do you not understand what the word relativity means?  

 

I have told you several times now MY singularity is nothing to do with the speed of light it is to do with relativity.

 

You are being intentionally annoying and playing deaf. 

[A-wal]

You're trying to claim that time dilation and length contraction don't occur while completely ignoring the fact that the consistency of the speed of light in all inertial reference frames proves that they do occur, so how the hell can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

 

You're trying to refute a model that you can't even understand.

 

I've tried to get you to understand but you're not interesting in learning. You can't get your head around it but instead of admitting that it's simply beyond you, you think it must be wrong and you know better. You don't know better, you just don't understand the model well enough to comprehend why what you're claiming is provably false.

 

I'm done wasting my time on you.

[xyz]

 

 

You're trying to refute a model that you can't even understand.

 

For about the 100th time, yes I don't understand (sarcasm).  Do you not understand that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, the Caesium clock does not measure the speed of light, it measures an emittance rate, you clearly are confused about process and understand less than little. 

 

 

My idea relies on the speed of light to be constant, you clearly have no idea what my theory even is have you?

[A-wal]

Do you not understand that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant,...

Listen very carefully, because this is the last time I'm going to say it. You can either continue to ignore it or you actually try learning something. The consistency of the speed of light proves that time dilation and length contraction are real, and thereby disproves your model. Without time dilation and length contraction, two objects in motion relative to each other couldn't possibly measure light moving at the same speed. The difference in the speed of light from the two frames of reference would be the speed that they're are moving relative to each other, but that's not what happens. They both measure light moving at the same speed because of length contraction and time dilation. Speed is distance over time, time dilation and length contraction are what keeps the distance (length contracted) over time (time dilated) the same for both observers.

 

Listen, learn, stop thinking you know better than a model that you don't understand!

[xyz]

Listen very carefully, because this is the last time I'm going to say it. You can either continue to ignore it or you actually try learning something. The consistency of the speed of light proves that time dilation and length contraction are real, and thereby disproves your model. Without time dilation and length contraction, two objects in motion relative to each other couldn't possibly measure light moving at the same speed. The difference in the speed of light from the two frames of reference would be the speed that they're are moving relative to each other, but that's not what happens. They both measure light moving at the same speed because of length contraction and time dilation. Speed is distance over time, time dilation and length contraction are what keeps the distance (length contracted) over time (time dilated) the same for both observers.

 

Listen, learn, stop thinking you know better than a model that you don't understand!

You said before 

 

''I'm done wasting my time on you.''

 

Within 1 post you have posted again saying the same thing. 

 

 

You listen

 

 

My theory is nothing to do with the speed of light or time dilation.  

 

 

PLEASE STICK TO YOUR PROMISE. 

 

 

 

 

''I'm done wasting my time on you.''

[A-wal]

My theory is nothing to do with the speed of light or time dilation.

Then why say:

If you was on the moon measuring the speed of light and I was on the Earth measuring the speed of light, and Sarah was on the spaceship measuring the speed of light, if Sarah measures the speed of light to be different than what we measure, we are disagreeing about the speed of light not time.

They never measure a different speed of light than any other observers unless one of them is accelerating.

 

You've claimed countless time that time dilation and length contraction don't occur despite the fact that a content speed of light proves that they do, you've offered no alternative explanation for how light moves at the same speed to all non accelerating observers.

 

Writing in bigger letters and hitting the bold icon doesn't give anything you say more weight, it just makes you look like even more of a child than you refusal to acknowledge that your claims are provably false.

[xyz]

Then why say:

They never measure a different speed of light than any other observers unless one of them is accelerating.

 

You've claimed countless time that time dilation and length contraction don't occur despite the fact that a content speed of light proves that they do, you've offered no alternative explanation for how light moves at the same speed to all non accelerating observers.

 

Writing in bigger letters and hitting the bold icon doesn't give anything you say more weight, it just makes you look like even more of a child than you refusal to acknowledge that your claims are provably false.

I tell you what my persistent friend , answer a simple question then I will agree with you if you can answer it. 

 

 

Any measurement regarding time greater than the amount of 0 is instantaneous history, so how do you presume 0 can dilate?  

 

 

Have a proper think my friend , we record history, we never did measure time to begin with.