Not since Newton have scientists not needed Calculus and even more advance math to deal with the equations that express the laws of nature and to deal with them as in for example making prediction base on them. In fact Newton was one of the developers of that branch of mathematics in order to deal with his own equations so no you can not have an understanding of the physical sciences beyond the pre-newtons era without the math.
Of course you do not need an advance understanding of mathematics before being able to challenge or adding to the current theories of physical sciences LOL. It been forty years or so since I needed to deal with such equations in college and I can still give myself a headache even thinking about them. Thank god as an engineer I did not normally needed to deal with anything worst then Maxwell equations from time to time in my career.
Then publish your claims in a paper and present it for peer review by REAL Scientists and Astrophysicists in the field, not on a political forum where there are probably only a handful of people who even have the basic understanding of physics to interpret what you are even talking about. People do make mistakes, even Einstein. But as of right now your claims are in direct contradiction to science and in order to prove that YOU are right and EVERYBODY else is wrong then you are going to have to come up with some convincing evidence. I'm sorry but just simple logic makes your claims hard to believe. Just stepping completely out of the box if nearly all professionals in a field universally disagree with "you" then it's probably not them who are all wrong....it's more than likely "you". What credentials to you possess to make such claims? Do you have any education in the field? BS, MS, PhD? Do you work in the field? Are you a student in the field?
Do you have anything written for any of the Postulate's? Right now what I see are claims being made with no evidence and what seems like explanations coming later. On a different note I believe I may have figured out why you are making these claims and BELIEVING them to be true. You have openly stated that you do not understand Calculus but you understand Physics and do not feel as though you need a thorough understanding of advanced mathematics to understand the mechanics of the Universe. Physics and Calculus go hand in hand and understanding Physics goes WELL ABOVE basic Calculus. So you literally cannot "know physics quite well" if you don't even understand basic Calculus. I'm sorry but that statement right there completely discredits any "theory" you can bring forth. You do not have the education in the field necessary to even come up with a theory let alone disprove widely accepted theories by the greatest scientific minds in history. The Universe not working the way you think it should is directly correlated to your lack of understanding of Physics and Mathematics. In spite of your claims, no, you do not have a good grasp of Physics if you don't understand Calculus which explains why you are making these claims about debunking actual science.
can your intellect grasp this simple explanation of the observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The even offer evidence to support the OBSERVATION. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/space-is-not-expanding.523468/ wrap your mind around that one.
If the density of space increases, that appears as an expansion of space. So, paradoxically, it could actually be a contraction of space into a denser area that is causing the apparent expansion of observable space. Let me explain this, the denser space is, the more time it takes for objects to traverse through it. Therefore it appears like there is more space between objects (because there actually is). To really grasp this, you need to understand space as a substance and not as an unchanging fixed distance.
I do have some more that is written and have supporting evidence with it that uses present information. I do not believe my notions are true, the objective reality and physics shows them to be true. Science of today puts far to much empathy into maths, Faraday and even Einstein had the notions long before they had did any maths. If we removed the maths from science would physical process stop? of course not. Semantic corrections does not alter any present maths. I can show all my notions to be true , you are correct though I need to send it off somewhere. Here is some more of my paper: The Nature of time. Many years have passed, and many great minds have considered time and the meaning of time and shared their thoughts. Humans , the very need for time, the very thought of time, something we look for outside of ourselves. Something we believe is quantifiable, something we believe can be measured, something we believe that can slow down or speed up. Newton believed time was absolute, but this was ''over ruled'' by Albert Einstein who first suggested time can slow down or speed up in his 1905 and 1914 papers on relativity. I quote:Citation: Albert Einstein Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity : 8.On the Idea of Time in Physic '' Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. 4 Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section VII) disappears. 5 We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section VI, which are now no longer tenable. In that section we concluded that the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time. But, according to the foregoing considerations, the time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment (as reference-body). Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the distance w relative to the railway line in a time which is equal to one second as judged from the embankment''. I quote:Citation: Albert Einstein Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity : 9.The Relativity of Simultaneity ''Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event''. This then proven to be true by various experiments. One of the most famous experiments being that of Hafele–Keating experiment. I quote:citation:Wikipedia Hafele–Keating experiment ''The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.'' Time dilation and relativity seemingly true and undistuputable. The nature of time seemingly explained and concluded by Albert Einstein. However by using a dialetic approach and looking at the information and considering the information, there is seemingly something amiss. I found this interesting and used investigative thought to consider the thinking involved in Einsteins papers and the nature of time. Firstly my thoughts were in the direction of time speeding up or slowing down and considering the relativity between two individual observers. Time having the ability to speed up or slow down being suggestive that time has a speed. Thus leading to my first question in my mind, what is the speed of time, how fast does time pass? In considering this, the next increment of time to follow the moment of ''now'' was seemingly immediately away, one increment of time passing to the next increment of time seemingly immediately with no ''gaps'' or pause between, a continuous flow without breaks. No matter how fast I tried to count , time seemingly past as fast as I could count. In my mind there was now an uncertainty of the nature of time that I had interpreted of present information. Thus leading me how to explain this, which I looked too geometrical points. I could not displace a geometrical point without leaving a past geometrical position. It did not matter at what speed I tried too displace the point, it always left a past geometrical position. I then considered the direction of time, I could not displace the geometrical point without leaving a past chronological position on the time line, again at any speed. This then had me slightly bewildered, if one observers next increment of time is immediately ahead of them, then one must conclude that another observers next increment of time is also immediate ahead of them . This thought was thought provoking, so I needed to look deeper for answers and in searching for an answer I came across a thought experiment called The Twin Paradox. It is said in thought that there was two identical twins, let us call them twin one and twin two. Both identical twins start off on the inertia reference frame of the Earth. Twin two starts a journey into space leaving twin one on Earth, twin two returns some time later and it is said they had aged less than twin one because of time dilation, experiencing less time than twin one. Ok, let us consider this in respect to the twins and consider two proposition statements. proposition 1 : twin one's next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (p) proposition 2: twin two's next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q) conclusion : (p?q)?(q?p)?(p?? q) p implies q and q implies p which implies p and q are equal and equivalent statements. From this we can deduct both statements have the same truth value in every model and twin one and twin two remain synchronous in timing in respect to relative motion. model of relativity twins.jpg I can't post the model here or the logical equation because of forum format. In the next part of the paper which i can not post the models shows the Lorentz length contractions to be incorrect. In short Einsteins big mistake is working with a length of time that is a lot longer than time. Using a shorter length of time in the light clock experiment, shows no time dilation or length contraction because quite simply there is no length to dilate or contract. more paper: Let us now consider a train carriage that is at rest relative to the embankment. On the embankment is a clock that is identical to a clock on the carriage. Both clocks tick at the frequency of one time Planck per tick. Einstein claims that when the carriage is in motion relative to the embankment , the frequency of the ticking clock on the carriage in relative motion is different to the frequency of the clock at relative rest on the embankment, no longer being synchronous. In the earlier quote Einstein says {with respect to the embankment in each second of time.}. This is the error in thinking by Mr Einstein, a second being a much longer increment than the smallest measure of time (tP) time Planck. If on the carriage the rate of time was (tP) and the rate of time on the embankment was (tp), I conclude from the earlier shown evidental results of the twin statements, that the time would remain synchronous whether at rest or in relative motion. Evidentally if twin two was to travel in the carriage, relative too twin one, twin two's next chronological position on the time line remains (tP) time Planck ahead of them and synchronous too twin one. The unit of a Planck length being fractionally zero and having no negliable length to contract, thus leading us to look at the Lorentz length contraction and the thought experiment of a light clock that supports the time dilation ideology. I quote:Citation Wikipedia Light Clock ''The light clock is a simple way of showing a basic feature of Special relativity. A clock is designed to work by bouncing a flash of light off a distant mirror and using its return to trigger another flash of light, meanwhile counting how many flashes have occurred along the way. It is easy to show that people on Earth watching a spaceship fly overhead with such a clock would see it ticking relatively slowly. This effect is called time dilation.'' I have the models that also show very simply no time dilation of the overhead flying spaceship. So Mr moderator, you yourself can answer the next question, If your next moment of now is immediately ahead of you with no pause or ''gaps'' between now moments, quite clearly there is no length to contract, so how could you possibly have a length contraction or time dilation with no length to contract?
No, to grasp the space fabric you have to realise that the fabric occupies space in the form of Q.F.S (quantum field solidity). If you want to experience Q.F.S for yourself , push two likewise polarities together .
Just no, space can not cease to exist, a perfect vacuum that has 0 matter still has dimensions. Space can neither be destroyed or created, space just is.
You find the truth to be hilarious? If you want to make such claims then you should have no problem in ''destroying'' the physics of my paper. But I already know you can't, because axioms are axioms of course....
No. I find your baseless claims, on an anonymous Internet forum, hilarious. I don’t have to. YOU need to publish your paper and see if it stands up to peer review. You of course won’t do this. You don’t know the first thing about science, and you know that your baseless claims would be evicerated.
Like I thought, you present an unrelated argument. If you were genuinely interested in science you would be able to go over my paper and consider the aspects of the paper and question those aspects! Presenting drivel is not a discussion or a debate. If you are so confident it is as you call it baseless, then you can easily show this, so prove it is baseless? You are wrong
Start here if you like: In the earlier quote Einstein says {with respect to the embankment in each second of time.}. This is the error in thinking by Mr Einstein, a second being a much longer increment than the smallest measure of time (tP) time Planck There is no length between now and ''now'' added- so in the light clock experiment, guess what happens if we replace the length of the carriage with a Planck length? No contraction, the observer , observes a dot moving with the carriage.
Unrelated? No. I’m not a scientist. Neither are you, which is quite obvious. But I do know the proper channels for scientific theories. You need to publish. You won’t, because you know it will be destroyed. If you consider me as wrong as Einstein, then I can live with that. Lol
The problem is , my paper cannot be destroyed by anyone because it is axiom facts. Theory and Hypothesis An axiom is something that is self evidently true, it is important we understand that things that are self evidently true, are true, regardless of the “truth” of propositions. In understanding , it is important we understand the attributes of a theory or hypothesis, there is also an importance we understand what a theory or hypothesis actually is in the terms of realism. A theory or hypothesis is an idea, an idea that relates to something, however we must not allow ourselves to become besotted in any idea unless it is of axiom tendencies. An hypothesis differs from a theory, a theory is more evident than a hypothesis, often having experimental results to back it up, where as hypothesis's are often considered more of a speculation without any evidential merit. We must not allow ourselves to speculate to vividly, our premise should remain based on axioms, we should not conclude that set theory , is fact, unless the evidence is axiom related and in accordance strictly relative. So please feel free to attempt to destroy my paper, I need it ''testing'' before I publish it, everyone runs ''scared'' and fails.
Space isn't expanding into anything, bodies are ''expanding'' into space. The further away matter travels, the more space we observe. However at a certain point in time, the matter will have travelled out of visual range. The observable Universe will then visually contract to the last observed bodies. To put in simple terms, space is not expanding, the observation is expanding.
Ok, and what we define as the "universe" has a boundary that the bodies are expanding into. But, what if you travel beyond what is observable? Are there more universe, or just infinite emptiness? Space is nothing but a way for humans to measure. Same with time. No beginning and no end.
We define the observable Universe, the observable universe has a boundary, but not a boundary like a brick wall. The boundary is the finite observation in accordance with the inverse square law. Light weakens in magnitude over a distance, things at a certain distance away stop being illuminated with enough intensity and magnitude to observe. Any discussion of what is outside the observable universe is and can only be speculative. However with a bit of thinking we can with an almost certainty assume that there exists further bodies outside the observable universe. We can assume this because before our time, some existing bodies must have already ''expanded'' out of visual range into the un-observable Universe. I can confirm the entire Universe , observable and un-observable is infinite. A piece of logic can conclude this.
