I need some advice on writing a scientific paper! Please help

There is no shape to relativity, there is imaginable patterns in an undefined space.

For your question about light, maybe we should wait until I have wrote the nature of light before I ''answer''.

 

That is not the modus ponens logical form that you are claiming in that sentence. Also, labeling something an axiom does not make it an axiom.

 

Ok, I will ''translate''

If twin one is at relative rest in respect to planet X, (p)

If twin two is at relative rest in respect to planet Y,(q)

→p=q∀

If both twin one and twin two objectively agree that their next chronological position is (tP) ahead of them, then subsequently this applies to all.

→ the arrow at the start of this sentence means implies.

∀ the symbol at the start of this sentence means for all.

I understand it is not quite on the normal modus poden list of inference rules, but I did not understand that so made my own up which should be easy to understand.


Lets cut to the ''chase'', how far away is your next chronological position on the timeline? If you agree with me, my axiom becomes ''live'' and relative.

Consider this , c constant is constant on planet X and planet Y, (tP) on X = (tP) on Y because of c constant.

 

Please study the Dunning-Kruger Effect before you go any further.

 

What would you like to know about it? May I suggest you not judge a person unless you know them and not judge a notion if you don't understand it.

 

Let me think , what would Einstein say today about time dilation whilst responding to people on forums. I think he would say ''these time-values can be regarded essentially as magnitudes (results of measurements)''. OH! that's right, he did say that.

 

Yes, I know the symbols, but you can not just show one case where p implies q and the says it generalizes to all q. That is not a valid form of induction. You can say in your context that rule holds, but logicvis more abstract. It is context independent. My previous post showed how your claim fails; thus, it is not valid.

 

I do not ''see'' where you have showed my claim fails. You have not even answered my question, why the avoidance?

It is automatic, it generalises for all because c is constant and because of this (tP) is constant anywhere, even ''floating'' around in space.. That is the beauty of an axiom , they are sealed shut from interference.

There is no disagreement because there simply can't be. There is no uncertainty , there is no argument about two possible answers, there is no chance of variation because (tP) is fractionally 0.

Answer the question please with a honest answer.

how long away is your next chronological position on the timeline?

An infinitesimally small measurement isn't it? not one you can easily perceive, one that can only be explained by maths , even to suggest absolute.

 

Here:

Specifically, →p=q∀ is a logical fallacy. You cannot claim this. It is an invalid inductive claim. You need to learn basic deductive and inductive logic rules.

 

What do you mean its a logical fallacy?

If twin one agrees who I designated (p)

and twin two agrees who I designated (q)

how is that not equal?

Again you avoided the very easy direct question, why? Because you know it agrees with me?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_equivalence
''The claim that {\displaystyle p} and {\displaystyle q} are semantically equivalent does not depend on any particular model; it says that in every possible model, {\displaystyle p} will have the same truth value as {\displaystyle q}. The claim that {\displaystyle p} and {\displaystyle q} are syntactically equivalent does not depend on models at all; it states that there is a deduction of {\displaystyle q} from {\displaystyle p} and a deduction of {\displaystyle p} from {\displaystyle q}.

Do I need this going in {\displaystyle p\iff q}?

In logic, statements {\displaystyle p} and {\displaystyle q} are logically equivalent if they have the same logical content. This is a semantic concept; two statements are equivalent if they have the same truth value in every model (Mendelson 1979:56). The logical equivalence of {\displaystyle p} and {\displaystyle q} is sometimes expressed as {\displaystyle p\equiv q}, {\displaystyle {\textsf {E}}pq}, or {\displaystyle p\iff q}.

 

If twin one objectively accepts firstly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (p),

If twin two objectively accepts secondly that their next chronological position on the time line is (tP) time Planck ahead of them (q),

(‘if p then q ’) is accepted, then subsequently

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.


Is that better?

 

I am not saying it isn't equal. I am saying from showing one case being equal, you cannot generalize to all cases are equal. That is not how inductive logic works and that is not how mathematics work.

 

How are you going to provide proof? Over all, it seems more like a philosophical treatise than a scientific one

 

Ok, I ''hear'' you. I also thank you for your considerable patience and help you are giving me. So if I add several other examples of the twins, using the same logical format, this would show for all models?

There is not a conceivable model where this does not ''work''.

 

Time Planck is science and lots of other things in it are science, yes there is also some philosophy , there is also rules of logic which are accepted as axioms and for all purposes of the title, I am correcting science and the semantics and the mythology of time dilation and several other things.
The proof is in the questions, the answers are the proof.

 

JD, I never specified a location of the twins or whether the twins were in relative motion or not, the question is universal, so doesn't my single question and agreements automatically apply to all?

Even in the light clock experiment and the Lorentz length contractions which is the next part of my paper, (tP) remains synchronous to the embankment always.
The observer on the embankment observes a straight beam of light rather than angled light when using (tP) instead of a distance of time that is not really there.

 

Good luck. How fortunate we are to see it here first!!!

 

This is false too. If you satisfy p, then q occurs. This does not mean that p and q are logically equivalent. For them to be logically equivalent, they would have to have the same truth value in every possible model. Demonstrating a true modus ponens does not demonstrate this. For example, modens ponens is true if poth p and q are true, if both p and q are false, or if p is false and q is true. Those are the three conditions that make a true modus ponens, and 1 of them (p being false and q being true) contains p and q with different truth values. Thus, modus ponens does not demonstrate logical equivalence.

Here are the truth tables for modus ponens:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens

Here are the logical equivalence forms:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_equivalence

 

I am slightly confused, I stated that they have the same truth values in every model, you say they don't have the same truth values in every model. The question is the same question to twin one or twin two and the same being the same answer so how is that not equal and equivalent?

Do you actually know the logic symbols I need? If so can't you just post it so I can try to understand the answer with the aid of your links?

 

Look at the Wikipedia I provided. Nowhere does it show modus ponens as an equivalence law. That is because modus ponens does not prove logical equivalence. I am not sure why you are trying to use modus ponens to prove logical equivalence. You need to think why you are doing these proofs. Lay out your goals, and research the tools to achieve them.

 

''the converse of a theorem of the form P → Q will be Q → P''

My logical theorem converse is equal and equivalent .

I am not sure what you want me to write, to me it seems correct.

My goals are I want to show that Twin one's question is the same as twin two's question and the concluding results of twin one and twin two are an equal answer. (The twins both have a copy of my model diagram i.e new evidence).

I have P is equivalent to Q and Q is equivalent to P, as the above quoted converse shows. I have no idea what I am doing wrong.

 

My question is why are you using modus ponens? If you are trying to show logical equivalence, that is not the right argument. Modus ponens shows contingency or causal relationships.

 

Modus podens are a logical argument from my understanding ,

''In propositional logic, modus ponendo ponens (Latin for "the way that affirms by affirming"; generally abbreviated to MP or modus ponens[1]) or implication elimination is a rule of inference.[2] It can be summarized as "Pimplies Q and P is asserted to be true, so therefore Q must be true." The history of modus ponens goes back to antiquity.[3]''

inference
ˈɪnf(ə)r(ə)ns/
noun

1. a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=m.....69i57j0l5.3263j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

noun

1. the rule of logic which states that if a conditional statement (‘if p then q ’) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds, then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred.
   • an argument using the rule of modus ponens.

 

Should my logical argument be more like :

factual claim:Twin one's next chronological position on the time line is time Planck (tP) away.

inferential claim :Therefore concluding the evidence shows twin two's next chronological position on the time line is time Planck (tP) ahead of them.

I also re-wrote my abstract and changed my title.

Title: Relative correctness and the correct semantics of information.


Abstract-

This paper is intended to correct relativity and semantics in a primary respect to science process. Using a dialectic approach and presenting logical arguments that opposes the present information. Showing a construction of deductive logical proof's , looking at the true values of relativity that humanity has quantified. Concluding that some content uses of relativity have no other discipline, other than the literal content created by the practitioner.

 

Hows this looking now?

Title: Relative correctness and the correct semantics of information.

Abstract-

This paper is intended to correct relativity and semantics in a primary respect to science process. Using a dialectic approach and presenting logical arguments that opposes the present information. Showing a construction of deductive logical proof's , looking at the true values of relativity that humanity has quantified. Concluding that some of the content uses of relativity have no other discipline, other than the literal content created by the practitioner.


Introduction.

Anybody who has ever learnt some science, must of heard of Albert Einstein's relativity. I could not believe when I first ''heard'' time slowed down and wondered how much of relativity was fact and how much of relativity was mythology. The more we look at the intrinsic details of relativity, the more we can realise the mythology involved. In fact the more closely we inspect the entirety of physics science, the more we can observe an ever growing mythology . We can archive our beliefs because we can look at the intrinsic details of relativity that shows ostensibly, thus leading into explaining certain details that creates this mythology in science.

The Nature of time and defining 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 un-disputable. 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. In view of my previous thinking

I define time:A quantifiable measurement that is directly proportional to change

t=Δ(tP)


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 and a model of the propositions.



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)Λ(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.

Thus explaining the first postulate:

Postulate one: Time is a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to change.

. 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.

t1=t2'

Δt1=(tP)

Δt2=(tP)

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.''

In the below diagram we observe a carriage in relative motion and observe a light beam travelling between two points vertically. However this diagram differs from the original light clock thought in that our points are a Planck length apart. The observer clearly observes the light travelling a linearity, as opposed to the angled paths in the original thought experiment. Although one might conclude the linearity objectively looked a bit wave like but not perceivable by the eye and negligible when considering time dilation.



In the below diagram we can observe the difference in thought experiment of the Lorentz length contraction if we were to substitute the length of carriage with a Planck Length. A ''Photon'' is emitted from point (A) and is reflected by point (B) back to point (A) in a continuous manner while the carriage travels left to right.
We can observe from the diagram that the substitute shows no length contraction or said time dilation.