It must be nice to finally find someone who does not question your ability to think rationally and the level of your knowledge base.
It appears that he is basically saying that if the difference in length between two objects is one planck length then it is not possible for any length contraction in an attempt to prove Einstein wrong
Yes we build devices that are great devices and ingenuity. This part of science is great and one could never argue about those achievements. A telescope answers my question, Is space itself dark? Is space itself light? Or is space just transparent and ''gin'' clear? Now my conclusions are it is gin clear because light does not affect space.
first observer needs to step away from the candle as the candle is obscuring his view of reflected light. Do you see stars in the daytime?
If the observer steps away from the light, neither observer will see each other. Daytime stars are washed out, it is not dark between the night time stars.
Einstein uses 1 second of length of time which in the caesium clock is about 3.26cm 1 second of future time which is actually the present . Draw a line that extends away from you, the entire line is in the present.
sure they will. It depends where you put the candle. Here Ill prove it. Place the candle at the other observer without moving the observers and post your conclusion.
The the conclusion and fact is the vice versus, the observer in the middle will see the observer by the wall but the observer by the wall will not see the observer in the middle. If the observer in the middle walks towards the observer by the wall, eventually the observer by the wall will see the other observer.
No, Einstein did not use one second of time. He used t' being a time different to t. The maths behind special relativity is surprisingly simple but does break down at the quantum level. Even his famous prediction that was verified during a solar eclipse used simple maths. The theories are not complete and little doubt other theories will be presented. My personal theory is that speed of light is not constant over time of emitance but that is another topic
"One could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.'" Hawking, A Brief History of Time. "The increase of disorder or entropy with time is one example of what is called an arrow of time something that gives a direction to time and distinguishes the past from the future. There are at least three different directions of time. First, there is the thermodynamic arrow of time—the direction of time in which disorder or entropy increases. Second, there is the psychological arrow of time. This is the direction in which we feel time passes—the direction of time in which we remember the past, but not the future. Third, there is the cosmological arrow of time. This is the direction of time in which the universe is expanding rather than contracting." Hawking, "The Direction of Time" in New Scientist July 1987 I can get my gray matter wrapped around the second Hawking quote much more easily than the first. When I took physics the prof said the definition of time is that which can be measured by a clock of any kind. He never did define space.
I am struggling to think what to put to this There is not really much background information to say about time. I can explain time is an arbitrary construct to synchronise our everyday lives ?
Angles are an imaginary construct of the mind and are strictly relative to perception. By creating angle you are just re-positioning a linearity relative to something else. Your question is not valued without more specifics such as dimensions of the warehouse. But in a hypothetical general discussion, the answer depends on how close the observers are too each other and how close they are to the candle. There is several different outcomes depending to specifics of your question, can you please define your question more specific to remove ambiguity of the question.
He did use one second and referred to it in relativity , but nether mind, my maths shows Einstein is incorrect about time dilation. (Δt=tP)=(Δt'=tP) 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. You would have to prove the speed of light to not be constant to show my clocks to be broken . 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.'' The distance being the problem. 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.' It is also easy to show using time planck that such a clock ticking slowly is pure make believe.
Title:Inconsistencies with relativity and relative correctness in primary respect to time . One Sentence Summary:This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to relativity in a primary respect to time. Authors:S.P.Leese Abstract: In general , time is a quantifiable, fundamental measurement that was arbitrary created to synchronise our every day lives. In Physics time is defined by its measurement and according to Physics time can slow down or speed up. Time slowing down or speeding up firstly suggested by Albert Einstein in his 1905 paper of the electrodynamics of moving bodies, where he explains simultaneity. Albert Einstein furthermore explains on time dilation in his papers on relativity and special relativity. This paper objectively looks at the semantics involved in the time dilation ideology. The paper is intended to give time an exact definition by looking in depth at time and the time dilation notion and thought experiments. To reach a logical conclusion that defines time to a strict definition and showing the result of no time dilation when considering accurate semantics. Ok, this is my attempt so far, I may edit though yet after I have slept on it..... Not sure I have covered this part
Everything we perceive is a construct of OUR mind not all minds even though they function in the same general fashion. That does not mean there are no actual angles in the universe.
But, I am expanding. Such points A and B placed years ago on Moi would be further apart with expansion. Space must be likewise expanding to correspond to the expansion of Moi. The Expansion of Moi and Space supports the Expansion of Space too, y'see? Moi It ain't Moi's fault, A victim of the expansion of space. r > g
When a whale sings it does not "Effect" the ocean but the sound travels through it. When a star shines it does not effect our local space (other than cosmic rays and particles) but it certainly travels through it. Space may be "Gin Clear" to our extremely limited perception but, if is not empty. Light a match and low it out...you will see smoke. That smoke will dissipate quickly and be invisible to you...the particulates did not magically disappear, they are so diffuse you cannot see them.
