Ok, this should be ''fun'' point out your first deemed error?, I know it faultless. And thanks for the offer a peer, peer away my paper and debunk it then?
Time dilation is actually a timing dilation, visible dark and visible light do not exist of space, there is no length contraction as in the lorentz.
But what you are separating in your mind may not at all reflect reality. That is my point. For I do understand of how limited knowledge is when it comes to this thing we call space. We simply do not totally understand it, nor are we even close. In reality, you cannot separate this idea called space from fields. They are a wholeness. Separating it mentally is not separating it physically.
Have you never played with a magnet? remove the magnet , remove the field, (well it weakens). Emptied a cup of water? It is not hard to imagine a void. A void is without fields etc, it is just empty space. Try this it may help you, the glass is never half empty , it is always full.
I do not think that, the objective physics shows this. Ok , please try to understand, in the light clock thought experiment using the exact same thought experiment , you will measure a length contraction. This I do not deny . However if we remove the distance the light travels , there is no length contraction. By removing the distance I am placing emitter and detector 1 Planck length apart. The affects are negligible and the observation completely changes. dx=1tP You can do this horizontally or vertically and the result is the same. No time dilation or length contraction. I have the models but can't post them here direct from my pc.
Again, until you make your positions coherent I cannot help you. The Jumble of thoughts you present thus far are what seems incoherent attempts at refuting well established and confirmed theory. Take a bit of time and focus long enough to actually write at least a thesis.
That is absolute and complete nonsense trying to use big words and not even understanding what they mean or represent.
I understand what you are saying honestly, but I am just a common man, there is nothing special about me. All I want is for a few scientists to understand it , they can then take it from there and re-write wiki slightly. I'm humble and like being left alone in life.
You know the thing about experiment, try it for yourself and repeat it over and over again, the results are the results . I did not make this result up.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70844.new#new see the last post in this thread, my model dealing with the business of length contraction. =tP =tP
I understand what you say and KNOW it is inaccurate, no scientists will take it seriously unless you clean in up and tie off the many loose ends. If you actually wish to submit this I will do it for you under anonymous but, I will not write it for you.
OK , thank you , I accept your help , I do not expect you to write it for me, maybe you can co-write it? You say you know it is inaccurate, which part?
Why do that? by tP fo you mean planck time? Why can't you post them? Why does a muon travel so much further than it should?
Virtually every aspect of what you have provided will be disputed rigorously if not instantly dismissed. There is absolutely no possible way I would allow my name to be associated with your "Paper" but I will submit it if provided.
Is there any place in space, outside of the earth, which is a void, no fields of any kind? If there isn't, then space and fields are one. So a field and space come as a pair. A field needs space in order to exist. Right? So they are in reality inseparable in the natural world, right? Space is constantly, seeing a creation of short lived particles flashing into and out of existence in space. So space in its natural state is almost alive, in one sense, active, always busy. And we still do not know or understand all of its qualities. I have no doubt new things will be discovered about it in the future, which may show your thinking to be not pertinent to the change in reality that such a discovery might show us. Conjecture of course, but conjecture that is certainly within the realm of possibility. Not only is this thing called space, which allows fields to exist within it, is a host for these fields, but it also provides a medium for various things to travel through, waves of many spectrums, as well as matter. And we still do not have a great deal of understanding about this thing called space. No more than we do of time, dark matter or dark energy. In short, one needs to be very careful in expressing certainties. Certainty seems to always precede the fool.
Because when considering time, there is no length between ''ticks''. Yes, because thats the smallest measurement I can use. URL only, I have worked around that and provided a link Field density giving it extra life.
Ok cool and thanks. I have offered you several times now to go over my part paper I provided with vigour. Nobody on several forums as challenged this. My ''destruction'' of time dilation and length contraction, is well explained using ''their'' own science and even ''their'' own thought experiments. I even have pinned down Einsteins mistake and would have asked him why he is using an imaginary length.
Not that I know too, Well no I could use my own equation but this is not known, people find it really difficult to understand 0+0=X or 1 A, 0 point adjoined to a 0 point equals 1 box length. 0³ equals 1 box . How strange I can see it. As the field density increases , more energy from the field is passed to the muon, thermodynamics and all tha....
http://www.sciencemag.org/authors/instructions-preparing-revised-manuscript This would be a minimal format to be acceptable, a jumble of thoughts is not a "Paper".
? Your own equation? You mean your own math? In your math, 0+0=1? I'd need more than '.. and all that'. Why does the field density increase? How is the energy passed? What does thermodynamics have to do with it?
Thank you for the link which I have looked over, I will read it in more detail tomorrow with a fresh head. It looks a complex and needless affair, why do we need such extremities in writing a paper? If the paper is readable and understandable why is that not enough?
Yes my own math, 0+0 = 1 because in this particular piece of math I am equating 0 points. If we were to place a 0 point adjoined to a 0 point we would have 1 dimension of X. Its not like 0 sweets + 0 sweets = 1, that would equal 0. The field density increase is because every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The opposite action to the inverse square law, is a transverse action. Density increases nearer the center of a field rather than the outer of a field. Fields decrease in magnitude over a distance and gain in magnitude the less distance away to the body emitting the field(s). The energy is passed by absorption, the denser the field , the more is passed. Anything to do with the transfer of energies I consider it thermodynamics because things tend to gain heat as they gain pE (c) and the atoms get exciting and start producing kE which causes friction , hence heat. However this is only hypothesis from me and would not claim that to be facts although I think it is a possibility. Some of my maths for this was Kmax= p.s so you know , a solid/particle I explain as a N-field, the field emitted I refer to as the n-field. Added_ I have a different atomic model than ''you'' do. A N-field particle has a void in the nucleus. In my model, the likewise polarities of the N-field particle cause an isotropic likewise force across the Nucleus creating a spacial void of the nucleus. q1+q2=N Where q represents polarities.
If you are equating 0 points with 0 points, then 0=0, or 0+0=0. If you place two points of 0 dimension in the same place, you still have 0 dimensions. A dimension of X doesn't mean anything. And what action in the muon is being reacted to? Explain that Don't have a problem with that. well... well, no, heat is ke, friction is just the transfer of ke. Pe isn't really involved in either... and I don't see how it applies to a muon... How did you use that equation? what is S?
