I have been guided to this forum place!


(steve) #1

Hello all, I have had a link provided to me that brought me to this forum. What I assume is that forum place is a sort of mixed religion/science forum place?

Well I wish to report some finding that prove Einstein to be incorrect about relativity.

I am sure you have probably had people before pass through that think they can achieve this. However my logic and ability to think is of the utmost highest level, I would say to even Godly proportions. I seem to have the ability to look at information and get to an elementary drawn conclusion of axiom values.

Would I be on the correct forum to discuss this?


#2

Hello. I think you’d fit right in here.


(steve) #3

Ok, thank you for your reply, I am not sure of anybodies level of education on this forum, so I will have to discus some basics first. In science we have what we call the theory of relativity and special relativity by Albert Einstein. He suggested time could slow down or speed, this was later experimentally proved and is used in our GPS systems to retain synchronisation.
However in learning this information, I had questions about this information, mainly the concept of time slowing down or speeding up. To me this seemed an impossible and my findings show that this is an impossibility. Semantics and understanding time being misinterpreted on a daily basis around all the internet science forums. Now of course the science forums accuse me of being troll, they would hate their ideal world and their fake reality to crumble and fall into the sea.
Now people may look upon me to be thy anti-science, but objectively if they have it wrong, they need to put it straight.
Thy can not lie to oneself then continue to teach these lies to thy children.

So is anybody interesting in ‘‘listening’’ to why and how they have it wrong?


#4

No promises, especially if your posts are long. But I’m speaking for myself.


#5

Well you start by not telling people why they are wrong. You provide an alternate theory that explains the known data better than the current theory. To begin with I would suggest you explain why your theory explains the deflection of light by the sun with more precision than general relativity. Even better would be to provide an explanation for something that doesn’t fit general relativity. Which will be difficult as there are currently no known deviations from the theory.


(James McKay) #6

I’m sure you’ll get an audience — however, you will need to show us your maths.

To insert equations into your post, you can find a LATEX editor and previewer here.


(steve) #7

How about a one liner short?

Your next chronological position on the time-line is immediately ahead of you.

There is no space/gap in the flow of time to dilate/contract. Time can only be defined as a continuous quantifiable measurement directly proportional to change.

I am trying to keep it simple to gain your understanding, I do not know the ability of readers science information at this time.


#8

Regardless of our “real world” perception and experience, hard data has confirmed Einstein’s predictions about time dilation. Do you have an explanation for that?


(steve) #9

Of course I have an explanation of that, but will you understand the explanation is more of a concern than explaining. I will keep it really simple for now. Please review the logical statement and look for falsifiable statement within it . It is an axiom postulate.


(steve) #10

I have the entire relative maths to go with it. But will you understand the maths? Do you know anything about time Planck?


(Jon) #11

Yes. This site is definitely the place where people come to make such suggestions. I would say this site actually attracts such discussions.

Wow, and I thought you were going to be just like all the others!

His name isn’t Planck, actually. He just looks like a Planck.


#12

Okay…so two clocks in two places measure time at different speeds. They both “experience” time as continuous with the “next chronological position on the time-line as immediately ahead.” So…can you explain why they seem to measure time at different speeds relative to one another?

Oh…an time need not be separated into discrete quanta in order to dilate. A rubber band stretches without being separated into “different pieces of rubber” (at the common “real world” scale).


(steve) #13

Here is a sarcastic answer to your question, you may or may not realise straight away what they are doing wrong.

Reverse Psychology leads to scientific enlightenment.

WOW! I have just discovered that I can slow down time and the experiment I performed shows I am correct.

I started the experiment by looking for a way to measure time. I decided that I would count numbers to equal the amount of time passed.

I firstly counted to ten, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

I then ran the experimental measurement several times

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

I then discovered that if I counted quicker, time was to speed up.

I then discovered that if I counted slower , time was to slow down.


#14

So you have two people counting at the exact same speed finishing at different times.

You could argue that in locales of higher gravity people and things just “count faster.” What’s the practical difference between that and time dilation?


(steve) #15

I am the one and only me, there is nobody like me .


(Jon) #16

I’m glad you’ve been listening to Mr Rogers.


(Jay Johnson) #17

I wish to report … I have been guided away from this forum place thread!


(steve) #18

Yes , science is saying that they count slower , i.e time dilation , then time slows down, So far from the truth it is quite laughable.

The true speed of time is Δt=tP

All observers using tP to measure time would experience simultaneous time. Einstein never considered time at small increments, he only thought as time as being discrete in 1 second increments, giving an amount of distance to contract that is not actually there to begin with.

Your next instant of now being only a tP away , we would have to use tP being the smallest conceivable measurement , agreeing that Newton was correct and time is absolute and can only be perceivable and explained by a mathematical expression. Δt=tP


#19

Having read the subsequent posts, I would suspect “probably not”. It’s likely there are pretty few people here that could appreciate or even understand your new theory. In presenting an idea about why relativity may be incorrect, it’s probably best to write long letters to the heads of many physics departments and ask for their comments. That’s been the traditional route for quite some time and it works very well.


(steve) #20

I am simply not the traditional type of person, I spread my words by my sword, in this instant my sword is my keyboard as I a have advanced from pencils.

However when I have relative agreement all over the world, I then might decide to complete my paper and send it off for publication.