xyz Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) How does the physics of n dimensions differ from that of (n + 1) dimensions in general ? :zip:I think this is a straight forward question, I am not an expert or a scientist so you know. N dimensional is anything beyond the length of light between two reflective bodies. I.e look at a star and that is a length, n+1. However if you look next to the star at the ''blackness of space'', that would be N-dimensional because there is no point sources reflecting or emitting light that can be observed to create a measurement. Edited February 24, 2016 by xyz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

sanctus Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 xyz,....what? It does not make any sense, "length of light"? Loking at a star is a length? Is n+1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

xyz Posted February 24, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) xyz,....what? It does not make any sense, "length of light"? Loking at a star is a length? Is n+1?Yes, looking at a star is the length between reflective or emitting point sources, the length from A to B contains a length of light from A to B equal to the length of the space-time between the two point sources A bounded constraint of measurement that can contract or expand relative to the two point sources motion and/or distance. Where as distance is an unbounded quantity on the basis we can not observe a second point source to accurately measure a length. Consider that when you observe a ''distant'' star the light travels a length to you, but on the other side of the star, the unobserved side of the star, the light also travels away from you into an N-dimensional distance. You can do this experiment with a candle in the centre of a dark warehouse, a blind folded observer when removing their blind fold would tell you they could distinguish a length to the walls of the warehouse. The inverse square law and the intensity and magnitude of the light creating a visual ''event horizon'' where the light diminishes into a singularity of observation of N-dimensional space. I have tried my best to explain, I hope you understand it. This computer simulations shows the affect of the inverse square law and the Lorentz transformation and visual contraction leading to an observation of N-dimensional distance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYC-7QaI2Qg Edited February 24, 2016 by xyz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

xyz Posted February 26, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) It’s fun to calculate how many more spatial dimensions it would take to make the Sun invisible from Earth. Assuming atoms get re-jiggered to work the same in whatever number of dimensions, to the surface of the sun has the same brightness, the brightness formula is[math]B(n) = \left(r_1/r_0\right)^{n-1} \dot= 215^{n-1} [/math]where [math]n[/math] is the number of dimensions, [math]r_0[/math] the Sun’s radius, and [math]r_1[/math] Earth’s orbit. The dimmest magnitude you can see with the naked eye is 3 to 6. The Sun’s is about -27. Magnitude is [math]-2.5 log_{10}( B )[/math], so the Sun becomes invisible for [math]n \ge 9 > \frac{33}{2.5 log_{10}(215)} +3[/math]. In even 4 D space, stars in their present positions, size, and surface brightness wouldn’t be visible in 4 D space . The largest stars have radii less than [math]r_0=[/math]2000 time the Sun’s, while the closest stars are over [math]r_1=[/math]250000 times the Earth’s distance from the Sun, which adds more than 60 to their magnitudes. The most sensitive telescopes built or likely to be built by a civilization of our technological level can detect stars can detect perhaps magnitude 40 (the Hubble can detect up to about 31.5) The atom re-jiggering assumption I’m making for all this is pretty big, though – but not as big as imagining more than 3 non-compact spatial dimensions. The smart, imaginative, and well-educated Rudy Rucker wrote a very cool novel exploring the biochemistry, ecology, and politics of 4 D space, Spaceland (2003).Hello , can I please use your maths in the paper I have been writing that goes with all my ideas I have been posting? Just to show you what the maths will go to, I have still got to complete this and add the visual effect of a black hole in comparison to the invisible sun from a third person observer. 6.The meaning and value of GeometricGeometry is a branch of maths that is concerned in dealing with the aspects of shape, lines , curves and points , geometrically being a regular existence of lines and shapes thus leading us into a lengthy discussion of the relativeness of Geometry in space.It is important when considering space and in the use of geometry and Minkowski's space-time, that we do not get obsessed into trying to materialise Minkowski's space-time into something other than virtual, ignoring any ''truths'' of axioms such that lines or curves relatively do not exist in space, relatively curves and lines only exist of objects.Einstein's relativity, a theory , which is not an axiom, suggests a curvature of Minkowski's space-time regarding space-time to like'fabric'', however there has never been any physical properties of space observed such as an aether or anything observed of a solidity of space itself. Space is observed as passive, even allowing the propagation of light through space, space offering no resistance to the light. It is of importance though we do not disregard Einstein's work or Minkowski's space-time completely, it has huge value in respect to navigation and co-ordination of events in the visual Universe and some of Einstein's relativity thought is of axiom ''truths'' thus far on our understanding and exclusively to our limitations.In the continuation of geometry, I feel it is of importance we bring to the discussion, the geometrical relative size of the visual universe. It is believed by the big bang theory, that before the big bang , nothing existed , not even time.In the above sense, relatively we can describe nothing in geometrical maths terminology4/3 pi r³ - 4/3 pi r³ = nothingIn this maths use expression, it is not important to consider values or put values, the importance of the equation is to consider any size spherical volume and by taking away equal to itself, it leaves nothing. Edited February 26, 2016 by xyz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

xyz Posted February 26, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 sorry had to post it in two The big bang also suggests that space is expanding, suggesting the size of the visual Universe is ''growing'' and that space itself is expanding into nothing.However, this is not an axiom of ''truth''and the evidence that is offered of the Hubble observed red shift, is based on the length between two reflective points . Space itself does not reflect light or is observed to be red shifting, only the incident ray of light impacting an object or the reflective invert of light from objects can red shift relative to the Doppler effect. I propose the basis of evidence suggests that objects are moving away from the observer into more space, rather than the unobserved expansion of space, a length expansion into a unknown distance.Thus brings me to an explanation of a limitation, the limitation being that of light and the diminished magnitude of light over a distance from the source, following that of the inverse square law, relative to observation of objects and the observer.In consideration of the diminished light, let us consider an analogy , which is a comparison between one thing and another of similar context.If in thought we imagine a huge empty warehouse that was in complete darkness, in the center of the warehouse is observer (A) and at a length away from observer (A) standing by the warehouse walls was observer (B).Relative to observer (A) they can not observe (B)Relative to observer (B) they can not observe (A)Relatively both observers can concur by voice the axiom truth, that neither observer can observe each other.Now lets us imagine that observer (A) in the center of the huge warehouse was to place a lit candle by their feet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

xyz Posted February 26, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 To many of something sorry your system says. Relative to observer (A) they can still not observe (B)Relative to observer (B) they can observe (A)Relative to both observers, they can concur by voice that this is the axiom truth of the observation.My reasoning for this relationship is that emitted light is a much a greater magnitude than reflected light. Observer B observes light emitted from the candle flame and a greater magnitude of reflection of the light off (A), where as observer (B) only reflects the extended light that is weakened by the inverse square law by time it arrives at (B). The magnitude of light reflected from (B) is not a great enough magnitude by time the invert reaches (A) and the information of observation is ''washed out'' by the candle light surrounding (A).There is no apparent reason why this analogy can not be used on a broader scale of space. We can assume that the axiom holds true on a broader scale, we can assume that the ''black'' background of space, is distance, and objects reflect light or emit light over the distance to identify lengths between objects.To extend on this axiom, I would direct the reader to the attention of vanishing points and perspective view. A body in motion travelling away from an observer relative to observation will appear to decrease in size to an eventual point of appearing to not exist, down scaling into nothing.This can be described in analogy by using a train track.If in imagination we are standing on the train track observing a train travelling away from us , relatively we observe the train's observed rear area, scaling down in size.This area contraction can be acquainted to the Lorentz formula and length contraction, length contraction being that of perspective parallel nature, where as the perspective linear view relative nature to motion of the object differs in that the whole area of the viewed object contracts to a point of nothingness relative to a linear velocity between two bodies.Thus brings us to the relative geometrical size of the visual Universe, there is a ''truth'' in that the size is relative to the reflectiveness or the emittance of the furthest away object, there is also a ''truth'' that this does not show us any relative size to the Universe and space itself, this only shows us relative length between objects relative to light.To describe the visual universe in geometrical maths, we can write the expression4/3 pi r©³Where r© represents the radius of light we observe from a localised point of the Universe corresponding to a distant body and relative to the length of light between bodies.To describe the the Universe and N-dimensional space we can apply the maths expression 4/3 pi N³ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

sanctus Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 You made an effort indeed, but still... I will come back with some comments later Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

A-wal Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 What you call axioms of truth are nothing more than your misconceptions. Curved spacetime is a concept you have no understanding of and keep using out of context, and it certainly doesn't require an ether of any kind. The apparent size of objects at various distances has NOTHING at all to do with length contraction or the size of the universe. Length contraction is an actual shortening of distance when objects are in motion relative to each other and the combination of length contraction and time dilation is needed for the speed of light to be the same relative to all inertial observers. You made an effort indeed, but still... I will come back with some comments laterGood luck! sanctus 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

xyz Posted February 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 You made an effort indeed, but still... I will come back with some comments laterThat is only one section of my theory , the first page is this, but I have got to add on the contents, quantum singularity, simultaneity, seeing things in the past, and write all the chapters. I am struggling to find any help . Abstract - Representing the Universe in a way that is accurate and true to life, simplistic propositions that are self evidently true that will show us the truth and honesty of various physical phenomenon of the Universe, in which the basis of logical process and rational thought will show the justification of the axiom propositions to be true. Part 1 - The Theory of realistic. 1.Introduction, explanation of an axiom 2.Defining various definition 3.Defining Theory and Hypothesis 4.The meaning of maths and maths use 5.The meaning of limitation 6.The meaning and value of Geometrics 7.In respect of moving bodies 8.Examining mass and massless 9.The relationship between time and mass 10.The relationship between time and massless Explaining the constant-'constant nature of light Explaining observer effect and experiment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

xyz Posted February 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 1.Introduction, explanation of an axiom 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 this sense is founded exclusively on our limited finite observation of the Universe. We must presume that axiom's observed in our finite visual Universe, co-exist to be true in a broader scale of an infinite Universe or Multi-verse. There would be no valid reason to assume that our observed physical laws and process is not the same and equal too, on a broader scale. It would be foolish of ourselves to deny axiom's regardless of experimental outcomes, theory or hypothesis. 2.Defining various definition We should take great consideration and respect for definition, it is universally important that we define simplistic axiom's in a simple understandable manner that clarifies the exact content with strict definition, that all readers of the information can easily relate to without misinterpretation of the information. When observing a definition and considering a definition it is of utmost importance we apply the truths we observe of the thing or phenomenon we are defining. In our visual Universe there is several key axiom definitions that need to be applied. Space - space is the volume of ''empty'' distance that surrounds an observer Distance - An isotropic unbounded quantity of N-dimensional space extending away from the observer Length -1. A measured distance of finite bounded space between two reflective or emitting point sources. 2. A measurement of an objects physical dimensions of its form. Universe - an unbounded N-dimensional space Visual Universe - a finite observed length of light within a Universe Matter - Solidity or substance that occupies space Energy - property of an object, matter of substance with physical presence but without solidity. Objects - matter existing with solidity such as a particle. Motion - the continuous displacement of matter in space Dimensions- The volume of a physical object Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

xyz Posted February 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 Defining Simultaneity - Firstly, we must be certain in our minds that we understand the definition of simultaneity. Albert Einstein defined simultaneity as the property of two events happening simultaneously in a reference frame, however according to Einstein's theory of relativity , this is not a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things, something that is simultaneous in one reference frame is not necessarily simultaneous in another reference frame . Simultaneity is also closely related to time dilation, Albert Einstein's 1905 paper of special relativity and many experiments showing that time slows down relative to velocity. Defining Simultaneous- To be certain, for us to reach an understanding, it is an important value to be sure that our definitions use are understood. Simultaneous, is events that happen at the exact same time, a synchronisation. For example, if two different people were both born at exactly 3.30 am on Monday January 1st 2016, these two independent events would be simultaneous events happening at the exact same time. Defining Time. - It is important in the understanding of simultaneity and simultaneous to completely understand time and to build a central or primary rule or principle on which time is based. Time is the rudiment of existence, time is said to have begun of the big bang some what fourteen billion years ago. Time is said to be the thing that stops things happening all at once. Presently we refer to time as a measurement, the movement of the hands of a clock or the present use of Caesium clocks and it is said that the integral of the frequency is time, 9,192,631,770 hertz being equal to one second of time measurement. In ordinary terms , time is the mechanism that allows us to synchronise our everyday lives, synchronised in respect relative to the inertial reference frame of the gravitational constant of the Earth and relative velocity, but not simultaneous relative to other reference frames according to relativity. State 1-Time is an abstract creation by mankind to synchronise their everyday activities 1.1- This state of time is originally denoted by the relative movement of the earth’s spin relative to the motion of the sun. We nowadays use clocks to represent the twenty four hours or so of rotation relative to the two bodies, An invention of a measurement that would go on to synchronise our every day activities and to aid in the scaling of space and the measurement of speed and such. A measurement based on a degree of motion /distance or frequency rate. 1.2-A sun dial works by a degree of movement of the shadow,a clock works by a degree of movement of the fingers, a caesium clock uses a cycle rate equal to one second that is equal to a degree of motion. 1.3- This abstract time = distance/motion/frequency, this is presently how we record and measure time. 1.4 - Needed are point values of {A,B} where A≡B which holds true if A||B which holds true when A≡B≡C which holds true if A||B ||C holds true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

xyz Posted February 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) State 2-This element of time is a virtual representation of the dimension of the whole of space and virtual vectors of space.(Minkowskis space-time) 2.1– This state of time is a virtual representation of estimation, I.e we can calculate a journey of one mile will take one hour to travel at a constant speed of 1 mph. Minkowskis created space-time , virtual representations of dimensions of space to represent virtual journey paths through space that have not yet taken place. 2.2-Space-time existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence, a virtual representation of vectors existing only in the imagination of the observer to represent spacial distance and the path that a moving object follows through space as a function of time synchronised to the observers relationship or expression involving one or more variables. 2.3-Four dimensions of X,Y and Z and a time linearity, interwoven into a single manifold to virtually represent how long a spacial journey would take an observer to travel or to calculate an objects velocity and as likewise, a three point geometric synchronisation using time to denote four-dimensional Minkowski space-time, ''a fundamental concept of the human mind structure human experience(Immanuel Kant)''. Immanuel Kant also believed that time was neither an event or a thing and in-itself unmeasurable. 2.4-In agreement with Kant, I believe time in space or of space can not exist and is unaccountable in any other sense than abstract and of the human imagination. In the representation of a void, the quantity of time becomes unmeasurable because there is no point to point values of {A,B} where A≡B holds true and A||B holds true. There is aslo a ''truth'' in that in measurement, any amount of time measurement greater than the value of 0 becomes instantaneous history suggesting that the value of 0 moves forward at a continuous rate of 0. State two of time is dependent to state one of abstract time, without state one , state two cannot exist. In considering state one and state two of time, then in a sense of realising the actual specifics of the abstract states, I then considered what real time/absolute time is, and turned my attention towards the Caesium atom and the frequency rate. Although the rate of the Caesium atom was defined to equal an old second denoted by a degree of motion, I could see some significance in time dilation/gravitational time dilation, that gave me a line of enquiries and queries to follow. The present measurement of time and consideration for time is Minkowski space-time, a belief that time is independent of the observer, a belief that the measuring device of time is measuring a time outside of ourselves, which lead me to having an interesting thought of the movement of a clock finger. Whilst observing a degree of movement of a clock finger, respectively measuring an increment of degree equal to an increment of time, what really am I observing?, Am I observing the clock recording its own time? Am I observing the clock recording an independent time? or am I really observing my own time observing the clock? Well it just so happens, at a ground state in a stationary initial reference frame, I am observing my time , the clocks time, and a said independent time all in a moment that is an equal rate. (A) the clock finger , (B myself and © a said independent time , A||B ||C, which means (A) is parallel to ( :cool: and parallel to ©. I then considered would anything change if I placed an Atomic clock/Caesium atom, in my room, with myself, the clock, and the independent time. 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation at ground state was equal to one second of my clock at ground state, so I observed my clock, myself, the said independent time, and imagined the Caesium atom clock (D). I observed all the clocks were travelling parallel in synchronised time A||B ||C||D at ground state. This was an interesting thought but did still not give me the answer to what real time/absolute time was. In consideration of this , the path of investigation lead me to consider time dilation/gravitational time dilation. ''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.'' ''According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs more slowly, as expressed by the Lorentz factor. This effect, called time dilation,'' According to time dilation and relativity , the basics are that time slows down when things are moving in comparison to an observer at rest at ground state . This was evidentially shown to be true by the Caesium atoms 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation at ground state that was equal to one second, changing , producing a different rate when in motion showing time slowed down by relative motion compared to a ground state rest mass. Of cause if one knows time can change, then one can also presume time travel is possible and likes. Evidentially all must be known about time and Minkowski space-time and relativity must be correct. That would be an assumption someone who was not curious would make and settle to be the answer. The rate of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock, in considering this, something is just not quite right, I am at rest relative to my clock that is at rest, I already know that A||B ||C||D at ground state, so now I am going to consider (E) an atomic clock/caesium clock in motion in respect to the ground state of myself, my clock, my imaginary Caesium clock, and the said independent time. {A||B ||C||D } is-not-parallel-imageE which means E is not parallel to A,B,C.D and is independent of A,B,C,D. According to Minkowski and Einstein, time is independent of matter and exists independently as a space-time, but my simple thought experiment shows the atomic clock/Caesium atom is independent from the ground state times and space-time. The effect of time rate slowing down in this instance was only experienced dependently by the Clock in motion independent of any other mass or space. This then leads me to what time actually is. 3-Absolute Time is the dependent rate of decay of independent physical bodies/particles. (such as the Caesium atom) 3.1- This state of time is all of concrete existence, a rate that remains constant if the observer remains stationary at a ground state in an initial reference frame and a constant of gravitational influence. Motion stretches this time, a change in rate of time by displacement of the gravitational force constant having effect on frequency rate. Principle rule 1 – All independent observers of time, independently occupy their own time frame. Principle rule 2- State 1 and state 2 are dependent for all observers, where as state 3 is independent for all observers. Edited February 27, 2016 by xyz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

xyz Posted February 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) Defining Measurement.- To continue in the aim of understanding, let us define what a measurement is and be certain that we understand. A measurement is the length between two geometrical positioned point sources. A base quantity of distance in an N-dimensional space or such as an increment length of time between two points . Measurement is a scalar quantity when spoken in these terms, often based on linearities between two points and the result of measurement being a finite result contained between two points. Measurement generally uses a first point with a zero value and the second point being the result of the measurement. This scalar type measurement differs slightly to the measuring system of vector measurement. Vector measurement concerns with velocities added and several geometrical points and uses Minkowski's space-time, a four dimension manifold of three dimensions of X,Y,Z and a forth dimension of time, also used in Albert Einstein's special relativity and the common use of present. Defining Constant.- It is worldly accepted that the speed of light is constant to all observers in any reference frame when measured in a vacuum. When talking Physics, the word constant refers to the speed of light and means that the speed of light is unchanging and can be measured to being the same speed by any observer. However, the speed of light is not infinite but is widely agreed to be finite. To be clear on our understanding, the constant of light is only constant and unchanged in a vacuum, where as none vacuums with mediums and objects have effect and makes the speed a variate and changing wavelength. However it is of importance that we understand the word constant has other meanings. Let us consider colour, relative to us we observe colour , colours are a wave-length of light, a certain frequency that defines the colour we observe. In observation we observe a red apple, the colour of red is constant to all visual observers who are not colour blind. The red is unchanging and remains a constant until it decays and loses it's colour. Let us now consider gravity, relative to us it is constantly pulling us to the ground. So in our understanding constant is more than just a constant speed, it is any observation occurring continuously over a period of time. 3.Defining Theory and Hypothesis In understanding , it is important we understand the attributes of a theory or hypothesis, there is also an important we understand what a theory or hypothesis 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 solid 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. 4.The meaning of maths and maths use dependencies and none dependencies. We must remember that numbers are the invention of logical rules by humans to aid our existence. Numbers do not exist in the Universe, they only exist in our mental interpretation of process by using number equivalents to explain and accurately fit and explain a process or event. . Almost anything we know are interpretations or concepts, we our very likely to never know the ''real thing'' - we observe something, , gain some knowledge about that something and create a concept to describe it. We should not mistake our concepts with the real thing. The Universe exists without numbers and events happen regardless of the numbers involved. It is important that we understand that maths is not the answer to the Universe , it is a way to define a process or event in a different context other than words alone. The process or event always preceding the maths, it is improtant to recall our history, Maxwell several years later creating the maths to ''fit'' Faraday's findings, the maths a later of the former. However the maths can also be independent to the process in its use of prediction and calculation of the prediction of Universal events. 5.The meaning of limitation When we observe limitation, we observe restriction, not only are we restricted to a visual restriction that establishes a finite observation visual Universe, we are restricted to thinking inside of the ''box''and have limitations in our thinking. Any thinking of ''outside'' of the box, can only be deemed to be speculation and hypothesis and never deemed to be fact until a future time of further investigations may lead to new findings beyond our limitations. However, we must not disregard the axioms of the inside of the ''box'' when thinking outside of the ''box''. It is also important that we consider why we have limitation and what is the possible cause(s) of these limitations, not overlooking the diminishing of light over distance, matter reflectivity and the relativity of objects moving away from an observer relatively appear to decrease in size to a point of no existence. Edited February 27, 2016 by xyz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

xyz Posted February 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 6.The meaning and value of Geometric Geometry is a branch of maths that is concerned in dealing with the aspects of shape, lines , curves and points , geometrically being a regular existence of lines and shapes thus leading us into a lengthy discussion of the relativeness of Geometry in space. It is important when considering space and in the use of geometry and Minkowski's space-time, that we do not get obsessed into trying to materialise Minkowski's space-time into something other than virtual, ignoring any ''truths'' of axioms such that lines or curves relatively do not exist in space, relatively curves and lines only exist of objects. Einstein's relativity, a theory , which is not an axiom, suggests a curvature of Minkowski's space-time regarding space-time to like'fabric'', however there has never been any physical properties of space observed such as an aether or anything observed of a solidity of space itself. Space is observed as passive, even allowing the propagation of light through space, space offering no resistance to the light. It is of importance though we do not disregard Einstein's work or Minkowski's space-time completely, it has huge value in respect to navigation and co-ordination of events in the visual Universe and some of Einstein's relativity thought is of axiom ''truths'' thus far on our understanding and exclusively to our limitations. In the continuation of geometry, I feel it is of importance we bring to the discussion, the geometrical relative size of the visual universe. It is believed by the big bang theory, that before the big bang , nothing existed , not even time. In the above sense, relatively we can describe nothing in geometrical maths terminology 4/3 pi r³ - 4/3 pi r³ = nothing In this maths use expression, it is not important to consider values or put values, the importance of the equation is to consider any size spherical volume and by taking away equal to itself, it leaves nothing. The big bang also suggests that space is expanding, suggesting the size of the visual Universe is ''growing'' and that space itself is expanding into nothing. However, this is not an axiom of ''truth''and the evidence that is offered of the Hubble observed red shift, is based on the length between two reflective points . Space itself does not reflect light or is observed to be red shifting, only the incident ray of light impacting an object or the reflective invert of light from objects can red shift relative to the Doppler effect. I propose the basis of evidence suggests that objects are moving away from the observer into more space, rather than the unobserved expansion of space, a length expansion into a unknown distance. Thus brings me to an explanation of a limitation, the limitation being that of light and the diminished magnitude of light over a distance from the source, following that of the inverse square law, relative to observation of objects and the observer. In consideration of the diminished light, let us consider an analogy , which is a comparison between one thing and another of similar context. If in thought we imagine a huge empty warehouse that was in complete darkness, in the center of the warehouse is observer (A) and at a length away from observer (A) standing by the warehouse walls was observer (B. Relative to observer (A) they can not observe (B Relative to observer (B they can not observe (A) Relatively both observers can concur by voice the axiom truth, that neither observer can observe each other. Now lets us imagine that observer (A) in the center of the huge warehouse was to place a lit candle by their feet. Relative to observer (A) they can still not observe (B Relative to observer (B) they can observe (A) Relative to both observers, they can concur by voice that this is the axiom truth of the observation. My reasoning for this relationship is that emitted light is a much a greater magnitude than reflected light. Observer B observes light emitted from the candle flame and a greater magnitude of reflection of the light off (A), where as observer (B only reflects the extended light that is weakened by the inverse square law by time it arrives at (B. The magnitude of light reflected from (B) is not a great enough magnitude by time the invert reaches (A) and the information of observation is ''washed out'' by the candle light surrounding (A). There is no apparent reason why this analogy can not be used on a broader scale of space. We can assume that the axiom holds true on a broader scale, we can assume that the ''black'' background of space, is distance, and objects reflect light or emit light over the distance to identify lengths between objects. (missing surface brightnesss formula to be added) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

xyz Posted February 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) To extend on this axiom, I would direct the reader to the attention of vanishing points and perspective view. A body in motion travelling away from an observer relative to observation will appear to decrease in size to an eventual point of appearing to not exist, down scaling into nothing. This can be described in analogy by using a train track. If in imagination we are standing on the train track observing a train travelling away from us , relatively we observe the train's observed rear area, scaling down in size. This area contraction can be acquainted to the Lorentz formula and length contraction, length contraction being that of perspective parallel nature, where as the perspective linear view relative nature to motion of the object differs in that the whole area of the viewed object contracts to a point of nothingness relative to a linear velocity between two bodies. (missing lorentz transformations calculations) Thus brings us to the relative geometrical size of the visual Universe, there is a ''truth'' in that the size is relative to the reflectiveness or the emittance of the furthest away object, there is also a ''truth'' that this does not show us any relative size to the Universe and space itself, this only shows us relative length between objects relative to light. To describe the visual universe in geometrical maths, we can write the expression 4/3 pi r©³ Where r© represents the radius of light we observe from a localised point of the Universe corresponding to a distant body and relative to the length of light between bodies. To describe the the Universe and N-dimensional space we can apply the maths expression 4/3 pi N³ 7. Understanding the constant-'constant of light propagating through space. Light in a vacuum travels at 299 792 458 m / s and is a constant. Space is a near perfect vacuum and is ''transparent'' to light, meaning that space allows light to propagate through space unchanging in the constant speed. Ourselves, observe a clarity of space in that relatively we can observe distant objects reflecting light and the space between ourselves and the observed object is not opaque, it is relatively perceived to be ''see through''. This observation is relatively constant to all visual observers in any frame of reference that is not in darkness. (incomplete) Do you think it is worth me continuing, I am nobody and this is a lot of hard work and effort? Edited February 27, 2016 by xyz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

A-wal Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) Do you think it is worth me continuing, I am nobody and this is a lot of hard work and effort?No. Of course the observable universe isn't the whole thing, nobody thinks that it is. You still can't grasp relativity so your arguments are invalid. Think about how two observers that are moving relative to each other can measure the same thing (light) moving at the same speed. Edited February 28, 2016 by A-wal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

xyz Posted February 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 No. Of course the observable universe isn't the whole thing, nobody thinks that it is. You still can't grasp relativity so your arguments are invalid. Think about how two observers that are moving relative to each other can measure the same thing (light) moving at the same speed.iT'S ok , after another hard time by a load of idiots on another forum I am just going give up. Thanks for talking though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.