**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.*

**Postulate one:** The speed of time is infinite, any measurement of time greater than zero becomes immediate history no matter what the speed or the length of measurement is.

**Postulate two:** Visible light is dependent to electro-magnetic radiation and substance interaction.

**Postulate three:** Visible light and dark do not exist of free space.

*At first these postulates may not be so obviously true to the reader, however thus far I have not explained the nature of the postulates in which the reader will then understand the obvious of the postulates. To view something to be incorrect without understanding it, is not being objective. We can not let ourselves exclude new information biased towards past information. We must give new information considerate thought on the premise or premises of the argument provided and realise that somethings of present information appear to be true, but are not necessarily true. Let us now look at the nature of the postulates.*

**The Nature of 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 undistuputable. 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.*

*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: The speed of time is infinite, any measurement of time greater than zero becomes immediate history no matter the speed or length of increment measurement.**

. *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.*

**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.”**

to be continued…….

]]>The amount of time it takes light to travel a distance of free space is constant because the speed of light denoted c measured in a vacuum is constant in speed at 299 792 458 m / s. From the Sun to Earth a Photon’s journey, the Photon on average takes about eight minutes and twenty seconds to reach the Earth and enter your eyes, in which this a part of the sight process , thus allowing us to see by the Photon’s entering our eyes.

Photon’s emitted from the surface of the Sun need to travel across the vacuum of space to reach our eyes that allows us to see the Sun , we see objects similarly by the Photons reflecting off objects that travel across free space that enter our eyes. We retain an image of the object in our minds as long as we retain a clear line of sight.

Thus ”brings” to my attention the thought and postulate of considering the events in which the present information is seemingly at error . The present information suggesting we see objects as they were in their past. In short and simple terms it is presently suggested that when you observe the Sun at 9 a.m relative to you, you are actually seeing the Sun , an image in your brain, that is eight minutes and twenty seconds old and that you are seeing the Sun as it were at 8:51:40 am . Effectively when you observe any object you are observing into the past.

However, there is an incompleteness about this and in consideration of ALL of the events and completeness, there is seemingly a contradiction, thus leading me to the discussion of the humble but yet so informative ”tube”.

Let us look through the tube, a ”Quanta tunnel”, I at one end of the tube and you at the other end of the tube, we will label my end of the tube (A) and we shall label your end of the tube (B), we shall also define the rest length of the tube, defining the rest length of the tube is 299792458 m and define this as one light second of light travel between I and you in either direction the light travels.

Now let us consider the present information and how the present information conform’s in accordance with the tube. From (A) to (B), a Photon takes one second to travel the distance. From (B) to (A) the Photon takes one second to travel the distance.

**”If”** we were both to release, emit or reflect ** **a Photon at the exact same time, both opposite points would receive the Photons at the exact same time because of the constant speed of the light. In simple terms if we emitted a Photon each, at exactly 9:00:00 am on synchronised clocks, the individual Photons would reach us at exactly 9:00:01 am, simultaneous on both clocks. In relationship to sight , Photons enter our eyes at 9:00:01 am, but according to present information we observe each other as we were at 9:00:00 am.

However, in this scenario we both started at precisely 9:00:00 am , we both experienced one second of time pass by as the light travelled the distance from both points. I, you and the Photon’s, all experience the passing of time of a one second duration, while the scenario event takes place.

In this scenario it is important to consider the one second of ”darkness”, the absence of light. The observers exist in ”darkness” and experience ”darkness” until the light arrives at the simultaneous point in time where both observers see each other simultaneously.

Thus far, this shows us that once a line of sight ”connection” is established, that sight between two observers is simultaneous by the very fact that c is constant, this also shows us that the now of your time position at the (B) end of the tube is equal to the now time position at the (A) end of the tube thus concluding we see each other as we are now and not in the past.

]]>

I see what I see, I see space as a whole and simultaneously.

]]>A sense that one’s own mind is able to process the Universe with a better understanding than those before them.

My fundamental thought exists, I have a clear line of sight from me to ”you”, I do not observe in this transparent ”empty” space, individual Photon’s travelling from point to point, I observe a transparent whole that contains ”things”, ”things” that I can not see if there is no ”light” emitted through the transparent ”dark” space.

It is said that we see the Sun it’s past because it takes around eight minutes for ”Photons” to ”travel” from the Sun to our eyes! But how can that be true when I can see the entirety of distance of ”empty” space between me and the Sun observing a start and end point simultaneously by the very fact of a clear line of sight?

How can I see the ”light” in ”empty” space between the Sun and my eyes if the ”light” in ”empty’ space as not entered my eyes?

Logic answers the Universe……………

]]>

Travelling faster than a speeding bullet, travelling as fast as light, I can not over take the time that is ahead of me. I count to 1 and 0 remains ahead of me, I count to ten and 0 remains in front of me always, one step ahead of me leaving me one step behind.

I am the one travelling through nothing, there is nothing behind me and nothing ahead, I am one….I am a measurement of 1 that is a measurement between the values of 0.

010, I am the one in the middle of nowhere.

]]>**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.

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 expression

4/3 pi r(c)³

Where r(c) 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 be continued……

]]>

**Part 1 – The Theory of realistic.**

- Introduction, explanation of an axiom
- Defining various definition
- Defining Theory and Hypothesis
- The meaning of maths and maths use
- The meaning of limitation
- The meaning and value of Geometrics
- In respect of moving bodies
- Examining mass and massless
- The relationship between time and mass
- The relationship between time and massless
- Explaining the constant-‘constant nature of light
- Explaining observer effect and experiment

**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 expanding away from the observer

**Length** -1. A measured distance of finite bounded space between two reflective points.

2. A measurement of an objects dimensions of its form.

**Universe** – an unbounded N-dimensional space

**Visual Universe** – a finite observed length within a Universe

**Matter** – Solidity or substance that occupies space

**Energy** – 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 an object

**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 dependency. **

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. 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, the maths a later of the former. However the maths can also be dependent to the process in the use of prediction and calculation of the prediction.

**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.

To be continued..

]]>

Abstract- This article is to present viable argument against Albert Einstein’s paper of June 30, 1905 titled ”On the electrodynamics of a moving body” and the mentioning definition of simultaneity which is also a part of Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity of 1915.

**Section One- Defining**

**Part One – 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.

**Part Two – 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.

**Part Three – 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.

**Part Four – 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 distance between two geometrical points. A base quantity such as a length of a distance or such as an increment length of time or the mass of something. 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.

**Part Five – 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.

**Section Two – Understanding**

**Part One – 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 ”see through”. This observation is relatively constant to all visual observers in any frame of reference that is not in shadow/night.

**Part Two-Understanding the relative velocity of light relative to a bodies geometric position and relative simultaneity time frame according to present information.**

Light is a finite constant speed and takes a period of time to reach it’s destination. Essentially when we observe an object in the distant Universe, we are observing that object in a relative geometrical location position where it was (the objects past) .

Let us take two vectors and call them X and Y and let us define two bodies, (A) and (B).

We shall define that body (A) is travelling vector X and emitting light on a path linearity vector Y in the direction of observer (B)

Let us define the time it takes for a Photon (v=c) to travel the distance (d) to (B) of the linearity of (Y) 8 minutes (t=8min)

Let us define that (A) is travelling the vector (X) at momentum (p) and will travel a distance equal to t=8mins while the Photon of (A) travels it’s journey of the Y axis linearity.

In our understanding of this if you were to view a distance object i.e the Sun, the light takes 8 minutes before it reaches your eyes, so it is said that relative to this, we are seeing the body we are observing in the objects past. In the Sun example we see the Sun relative to 8 minutes later .

**Part Three- Understanding Time Dilation**

Time dilation is a change in the rate of time, time is said to be a variate and time dilation being a part of relativity that has been experimentally proven to exist. Hafele-Keating , in October 1971, produced and did an experiment that proved Einstein’s thought’s and relativity to be precise and correct. The experiment consisted of four caesium clocks, the four clocks were flown around the world twice and the conclusive results showed that the rate of time changed relative to velocity of the Caesium clocks. This fundamental change being the evidence that confirms simultaneity .

To be continued……

to be continued..

]]>

A blank CD, unwritten naught’s/nothings, empty of data. No time exists of the CD’s information, a bit like us. Time is a zero instant of now, anything more than zero is recorded history.

We can not and do not measure time, time is always the moment of now, a unified Universe of a simultaneous now, anything more than the now , zero/nothing, instantly becomes recorded history of the now.

Take the smallest measurement you could possibly think of, even this measurement would be a fragment of recorded history.

**What about time dilation?**

To summon up briefly , any measurement greater than zero/nothing is history/memory . Time does not exist , only the zero instant exists simultaneous for a unified Universe.

When you measure the value of a Caesium atom you are not measuring time, you are recording the atoms history.

Time dilation does not happen, the now moment never changes from a zero value.

Scenario 1 – take two identical video cameras, one camera (a) we will set up recording Caesium clock (a) which is in a inertial stationary reference frame, the second camera /b/ we will set up recording Caesium clock /b/ which is in motion. We start the recordings synchronised from a starting point of zero/nothing. We record for three hours to a synchronised stop.

We then observe the footage on two monitors with a synchronised start. We observe no discrepancy in the synchronisation of the playing footage ”time-line”.

]]>

Space divides our consciousness’s and is the cause of argument.

]]>