/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1205406
Ah. This is what I get for trying to use a relativity calculator instead of doing the math myself :\

I get it now, and /sci/'s solved a problem that's been in my head for years; I've just never really bothered to ask someone.

Using a special relativity calculator I found, I found that the factor of change is 1.1547005383792517. Using this, I think I can calculate that object A would appear to be moving 0.433012702c to D, as would B to A, C to B, etc.

I find, though, that object B to D would be moving at almost the same speed as A to D. The factor of change would be 2.0000000014934534, which gives just about the same result as A to D. This is a bit weird, but can anyone correct me if I'm wrong, or tell me if I'm right?

>>1205242
Brilliant. I never knew about that before, and this is a question that stumped me for years. Thanks

>>1205274
Per your request, I won't delete the thread. I'm not sure what left there is to discuss, though

Picture sort of related, but not really.

I know that there is something wrong with this, and there is most likely a very good answer to my question. I'm not trolling here, I'm simply not skilled in the subject. To avoid any accusations of being a troll, when I get a good explanation I will delete this thread. I'm not here for a discussion as much as I am here for an answer.

This is probably one that you guys have heard of before.

Take four objects: A, B, C, and D. A, B, and C are all attached, and D is far off in the distance, relatively stationary to the starting point of A.

Say the three objects were propelled by A to 0.5c. The two other objects then detach from A and propel themselves to 0.5c relative to A. C, the remaining object, then detaches itself from B and propels itself to 0.5c relative to B. The relative speeds are laid out like the following:

A,D: 0.5c
B,D: c
C,D: 1.5c

Where is the problem with this? I know there probably is one, and as soon as I know I'll delete this thread. I don't want any trouble, I just want to educate myself

>>1205058
When provided absolutely no evidence to the contrary, there's not much else to do, is there? The difference between my theory and believing that super-intelligent shades of blue created the universe is that the former allows a cease of thought to occour. This theory isn't "God did it" as much as it is "This is the best way to explain things so far."

>>1205107
Yes.

I'm off this thread now, as I've gotten what I wanted an then some. I won't directly delete the thread, but I'll allow it to sink to the bottom, and I won't be returning. I've got to get some sleep. G'night, /sci/.

>>1205009
This would be of use because it would make sense. It answers questions, while leaving up none. So far, theories claiming "Unicorns" (Read: God) created the universe brings more questions than it does answers. This is entirely the opposite. While there are questions that arise from what I've explored so far, it answers questions that were once unanswerable. It makes absolute sense, and, as someone who's obsessed over dimensions for years, it puts me at ease. I'll be able to appreciate this "ease" more, though, when I've actually completed the paper.

>>1204980
You're assuming that you can gather what my theory is without really knowing anything about it.

Also, you shouldn't assume that all metaphysical things are just taken lightly and tossed aside. This also isn't entirely dealing with physics; some of it deals with something completely different entirely.

Now that I've got my answer (I was really worrying over nothing due to freaking out over my own thoughts), I should probably just delete my thread. If anyone has anything else of value to post, I'll read it for the first five minutes or so, and then I'm killing this thread. Just to get me to move on and stop obsessing over this for the night, really.

>>1204934
It's provable in the same way M-Theory is provable. Perhaps "Theory" is the wrong word to use in this case, but the technicalities will be cleared up soon enough. It doesn't make a testable prediction because it deals with things outside of what we can possibly test. Instead, it changes the way we see different dimensions, how they interact and encompass each other.

A simple point to make, is that, by this theory/hypothesis/what-have-you, there are some dimensions that interact with each other, and some that encompass each other. This is to clear up >>1204880 's remark.

It should be noted that this isn't something that will change the world as we know it. For the people who read it, though, it will change the way they see other dimensions. It makes complete sense of the dimensions. Not so much the "HOW CAN WE EXTEND 3 DIMENSIONS HURRDURR" problem, but more the way we see space and time in regards to dimensions.

It's really hard to give hints and answer questions without revealing the core of the theory/hypothesis as it is. When it's in any sort of official form (Most likely PDF), /sci/ will be notified of it for sure.

>>1204862
At the moment it's a simple hypothesis. Hundreds of hours are going to be pumped into this though, perfecting the theory as much as I can, and following the steps I've laid out for myself. The steps are record, transcript, research. and write. I'm recording nearly every thought I have on the matter, transcripting it to paper, and when I've completely sucked myself dry of all the thoughts I possibly can, I'll attempt to test my hypothesis. However, it's incredibly hard to do so when dealing with concepts so strange as other dimensions.

>>1204866
If you've got an email, MSN, or AIM, I can add you or save your email, and I can let you know when any of it is avaliable to release to the public

>>1204841
I'm by no means a professional scientist, nor do I have any experience with getting things published, or anything even close to the sort. Don't use that, though, to criticize my scientific abilities. I've explained this to a small group of people, and the one person that actually understood it (like I said, I don't have a lot of scientist friends/connections), had a "EUREKA!" moment like I did.

>>1204823
I'm certainly not a troll. Of course, the only real way to prove this would be to disclose the contents of my theory (raw and unshapen as they are), but that's sort of impossible. You'll just have to take my word, I guess.

>>1204819
The theory is not so much about "extra" dimensions, it's a simplification to the way we see dimensions today. In perspective to the common M-Theory explanation, this one is so much more simpler. It deals with the dimensions we (sort of) know today, and the way they interact with each other. The theory does criticize the upper dimensions (4+) according to M-Theory, and clears up the confusion with those, but other than that it's more how the dimensions are placed and how they change each other, and rely on each other.

>>1204760
Great. While I'm in the first step of this, weeks before the paper is even started, I guess I should make me some scientist friends, or join a scientific community? Anyone care to reccomend one? Is it better to go with people you know personally, or people in a respected community? If I could, I would just walk out to the nearest corner store and use a Scientist dispenser. Unfortunately, those don't exist :(

>>1204742
I have literally nowhere else to go, and I'm hoping that someone here has at least a little experience with the subject. I have no other people I know that are scientists, and I'm a member of no other communities with even a small scientist population.

/sci/, today I've embarked on the journey of creating a theory to explain the dimensions of space-time, completely and thoroughly. This theory, created by myself entirely with no help from other people, could possibly change the way we envision seperate dimensions. I can't say anything specific about it until I (hopefully) get it published, but that's where I need your help.

Professional scientists of /sci/, how in the WORLD can I get a paper reviewed by someone before submitting it to a journal? How many people should I have review it? Is there any protocol to this? Should I have a contract made to protect the confidentiality of the paper before it's published? I have absolutely no experience in getting science papers published; I'm really hoping one of you do. I'm weeks away from starting the paper (I'm voice recording, transcripting, then writing the paper), but I want to be prepared.

tl;dr I'm writing a very important paper and I need help on steps regarding peer review before I submit it to a journal.