/sci/ - Science & Math

dumb schizophrenic

>>11252232
n1 idiot

>>11252232
You're even dumber than Einstein.
Pffff, hahaha.

I don't think you spent enough time making that in microsoft paint. Doesn't look professional enough to me. Needs a hundred more hours.

quality fixed

>>11252233
>>11252236
Fuck off, schizo.

Also, every experiment ever has already proven you wrong.

>>11252257
Then the Pythagorean theorem is not true.

>>11252278
>Then the Pythagorean theorem is not true.
Welcome to the brainfuck that is General Relativity. Time and Distance are variables between observers.

Yes! We will not use our brain, we will simply repeat what others say. We do not care about facts and objectivity!

Complete degeneration.

>>11252278
It is, and still holds in GR. You're just using it incorrectly in non-Euclidean spaces.

>>11252299
It's you who's not using his brain, so shut the fuck up instead of acting superior when you don't know shit.

Einstein said ... blablabla, yes, Einstein was smarter than you. So what?
If a person is smarter than you, then all that he says is true?
Do not make yourself an idol, lemming.

If you are not able to understand that hypotenuse is longer than a cathetus, then you are completely untermenschs.
I will no longer waste my time on you.
I am just God compared to you, insignificance. You are aphids.

>11252307
You sure like to post these "I say Einstein is wrong and everyone who disagrees is a sheep" threads. You're even making extra effort to concoct different arguments for each one.

>>11252314
Consistently banning schizo threads when?

>>11252229
Hi OP, I showed this to my friends at CERN and they really like to talk to you. Do you have Skype or other means of real-time video call?

>>11252478
Ahahah, but I already sent it to CERN, NASA, the Pentagon, the President of the United States and aliens on personal connections.

>>11252229

Zeno level fail

>>11253044
cringe

>>11252303
Unfair. He is using his brain, he's just using it badly.

>>11253044
President is an impeached retard who'll probably use your paper to wipe his ass

>>11252333
>>11252333
>>11252333
>>11252333

Please this. Seriously. I'm sick of seeing Tooker or Tooker-LARPers posting their schitzo nonsense, and then bumping their own thread repeatedly until somebody bites. That should be a bannable offense OUTRIGHT.
Schitzo threads and "Is non-scientific thing X science? X thread." is just spam at this point. MODS FUCKING DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS

I will make my last attempt to explain to you my great work, which will change the whole future of mankind.


We have two paths that the light passed (the same light): cathetus and hypotenuse. If the speed of light is constant, then they should be equal.
But the leg and hypotenuse of a right triangle are not equal.
And this means that specifically in the special theory of relativity, the speed of light is not constant.

We can divide both distances by t or by t1 or at any other time and we will get the speed.
And this speed is different on hypotenuse and on the leg.
But she had to be the same.

Light went through both paths, the same light, but one system is at rest and the other is moving.

In any case, if time slows down in reality, and this is a fact, and if we look at the figure, we will see that, first of all, in the special theory of relativity, it is light that slows down. Because the time that the light went (slowing down the processes inside the moving system) decreased.

>>11252278
ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - dt^2
Note the minus.

Other options: vary c; vary c and t at the same time; all this is wrong, since the model system is not complete, etc.
But we will not talk about all this, we will make everything as simple as possible.

>>11253149
There is no point in talking about other dimensions, another space, etc.

The deceleration of time has already been confirmed, we look at the picture and see that this is the time that light passed in the moving system.

>>11253134
Special relativity is built on the fact that light is constant you idiot.
Hence, when you assume special relativity and somehow arrive at the conclusion that in it the speed of light isn't constant one instantly knows your statement is false.

(A => B) =/> (B => !A)

>>11253177
All known experiments disagree with your claim.

>>11253116
I also support this plus using the options field.

>>11252229
Nice idea but it doesn't match experiment so it really doesn't matter how clever or subtle your drawing is.
\thread

Your problem is that your mind is limited to a standard model.
And this is not a joke at all.

>arguing with schizo-LARPers

>>11253458
Are you sure that such experiments were carried out?

>>11252229
the concept of special relativity was from the assumption that the speed of light is constant, anon. you can't disprove it within its own framework
if you believe you have a more predictive theory based on the idea that speed of light isn't fixed, please post it

None of you could refute my theory. I emphasize this.
In fact, you do not understand why the same light passed a different distance for different observers.
You begin to dodge and make excuses.

You are also cowards, you are afraid to accept the facts.

In fact, your behavior is standard for any person, if a person began to believe in God, then this is for a long time, and maybe until the end of his life.

You must admit defeat.

Otherwise, answer the question: "why did the light travel a different distance for different observers?"

Either make an adequate refutation of the theory, or simply shut up forever and lower your heads.

Make your choice, you are either led sheep or leaders.
There are simply no other options here.

>>11254139
I have already shown you my work, in it the speed of light differs for different observers.

>>11254139

>>11254152
Man, how are you measuring the distance light traveled in the designated time ?
Like what is your experimental apparatus?

I know you have reached your conclusion.
But the scientific method requires, amongst other things, presenting your results with experimental method.

I am the only one here who will consider believing you. Can you please tell me how I can do this experiment in a laboratory?
I would like to try it.

>>11254258
You should ask this question to professional practicing physicists. (They will tell you how to conduct the experiment.)

But first, consult with professional theoretical physicists. (First you need to decide on the theoretical part, these people should try to explain why light has two different speeds in this case.)

If you have such acquaintances, for example in institutes, then this is simply wonderful!


And I'll just tell you:
The world is endless and its structure is endless.
We will never know the complete structure of the world.

What you're saying is indistinguishable from 18th century aether nonsense. There's nothing original about this.

>>11254258
If the reduction in length acts in only one direction ... We can see a slowdown in the speed of light only in this case ...
Then you need to do as in the picture, to recreate it in reality.

Similarly with the change in mass, etc.
It all depends on the specific situation.

I once did these drawings, etc. ...
But all this is simply not interesting to anyone, and on Wikipedia my messages were simply deleted.

I was confused by some things, for example, a change in mass, but I told myself that all the experiments had already been carried out and they should have noticed a problem that would appear in some cases.

>>11254279
words of a person who does not understand that
leg shorter than hypotenuse

>>11254277
Cool man.
What is the experiment called?
What equipment Soni need to do the experiment?
What experiment did you do to achieve these results, as in what was the name, written on the machine, that you plugged in, and turned on, and performed this experiment with?
I know both theoretical and classical phycisists,
I will message them now.
What is the question I am asking?
I will let you know what they say.
Yes, it is wonderful :)
There is nothing I enjoy more that quantum physics.

What do you mean by world? You mean the planet?

Thankyou for your reply.

>>11254383
>>11254328

>>11254383
"Evolution of the Universes"
"We are robots that must create new universes."

How does the world work? Matryoshka, worlds inside other worlds, etc.
The Universe is an egg (uterus ...), from which the strongest info-vector will hatch, which will kill everyone else.
...

License: Public Domain

You can also tell your friends about this.


But I do not believe you, like everyone else. I don’t even believe myself.

Good luck!

>>11254392
What kind of light source did you use? Laser?

>>11254407
>But I do not believe you, like everyone else. I don’t even believe myself.
That's the schizophrenia talking.

>>11252229
Which part of the Holy Bible is this from?

>>11254412
I did not conduct any experiments except mental ones.

In addition, you need ultra-precise equipment. which costs a ton of money.

>>11254417
This is an experience.

And read at last on Wikipedia and ICD10 what schizophrenia is.

>>11254423
Does the Pi number conceal the entire history of the world and its structure?

>>11254430
Idk but the Bible does.

>>11254440
But if the device of universes and our species, in more fundamental worlds, is like the device of animal DNA, if natural selection is passed, etc. ...
Then our Bible could go all this evolutionary path in past universes and in adults, etc.

In short, I’ve been thinking about all these things for many years.
For you, this is just a joke, because you do not know how this world works.

If we create new universes, are we gods?
Or God is simply the invention of man, the superself.
And if adults have sex to create new egg-universes, does that change anything?
...

In fact, all this does not matter what.
We need only those technologies that will help us defeat the others in this egg and which will help us after hatching.
I don’t know what kind of world there is ... "Paradise" or the world of endless wars ...
Rather, something is "average."
(I hate bipolar models for idiots, scientists argue about chaos and order, although they themselves created these concepts; they will argue endlessly; God, why are all such idiots?)

>>11254456
Okay, I guess.

By the way, I use a translator, so sometimes there may be problems in the text, Google Translater sometimes inserts other words in meaning, changes the meaning of sentences, etc.
Sometimes it seems to me that it is being developed completely inadequate.

>>11254147
>in it the speed of light differs for different observers.
Dude, what? My nigga Maxwell would like a word with you.

>>11254459
t proud descendant of genghis khan

>>11254459
выпoлнять фyнкцию caмocтoятeльнoгo зaкaзa

Adhere to the Standard Model or submit to the laws of death!

>>11254633
How about the sand castle model?

Shit thread. Die now.

Too bad people are so stupid.

the length l can't shrink though. it's defined as some arbitrary fixed constant in SR.

>>11254459
There are no rational and logical proofs that can make us believing you. Therefore, you should try to understand others instead of thinking they are inferior beings.

>>11252301
>pythagorean theorem
>general relativity
Did you mean special relativity?

>>11255394
No, I mean GR.

ct1 and ct - these are two different paths that the same light has passed. Each observer sees one of the paths of light. One observer is motionless, and the other moves.

Why is it so hard to understand?

t1 does not change, but t changes.

>>11255418
Every experiment conducted ever says you're wrong, why is that so hard to understand?

>>11255429
These were other experiments.

In any case, the theory tells us that speed is not constant.

>>11255461
Show a single experiment that shows that light speed isn't constant. Everything else is meaningless.

Ok, I'm sorry, friends, I was wrong, I made a mistake.

My mistake is that I spent my time on you.

If Einstein did not notice the problem, then I should not notice your existence at all.

>>11256905
yeah you made a mistake dumbass. it's called believing your own shit don't stink.

*maybe* the speed of light isn't constant... that's certainly within the realm of possibility

but if you think you're gonna prove it using EXACTLY einstein's own formulation of special relativity - whose fundamental assumption was exactly that the speed of light is constant...

well the lack of originality and tenacity is simply damning. logical arguments aside.