/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11276816
Why dont you at least learn to use [math]\LaTeX[/math] before schizoposting?

>>11276822
because I'm autistic

>>11276816
yo kirill, do you have anything substantial written, that i can read?
where are you coming from? whom have you read?

>>11276889
it is strange that it is not substantial for you

i don't write books

>>11252229

>>11276911
what your reasoning for cutting the length of the vertical path in the third diagram?
If we put a detector on the top mirror, in the third diagram, will it activate?

>>11276911
and also dude, cmon, not hard questions.
where are you coming from? whom have you read? like what is your background discussing this stuff?

>>11276911
>heuristic geometric argumentation
Where's the empirical evidence, anon?

>>11276816
Utterly based

>>11277004
It will be activated when the light in a fixed light clock has already gone in the opposite direction.
The relative speed of light in a fixed watch will be greater than the speed of light for those who are moving.

>>11277008
I don’t read anyone and do everything myself.

>>11277013
I do not have an experimental setup, this is an expensive thing.

I mean, the speed of light is not the limit, because the relative speed of light can be higher than c.

We must not forget that these are all hypotheses.

>>11277065
oh... well then i am sure you know that the experiment you put up is not your own.
the central equations are not your own either..
it says so ... "everyone draws these two pictures"

so obviously... you do read other people.
but i guess the same way you approach your own reality is the same way you approach your theories... with out much rigor.
i suggest you to pack you stuff, and go read some science. along the way question what fantasies pushed you to even try to think you can run 100m in the professional sport, while only sitting on your ass.

The same light went through two different paths: ct and another ct, but the second one changes t and the second path becomes shorter.

As a result, the light traveled a shorter distance than it should.
The light did not have time to go all the way.

But everyone continues to maintain that the speed of light is a constant.

Either I'm a complete idiot, or complete idiots everyone else.

>>11277079
dude i don't wanna go hard on you too much. but sorry, i land some more truth...

>>I continue my work despite the fact that no one believes me.

no, man, no.
you work caus you believe. has nothing to do with others. get your own back bone. your own integrity. there is no prize like you imagine in your fantasies. life is hard work. live it. i believe in you. go read electricity and matter by jj thomson. unless you havent established basic physics go first to feynmans lectures.

>>11277085
>Either I'm a complete idiot, or complete idiots everyone else.
you are not a complete idiot niether everyone else
your thinking is very polarized
i have a feeling your life is not set yet and something is troubling you regarding it

you gotta participate in nature more, in order for it to share with you it's secrets, but the secrets are nothing compared to being calm and collected
i wish you the best man

>>11277079
- a blablabla
- Another person who does not understand that in a right-angled triangle the leg is shorter than the hypotenuse.
- blablabla, there are just 4 dimensions and other blablabs
- ct and ct1, two different lengths that passed the same light. Open your eyes, people, it is light's time that has been reduced.
-blablabla, anyway i'm smarter than you.
In addition, if more than half of humanity still believes in God, then God exists! Because billions of people cannot be wrong!
Go read some trash, blablabla

>>11277104
>you gotta participate in nature more, in order for it to share with you it's secrets

Thank you, I’m going to live in a forest, far from technology, electricity and all other deceit.

>>11277111
yo dude, whats up?
can you explain yourself, i don't understand you?

>>11277113
i meant the first definition
https://www.wordnik.com/words/nature

which also includes the nature of people around you and your community

>>11277116
everything is elementary.
I should no longer waste time on those who do not believe in my hypotheses.

I will continue my work no matter what.

>>11277124
Stop embarrassing yourself and pick up a a graduate text level on the subject.
But you won't do it.
Guess why?
You are delusional.
Kys.

>>11277124
you cherish hatred, for something that happend to you.
you gotta honestly look into yourself for answers. i think you are brave enough.

look at this
>>11277111
you gotta find the source this rambling is coming from, how often does it happen to you ?
how does it feel? i bet horrible. who can help me? do i have a friend or a stranger i can ask for help?

i some how feel that you know there is a better way to spend your time here. i hope you'll find it.

as an inspiration, remember some great minds were not recognized during their life time. so if you work, work with love not hatred. read up biographies of either van gogh, bach, heaviside.

>>11277135
no u

>>11277141
thanks for the kind words, I will try to read Malevich’s black square

Do not try to prove that speed of light isn't a constant under the assumption that it is a constant, unless you are doing a proof of contradiction.
Using special relativity to try to explain how the speed of light is relative is contradictory since special relativity is based on the speed of light as a constant.

>>11277152
next, blablabla

Friends, your common problem is that you think that I do not know what you are saying.
But I know SR better than any of you and better than you all combined.

>>11277162
I do think you know what I'm saying, you seem pretty smart. You do however also seem quite shallow and feel that you're entitled to being correct.
Please, consider what may possibly disprove your hypothesis and why it doesn't hold up in comparison to other things in physics before you claim it's correct, this is obviously very unfinished. An interesting claim, however.

>>11277162
more... i see you need more... ha?

"nobody is better than me"
"I am the world’s greatest person"
"I’m the most successful person ever to run for the"
>>I know SR better than any of you and better than you all combined.

your speech pattern is infected by one major figure i can think of.

please go read more science, if you want to participate. feel their language. know humility.
this world is much bigger then you are. there is no best of. we are here for a short time. you gonna die and life will continue. fatishizing yourself into to a christ figure is a inflammation of your psyche. please start becoming aware of it. it's the first steps toward some resolution.

but WHAT is the speed of DARKneSS????

Nazism will save the world!

I'm one step above a brainlet in this, so this may be wrong. From what I understand about special relativity, the speed of light is constant for each observer. If you went 99% the speed of light, light would still travel at c away from you, however from earth we would see you going 1% slower than c. Doesn't your geometry only prove that piece of SR? The speed of light is constant for an observer, but "varies" between different observers. (vary is an extremely inaccurate word to use, but I can't think of a better one)

/sci/ is like Mecca, except instead of Muslims making a pilgrimage to bonk their head on a giant cube, it's schizos with their own homebrew Theory-of-Everything™

Is there at least one non-idiot besides me?

>>11278607
The real "Theory of Everything" is a thing like the "Equation of God."
I do not know why physicists called the theory for unification by this name. They should have understood that all this was just the tip of the iceberg.

>>11276816
this garbage is incoherent. the invariance of the speed of light is well documented and its importance is best seen in electrodynamics

>>11276824
Based

>>11278661
This trash is called "Special Theory of Relativity."
If you did not notice, I did not make any changes, but simply said what is actually happening in the drawings.

>>11276816
>>11277070
>I mean, the speed of light is not the limit, because the relative speed of light can be higher than c.

you should look at the proposals of french physicist jean pierre petite, example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I37Nm6dkGVw

>>11278784
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZXllN32bsg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyMXwPcqN7Q

>>11276816
I don't know what you are about but you must be right. Those smiley faces told me so.

>>11276816
I am sure you are correct. Those smiley faces told me so. They don't lie. They told me so.

>>11278866
>Those slimey faces told me so. They lie. They told me it must be so.

>>11277124
how can you be so convinced if you can’t even explain it?

>>11276816
You continue your "work" despite having been proven wrong in the last thread and ignoring all experimental evidence.
This is spam.

Consistently banning schizo threads when?

>>11276816
You should do a collab with Tooker. Get it? because of Schizo, haha!

>>11278920
schizoposts are banned regularly, but when they have a borderline religious impulse to spam garbage on /sci/ they will continue to ban-evade every 10 minutes until the end of time unless you decide blocking the entire city of Atlanta is worth getting rid of one dumbass
you cannot win against them

>>11276816
write your work in latex with paragraph descriptions and maybe people will give you a chance

>>11276816
>The speed of light is relative.
My nigga Maxwell would like to talk to you.

elite

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp0U_awyKWM

The crowd is blind.
The crowd of idiots is always blind.

Why do people usually support not one person, but a group of people?
Because these primates are ordinary cowards!
Naturally, if one person and a group of people are in conflict, then it is more profitable to join a group of people, because a group of monkeys is likely to win and kill one monkey, the group is simply stronger than one.
A bunch of dumb monkeys. Only animal instincts.
In dogs, I noticed a similar behavior.
Society is scum!

>schizo tries to prove speed of light isn't constant
>while using special relativity equations, which was built up on the assumption that the speed of light is constant
>gee why aren't these equations working anymore!? obviously it must be because the speed of light isn't constant!
this is how stupid you sound OP. speed of light is the same constant for all observers in an inertial reference frame. the equations you are using are built upon that premise. You can't use those same equations with a non-constant speed of light. You would have to rebuild your own special relativity. And then your own maxwell. And then your own mass-energy equivalence. And then your own non-relativistic quantum mechanics. And then your own relativistic QM. And then your own QFT. And so on. Because that's all built on a constant speed of light.

But you won't, because you're schizo.