JohnLesser

My hastiness to explain is often my ''down fall''. I forget and jump ''miles'' ahead of your present understanding. I understand why at times nobody understands. However I suppose this discussion is pointless too, because I can't even discuss my own thoughts on ''things'' of science. It is not my fault I see the correctness or incorrectness of things.

You are correct in your understanding of speculation sir, due respect. However speculations are there to be built into theory or hypothesis. I am sure Einstein had rudiment thoughts before he put everything together to create relativity. To speculate in one's mind is just to think about things.

Axiom's are exactly what I am using. Evidence is what I provided.

The point was the experimental evidence you have misinterpreted, and the evidence shows I am correct in my interpretation. I used this evidence to show I was correct. It is ''your'' evidence but seemingly I am not allowed to use it.

So you are saying Einstein, Newton, Planck, Maxwell, are not mainstream and provide evidence?

Where did I break any rules? My notions all had present information for support, I was using your experiments etc, although definition states I do not need to provide firm evidence to speculate. Changing the English language and definition to suit is misleading .

To the contrary, the experimental evidence and my logic shows I am correct. I was using everything that is mainstream but wasn't given a chance to get people to understand. The messenger got shot before he had even warmed up.

That is exactly what they do, I provide strong axiom evidence which gets ignored. variable by interpretation, however I can not discuss this or I am banned.

Well my evidence was totally ignored , I used everything that was mainstream, nothing was made up. I feel the answer in this forum if ''they'' can't win a debate is to close thread or ban poster, therefore nether reaching any sort of conclusions. Most replies in closed thread completely ignored my notions. Confused.com is an understatement. By definition it doe's not, also I did provide supporting evidence which was completely ignored. I think this may be an american based forum, so maybe our wording may be different. That is why we have definitions to be clear.

The very definition of speculation says it doe's not have to be evidence based, (although I did use evidence). Are you saying the definition of speculation is incorrect? Speculation is before theory, theory is providing evidence.

speculation ˌspɛkjʊˈleɪʃn/ noun 1. the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. After my recent speculation being closed I am some what confused , you seemingly do not understand what speculation means. Is this forums native language English?

Then you will recognise my opening premise in my part paper and explanations are accurate and without any fundamental errors in understanding how time was devised, to conclude simultaneity of time by the simple reasons of equating the present ''speed'' of time to being equal to the rotational speed of the earth. 1 earth rotation = 1 day = 24 hrs= degree of motion on a mechanical clock = caesium standard time. Twin one on Earth at relative rest Twin two on planet x at relative rest Both twins have to devise a way to measure time, both twins measure 1 day is equal to one rotation their relative planet and decide that 1 day is equal to 24 hours. Can you explain why they can't do this to measure time? added- I am not the one whom is ignoring our entire history and how time was devised.

Contracting geometric points is not space contracting , All the example you can think of of time dilation explain things in the present. look two lines. ---------- ------------------- One is contracted relative to the other, but neither is contracted relative to the background and present . Clearly you have completely ignored my part paper and instantly ruled out just because of your own lack of understanding in relativity. From youto the sun? huh obvious you have travelled some distance so will measure less.

Spacial distance is constant, it is only the length of space between objects that can change, i.e gaps widen or shorten. It is pointless if you are going to keep trying to teach me instead of being taught. I have learnt all about this and I am telling you all it is wrong, it is not my premise to listen or ask questions, try to disprove my notion and premise if you can .

No it will not, If I travelled to the Sun, the Sun does not get closer to the earth while I travel.

You are not contracting space , you are contracting light passing through space, when you move your geometrical points, either side of these points still remains space, <space......point....................point...space> <space...........point........point...........space> Again I ask for proof space has solidity? <space...........point........point...........space>

Again you are not thinking, if you contract the distance it is travelling less distance at the same speed in less time that travelling a greater distance, you are not contracting anything, you are trying to create a subjective illusion not accounting for the cbmr. Let me explain Two points (a) and (b) one light second apart. Between these points is space, cbmr and light. Alan sets off on a journey to point (B), the distance stays the same, nothing contracts.

I have already said you are correct by your interpretation of time, however the notion is your interpretation is incorrect. You quite clearly are not considering why it is incorrect which I have explained several times already. Do you agree or disagree in the following statement? If two observers measure two different frequencies of time and use these independent measurements to measure the speed of a car travelling distance x, t1/dx will be different to t2/dx Yes or no

The inflating balloon in a box, the space passes through the balloons rubber solid surface and the surface passes through the space, the air in the box is displaced but the space is not. The space in the box ends up inside the balloon, not by magic , the balloons skin offers no permeability or permitivity resistance to space. It is as if space has 0 ''viscosity'' . You are discussing apples when I am discussing pairs. Please try to think about what I am saying instead of thinking about what you already know.

I am not saying what you have is wrong, in the conclusion of my theory I fix it all, a simple fix in changing the definition of time dilation to a timing dilation, fixes the problem sort of. Timing dilation then can be assumed to be correct , but this still does not solve the speed of light problem.

No, coordinates define virtual points and vectors, the lines do not actually exist. Space itself, the background to the 2d interpretation , does not contract. like the background behind these words is relative ''stationary''.

They are not the same thing, I neither accept the present interpretation of time dilation. Why do people feel the need to try to force me to accept ''your way or the high way? '' I appreciate you know your stuff, so the coordinates contract, not the space?

Alan measured 40 mph d/t John measures 80 mph d/t Sorry officer, you are relatively wrong.

So you are contracting a length of space , therefore for that to be objective reality you would have to prove space was made of something to contract. There is no evidence that suggests space is made of anything. Contracting of the ''background'' doe's not happen. Again ,what are you contracting? you are contracting subjective virtual lines. Space itself has no solidity to contract.

What are you contracting? the length of space? the length of light? If you contract the length then you can't have a time dilation anyway, you are just saying it travels a shorter length in less time than it would take travel a longer length. It is impossible to measure the same value of the speed of light if using two different ''rates'' of time . Sorry it was ambiguous of me, they both can conclude that the speed of light is constant, but neither can agree on a speed. example: Alan times light to travel dx takes 1 second John times light to travel dx takes 2 seconds