Relative

I thank you all for some great answers, that will take me a while to get my head around. I am not really considering anything, it was just an example, trial and error , to try to get an idea of what a model is. I used the speed of light, ,<C>, been a constant, <h> space/darkness =zero , zero been a constant ,<h> y=kx k and x been direct proportional, Y been light. From what I have read, I only have to put k and x leaving the h out, because k and x already would be a constant ? ''If one variable is always the product of the other and a constant, the two are said to be directly proportional'' This.

Ok , hmmm, I thought space was full of EMR my mistake. If I incorporated this into the model? Would that be a more better model? kh+xh=y?

I am unsure of what a model actually is. From what I have gathered , it would be a diagram with added maths , that all fits together. I have tried an example and made a make shift model to see if this is what you mean. Space is equal to 0, 0 is equal to constant. 0C+CE=EC Zero is constant, add constant energy, equals an energy constant. Would this be a simple model? Or more on the lines of using Plank constants etc?

I have took your thoughts on board and I thank you, Ok, I will go back to the beginning and re-learn. Where do you suggest I begin and what subject should I first be focusing on? Basic science where would I begin?

''So how, exactly did you acquire the scientific knowledge you claim to have? That might help us to understand your position more clearly. For example, which textbooks did you study in order to acquire your knowledge of general and special relativity? Which papers did you find especially illuminating on these topics? Ignore the rest of my post, by all means, but please respond to the above.'' I never claimed to know everything or anything. My current knowledge comes from a huge science book called the internet. My current knowledge also comes from science forums and provided answers. I have watched many documentaries and explanatory videos. And I do not even want anyone to agree with me, but simply answer my questions like I stated. Although my questions may come across has statements they are not. I am confused about one or two of the science subjects, I ask about them and get the thread closed. I never reach a conclusion so am stuck in ground hog day. Please educate me, Forgive me if in some way I am been real stupid here. In the video link it explains time dilation. how do we get the stationary observer? how would you know who was stationary? Why would the beam of light all of a sudden become angled? I can not understand it because it is contradictory of itself. Is this video even correct, is this good education or bad education?

You should do Psychology. Yes , your post makes sense, but in your thinking did you consider the Honey and Mumford different styles of learning?. My style is a mixture of the styles but mainly the style of a Theorist. Theorist - ''These learners like to understand the theory behind the actions. They need models, concepts and facts in order to engage in the learning process. Prefer to analyse and synthesise, drawing new information into a systematic and logical 'theory'.'' So when considering posts for closure, should this not be accounted for? That some people have not got a stereotypical learning style? If I see an inconsistency I need to know why. How can I move on, when I have started with the basics and the beginning, and see inconsistencies? And I applaud you, this has been a good forum, other forums have banned me and for what, trying to understand and learn!. ''Theorists adapt and integrate observations into complex but logically sound theories. They think problems through in a vertical, step-by-step logical way. They assimilate disparate facts into coherent theories. They tend to be perfectionists who won't rest easy until things are tidy and fit into a rational scheme. They like to analyse and synthesize. They are keen on basic assumptions, principles, theories models and systems thinking. Their philosophy prizes rationality and logic. "If its logical its good." Questions they frequently ask are: "Does it make sense?" "How does this fit with that?" "What are the basic assumptions?" They tend to be detached, analytical and dedicated to rational objectivity rather than anything subjective or ambiguous. Their approach to problems is consistently logical. This is their 'mental set' and they rigidly reject anything that doesn't fit with it. They prefer to maximise certainty and feel uncomfortable with subjective judgements, lateral thinking and anything flippant.'' This is me.

Firstly , I do have a blog. Secondly I am not looking for people to agree with me, I am looking at the inconsistencies, and asking about those inconsistencies. Discussing why we have them, and whether they have any bearing on the subject matter. I listen to your answers, it is your answers that lead me to further believe in the inconsistencies. Example - I asked what affects does altitude have on the Caesium clock? Strange answered - his answer coincided with my own thought, that altitude through less gravity allows the Caesium to output at a faster rate. ''You think mainstream science is hidebound to their textbooks, the same books you rejected when you were in school'' I do not think all science is wrong, and I can not remember and did very little science in school. I did not like attending school. And I do not think hidebound to their text books, but more instant excepting what's in them books without question.

What you do not understand is after several years I have learnt a lot of current science, I understand already your answers, you are not discussing what I am asking. I already stated that everything I say is asking questions, I am questioning your logic, not the science books. I give you 100% factual and you still quote the book back. I know the book and I am telling science some of it I deem wrong, and no one wants to listen and discuss it. If I am wrong, I admit I am wrong, but burden of proof lies with science, not me has a beginner in comparison to most on forums. So where can I go to discuss these thoughts, I am not waiting 15 years like Faraday when I know I am logical thinking, and my logic is generally flawless. And no I am not arrogant, I want to help science. I am a bit eccentric if that helps.

Can anyone suggest a decent science forum/site, where I am aloud to ask questions, where any of my misguided thoughts can be corrected, where it is not our way or the high way? I might as well give up now, people are correct, I should of listened when they said science has become a religion and preached rather than spoke about. I am not surprised science has nothing in x amount of years. From an outsiders perspective, all science forums are preaching their bible at me, can none of the human race think for themselves any more. You are not here to educate people but to force the book on them. And you wonder why the interest in science around the world is falling. PFFF, I give you 100% logic, it is not me been stupid. OH well , any suggestions where i might find some real people? Every single time, my thread is closed, for asking questions, and saying my thoughts.

You are wrong sir, I am not arrogant, I can not understand the time dilation test to be an accurate test when there is random variables to consider. Random variables mainly gravity, that could give a different measurement of time. So please forgive the confusion. I have to except something before I can learn it, you are suggesting that I just except all current knowledge at face value. Excepting knowledge without questioning that knowledge is programming.

''It is actually the change in gravitational potential, due to the altitude.'' Change in gravitational potential. Exactly, not a change in time, a change in your timing device by less gravity allowing the Caesium clock to output at a quicker rate. The Caesium clock belongs in the department of science useless inventions. ''The entire timing community disagrees with you, and probably doesn't care what you think. Opinions don't matter here'' It is not an opinion, it is 100% factual logic that in a comparison test, the test has to have the same process applied. 100% factual that the flight test had random variables that deem the test inconclusive . I honestly am scratching my head, I can not believe science can not see this. The Caesium clock is not a constant, it is has simple has that, time does not change or dilate.

@Strange - ''Surely, we have been here before. It will run faster.'' So you are admitting that it is altitude that makes the Caesium clock faster? @Swanson ''Knowing where something is so that it can be intercepted sounds an awful lot like a prediction.'' Incorrect sir, a prediction is impossible, or else we would all be able to win at roulette. You do not predict anything, you know by time and velocity and trajectory , that is not prediction. It is a set path. The path was plotted first, then the maths was added to fit according to history? If you can predict some random events, then I will be truly impressed. If you can give me a 100% Caesium comparison test I will be impressed. The flight test had to many random variables to be a comparison test. The test was badly thought out, Using the Caesium to record 1 second badly thought out. You can not use a Caesium to record a second because it is not a constant. Different variables affecting the output. Has anyone took a Caesium clock deep underground to see what it does? At altitude there is more microwave energy?

silly me lol, I am learning something, I have started from the beginning, is it not better now to rule out my many thoughts, to advance to the next chapter of learning? And of yet , I have heard no actual logic that rules out my thoughts!. And yes I should of added distance, but you confirmed I was correct in my assumption. So my simple diagram would allow me to ''predict'' where B was at any given time? What affects does altitude have on a Caesium clock compared to a Caesium clock at sea level? A house brick loses mass with altitude explained by yourselves, So the Caesium clock loses mass at altitude also? Would the mass loss compare to the ''time'' lost? I have watched several good videos on time dilation, and I just do not buy into it . In all example they seem to change the perspective view of light into a laser. Light travels linear, it only reflects if there is an obstruction in the way. There would be naturally no V shape.

should of been 90 degrees lol My diagram shows a Physical spherical body , point A travels at 1000 mph, Point B also travels at 1000 mph, Point B is in an outer atmosphere , Point A has less circumference to travel than the circumference of point B has to travel. It should of said 90 degrees not 45 degrees. The circumference changed into linear format shows the distance difference. Point B would have to travel 6 times the velocity of A to reach 90 degrees at the same time has Point A? ''Maybe you think that after a year, the Earth will be back exactly where it was? Unfortunately, planetary orbits are not that simple'' I bet that after several years they are back in the exact same place, I know the orbit is not circular. ''What is the difference?'' Whilst you time something, time continues even if you stop the clock. When considering time, timing devices must not be considered, a timing device can only record a set amount of time, Time was here before ''time''. History based most science on 360 degrees starting with the clock? 2014 years are equal to X amount of rotation around the Sun?

At a given period of time!. Timing, not time. A period of a cycle. 1 orbit around the Sun, a set amount of time, a block of time, The Physics is simple, not even complex . So I need Einstein maths to work out trajectories? Please tell me where i am incorrect in this diagram?

You can't describe trajectories without it, my whole point is, it is no more than a trajectory chart, when you say you can predict where the planets are going to be at any given time, you are not predicted anything, but rather just calculated velocity and distance of orbital paths, no more than an interception path?. ''I give up. You have sunk to new levels of stupidity.'' You want see it from where I am standing!. ''It allows us to measure the separation of events in time. The separation of objects is measured in space. The separation of events is measure in time.'' Space and time is not space time. Space is space and time is time. You answered no to the diagram, I know the MPH was not exact it was an example, but you would see different velocities has an observer.

I don't know about Philosophy, more of obvious than Philosophy. Can you give me a single argument in any way that suggests time to be a dimension? And please do not say time dilation, has the parameters in the flight test were not equal conditions to the ground making that inconclusive. Caesium clock on the ground - Static, velocity 0, 0 altitude, gravity level stronger,pressure different to altitude. Caesium clock in the air - velocity, none static, less gravity, different pressure, and that is deemed an equal fare test? I change parameters in any test and the results would have to be deemed inconclusive. Especially when considering comparison tests. Understand this please, light follows the inverse square law, look at the link and pause it. Understand on the link , this shows light in the past and in the future. And notice the single Photon following Newtons simple cannon ball theory. Einstein changed parameters from 4d to 1d making a great illusion with relative thinking about light and changing parameters to a laser. Reality relativity. Hey! ? All boxes in this diagram are inside each other and all travelling at 100 mph inside each other along with the outer box . And the ball also travels at 100 mph inside each box. The observer see's?

Yes time exists for all things, from our view perspective. A rock has no thought, so doe's time matter to that rock? No, but we can record that time, of how long the rock lasts under certain conditions, e.g. erosion by water. Yes time is only important to humans, although birds know the time to migrate,,, in different ways to our own procedures. How can time even be considered a dimension, when it truly only is apart of recording our existence? It means nothing.

Are crystals alive?, doe's time matter for that what has no purposefully meaning towards existence? Time only matters for that what lives. All things that live has far has I am aware dies eventually?.

And I have started at the beginning , with darkness, darkness was the beginning. From the beginning I expand in time. If I can not get the beginning of current thought to work, then you for sure science have it wrong, and I am not been arrogant, I know I am smart, and if something does not logical fit, then my second sense tells me there is an error. Is there an exam at the end where I can see how well I am doing?

Thank you for the advice, I do read and watch a lot of on line articles and documentaries. I do admit my learning style is not orthodox and some of my meanings are not understood. Last year I asked about science education in the UK, and for my age etc, there was nothing that I could make work for my situation. I honestly wish there was time travel, I would go back and pass all the exams which I did not take . However, time travel is an illusion. I have looked on line and again I am unable to find any free course of science. I also notice there is little interest in science by the often low hits on youtube compared to say how many hits a fight would get. My first goal in these years I have been studying science, was to improve my spelling etc, and start using correct words. I do have a head full of current knowledge, although to portray that knowledge may be lacking . I have first learnt Physical process, thinking energy, gases, momentum, etc, all the fundamental elements, not fire , wind , and water and earth, And I am learning from the best minds on forums, which I applaud.

Most atomic bonds decay?

I like this guy. ''Bacon's method is an example of the application of inductive reasoning. By reasoning using "induction", Bacon meant the ability to generalize a finding stepwise, based on accumulating data. He advised proceeding by this method, or in other words, by building a case from the ground up''. ''The method consists of procedures for isolating and further investigating the form nature, or cause, of a phenomenon, including the method of agreement, method of difference, and method of concomitant variation.[1] Bacon suggests that you draw up a list of all things in which the phenomenon you are trying to explain occurs, as well as a list of things in which it does not occur. Then you rank your lists according to the degree in which the phenomenon occurs in each one. Then you should be able to deduce what factors match the occurrence of the phenomenon in one list and don't occur in the other list, and also what factors change in accordance with the way the data had been ranked.'' What is time? Time on a clock, a diary, a calender, all ways of recording a block amount of time. Time is infinite. A year is a very small fraction on the infinite time line. Time is directional in the sense that it always goes forward, and never goes backwards, from 0 to infinite, 0 been of the big bang. Infinite, but not infinite for all matter. Humans for example live blocks of time. A period defined by birth date, and general health been good an average age expectancy. Time can not be looked at has a dimension, when time is decay. The only time that concerns the Human race, is decay. The Sun is decaying, the Earth is decaying, the Universe is decaying, and you can not turn back the hands of time on decay. Facts - Has far as we are concerned, time starts for an individual from when they are born/conceived!. The beginning of time was the big bang, has far has we are concerned! Can you argue these two facts has not been truthful statements? In this static picture, there is no movement, no spin, no orbital paths, completely 1d and static. A Sun dial would be useless? Time on a clock could never be invented by using this diagram? But time still exists? Because by time we have decay? The same diagram except this time, the white circles are atoms!. The atoms are static, but the atoms emit and vibrate? The atoms are in decay?

Well I did not make anything up, I have never said what I say is fact, although by myself, I worked out the 0.277 mile bit, and only today just after a couple of year did I think to search MPH. And I am learning , 3 years ago I did not know any science, but now my head is full of knowledge. I argued for about two year on 0.277, and every one said no I was wrong etc, but i was convinced, and wiki just showed me I was correct although it is already known. I can now see maybe why some thought I was a troll, because i was trying to explain what is already known oblivious to me, According to that though, distance is measured by distance, which is incredible stupid. Ok back to the drawing board for me, science already knows that 90% of it is invented to fit and made up. I thank you for your patience and answers.

I was missing out zeros and saying 0.277 mile, that is what google calculator give me, Kilometers would work out the same but a different colour I should imagine, meaning just a different term been kmh. I am confused now, because I thought I had worked out when you already know exactly what i am on a bout. Now I feel rather stupid and uneducated.