zidzad1

Dont believe me?
Read here :
link removed

ofcourse not its all propaganda to make you think in a certain way, Miles Mathis explains this perfectly : http://milesmathis.com/guth.pdf

It seems that you dont understand what time is. Time is not geometry time is just used to describe rotation or motion. And thats why relativity is wrong. just prooved it

Relativity relies on time, and time doesn't exist it is just used to describe motion or rotation as said in the theory.

you can only give me links, but none of you can explain anything. Relativity is just perspective.

You have no evidence against it and the mainstream scientific models are fake and have no evidence give me 1 piece of evidence for spacetime.

Ignorant. just because you do not understand physics and don't know the truth.

If i was a troll why would I promote this theory so much, I found this theory and I realized it had potential because it answers all the questions in physics.

Thank you for being ignorant mainstream media worshippers.

This one isn't being disregarded because it's different.

It is being disregarded because it is wrong.

It makes predictions that do not agree with the experimental observations.

 

You really need to learn more about evidence.

Tell me one aspect that is wrong this theory is amazing and just because it contradicts what you've been told you're whole life dosent mean its wrong

 

I think perhaps you need to learn what is meant by "evidence" when discussing science.

I think perhaps you need to respect all theories rather than disregarding them just because they are different.

 

Time doesn't exist if the paper is right. But there's no evidence that it is right.

 

You need to stop referencing the paper as if it's a foregone conclusion that it is the truth. That's pretty much the opposite of science.

What is your evidence for time? the evidence lies in the paper.

Not really. Scientists know that there are multiple black holes in our universe. And, for black holes to exist, you have to accept the existence of space time. How does light "fall" into a black hole if there is no space time. And the theory also suggests that the speed of light is about 50% more than it is now. That can't be true, because scientists have calculated the speed of light. The speed of light is calculated using Maxwell's equations. Also, light doesn't have any mass. Therefor, it has no acceleration, because the a=F/m. This theory states that the UPD has a finite mass. Light also is electromagnetic, being energy, but is a particle at the same time, i.e., it is a particle and a wave. And because of this theory, there technically is no such thing as a vacuum, due to the whole universe being the Permeable Medium. But the theory states that the Permeable Medium is in between the spinning charges that make up the universe. The theory doesn't say what even is. Because it threw away the old definition of motion, it is saying that motion is electromagnetic. But it isn't there is other forms of motion... I just can't imagine it.

 

Well, it was a nice trip, but I'm out.

Of course light can fall into a black hole without space time, because you have no evidence for space time and I challenge any person to do so. Because time is simply used to describe motion, Now if you actually read the theory the only measurements are distance and motion so your argument is false, and yes if you have read the theory a vacuum is an area where there is no gravitational (which we now know is electromagnetic) influence.

So the Summery of the Theory as I understand it

 

The UPD, is a neutral particle made up of opposite charges, and the opposite charges revolve around each other. Also, even though it is infinitesimal, it still has charges, and mass. The Permeable Medium, is what is in between the space of the particles, and therefor is what makes up the universe. The motion of the particles disturbs the Permeable Medium, creating a electro-magnetic field. The Permeable Medium can also carry waves. It is saying that a black hole loops back on itself, creating and destroying the universe. Then the person says that positive and negative charges are the same. Then it is saying that time is a way for humans to describe the nature of the rotations of the spheres. Says time is a measure of relative distance. So time is distance. Then it talks about how elementary particles are made.

spot on,

but the only thing that u got slightly wrong that time is not used to describe the spheres it is used to describe any motion (or rotation).

now do u find this simpler and more reasonable than the other models.

And this can answer fundamental questions like the origin of the universe, dark energy,dark matter,electricity,etc.

The experiment shows the effects of time dilatation.

If you haven't read, the time dilation effect was caused because by the objects velocity when reaches high speed it reaches low frequency (high wavelength) which the atomic clock runs on , the clock appears to have taken more time. But time doesn't even exist if you read the paper.

 

This proves Relativity!!!

Which link the pdf or the experiment?

I'm assuming you mean the experiment, the time dilation effect was caused because by the objects velocity when reaches high speed it reaches low frequency (high wavelength) which the atomic clock runs on , the clock appears to have taken more time. But time doesn't even exist if you read the paper.

I need the pdf to be uploaded to the forum. I can only read to page 287, then the rest is blank, and the download button doesn't work.

I can send it to you by email , because it works for other people.

Try this link : http://www.docdroid.net/9x0v/ejsr-118-3-02-union-dipole-theoryudt-by-abdulsalam-al-mayahi.pdf.html

This is the experiment that someone was asking for earlier :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980327b.html

 

Extract:

 

Now, we eagerly await the experimental confirmations of UDT.

Let me just say that the extract you provided has the words space-time and UDT states that time is a tool created by man to describe motion and clearly it is.

and if you read the PAPER you will find how time dosen't exist.

The pdf is here : http://www.scribd.com/doc/210594145/UDT-By-abdulsalam-Al-mayahi-ToE

what evidence do u need?

The document doesn't even load for me anymore.

Give me one reason why time is relativistic rather than a tool that humans create to describe motion. You clearly aren't a good physicist.

I'm asking for your summary, and yes I have done some research, but it seems you haven't even attempted to read the paper.

The theory also talks about relativity and proofs it wrong just like i did above. Relativity is false because it depends on time, and time dosen't exist.

 

Relativity has been proven. Time dilatation has been proven through experiment. It is not pure imagination.

And whats the experiment?

 

In a search of the paper I see dilation mentioned only twice. Anything appearing in his "next paper" is not part of this discussion.

 

Science doesn't "prove" things, but relativity stems fro the speed of light being the same in all inertial frames of reference, something that is also the basis for electrodynamics. IOW, if it wasn't true, cell phones and radios wouldn't work. This isn't something you generally learn in high school, since it requires a little more background and there are some tough concepts attached to it.

 

We observe time dilation in a number of different clocks of different compositions, so we know it's not an artifact of some particular design or mechanism. It's a real effect. What 7-day experiment are you referring to? Atomic clocks don't rely on radioactive decay, though the effect has been observed in decays, as you would expect.

How does relativity make cell phones and radios work? it has something to do with time, now if you have read what the UDT says about time and gravity then einsteins argument is false. You have to understand perspectives and understand that relativity is pure imagination and mathematics and should not be applied in physics.

If quark charge is lower because of their energy, what about the particles that have the same quarks in them but larger masses, such as the delta particles (comprised of uud and udd, just like protons and neutrons)? They have more energy, but the same overall charge!

 

Anyone can simply state that relativity is false. A lunatic on the streetcorner can state this. Nobody cares unless you have experimental evidence to show it, and there's lots of evidence to show it's correct. GPS works.

 

"Not reading" and "not naively accepting as true" aren't the same thing, anyway. The burden of proof is on the presenter. It's considered to be untrue until adequate evidence is presented, and this falls way, way short of that.

 

Why are you so invested in this, anyway?

yes now if you READ the paper you will see the anatomy of the proton neutron and how the up quarks and the down quarks and etc. are composed their is evidence for relativity being wrong and it is in the paper where he talks about the decay that occured in time dilation and is also in his next paper about absolutism which goes into more detail.

Can you prove to me why relativity works?

The experiment was proved wrong (7 day relativity experiment) because the clock was an atomic clock therefore there was a decay but you perceived it as time dilation when time dosen't even exist it is a tool created by man to describe rotation, not saying its not helpful without it many things would be very difficult but it has nothing to do with physics.

 

No. You can't accelerate them to c because of relativity. The models used for these interactions — which works really, really well — have constant charge as their explanation. Also, there are uncharged particles out there, that would not suffer from this restriction, and yet they don't exceed c, either.

 

From an even simpler point of view, electrons in heavier atoms have relativistic energies. According to this model, they should have less charge, meaning that atom shouldn't be neutral. This isn't observed.

If you have read the theory it states that relativity is false and their is only 2 constants Planck's constant and maxwell's speed of light and also you have not taken into account that electrons are made by UDP'S you have obviously not read the theory.

Um, we do it all the time. Any old-fashioned CRT accelerates electrons. Particle accelerators, by definition, accelerate charged particles.

 

 

I am judging him by the content, which is crackpottery. I was merely answering your claim that we know he's a physicist. We don't.

thats why they cant accelerate at the speed of light.. (because the charge gets low) u can only get to 0.999995c

 

What we need is a way of testing this that can show this this, and not some other model, is true.

Go test in a lab, you are a physicist after all.

 

We are, the contents junk. It's another crackpot theory that will never be proven, because it is wrong in a lot of ways. Like the decay of his particle into an electron. He saying that is saying that the electron is the building block.(As I understand it, I might be wrong)

 

Edit:clarified something I said

He says the UDP is the building block