Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**LQ****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-12-04
- Posts: 1,281

Given that relativity is right, one can make certain valid statements, like these:

Any max in the universe is the same in all reference frames, including time, length, speed and frequency. Thereby we have accordingly:

sqrt(1-v^2/c^ 2) = sqrt(1-time^2/timemax^2) = sqrt(1 - frequency^2/frequencymax^2) = sqrt(1 - gravity^2/gravitymax^2) = sqrt(1 - length^2/lengthmax^2) = sqrt(1 - massdistribution^2/massdistributionmax^2) etc.

We have:

v^2/c^2 = time^2(universe)/timemax^2(universe)

thus:

v/c = time(universe)/timemax(universe)

and is a condition dependent of time, we have:

c/v = timemax(universe)/time(universe)

thus:

c*time(universe)/v = timemax(universe)

So unless one travels in overlightspeed, the universe will never end for one's referenceframe.

There are several consequences of these calcules, and I will let the rest of you contemplate the rest of the effects.

Here's one. A complex functions lifelength, like a biological creatures lifelength & evolution will go up at higher speeds due to a more accurate process.

The accuracy/max accuracy ≈ speed/lightspeed.

Hence, any error is less likely at higher speeds, even for evolution.

I get: lifelength/maxlifelength ≈ speed/lightspeed.

Hence lifelength ≈ maxlifelength*speed/c

That's what I'm gonna prove aswell.

*Last edited by LQ (2010-06-25 01:29:17)*

I see clearly now, the universe have the black dots, Thus I am on my way of inventing this remedy...

Offline

**Ricky****Moderator**- Registered: 2005-12-04
- Posts: 3,791

Any max in the universe is the same in all reference frames, including time, length, speed and frequency.

Where does relativity say this is true?

"In the real world, this would be a problem. But in mathematics, we can just define a place where this problem doesn't exist. So we'll go ahead and do that now..."

Offline

**LQ****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-12-04
- Posts: 1,281

Max all in all is still max seen from the other reference frames.

Okay, basically this is what you do:

you have this box, whatever is in the box you don't know, you just know that it's max of its kind.

No matter what box you compare with, the box with its max is allways bigger.

So, basically any dimensional concept is based on a few principle, like what glue this enormous plastic eiffel tower that you built is composed of: we know that its the biggest, everything went bleak compared to it.

So:

what condition does a max have to a current one? Well, basically, to make max in the end one can't break the laws of physics, and therein lies the rules of relativity.

That is why (current something)/(max something) must have the same relation as: current speed/max speed: because all current something are under the same rules: it cannot break the rules of relativity.

so if we find the same units of the something as of the speed, one can use this as a perspective of relativity.

I argue that your mind is flawless and understand precisely what I'm saying, Ricky. Thank you for your time.

*Last edited by LQ (2010-06-25 06:33:05)*

I see clearly now, the universe have the black dots, Thus I am on my way of inventing this remedy...

Offline

**LQ****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-12-04
- Posts: 1,281

2. So basically, we have (motorspeed avarage)/(motorspeed max) = v/c.

So if the oil dissapears..............

Then our speed in space will slow down.

Sure, that looks totally stupid, but that's what I predict

As I said. Cocobanana.

I see clearly now, the universe have the black dots, Thus I am on my way of inventing this remedy...

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,490

Cocobanana?

You know I have bantered with him on several subjects but did not think of that. Basically because I don't understand it.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**LQ****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-12-04
- Posts: 1,281

Anyway, could this indeed be right?

I see clearly now, the universe have the black dots, Thus I am on my way of inventing this remedy...

Offline

**Ricky****Moderator**- Registered: 2005-12-04
- Posts: 3,791

you have this box, whatever is in the box you don't know, you just know that it's max of its kind.

No matter what box you compare with, the box with its max is allways bigger.

Sounds to me like a pretty big assumption. Does this really reflect reality?

"In the real world, this would be a problem. But in mathematics, we can just define a place where this problem doesn't exist. So we'll go ahead and do that now..."

Offline

**LQ****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-12-04
- Posts: 1,281

indeed, max is max.

I see clearly now, the universe have the black dots, Thus I am on my way of inventing this remedy...

Offline

**Ricky****Moderator**- Registered: 2005-12-04
- Posts: 3,791

No, can you have such a box?

"In the real world, this would be a problem. But in mathematics, we can just define a place where this problem doesn't exist. So we'll go ahead and do that now..."

Offline

**LQ****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-12-04
- Posts: 1,281

It's a thought box.

I see clearly now, the universe have the black dots, Thus I am on my way of inventing this remedy...

Offline

**Ricky****Moderator**- Registered: 2005-12-04
- Posts: 3,791

One can certainly set up a thought experiment with a premise that doesn't hold (as far as we know) in our universe. For example, a tachyon is the idea of a particle which can travel faster than the speed of light and have negative mass. But as soon as you begin with a premise that is to the best of our knowledge false, then all your deductions don't say anything about the universe.

Offline

**LQ****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-12-04
- Posts: 1,281

Must exist a max in every area, musn't it?

I see clearly now, the universe have the black dots, Thus I am on my way of inventing this remedy...

Offline

**Ricky****Moderator**- Registered: 2005-12-04
- Posts: 3,791

Must exist a max in every area

Do you mean "There must exist..."? And when you say "a max", a max what? Length? Volume? Shade of blue?

Offline

**LQ****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-12-04
- Posts: 1,281

Yes, as in any area.

I see clearly now, the universe have the black dots, Thus I am on my way of inventing this remedy...

Offline

**Ricky****Moderator**- Registered: 2005-12-04
- Posts: 3,791

I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding your response at all. Should your previous statement be:

"There must exist a maximum area in any area"

?

Offline

**LQ****Real Member**- Registered: 2006-12-04
- Posts: 1,281

no, that there is a max of every kind of thing that reflects the laws of physics.

I see clearly now, the universe have the black dots, Thus I am on my way of inventing this remedy...

Offline

**Ricky****Moderator**- Registered: 2005-12-04
- Posts: 3,791

Ok, I'm willing to grant the idea of taking the maximum of everything that is current. However...

That is why (current something)/(max something) must have the same relation as: current speed/max speed: because all current something are under the same rules: it cannot break the rules of relativity.

...that's not what you're talking about here. You've just gone from "The maximum thing that exists" to "The maximum thing that is possible". While the current largest black hole in our universe has a certain size, it is nowhere near the size that a blackhole would be if you took all the matter in the universe and put it into a single one.

In any case, I don't understand what your conclusion is.

Offline