[David Cooper]

The reason is because the energy is being directed outwards as opposed to inwards. I see your reasoning but unless it is a vortex, I see no reason it can contract inverting, while the energy flows centrifugal in direction.  If anything the molecules are stretched of the disk ?

Consider a sphere in rotation , the y-axis contracts while the x-axis expands.

There are two forces involved - one trying to fling material outwards (technically it's merely a perceived force due to the material not being free to fly off in a straight line), and the other trying to crush inwards due to length contraction. Ordinarily the latter is too small to measure and the former is considerable, but if you make the disc really big, the length-contraction crushing inwards force could be stronger than the one trying to throw material outwards. The wider you make the disc, the less centrifugal force there is for the same speed of movement of the edge, so that force is tending towards zero as you go to bigger and bigger discs, whereas the length contraction of the edge is the same in all cases if the edge is moving at the same speed and doesn't diminish as we go to bigger discs.

[guest39538]

The reason is because the energy is being directed outwards as opposed to inwards. I see your reasoning but unless it is a vortex, I see no reason it can contract inverting, while the energy flows centrifugal in direction.  If anything the molecules are stretched of the disk ?

Consider a sphere in rotation , the y-axis contracts while the x-axis expands.

There are two forces involved - one trying to fling material outwards (technically it's merely a perceived force due to the material not being free to fly off in a straight line), and the other trying to crush inwards due to length contraction. Ordinarily the latter is too small to measure and the former is considerable, but if you make the disc really big, the length-contraction crushing inwards force could be stronger than the one trying to throw material outwards. The wider you make the disc, the less centrifugal force there is for the same speed of movement of the edge, so that force is tending towards zero as you go to bigger and bigger discs, whereas the length contraction of the edge is the same in all cases if the edge is moving at the same speed and doesn't diminish as we go to bigger discs.

I sort of see what you are saying, as if a force spirals inwards?

[David Cooper]

I sort of see what you are saying, as if a force spirals inwards?

Just picture a rubber band stretched round a bottle - in trying to shorten itself, it presses inwards. The length-contraction further in is less and less until it reaches zero at the centre, but none of the contraction is inwards - what you have going inwards is a crushing pressure which is resisted by the material further in, so that material pushes back and it's under a constant stress. With length contraction in a straight rod moving along end first, the contraction isn't resisted, so the length simply shortens and there is no stress on the material. Length contraction is only involved where the material sits closer together without stress (or tries to) - it is not about compression, but in the case of a rotating disc it produces compression, and the inability of the material to sit closer together leads to the material round the edge feeling stretched.

[guest39538]

I sort of see what you are saying, as if a force spirals inwards?

Just picture a rubber band stretched round a bottle - in trying to shorten itself, it presses inwards. The length-contraction further in is less and less until it reaches zero at the centre, but none of the contraction is inwards - what you have going inwards is a crushing pressure which is resisted by the material further in, so that material pushes back and it's under a constant stress. With length contraction in a straight rod moving along end first, the contraction isn't resisted, so the length simply shortens and there is no stress on the material. Length contraction is only involved where the material sits closer together without stress (or tries to) - it is not about compression, but in the case of a rotating disc it produces compression, and the inability of the material to sit closer together leads to the material round the edge feeling stretched.

Ok, I can see a ''picture ''.

[guest4091]

Something is wrong only if we take SR for granted. If not, then a simulation is as good as any math to discover the truth, and better than math at showing how things could move. In case you didn't notice, in all my simulations with inline particles, it takes time for the information to travel between the particles, so if the system is accelerated, one of the particles always move before the other, which is precisely why the distance between the particles contracts. There is no need to program it, it is intrinsic to the limited speed of the information.

All graphics on a computer are processed using math concepts.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

If the planet's actually moving through space at a speed just a fraction under the speed of light though, the moon's speed through space will vary

Thanks for reiterating your description. I studied a similar orbital phenomenon about ten years ago before imagining my theory on mass: only the earth's center is going at the right speed on its orbit, one half of its surface is going too fast so that it should escape from the sun, and the other half is going too slow so that it should fall on it, what should also produce tides, but differently than by the book. As you can see, I was already trying to use motion to explain certain phenomenon. Now that I can use simulations, I tried to imagine what my two bonded inline particles would do at the place of your moon, and I found that they would react as if ether was suddenly accelerating or decelerating with regard to them. The photon would then take more and more time to make its round-trip for particles going upstream, and it would take less and less time for them going downstream. If I added a vertical arm to the system as in my simulation with four particles, and if I would let those particles move so that their photon stays on sync with the horizontal one, there would be no difference in the two timings, but the vertical arm would constantly be contracting and stretching while the horizontal one would not: it would be stretching when the horizontal photon would take more time, and contracting when it would take less time, which is not what my four particles do when they are accelerated, but it is similar to SR since its supporters pretend that only the horizontal arm would be contracted. Here is wiki about that:

However, length contraction is only a special case of the more general relation, according to which the transverse length is larger than the longitudinal length by the ratio γ. This can be achieved in many ways.
...........
Poincaré (1905) demonstrated that only ϕ = 1 allows this transformation to form a group, so it is the only choice compatible with the principle of relativity, i.e. making the stationary aether undetectable. Given this, length contraction and time dilation obtain their exact relativistic values.

Ether is also undetectable in my simulation with four particles since it always gives a null result, and it still shows that those values can change, which means that it is still an ad hoc choice, and that math can't help.

This mind experiment of yours is about acceleration without a force, so let's study more closely how force develops between my accelerated particles. We know it is the photon that accelerates the second particle in my simulation on acceleration, so we can suspect it is also a photon that accelerates the first one, but it has to be an external one. To simulate such a force, I could make a simulation of two moving bonded particles hitting two others that would be at rest, and for external photons to show up between the two system, I could let the internal ones get away from the systems a bit, as if they would not completely be absorbed by the particles. This way, the two systems would interfere when they would get close enough from one another: the external photons would compete with the internal ones so as to keep the hitting particles at the right bonding distance, the distance between the particles and between the two systems would then contract a bit, so the particles would automatically resist to the change, which is precisely what force is about. After a while, the system at rest would begin moving away from the moving one, and the moving one would slow down a bit. That describes what is happening when particles get accelerated, and whatever the way they are accelerated since it is also some kind of light that is used in accelerators. Going through ether, your moon is also affected by light, but its intensity is a lot lower than the one the particles exchange. However, the intensity of the information that the moon and the earth exchange would be a lot higher if ever they would exchange any, so if that information could influence the steps between their particles, those steps might be able to explain their orbital motion.

That maintains the null result, but the clocks then tick too quickly, so again you're not simulating the real universe.

I'm simulating a physical mechanism whereas SR tenants don't even care to present any. When I tell them that contraction and dilation have to happen at acceleration, they stop listening since they need that acceleration doesn't affect the SR issue of the Twins mind experiment. The first time I ran my simulation on acceleration, I wasn't sure the distance was going to contract and it did. I know that it contracts too much, but I still think it's a good start. For the moment, I consider that the resistance we attribute to mass is caused by the time light takes between the particles, and that time is already part of the simulation as far as the particles are concerned, but not as far as the components are concerned, so I could introduce an equation to reduce the particles' acceleration progressively and pretend it is due to their components' mass, but I prefer to make a simulation of it and check if the contraction rate goes down significantly. If it does, then I will have a real mechanism to support an eventual equation. Such an equation would automatically affect both the time and the distance, dilating the contraction would automatically dilate the time, which is exactly what is needed to even SR numbers.

[guest39538]

Ether is also undetectable

You could try two parallel copper plates a short distance apart with a positive current traversing through both plates in a vacuum. 

added - I drew it you


doodle.png (39.82 kB . 3168x1772 - viewed 4118 times)

[Le Repteux (OP)]

What for? To show that ether is detectable? How?

[guest39538]

I improved it for you


doodle1.jpg (218.68 kB . 3168x1772 - viewed 3939 times)

[guest39538]

What for? To show that ether is detectable? How?

Observable if you get it right

[Le Repteux (OP)]

How?

[guest39538]

How?

Use a thermal detector or infra red or maybe even just a camera,  set the plates on a vice type structure so the ''jump'' gap can be altered.  Be careful though it might be dangerous lol.   Q.F.C Quantum field compression .


Added   =Q

[Le Repteux (OP)]

I googled "Quantum field compression", and its all about data compression, nothing about detecting ether.

[guest39538]

I googled "Quantum field compression", and its all about data compression, nothing about detecting ether.

I have not wrote the paper on the subject, it is new.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

Then you need to explain what you mean, I can't figure it out.

[guest39538]

Then you need to explain what you mean, I can't figure it out.

The parallel positives  will concave any positive in the ''sub'' space that exists between the plates whilst attracting any negative that exists in the ''sub'' space.   Compressing the positive energy to a central position between the plates.

[David Cooper]

and it still shows that those values can change, which means that it is still an ad hoc choice, and that math can't help.

The ticking rates of moving clocks show that the perpendicular arm of the MMX doesn't contract, and the arm aligned with the direction of travel must contract in accord with the two mathematical methods that we're using to calculate it. Anything that goes against that maths also goes against the results of experiments and therefore does not fit the real universe.

This mind experiment of yours is about acceleration without a force,

It involves a gravitational force (or a slowing of the speed of light in the presence of mass which can produce the same bending of courses as a curving of space).

When I tell them that contraction and dilation have to happen at acceleration, they stop listening since they need that acceleration doesn't affect the SR issue of the Twins mind experiment.

You hear different things from different people, but it's not surprising that many of them are confused because they're working with a magical model. Most say that the accelerations are important though - the twin who accelerates is normally the one who ages less. However, if you could accelerate the moving twin by applying a gravitational force such that he feels no acceleration while the stay-at-home twin feels acceleration instead by being tethered in position when the gravitational force is applied, it can be the twin who felt no acceleration who ages less.

The first time I ran my simulation on acceleration, I wasn't sure the distance was going to contract and it did. I know that it contracts too much, but I still think it's a good start.

It may not be a good start - it's more likely misleading you into thinking you've found something relevant. You have no mechanism for distinguishing between the behaviour of bonded particles and non-bonded ones. You don't have a mechanism for making two stationary bonded particles move from an incorrect separation to a correct one. With real bonded particles, there are forces of attraction and repulsion acting between them which fight each other and keep driving towards a compromise separation. Finding a chance contraction that doesn't match up to the real one is an indication that you have not found the right mechanism.

For the moment, I consider that the resistance we attribute to mass is caused by the time light takes between the particles,

How does that work if another pair of particles have twice the mass while light takes the same amount of time to travel between them? Mass is a measure of the amount of energy tied up in matter, which is no surprise as matter is made of energy - it can all be thought of as light. Light has directionality, and mass appears when light of different directionalities combines to form matter such that some of that directionality opposes the rest and creates resistance, reducing the speed of the knot of energy to less than c. With no resistance of this kind, all the energy goes in the same direction and you automatically have massless radiation instead of matter.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

How does that work if another pair of particles have twice the mass while light takes the same amount of time to travel between them?

Good point! No need for more massive particles to explain the additivity of mass though. Two systems of two bonded particles resist twice as much as one system because twice as much particles resist to the change. Particles do wait for light to tell them to accelerate, but if there is two particles, we have to apply the force on both of them, so we have to apply twice the force. Resistance is easier to explain with doppler effect though: whenever we try to accelerate the first particle in my simulations on acceleration, it automatically produces blueshift on the light from the second one, and it is automatically forced to get back where it was, so an opposed force has to be applied on it to keep it there until the photon from the other particle is back with the information that it can stay there. If we stop applying the force though, it doesn't erase the redshift the second particle has imprinted on the photon it has already emitted backward to the first one, which is thus forced to move forward again when that light comes in, and so on for the second particle later on, which produces the constant motion that we can observe when we stop the acceleration.

Mass is a measure of the amount of energy tied up in matter, which is no surprise as matter is made of energy - it can all be thought of as light.

The relativists have no mechanism to explain mass since the Higgs' glue doesn't explain how particles can resist to acceleration and still move at constant speed during that time. I do have such a mechanism, and moreover, it explains that mass is due to c, so it is not far from explaining completely the mass-energy equivalence. I'll explain it again while trying to be more precise in my wording since it depends on a cascade of events which complicates the understanding. My two particles exchange light, and if we suddenly separate them for instance, the light that they were exchanging is no more absorbed by the particles so it escapes from the system. It is that same light that was previously justifying the loss of mass due to their bonding since it was precisely that light that was bonding them. We know that particles lose mass while bonding, so if we reverse the process, the closer they are, the more they are massive. In my theory, it is precisely the light that escapes from the steps between the closer components that produce the steps between the more distant particles, and that light is a lot weaker at the particles' scale than it was at the components' one because it has to travel a longer distance between the particles than between the components, so since it is no more available at the components' scale, and since the particles' resistance is automatically weaker than the components' one, the total resistance of the system gets down a bit.

You have no mechanism for distinguishing between the behaviour of bonded particles and non-bonded ones.

Yes I do. Non-bonded particles are made of bonded components that also execute small steps to stay on sync.

You don't have a mechanism for making two stationary bonded particles move from an incorrect separation to a correct one.

Yes I do. The light that particles exchange creates a standing wave between them, and they have to stay on the nodes of that standing wave, which is an integer number of wave length away from one another. If the medium is cool, they can stay farther without getting ionized by collisions, otherwise they must stay closer.

Finding a chance contraction that doesn't match up to the real one is an indication that you have not found the right mechanism.

As I said, dilation and contraction must happen at acceleration, and two bonded inline particles can certainly not accelerate at the same time, so at least between those particles, the system must contract the way it does. The fact that this kind of contraction does not produce the numbers expected by the experiments is irrelevant. We have the tool to find the truth behind the assumptions, so let's find it.

Most say that the accelerations are important though - the twin who accelerates is normally the one who ages less.

I keep repeating them that acceleration simply determines which twin is moving, and they can't agree because it directly contradicts the idea that motion is relative. If motion was always relative, the twins mind experiment would still contain a paradox.

Anything that goes against that maths also goes against the results of experiments and therefore does not fit the real universe.

A simulation simulates the real universe, so if it doesn't give the right numbers, we have to fin the bug, not discard it.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

Then you need to explain what you mean, I can't figure it out.

The parallel positives  will concave any positive in the ''sub'' space that exists between the plates whilst attracting any negative that exists in the ''sub'' space.   Compressing the positive energy to a central position between the plates.

I still don't understand what you mean. Tell me first what you want to demonstrate.

[guest39538]

Then you need to explain what you mean, I can't figure it out.

The parallel positives  will concave any positive in the ''sub'' space that exists between the plates whilst attracting any negative that exists in the ''sub'' space.   Compressing the positive energy to a central position between the plates.

I still don't understand what you mean. Tell me first what you want to demonstrate.

The experiment should demonstrate a binary spatial field exists between the two plates, showing negative energy exists, additionally  showing my N-field theory .

   = E^2


A sort of LIGO ...that hopefully will show ''space-time''

P.s Don't try this at home just in case .