1

New Theories / Can we change reference frames in the twins paradox mind experiment?

« on: 26/10/2018 20:08:42 »

I repeat to anyone who wants to listen that acceleration is absolute, and that we thus shouldn't change reference frames when acceleration is involved, but @David Cooper does the contrary in his Relativity page, which probably means that many readers here think the same, so I thought it might be useful to discuss it.

Here is the exert I'd like to discuss from David's page:

For example, if a rocket leaves the Earth and flies away into space for a year at 0.866 of the speed of light, then turns round and comes back at 0.866 of the speed of light, that trip will take two years from the point of view of the people in the rocket, but four years will have run through on the Earth before the rocket comes back. If we do our analysis from the "frame of reference" in which the Earth is considered to be stationary, then the rocket was moving and its clocks were ticking at half the normal rate throughout both legs of its voyage. However, if we use a different frame of reference instead, we could then imagine that it's the rocket that is stationary during the first leg of its voyage while the Earth is moving away from it at 0.866 of the speed of light, and that would mean that the clocks on the rocket can now be thought to be ticking twice as fast as the clocks on the Earth throughout this half of its trip. During the second half of the rocket's journey though, the rocket will be calculated to be chasing the Earth at 0.99 of the speed of light to catch up with it, and its clocks will be reckoned to be ticking about three and a half times as slowly as clocks on the Earth. The end result will still be that the whole journey will take two years for the rocket (as recorded by its clocks) while four years will still have gone by on the Earth (as recorded by clocks there). So, while we have accounts of events that contradict each other as to when the different clocks were running faster or slower than each other, the most important numbers about how long the whole trip takes will always agree at the end of the process when the two parties are reunited - all accounts determine that the rocket records two years while the Earth records four.

I think that changing reference frames in this case simply adds a useless complexity to the problem. When we feel an acceleration, we know we are accelerating, and we know the direction, so changing reference frame is like refusing to admit that we are accelerating even if we can feel it. To me, the only use of denying it is to extend the reference frame principle to acceleration, and I think it's not a good way to improve our knowledge of relativistic phenomenon. The earthbound observer that starts moving away knows it is not accelerating, and the one that knows he is accelerating is not moving away: where does this happen in real observations? In my simulations on motion, I show the way light could travel between two accelerated particles. There might be other ways, but it's one of them. It links acceleration to relativity instead of sweeping it under the rug like this switching of reference frames does. It's based on the idea that a particle that belongs to a system of two bonded particles necessarily accelerates before the other one knows about it, because that information cannot travel at more than the speed of light.

It is a very simple idea but it has many interesting issues. One of them is that the system contracts during acceleration, one of the features of relativity. The other is that it goes on moving at constant speed once acceleration has stopped, and that this motion is still due to the direction and the speed of light. And the third one is that the first particle resists to accelerate since it is already informed that the second one is not actually moving, a resistance that we can probably attribute to its mass, an hypothesis that looks more promising than the Higgs' one. As I said, there may be other ways to apply acceleration to particles, but why not start with this one? Even if it is not the right way, discussing it might raise up better ones, and at least, we will have something else to do than denying the observations.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Why don't we call centrifugal force rotational force?

« on: 12/10/2018 15:54:44 »

NOTE: THIS TOPIC HAS BEEN SPLIT OFF FROM https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49715.0 BECAUSE THAT TOPIC IS BEING CONFUSED BY DISCUSSION ON CENTRIFUGAL FORCE.

I think any further discussion of rotating frame analysis should be done in a separate thread as it is disjointing the discussion between @rmolnav and @David Cooper

Not if it is rmolnav that is confusing reference frames, and idea that your reference frame concern just gave me.

As I said before, it doesn’t matter if we know we are rotating, it makes no difference; in fact it is essential we know so we can calculate the centrifugal force.

What if we simply called that force rotational? This way, the expression "centrifugal force" could be reserved to a force that adds to the rotational one, what can be done by throwing stones towards the center of a merry go round when we are on its edge for instance. We may also call centrifugal the force applied on the ground by two teams playing tug-of-war for instance. Saying that, I realize that throwing stones towards the moon from the earth's surface would move the earth away a bit, and that rmolnav's centrifugal force doesn't. Anyway, the force we feel in an accelerating car is not centrifugal, and the one we feel on a merry go round is of the same kind, so why call it centrifugal? Just because we feel we are going to be ejected outward if the door opens while the car is turning? Aren't we confusing frames when we think that way? If we know the physics, we know we are not going to move outwards, we know we will simply go on moving in the same direction and speed we were going when the door opened, we know it is the car that will be moving away. If we don't chose the right frame to analyze that situation, we will simply end up with epicycles. If we are in a car that is making circles, and we think that the ejected passenger suffered the same outward force we are feeling, we will think it is making epicycles while moving away. I think that's what rmolnav is doing, except that he knows that the passenger will be moving straight line, so he swithches reference frames in his head in the middle of his explanation. By the way, the same frame switching is used in the main stream explanation of the Twins paradox, while it would be so much clearer to admit that we simply know which Twin has accelerated. We know we are accelerating, so why tergiversate? There is no such thing as a rotating relative reference frame, rotating frames are unfortunately absolute.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Is Wiki right about tidal acceleration?

« on: 22/09/2018 15:25:01 »

Here is wiki on tidal acceleration:

Tidal acceleration is an effect of the tidal forces between an orbiting natural satellite (e.g. the Moon), and the primary planet that it orbits (e.g. Earth). The acceleration causes a gradual recession of a satellite in a prograde orbit away from the primary, and a corresponding slowdown of the primary's rotation.

The similar process of tidal deceleration occurs for satellites that have an orbital period that is shorter than the primary's rotational period, or that orbit in a retrograde direction.

The naming is somewhat confusing, because the speed of the satellite relative to the body it orbits is decreased as a result of tidal acceleration, and increased as a result of tidal deceleration.

Here is the problem: if the orbital motion of the earth around the moon is able to slow down the earth's rotation speed, then shouldn't the orbital motion of the earth-moon system around the sun be able to slow down the earth/moon's orbital speed, or on a larger scale, shouldn't the orbital motion of the solar system around the galaxy core be able to slow down the solar system's orbital speed?

Of course, there is a difference between orbital rotations and proper rotations of planets, but as it emerges from this actual discussion on tides, the tidal bulges are not affected by that difference since they depend only on gravitational forces, so if it is true, I think that the two kinds of rotation should produce the same tidal effects. Unfortunately, the tidal theory says that the deceleration of the proper rotational speed of the earth is due to tidal friction opposing it, and that the deceleration of the orbital speed of the earth/moon system is due to the tidal bulges being dragged sideways by that friction. Since the proper rotation speed of the earth is working against the bulges, I can imagine how it would decelerate, but I can't imagine how the resultant offset of the bulges would decelerate the orbital speed of the earth/moon system. As they are presented on the wiki page, those offset bulges would on the contrary accelerate the orbital speed of the moon, which is probably why it has been confusedly named "Tidal acceleration".

I looked for a more precise explanation of the mechanism but I didn't find any. Does anybody know how it works exactly?

 

4

New Theories / How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« on: 07/08/2017 21:51:23 »

Hi Everybody!

I asked David Cooper to help me design a Java software for simulating my small steps and surprisingly, he accepted, and he also accepted to do it right here in case people would like to participate or even "learn the way to test their own theories through software", so here we are.

I guess you already know what my model is about, but here is a refreshing. I figure that mass and motion could be due to the bonding between two particles being limited to c, because it would then take time for the information to travel between them, which would desynchronize their bond during acceleration. The first particle to be accelerated would resist to move because it would produce blueshift right away on the information coming from the second particle, and that second particle would only move after a while because it would take time for the information from the acceleration to reach it. Resistance to acceleration is mass, so accelerating the first particle and stopping the acceleration before that information hits the second particle should give us the mass of the whole system, which is weird since the second particle has not been affected by the acceleration yet. Stopping the acceleration of the first particle means that it should decelerate to rest after a while until it doesn't produce anymore blueshift, and I figure that it should decelerate by the time the second particle would be accelerating, which means that the information from that second acceleration should hit the first particle at the moment it would be at rest, which means that that first particle should start accelerating again, and that it would do so while the second particle would be decelerating. A particle would then be accelerating while the other would be decelerating and vice-versa later on. Of course, we could accelerate the first particle for a longer time, but I need to know what will happen if we stop the acceleration at the moment the information from the acceleration hits the second particle.

That time shifted motion is hard to illustrate with static diagrams, and I think it would also be hard to put into equations, but I hope it can be simulated. What needs to be simulated is doppler effect from a particular motion that becomes a cause for another motion, so I think we would need that the particles are sources of waves, but I'm afraid that computers cannot produce them fast and precise enough, so I guess that we will have to rely on timing beeps, which computers cannot provide with absolute accuracy either, so the system will probably drift after a while, but I hope it won't drift too much, and that we can use a way to correct the drift if necessary. We want to see what will happen, so we need the particles to be as far as possible from one another on the screen, and that the beeps do not move too fast between them. We also need to see the beeps going both ways, so we might put them on two rows, one over the other, and we might use large vertical bars for the particles and smaller vertical bars, half the length of the large ones, for the traveling beeps. The beeps of the particles could be illustrated with the large bar hopping a small distance back and forth, disappearing and reappearing at the next location, and the beeps of the information could be illustrated by the small bars hopping the same small distance but in the same direction, but it means that all the rows would disappear and reappear once they would be full of beeps, so it would be necessary to accelerate and decelerate the bars between the beeps in order to see the motion. I guess we could more simply move the bars at a constant speed as you did in one of your simulation. This way, while both particles would be at rest, we would see the small bars integrating the large ones while new small ones would simultaneously be leaving the large ones.

To accelerate the first particle, we could move the left large bar a small distance, and double that distance each new beep. Normally, to be more precise, we should account for what would happen inside the particle during its acceleration, thus for the motion of its components, represented by the left side and the right side of the vibrating large bar, but to simplify the problem, we might as well just use the constant timing between the left and the right side of the bar, and move the second side after the first one would have moved, thus reducing the distance between the small bars by doppler effect, but not the size of the particles, thus not the distance between the two sides of the large bars. During acceleration, the small incoming bars and the accelerated large bar would get out of sync, and if the acceleration would stop at the moment the information from that acceleration would hit the other large bar, the accelerated one should decelerate until synchronization is recovered, thus it should get back to rest, and at the same rate it was accelerated.

By the time that large bar would start to decelerate, the second large bar should star accelerating to stay tuned with the incoming small bars, thus it should accelerate at the same rate the first large bar did, and then of course decelerate to rest in order to stay tuned with the small incoming ones. As I said, it's too difficult to imagine the effect the time gap between the components would have on the one between the particles during acceleration, so I think it is better to neglect it at first, and then adjust the simulation if we feel it is necessary. If anyone thinks he has a better way to initiate the simulation, he is welcome. I hope my description is good enough to be understood, but don't hesitate to ask for precisions if you want to participate to the simulation.

Ready for a crash? You should, because we never know what is going to come out of a new move! :0)

5

New Theories / Does the Sun bend its own light?

« on: 26/09/2015 15:31:29 »

Hi everybody,

Here is a drawing representing two light rays curved by the sun's mass: a blue ray coming from a star that brushes past the sun, and a red ray coming from the periphery of the sun itself.



The two rays are parallel when they begin to travel together at the sun's periphery (dotted red and blue arrows), and they thus hit the earth later at the same angle since, being very close to one another, they almost suffer the same curvature (plain red and blue arrows), what gives to the earth observers the impression that both rays come from the same spot in the sky (dotted red and blue lines that lead to the dotted star).

Einstein predicted that the ray coming from the star would get curved by the presence of the sun, but without noticing that the ray from the periphery of the sun itself should also get curved, so he did not realize either that the sun would look wider during this observation, and that he thus would have to shrink it on the mapping of the sky made when the sun was not there to curve the rays.

If he had shrunk his sun on the mapping made when the sun was on the other side of the earth, it would have hidden the same stars than the ones that were hidden during the eclipse, so he could not have concluded that light was effectively curved by gravitation as he had predicted, but instead, that the sun's presence was affecting the direction of the rays in such a way that a mapping made in it's presence kind of widened the sky compared with the one made when it wasn't there.

Notice that this reasoning does not contradict the observations, it only contradicts the explanation of the observations, reason why I placed it on a science forum, but if it's right, then there must be another explanation, and I did not find it yet, except that gravitation kind of widens the sky when our observations are made from a much less massive body than the one we are gravitating around, which means that it could be the real acceleration of the earth observers towards the sun at the microscopic level that would affect the direction of the rays. So far so good, but as I said, it doesn't seem to work, because moving at an angle through a light ray should bend it in the direction of the movement as for the aberration of star light, which would shrink the sky during an eclipse instead of widening it as the observations show, so I am still looking for an explanation.

Anybody finds the idea interesting? Anybody thinks that the rays coming from the sun should also be curved by the gravitation of the sun?

6

New Theories / Inertial motion, from atoms' viewpoint

« on: 08/12/2014 18:47:17 »

Hi everybody,

Here is a theory of mine about the link between inertial mass and inertial motion, thus about the conservation of momentum.

We take for granted that motion is intrinsic to massive bodies, but here is a mind experiment that shows it might not be, more precisely, it shows that inertial motion could be due to time, not the time it takes for a body on inertial motion to move from one point to another, but the time it takes for whatever bonds their atoms, to travel between them, and inform them that they have to move with regard to the other atoms when they are accelerated.



Before applying my theory to the complex mechanics between the atoms, I begin with a simplified mind experiment that has nothing to do with them:

- Imagine two cars at rest on the same straight road but one km away from one another and heading in the same direction.

- There is an emitter and a receiver in each car and the signal exchanged between them has exactly the same frequency.

- One of the cars accelerates and decelerates for 10 seconds, so a signal is emitted every fraction of second indicating to the other car, by means of doppler effect, the speed at which it is going.

- Lets us admit that the signal will take more time to travel one km than the time it takes for the car to accelerate and decelerate to rest.

- When the signal will arrive at the second car, at each fraction of second, its receiver will indicate exactly the speed at which it has to accelerate and decelerate.

- While it does so as precisely as it can, its own emitter will transmit the same signal to the other car, which will repeat exactly the same move forward, and so on for the next car, indefinitely. If the energy to move the cars could be infinite, the signal absolutely precise, and the steps absolutely precise, this slinky kind of motion would never end and would never change, which is the very definition of inertial motion.

- Without any force from the outside though, the cars would stand still, but if a force could move one of the cars, it would automatically start the process. But if such a force would move one of the cars, this car would immediately get the signal from the other car to accelerate backwards, which would oppose to the force in question, and produce a specific resistance to the external acceleration, thus the same kind of resistance that massive bodies oppose to their acceleration. Nevertheless, if the external force was greater than the force of its engine, the car would move forward, and it would decelerate to rest if the force stopped acting because, that way, the signal would contain no more doppler effect.

Now, replace the cars by two identical atoms bonded together to form a molecule, and imagine that the energy they exchange to maintain their bond is quantized, which means that it would have the form of a signal, which would have to be constant for their bond to be constant. Like the two cars, these two atoms, represented by their nuclei, are very far apart, far enough for the signal to take more time to travel that distance than for a nucleus to make a step towards the other nucleus. Lets assume now that one of them is forced to make such a step because it undergoes an external push, and that the signal does not have time to reach the other nucleus before the step is finished.

If the energy of their bond is quantized and has to stay the same, won't the two nuclei be forced to proceed exactly like the two cars, which is to make small slinky like steps whose direction and length will never change unless they are forced to, and to resist an acceleration the same way the two cars would, which is to work against the external force? Here is what those steps would look like:
https://motionsimulations.com/Acceleration%20by%20steps