0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Too bad you cant see the mechanism, but it's very simple: we walk like this when we walk sideways without crossing the legs, one foot approaching the other and stopping on the ground before it reaches it, the other foot getting away from the other and stopping on the ground too when it's long enough.
What I figured is that if we would force such a system of particles to move, it would introduce doppler effect between the particles that would stay there as long as they would exchange light: blueshift from the approaching particle that would push the other away after a while, and redshift from the leaving one that would pull the other closer after a while. The steps between sources of light would then be the cause for motion, but there would also be resistance to acceleration, thus mass, since the first step caused by an external event would immediately produce doppler effect on the incoming light and would thus have to be introduced by force.
With aether, when such a particle would stop between two steps, it would be at rest in aether, and without doppler effect to tell it how to move, it would stay there: no light exchanged between particles, no motion between bodies, and of course, no mass.
It worked as long as I only considered doppler effect and aberration, but lately, I discovered that the step from the approaching particle couldn't have the same length than the one from the particle that was getting away since it should take less time for light to travel towards the closer particle than the inverse. I didn't get into the steps very deeply yet since this would need an interactive simulation that I'm unfortunately unable to make at the moment, but our discussion opened a new way for me to study the problem, and you can probably help because you're already used to play with that concept.
Let's imagine two particles one behind the other executing time shifted steps to the right, and let's assume that the steps from the left particle stop halfway from the second one before its light reaches that second one, which means that, from the viewpoint of that left particle, the right one is actually looking at rest at the distance it was when it emitted its light, and which also means that the mean speed of that left particle is half the speed of light. Notice though that the molecule as a whole has not traveled yet since only half of its particles have, so to complete the motion, the right particle has to make the same step the left one made. Once it would have, the molecule would have traveled one step while the light would have traveled back and forth between the particles, so that molecule would have only traveled at a c/4 while its atoms have to traveled at c/2, and this is without considering that a step is always going a lot faster at the middle of its course than at the ends. Notice that, if the frequency of the steps has to stay constant, and i think it has, then their length has to increase during an acceleration, which means that their middle speed could get to c way before their molecule would, what explains with a real mechanism at the micro scale the reason why the resistance to acceleration has to increase when speed gets close to c at our macro scale.
You may have noticed that the left particle gets closer to the right one at the end of its step while it is the inverse for the left one, which means that it would take half the time for the light from the beginning of a step of the right one to reach the left one, than for the beginning of the step from the left one to reach the right one, and it would be so even if the steps would be infinitely small. You say that doppler effect accounts for the uneven distance traveled by light in your moving room experiment, so can you try to apply that principle to my steps please?
In other words, can you replace your two walls by my two particles, and your central bulb by considering the particles as sources of light. I tried but I still can't figure out how light could take the same time both ways, and I cant either compute what would happen after a while if we nevertheless ran a simulation with such a system: maybe it would self adjust after all, who knows?
]With photons, the intensity depends on the number of photons per square cm, so if the left wall hits the light sooner than the right one, there will automatically be more photons per square cm on that left wall.
I guess that the bow wave will be higher than the stern one while their frequency will be the same.
OK! I understand that the approaching wall would receive more photons per square cm, but that each of them would be less intense since they come from the stern part of the source. Is that what you meant?
If so, I think we should be able to apply it to the steps, but I still have a problem to imagine how. A less intense photon should induce a less intense step, but I can't figure out what a less intense step would mean since all the steps have to travel the same distance. Maybe we should differentiate between the beginning and the end of the steps: maybe a step could be faster at the beginning and slower at the end, or slower at the beginning and faster at the end. I can't imagine further away than that for now though, I have to let it sink a bit.
Quite clearly you are disheartened to find out objects do not physically contract, like many before you who I have ''beaten'' down, there becomes a loss for answers just like you have failed to give me in this thread to the objective reality I have provided.
Then is desperation like others before you, resolve to the block or ignore solution rather than trying to understand the adversary.
If you remember earlier discussion, I said the entire object contracts, this is something also you have avoided discussing.
It is not me being awkward or wrong, it is you being ignorant and arrogant.
Quote from: Thebox on 28/05/2017 20:31:07Quite clearly you are disheartened to find out objects do not physically contract, like many before you who I have ''beaten'' down, there becomes a loss for answers just like you have failed to give me in this thread to the objective reality I have provided.You have comprehensively lost the argument over and over again, but you are just like the pigeon - you don't understand all the stuff that goes right over your head, so you continue to strut about and coo. I very much doubt you've ever beaten anyone down in your life - they simply get bored with you when they realise you can't learn and they stop talking to you. The only reason I've put up with you longer than any of the others is that one of my main areas of study is moronics - I'm interested in how AGI is going to communicate with people who think like pigeons and the degree to which it may be able to help them make progress in improving their ability to think rationally.QuoteThen is desperation like others before you, resolve to the block or ignore solution rather than trying to understand the adversary.There comes a point beyond which there is nothing left to learn about a pigeon.QuoteIf you remember earlier discussion, I said the entire object contracts, this is something also you have avoided discussing.No I don't remember that - all I can remember is you denying that there is any contraction.QuoteIt is not me being awkward or wrong, it is you being ignorant and arrogant.All the evidence to the contrary is written through the previous four pages of this thread for all to see.
What do you mean by light? Are you perhaps thinking more in terms of force-carriers rather than light? If not, wouldn't your particles be giving out light all the time in all directions and losing most of it, thereby depleting themselves as they effectively decay into nothing more than radiation in a very short time?
The thing that's bothering me most though is how the energy would be transferred between the two particles, because if the rear particle stops when it sends "light" forwards, the "light" can hit the front particle to set it moving, but then when the "light" leaves the front particle to go back to the rear one it will speed up the front particle when it sets out and will then accelerate the rear particle in the opposite direction when it gets there unless you have some way of giving the returning "light" negative energy. If such "light" with negative energy exists, then you could attract things towards you by shining it at them (which is quite different from normal light which would always push them away).
QuoteWith aether, when such a particle would stop between two steps, it would be at rest in aether, and without doppler effect to tell it how to move, it would stay there: no light exchanged between particles, no motion between bodies, and of course, no mass....If there is a minimum separation distance in the space fabric and particles move in jumps between positions, they would need to be alternating between moving in jumps and being at rest, so that bit makes sense. There is also no movement energy in a stationary object, and hence no "light". If movement energy is the "light", then there would need to be more of it present the faster the object moves.
With aether, when such a particle would stop between two steps, it would be at rest in aether, and without doppler effect to tell it how to move, it would stay there: no light exchanged between particles, no motion between bodies, and of course, no mass....
I'm getting a hint of an idea as to what you're hoping to achieve with this, but it seems to me that the frequency of the steps would need to increase for the object to move faster, because without that happening, it looks as if the maximum speed of the object would be limited to half c.
QuoteYou may have noticed that the left particle gets closer to the right one at the end of its step while it is the inverse for the left one, which means that it would take half the time for the light from the beginning of a step of the right one to reach the left one, than for the beginning of the step from the left one to reach the right one, and it would be so even if the steps would be infinitely small. You say that doppler effect accounts for the uneven distance traveled by light in your moving room experiment, so can you try to apply that principle to my steps please?Not the Doppler effect, but the headlights effect, but neither are terribly relevant because your "light" can't be allowed to miss the target, so you actually need a mechanism to ensure that it always goes to the right place and to ensure that force is then applied in the right direction.
You don't have a bulb half way in between the particles radiating off energy, and your particles can't afford to miss any of the "light" either or energy would be lost from moving object all the time until it stops moving. I think you need to explore how much energy needs to be transferred, which direction it's being transferred in and which way it will move the thing that receives it. After that, you can try to work out how that energy is transferred, but I can't see it being done with anything that deserves to be described as light.
What I find funny is the posts you have resorted to in your loss.
You have failed to answer any of my queries and can not ''see'' anything other than your subjective dogma you were educated with.
You are quite wrong and ''we'' all know you are wrong.
I have countless times proven you wrong in this thread.
I wish you good day David because I am wasting my time talking to somebody who can not understand objective reality.
I would rather have no replies than waste my time with somebody as arrogant and ignorant as you.
Quote from: Thebox on 29/05/2017 23:20:58What I find funny is the posts you have resorted to in your loss.What loss? You throw figures at me that aren't mine and tell me they're wrong - yes, they're wrong because they're your figures and not mine.QuoteYou have failed to answer any of my queries and can not ''see'' anything other than your subjective dogma you were educated with.I worked it out for myself and only then read up on it. You may have attempted to do the same, but you got your maths wrong and became emotionally attached to your incorrect beliefs, and no amount of reasoning or taking you through the numbers can shift you from your wrong position because you are mentally incapable of accepting that you're wrong - as soon as you realise that you've been pinned down on some point where you're wrong, you backtrack to get out of there and turn back into a troll.QuoteYou are quite wrong and ''we'' all know you are wrong.Who are this "we"? Everyone who's reading this thread other than you is fully aware that you are the least gifted person on this forum.QuoteI have countless times proven you wrong in this thread.Countless in the sense that you mean zero times. Point to your best example if you think otherwise.QuoteI wish you good day David because I am wasting my time talking to somebody who can not understand objective reality....says someone who can't accept the result of MMX and denies the science. You want the universe to conform to your broken model, and when it fails to do so, you tell everyone who has a model that fits the real universe that they are playing parlour tricks.QuoteI would rather have no replies than waste my time with somebody as arrogant and ignorant as you.I have put a lot of time into trying to help you, but it is a thankless task. Fortunately though you've given me everything I wanted from the conversation and that is good information both about how your mind works and about how it doesn't - you're not stupid, but you simply refuse to let your mind work properly because your existing beliefs are too important to you to accept the possibility that they're wrong, and that overrides reason every single time, exactly as happens with religious people. The same fault is also involved in political beliefs where many people are incapable of shifting position no matter how much they are shown to be wrong. There is evidence elsewhere on this forum of me being wrong about things, then recognising that and changing position instead of digging in to defend a wrong position, and it didn't take pages of posts to bring about that change. There is evidence of someone else in this thread quickly changing position on something when he realised he was wrong about something. There is no such evidence of you doing that because you can't accept that you're wrong when you're shown to be wrong. You accuse me of arrogance, but I have backed up everything I've said here by showing you numbers that fit the facts and back my claims. You have failed to do likewise, but throw broken numbers about instead, and you accuse me of producing broken numbers which have nothing to do with me but are merely numbers that you have plucked out of the air. You're slapdash and shoddy, and you tell lies about what happened here. It would be a shocking display if it didn't already fit in with everyone's expectations of you. And as for ignorance, the word is not better suited to anyone than you, because you don't just not know things, but you actively specialise in ignoring the facts. In this thread you have put on a shameful display, but it is only one of hundreds of such displays which you have defecated across this and other forums. From your point of view though you're right about wasting your time talking to me, because you have gained nothing from this at all, just as you gain nothing from talking to anyone else here. You will never gain anything here because you are fixed in your beliefs and no amount of reasoning or showing you that your maths is wrong will ever change that. You are just an empty vessel that makes a lot of noise.
Point to your best example if you think otherwise.
QuotePoint to your best example if you think otherwise.I will point to my best example with a question,
The light clock that is at rest and the light clock in motion have equal dimensions in length, let us for simplicity say that the length is l=149896229mCan you answer how far has the light travelled in 0.5s in the clock at rest and how far the light has travelled in the clock in motion in 0.5s?
Added - by your own answer to which I already know, you are agreeing there is no length contraction or time dilation or synchronisation offset.
If you are as clever as you presume, then you should ''see'' why you are wrong and why the constant speed of light shows you are wrong.
Quote from: Thebox on 30/05/2017 21:43:57QuotePoint to your best example if you think otherwise.I will point to my best example with a question,That is not pointing to an example.QuoteThe light clock that is at rest and the light clock in motion have equal dimensions in length, let us for simplicity say that the length is l=149896229mCan you answer how far has the light travelled in 0.5s in the clock at rest and how far the light has travelled in the clock in motion in 0.5s?QuoteYou haven't given me a speed for the moving one to travel at. If I assume you want to use to the 0.5c figure that we used before, then light travels the full length of the stationary clock in half a second. You also haven't told me which end of the light clock the light's setting out from and which direction the light clock's moving in, but either way, it's not going to be at either end of it at the end of half a second, so you're neither on a tick nor even a half tick, so what use are you hoping to make of the numbers you'd get from this? The speed nor direction really matters, but in the aim to get you to understand I will add a speed and we will use 0.5c, I will also add a vector which is . From the rear to the front of the carriage. I am not disagreeing your clocks would not tick at different rates because your scenario is designed to show that and that is what would happen. However you are quite clearly misinterpreting the information in which I do not blame you for, your education learnt you this to be so. QuoteWe went through the maths of this and you appeared to agree with the 2 2/3 figure for the un-contracted length clock aligned with its direction of travel - all the numbers in square brackets were filled in with your values and they were fully compatible with mineYes they were the correct results, however you still do not recognise there is no contraction, Tell me if you think the below is wrong.The clock at relative rest measures 1 tick which is equal to 1 secondThe clock in motion as not yet registered a tick. However the light travelling in either clock as travelled an equal distance because the speed is constant of the light. All you are saying to me is that light takes longer to travel a longer distance than a shorter distance. There is nothing else you have said in all that you said. That is all it means so why do you think it means something else? t
You haven't given me a speed for the moving one to travel at. If I assume you want to use to the 0.5c figure that we used before, then light travels the full length of the stationary clock in half a second. You also haven't told me which end of the light clock the light's setting out from and which direction the light clock's moving in, but either way, it's not going to be at either end of it at the end of half a second, so you're neither on a tick nor even a half tick, so what use are you hoping to make of the numbers you'd get from this?
We went through the maths of this and you appeared to agree with the 2 2/3 figure for the un-contracted length clock aligned with its direction of travel - all the numbers in square brackets were filled in with your values and they were fully compatible with mine
The energy comes from doppler effect: for two bonded particles, the bonding energy observed by the particles has to stay constant, so if we force one of them to move while it takes time for that information to reach the other one, it produces blueshift on the bonding energy emitted towards the other particle, which moves away from it to keep its own observed bonding energy constant, which produces redshift on the bonding energy emitted backwards to the other particle, which moves towards it after a while to keep its own observed bonding energy constant, ...and so on as long as they stay bonded. As you can see, there is no need for negative bonding energy to pull on the rear particle, just redshift.
...Not easy to imagine though, it would be easier to figure out with a simulation.
When we look at a star, we see a point, and if that point was moving towards us, the doppler effect would be more important for us that for another observer not inline with the motion. If we had to move away to stay on sync with the light, we would have to move away faster than the other observer. If the other observer had to move away, he would have to move sideways to the motion of the star and slower than the star, thus the star would overtake him after a while and once it would be getting away from him, he would have to circle the star to stay on sync with its light.
Now for the loss of light during the process if that light is emitted in all directions at a time, we have to consider that it would form a standing wave, and that it would only be perceived by an observer standing on the constructive interference fringes of that standing wave.
There would almost be no light to observe if we were in line with the two atoms for instance, and for two atoms half a wave away from one another, there would only be one constructive fringe, and it would leave the system at 90 degree to the motion, so if we would put four atoms from four other similar molecules at the same half wave away on the four sides of the central molecule, they would absorb most of the light by interference and stay bonded with that central molecule by the same standing wave process.
What still makes me think it could is that the steps explain mass and motion of all the sources of light in a very straightforward way, whereas the Higgs only explains the mass of other particles without even explaining its own one.
David, here is a drawing of mine that I usually used to show what I considered to be an SR contradiction. hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=848798aberrationtrain3.pngTry to be patient this time, I'm still not allowed to put links, but maybe the description will be sufficient:
A star and an observer at X are both moving to the left in aether at the same speed and in the same direction. The star emits a photon at observer X while he is inline with the earth which at rest in aether further away. Using your laser principle, the photon should follow the red trajectory on the left to hit observer X while the laser would be pointing at its former position, and to hit the earth, we would need another laser pointing behind the earth and where the photon would travel directly to the earth.
I would have saved ten years if the scientific forums that I frequented on the net had used that laser principle to explain the way light moves in a light clock! It works if it travels in aether, but it also works if it travels in SR's specific space, so why did Einstein reject the aether then? Only because he needed his space/time concept for gravitation?
I have a question about your simulation David. What if you ran the software with photons traveling like massive particles? They would spend the same time in both arms this way, and without the need for time dilation and length contraction. They would not be traveling at the same speed with regard to aether, but they would with regard to the mirrors,
David, Lets say we have mirrors that only allow one photon. We will use your physical contraction. When the clock contracts lengthwise would it not also change the position of the sideways mirror to a different angle relative by changing position? In that case both horizontal and vertical paths would be shortened in a relative fashion. We would still have he question. Why do both orientations tick at the same rate?
David,You were correct and I was wrong. Lengthwise kept moving forward past the width. That does leave us with physical contraction as a possibility of which there are four. 1. Length contraction is physical.2. Clocks do not tick the same in all orientations3. The Aether moves with the Earth and the Aether is the medium for light transfer.4. The tests have been done using light for length and width measurements.Of the four 1 and 3 seem most likely. 3 would need to be tested in space.
Start at a point on the graphing paper and count out 10 squares up and across... No physical contraction only visual.
After half the speed of light not sure yet and I have not worked it out. Could be after half the speed of light direction of motion could matter with a light clock.
There is an important issue here that perpendicular maintains continuity with space while vector velocity does not in the direction of motion.
Lengthwise kept moving forward past the width. That does leave us with physical contraction as a possibility of which there are four.1. Length contraction is physical.2. Clocks do not tick the same in all orientations3. The Aether moves with the Earth and the Aether is the medium for light transfer.4. The tests have been done using light for length and width measurements.Of the four 1 and 3 seem most likely. 3 would need to be tested in space.
Lets say we have mirrors that only allow one photon. We will use your physical contraction. When the clock contracts lengthwise would it not also change the position of the sideways mirror to a different angle relative by changing position?
In that case both horizontal and vertical paths would be shortened in a relative fashion. We would still have he question. Why do both orientations tick at the same rate?