[guest39538]

If the contraction was different from the kind that actually applies,

Place the particles one particle length apart.  Then run the simulation.

[David Cooper]

If the contraction was different from the kind that actually applies,

Place the particles one particle length apart.  Then run the simulation.

How long is a point particle? It has no length. How long is a spread-out particle? It varies, depending on how much it's been length contracted.

[guest39538]

If the contraction was different from the kind that actually applies,

Place the particles one particle length apart.  Then run the simulation.

How long is a point particle? It has no length. How long is a spread-out particle? It varies, depending on how much it's been length contracted.

For the existing simulation you could just use the dots the size they are, to notice the observable difference. Although not precise in size it would show us a difference.  There will be no angled light path. It will look like three photons adjoined travelling parallel with each other.

I drew you a picture of what I said


lithclock.jpg (19.8 kB . 1146x766 - viewed 4160 times)


Use 1 pixel spacing between particles , that should work.   It should create a wave if  you do it right .

[Le Repteux (OP)]

I'll have a look at that once you've fixed the link., but that's the wrong speed for that amount of length contraction.

Link fixed. Either it's the wrong speed, or it's the wrong contraction, but the two clock nevertheless show the same time. I made that simulation after having realized that too much contraction produced time contraction instead of time dilation, so I knew there were combinations of speed and contraction for the two Twins to age the same.

If the contraction was different from the kind that actually applies, the absolute frame would be identified,

Not if the reason for contraction is the necessity for the particles to stay on sync. Take a look at my simulation with four particles again. I first let the horizontal distance contract at its own rate, then I simply let the vertical one contract so that the two photons keep arriving on sync at the top left red particle. This way, the two arms stay on sync all the time whatever the speed or the contraction rate.

Any other amount of length contraction would remove the null result.

Not if the particles would move so as to stay on sync.

Which ad hoc assumption? It was an accusation made by Einstein aimed at LET, and yet length contraction is required to account for relativistic mass and the inability for anything to go faster than c - Einstein didn't realize that this was what drove the length contraction.

Length contraction is the ad hoc assumption I was talking about, and it is still so because it can't be observed. I don't understand what you mean while saying that contraction is required to account for relativistic mass, so maybe I missed your explanation. Can you elaborate a bit please?

[Le Repteux (OP)]

If the contraction was different from the kind that actually applies,

Place the particles one particle length apart. Then run the simulation.

In this simulation on acceleration, accelerate the red particle, wait till the particles get about one particle away from one another, then stop the acceleration.

[guest39538]

If the contraction was different from the kind that actually applies,

Place the particles one particle length apart. Then run the simulation.

In this simulation on acceleration, accelerate the red particle, wait till the particles get about one particle away from one another, then stop the acceleration.

Cool , well made.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

Thanks! Did you understand why the distance between the particles was contracting?

[guest4091]

Le Repteux;

There is no way to observe length contraction anyway, it's only an ad hoc assumption,

----
Stanford U. has an accelerator SLAC that has run experiments with electrons for years, and report length contraction indirectly from the increased electric field intensity. Lorentz developed a theory of deformable em fields and Heaviside developed a similar idea for magnetic fields, both in the 1880's, and before Relativity theory was published. It was another case of a phenomenon waiting for an application (like the computer chip).
---

At the rate it is contracting though, light takes less and less time to make its roundtrip, reason why we get time contraction instead of time dilation on the display.

That is a red flag, something is wrong. All clocks are moving, so the question is, which one  loses the most time.
Your length contraction is also wrong. For a speed of .20, it should be approx. (.98).
The expression is 1/gamma=sqrt(1-v^2).
-----

As you know, contrary to you, I explain mass increase with light taking more and more time to reach the particles

----
The idea of relativistic mass increase is now obsolete, since the explanation is time dilation. The successive application of a fixed amount of energy produces less acceleration since the closing speed decreases. If the object was a carbon atom with atomic # 6, the # of nucleons does not change, but the kinetic energy increases as  speed.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

Hi Phyti, welcome in the simulator! :0)

Stanford U. has an accelerator SLAC that has run experiments with electrons for years, and report length contraction indirectly from the increased electric field intensity.

Indirect observation don't count as an observation. Dark matter is also an indirect observation, but it may still happen that the theory is wrong. When we are unable to observe an hypothetical phenomenon, we shouldn't take it for granted. We do have a direct observation for time dilation though, the muon experiment, but as my simulation of the Michelson-Morley experiment shows, if we let the particles on both arms move freely so that the two photons hit the top-left red particle on sync, no difference between the timings is observed.

That is a red flag, something is wrong. All clocks are moving, so the question is, which one  loses the most time.
Your length contraction is also wrong. For a speed of .20, it should be approx. (.98).
The expression is 1/gamma=sqrt(1-v^2).

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.

The idea of relativistic mass increase is now obsolete, since the explanation is time dilation. The successive application of a fixed amount of energy produces less acceleration since the closing speed decreases. If the object was a carbon atom with atomic # 6, the # of nucleons does not change, but the kinetic energy increases as speed.

That's the next simulation I am about to make. As I was telling David, I will take my simulation on acceleration, and I will replace the two particles by two light clocks. Since it is a simulation, we'll be able to see what it changes.

[guest39538]

Thanks! Did you understand why the distance between the particles was contracting?

Yes, one dot was accelerating where one was constant in velocity.

[David Cooper]

Not if the reason for contraction is the necessity for the particles to stay on sync.

There's only one viable contraction for any specific speed - any variation away from that will lead to MMX failing to give the null result that it always provides.

then I simply let the vertical one contract so that the two photons keep arriving on sync at the top left red particle. This way, the two arms stay on sync all the time whatever the speed or the contraction rate.

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

I don't understand what you mean while saying that contraction is required to account for relativistic mass, so maybe I missed your explanation. Can you elaborate a bit please?

Think about a planet with a moon orbiting it in what appears to be a circular orbit, as observed by someone co-moving with this system. 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, taking ages to overtake the planet in the forwards direction and much less time to be overtaken by the planet during the other half of the orbit - it cannot be allowed to overtake the planet at a speed higher than c, so how is this restricted? As the moon begins to go more in a forward direction (towards the direction the planet is moving in), its speed slows down relative to the planet at the same time as it moves faster through space. Where does the missing energy go? The moon's mass goes up - that's where relativistic mass comes in. And when the moon comes back round the other half of its orbit, the relativistic mass comes down again. This automatically leads to an elliptical orbit conforming with the rules of length contraction. The same will happen to an electron's "orbit", leading to length contracted atoms, and this in turn leads to atoms sitting closer together in their direction of travel.

[David Cooper]

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.

It isn't sufficient to produce contraction - it needs to be the right amount of contraction. It also needs to be the same regardless of which particle you accelerate, meaning that if you accelerate one away from the other, you still need to produce contraction rather than extension. I think your approach will be incapable of producing correct length contraction because it isn't simulating the cause of length contraction. If you were to start with two co-moving bonded particles sitting the wrong distance apart, your simulation would also need to be able to correct their separation (or produce an oscillation which produces correct average separation).

[guest39538]

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.

It isn't sufficient to produce contraction - it needs to be the right amount of contraction. It also needs to be the same regardless of which particle you accelerate, meaning that if you accelerate one away from the other, you still need to produce contraction rather than extension. I think your approach will be incapable of producing correct length contraction because it isn't simulating the cause of length contraction. If you were to start with two co-moving bonded particles sitting the wrong distance apart, your simulation would also need to be able to correct their separation (or produce an oscillation which produces correct average separation).

Sir you do realise that length contraction and expansion is just simply a distance change the light travels as opposed to anything mystical ?

In reality a timing dilation of synchronization.

[guest39538]

expansion.jpg (66.2 kB . 1146x766 - viewed 4190 times)

Basic engineering , consider a cam and piston , compression and decompression.

The earths timing is ~0.288 mile/s  ~1000mph

[David Cooper]

length contraction and expansion is just simply a distance change the light travels as opposed to anything mystical

It isn't - it's a physical reduction in length. If you rotate a disc, you can fit more material into the circumference than pi would normally allow you to. Imagine a circle with a hundred space ships parked around the perimeter, the front of each touching the back of the one ahead. Then have them all move past the circle at 0.866c in such a way that for a moment they are all in the same places they were parked in earlier. Their speed of travel has halved their length, so you can actually have 200 space ships move past the circle on tangents to it and all fit in the same space around it as the 100 ships did when parked there. It is not a synchronisation issue masking their length, but physical contraction reducing it, the result being that all the moving 200 can fit in the space of the stationary 100 without any overlap.

[guest39538]

length contraction and expansion is just simply a distance change the light travels as opposed to anything mystical

It isn't - it's a physical reduction in length. If you rotate a disc, you can fit more material into the circumference than pi would normally allow you to. Imagine a circle with a hundred space ships parked around the perimeter, the front of each touching the back of the one ahead. Then have them all move past the circle at 0.866c in such a way that for a moment they are all in the same places they were parked in earlier. Their speed of travel has halved their length, so you can actually have 200 space ships move past the circle on tangents to it and all fit in the same space around it as the 100 ships did when parked there. It is not a synchronisation issue masking their length, but physical contraction reducing it, the result being that all the moving 200 can fit in the space of the stationary 100 without any overlap.

That is wrong sir, if we had a circular formation  and rotated it, the formation will expand because of the centrifuge, just like the Earths equator does?
I see the disk expands or contracts , not the objects.  The disk expanding making it appear the object contracts.

Added - Let me add a very important key factor why an object in motion does not and cannot physically contract in length . 

key point - The rear of the object would need to be travelling faster than the front of the object for a length contraction.

So in light of the new information, we should look at, where we are going wrong in our interpretation of length contraction. Are we to ignore basic physical facts for something mystical instead?

[David Cooper]

That is wrong sir, if we had a circular formation  and rotated it, the formation will expand because of the centrifuge, just like the Earths equator does?

Make a disc lightyears in diameter and rotate it. The centrifugal force can be so small that the edge will contract and try to crush inwards on the disc.

key point - The rear of the object would need to be travelling faster than the front of the object for a length contraction.

During the acceleration, that's exactly what happens.

So in light of the new information, we should look at, where we are going wrong in our interpretation of length contraction. Are we to ignore basic physical facts for something mystical instead?

There's nothing mystical about it. We can see particles have their life extended in particle accelerators due to the slowing of their functionality, and that life extension is exactly in accord with what it should be if there is length contraction. Without length contraction, they would live longer.

[guest39538]

Make a disc lightyears in diameter and rotate it. The centrifugal force can be so small that the edge will contract and try to crush inwards on the disc.

That seems backwards David and contradictory, it can't have a centrifugal force and the edge inverting against  the direction of force?

[David Cooper]

Make a disc lightyears in diameter and rotate it. The centrifugal force can be so small that the edge will contract and try to crush inwards on the disc.

That seems backwards David and contradictory, it can't have a centrifugal force and the edge inverting against  the direction of force?

Why not? The edge is moving, so it tries to contract. When a long rod tries to contract, it simply contracts and becomes shorter, but with a rotating disc the strongest contraction is round the circumference - if that shortens (or tries to shorten) it will squeeze in towards the centre, just like stretching a rubber band round a bottle.

[guest39538]

Why not?

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.