# Naked Science Forum

## On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Le Repteux on 07/08/2017 21:51:23

Title: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 07/08/2017 21:51:23
Hi Everybody!

I asked David Cooper  (http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html)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)
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 08/08/2017 23:20:17
This might help a few people here to write simple simulations to test their ideas. Trying to see if an idea works using just pen, paper and calculator is a hard task which really needs to be replaced with writing a proper program to cut out all the repetition and eliminate mistakes. Most programming environments aren't friendly, but JavaScript is something everyone can access easily without downloading any software. All you need is a text editor to write the code in and a browser (the one you're reading this with) to run it. You don't necessarily need any graphics for a simulation as it may be enough just to produce lots of numbers, but it can help you interpret the numbers more quickly if there's also some kind of graphical display to make it easier to work out what the numbers are actually saying, though you'll want to keep that minimal. Most of the program should be focused on crunching numbers rather than making things look pretty - we are really just looking to use the computer as an advanced kind of calculator.

I'll start things off with a simple JavaScript program here which we can develop into a simulation. You can see the program code below, and you should be able to copy-and-paste it into a text editor. Once you have done that, you must save the file as "simulation.htm" and then open that file (it should automatically open in your browser) - there is no need to upload it to the Internet as it will run straight from your own hard drive. The initial program simply draws a couple of dots on the screen and allows you to move them by clicking buttons. (On a proper computer you may find you can repeat the action of a button many times just by holding down the return key after clicking the button on the screen.) You can create new objects just by adding more of them with new names. The two objects I've provided for you up front are called i0 and i1 (and I chose the letter "i" because it stands for "item"). You can find them near the bottom of the HTML document in the BODY section, the first one being the <b id="i0" style="position:relative;left:0;top:0;font-size:60;color:yellow">.</b> (the name of this object is stated up front, the full stop near the end is the yellow dot that will actually appear on the screen, and all the stuff in between controls the appearance of the dot and its location on the screen). JavaScript is not designed for doing graphics, so it will struggle if you create too many such objects - it's best not to use more than a few dozen of them. (An image can be used as an object too, so if you have lots of items that don't need to move relative to each other, it's best to draw them in a drawing application such as Paint and then use that image - that's what I did for the MMX apparatus on my relativity page, and I then use simple code to move the image across the screen and to move a couple of dots to represent pulses of light which have to move relative to the apparatus.) [Note: I'm not using the word "object" in the programming sense, but simply mean an item that will appear on the screen.]

The HEAD part of the document contains the program code (while the BODY part contains text, and because our initial two objects are just big dots made out of punctuation they must be put in the BODY section rather than with the program code). Buttons are also put in this part of the document, and they'll be needed to control things.

Where you see // in the HEAD section, this prevents any code to the right on that line of code from being run, so this can be used to write comments into your code to help you understand it, but it can also be used to disable a line of code which you will want to use later but don't want to run yet. For example, the window.setInterval bit of code will run the function called "run" repeatedly so that we don't have to keep clicking a button to keep the action going, but I've disabled it for now as it currently has nothing to do. The functions "run" and "setup" are both empty, but we'll put stuff into them later.

The functions "move i0" and "move i1" simply add 1 to the horizontal positions of the dots. We'll write more useful code to control them later, but the immediate priority is to see if you can get this program to run on your computer so that we can find out whether this is going to be a viable way of working.

(Note that there is a complication with the numbers used for the horizontal positioning as the two dots are shown in different positions for the same x-axis number value, so we'll need to write code to correct that - each object's natural position is to appear to the right of the one listed before it in the document because we are using punctuation as our objects, and each character will naturally be printed to the right of the one before it, so an adjustment is required for each object to line it up correctly with our coordinate grid.)

Code: [Select]
`<HTML><HEAD> <TITLE>Theory Simulation</TITLE> <script type="text/javascript">// window.setInterval("run()",10) function run() { } function setup() { } xi0=0; xi1=0; // Initial side-to-side locations of the dots function movei0() { xi0=xi0+1; i0.style.left=xi0; xi0loc.innerHTML=xi0} function movei1() { xi1=xi1+1; i1.style.left=xi1; xi1loc.innerHTML=xi1} </script></HEAD><BODY onload="setup()" style="background-color:black;color:white;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:18pt"><blockquote> <center><H1>Theory Simulation</H1><br><br><tt><b id="i0" style="position:relative;left:0;top:0;font-size:60;color:yellow">.</b><b id="i1" style="position:relative;left:0;top:0;font-size:60;color:#0020ff">.</b></tt></center><p><a id="xi0loc"></a> &nbsp; <a id="xi1loc"></a><p><input type="button" value="Move Yellow" onclick="movei0()"/> <input type="button" value="Move Blue" onclick="movei1()"/><p>If you want any text here to provide instructions for the user, you can replace this with your own text. It's always worth doing this because you might forget how your own program works if you come back to it after a long break.</BODY></HTML>`
Once we've established that you can get this code to run, we can start putting some maths into the program. It shouldn't be necessary to post the whole program every time - we will normally just post the additions which need to be pasted into it. I'll show you how to code mathematical functions next time.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 09/08/2017 15:50:10
Hi David,

Again, thanks for the formidable opportunity! :0)

I copied the java text and saved the file as simulation.htm, but when I opened it, it is the text that showed up, not the simulation, so I looked for a JavaScript tool on my browser, and I found one, so I copied the text in it, and when I tried to execute it, it showed this error:

/*
Exception: SyntaxError: expected expression, got '<'
*/
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 09/08/2017 16:37:41
I copied the java text

By the way, JavaScript and Java are completely unrelated programming languages.

Quote
...and saved the file as simulation.htm, but when I opened it, it is the text that showed up, not the simulation, so I looked for a JavaScript tool on my browser, and I found one, so I copied the text in it, and when I tried to execute it, it showed this error:

/*
Exception: SyntaxError: expected expression, got '<'
*/

I don't know what it thinks is an error, but I'd like to check it out. Which browser provides this particular JavaScript tool?

If you have a text editor like Notepad, you should find that it does the job though, and the browser should run it without finding any error.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 09/08/2017 17:28:50
I tried WordPad and OpenOffice and it didn't work, but I tried Notepad as you suggested and it worked. I can now move the two colored dots one pixel at a time.

The tool I found is a web development tool which is called Scratchpad on Firefox, and it's for Java Script. It's in the toolbox on the toolbar at the top.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 09/08/2017 19:58:22
That's good - use Notepad from now on. (I'll investigate the Scratchpad error later - I can't run Firefox on this old machine any more as it just freezes as soon as I start it up.)

I told you to save the file as simulation.htm, but you're going to be modifying the file repeatedly and it will doubtless stop working at some point because of errors that may be hard to find. When that happens, it will often be easiest to fix it by reverting to the previous version and making all the changes again. One simple way to do this is to start each session by saving the file as .html instead of .htm  (both of these mean the same thing, .htm simply being an older version of the same ending dating back to when there was a three-char limit on the part of a filename following the dot). You can then make changes to the content and save the new version as .htm, knowing that you have a backup stored as .html if anything goes wrong. You can then simply refresh the page on the browser where you still have the previous version open and it will replace it with the new one.

The most important things for you to learn now are how to add your own code, and although I'm going to help you with it, there will usually be long delays between replies, so you'll get things done a lot more quickly if you can do your own experimental coding. Creating variables is essential. Look at the line in the existing program that says:-

xi0=0; xi1=0; // Initial side-to-side locations of the dots

This line creates variables with the names xi0 and xi1 (the x coordinate for each of our objects), and it sets them both to the value zero. This then allows these variables to be used inside functions (and to be accessed from inside any functions) where their values can be changed. If you need to hold a value for anything, you should always make up a name for it and set it up as a variable in the same way. You can put your new variables after the two that are already there - just start new lines for them, separate them with semi-colons, and write comments after // to remind yourself what they are and what they're used for.

The other thing you'll need to do is write code to do maths inside functions. If you wanted to move an object across the screen along a circular path, for example, you could modify the code in:-

function movei0()
{   xi0=xi0+1; i0.style.left=xi0; xi0loc.innerHTML=xi0}

The maths is currently done by the first bit where the variable xi0 has 1 added to it. The rest of the line then uses the new value of xi0 to change the location of the object on the screen and then prints the new value of xi0 further down on the screen. To move the object in a circle, we would first need to create a new variable to hold the y coordinate for that object, which should be called yi0, we'd then add code into the function to change the value of yi0 using some maths (and write new code to make xi0 move appropriately too), we'd then have to add  i0.style.top=yi0; into the function to change the vertical position of the object on the screen using the new yi0 value, and then we might add yi0loc.innerHTML=yi0 into the function as well to post the number to the screen underneath, but if we do that last bit, we would also need to create a place for that number to appear on the screen by adding such a place to  the bit low down in the document that says <a id="xi0loc"></a> &nbsp; <a id="xi1loc"></a>  and we could do this by turning it into <a id="xi0loc"></a> &nbsp; <a id="yi0loc"></a> &nbsp; <a id="xi1loc"></a>

Because a row of spaces always turns into just one single space when displayed, you have to use "&nbsp;" to make a space that is retained, and that allows you to make bigger gaps between numbers printed to the screen.

For doing arithmetic, just copy from the following:-

To add to a variable, state the variable first, put "=" after it, then put the variable again, then put "+", then put either a number or another variable, and finish with a semicolon to separate this from whatever might follow.

xi0=xi0+x ;

To assign a new value to a variable, state the variable, then put "=", then put a number or variable after it, and finish with a semicolon.

xi0=1;

You can use more complex constructions to the right of the "=".

xi0=(x+1)*n;

Subtraction, multiplication and division are done the same way, but using the signs "-", "*" and "/"

xi0=xi0-x;
xi0=4*5;
xi0=xi0/2;

There are some shortcuts for simple modifications which are worth knowing too:-

x=x+1; can also be written as x+=1;
x=x*2; can also be written as x*=2;
x=x-n; can also be written as x-=n;
x=x/2; can also be written as x/=2;

Other maths is represented in more clumsy ways. Here are the trig ones (but be aware that they use radians - to convert degrees to radians or the reverse, multiply or divide by pi/180):-

n=Math.sin(a);
n=Math.asin(a);
n=Math.cos(a);
n=Math.acos(a);
n=Math.tan(a);
n=Math.atan(a);

For roots and powers:-

a=Math.pow(a,2); // squared
a=Math.pow(a,0.5); // square root

If you need pi, assign it to a variable and then use that variable from then on without ever changing it:-

pi=Math.PI;

Note: some names aren't allowed for variables, and if the program stops working for no obvious reason it may be because you've used a banned variable name.

Programming goes beyond the normal functionality of a calculator when you write code that tests for conditions and does different things in response. For example, you can write code to see if a variable is equal to a particular value and do one thing if it is and a different thing if it isn't. If you need to do that, you can get a long way using simple code like this:-

if(n==5) {n=0} else {n+=1};

This increases the value of n, but if n has reached 5, it resets it to 0. The double "=" is weird, but you just have to remember to use it. You can also use ">" or "<" (without doubling them), and you can use "!=" to mean "not equal to":-

if(n!=0) {n-=1};

This decreases the value of n unless it has already reached 0. The "else" clause is optional.

That gives you the basics of programming, but the hardest part of writing programs is actually working out what you're trying to do with what, and when you should be doing it. So the big challenge is working out how to break your theory down into manageable chunks that can be crunched. I'll post this now in case it enables you to get going with something, and then I'll spend some time taking a proper look at the first post in this thread to try to work out where best to start.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 10/08/2017 01:39:43
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.

The first problem I see with this (ignoring the lack of any mechanism by which the first particle is accelerated) is how much it's going to move before it stops? How quickly will it accelerate and how quickly is that acceleration slowed as the perceived frequency of the signal from the second particle changes? As soon as particle A starts moving, the perceived frequency goes up, so does it stop instantly? This question then impacts on how the frequency of the signal from A to B will affect B, because if A stops straight away, it won't move any distance and B will detect no change.

Quote
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.

I can't see how the acceleration and deceleration of A is going to measure the mass. I'm not convinced that you're doing anything involving mass after the initial acceleration of A, and that part of the process may happen in an instant right at the start. What happens after that appears to have more to do with how that energy is then shared with another particle bonded with the first. Anyway, if you double the amount of energy you're putting in, particle A is going to move further before it stops, and if you halve the energy you're putting in, it will stop sooner, so it looks as if you'll need to be able to vary how quickly particle A accelerates and decelerates under these different mechanisms (direct energy absorbtion with the initial move that kicks things off vs. acceleration control by perceived frequencies of each particle upon the other) depending on how much energy has been put into moving it. If it accelerates more quickly, it will perceive a stronger frequency change, so that may help decelerate it more quickly as the frequency goes higher, though as it decelerates it may then be slowed progressively more slowly until the frequency is back to the original value.

I don't know if we'll ever get to a working simulation, but, in the course of attempting to build one, this should force us to work out where maths is required and exactly what it has to do. I can already see that we need to establish details about the initial acceleration of particle A to spell out how instantaneous its change in speed is, and then we need rules about how it gets slowed down by its perceived frequency of B's signal, with that same rule controlling B's acceleration when it perceives a change in the frequency of the signal from A. We could program this in such a way that we can change the behaviour of these accelerations later just by changing values in control variables. That would be the safest way to do things if you aren't sure how quickly these accelerations should be handled.

Quote
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 seems to be an arbitrary timing because A won't know when the wobble in his signal reaches B

Quote
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.

It should be possible to calculate exact timings for things even if we're moving the action on in jumps for the visual display, but it may involve more complex maths to get those exact values. I can't supply the right maths for that, but I'm sure we can get reasonable results just by working with jumps of varying granularity with a fixed frequency value for each jump, and we can change that granularity to see how it affects the results - they should be inaccurate with large jumps and get better with smaller jumps until there's no point in going smaller. (What I mean by this is that when the change in a perceived frequency can be shown by a curve on a graph, we can carry out a round of calculations at regular time intervals and use whichever frequency the graph gives us at that time point, applying it uniformly for that whole slice of time). The visual display won't need to change for each round if we're doing more fine-grained calculations, so it can be updated every now and then at a fixed frequency while we vary the rate of the underlying calculations.

Quote
We want to see what will happen, so we need the particles to be as far as possible from one another on the screen...

We can worry about the visuals later. The first priority is to work out how to control the accelerations and decelerations.

Quote
To accelerate the first particle, we could move the left large bar a small distance, and double that distance each new beep.

I don't understand why you'd have repeated doublings.

Quote
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.

I'm confused now as to what's what. If A and B are both large bars representing two particles, are we now to have each of these particles made of two parts as well? If so, each one could be represented by two large bars, and we'd then need clear rules to control how those two bars move relative to each other.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 10/08/2017 20:04:14
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.
The first problem I see with this (ignoring the lack of any mechanism by which the first particle is accelerated) is how much it's going to move before it stops? How quickly will it accelerate and how quickly is that acceleration slowed as the perceived frequency of the signal from the second particle changes? As soon as particle A starts moving, the perceived frequency goes up, so does it stop instantly? This question then impacts on how the frequency of the signal from A to B will affect B, because if A stops straight away, it won't move any distance and B will detect no change.
The first particle would be accelerated by another molecule, but I think we can simply give it an imaginary push. It moves against the doppler effect, so it has to be forced. Since it vibrates and it has to oppose the acceleration, we could state that it can only move freely when it vibrates away from the push, and that it is blocked by whatever stops it when it makes its step towards the push. If what pushes has time to move a bit when the particle vibrates away, then the acceleration is weak, and if it has time to move a lot, then the acceleration is strong. Once the vibration would have been shortened a bit by the push, the particle would still have to vibrate the same distance back and forth to keep its frequency constant, so it would be forced to travel a bit towards the other particle, what would shorten the beeps sent towards it.

If the push would stop after only one beep, then the speed of the molecule would depend on the strength of that short acceleration, and if it would stop after many beeps, then the speed of the molecule would also depend on the duration of that long acceleration. In the first case, we can see that the speed of the molecule would depend on the time the beep takes to make its roundtrip between the two particles. In the second case, we can see that the accelerated particle could already be pulled towards the other particle during the time it would be accelerated, because the other particle could have already moved away from it, what would have produced redshift on the beeps it has sent back to the accelerated particle, what would pull that already accelerated particle forward at each beep it makes. It means that what accelerates the particle has to follow it in its acceleration, and that we do not have to accelerate its motion to accelerate the particle, only to continue pushing, thus reducing temporarily the length of the vibration at the same rate. (I leave that here in case it would help to understand the model, but I changed my mind below about the way the particle could be simulated.)

Quote from: David
Quote
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.
I can't see how the acceleration and deceleration of A is going to measure the mass. I'm not convinced that you're doing anything involving mass after the initial acceleration of A, and that part of the process may happen in an instant right at the start. What happens after that appears to have more to do with how that energy is then shared with another particle bonded with the first. Anyway, if you double the amount of energy you're putting in, particle A is going to move further before it stops, and if you halve the energy you're putting in, it will stop sooner, so it looks as if you'll need to be able to vary how quickly particle A accelerates and decelerates under these different mechanisms (direct energy absorption with the initial move that kicks things off vs. acceleration control by perceived frequencies of each particle upon the other) depending on how much energy has been put into moving it. If it accelerates more quickly, it will perceive a stronger frequency change, so that may help decelerate it more quickly as the frequency goes higher, though as it decelerates it may then be slowed progressively more slowly until the frequency is back to the original value.
My former message was about the acceleration process, so here is how I see the deceleration one. If the acceleration stops after only one beep for instance, the acceleration takes only one beep, so I think the deceleration must take one beep too. In other words, the acceleration would contract the particle a bit and the deceleration would stretch it back, and it would stay there at rest as long as the information from the motion of the other particle would be back. It means that if the acceleration lasts two beeps, the particle would automatically contract twice the distance, and it would thus take two beeps to stretch it back.

That's too hard to imagine, and I think the only way out would be to account for the way the components of each particle would progress, which is too complicated for a baby simulation, so maybe we should rely on doppler effect produced by a point source instead, or a point bar in the case we use bars to represent the sources. This way, the large bar representing the particle would move a bit during acceleration, and it would move during the time it is producing a beep, what would immediately produce blueshift on the incoming and leaving waves, what would thus desynchronize the two particles. I would be fine if we could have the possibility to move it during only one beep or during many beeps, or to move it a bit or a lot during a beep. I still think that the distance it would accelerate during a beep should equal the distance it decelerates during a beep, but for a point source, we might simply consider that the deceleration happens within the beep. In fact, those steps would be quantized the same way light is: they would start at the beginning of a beep and stop at the end.

Quote
I don't know if we'll ever get to a working simulation, but, in the course of attempting to build one, this should force us to work out where maths is required and exactly what it has to do. I can already see that we need to establish details about the initial acceleration of particle A to spell out how instantaneous its change in speed is, and then we need rules about how it gets slowed down by its perceived frequency of B's signal, with that same rule controlling B's acceleration when it perceives a change in the frequency of the signal from A. We could program this in such a way that we can change the behaviour of these accelerations later just by changing values in control variables. That would be the safest way to do things if you aren't sure how quickly these accelerations should be handled.
I think the point source particle will help us handle that kind of problem.

Quote from: David
Quote
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 seems to be an arbitrary timing because A won't know when the wobble in his signal reaches B
That would be a problem if we needed that the waves move at the speed of light, but I think we can use lower speeds for the waves and still get the behavior we are looking for as long as the speed of the particles depend on the speed of the waves they exchange. So this way, if we needed to account for the distance between the sources for a particular analysis as in my example, we could since the computer would be a lot faster than the waves.

Quote from: David
Quote
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.
It should be possible to calculate exact timings for things even if we're moving the action on in jumps for the visual display, but it may involve more complex maths to get those exact values. I can't supply the right maths for that, but I'm sure we can get reasonable results just by working with jumps of varying granularity with a fixed frequency value for each jump, and we can change that granularity to see how it affects the results - they should be inaccurate with large jumps and get better with smaller jumps until there's no point in going smaller. (What I mean by this is that when the change in a perceived frequency can be shown by a curve on a graph, we can carry out a round of calculations at regular time intervals and use whichever frequency the graph gives us at that time point, applying it uniformly for that whole slice of time). The visual display won't need to change for each round if we're doing more fine-grained calculations, so it can be updated every now and then at a fixed frequency while we vary the rate of the underlying calculations.
OK.

Quote
Quote
To accelerate the first particle, we could move the left large bar a small distance, and double that distance each new beep.
I don't understand why you'd have repeated doublings.
If the particle travels a certain distance in one beep and then stops, its speed is the distance over a beep, and if the speed has to increase, then more distance has to be traveled next beep, and if the acceleration is constant, then the rate at which the speed increases has to stay constant, so you're right, during acceleration, the distance traveled during each beep must follow an acceleration curve.

Quote from: David
Quote
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.
I'm confused now as to what's what. If A and B are both large bars representing two particles, are we now to have each of these particles made of two parts as well? If so, each one could be represented by two large bars, and we'd then need clear rules to control how those two bars move relative to each other.
That's what my model is about, but as I said, it looks a lot easier to start with a point source particle.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 10/08/2017 22:16:35
I think we should use realistic numbers, so the speed of light will be the one used for the signals. We don't have to work in seconds though - we're dealing with very small things very close together and moving tiny distances which we will show greatly enlarged and slowed on the screen. So, how far apart are the particles going to be? Perhaps 200 picometres (a fifth of a nanometre) would be a reasonable starting point if these particles are bonded atoms.

What kind of speed are we going to accelerate the first particle to? (The display can track the particles so that they always stay on the screen, so that shouldn't limit your choice.)

What frequency is the light that you're using for the signals? The "beeps" should represent the crests or troughs of waves in the light signal, so 1x10^15Hz might be a reasonable value, which is 1 per femtosecond. (Milli, micro, nano, pico, femto, atto, zepto.) In the program we might use the variable t for time with t representing one zeptosecond, and d for distance with d representing one femtometre. (Light moves about a third of a picometre in one zeptosecond.)

Do these sound like reasonable units and sizes? Check them to make sure by doing your own research if you aren't sure - I may have made big errors as this kind of stuff goes way outside my experience.

(Edit: changed 1 per attosecond to 1 per femtosecond in the bit about light frequency).
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 10/08/2017 23:24:41
I think we should use realistic numbers, so the speed of light will be the one used for the signals. We don't have to work in seconds though - we're dealing with very small things very close together and moving tiny distances which we will show greatly enlarged and slowed on the screen. So, how far apart are the particles going to be? Perhaps 200 picometres (a fifth of a nanometre) would be a reasonable starting point if these particles are bonded atoms.
Sounds good!

Quote
What kind of speed are we going to accelerate the first particle to? (The display can track the particles so that they always stay on the screen, so that shouldn't limit your choice.)
How about 1nm/s to begin with?

Quote
What frequency is the light that you're using for the signals? The "beeps" should represent the crests or troughs of waves in the light signal, so 1x10^15Hz might be a reasonable value, which is 1 per attosecond. (Milli, micro, nano, pico, femto, atto, zepto.) In the program we might use the variable t for time with t representing one zeptosecond, and d for distance with d representing one femtometre. (Light moves about a third of a picometre in one zeptosecond.)

Do these sound like reasonable units and sizes? Check them to make sure by doing your own research if you aren't sure - I may have made big errors as this kind of stuff goes way outside my experience.
They sound good too, but I didn't go that far in my analysis yet, so I guess we will both have to get used to them. While reading about JavaScript, I realize that it is commonly used with HTML, a language that I had already used about 20 years ago to build my own web pages, so it should help.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: chris on 10/08/2017 23:28:58
Just so you all know, I implemented a "code" bbc button above the posting box so you can insert lines of code into the forum and it will format correctly.

It's the square button with a hash (#) symbol.

You wrap it around your lines i.e. highlight the text and then click the code button - and it will format for you.

e.g.

Code: [Select]
`<?phpecho "Print this comment";?>`
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 11/08/2017 00:51:13
How about 1nm/s to begin with?

That sounds a bit low - the gas molecules around us bounce off each other at over a thousand miles an hour, and if we're working with zeptoseconds, it might take millions of years for the simulation to move a particle across the screen. A speed in m/s is the same value in nm/ns, so 500nm/ns ought to be a realistic speed to use.

Quote
They sound good too, but I didn't go that far in my analysis yet, so I guess we will both have to get used to them.

Again, this is why everyone with a theory should try to simulate it, because it forces them to put proper numbers to the things their theory is going to operate on.

Quote
While reading about JavaScript, I realize that it is commonly used with HTML, a language that I had already used about 20 years ago to build my own web pages, so it should help.

We're not going to use a lot of complex HTML or JavaScript - we're really just using it as a calculator with a few extra bells and whistles to repeat the same calculations millions of times and to display the results in a way that makes it practical to understand them. If anything that I haven't already covered is needed, I'll provide it. The important thing is to work out what maths is needed and to put it into a form that can be run as program code. We can add these three variables into our program along with some information to help us understand what they are:-

Code: [Select]
`t=0; // time in zeptoseconds (milli, micro, nano, pico, femto, atto, zepto)d=200; // distance in picometresf=1000; // initial bonding-light frequency per zeptosecond`
We can change the units later if necessary - we might prefer to work with a distance unit equal to a tenth or hundredth of a picometre, for example, but we'll only find that out once we've got something up and running. I think we can make the initial acceleration of A instant, so the first bit of maths programming we need to write is going to be to handle the deceleration as A interacts with the signal from B, and that code needs to be adjustable so that we can change the deceleration rate just by changing a value in a single control variable. I'm going to think about that tomorrow. You might like to think about it too, and then we can compare notes and try to turn it into functional code.

________________________________________________________________

Just so you all know, I implemented a "code" bbc button above the posting box so you can insert lines of code into the forum and it will format correctly.

Thanks for making that available - I wasn't sure if it was there by default and hoped you wouldn't mind program code being posted here. It would be wise though to get the mods to keep a careful eye on how it's being used though so that nothing appears that isn't fully documented to explain what it does. No one should be allowed to post any code that obfuscates what it does.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: mrsmith2211 on 11/08/2017 02:49:41
I am having trouble understanding you original premise. Sure a program could be writen for anything but if the basic brick is faulty so will everything that follows be faulty.

"I figure that mass and motion could be due to the bonding between two particles being limited to c" And you go on, is this a gravitational bonding, electrical or magnetic bonding?
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 11/08/2017 14:32:28
Hi Mrsmith,

The model I want to simulate is described here (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=53171.0). The bond in question is the one that permits atoms to form molecules, or that permits nucleons to form nucleus. If the information takes time between two atoms, then when the molecule is accelerated, both atoms should not move at the same time, what should produce doppler effect between them. What I suggest is that they can use that doppler effect for the same purpose we do, which is in this case as an information to control the timing of their bond. With doppler effect, the atoms would get out of sync when we accelerate them because one of them would be forced to move before the other for a while, and for the same reason, they would move by time shifted steps to stay on sync after having been accelerated. I think this mechanism explains the two opposed meanings of inertia, motion and resistance to move (mass), but it is hard to analyze with static diagrams, so I opted for a simulation, and David accepted to help me out with the software. As any new project, we will probably be facing new technical difficulties, but if inertia really depends on such a mechanism, we should be able to simulate it properly. You're welcome to participate if you wish! It's not a mainstream idea, but it doesn't contradict the facts either.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 11/08/2017 17:30:47
How about 1nm/s to begin with?
That sounds a bit low - the gas molecules around us bounce off each other at over a thousand miles an hour, and if we're working with zeptoseconds, it might take millions of years for the simulation to move a particle across the screen. A speed in m/s is the same value in nm/ns, so 500nm/ns ought to be a realistic speed to use.
I made a mistake, I meant 1 m/s, so 500 is OK, it's in the same order of magnitude.

Quote
I think we can make the initial acceleration of A instant, so the first bit of maths programming we need to write is going to be to handle the deceleration as A interacts with the signal from B, and that code needs to be adjustable so that we can change the deceleration rate just by changing a value in a single control variable. I'm going to think about that tomorrow. You might like to think about it too, and then we can compare notes and try to turn it into functional code.
When I switched to point sources, I wanted to eliminate the proper acceleration and deceleration phases of each particle and replace them by constant frequency steps, one beep one step, the bar disappearing and reappearing further away if there is motion, and beeping at the same place if there is no motion. I thought there could be a stop and go button for us to push on the particle, and another one for inserting the rate of the acceleration we want to give. Pushing on the particle would of course automatically put it out of sync with the incoming light, so that synchronizing part of the software would have to be skipped during that time, but as soon as we would stop pushing, the particle should progressively synchronize its steps with that incoming light, one step at a time, and at the same rate it had accelerated. It means that it would decelerate a bit for a while since it would always be producing blueshift on the incoming light whatever the duration of the acceleration, and that it would accelerate again once the light from the full acceleration of the other particle would come in, what should produce the same kind of steps between the particles than their proper ones, but at a much lower frequency. From the particles' viewpoint, their proper steps would then be synchronized with the incoming light, but from ours, the steps between the two particles would not happen at the same time.

The way the second particle should react to the increasing doppler effect is the same as the way the first one had reacted to it's acceleration: it should accelerate at the same rate step by step, and decelerate to rest if the first particle had the time to do so.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 11/08/2017 18:08:59
I am having trouble understanding you original premise. Sure a program could be writen for anything but if the basic brick is faulty so will everything that follows be faulty.

Most of the new theories presented here suffer from fatal faults which are hard to point to because they're not presented in sufficient detail (and the same applies to some old established theories which can't be simulated without breaking the rules of the model, thereby revealing that they are not sound). In writing a program to run the model, it forces the theorist to supply or create all the missing pieces if they can. In this particular case we're about to hit a major problem that the speed of movement of the particles is so slow in relation to the speed of light that the Doppler shift probably isn't going to register - an idea that superficially looks as if it could have some connection to reality when looking at particles moving at relativistic speed may not look so viable when the particles are moving at ordinary speeds, and that will soon show up clearly. However, Le Rapteaux will doubtless still want to explore other possibilities which this software can be turned to (because he really wants particles to sit on the nodes of standing waves), so it's well worth continuing with, and the most important thing is to provide him with the tools that will enable him to continue with that without relying heavily on outside help, so that means learning to use JavaScript as an advanced calculator that can run little simulations to test key ideas.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 11/08/2017 23:07:46
By the way, I changed 1 "beep" per attosecond to 1 per femtosecond in the bit about light frequency a few posts ago. It's easy to make big errors when you aren't used to working with things on this scale, so much so, that I may have changed a correct value to a wrong one, and that means you should check my figures by working them out independently.

The big problem with this simulation is the massive difference in speed between light and the speed of the particles. To show the signals moving across the screen at a reasonable speed such that you can see what they're doing, it may be impossible to see any movement of the particles within any reasonable length of time. It also seems to me that it will be impossible for the particles to detect any change in the frequency of cycles in the signal (the beeps), so they won't know how to react to receiving them unless you give them a clock, and that clock would have to cycle at a similar rate to the light signal. Even then, in order to show the particle moving at all, we might need to enlarge it considerably, shifting the other particle a long way off the screen. Let's just work out exactly what we're up against.

Suppose we put our particles 20cm apart on the screen, that would make 1mm of the screen represent one picometre (if the particle separation is 200 picometres). A bar representing the signal moving at c would take about 600 zeptoseconds to cross the space between them. If we were to use a granularity of 3 zeptoseconds for each new displayed frame, we'd see the bar move across the screen in 200 jumps of 1mm each, taking 8 seconds to do so if we update the display with a new snapshot of the action 25 times per second. A particle moving at 500m/s is moving at 500zm/zs, so every 3zs it will move 1.5am. For the particle to move 1mm (representing one picometre) across the screen we would have to wait seven and a half hours.

(Milli, micro, nano, pico, femto, atto, zepto.)

The frequency of the light I chose (near to the most energetic end of the visible spectrum) is 1 cycle per femtosecond, so with a granularity of 3zs for each displayed frame, the will give us one "beep" every 33,333 frames, and each will keep us waiting 22 minutes. These "beeps" are virtually impossible to perceive as bars going past for the particle - it's more like a ribbon going past them and gradually varying slightly in width.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 12/08/2017 14:02:41
How about simulating two cars exchanging sound waves then? We could build the software using that order of magnitude and add buttons to change the speed of the wave or the length of the steps later. What I want to study first is the way doppler effect from motion can become a cause for the same motion, and that principle should not depend on the kind of waves. If the software works for sound, then we could try to simulate real particles with it. In my example with sound, I usually put the cars one sound second away from one another, but to have the time to examine the motion, I think five seconds would be better. I never gave a frequency to sound, so how about 1 kilohertz to begin with? 5,000 wavelengths between the two cars, that should be precise enough. We could use the speeds cars usually have, or even try to exceed the speed of sound with them to see how the software would react. I think that, as your simulation of MMx shows, the cars would take more and more time to accelerate whatever the rate of acceleration we choose, which is similar to mass increase in the case of particles.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 13/08/2017 00:33:05
How about simulating two cars exchanging sound waves then? We could build the software using that order of magnitude and add buttons to change the speed of the wave or the length of the steps later. What I want to study first is the way doppler effect from motion can become a cause for the same motion, and that principle should not depend on the kind of waves.

There's no harm in doing that first. I've added a bit to my previous post though which you might find interesting, though it doesn't help get around the problem of the Doppler shift being insignificant. The only way to get around that is to give the particles their own clock, but fortunately a particle usually is a clock with a mechanism running at light speed, meaning that it can likely detect subtle differences in the arrival times of signals, though probably only over many cycles with the effect of a tiny desynchronisation adding up to significant effects over time. That means we may still be able to do some kind of simulation of these particles with realistic numbers and see how the Doppler shift may relate to their behaviour. It may also affect the pattern of standing waves if there's an interaction between the signals put out by both particles.

Quote
If the software works for sound, then we could try to simulate real particles with it. In my example with sound, I usually put the cars one sound second away from one another, but to have the time to examine the motion, I think five seconds would be better. I never gave a frequency to sound, so how about 1 kilohertz to begin with? 5,000 wavelengths between the two cars, that should be precise enough. We could use the speeds cars usually have, or even try to exceed the speed of sound with them to see how the software would react. I think that, as your simulation of MMx shows, the cars would take more and more time to accelerate whatever the rate of acceleration we choose, which is similar to mass increase in the case of particles.

We could continue using particles - we can simply accelerate the first one to a much higher speed than 500m/s to get it up to a speed where Doppler shift shows up on the screen. If we were starting with a car accelerated in an instant to 70mph and working with sound to control its behaviour, that would be similar to using light and a particle accelerated to 30,000,000m/s. Again though, I don't think this will map well to reality as that kind of acceleration would break any bond. With that speed of travel, we can use a granularity of 12zs with the screen showing light cross between the particles in two seconds and particle A being nudged to a speed that would take it 20 seconds to cross to the other particle if it didn't get slowed by its interactions with the signal from B. That would allow you to explore all the same ideas while keeping particles more in mind.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 13/08/2017 16:21:07
I don't mind simulating particles first, but I would like to have buttons so that I could change the frequency and the speed of the wave easily. I think it should be interesting to compare different kind of waves. I don't understand why you want to accelerate the first particle instantly though: why not accelerate it progressively with a button or a window to enter the acceleration rate and another one that we could hold to decide the duration of the acceleration? You said previously:

«I think we can make the initial acceleration of A instant, so the first bit of maths programming we need to write is going to be to handle the deceleration as A interacts with the signal from B, and that code needs to be adjustable so that we can change the deceleration rate just by changing a value in a single control variable.»

To me, a deceleration is like an acceleration, so both phases have to work the same. It would be too complicated to simulate, but the first particle has to be accelerated by an outside molecule, so that the doppler effect from the atoms of that molecule would interfere with the doppler effect produced by the accelerated atom on the light from the atom it is bonded to. For the first atom to move, the external doppler effect should thus be more important than the internal one. There may also be thresholds under which no motion from the first atom would be transferred to the other atom, as it is the case for the electronic quantum states. The first step the first atom would make should thus depend on the progressive approach of an external atom, but it is not necessary to simulate that atom, just the resulting acceleration, and that acceleration has to be executed step by step to produce the time shifted wave like motion I am expecting the two atoms to execute during constant motion.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 14/08/2017 00:45:10
I don't mind simulating particles first, but I would like to have buttons so that I could change the frequency and the speed of the wave easily. I think it should be interesting to compare different kind of waves.

It's easy to add buttons, and you can attach to them whatever maths you need. We'll certainly want to be able to use a much higher frequency for the light so that we don't have to wait ages to see each "beep".

Quote
I don't understand why you want to accelerate the first particle instantly though: why not accelerate it progressively with a button or a window to enter the acceleration rate and another one that we could hold to decide the duration of the acceleration?

Providing controls for that will be possible, but you need to decide what the difference is between an unbonded particle interacting with particle A and particle A interacting with particle B which is bonded with it in some way.

I've modified the program a bit to give you four objects to move on the screen and I've worked out the offsets to correct their positions. I've also simplified their names to make them easier to recognise because we don't need to differentiate between x and y coordinates, so they're now just the letters y b r g (relating to the colours of the objects). The objects won't continue to be controlled by buttons in the way they are at the moment, so their positions will be calculated by using the variables y b r g (while the offsets bo ro go will only be used when setting their positions on the screen - these offsets simply correct their positions to cancel out the misalignments caused by my trick of using text as graphics). I've also added a function cd() which does collision detection to detect the arrival of "beeps".

Code: [Select]
`<HTML><HEAD> <TITLE>Theory Simulation</TITLE> <script type="text/javascript">// window.setInterval("run()",10) // this will control how fast we repeat the action function run() { } function setup() // we might use this later { }// We'll create and initialise all our variables here:- y=-400; b=400; // initial x-coord locations of the dots         bo=-50; // offset to correct b's display location r=400; g=-400; // initial locations of the bars ro=-87; go=-112; // offsets to correct bar display loc.s t=0; // time in zeptoseconds d=200; // distance in picometres f=1000; // initial bonding-light frequency per zeptosecond // milli, micro, nano, pico, femto, atto, zepto function moveiy() { y=y+1; iy.style.left=y; yloc.innerHTML=y; cd()} function moveib() { b=b+1; ib.style.left=b+bo; bloc.innerHTML=b; cd()} function moveir() { r-=1; ir.style.left=r+ro; rloc.innerHTML=r; cd()} function moveig() { g+=1; ig.style.left=g+go; gloc.innerHTML=g; cd()} function cd() // collision detection { if(r==y){ping1.innerHTML="PING"} if(g==b){ping2.innerHTML="PING"}} </script></HEAD><BODY onload="setup()" style="background-color:black;color:white;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:18pt"><blockquote> <center><H1>Theory Simulation</H1><br><br><tt><b id="iy" style="position:relative;left:-400;top:0;font-size:60;color:yellow">.</b><b id="ib" style="position:relative;left:350;top:0;font-size:60;color:#0020ff">.</b><b id="ir" style="position:relative;left:313;top:2;font-size:18;color:red">|</b><b id="ig" style="position:relative;left:-512;top:2;font-size:18;color:#00ff00">|</b></tt></center><p><a id="yloc"></a> &nbsp; <a id="bloc"></a> &nbsp; <a id="ping1"></a><p><a id="rloc"></a> &nbsp; <a id="gloc"></a> &nbsp; <a id="ping2"></a><p> <input type="button" value="Move Yellow" onclick="moveiy()"/> <input type="button" value="Move Blue" onclick="moveib()"/> <input type="button" value="Move Red" onclick="moveir()"/> <input type="button" value="Move Green" onclick="moveig()"/><p>You can replace this text with your own to explain how to use the program.</BODY></HTML>`
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 14/08/2017 16:51:22
Providing controls for that will be possible, but you need to decide what the difference is between an unbonded particle interacting with particle A and particle A interacting with particle B which is bonded with it in some way.
The difference is only technical because the first steps particle B would make are identical to the steps particle A would have made before. At the beginning, before particle B would have moved, particle A's steps would depend on an acceleration formula. Later on, particle B's steps would depend on blueshift from particle A. After the acceleration of particle A would have stopped, both particles' steps would only depend on doppler effect, but if particle A would still be accelerated while redshiftt from particle B would come in, its steps would then depend on both redshift and the acceleration formula. What would happen then is that the steps the redshift would produce would add to the steps the acceleration would produce. For instance if the steps were already constant because acceleration would have stopped a long time ago, accelerating particle A again would mean adding some increasing lengths to the constant steps it already makes.

It is interesting to note that if both particles would be accelerated towards one another in the same time, thus if we would exert a force to compress their bond, the blueshift produced by their first steps on the light they emit would add to the blueshift produced later on on the incoming light from the other particle. They would move a bit, but they would suddenly suffer more blueshift than the one from their own steps. I figure that they could then step backward for a few steps, thus pushing harder on whatever pushes them together, what would produce redshift on the light emitted towards the other particle, what would bring the two particles closer after a while, what would produce blueshift on the light they emit, and so on. This way, what we observe as a constant force when matter is compressed would depend on particles vibrating to stay on sync. That vibration might be interesting to simulate if ever we succeed to simulate the steps.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 15/08/2017 00:47:26
Well, it´s going to be your job to supply the maths for the accelerations. I've got another new version of the program which is sufficiently changed that I've had to post the whole thing. I've now enabled the setInterval part of the code and provided functionality for "run()". This routine advances the time counter by 1 every time it runs, but by changing the value of the variable gr to a value other than 1 it will be easy to change the speed the simulation runs at if we decide it's too slow. There are two time counters which are new, and these reset periodically to trigger new bars to be emitted from the particles so that we have an infinite number of them. The movement of the bars is now governed by c, so they no longer need buttons to move them. We need to design code next to govern the movement of the two particles in a similar way, but it'll be more complex as that's where the accelerations have to be handled. See if you can understand the program as it now is, and think about how you could add code into it to control the movement of the two particles.

Code: [Select]
`<HTML><HEAD> <TITLE>Theory Simulation</TITLE> <script type="text/javascript"> window.setInterval("run()",8) // controls repetition rate function run() { t+=gr; // advance time by granularity unit ty+=gr; tb+=gr // advance time counters too r+=rv*gr; g+=gv*gr; // update bar positions if(ty>=fb){r=b; ty=0, cdr=0} // reuse old bars for new bars if(tb>=fy){g=y; tb=0; cdg=0} // ... when timers time out ir.style.left=r*4+ro; // calculate bars' new screen positions ig.style.left=g*4+go; // (4 units = one picometre) iy.style.left=y*4; // calculate particle screen positions ib.style.left=b*4+bo; yloc.innerHTML=y; bloc.innerHTML=b; // update screen. cd(); // call collision detection function } function setup() // we'll use this later { }// All variables are created and initialised here:- c=0.3 // speed of light in pm/zs. gr=1; // granularity for simulation in zeptoseconds       // we can adjust this to speed/slow the action y=-100; b=100; // initial x-coord locations of the dots         bo=-50; // offset to correct b's display location yv=0; yb=0; // initial speeds for particles r=100; g=-100; // initial locations of the bars ro=-87; go=-112; // offsets to correct bar display loc.s rv=-c; gv=c; // speeds for bars t=0; // time in zeptoseconds ty=0; // timer to emit new bars from yellow particle tb=0; // and another for blue particle d=200; // distance in picometres fy=1000; // initial bonding-light frequencies per zeptosecond fb=1000; // (one for each particle) [1000 = 1x10^18Hz] ry=0;gb=0;ry2=0;gb2=0;cdr=0;cdg=0; // collision detection var.s// (milli, micro, nano, pico, femto, atto, zepto) function cd() // collision detection { if(r<=y && cdr==0){ping1.innerHTML="ping"; ry=t; cdr=1} if(g>=b && cdg==0){ping2.innerHTML="pong"; gb=t; cdg=1} ry2=t-ry; gb2=t-gb; if(ry2==60){ping1.innerHTML=""} if(gb2==60){ping2.innerHTML=""} } function moveiy() // test routine for moving yellow particle { y=y+1} function moveib() // test routine for moving blue particle { b=b+1} </script></HEAD><BODY onload="setup()" style="background-color:black;color:white;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:18pt"><blockquote> <center><H1>Theory Simulation</H1><br><br><tt><b id="iy" style="position:relative;left:-400;top:0;font-size:60;color:yellow">.</b><b id="ib" style="position:relative;left:350;top:0;font-size:60;color:#0020ff">.</b><b id="ir" style="position:relative;left:313;top:2;font-size:18;color:red">|</b><b id="ig" style="position:relative;left:-512;top:2;font-size:18;color:#00ff00">|</b></tt></center><p><a id="yloc"></a> &nbsp; <a id="bloc"></a> &nbsp; <a id="ping1"></a> &nbsp; <a id="ping2"></a><p> <input type="button" value="Move Yellow" onclick="moveiy()"/> <input type="button" value="Move Blue" onclick="moveib()"/><p>You can replace this text with your own to explain how to use the program.</BODY></HTML>`
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 17/08/2017 19:12:48
The acceleration formula goes like this:

a=v/t=d/t²,
so d=at²,
which translates by: the length of a step = the rate of the acceleration times the duration of a step squared.
For instance,
for t=0 to 5, and for a=1, then  d=0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 32
for t=0 to 5, and for a=2, then  d=0, 2, 8, 18, 32, 64

Of course, we have to use the same units than those we already use.

I tried to move the particles and I didn't succeed. I have to get used to many different new things, and it takes time because my short term memory is bad. I read Mozilla's pages on JavaScript to get used faster: https://developer.mozilla.org/fr/docs/Learn/JavaScript/First_steps/What_is_JavaScript

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 18/08/2017 02:25:29
d=at²,
which translates by: the length of a step = the rate of the acceleration times the duration of a step squared.
For instance,
for t=0 to 5, and for a=1, then  d=0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 32
for t=0 to 5, and for a=2, then  d=0, 2, 8, 18, 32, 64

I think we need to unpick the formula to run it in time slices. The formula always works from the same start time, whereas each of our calculations should start from the end of the previous time slice. With gravity (which I'm going to use to think this through as it's easiest to understand), the usual formula is S=ut+0.5at². The half is there because only half of the acceleration value is realised as new distance for each step while the full value of a is added to the speed by the end of the time slice. With a=10 we see the total distance go up as follows: 5; 20; 45; 80; etc. In each case, the speed goes up by 10 by the end of the time slice, so the distance covered in that time slice will always be the same distance covered in the previous time slice again plus half of a. Slice one: (speed 0-10m/s) 5m travelled [= 0+0+5]. Slice two: (10-20m/s) 20 [= 5+10+5], but only 15m of this is new. Slice three: (20-30mps) 45 [=20+20+5], but only 25m of this is new. Slice four: (30-40mps) 80 [= 45+30+5], but only 35m of this is new.

So, it's really very simple. We keep a value for the current speed of a particle and add that each time to the location to get the new position, but we also add half of a to it.

The acceleration should to change as the particles get closer together, but it might only change the speed when a bar hits the particle, which means the particle would accelerate in instantaneous jumps each time rather than smoothly. If the acceleration is to be continuous, it should increase all the time and not be a constant force, which leads to more complex controls needing to be programmed. Let's start though with something half way between those two alternatives where we have constant accelerations which are changed in an instant to new acceleration values whenever a new bar arrives.

I had thought that the big problem with deciding what the acceleration should be is that you'd need to count at least two bars and time the gap between them to work out the frequency, but actually you don't - all you need to do is work out the speed of the particle relative to the light to get a value that varies the same way as frequency (though you also ought to adjust for the slowing of functionality of the particle ("time dilation") that put that "bar" of light out because that will lower its frequency, and the speed of functionality of the particle receiving which may amplify it back up to a similar value, but we can modify the program to cover that later - we'll build it steadily piece by piece and add complexity over time).

Quote
I tried to move the particles and I didn't succeed. I have to get used to many different new things, and it takes time because my short term memory is bad.

You'll pick it up soon enough - it's good that you tried as you will still have learned a lot from it. I've made a few new additions (and corrected the name of a variable that I'd listed before but have only now started using), and the changes are sufficient to need to post the whole new version (as it would take more space to tell you which bits to edit otherwise):-

Code: [Select]
`<HTML><HEAD> <TITLE>Theory Simulation</TITLE> <script type="text/javascript"> window.setInterval("run()",8) // controls repetition rate function run() { t+=gr; // advance time by granularity unit ty+=gr; tb+=gr // advance time counters too r+=rv*gr; g+=gv*gr; // update bar positions if(ty>=fb){r=b; ty=0, cdr=0} // reuse old bars for new if(tb>=fy){g=y; tb=0; cdg=0} // ... when timers time out ha=0.5*ya // get half y's acceleration value y+=yv+ha; // add y's old velocity+ha to its position yv+=ya; // add y's acceleration value to its velocity ha=0.5*ba // get half b's acceleration value b+=bv+ha; // add b's velocity+ha to its position bv+=ba; // add b's acceleration value to its velocity ir.style.left=r*4+ro; // calculate bars' newscreen position ig.style.left=g*4+go; // (4 units = one picometre) iy.style.left=y*4; // calculate particle screen positions ib.style.left=b*4+bo; yloc.innerHTML=y; bloc.innerHTML=b; // update screen. cd(); // call collision detection function } function setup() // we'll use this later { }// All variables are created and initialised here:- c=0.3 // speed of light in pm/zs. gr=1; // granularity for simulation in zeptoseconds       // we can adjust this to speed/slow the action y=-100; b=100; // initial x-coord locations of the dots         bo=-50; // offset to correct b's display location yv=0; bv=0; // initial speeds for particles r=100; g=-100; // initial locations of the bars ro=-87; go=-112; // offsets to correct bar display loc.s rv=-c; gv=c; // speeds for bars t=0; // time in zeptoseconds ty=0; // timer to emit new bars from yellow particle tb=0; // and another for blue particle d=200; // distance in picometres fy=1000; // initial bonding-light frequencies per zeptosecond fb=1000; // (one for each particle) [1000 = 1x10^18Hz] ha=0; // variable to store a value temporarily ya=0; // acceleration value applying to yellow ba=0; // acceleration value for blue particle ry=0;gb=0;ry2=0;gb2=0;cdr=0;cdg=0; // collision detection var.s// (milli, micro, nano, pico, femto, atto, zepto) function cd() // collision detection { if(r<=y && cdr==0){ping1.innerHTML="ping"; ry=t; cdr=1} if(g>=b && cdg==0){ping2.innerHTML="pong"; gb=t; cdg=1} ry2=t-ry; gb2=t-gb; if(ry2==60){ping1.innerHTML=""} if(gb2==60){ping2.innerHTML=""} } function incya() { ya+=0.001} function decya() { ya-=0.001} function moveiy() // test routine for moving yellow particle { y=y+1} function moveib() // test routine for moving blue particle { b=b+1} </script></HEAD><BODY onload="setup()" style="background-color:black;color:white;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:18pt"><blockquote> <center><H1>Theory Simulation</H1><br><br><tt><b id="iy" style="position:relative;left:-400;top:0;font-size:60;color:yellow">.</b><b id="ib" style="position:relative;left:350;top:0;font-size:60;color:#0020ff">.</b><b id="ir" style="position:relative;left:313;top:2;font-size:18;color:red">|</b><b id="ig" style="position:relative;left:-512;top:2;font-size:18;color:#00ff00">|</b></tt></center><p><a id="yloc"></a> &nbsp; <a id="bloc"></a> &nbsp; <a id="ping1"></a> &nbsp; <a id="ping2"></a><p> <input type="button" value="Move Yellow" onclick="moveiy()"/> <input type="button" value="Move Blue" onclick="moveib()"/> <input type="button" value="Acc+" onclick="incya()"/> <input type="button" value="Acc-" onclick="decya()"/><p>You can replace this text with your own to explain how to use the program.</BODY></HTML>`
I've added six new lines into the function called run() to handle the accelerations of the particles, then I created three new variables (ha, ya and ba) to hold acceleration values. I also added two new buttons to control the acceleration force acting on the yellow particle so that we can test in manually and I added two new functions to link to from the buttons. The result is rather fun - see if you can keep the yellow particle on the screen, and see if you can stop it moving once you've started it. Next time we'll have to add more code to use the bar-particle interactions to control the accelerations instead instead of the buttons, but if you can work out how the new parts of the existing program work, you might just know enough to be able to try some experimental programming of the next step yourself.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 19/08/2017 21:12:23
The half is there because only half of the acceleration value is realised as new distance for each step while the full value of a is added to the speed by the end of the time slice.
I didn't even care to take a look at wiki before answering, and I didn't remember that the acceleration formula had to be derived to get the distances, so you're right again, the new distance is .5at².

Quote
The acceleration should change as the particles get closer together, but it might only change the speed when a bar hits the particle, which means the particle would accelerate in instantaneous jumps each time rather than smoothly.
You seem to be giving importance to the collision with the bars during acceleration, and I think we should not. What you are actually trying to figure out is how we are going to bring mass into consideration, and I find it difficult to simulate because the mass induced by the resistance to acceleration between the components is a lot more important that the one induced by the resistance to acceleration between the particles, and because what we are actually trying to simulate is only the steps between the particles. I figured that, instead of accounting for the blueshift particle A would produce on incident light at the beginning of its acceleration, we could simplify the problem while accounting for it only at the end of its acceleration, but it doesn't seem to work, so the question remains: how do we account for blueshift during acceleration of particle A?

If we keep constant the frequency of the steps, it seems that there is only one way: their length has to be reduced a bit, and it has to be reduced a fraction of the blueshift: the more the blueshift, the more the reduction. At each step forward, a small step backward would have to be subtracted. It looks like the contraction that would happen between the two particles during the time the blueshifted light from particle A would take to reach particle B. This contraction is proportional to the distance between the particles and to the rate and the duration of the acceleration. As I already said, I think it should be equivalent to the relativistic one, which is proportional to the speed, which is in our case proportional to the length of the step being made. We could try this way, but it would produce very small numbers because it would represent a tiny fraction of a step, so maybe we should first try to work without it.

Quote
I had thought that the big problem with deciding what the acceleration should be is that you'd need to count at least two bars and time the gap between them to work out the frequency, but actually you don't - all you need to do is work out the speed of the particle relative to the light to get a value that varies the same way as frequency (though you also ought to adjust for the slowing of functionality of the particle ("time dilation") that put that "bar" of light out because that will lower its frequency, and the speed of functionality of the particle receiving which may amplify it back up to a similar value, but we can modify the program to cover that later - we'll build it steadily piece by piece and add complexity over time).
Again, you seem to allow importance to the incoming bars during acceleration of particle A, and I think it is not necessary. On the other hand, it is necessary to account for them to accelerate particle B. If a bar strikes particle B just before it beeps, then particle B has to move away from particle A a bit. It cannot know how much it will have to move, it has to move until it beeps, so I guess it has to follow the bar during this time even if it is moving at c, because then, it would stay synchronized with it. I think that, this way, it will move the same distance particle A had moved before. How about programming the particles' beeps? We could then emit the bars continuously and observe the particles staying on sync with them if they are at the right distance from one another. The bars should also disappear when they are on sync with the particles, because the light emitted by the particle would interfere destructively with the incoming light. This way, during acceleration, we would see some bars escaping the system, which is also the case for light when we accelerate real particles in real accelerators.

Quote
The result is rather fun - see if you can keep the yellow particle on the screen, and see if you can stop it moving once you've started it.
I can almost stop it, but the motion is not constant: it slows down and accelerates when the computer does. I have too many windows opened in my browser for the computer speed to stay constant. Is that why you want a fast computer?

Quote
Next time we'll have to add more code to use the bar-particle interactions to control the accelerations instead of the buttons, but if you can work out how the new parts of the existing program work, you might just know enough to be able to try some experimental programming of the next step yourself.
I'm still trying to follow up.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 20/08/2017 02:27:42
You seem to be giving importance to the collision with the bars during acceleration, and I think we should not.

Well, you have to pin down what happens by working out what (1) what causes effects, and (2) what are the effects. If the arrival of a bar doesn't change the acceleration, neither particle can make the other particle move unless the transfer of energy or information is performed in some other way that doesn't involve the bars.

Quote
What you are actually trying to figure out is how we are going to bring mass into consideration, and I find it difficult to simulate because the mass induced by the resistance to acceleration between the components is a lot more important that the one induced by the resistance to acceleration between the particles, and because what we are actually trying to simulate is only the steps between the particles.

I have no idea how mass is going to come into this other than being related to the speed of acceleration. We have an arbitrary strength of acceleration force which relates to an arbitrary mass.

Quote
I figured that, instead of accounting for the blueshift particle A would produce on incident light at the beginning of its acceleration, we could simplify the problem while accounting for it only at the end of its acceleration, but it doesn't seem to work, so the question remains: how do we account for blueshift during acceleration of particle A?

It would be easiest if I show you a variety of ways of doing things so that you can understand how they work, and then you'll be able to work out what you want to do differently, so we can keep modifying the simulation in whatever direction you want to take it.

Quote
If we keep constant the frequency of the steps, it seems that there is only one way: their length has to be reduced a bit, and it has to be reduced a fraction of the blueshift: the more the blueshift, the more the reduction.

Mechanistically, that needs the particles to have in-built clocks which aren't slowed by their speed of travel through space so that they can maintain a constant step rate. They would then decelerate if they receive a bar sooner than normal and accelerate if it's late. That would run into a problem though because the leading particle would always receive the signal from the trailing particle late while the trailing one would receive the other signal early, so they would get further and further apart as the front one keeps accelerating and the following one keeps decelerating.

Quote
At each step forward, a small step backward would have to be subtracted.

What happens if the particles are already moving and something acts on the front one to decelerate it? That would lead to the particles becoming closer together as the slow down. We'll be able to test that with the simulation, but there are a lot of things that clearly won't work and really shouldn't need to be tested.

Quote
Again, you seem to allow importance to the incoming bars during acceleration of particle A, and I think it is not necessary. On the other hand, it is necessary to account for them to accelerate particle B. If a bar strikes particle B just before it beeps, then particle B has to move away from particle A a bit. It cannot know how much it will have to move, it has to move until it beeps, so I guess it has to follow the bar during this time even if it is moving at c, because then, it would stay synchronized with it. I think that, this way, it will move the same distance particle A had moved before. How about programming the particles' beeps? We could then emit the bars continuously and observe the particles staying on sync with them if they are at the right distance from one another. The bars should also disappear when they are on sync with the particles, because the light emitted by the particle would interfere destructively with the incoming light. This way, during acceleration, we would see some bars escaping the system, which is also the case for light when we accelerate real particles in real accelerators.

We can build and modify the program to cover all of that, and then abandon all the things that don't do anything useful.

Quote
I can almost stop it, but the motion is not constant: it slows down and accelerates when the computer does. I have too many windows opened in my browser for the computer speed to stay constant. Is that why you want a fast computer?

It should run at a constant speed regardless of what the computer's doing to the processor speed, but it could freeze for a moment repeatedly if the processor can't keep up with all the things it's trying to do. It isn't necessary to use a fast computer - I'm currently using something with an Atom processor and it's more than fast enough - the only problem with it is that it runs XP and has too low a screen resolution to work adequately with later operating systems, which leaves it struggling to handle browsers. (Firefox kept upgrading itself until it froze, whereas Chrome decided to stop upgrading itself instead and is becoming more risky to use as a result of the lack of security fixes, a problem that affects the operating system too.) But so long as it can keep doing the job, I'll postpone the acquisition of a new machine because they keep getting better over time and it's always best to wait as long as you can.

Anyway, I've got a new version of the simulation ready for you. The previous version shows you how hard it is to control what a particle does with occasional accelerations - it can go wildly out of control very quickly, and the same applies when the those occasional accelerations are tied to the infrequent arrival of bars (which is what happens with the new version), which means you have to keep the acceleration force low. You need to nudge the yellow particle using a button to get things going - otherwise the particles will just sit where they are forever. You can click this button once or many times depending on how much you want to accelerate it. You can also test deceleration by nudging the blue particle the other way, and this shows that the particles do indeed end up closer together when you decelerate them. The program simply calculates an acceleration force whenever a bar hits a particle by comparing the speeds of the receiving particle and the source particle (using the speed of the source particle when that bar was sent out from it rather than its current speed because they aren't always the same if you've nudged a particle). This provides an energy value equivalent to the Doppler shift. So, we now have a functional simulation which can be adapted in all manner of different directions and have extra complexity added to it.

[Edited the code to correct a display fault - copying code from Notepad keeps breaking it as it adds in extra returns in the middle of some lines. I normally check it after posting, but my machine froze and I decided the check could wait till today, so it's lucky it was just a display issue that made one of the bars the wrong size.]

Code: [Select]
`<HTML><HEAD> <TITLE>Theory Simulation</TITLE> <script type="text/javascript"> window.setInterval("run()",8) // controls repetition rate function run() { t+=gr; // advance time by granularity unit ty+=gr; tb+=gr // advance time counters too r+=rv*gr; g+=gv*gr; // update bar positions if(ty>=fb){r=b; ty=0, cdr=0; // reuse old bars for new    pbv=bv}   // store speed of b at this moment if(tb>=fy){g=y; tb=0; cdg=0; // ... when timers time out    pyv=yv}   // store speed of y at this moment ha=0.5*ya*a // get half y's acceleration value y+=yv+ha; // add y's old velocity+ha to its position yv+=ya*a; // add y's acceleration value to its velocity ha=0.5*ba*a // get half b's acceleration value b+=bv+ha; // add b's velocity+ha to its position bv+=ba*a; // add b's acceleration value to its velocity ir.style.left=r*4+ro; // calculate bars' newscreen position ig.style.left=g*4+go; // (4 units = one picometre) iy.style.left=y*4; // calculate particle screen positions ib.style.left=b*4+bo; yloc.innerHTML=y; bloc.innerHTML=b; // update screen data ping1.innerHTML=ya; ping2.innerHTML=ba; cd(); // call collision detection function } function setup() // we'll use this later { }// All variables are created and initialised here:- c=0.3 // speed of light in pm/zs. gr=1; // granularity for simulation in zeptoseconds       // we can adjust this to speed/slow the action y=-100; b=100; // initial x-coord locations of the dots         bo=-50; // offset to correct b's display location yv=0; bv=0; // initial speeds for particles pyv=0; pbv=0; // particle speeds when light sent out r=100; g=-100; // initial locations of the bars ro=-87; go=-112; // offsets to correct bar display loc.s rv=-c; gv=c; // speeds for bars t=0; // time in zeptoseconds ty=0; // timer to emit new bars from yellow particle tb=0; // and another for blue particle d=200; // distance in picometres fy=1000; // initial bonding-light frequencies per zeptosecond fb=1000; // (one for each particle) [1000 = 1x10^18Hz] a=0.001; // acceleration strength factor ha=0; // variable to store a value temporarily ya=0; // acceleration value applying to yellow ba=0; // acceleration value for blue particle cdr=0;cdg=0; // collision detection var.s// (milli, micro, nano, pico, femto, atto, zepto) function cd() // collision detection {     if(r<=y && cdr==0){ya=pbv-yv; cdr=1}       if(g>=b && cdg==0){ba=pyv-bv; cdg=1} } // When bar hits particle, we calculate new acceleration value.// The "ya=pbv-yv" above calculates the speed (and thereby energy) of the red// bar relative to both the particle it came from and the one it has just hit so// that we can generate a new acceleration value from this to act on the hit// particle. function inca() // increase strength of acceleration force { a*=2; force.innerHTML=a} function deca() // decrease strength of acceleration force { a*=0.5; force.innerHTML=a} function nudgey() // accelerate y to right { yv+=0.001} function nudgeb() // accelerate b to left { bv-=0.001} </script></HEAD><BODY onload="setup()" style="background-color:black;color:white;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:18pt"><blockquote> <center><H1>Theory Simulation</H1><br><br><tt><b id="iy" style="position:relative;left:-400;top:0;font-size:60;color:yellow">.</b><b id="ib" style="position:relative;left:350;top:0;font-size:60;color:#0020ff">.</b><b id="ir" style="position:relative;left:313;top:2;font-size:18;color:red">|</b><b id="ig" style="position:relative;left:-512;top:2;font-size:18;color:#00ff00">|</b></tt></center><p>Yellow's location = <a id="yloc"></a><br>Blue's location = <a id="bloc"></a><p>Latest acceleration applied to yellow particle = <a id="ping1"></a><br>Latest acceleration applied to blue particle = <a id="ping2"></a><p>Fundamental force strength = <a id="force">0.001</a><p> <input type="button" value="Force +" onclick="inca()"/> <input type="button" value="Force -" onclick="deca()"/> <input type="button" value="Nudge yellow right" onclick="nudgey()"/> <input type="button" value="Nudge blue left" onclick="nudgeb()"/><p>Click a "nudge" button to start things moving.</BODY></HTML>`
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/08/2017 03:07:35
While accelerating both particles before their acceleration had the time to accelerate the other particle, I succeeded to contract them to less than zero distance, so that they were crisscrossing each other continuously. I could even imagine that they were orbiting one around the other. Then I accelerated them more, and they began staying on the wrong side of the screen, sending their bars away from the other particle, nevertheless continuing to make an effect on one another, as if the software was sending invisible bars between them.

Quote
Mechanistically, that needs the particles to have in-built clocks which aren't slowed by their speed of travel through space so that they can maintain a constant step rate. They would then decelerate if they receive a bar sooner than normal and accelerate if it's late. That would run into a problem though because the leading particle would always receive the signal from the trailing particle late while the trailing one would receive the other signal early, so they would get further and further apart as the front one keeps accelerating and the following one keeps decelerating.
We get the same kind of result when we try to use light to produce orbital motion between two bodies: they begin to swirl away from one another. My model should help us to analyze that problem. When we nudge particle A, we automatically contract the distance between the two particles, but also between the bars, so I think that if a bar would be emitted at each beep, the first bar to be out of sync with particle B would strike it too soon, not too late, and since it is the inverse for particle B, its bars would strike particle A too late, not too soon. Since the frequency of the bars is very low on the simulation, I could contract the distance a lot because I could nudge A a lot of times before it emitted a bar that would account for the acceleration. With bars emitted at a higher frequency, the distance between the bars would contract sooner and the bars would thus nudge the other particle sooner.

Nevertheless, I think that the particles would not stay at a constant distance from one another after the acceleration would have stopped. Why? Because we cannot account for the steps between their components. Nature accounts for them, and it even accounts for the steps between their own components, but a simulation cannot. Maybe we could account for a constant change in distance between the two particles while correcting the distance constantly as soon as the acceleration would have stopped, and as long as we wouldn't change the speed of the system. That's what they do for the GPS: they check the satellites' clocks at constant intervals, and they correct them if they are a bit out of sync with the earthbound ones. Fortunately, it doesn't prevent the system from working properly.

Quote
What happens if the particles are already moving and something acts on the front one to decelerate it? That would lead to the particles becoming closer together as they slow down. We'll be able to test that with the simulation, but there are a lot of things that clearly won't work and really shouldn't need to be tested.
In my model, no motion with regard to ether means no doppler effect between the particles, so if we accelerate the system to the right and stop it afterwards, there shouldn't be any doppler effect left between the particles. If contraction happens at acceleration and if we stop the system after a while, contraction should also resorb, not increase. It might increase for a while and then rebound the same way a balloon contracts and rebounds. How to stop the system without getting a rebound is another problem. It probably has to be slowed down progressively until it hits a limit that the particles cannot account for.

Quote
I'll postpone the acquisition of a new machine because they keep getting better over time and it's always best to wait as long as you can.
Looks like my limit problem! Did you give it a dead line? :0)

Quote
The program simply calculates an acceleration force whenever a bar hits a particle by comparing the speeds of the receiving particle and the source particle (using the speed of the source particle when that bar was sent out from it rather than its current speed because they aren't always the same if you've nudged a particle). This provides an energy value equivalent to the Doppler shift.
It works when there is only one bar to account for, but if we had a thousand bars, we would need a thousand variables to account for them, and I suspect it would be too heavy. If we had a thousand bars to account for the distance between the beeps from particle A, the bars would automatically bring the doppler shift to particle B, and it could move along with the bars to keep beeping on sync with them. Of course, a thousand bars might be too close to one another for us to observe the shift, but we could show only one out of ten and get a good enough picture.

I didn't have time to study the language today, but I'll have it tomorrow. I'm eager to be able to handle the software a bit.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: phyti on 21/08/2017 18:03:51
The bond in question is the one that permits atoms to form molecules, or that permits nucleons to form nucleus.
The 1st is em fields, the electron cloud, the basis of chemistry.
The 2nd is the strong force, quark-gluon interactions, which is many orders of magnitude greater than the 1st.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/08/2017 18:40:25
Hi Phity,

You're right about the kind of bonds, but the idea is to consider that those bonds are executed at no more than the speed of light, and then simulate what could happen if we accelerate the system. In fact, it is a relativity issue applied to the scale of particles. Do you know how to handle JavaScript?
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: phyti on 21/08/2017 19:14:03
Hi Phity,

You're right about the kind of bonds, but the idea is to consider that those bonds are executed at no more than the speed of light, and then simulate what could happen if we accelerate the system. In fact, it is a relativity issue applied to the scale of particles. Do you know how to handle JavaScript?
No, but it has similarities to other languages.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/08/2017 20:52:53
You're welcome to participate if you wish. The issue is uncertain, but the pleasure is proportional to the uncertainty. :0)
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 22/08/2017 00:48:57
While accelerating both particles before their acceleration had the time to accelerate the other particle, I succeeded to contract them to less than zero distance, so that they were crisscrossing each other continuously. I could even imagine that they were orbiting one around the other. Then I accelerated them more, and they began staying on the wrong side of the screen, sending their bars away from the other particle, nevertheless continuing to make an effect on one another, as if the software was sending invisible bars between them.

Once you've got the blue particle to the left of the yellow one, you break the collision detection mechanism and get false hits which reset the acceleration forces. The hits occur as soon as a bar reaches or is found to be past its target particle, so once the particles have passed each other, you get an immediate false hit as soon as a new bar is sent out. That could be fixed by modifying the code in cd() to prevent a hit being registered if y>b: e.g. if(r<=y && cdr==0 && y<b){...etc. So, the orbiting is fake - once yellow is to the right of blue, the acceleration shouldn't be changed again unless it is already strong enough to bring yellow back to the left of blue.

Quote
We get the same kind of result when we try to use light to produce orbital motion between two bodies: they begin to swirl away from one another. My model should help us to analyze that problem. When we nudge particle A, we automatically contract the distance between the two particles, but also between the bars, so I think that if a bar would be emitted at each beep, the first bar to be out of sync with particle B would strike it too soon, not too late, and since it is the inverse for particle B, its bars would strike particle A too late, not too soon. Since the frequency of the bars is very low on the simulation, I could contract the distance a lot because I could nudge A a lot of times before it emitted a bar that would account for the acceleration. With bars emitted at a higher frequency, the distance between the bars would contract sooner and the bars would thus nudge the other particle sooner.

The frequency of the bars is already 1000 times as high as visible light - we're running the simulation very slowly at the moment, and we're also using very high accelerations. I think it would be better not to keep applying the acceleration between the bars, but just to apply one acceleration at the time of each hit and then run the simulation a bit faster (but not so much faster that we can no longer see what the bars are doing). We can then use bigger accelerations, and importantly, the particles won't get out of control so easily if we increase the forces. Of course, the bars needn't only occur once per crest/trough of a wave - we can have 2,4, 8, maybe 16 or more of them because the receiving particle can compare them with some component of itself that oscillates at the same frequency (a clock) and which can continually tell when there's Doppler shift and react to it. We needn't show all the bars either - we can adjust the accelerations continually whether there's a bar shown on the screen reaching a particle or not. This would make everything much quicker at adjusting to speed changes of the other particle and keep things under better control.That would mean we don't need to speed up the sim and that we can keep the bars visible and moving at sensible speeds across the screen while having much more responsive action going on.

Quote
Nevertheless, I think that the particles would not stay at a constant distance from one another after the acceleration would have stopped. Why? Because we cannot account for the steps between their components. Nature accounts for them, and it even accounts for the steps between their own components, but a simulation cannot.

A simulation can do everything - you just have to work out what the rules are that it is to apply, and part of that will involve defining what a step is.

Quote
Maybe we could account for a constant change in distance between the two particles while correcting the distance constantly as soon as the acceleration would have stopped, and as long as we wouldn't change the speed of the system. That's what they do for the GPS: they check the satellites' clocks at constant intervals, and they correct them if they are a bit out of sync with the earthbound ones. Fortunately, it doesn't prevent the system from working properly.

One thing shows up clearly from the existing simulation, and that is that just responding to Doppler shift with simple rules doesn't work - the particles get closer together as you accelerate them, but they also get closer together as you decelerate them. You need to find rules that move them further apart again on deceleration to restore the original separation when they're at rest again. Particles are clocks (in that they have functionality that operates in cycles), so you could use that to maintain distances between particles which would contract the separation length at higher speeds of travel exactly as relativity has them contract, but the problem with that is that they aren't pinging serial numbers back and forwards to each other in any way that would tell a particle that it's been sent a reply to a specific message which can be used to calculate the apparent round-trip distance, so what can you have that would be a more realistic mechanism? Forces that reduce over distance can do it. Standing waves might do it. Whatever you decide to try out, all you have to do is work out the rules as to what effects what, when it affects it, and how it affects it, then you should be able to produce the right maths to go with it and fit that into a simple program which can run the maths and rules. You also have to work out what the results of a simulation actually say - when you see two particles taking turns to wobble a bit to the right and then to the left such that they're repeatedly getting further apart then closer together, that looks to me like heat energy which doesn't add to their combined motion, and it's energy that could be radiated off.

Quote
In my model, no motion with regard to ether means no doppler effect between the particles, so if we accelerate the system to the right and stop it afterwards, there shouldn't be any doppler effect left between the particles. If contraction happens at acceleration and if we stop the system after a while, contraction should also resorb, not increase. It might increase for a while and then rebound the same way a balloon contracts and rebounds. How to stop the system without getting a rebound is another problem. It probably has to be slowed down progressively until it hits a limit that the particles cannot account for.

One problem with your model is that you accelerate these bonded particles by accelerating only the rear one. In the real universe you can pull something up to higher speed and it still length-contracts. What happens if we reverse the direction of the "nudge blue left" button to turn it into "nudge blue right" (while adjusting the code that does the actual nudging)? All you need to do to try it out is change a negative to a plus in the function nudgeb(). ... Yes, they settle down after a while further apart than they started. This is the sort of thing your theory needs to fix in a hurry.

Quote
It works when there is only one bar to account for, but if we had a thousand bars, we would need a thousand variables to account for them, and I suspect it would be too heavy.

It can handle a hundred bars, and probably a thousand - the thing to avoid is displaying them to the screen because that's what really slows things down in JavaScript. (It wouldn't be a problem for a machine code program with more direct control of screen memory, but we're using JavaScript for reasons of simplicity and compatibility.)

Quote
If we had a thousand bars to account for the distance between the beeps from particle A, the bars would automatically bring the doppler shift to particle B, and it could move along with the bars to keep beeping on sync with them. Of course, a thousand bars might be too close to one another for us to observe the shift, but we could show only one out of ten and get a good enough picture.

I don't know what you mean by having particles move along with the bars - we don't want the particles moving at c.

Quote
I didn't have time to study the language today, but I'll have it tomorrow. I'm eager to be able to handle the software a bit.

There's not much to it. The accelerations are calculated in cd() and are then applied in run(). I've made a new version in which the accelerations are only applied once per bar and where those accelerations are stronger, but it doesn't look greatly different and still goes out of control if you increase the fundamental acceleration force, so there's no point in posting it until I've created more "hidden bars" to adjust the accelerations more often - it should end up as a much better version of the program.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 22/08/2017 19:47:24
Once you've got the blue particle to the left of the yellow one, you break the collision detection mechanism and get false hits which reset the acceleration forces. The hits occur as soon as a bar reaches or is found to be past its target particle, so once the particles have passed each other, you get an immediate false hit as soon as a new bar is sent out. That could be fixed by modifying the code in cd() to prevent a hit being registered if y>b: e.g. if(r<=y && cdr==0 && y<b){...etc. So, the orbiting is fake - once yellow is to the right of blue, the acceleration shouldn't be changed again unless it is already strong enough to bring yellow back to the left of blue.
I get it!

Quote
The frequency of the bars is already 1000 times as high as visible light - we're running the simulation very slowly at the moment, and we're also using very high accelerations. I think it would be better not to keep applying the acceleration between the bars, but just to apply one acceleration at the time of each hit and then run the simulation a bit faster (but not so much faster that we can no longer see what the bars are doing). We can then use bigger accelerations, and importantly, the particles won't get out of control so easily if we increase the forces. Of course, the bars needn't only occur once per crest/trough of a wave - we can have 2,4, 8, maybe 16 or more of them because the receiving particle can compare them with some component of itself that oscillates at the same frequency (a clock) and which can continually tell when there's Doppler shift and react to it. We needn't show all the bars either - we can adjust the accelerations continually whether there's a bar shown on the screen reaching a particle or not. This would make everything much quicker at adjusting to speed changes of the other particle and keep things under better control.That would mean we don't need to speed up the sim and that we can keep the bars visible and moving at sensible speeds across the screen while having much more responsive action going on.
Why not emit a bar only when hitting the nudge button, and add a function to keep nudging as long as the button is on? This way, if we would stop nudging A before the bar would hit B, we could better study the effect an acceleration of A would have on B and vice-versa. B should move the same way A had moved before, and A should stop moving at the same rate it took to accelerate, it should thus get at rest before the bar from B would have the time to begin nudging it again. In principle, the motion of each particle should look like a wave, and that wave should get more complex if we would go on nudging A after the bar would hit B.

Quote
A simulation can do everything - you just have to work out what the rules are that it is to apply, and part of that will involve defining what a step is.
The wavelike motion I'm describing is what I call a step, and if we were to account for the components, they would be making similar steps but at a much higher frequency. In fact, the more frequent steps between the components would have to travel the same distance one step between the particles would have to travel during the same time. It would also be the light escaped from the frequent components' steps that would produce later on the less frequent steps between the particles.

Quote
One thing shows up clearly from the existing simulation, and that is that just responding to Doppler shift with simple rules doesn't work - the particles get closer together as you accelerate them, but they also get closer together as you decelerate them.
I'm not sure that we would get a contraction with what I am suggesting to try. I think that there would be no overall contraction if we would stop nudging A before the first bar hits B for example, but what would happen if we would go on nudging A is too complicated for me to figure out. We could add a variable to tell us the distance between the two wavelike motion of the particles, but if we would use the beginning of those waves as a marker for instance, I think that the distance would always stay the same. The same reasoning would apply if we would nudge B away from A: it would create the same wavelike motion between the particles, and no difference in distance should be observed between the waves.

Quote
You also have to work out what the results of a simulation actually say - when you see two particles taking turns to wobble a bit to the right and then to the left such that they're repeatedly getting further apart then closer together, that looks to me like heat energy which doesn't add to their combined motion, and it's energy that could be radiated off.
That wobbling happens because we are nudging the particles towards one another. If we could nudge them at the same time, they should vibrate on the spot. It is that deduction that made me guess such a vibration could be the cause for the increasing force we observe while compressing a solid body.

Quote from: David
Quote
If we had a thousand bars to account for the distance between the beeps from particle A, the bars would automatically bring the doppler shift to particle B, and it could move along with the bars to keep beeping on sync with them. Of course, a thousand bars might be too close to one another for us to observe the shift, but we could show only one out of ten and get a good enough picture.
I don't know what you mean by having particles move along with the bars - we don't want the particles moving at c.
A particle has to begin moving when the beep arrives, and it has to stop moving when the beep leaves, so that was only a technical way for B to beep on sync with the wave with only a bar to guide its motion. I now think that if we nudge B with a bar that remembers A's nudge, and if A and B decelerate the same way they have accelerated, nudge by nudge, then we should get the wavelike motion I am talking about.

Quote
There's not much to it. The accelerations are calculated in cd() and are then applied in run(). I've made a new version in which the accelerations are only applied once per bar and where those accelerations are stronger, but it doesn't look greatly different and still goes out of control if you increase the fundamental acceleration force, so there's no point in posting it until I've created more "hidden bars" to adjust the accelerations more often - it should end up as a much better version of the program.
More hidden bars, and if you think it's worth trying it, a bar emitted by A only at the moment we hit the nudge button, which means that a bar would be emitted by B only at the moment the bar from A would hit it, and so on for all the next bars. I suggest that the nudge button becomes unavailable as soon as we raise the finger from the mouse, so that only one bar is displayed on the screen at each attempt.

I tried the last version again, and I realized that A began moving backward after having been nudged forward whenever a bar from B would hit it. At most, A should decelerate to rest if B was at rest when its bar was emitted, and if it was moving to the right, that bar should pull A to the right.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 23/08/2017 00:29:47
Why not emit a bar only when hitting the nudge button, and add a function to keep nudging as long as the button is on?

How much nudging does it need? If you want to repeat a nudge many times, click the button and then hold down the return key to repeat its action many times, but it shouldn't need many repeats. If you want different nudge code, you can redesign it and add new buttons for different sizes of nudge.

Quote
This way, if we would stop nudging A before the bar would hit B, we could better study the effect an acceleration of A would have on B and vice-versa. B should move the same way A had moved before, and A should stop moving at the same rate it took to accelerate, it should thus get at rest before the bar from B would have the time to begin nudging it again. In principle, the motion of each particle should look like a wave, and that wave should get more complex if we would go on nudging A after the bar would hit B.

The only way to get B to accelerate in the same way A did would be to send a lot more signals out from A as its speed changes. At the moment, if you click nudge in the pattern N_N_N_N between bar hits it has the same effect as using the pattern NN__NN______N or NNNNN because all that does is add five times an additional amount of speed to the particle. If you want to change the way the particle accelerates, you need to apply a different amounts of nudging between bars over several cycles. Sending out a new bar for each nudge would be a very different way of working, taking us away from a light frequency into nudge frequency, and that would eliminate the role of light in any meaningful sense. The bars would transfer the same information though, bouncing to and fro between the particles until the speeds are equalised, at which point the bars could be absorbed and not be sent back, but the effect of this on the particles would be very little different from what we're already doing except that the frequency of the exchange of information would be much more variable.

Quote
The wave I'm describing is what I call a step, and if we were to account for the components, they would be making similar steps but at a much higher frequency. In fact, the numerous steps between the components would have to travel the same distance than one step between the particles, and in the same time. It would also be the light escaped from the numerous components' steps that would produce later on the step between the particles.

How does light escape? What are the rules that explain when this happens and how much light escapes?

Quote
I'm not sure that we would get a contraction with what I am suggesting to try. I think that there would be no overall contraction if we would stop nudging A before the first bar hits B for example, but what would happen if we would go on nudging A is too complicated for me to figure out.

As it stands, there is nothing to determine distance between the particles other than how much they have been nudged closer together, so you need to add an additional mechanism to the model to handle it.

Quote
We could add a variable to tell us the distance between the two wavelike motion of the particles, but if we would use the beginning of the waves as a marker for instance, I think that the distance would always stay the same. The same reasoning would apply if we would nudge B away from A: it would create the same wavelike motion between the particles, and no difference in distance should be observed between the waves.

You need to come up with some maths to drive the action such that the particles regulate their relative positions. Everything needs to be specified in terms of causes and effects. If it involves equations, show the equations and explain what to do with the numbers that are produced from them. Then we can work out how to rewrite them as program code. What we cannot do is program for fuzzy notions which haven't been expanded into a full set of "if x then do y" rules.

Quote
That wobbling happens because we are nudging the particles towards one another. If we could nudge them at the same time, they should vibrate on the spot. It is that deduction that made me guess such a vibration could be the cause for the increasing force we observe while compressing a solid body.

I actually see with the latest version (not ready to post yet) the vibrating disappearing quickly with the "heat" energy vanishing by magic. I'll need to think about why that happens.

Quote
A particle has to begin moving when the wave arrives, and it has to stop moving when the wave leaves, so that was only a technical way for B to beep on sync with the wave with only a bar to guide its motion. I now think that if we nudge B with a bar that remembers A's nudge, and if A and B decelerate the same way they have accelerated, nudge by nudge, then we should get the wavelike motion I am talking about.

Rather than repeatedly rewriting the simulation code, it might be better just to write a full description of the rules that a simulation should run. That means producing a list of rules stating things like, "when a bar hits a particle, x should be added to its speed", and "if a bar has been received and hasn't been completely absorbed, a new bar should be sent out the other way with the value y tied to it", etc. I want to see a tight specification for the simulation that tells me exactly what it should be programmed to do so that there's nothing left needing to be guessed at.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 24/08/2017 21:48:09
Hi David,

I'm trying to figure out how particle A would behave if we would stop the acceleration after a few nudges, and I have a hard time. A should stop moving after a while because it faces blueshift from B, but the same blueshift can be obtained during a long but weak acceleration, and during a short but strong one, a difference I think a real particle cannot account for just by considering the doppler effect it produces on the waves from the other particle. The problem is simpler when doppler effect from A hits B: B only has to accelerate for its own waves to stay on sync with the waves from A, and it could decelerate the same way if it had that information from A. Of course, we could also consider that A would decelerate for its waves to get back on sync with the waves from B, but at what rate? We could also consider that it is B that is accelerating towards A, but we wouldn't know either its rate of deceleration.

Well, either I'm slow or I'm wrong, because I still don't understand the picture after two days. You have any idea? Is there something I don't get?
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 25/08/2017 02:54:06
I'm trying to figure out how particle A would behave if we would stop the acceleration after a few nudges, and I have a hard time. A should stop moving after a while because it faces blueshift from B, but the same blueshift can be obtained during a long but weak acceleration, and during a short but strong one, a difference I think a real particle cannot account for just by considering the doppler effect it produces on the waves from the other particle.

The problem is the long delays in changing the acceleration, but the new version (see below sends fifteen invisible bars in between the visible ones, so you get better speed adjustments. You can now nudge A a few times, wait a couple of seconds, then nudge it again a few times just before the red bar hits it - you will then see B react to the two accelerations separately. You will also find delays in each particle responding to the accelerations of the other, but they gradually settle down until they are moving at the same speed.

Quote
The problem is simpler when doppler effect from A hits B: B only has to accelerate for its own waves to stay on sync with the waves from A, and it could decelerate the same way if it had that information from A. Of course, we could also consider that A would decelerate for its waves to get back on sync with the waves from B, but at what rate? We could also consider that it is B that is accelerating towards A, but we wouldn't know either its rate of deceleration.

It would be possible to get the program to give you lists of numbers as to how the particles accelerated and decelerated, but you can get a fair idea of what those numbers would be just by watching how they behave visually. The relative motion of the particles is clearly damped.

The program still breaks if the particles pass each other, but they shouldn't be able to reach each other anyway if they maintain their separation properly - that needs different rules. As it stands, they get closer together both on acceleration and deceleration. If you click on "nudge yellow" and then hold down the return key, you'll see that the acceleration stops working after a short time - this is because it is reacting to the difference in speed between the two particles and it is being slowed down more as the speed difference grows. Another problem with the program at the moment is that it allows particles to accelerate to >c, but there's no need to rush to improve that as there are more important things to fix with the theory. Note that the function cd() has been removed - its content has been moved into the main function run(). The program is more bulky, but the additions to it since the last time are really just duplications of bar functionality to handle 16 times as many bars as before, though they are invisible bars. It may be worth making some or all of them visible in the next version.

Code: [Select]
`<HTML><HEAD> <TITLE>Theory Simulation</TITLE> <script type="text/javascript"> window.setInterval("run()",8) // controls repetition rate function run() { t+=gr; // advance time by granularity unit ty+=gr; tb+=gr // advance time counters too // next we'll update the bar positions r+=rv*gr; g+=gv*gr; // first the visible bars r1+=rv*gr; g1+=gv*gr; // then the hidden bars r2+=rv*gr; g2+=gv*gr; r3+=rv*gr; g3+=gv*gr; r4+=rv*gr; g4+=gv*gr; r5+=rv*gr; g5+=gv*gr; r6+=rv*gr; g6+=gv*gr; r7+=rv*gr; g7+=gv*gr; r8+=rv*gr; g8+=gv*gr; r9+=rv*gr; g9+=gv*gr; r10+=rv*gr; g10+=gv*gr; r11+=rv*gr; g11+=gv*gr; r12+=rv*gr; g12+=gv*gr; r13+=rv*gr; g13+=gv*gr; r14+=rv*gr; g14+=gv*gr; r15+=rv*gr; g15+=gv*gr; // Next part reuses old bars for new ones, and it stores // speed of particle at time of new bar emission. if(ty>=fb){if(srb==16){srb=0} // identify bar to reuse    ty=0; // reset count for the next reuse of a bar    if(srb==0){r=b; cdr=0; pbv=bv}    else{if(srb==1){r1=b; cdr1=0; pbv1=bv}    else{if(srb==2){r2=b; cdr2=0; pbv2=bv}    else{if(srb==3){r3=b; cdr3=0; pbv3=bv}    else{if(srb==4){r4=b; cdr4=0; pbv4=bv}    else{if(srb==5){r5=b; cdr5=0; pbv5=bv}    else{if(srb==6){r6=b; cdr6=0; pbv6=bv}    else{if(srb==7){r7=b; cdr7=0; pbv7=bv}    else{if(srb==8){r8=b; cdr8=0; pbv8=bv}    else{if(srb==9){r9=b; cdr9=0; pbv9=bv}    else{if(srb==10){r10=b; cdr10=0; pbv10=bv}    else{if(srb==11){r11=b; cdr11=0; pbv11=bv}    else{if(srb==12){r12=b; cdr12=0; pbv12=bv}    else{if(srb==13){r13=b; cdr13=0; pbv13=bv}    else{if(srb==14){r14=b; cdr14=0; pbv14=bv}    else{r15=b; cdr15=0; pbv15=bv;    }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}   srb+=1} if(tb>=fy){if(sgb==16){sgb=0} // same for green bars    tb=0;    if(sgb==0){g=y; cdg=0; pyv=yv}    else{if(sgb==1){g1=y; cdg1=0; pyv1=yv}    else{if(sgb==2){g2=y; cdg2=0; pyv2=yv}    else{if(sgb==3){g3=y; cdg3=0; pyv3=yv}    else{if(sgb==4){g4=y; cdg4=0; pyv4=yv}    else{if(sgb==5){g5=y; cdg5=0; pyv5=yv}    else{if(sgb==6){g6=y; cdg6=0; pyv6=yv}    else{if(sgb==7){g7=y; cdg7=0; pyv7=yv}    else{if(sgb==8){g8=y; cdg8=0; pyv8=yv}    else{if(sgb==9){g9=y; cdg9=0; pyv9=yv}    else{if(sgb==10){g10=y; cdg10=0; pyv10=yv}    else{if(sgb==11){g11=y; cdg11=0; pyv11=yv}    else{if(sgb==12){g12=y; cdg12=0; pyv12=yv}    else{if(sgb==13){g13=y; cdg13=0; pyv13=yv}    else{if(sgb==14){g14=y; cdg14=0; pyv14=yv}    else{g15=y; cdg15=0; pyv15=yv;    }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}   sgb+=1} // Now we apply any accelerations & update particle positions ha=0.5*ya*a // get half y's acceleration value y+=yv+ha; // add y's old velocity+ha to its position yv+=ya*a; // add y's acceleration value to its velocity ha=0.5*ba*a // get half b's acceleration value b+=bv+ha; // add b's velocity+ha to its position bv+=ba*a; // add b's acceleration value to its velocity ya=0; ba=0; // prevent repeat accelerations for same bar // and now we update screen positions ir.style.left=r*4+ro; // calculate bars' newscreen position ig.style.left=g*4+go; // (4 units = one picometre) iy.style.left=y*4; // calculate particle screen positions ib.style.left=b*4+bo; yloc.innerHTML=y; bloc.innerHTML=b; // update screen data ping1.innerHTML=yv; ping2.innerHTML=bv; // And then we have to deal with bars hitting particles // This used to be done in a separate function called cd() // (the "cd" part standing for collision detection) if(r<=y && cdr==0){ya=pbv-yv; cdr=1} if(g>=b && cdg==0){ba=pyv-bv; cdg=1} if(r1<=y && cdr1==0){ya=pbv1-yv; cdr1=1} if(g1>=b && cdg1==0){ba=pyv1-bv; cdg1=1} if(r2<=y && cdr2==0){ya=pbv2-yv; cdr2=1} if(g2>=b && cdg2==0){ba=pyv2-bv; cdg2=1} if(r3<=y && cdr3==0){ya=pbv3-yv; cdr3=1} if(g3>=b && cdg3==0){ba=pyv3-bv; cdg3=1} if(r4<=y && cdr4==0){ya=pbv4-yv; cdr4=1} if(g4>=b && cdg4==0){ba=pyv4-bv; cdg4=1} if(r5<=y && cdr5==0){ya=pbv5-yv; cdr5=1} if(g5>=b && cdg5==0){ba=pyv5-bv; cdg5=1} if(r6<=y && cdr6==0){ya=pbv6-yv; cdr6=1} if(g6>=b && cdg6==0){ba=pyv6-bv; cdg6=1} if(r7<=y && cdr7==0){ya=pbv7-yv; cdr7=1} if(g7>=b && cdg7==0){ba=pyv7-bv; cdg7=1} if(r8<=y && cdr8==0){ya=pbv8-yv; cdr8=1} if(g8>=b && cdg8==0){ba=pyv8-bv; cdg8=1} if(r9<=y && cdr9==0){ya=pbv9-yv; cdr9=1} if(g9>=b && cdg9==0){ba=pyv9-bv; cdg9=1} if(r10<=y && cdr10==0){ya=pbv10-yv; cdr10=1} if(g10>=b && cdg10==0){ba=pyv10-bv; cdg10=1} if(r11<=y && cdr11==0){ya=pbv11-yv; cdr11=1} if(g11>=b && cdg11==0){ba=pyv11-bv; cdg11=1} if(r12<=y && cdr12==0){ya=pbv12-yv; cdr12=1} if(g12>=b && cdg12==0){ba=pyv12-bv; cdg12=1} if(r13<=y && cdr13==0){ya=pbv13-yv; cdr13=1} if(g13>=b && cdg13==0){ba=pyv13-bv; cdg13=1} if(r14<=y && cdr14==0){ya=pbv14-yv; cdr14=1} if(g14>=b && cdg14==0){ba=pyv14-bv; cdg14=1} if(r15<=y && cdr15==0){ya=pbv15-yv; cdr15=1} if(g15>=b && cdg15==0){ba=pyv15-bv; cdg15=1} } function setup() // we might use this later { }// All variables are created and initialised here:- c=0.3 // speed of light in pm/zs. gr=1; // granularity for simulation in zeptoseconds       // we can adjust this to speed/slow the action y=-100; b=100; // initial x-coord locations of the dots         bo=-50; // offset to correct b's display location yv=0; bv=0; // set initial speeds for particles pyv=0; pbv=0; // particle speeds when light bars sent out // more vars like pyv and pbv for hidden bars pyv1=0; pbv1=0; pyv2=0; pbv2=0; pyv3=0; pbv3=0; pyv4=0; pbv4=0; pyv5=0; pbv5=0; pyv6=0; pbv6=0; pyv7=0; pbv7=0; pyv8=0; pbv8=0; pyv9=0; pbv9=0; pyv10=0; pbv10=0; pyv11=0; pbv11=0; pyv12=0; pbv12=0; pyv13=0; pbv13=0; pyv14=0; pbv14=0; pyv15=0; pbv15=0; srb=0; sgb=0; // to keep track of which bars last sent rrb=0; rgb=0; // to keep track of which bars last received // srb = sent red bar, sgb = sent green bar, rrb = received red... // These will count up 1, 2, 3, 0, 1, 2, 3, 0, etc. // or up to 7 before going back to 0, or up to 15. r=100; g=-100; // initial locations of the bars ro=-87; go=-112; // offsets to correct bar display loc.s rv=-c; gv=c; // speeds for bars // more vars like r and g for hidden bars:- r1=0; g1=0; r2=0; g2=0; r3=0; g3=0; r4=0; g4=0; r5=0; g5=0; r6=0; g6=0; r7=0; g7=0; r8=0; g8=0; r9=0; g9=0; r10=0; g10=0; r11=0; g11=0; r12=0; g12=0; r13=0; g13=0; r14=0; g14=0; r15=0; g15=0; t=0; // time in zeptoseconds ty=0; // timer to emit new bars from yellow particle tb=0; // and another for blue particle d=200; // distance in picometres fy=64; // initial bonding-light "frequencies" fb=64; // (one for each particle) [1000 = 1x10^18Hz] // These aren't frequencies, but no. of zeptoseconds/cycle // Now using 250 to have four bars per cycle, three hidden. a=0.5; // acceleration strength factor ha=0; // variable to store a value temporarily ya=0; // acceleration value applying to yellow ba=0; // acceleration value for blue particle cdr=0;cdg=0; // collision detection var.s - these are used to      // restrict it to one registered hit each time to      // avoid false hits after bar has passed particle // more vars like cdr and cdg for hidden bars:- cdr1=0; cdg1=0; cdr2=0; cdg2=0; cdr3=0; cdg3=0; cdr4=0; cdg4=0; cdr5=0; cdg5=0; cdr6=0; cdg6=0; cdr7=0; cdg7=0; cdr8=0; cdg8=0; cdr9=0; cdg9=0; cdr10=0; cdg10=0; cdr10=0; cdg10=0; cdr11=0; cdg11=0; cdr12=0; cdg12=0; cdr13=0; cdg13=0; cdr14=0; cdg14=0; cdr13=0; cdg15=0;// (milli, micro, nano, pico, femto, atto, zepto) function inca() // increase strength of acceleration force { a*=2; force.innerHTML=a} function deca() // decrease strength of acceleration force { a*=0.5; force.innerHTML=a} function nudgey() // accelerate y to right { yv+=0.05} function nudgeb() // accelerate b to left { bv-=0.05} </script></HEAD><BODY onload="setup()" style="background-color:black;color:white;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:18pt"><blockquote> <center><H1>Theory Simulation</H1><br><br><tt><b id="iy" style="position:relative;left:-400;top:0;font-size:60;color:yellow">.</b><b id="ib" style="position:relative;left:350;top:0;font-size:60;color:#0020ff">.</b><b id="ir" style="position:relative;left:313;top:2;font-size:18;color:red">|</b><b id="ig" style="position:relative;left:-512;top:2;font-size:18;color:#00ff00">|</b></tt></center><p>Yellow's location = <a id="yloc"></a><br>Blue's location = <a id="bloc"></a><p>Latest speed of yellow particle = <a id="ping1"></a><br>Latest speed of blue particle = <a id="ping2"></a><p>Fundamental force strength = <a id="force">0.5</a><p> <input type="button" value="Force +" onclick="inca()"/> <input type="button" value="Force -" onclick="deca()"/> <input type="button" value="Nudge yellow right" onclick="nudgey()"/> <input type="button" value="Nudge blue left" onclick="nudgeb()"/><p>Click a "nudge" button to start things moving.</BODY></HTML>`
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 26/08/2017 19:24:57
Nice improvements David! We're beginning to get what we're expecting.

Quote
It would be possible to get the program to give you lists of numbers as to how the particles accelerated and decelerated, but you can get a fair idea of what those numbers would be just by watching how they behave visually. The relative motion of the particles is clearly damped.
Here are a few observations:

-When we nudge A only once, there shouldn't be any damping after a while and there is: B should be making the same step A had made before and vice-versa.

-It also seems to accelerate faster than it decelerates, but it shouldn't be so since you use the same acceleration formula in both cases. Is there another reason why the two rates wouldn't be the same?

-The mean distance between the particles also reduces constantly after a while with only one nudge and it should not, unless we think that bodies should be shrinking with time.

-The speed of the particles also gets down with time after only one nudge and it should not, otherwise inertial motion would not be constant at our scale. Maybe the reason they do so is the same that causes the damping.

I discovered something interesting about a phenomenon that I considered a problem: since the distance light travels between the particles is longer to the right than to the left, they should be running like animals, making a long jump ahead with the rear legs because the front legs are getting away from them, and a short jump with the front legs because the rear legs are catching them. Chronologically, there should be more time between A and B than between B and A (like this:  A BA  BA  BA  BA  ...),   but as for animals, it shouldn't affect their overall speed. I thought it would cause a synchronization problem, but as we can see, it is not the case for animals, so it should not be the case for particles either.

About the deceleration A suffers after it has accelerated during the time it sends one bar, we can use its speed and decelerate it to rest during one bar too, but if it had accelerated during ten bars, how could it know it has to decelerate during ten bars? The only thing A can know instantly is if the incoming bars from B arrive at the same time it sends its own bars, and if they arrive too soon because it has been accelerated towards B, it knows it has to decelerate, but it doesn't know how fast. It could stop moving and wait till the bars from the acceleration of B are back, and then it could move toward B at each incoming bar to stay on sync with the bars, but it means that B also would stop to move and wait for the bars from A to be back. I don't know what would happen to the bond during a long acceleration, but I think it's worth a trial. It is interesting to note that even if this way, the atoms would stop moving inside the molecule, the molecule itself would not stop moving. We can even compare with our own feet that stop on the ground while we keep on moving. But this behavior causes a problem: during the time an atom would be waiting for the light from the other atom to come in, its components would always be moving, because it takes a lot less time for their light to make the roundtrip.

I also use to say that randomness is the characteristic of any change, so that particles should accelerate (and decelerate) at random and let the environment chose the right direction or speed, but I think it is too soon to consider that possibility.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 27/08/2017 01:06:10
-When we nudge A only once, there shouldn't be any damping after a while and there is: B should be making the same step A had made before and vice-versa.

There's a problem with the timing of the nudges which leads to it having wildly different effects on the distance travelled by a particle before it is slowed or halted by a bar - it would be better if the nudges could only take place at times when that particle is also being hit by a bar rather than at any points between bar arrivals. I suspect this may also have allowed some energy to go missing. It show how easy it is for bugs to mess up even a simple program.

The damping is caused when the fundamental force is set to 0.5 or lower because that spreads the effect from one time slice over two or more slices, and over time that spreads the responses across all 16 time slices and thereby equalises the speeds of the two particles (if you wait long enough). Click the "Force+" button to set it to 1 instead of 0.5, and then you can see that the particles respond to each other by copying the each other's action each time without any damping. Higher values amplify the difference and send the particles ever faster in opposite directions, so they shouldn't be used.

Quote
-It also seems to accelerate faster than it decelerates, but it shouldn't be so since you use the same acceleration formula in both cases. Is there another reason why the two rates wouldn't be the same?

That was again the fault of the fundamental force not being set to 1 - it seems obvious now that it should never have been set to any other value, and yet I think it had to be much lower with earlier versions of the program to stop it going wrong (I can't now remember why that was the case), and it still isn't behaving properly with it set to 1, so there's a bug that needs to be fixed.

Quote
-The mean distance between the particles also reduces constantly after a while with only one nudge and it should not, unless we think that bodies should be shrinking with time.

I don't think I've seen that happen - they settle down to the same speed because of the damping and then the separation becomes fixed (i.e. constant), but even when it's varying, I think the average separation is already fixed.

Quote
-The speed of the particles also gets down with time after only one nudge and it should not, otherwise inertial motion would not be constant at our scale. Maybe the reason they do so is the same that causes the damping.

The average speed should not fall, but if there is damping (due to using 0.5 for the so-called "fundamental force" - it turns out that this is really just a damping value), the speed appears to fall, but it is merely being shared out more evenly over time.

Quote
I discovered something interesting about a phenomenon that I considered a problem: since the distance light travels between the particles is longer to the right than to the left, they should be running like animals, making a long jump ahead with the rear legs because the front legs are getting away from them, and a short jump with the front legs because the rear legs are catching them.

WIth the damping removed, the distance can be restored repeatedly to the original separation, but on average it is reduced as the particles move faster. When the bug is fixed, it should be possible to have a nudge in a series of time slices narrow the gap a lot further before the front particle reacts to the first one, at which point it will respond to the first by removing some of the contraction before it is contracted a bit more by the next, and it will never be able to remove all the contraction because the rear particle is accelerating and decelerating just as often. I think this is getting closer to what you wanted to do from the start, so the bug needs to be fixed to make it happen. It will be interesting to see if it can be done in a way that ties in with relativity's length-contraction, and maybe it can once we add in the effects of relativistic mass (which is, after all, the real cause of length-contraction anyway).

Quote
About the deceleration A suffers after it has accelerated during the time it sends one bar, we can use its speed and decelerate it to rest during one bar too, but if it had accelerated during ten bars, how could it know it has to decelerate during ten bars?

That's easy enough - each bar carries a stored value with it for the speed of the particle that it came from recorded at the time when it left, so if you have an acceleration in each of ten time slices, they will be delivered to the other particle by ten different bars and it will respond in ten time slices too.

Quote
It is interesting to note that even if this way, the atoms would stop moving inside the molecule, the molecule itself would not stop moving.

With the force set to 1 instead of 0.5, you see one particle move and then stop, then the other particle reacts a while later by doing the same thing, then the first particle repeats its original action when the signals get back to it, and on it goes like that. On average the particle is moving the whole time, but much of the time both particles are stationary (and simultaneously stationary too). But the action is carried on by the signals in flight between the two which are in a sense carrying energy.

Quote
But this behavior causes a problem: during the time an atom would be waiting for the light from the other atom to come in, its components would always be moving, because it takes a lot less time for their light to make the roundtrip.

Spread out particles where you can't pin down where and when they are... Sounds familiar, so not necessarily a problem. Anyway, I'll see if I can fix the program and then we can advance it further.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 27/08/2017 23:07:07
There's a problem with the timing of the nudges which leads to it having wildly different effects on the distance traveled by a particle before it is slowed or halted by a bar - it would be better if the nudges could only take place at times when that particle is also being hit by a bar rather than at any points between bar arrivals. I suspect this may also have allowed some energy to go missing. It shows how easy it is for bugs to mess up even a simple program.
In my model, real particles can move only during the time they are sending a wave. If they can be accelerated during that time, it is because the force exerted on a particle succeeds to overcome the blueshift its motion produces immediately on the light from the other particle, but when no force is exerted, thus when the particles are on constant motion, they automatically send their bars at the same time they receive the ones from the other particle. It means that a nudge has to take place between two bars: the particle has to begin moving at the instant the first bar is sent, and it has to stop moving at the instant the following bar is sent. If we want to be able to nudge two times in a row, there must thus be a way to keep the nudge button on, otherwise at least one bar will be sent without the second nudge being produced.

Quote
The damping is caused when the fundamental force is set to 0.5 or lower because that spreads the effect from one time slice over two or more slices, and over time that spreads the responses across all 16 time slices and thereby equalizes the speeds of the two particles (if you wait long enough). Click the "Force+" button to set it to 1 instead of 0.5, and then you can see that the particles respond to each other by copying the each other's action each time without any damping. Higher values amplify the difference and send the particles ever faster in opposite directions, so they shouldn't be used.
It works great this way! A even seems to be nudged longer when by chance redshift from B coincides with a nudge.

Quote
I think this is getting closer to what you wanted to do from the start, so the bug needs to be fixed to make it happen. It will be interesting to see if it can be done in a way that ties in with relativity's length-contraction, and maybe it can once we add in the effects of relativistic mass (which is, after all, the real cause of length-contraction anyway).
In my model, mass is due to blueshift from particle B, and the increase of mass with the increase of speed is due to a step from a particle being an acceleration followed by a deceleration, so that the speed in the middle of a step is always higher that the speed of the molecule. When the speed of the molecule gets close to c, the speed of the step would be more than c if it could, but it cannot, so it takes more and more time to increase its speed instead. In other words, the two phenomenon seem to come from two different mechanisms.

Quote from: David
Quote
About the deceleration A suffers after it has accelerated during the time it sends one bar, we can use its speed and decelerate it to rest during one bar too, but if it had accelerated during ten bars, how could it know it has to decelerate during ten bars?
That's easy enough - each bar carries a stored value with it for the speed of the particle that it came from recorded at the time when it left, so if you have an acceleration in each of ten time slices, they will be delivered to the other particle by ten different bars and it will respond in ten time slices too.
I was talking about the deceleration A would suffer when acceleration would stop, and I think you are talking about the acceleration B would suffer after A would have been accelerated. It's easy for B to copy-paste the blueshift from A, but how could A know how long it took the get the speed it has gotten? If it had to decelerate in the same time it took to accelerate, how would it proceed if it cannot know that time? We could consider that A decelerates to rest after each nudge, but it means that the second nudge in a row would have to be twice as important as the first one if we want the acceleration to stay constant. We can cheat and do as if the particles would have already found the solution, because we can play with the variables and force them to remember all the nudges, but we would then have to create an infinite number of variables, and we can't.

Quote
Quote
But this behavior causes a problem: during the time an atom would be waiting for the light from the other atom to come in, its components would always be moving, because it takes a lot less time for their light to make the roundtrip.
Spread out particles where you can't pin down where and when they are... Sounds familiar, so not necessarily a problem. Anyway, I'll see if I can fix the program and then we can advance it further.
What do I do meanwhile? Decelerate to rest or freeze and wait for the next nudge to come in? :0)  Know what? I tried to put b=0 and it works. I now have more time to observe the motion before that particle gets out of sight. Didn't succeed to produce the fifteen bars before the first one hits B though, but I'm working on it. Still trying to erase the bars when they hit a particle, a move I have to do before I can show all the bars and observe doppler effect becoming a cause.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 28/08/2017 02:35:10
I've got another new version of the program ready for you. The nudges are now saved up and added to the accelerations caused by bar arrivals and are acted on only at those times - this removes the problem of some of the distance that the particles should be covering being lost, but there is still a bug which leads to energy going missing, to the point that a particle occasionally fails completely to respond to the movement of the other, and I don't know why that's happening. It may take a long time to work out where the fault is, but it tends to happen more often when there are multiple nudges, so it's possible that it involves an acceleration shifting to a different time slice due to the longer delay in the leading particle receiving the information, in which case that might allow it to cancel out an opposite acceleration and thereby eliminate both entirely.

A new problem shows up though in the way that when one particle moves towards the other, the latter responds by moving slightly further - this is the result of it taking longer for each bar to reach it and update its speed, so even though the accelerations and speeds are the same each time, the lengths of time that it's moving at a higher speed for are longer for the leading particle and the gap opens. This is a direct result of the difference in the speed of light relative to the particles in opposite directions - the starts and stops are all on bar arrivals and their spacing is further apart for the leading particle and reduced for the following one. I think this is an unavoidable consequence of your theory.

In my model, real particles can move only during the time they are sending a wave.

The program could be altered to save up the acceleration changes and add them at those times, but if these emissions of bars are also triggered by arrivals of bars, then that is the real trigger.

Quote
If they can be accelerated during that time, it is because the force exerted on a particle succeeds to overcome the blueshift its motion produces immediately on the light from the other particle, but when no force is exerted, thus when the particles are on constant motion, they automatically send their bars at the same time they receive the ones from the other particle. It means that a nudge has to take place between two bars: the particle has to begin moving at the instant the first bar is sent, and it has to stop moving at the instant the following bar is sent. If we want to be able to nudge two times in a row, there must thus be a way to keep the nudge button on, otherwise at least one bar will be sent without the second nudge being produced.

I'm having trouble following that. I want to see it as a clear list of rules. If the two particles are playing ping-pong with a single bar, it's easy (but very unresponsive - maybe that doesn't matter). If there are more bars on the go at the same time, it's more complex. Two nudges could spark off separate bars that would bounce to and fro between the two particles. Three nudges would result in there being three.

Quote
I was talking about the deceleration A would suffer when acceleration would stop, and I think you are talking about the acceleration B would suffer after A would have been accelerated. It's easy for B to copy-paste the blueshift from A, but how could A know how long it took the get the speed it has gotten? If it had to decelerate in the same time it took to accelerate, how would it proceed if it cannot know that time? We could consider that A decelerates to rest after each nudge, but it means that the second nudge in a row would have to be twice as important as the first one if we want the acceleration to stay constant. We can cheat and do as if the particles would have already found the solution, because we can play with the variables and force them to remember all the nudges, but we would then have to create an infinite number of variables, and we can't.

We have a system where particles jump in speed without doing any speeds in between, so no time is taken for any of the accelerations. What we have is a system that passes on information about speed differences and which changes the speed of each particle by those differences in an attempt to eliminate them, but the delays in reaction lead to this repeatedly recreating the differences forever. That's all it does.

Quote
What do I do meanwhile? Decelerate to rest or freeze and wait for the next nudge to come in? :0)  Know what? I tried to put b=0 and it works. I now have more time to observe the motion before that particle gets out of sight. Didn't succeed to produce the fifteen bars before the first one hits B though, but I'm working on it. Still trying to erase the bars when they hit a particle, a move I have to do before I can show all the bars and observe doppler effect becoming a cause.

If you hold down a Ctrl key and type "-" you may be able to see more on the screen when the particles would otherwise have left it. Ctrl with "+" zooms in again (while Ctrl with "0" takes it back to normal size in one go). If the visible bars are to disappear after a hit, you would have to detect the hit and then move them out of the way, preferably far off the left of the screen so that they stay out of sight until they are reused.

Code: [Select]
`<HTML><HEAD> <TITLE>Theory Simulation</TITLE> <script type="text/javascript"> window.setInterval("run()",8) // controls repetition rate function run() { t+=gr; // advance time by granularity unit ty+=gr; tb+=gr // advance time counters too // next we'll update the bar positions r+=rv*gr; g+=gv*gr; // first move the visible bars r1+=rv*gr; g1+=gv*gr; // then the hidden bars r2+=rv*gr; g2+=gv*gr; r3+=rv*gr; g3+=gv*gr; r4+=rv*gr; g4+=gv*gr; r5+=rv*gr; g5+=gv*gr; r6+=rv*gr; g6+=gv*gr; r7+=rv*gr; g7+=gv*gr; r8+=rv*gr; g8+=gv*gr; r9+=rv*gr; g9+=gv*gr; r10+=rv*gr; g10+=gv*gr; r11+=rv*gr; g11+=gv*gr; r12+=rv*gr; g12+=gv*gr; r13+=rv*gr; g13+=gv*gr; r14+=rv*gr; g14+=gv*gr; r15+=rv*gr; g15+=gv*gr; // Next part reuses old bars for new ones, and it stores // speed of particle at time of new bar emission. if(ty>=fb){if(srb==16){srb=0} // identify bar to reuse    ty=0; // reset count for the next reuse of a bar    if(srb==0){r=b; cdr=0; pbv=bv}    else{if(srb==1){r1=b; cdr1=0; pbv1=bv}    else{if(srb==2){r2=b; cdr2=0; pbv2=bv}    else{if(srb==3){r3=b; cdr3=0; pbv3=bv}    else{if(srb==4){r4=b; cdr4=0; pbv4=bv}    else{if(srb==5){r5=b; cdr5=0; pbv5=bv}    else{if(srb==6){r6=b; cdr6=0; pbv6=bv}    else{if(srb==7){r7=b; cdr7=0; pbv7=bv}    else{if(srb==8){r8=b; cdr8=0; pbv8=bv}    else{if(srb==9){r9=b; cdr9=0; pbv9=bv}    else{if(srb==10){r10=b; cdr10=0; pbv10=bv}    else{if(srb==11){r11=b; cdr11=0; pbv11=bv}    else{if(srb==12){r12=b; cdr12=0; pbv12=bv}    else{if(srb==13){r13=b; cdr13=0; pbv13=bv}    else{if(srb==14){r14=b; cdr14=0; pbv14=bv}    else{r15=b; cdr15=0; pbv15=bv;    }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}   srb+=1} if(tb>=fy){if(sgb==16){sgb=0} // same for green bars    tb=0;    if(sgb==0){g=y; cdg=0; pyv=yv}    else{if(sgb==1){g1=y; cdg1=0; pyv1=yv}    else{if(sgb==2){g2=y; cdg2=0; pyv2=yv}    else{if(sgb==3){g3=y; cdg3=0; pyv3=yv}    else{if(sgb==4){g4=y; cdg4=0; pyv4=yv}    else{if(sgb==5){g5=y; cdg5=0; pyv5=yv}    else{if(sgb==6){g6=y; cdg6=0; pyv6=yv}    else{if(sgb==7){g7=y; cdg7=0; pyv7=yv}    else{if(sgb==8){g8=y; cdg8=0; pyv8=yv}    else{if(sgb==9){g9=y; cdg9=0; pyv9=yv}    else{if(sgb==10){g10=y; cdg10=0; pyv10=yv}    else{if(sgb==11){g11=y; cdg11=0; pyv11=yv}    else{if(sgb==12){g12=y; cdg12=0; pyv12=yv}    else{if(sgb==13){g13=y; cdg13=0; pyv13=yv}    else{if(sgb==14){g14=y; cdg14=0; pyv14=yv}    else{g15=y; cdg15=0; pyv15=yv;    }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}   sgb+=1} // Now we apply any accelerations & update particle positions ha=0.5*ya*a // get half y's acceleration value y+=yv+ha; // add y's old velocity+ha to its position yv+=ya*a; // add y's acceleration value to its velocity ha=0.5*ba*a // get half b's acceleration value b+=bv+ha; // add b's velocity+ha to its position bv+=ba*a; // add b's acceleration value to its velocity ya=0; ba=0; // prevent repeat accelerations for same bar // and now we update screen positions ir.style.left=r*4+ro; // calculate bars' newscreen position ig.style.left=g*4+go; // (4 units = one picometre) iy.style.left=y*4; // calculate particle screen positions ib.style.left=b*4+bo; yloc.innerHTML=y; bloc.innerHTML=b; // update screen data sep.innerHTML=b-y; ping1.innerHTML=yv; ping2.innerHTML=bv; // And then we have to deal with bars hitting particles // This used to be done in a separate function called cd() // (the "cd" part standing for collision detection) if(r<=y && cdr==0){ya=ny+pbv-yv; ny=0; cdr=1} if(g>=b && cdg==0){ba=nb+pyv-bv; nb=0; cdg=1} if(r1<=y && cdr1==0){ya=ny+pbv1-yv; ny=0; cdr1=1} if(g1>=b && cdg1==0){ba=nb+pyv1-bv; nb=0; cdg1=1} if(r2<=y && cdr2==0){ya=ny+pbv2-yv; ny=0; cdr2=1} if(g2>=b && cdg2==0){ba=nb+pyv2-bv; nb=0; cdg2=1} if(r3<=y && cdr3==0){ya=ny+pbv3-yv; ny=0; cdr3=1} if(g3>=b && cdg3==0){ba=nb+pyv3-bv; nb=0; cdg3=1} if(r4<=y && cdr4==0){ya=ny+pbv4-yv; ny=0; cdr4=1} if(g4>=b && cdg4==0){ba=nb+pyv4-bv; nb=0; cdg4=1} if(r5<=y && cdr5==0){ya=ny+pbv5-yv; ny=0; cdr5=1} if(g5>=b && cdg5==0){ba=nb+pyv5-bv; nb=0; cdg5=1} if(r6<=y && cdr6==0){ya=ny+pbv6-yv; ny=0; cdr6=1} if(g6>=b && cdg6==0){ba=nb+pyv6-bv; nb=0; cdg6=1} if(r7<=y && cdr7==0){ya=ny+pbv7-yv; ny=0; cdr7=1} if(g7>=b && cdg7==0){ba=nb+pyv7-bv; nb=0; cdg7=1} if(r8<=y && cdr8==0){ya=ny+pbv8-yv; ny=0; cdr8=1} if(g8>=b && cdg8==0){ba=nb+pyv8-bv; nb=0; cdg8=1} if(r9<=y && cdr9==0){ya=ny+pbv9-yv; ny=0; cdr9=1} if(g9>=b && cdg9==0){ba=nb+pyv9-bv; nb=0; cdg9=1} if(r10<=y && cdr10==0){ya=ny+pbv10-yv; ny=0; cdr10=1} if(g10>=b && cdg10==0){ba=nb+pyv10-bv; nb=0; cdg10=1} if(r11<=y && cdr11==0){ya=ny+pbv11-yv; ny=0; cdr11=1} if(g11>=b && cdg11==0){ba=nb+pyv11-bv; nb=0; cdg11=1} if(r12<=y && cdr12==0){ya=ny+pbv12-yv; ny=0; cdr12=1} if(g12>=b && cdg12==0){ba=nb+pyv12-bv; nb=0; cdg12=1} if(r13<=y && cdr13==0){ya=ny+pbv13-yv; ny=0; cdr13=1} if(g13>=b && cdg13==0){ba=nb+pyv13-bv; nb=0; cdg13=1} if(r14<=y && cdr14==0){ya=ny+pbv14-yv; ny=0; cdr14=1} if(g14>=b && cdg14==0){ba=nb+pyv14-bv; nb=0; cdg14=1} if(r15<=y && cdr15==0){ya=ny+pbv15-yv; ny=0; cdr15=1} if(g15>=b && cdg15==0){ba=nb+pyv15-bv; nb=0; cdg15=1} } function setup() // we might use this later { }// All variables are created and initialised here:- c=0.3 // speed of light in pm/zs. gr=1; // granularity for simulation in zeptoseconds       // we can adjust this to speed/slow the action y=-100; b=0; // initial x-coord locations of the dots         bo=-50; // offset to correct b's display location yv=0; bv=0; // set initial speeds for particles pyv=0; pbv=0; // particle speeds when light bars sent out // more vars like pyv and pbv for hidden bars pyv1=0; pbv1=0; pyv2=0; pbv2=0; pyv3=0; pbv3=0; pyv4=0; pbv4=0; pyv5=0; pbv5=0; pyv6=0; pbv6=0; pyv7=0; pbv7=0; pyv8=0; pbv8=0; pyv9=0; pbv9=0; pyv10=0; pbv10=0; pyv11=0; pbv11=0; pyv12=0; pbv12=0; pyv13=0; pbv13=0; pyv14=0; pbv14=0; pyv15=0; pbv15=0; srb=1; sgb=1; // to keep track of which bars last sent rrb=1; rgb=1; // to keep track of which bars last received // srb = sent red bar, sgb = sent green bar, rrb = received red... // These will count up 1, 2, 3, 0, 1, 2, 3, 0, etc. // or up to 7 before going back to 0, or up to 15. r=0; g=-100; // initial locations of the bars ro=-87; go=-112; // offsets to correct bar display loc.s rv=-c; gv=c; // speeds for bars // more vars like r and g for hidden bars:- r1=0; g1=0; r2=0; g2=0; r3=0; g3=0; r4=0; g4=0; r5=0; g5=0; r6=0; g6=0; r7=0; g7=0; r8=0; g8=0; r9=0; g9=0; r10=0; g10=0; r11=0; g11=0; r12=0; g12=0; r13=0; g13=0; r14=0; g14=0; r15=0; g15=0; t=0; // time in zeptoseconds ty=0; // timer to emit new bars from yellow particle tb=0; // and another for blue particle d=200; // distance in picometres fy=64; // initial bonding-light "frequencies" fb=64; // (one for each particle) [1000 = 1x10^18Hz] // These aren't frequencies, but no. of zeptoseconds/cycle // Now using 250 to have four bars per cycle, three hidden. a=1; // acceleration strength factor ha=0; // variable to store a value temporarily ya=0; // acceleration value applying to yellow ba=0; // acceleration value for blue particle ny=0; nb=0; // nudge acceleration values cdr=0;cdg=0; // collision detection var.s - these are used to      // restrict it to one registered hit each time to      // avoid false hits after bar has passed particle // more vars like cdr and cdg for hidden bars:- cdr1=0; cdg1=0; cdr2=0; cdg2=0; cdr3=0; cdg3=0; cdr4=0; cdg4=0; cdr5=0; cdg5=0; cdr6=0; cdg6=0; cdr7=0; cdg7=0; cdr8=0; cdg8=0; cdr9=0; cdg9=0; cdr10=0; cdg10=0; cdr10=0; cdg10=0; cdr11=0; cdg11=0; cdr12=0; cdg12=0; cdr13=0; cdg13=0; cdr14=0; cdg14=0; cdr13=0; cdg15=0;// (milli, micro, nano, pico, femto, atto, zepto) function inca() // increase strength of acceleration force { a*=2; force.innerHTML=a} function deca() // decrease strength of acceleration force { a*=0.5; force.innerHTML=a} function nudgeyl() // accelerate y to right { ny-=0.05} function nudgeyr() // accelerate y to right { ny+=0.05} function nudgebl() // accelerate b to left { nb-=0.05} function nudgebr() // accelerate b to left { nb+=0.05} function nudgeyrbl() // accelerate b to left { ny+=0.05; nb-=0.05} </script></HEAD><BODY onload="setup()" style="background-color:black;color:white;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:18pt"><blockquote> <center><H1>Theory Simulation</H1><br><br><tt><b id="iy" style="position:relative;left:-400;top:0;font-size:60;color:yellow">.</b><b id="ib" style="position:relative;left:350;top:0;font-size:60;color:#0020ff">.</b><b id="ir" style="position:relative;left:313;top:2;font-size:18;color:red">|</b><b id="ig" style="position:relative;left:-512;top:2;font-size:18;color:#00ff00">|</b></tt></center><p>Yellow's location = <a id="yloc"></a><br>Blue's location = <a id="bloc"></a><br>Distance apart = <a id="sep"></a><p>Latest speed of yellow particle = <a id="ping1"></a><br>Latest speed of blue particle = <a id="ping2"></a><p>Damping value = <a id="force">1</a><p> <input type="button" value="Damp less" onclick="inca()"/> <input type="button" value="Damp more" onclick="deca()"/> <input type="button" value="Nudge yellow left" onclick="nudgeyl()"/> <input type="button" value="Nudge yellow right" onclick="nudgeyr()"/> <input type="button" value="Nudge blue left" onclick="nudgebl()"/> <input type="button" value="Nudge blue right" onclick="nudgebr()"/> <input type="button" value="Nudge both together" onclick="nudgeyrbl()"/><p>Click a "nudge" button to start things moving.</BODY></HTML>`
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 28/08/2017 20:22:37
You read my mind! I forgot to ask you to display the distance in my previous message. :0) The button to nudge both ways at a time is interesting too.

I just realize that quantum effects at the scale of particles cannot be the cause for what we observe at our scale. Accelerating a body at our scale takes a lot more time than at the scale of particles, so light has the time to make the roundtrip between particles billions of times during the slightest acceleration at our scale. In fact, what we are trying to do is get rid of the quantum uncertainty. The real way to do it would be to simulate a bunch of particles and let each of them chose its own speed and direction when we accelerate the bunch. Statistically, only some of them would find the right direction and speed at first, but all of them would finally find it after a while if the acceleration would go on, a while that would look very long at the particles' scale, but very short at our scale. Unless we find a way to predict the future of a unique particle, we can only simulate the case where, by chance, it finds the right way instantly.

It means that we can decelerate A the same way we have accelerated it, as if it could remember the past, and as if the past could always tell it what to do when it faces a change. Since B moves the same way A did before, A can forget about the way it decelerated once it has, because B will automatically behave like A when its waves will hit it and so on afterwards. What we need then is a way to remember the distance traveled by A between each bar it sends during the time it is accelerated, and decelerate it in reverse order when the acceleration stops. With an acceleration shorter than fifteen bars, it should work, but we can easily see that it would take a prohibitive number of variables to account for a long acceleration. There may be a way to create and destroy variables using conditional operators, but even so, it would be impossible to account for all the possibilities that could happen, and that's what that kind of simulation would have to do. Nevertheless, simulating a limited number of bars this way should give people a good idea of what that theory on motion is about.

Quote
A new problem shows up though in the way that when one particle moves towards the other, the latter responds by moving slightly further - this is the result of it taking longer for each bar to reach it and update its speed, so even though the accelerations and speeds are the same each time, the lengths of time that it's moving at a higher speed are longer for the leading particle and the gap opens. This is a direct result of the difference in the speed of light relative to the particles in opposite directions - the starts and stops are all on bar arrivals and their spacing is further apart for the leading particle and reduced for the following one. I think this is an unavoidable consequence of your theory.
If such a motion would really be happening between the particles, it may mean that the distance between bodies would be increasing with time without them being able to measure it, so it might be the cause for gravitation if that motion was still executed by the particles trying to stay on sync with others even when they are very far away from one another.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 29/08/2017 00:49:14
I just realize that quantum effects at the scale of particles cannot be the cause for what we observe at our scale. Accelerating a body at our scale takes a lot more time than at the scale of particles, so light has the time to make the roundtrip between particles billions of times during the slightest acceleration at our scale. In fact, what we are trying to do is get rid of the quantum uncertainty. The real way to do it would be to simulate a bunch of particles and let each of them chose its own speed and direction when we accelerate the bunch. Statistically, only some of them would find the right direction and speed at first, but all of them would finally find it after a while if the acceleration would go on, a while that would look very long at the particles' scale, but very short at our scale. Unless we find a way to predict the future of a unique particle, we can only simulate the case where, by chance, it finds the right way instantly.

Quote
What we need then is a way to remember the distance traveled by A between each bar it sends during the time it is accelerated, and decelerate it in reverse order when the acceleration stops.

Shouldn't the deceleration be entirely controlled by its relative movement to B when it receives a signal from B? If it always decelerates in the same way as it previously accelerated, it will end up back at zero speed and an object will never be able to reach the speed of half c.

Quote
There may be a way to create and destroy variables using conditional operators, but even so, it would be impossible to account for all the possibilities that could happen, and that's what that kind of simulation would have to do.

There is an instruction called "eval" (evaluate) which lets you write code that generates new code, and this can be used to generate new variables whenever they're needed so that the programmer doesn't have to make them all directly, and you can also create infinite arrays of variables more directly, but you soon run into speed limits with JavaScript - complexity translates into slow, so it's better to switch to a different programming language (and lose the convenience of JavaScript that allows our little programs here to run easily on each other's machines). But we don't need high complexity yet.

Quote
If such a motion would really be happening between the particles, it may mean that the distance between bodies would be increasing with time without them being able to measure it, so it might be the cause for gravitation if that motion was still executed by the particles trying to stay on sync with others even when they are very far away from one another.

I may have been wrong when I said "I think this is an unavoidable consequence of your theory" - it is only an unavoidable consequence of my way of attempting to do something approximating your theory. If we just have one bar per nudge though, that bar will bounce back and forth between the particles in a way that might not lead to such an increase in distance between the particles, so I think it needs to be programmed as an alternative approach to the one I've explored so far. I'll work on that and see what happens - I think it may be closer to what you want to do, though it's hard to be sure until you produce a list of clear rules for me to act on. The rules I have in mind for this new program are as follows:-

(1) Whenever a particle is nudged, it changes its speed accordingly and sends out a bar towards the other particle to tell it that its speed has changed.

(2) Whenever a particle receives a bar, it looks at the energy of the bar (which relates directly to the relative speeds of the two particles [after any previous accelerations have been applied]), calculates a new speed for itself accordingly, and then it sends a new bar back.

These two rules should be sufficient to drive the model. The particles will keep taking turns to speed up and slow down, and the round trip will be the same for ABA as for BAB, which means the times they are moving will be equal, and so will the times that they're stationary. If A is nudged to the right, the average distance between them will be decreased, but it will alternate between two values, one of which will be the original separation. If B is nudged to the right instead though, the average distance between them will be increased while it alternates between two values, the lower of which will be the original separation. Every new nudge would create a new bar, and the bars would continue to exist for so long as they don't coincide in time - any that do coincide can be merged into one bar. Bars that are near each other could optionally be merged too, though that would introduce some damping, but it might be worth doing to limit the maximum number of bars that the program has to handle.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 29/08/2017 19:53:21
Quote
Shouldn't the deceleration be entirely controlled by its relative movement to B when it receives a signal from B?
Stopping the acceleration of A before its light accelerates B is a good way to study the way deceleration could happen. Will A decelerate at the same rate if doppler effect is strong than if it is weak? Maybe the only way to accelerate it more than once is to wait for B to get away. There could be a threshold for the first acceleration to be permitted, and maybe many threshold to permit a variety of accelerations. Could those depend on the quantum numbers? Electrons make quantum jumps, they don't accept any quantity of energy. If an atom is hit by a light that is not at the right energy, it may as well not be affected, and the light will not be intercepted.

Such thresholds would permit a first nudge of a certain energy, but they would only permit a second nudge of the same energy when doppler effect would have gotten down because B has moved away. This way, A could decelerate in the same time it has accelerated if the nudge stops, or it could go on moving at the same speed if the nudge is still there, or it could even go on accelerating if the nudge energy would increase and hit another threshold.

Quote
(1) Whenever a particle is nudged, it changes its speed accordingly and sends out a bar towards the other particle to tell it that its speed has changed.
What does it do after having sent its bar? Has it already decelerated to rest or is it going to do so? It cannot go on moving indefinitely since it is actually producing blueshift on the light from the other particle. How about accelerating the first particle the same way A would be accelerating B, which is with doppler effect. This way, we would be forced to define a rule for a particle that is caught between two different doppler effects. If A suffers blueshift from the outside for example, it is forced to move toward B, thus to produce blueshift on the light from B until the two blueshifts become equal. Once the acceleration from the outside would decrease, A would slow down at the same rate, and it would stop moving, thus stop producing blueshift at the moment the acceleration would stop. This way, it would be the external acceleration that would tell A how to decelerate, thus the nudge would have to be given a duration and a rate of deceleration.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 29/08/2017 22:39:32
Stopping the acceleration of A before its light accelerates B is a good way to study the way deceleration could happen.

What rule(s) would you have to control that? How does A even know that B exists in order to know to stop without getting a signal from B? If B isn't there, A shouldn't stop, and if A doesn't get a signal from B to tell it to stop, that's the same as would happen if B doesn't exist. You need to produce a set of rational rules that dictate events.

Quote
What does it do after having sent its bar? Has it already decelerated to rest or is it going to do so?

It has just been accelerated by a nudge, so if it immediately sends out a bar and then stops, in effect it hasn't been nudged at all, but the bar will move on to the other particle and effectively nudge it instead.

Quote
How about accelerating the first particle the same way A would be accelerating B, which is with doppler effect.

Doppler effect from what? A light signal coming from a third particle? If so, how do we get it going without giving it a nudge? That nudge would be just as artificial unless we use a fourth particle to push the third one so that the third one can push particle A. But there's still a nudge needed to get the fourth particle moving, so we need an infinite series of particles pushing particles to feed into particle A, all to eliminate a nudge by moving it an infinite number of steps away. No matter how infinite the number of particles is that you use to lead up to this, at some point it takes a nudge to get things going, and it's easier to have that nudge within a finite number of particles of particle A than putting it at the other end of an infinite number of them because the latter approach means the universe will have ended before particle A starts moving. There is no alternative to an artificial nudge, and it is no different in its effect from the transfer of energy that goes from A to B, so it isn't a problem in the first place.

Quote
This way, we would be forced to define a rule for a particle that is caught between two different doppler effects.

In effect, you then have three bonded particles, which is fine - we can program for that, and we can do it in two or three dimensions instead of just the one, but you still have to nudge one using energy from something that isn't bonded to the three particles and which isn't subsequently monitored - it should not be dragged along for the ride.

If you want to work with a three particle system, you then need to work out how the middle particle reacts to the signal from A. If B speeds up and sends out a bar, does it send that bar to A or C, or does it send a bar to each of them? If it sends one to both, what effect does that have? B starts moving and sends out two bars, then those bars are received by A and C. If the bars both send the energy they would have had before a bar hit B, then A will be stopped by its bar from B and C will not move at all when it receives a bar from B (and B will keep going without emitting another bar, which means it will crash into C), but if they send the energy representing B's speed after B receives a bar, then A will keep going and C will start moving, so all three particles will be moving along at the same speed, thereby carrying three times as much kinetic energy as was given to A by the nudge. This is complicated stuff, and you need to try to work out rules setting out the cause-and-effect actions in such a way that useful results might be produced.

Quote
If A suffers blueshift from the outside for example, it is forced to move toward B, thus to produce blueshift on the light from B until the two blueshifts become equal. Once the acceleration from the outside would decrease, A would slow down at the same rate, and it would stop moving, thus stop producing blueshift at the moment the acceleration would stop. This way, it would be the external acceleration that would tell A how to decelerate, thus the nudge would have to be given a duration and a rate of deceleration.

The energy transfers between particles happen when bars hit particles, so those are instantaneous accelerations. There is no room for a sustained acceleration other than as a series of bars arriving to produce a series of instantaneous accelerations, which means a sustained nudge with a duration greater than instantaneous has to manifest itself as a series of lesser instantaneous nudges, each producing a new bar to carry the signal/energy on to the next particle.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 30/08/2017 18:50:23
Stopping the acceleration of A before its light accelerates B is a good way to study the way deceleration could happen.
What rule(s) would you have to control that? How does A even know that B exists in order to know to stop without getting a signal from B? If B isn't there, A shouldn't stop, and if A doesn't get a signal from B to tell it to stop, that's the same as would happen if B doesn't exist. You need to produce a set of rational rules that dictate events.
I think you mean that A would go on moving after having been nudged since the system is not considered to be moving to begin with, and you may be right because I always considered that the particles' components would be sending light only during the time they are not on sync, thus during an acceleration. I never thought of that possibility, but it is interesting, so let's try it. It means that the resistance to acceleration of A, thus its mass, would only be caused by its components getting out of sync, the same way B gets a little bit out of sync with A when doppler effect from A begins to come in. But then, how would the resistance of B be transferred to A?  Is it possible that what we measure as mass would only represent half the volume of matter we measure? If A would go on moving after a nudge, B would do the same after a while, and both particles would be traveling at the same speed forever since they would always suffer the same doppler effect wrt the other particle. Motion is a lot simpler to understand this way, but it may mean that when we measure the mass of a molecule, we might only get half of it.

Quote
The energy transfers between particles happen when bars hit particles, so those are instantaneous accelerations. There is no room for a sustained acceleration other than as a series of bars arriving to produce a series of instantaneous accelerations, which means a sustained nudge with a duration greater than instantaneous has to manifest itself as a series of lesser instantaneous nudges, each producing a new bar to carry the signal/energy on to the next particle.
That describes the way components of A would move to stay synchronized with components of B at the same time A would move to stay synchronized with B. That process should go down to infinities, which is impossible to simulate, but I think we cannot use instantaneousness either. I think the way you suggested before is good if we don't accelerate things instantly: we could nudge A a certain distance in a certain time, thus give it the speed it has at the end of that time, and make it send a bar that carries that speed to B at the end of that time too. It would then accelerate and keep its speed, so if we would nudge it a second time, that speed would increase. No need to program longer nudges this way, but it would be interesting to get back the button to change the rate of acceleration. I wonder what this system will do when we will try to stop it? I think it will simply decelerate to rest after a while. I also notice that the distance between the particles would only contract during the time A would move toward B, because that distance would simply stretch back during the time B would be accelerating away from A later on.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 30/08/2017 23:41:45
It's pointless to have a sustained nudge if you don't have an infinite series of bars transferring that on from there, so it should be a series of instantaneous accelerations with each transferred by its own bar. The number of bars is the limit of the resolution of the accelerations. There is probably also no need for infinite numbers of bars as ultimately energy likely has a minimum package size, and each minimum-sized lump of energy can have its own bar. Once you're dealing with hundreds of bars, there's no need to deal with millions of bars for smaller amounts of energy as there should be little difference in the results, so a simulation only needs to use a granularity that's sufficiently fine to get the same end result with as few calculations as possible.

[No new version of the simulation yet - I've been busy writing a different program to help illustrate length contraction and "time" dilation, but that's done now - you might like it: http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/Lorentz.htm (http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/Lorentz.htm)]
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 31/08/2017 14:02:48
Nice simulation again David. It took a while before I understood why the light was bouncing back and forth rapidly between the mirrors in the middle and at the end of the distance traveled by the green clock. I had to refer to your MMx simulation to realize it did so but at the beginning and only once, and then I saw the counter adding one each time light was hitting the correct mirror. Maybe you could add a few dots to the light path. If I get good enough at making simulations, I'll make one with light traveling sideways to the motion in a laser, hitting a mirror, and reentering the laser the same way it had left it as it does for a moving telescope. I think it would help people to understand more rapidly the two phenomenon linked to the relativistic aberration of light: the one at the source and the one at the observer.

By the way, I began restudying your first simulations, and I did not succeed to understand why the two dots were distant from one another on the screen while they are attributed the same coordinates at the beginning. I suspect it is due to the "position:relative" property that you use, and to the distance between two dots 60 pixels large, but I didn't find the exact rule.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 06/09/2017 00:14:38
By the way, I began restudying your first simulations, and I did not succeed to understand why the two dots were distant from one another on the screen while they are attributed the same coordinates at the beginning. I suspect it is due to the "position:relative" property that you use, and to the distance between two dots 60 pixels large, but I didn't find the exact rule.

If you create one dot, then copy and paste some more like it, giving them different names but keeping the coordinates the same, each one will appear further along to the right, so you have to change the x coordinate each time by a multiple of a set amount to make them all appear in the same place, the last of them hiding all the others underneath it. I just use trial-and-error to line up the first two, then once I know how much to adjust by, it's easy to work out the right values for the rest. I've never checked to see if there's a predictable adjustment related to each point size.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 07/09/2017 21:40:04
I succeeded to build my first simulation! :0) Yellow particle sends a bar when it is nudged forward, and the same bar nudges the two particles forward later. I'm trying to tell A to wait until the bar nudges it to accept getting nudged again by pushing the button. I'm learning, it's fun, but I'm slow!
Code: [Select]
`<HTML><HEAD> <TITLE>Theory Simulation</TITLE><script type="text/javascript">// All variables are created and initialised here:- c=0.3;       // speed of light (and bar) in pm/zs. y=-100; b=0; // initial x-coord locations of the dots bo=-50;      // offset to correct b's display location g=-100;      // initial locations of the green bar go=-80;      // offsets to correct bar display locations dir=0      // bar's direction of motion my=0; mb=0   // move particles later// (milli, micro, nano, pico, femto, atto, zepto) window.setInterval("run()",8) // controls repetition rate function run(){ if(g>=b && dir==c){dir=-c; }  // change direction of bar on collision with b if(g>=b && mb==1){b=b+1; mb=0; my=1}  // move b if y has moved, move y later if(dir==-c){g=g-c}            // move bar to the left if direction is left if(g<=y && dir==-c){dir=c}    // change direction of bar on collision with y if(g<=y && my==1){y=y+1; my=0; mb=1}  // move y if b has moved, move b later if(dir==c){g=g+c}             // move bar to the right if direction is right     ig.style.left=g*4+go;         // calculate bars' new screen positions               // (4 units = 1 picometer)  iy.style.left=y*4;            // calculate particles' screen positions ib.style.left=b*4+bo; } function moveiy()             // move yellow particle {y=y+1; dir=c; mb=1} </script></HEAD><BODY   style="background-color:black; color:white; font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:18pt"> <blockquote><center> <H1>Theory Simulation</H1> <p> <tt><b id="iy" style="position:relative; left:-400; top:0; font-size:60; color:yellow">.</b><b id="ib" style="position:relative; left: 350; top:0; font-size:60; color:#0020ff">.</b><b id="ig" style="position:relative; left:-512; top:2; font-size:18; color:#00ff00">|</b> </tt></center> <p> <input type="button" value="Move Yellow" onclick="moveiy()"/> <p> Click the button to nudge yellow particle</BODY></HTML>`
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 09/09/2017 23:50:12
I succeeded to build my first simulation!

I ran it last night and was just about to congratulate you on it at the time, but the Internet became inaccessible when my data ran out. I think my 4G-wifi device went off the rails a couple of days ago and used over 5GB of data in the space of a few hours while no computer was even linked to it. Had to take the battery out to reset it.

Anyway, it's good to see that you're making great progress with programming - it helps you to run ideas in your head better when you start thinking that way, giving you greater clarity of thought. And when you can't run something in your head because the complexity's too high, a program can resolve issues for you.

I've been writing a new version of the program too, and you might want to borrow some ideas from it. I allow ten bars to be used, each one being associated with a nudge, and they then keep on going forever to and fro between the two particles.

Code: [Select]
`<HTML><HEAD> <TITLE>Theory Simulation</TITLE> <script type="text/javascript"> window.setInterval("run()",20) // controls repetition rate function run() { if(ss==1){ t++; // advance time by 1 // next we update the bar positions // (The ten bar direction vars are 0 for inactive, // 1 for moving right, and 2 for moving left.) if(d0>0){if(d0==1){l0+=c}else{l0-=c}} if(d1>0){if(d1==1){l1+=c}else{l1-=c}} if(d2>0){if(d2==1){l2+=c}else{l2-=c}} if(d3>0){if(d3==1){l3+=c}else{l3-=c}} if(d4>0){if(d4==1){l4+=c}else{l4-=c}} if(d5>0){if(d5==1){l5+=c}else{l5-=c}} if(d6>0){if(d6==1){l6+=c}else{l6-=c}} if(d7>0){if(d7==1){l7+=c}else{l7-=c}} if(d8>0){if(d8==1){l8+=c}else{l8-=c}} if(d9>0){if(d9==1){l9+=c}else{l9-=c}} // Then we need to detect bars hitting particles // If any do, direction is reversed, energy is transferred, // and new energy-to-carry value is stored for that bar.      if(l0>=g && d0==1){d0=2; gv+=e0-gv; e0=gv} else{if(l1>=g && d1==1){d1=2; gv+=e1-gv; e1=gv} else{if(l2>=g && d2==1){d2=2; gv+=e2-gv; e2=gv} else{if(l3>=g && d3==1){d3=2; gv+=e3-gv; e3=gv} else{if(l4>=g && d4==1){d4=2; gv+=e4-gv; e4=gv} else{if(l5>=g && d5==1){d5=2; gv+=e5-gv; e5=gv} else{if(l6>=g && d6==1){d6=2; gv+=e6-gv; e6=gv} else{if(l7>=g && d7==1){d7=2; gv+=e7-gv; e7=gv} else{if(l8>=g && d8==1){d8=2; gv+=e8-gv; e8=gv} else{if(l9>=g && d9==1){d9=2; gv+=e9-gv; e9=gv} }}}}}}}}} g+=gv; // move green particle      if(l0<=r && d0==2){d0=1; rv+=e0-rv; e0=rv} else{if(l1<=r && d1==2){d1=1; rv+=e1-rv; e1=rv} else{if(l2<=r && d2==2){d2=1; rv+=e2-rv; e2=rv} else{if(l3<=r && d3==2){d3=1; rv+=e3-rv; e3=rv} else{if(l4<=r && d4==2){d4=1; rv+=e4-rv; e4=rv} else{if(l5<=r && d5==2){d5=1; rv+=e5-rv; e5=rv} else{if(l6<=r && d6==2){d6=1; rv+=e6-rv; e6=rv} else{if(l7<=r && d7==2){d7=1; rv+=e7-rv; e7=rv} else{if(l8<=r && d8==2){d8=1; rv+=e8-rv; e8=rv} else{if(l9<=r && d9==2){d9=1; rv+=e9-rv; e9=rv} }}}}}}}}} r+=rv; // move red particle // and now we update screen positions, bars first:- b0.style.left=l0*3+l0o; b1.style.left=l1*3+l1o; b2.style.left=l2*3+l2o; b3.style.left=l3*3+l3o; b4.style.left=l4*3+l4o; b5.style.left=l5*3+l5o; b6.style.left=l6*3+l6o; b7.style.left=l7*3+l7o; b8.style.left=l8*3+l8o; b9.style.left=l9*3+l9o; ir.style.left=r*3; // calculate particle screen positions ig.style.left=g*3+go; rloc.innerHTML=r; gloc.innerHTML=g; // update screen data sep.innerHTML=g-r; ping1.innerHTML=rv; ping2.innerHTML=gv; }} function setup() // we might use this later { }// All variables are created and initialised here:- c=0.3 // speed of light in pm/zs. t=0; // time in zeptoseconds d=100; // distance in picometres ss=1; // stop-start variable // dot vars:- r=-100; g=0; // initial x-coord locations of the dots         go=-50; // offset to correct b's display location rv=0; gv=0; // set initial speeds for particles   // bar vars:- l0=-100; l1=-500; l2=-500; l3=-500; l4=-500; l5=-500; l6=-500; l7=-500; l8=-500; l9=-500;   // offsets to correct bar display loc.s:- l0o=-87; l1o=-112; l2o=-137; l3o=-162; l4o=-187; l5o=-212; l6o=-237; l7o=-262; l8o=-287; l9o=-312;   // vars to store direction bars are moving in:-   // (0 = inactive; 1 = moving right; 2 = moving left) d0=0; d1=0; d2=0; d3=0; d4=0; d5=0; d6=0; d7=0; d8=0; d9=0;   // vars to store the energy that bars are carrying:- e0=0; e1=0; e2=0; e3=0; e4=0; e5=0; e6=0; e7=0; e8=0; e9=0; b=0; // keep track of how many bars are in use// (milli, micro, nano, pico, femto, atto, zepto) function nujrl() // accelerate r to left { b+=1; if(b==1){d0=1; e0=-0.02; l0=r; rv-=0.02} if(b==2){d1=1; e1=rv-0.02; l1=r; rv-=0.02} if(b==3){d2=1; e2=rv-0.02; l2=r; rv-=0.02} if(b==4){d3=1; e3=rv-0.02; l3=r; rv-=0.02} if(b==5){d4=1; e4=rv-0.02; l4=r; rv-=0.02} if(b==6){d5=1; e5=rv-0.02; l5=r; rv-=0.02} if(b==7){d6=1; e6=rv-0.02; l6=r; rv-=0.02} if(b==8){d7=1; e7=rv-0.02; l7=r; rv-=0.02} if(b==9){d8=1; e8=rv-0.02; l8=r; rv-=0.02} if(b==10){d9=1; e9=rv-0.02; l9=r; rv-=0.02} } function nujrr() // accelerate r to right { b+=1; if(b==1){d0=1; e0=0.02; l0=r; rv+=0.02} if(b==2){d1=1; e1=rv+0.02; l1=r; rv+=0.02} if(b==3){d2=1; e2=rv+0.02; l2=r; rv+=0.02} if(b==4){d3=1; e3=rv+0.02; l3=r; rv+=0.02} if(b==5){d4=1; e4=rv+0.02; l4=r; rv+=0.02} if(b==6){d5=1; e5=rv+0.02; l5=r; rv+=0.02} if(b==7){d6=1; e6=rv+0.02; l6=r; rv+=0.02} if(b==8){d7=1; e7=rv+0.02; l7=r; rv+=0.02} if(b==9){d8=1; e8=rv+0.02; l8=r; rv+=0.02} if(b==10){d9=1; e9=rv+0.02; l9=r; rv+=0.02} } function nujgl() // accelerate g to left { b+=1; if(b==1){d0=2; e0=-0.02; l0=g; gv-=0.02} if(b==2){d1=2; e1=gv-0.02; l1=g; gv-=0.02} if(b==3){d2=2; e2=gv-0.02; l2=g; gv-=0.02} if(b==4){d3=2; e3=gv-0.02; l3=g; gv-=0.02} if(b==5){d4=2; e4=gv-0.02; l4=g; gv-=0.02} if(b==6){d5=2; e5=gv-0.02; l5=g; gv-=0.02} if(b==7){d6=2; e6=gv-0.02; l6=g; gv-=0.02} if(b==8){d7=2; e7=gv-0.02; l7=g; gv-=0.02} if(b==9){d8=2; e8=gv-0.02; l8=g; gv-=0.02} if(b==10){d9=2; e9=gv-0.02; l9=g; gv-=0.02} } function nujgr() // accelerate g to right { b+=1; if(b==1){d0=1; e0=0.02; l0=g; gv+=0.02} if(b==2){d1=1; e1=gv+0.02; l1=g; gv+=0.02} if(b==3){d2=1; e2=gv+0.02; l2=g; gv+=0.02} if(b==4){d3=1; e3=gv+0.02; l3=g; gv+=0.02} if(b==5){d4=1; e4=gv+0.02; l4=g; gv+=0.02} if(b==6){d5=1; e5=gv+0.02; l5=g; gv+=0.02} if(b==7){d6=1; e6=gv+0.02; l6=g; gv+=0.02} if(b==8){d7=1; e7=gv+0.02; l7=g; gv+=0.02} if(b==9){d8=1; e8=gv+0.02; l8=g; gv+=0.02} if(b==10){d9=1; e9=gv+0.02; l9=g; gv+=0.02} } function nujb() // accelerate both together { nujrr(); nujgl()} function os() // one step { ss=1; run(); ss=0} function stopstart() { if(ss==0){ss=1}else{ss=0}} </script></HEAD><BODY onload="setup()" style="background-color:black;color:white;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:18pt"><blockquote> <center><H1>Theory Simulation</H1><br><br><tt><b id="ir" style="position:relative;left:-300;top:0;font-size:60;color:red">.</b><b id="ig" style="position:relative;left:-50;top:0; font-size:60;color:#00ff00">.</b><b id="b0" style="position:relative;left:-387;top:2;font-size:18;color:blue">|</b><b id="b1" style="position:relative;left:-412;top:2;font-size:18;color:blue">|</b><b id="b2" style="position:relative;left:-999;top:2;font-size:18;color:blue">|</b><b id="b3" style="position:relative;left:-999;top:2;font-size:18;color:blue">|</b><b id="b4" style="position:relative;left:-999;top:2;font-size:18;color:blue">|</b><b id="b5" style="position:relative;left:-999;top:2;font-size:18;color:blue">|</b><b id="b6" style="position:relative;left:-999;top:2;font-size:18;color:blue">|</b><b id="b7" style="position:relative;left:-999;top:2;font-size:18;color:blue">|</b><b id="b8" style="position:relative;left:-999;top:2;font-size:18;color:blue">|</b><b id="b9" style="position:relative;left:-999;top:2;font-size:18;color:blue">|</b></tt></center><p>Red's location = <a id="rloc"></a><br>Green's location = <a id="gloc"></a><br>Distance apart = <a id="sep"></a><p>Latest speed of red particle = <a id="ping1"></a><br>Latest speed of green particle = <a id="ping2"></a><p><input type="button" value="Nudge red left" onclick="nujrl()"/> <input type="button" value="Nudge red right" onclick="nujrr()"/> &nbsp; <input type="button" value="Nudge green left" onclick="nujgl()"/> <input type="button" value="Nudge green right" onclick="nujgr()"/> &nbsp; <input type="button" value="Nudge both together" onclick="nujb()"/> &nbsp; <input type="button" value="one step" onclick="os()"/> <input type="button" value="stop/start" onclick="stopstart()"/><p>Click away!</BODY></HTML>`
When a bar's sent out, it carries with it a value for the speed of the particle it has left, and the difference between that value and the speed of the particle receiving it is then either added to or taken away from that particle, then the bar heads off the opposite way carrying that new value with it.

It's pretty weird, the way it behaves. If you nudge a particle to the right four times, nudging it or the other six times to the left doesn't stop the two particles moving to the right on average. It all relates to how long the particles move each way, the first four nudges to the left only stopping the movement from the previous four nudges to the right without them getting any opportunity to move them the opposite way, and even an extra two nudges to the left can't outdo the advantage of the nudges to the right occurring first.

Your way of doing it doesn't suffer from that problem because you move a particle and then stop it right away, so four movements to the right plus six to the left would always move it two places to the left regardless of the lengths of the delays between arriving bars.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 10/09/2017 22:59:23
I was about to send you a version I made from my last simulation when I recieved yours. I added a bar to see the doppler effect becoming a cause for motion. I had a hard time trying to send the bars at the same place the particles were making a step. I didn't find the rule yet, and I suspect there is none. We can also see the doppler effect in action in yours, but we have to increase the speed of the particles, so I did it for the red particle. When we nudge it twice, we can see the blueshift and the redshift, and if we stop it each time we nudge it, it does a bit what mine does, except that your particles accelerate for a while whereas mine make an instant step.

Here is yours with faster speed for red particle:
Code: [Select]
`<HTML><HEAD> <TITLE>Theory Simulation</TITLE> <script type="text/javascript"> window.setInterval("run()",20) // controls repetition rate function run() { if(ss==1){t++; // advance time by 1 // next we update the bar positions // (The ten bar direction vars are 0 for inactive, // 1 for moving right, and 2 for moving left.) if(d0>0){if(d0==1){l0+=c}else{l0-=c}} if(d1>0){if(d1==1){l1+=c}else{l1-=c}} if(d2>0){if(d2==1){l2+=c}else{l2-=c}} if(d3>0){if(d3==1){l3+=c}else{l3-=c}} if(d4>0){if(d4==1){l4+=c}else{l4-=c}} if(d5>0){if(d5==1){l5+=c}else{l5-=c}} if(d6>0){if(d6==1){l6+=c}else{l6-=c}} if(d7>0){if(d7==1){l7+=c}else{l7-=c}} if(d8>0){if(d8==1){l8+=c}else{l8-=c}} if(d9>0){if(d9==1){l9+=c}else{l9-=c}} // Then we need to detect bars hitting particles // If any do, direction is reversed, energy is transferred, // and new energy-to-carry value is stored for that bar.      if(l0>=g && d0==1){d0=2; gv+=e0-gv; e0=gv} else{if(l1>=g && d1==1){d1=2; gv+=e1-gv; e1=gv} else{if(l2>=g && d2==1){d2=2; gv+=e2-gv; e2=gv} else{if(l3>=g && d3==1){d3=2; gv+=e3-gv; e3=gv} else{if(l4>=g && d4==1){d4=2; gv+=e4-gv; e4=gv} else{if(l5>=g && d5==1){d5=2; gv+=e5-gv; e5=gv} else{if(l6>=g && d6==1){d6=2; gv+=e6-gv; e6=gv} else{if(l7>=g && d7==1){d7=2; gv+=e7-gv; e7=gv} else{if(l8>=g && d8==1){d8=2; gv+=e8-gv; e8=gv} else{if(l9>=g && d9==1){d9=2; gv+=e9-gv; e9=gv} }}}}}}}}} g+=gv; // move green particle      if(l0<=r && d0==2){d0=1; rv+=e0-rv; e0=rv} else{if(l1<=r && d1==2){d1=1; rv+=e1-rv; e1=rv} else{if(l2<=r && d2==2){d2=1; rv+=e2-rv; e2=rv} else{if(l3<=r && d3==2){d3=1; rv+=e3-rv; e3=rv} else{if(l4<=r && d4==2){d4=1; rv+=e4-rv; e4=rv} else{if(l5<=r && d5==2){d5=1; rv+=e5-rv; e5=rv} else{if(l6<=r && d6==2){d6=1; rv+=e6-rv; e6=rv} else{if(l7<=r && d7==2){d7=1; rv+=e7-rv; e7=rv} else{if(l8<=r && d8==2){d8=1; rv+=e8-rv; e8=rv} else{if(l9<=r && d9==2){d9=1; rv+=e9-rv; e9=rv} }}}}}}}}} r+=rv; // move red particle // and now we update screen positions, bars first:- b0.style.left=l0*3+l0o; b1.style.left=l1*3+l1o; b2.style.left=l2*3+l2o; b3.style.left=l3*3+l3o; b4.style.left=l4*3+l4o; b5.style.left=l5*3+l5o; b6.style.left=l6*3+l6o; b7.style.left=l7*3+l7o; b8.style.left=l8*3+l8o; b9.style.left=l9*3+l9o; ir.style.left=r*3; // calculate particle screen positions ig.style.left=g*3+go; rloc.innerHTML=r; gloc.innerHTML=g; // update screen data sep.innerHTML=g-r; ping1.innerHTML=rv; ping2.innerHTML=gv; }} function setup() // we might use this later { }// All variables are created and initialised here:- c=0.3 // speed of light in pm/zs. t=0; // time in zeptoseconds d=100; // distance in picometres ss=1; // stop-start variable // dot vars:- r=-100; g=0; // initial x-coord locations of the dots         go=-50; // offset to correct b's display location rv=0; gv=0; // set initial speeds for particles   // bar vars:- l0=-100; l1=-500; l2=-500; l3=-500; l4=-500; l5=-500; l6=-500; l7=-500; l8=-500; l9=-500;   // offsets to correct bar display loc.s:- l0o=-87; l1o=-112; l2o=-137; l3o=-162; l4o=-187; l5o=-212; l6o=-237; l7o=-262; l8o=-287; l9o=-312;   // vars to store direction bars are moving in:-   // (0 = inactive; 1 = moving right; 2 = moving left) d0=0; d1=0; d2=0; d3=0; d4=0; d5=0; d6=0; d7=0; d8=0; d9=0;   // vars to store the energy that bars are carrying:- e0=0; e1=0; e2=0; e3=0; e4=0; e5=0; e6=0; e7=0; e8=0; e9=0; b=0; // keep track of how many bars are in use// (milli, micro, nano, pico, femto, atto, zepto) function nujrl() // accelerate r to left { b+=1; if(b==1){d0=1; e0=-0.1; l0=r; rv-=0.1} if(b==2){d1=1; e1=rv-0.1; l1=r; rv-=0.1} if(b==3){d2=1; e2=rv-0.1; l2=r; rv-=0.1} if(b==4){d3=1; e3=rv-0.1; l3=r; rv-=0.1} if(b==5){d4=1; e4=rv-0.1; l4=r; rv-=0.1} if(b==6){d5=1; e5=rv-0.1; l5=r; rv-=0.1} if(b==7){d6=1; e6=rv-0.1; l6=r; rv-=0.1} if(b==8){d7=1; e7=rv-0.1; l7=r; rv-=0.1} if(b==9){d8=1; e8=rv-0.1; l8=r; rv-=0.1} if(b==10){d9=1; e9=rv-0.1; l9=r; rv-=0.1} } function nujrr() // accelerate r to right { b+=1; if(b==1){d0=1; e0=0.1; l0=r; rv+=0.1} if(b==2){d1=1; e1=rv+0.1; l1=r; rv+=0.1} if(b==3){d2=1; e2=rv+0.1; l2=r; rv+=0.1} if(b==4){d3=1; e3=rv+0.1; l3=r; rv+=0.1} if(b==5){d4=1; e4=rv+0.1; l4=r; rv+=0.1} if(b==6){d5=1; e5=rv+0.1; l5=r; rv+=0.1} if(b==7){d6=1; e6=rv+0.1; l6=r; rv+=0.1} if(b==8){d7=1; e7=rv+0.1; l7=r; rv+=0.1} if(b==9){d8=1; e8=rv+0.1; l8=r; rv+=0.1} if(b==10){d9=1; e9=rv+0.1; l9=r; rv+=0.1} } function nujgl() // accelerate g to left { b+=1; if(b==1){d0=2; e0=-0.02; l0=g; gv-=0.02} if(b==2){d1=2; e1=gv-0.02; l1=g; gv-=0.02} if(b==3){d2=2; e2=gv-0.02; l2=g; gv-=0.02} if(b==4){d3=2; e3=gv-0.02; l3=g; gv-=0.02} if(b==5){d4=2; e4=gv-0.02; l4=g; gv-=0.02} if(b==6){d5=2; e5=gv-0.02; l5=g; gv-=0.02} if(b==7){d6=2; e6=gv-0.02; l6=g; gv-=0.02} if(b==8){d7=2; e7=gv-0.02; l7=g; gv-=0.02} if(b==9){d8=2; e8=gv-0.02; l8=g; gv-=0.02} if(b==10){d9=2; e9=gv-0.02; l9=g; gv-=0.02} } function nujgr() // accelerate g to right { b+=1; if(b==1){d0=1; e0=0.02; l0=g; gv+=0.02} if(b==2){d1=1; e1=gv+0.02; l1=g; gv+=0.02} if(b==3){d2=1; e2=gv+0.02; l2=g; gv+=0.02} if(b==4){d3=1; e3=gv+0.02; l3=g; gv+=0.02} if(b==5){d4=1; e4=gv+0.02; l4=g; gv+=0.02} if(b==6){d5=1; e5=gv+0.02; l5=g; gv+=0.02} if(b==7){d6=1; e6=gv+0.02; l6=g; gv+=0.02} if(b==8){d7=1; e7=gv+0.02; l7=g; gv+=0.02} if(b==9){d8=1; e8=gv+0.02; l8=g; gv+=0.02} if(b==10){d9=1; e9=gv+0.02; l9=g; gv+=0.02} } function nujb() // accelerate both together { nujrr(); nujgl()} function os() // one step { ss=1; run(); ss=0} function stopstart() { if(ss==0){ss=1}else{ss=0}} </script></HEAD><BODY onload="setup()" style="background-color:black;color:white;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:18pt"><blockquote> <center><H1>Theory Simulation</H1><br><br><tt><b id="ir" style="position:relative;left:-300;top:0;font-size:60;color:red">.</b><b id="ig" style="position:relative;left:-50;top:0; font-size:60;color:white">.</b><b id="b0" style="position:relative;left:-387;top:2;font-size:18;color:blue">|</b><b id="b1" style="position:relative;left:-412;top:2;font-size:18;color:blue">|</b><b id="b2" style="position:relative;left:-999;top:2;font-size:18;color:blue">|</b><b id="b3" style="position:relative;left:-999;top:2;font-size:18;color:blue">|</b><b id="b4" style="position:relative;left:-999;top:2;font-size:18;color:blue">|</b><b id="b5" style="position:relative;left:-999;top:2;font-size:18;color:blue">|</b><b id="b6" style="position:relative;left:-999;top:2;font-size:18;color:blue">|</b><b id="b7" style="position:relative;left:-999;top:2;font-size:18;color:blue">|</b><b id="b8" style="position:relative;left:-999;top:2;font-size:18;color:blue">|</b><b id="b9" style="position:relative;left:-999;top:2;font-size:18;color:blue">|</b></tt></center><p>Red's location = <a id="rloc"></a><br>Green's location = <a id="gloc"></a><br>Distance apart = <a id="sep"></a><p>Latest speed of red particle = <a id="ping1"></a><br>Latest speed of green particle = <a id="ping2"></a><p><input type="button" value="Nudge red left" onclick="nujrl()"/> <input type="button" value="Nudge red right" onclick="nujrr()"/> &nbsp; <input type="button" value="Nudge green left" onclick="nujgl()"/> <input type="button" value="Nudge green right" onclick="nujgr()"/> &nbsp; <input type="button" value="Nudge both together" onclick="nujb()"/> &nbsp; <input type="button" value="one step" onclick="os()"/> <input type="button" value="stop/start" onclick="stopstart()"/><p>Click away!</BODY></HTML>`
And here is mine:
Code: [Select]
`<HTML><HEAD> <TITLE>Theory Simulation</TITLE><script type="text/javascript">// All variables are created and initialised here:- c=0.3;       // speed of light (and bars) in pm/zs. y=-100;      // 100 initial x-coord locations of y yo=38;       // offset to correct y's display location g=-99;       // initial locations of green bar go=-44;      // offset to correct display location of green bar r=-98;      // initial location of red bar ro=-66;      // offset to correct display location of red bar b=-50;       // initial x-coord locations of b bo=-10;      // offset to correct b's display location dirg=0;      // green bar's direction of motion dirr=0;      // red bar's direction of motion       mbg=0;       // move blue particle later with green bar myg=0;       // move yellow particle later with green bar mbr=0;       // move blue particle later with red bar myr=0;       // move yellow particle later with red bar // (milli, micro, nano, pico, femto, atto, zepto) {window.setInterval("run()",20)}// controls repetition rate function run(){ if(g>=b && dirg==c){dirg=-c}  //change direction of g bar on collision with b if(g>=b && mbg==1){b=b+4;     //move b if y has moved, move y later    g=g+4; mbg=0; myg=1} if(dirg==-c){g=g-c}           // move green bar to the left if direction is left if(g<=y && dirg==-c){dirg=c}  // change direction of g bar on collision with y if(g<=y && myg==1){y=y+4;     //move y if b has moved, move b later    g=g+3.95; myg=0; mbg=1} if(dirg==c){g=g+c}            // move green bar to the right if direction is right if(r>=b && dirr==c){dirr=-c}  // change direction of r bar on collision with b if(r>=b && mbr==1){b=b+4;     // move b if y has moved, move y later    r=r+3.95; mbr=0; myr=1} if(dirr==-c){r=r-c}           // move red bar to the left if direction is left if(r<=y && dirr==-c){dirr=c}  // change direction of r bar on collision with y if(r<=y && myr==1){y=y+4;     //move y if b has moved, move b later    r=r+4; myr=0; mbr=1} if(dirr==c){r=r+c}            // move red bar to the right if direction is right     ig.style.left=g*4+go;         // calculate bars' screen positions ir.style.left=r*4+ro;       // (4 units = 1 picometer)   iy.style.left=y*4+yo;         // calculate particles' screen positions ib.style.left=b*4+bo; } function move()        {dirg=c; mbg=1; dirr=c; mbr=1} </script></HEAD><BODY   style="background-color:black; color:white; font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:18pt"> <blockquote><center> <H1>Theory Simulation</H1> <p> <tt><b id="iy" style="position:relative;   top:0; font-size:60; color:yellow">.</b><b id="ib" style="position:relative;   top:0; font-size:60; color:#0020ff">.</b><b id="ig" style="position:relative;   top:0; font-size:18; color:#00ff00">|</b><b id="ir" style="position:relative;   top:0; font-size:18; color:red">|</b> </tt></center> <p> <input type="button" value="Move photon" onclick="move()"/> <p> The distance between a red and a green photon is contracted by the motion of a yellow particle and stretched by the motion of a blue one. The particles send their photon when they move, and they move to send their photon on sync with the incoming one, so they move towards it when they see it is stretched, and away from it when they see it is contracted. Notice that the red photon stays the leader all the time: that's what happens when waves get reflected.</BODY></HTML>`
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 11/09/2017 00:49:09
I'm not terribly keen on the 0.1 value that you've used instead of 0.02 - the speed of light is 0.3 on this scale, so it only takes three or four nudges in the same direction to make it go crazy, but it's fun when you nudge a particle right, then left again as soon afterwards as possible. You can use all ten bars that way without the particle ever reaching 0.3, and yes - I see it doing the same thing as the new version of your program.

This stuff is really making me think more though about how energy might actually be transferred between bonded particles, because I still can't work out how it could happen. The energy must be transferred along with the light (or force carrier), but how can it know it's going to reach the other particle and not just be lost to both of them?
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 12/09/2017 03:37:18
That's a question physicists must also answer for electrons, because the bonding phenomenon depends on them, and because no energy is lost in the process either. It is only during an acceleration that light is sent. When molecules collide in a gaz for instance, they produce infrared light so some energy from their bonding is actually lost, and once they get their speed, they keep going on indefinitely without emitting light anymore. Of course, light seems to be emitted in all directions by particles, but that direction might depend on a random process happening at the quantum scale, which means that they might send it in one direction at a time, a direction that might get as constant as their steps when they are not accelerated. If it was so, and if the steps were made to stay synchronized with the incoming light, they would absorb almost all that light by interference, only a tiny part due to the loss of intensity with distance could not be absorbed, a part that could be carrying the information for gravitation.

As we could see, there is many ways to simulate the information transfer, but if the model is right, only one of them is right. Looking at the speeds I could give to your particles, I realized that we will probably have to introduce mass increase in the simulation one day or another, which means that we will be forced determine more precisely how mass develops. This constraint might help us to reduce the possibilities. I always thought that mass would be due to a loss of synchronism during acceleration, and that the relativistic mass increase could be due to the particles having to respect the sinusoidal shape of the incident light waves, because then, their speed in the middle of a wave would be a lot faster than their mean speed.

Water molecules move that way to reproduce a wave, they accelerate from rest and decelerate to rest once the wave has been reproduced. At the top of the wave, they get their top speed forward, and it happens that the wave breaks when the top molecules are moving forward faster than the wave itself. It is evident that the particles cannot move faster than their own waves if the motion of their components themselves depend on the same kind of waves. At .1 pm/zs as a mean speed, a particle would probably have to wait a moment in the middle of its step for the light from the other particle's step to produce its own step, so it would take more time, thus more energy to stretch its step more, and it is while making longer steps without changing its frequency that a particle increases its speed.

It would be interesting to simulate the way only one particle would behave if it had to send its own light on sync with only one incoming sinusoidal wave, with a single variable to change the frequency of the wave to test different speeds. The wave could be represented by a sinusoidal curve moving to the right on the screen with its first part producing the acceleration of the particle and its last one producing the deceleration. We could divide the wave in ten different parts that would represent ten different speeds, and the particle would have to accelerate and decelerate to stay on sync with those different speeds. At a particular incoming blueshift, the top speed would be equal to c while the mean speed would not, and the particle would not be able to move faster even if we would increase the redshift, thus the energy of the force. Of course the inverse is also true, no particle should be able to produce a blueshifted wave where the middle of the wave comes from its speed being faster than c. So, what is really happening when we accelerate particles to almost the speed of light? Could we use that kind of simulation to discover it?

For instance, what would happen if we would try to accelerate the particle at a top speed of c? Theoretically, it should start running after the middle of the wave indefinitely without being able to reach it, the middle of its step getting longer and longer with time. We could then try to use the time dilation principle of relativity to slow down the progression of the acceleration during the step, but it seems to produce the contrary: the more the particle would get to its top speed during the step, the more its frequency would slow down, so the more the wave that produces its speed would appear blueshifted, thus increasing the force on the particle instead of slowing it down. You know better than me how relativity works, so maybe you can figure it out better than me. We have to be careful though, because we are working on a mechanism that should be the source of motion, so it should explain relativity instead of relying on it to work properly.

After having had this idea, I measured the time light takes two way between your two particles at different speeds, and instead of taking more time with speed as in your MMx simulation, it takes about the same time. This seems to be due to the contraction being more important than the relativity one. For a speed of .2 for instance, which is .666c, the contraction is about .666 of the distance at rest and it should be closer to .4. Maybe this kind of contraction has nothing to do with the relativity one, but I think that the time dilation should be the same, so that constraint should help us to eliminate some possibilities. We can do better than just apply the relativity contraction to the system, we're in a position to look for its underlying mechanism.

I nudged the red particle at .2E and stopped it when the distance between the particles was around 50, and it went on oscillating between 100 and 50 indefinitely after, so their mean distance was around 75. If I had waited the right amount of time to stop it, their mean distance might have coincided to the relativity contraction for a molecule traveling at such a speed. I'll try to add counters to your simulation to display the mean speed of the system and the mean distance between the particles. The idea is to find a way to calculate the time a particle should take to get back to rest after having been accelerated. Of course, the doppler effect would still be the cause for that deceleration, but the intensity of the light would have to be considered when the distance between the particles drops as much as it does at relativistic speeds. The force should follow the inverse square law: twice closer, four times the deceleration force.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 20/10/2017 19:16:22
Hi David,

Code: [Select]
`<HTML><HEAD> <TITLE>Twins 1</TITLE><script type="text/javascript">// sd=0; md=0;                // direction of photons for static and moving clocks mlx=200; mrx=210;     // initial location of moving mirrors slx=200; srx=220;          spx=200; mpx=200;     // initial location of photons tsx=0; tmx=0;             // time display for static and moving clocks v=.8660254038; c=1;  // mirrors speed vs speed of photon st=0;                            // start variable// window.setInterval("run()",10) function run(){// moving mirrors if(st==1){mlx+=v; mrx+=v}          // start mirrors  if(mpx>mrx && md==1){md=-1; }     // detect right collision, reverse directions if(mpx<mlx && md==-1){md=1;  tmx+=1}   // detect left collision, reverse direction, update time if(md==-1){mpx-=c}    // move photon both directions if(md== 1){mpx+=c} if(tmx==8){v=-.8660254038}      // moving clock gets back home when its clock reads 8 sec if(tsx==32){md=0; sd=0; st=0}   // stop the simulation when the rest clock reads 32 sec// Static mirrors if(spx>=220 && sd==1){sd=-1}             // detect right collision, reverse mirror direction if(spx<=200 && sd==-1){sd=1; tsx+=1}     //detect left collision, reverse direction, update time if(sd==-1){spx-=c}     // move photon both directions if(sd== 1){spx+=c}// Update display sp.style.left=spx;                   // update photons positions mp.style.left=mpx; ml.style.left=mlx;                   // update moving clock position mr.style.left=mrx; ts.innerHTML=tsx;      // update time display tm.innerHTML=tmx; } function start() {md=1; sd=1; st=1}</script></HEAD><BODY style="background-color:black;color:white;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:18pt"><center><H1>Twins Paradox Simulation</H1><br></center><code><b id="sp" style="position:absolute; left:200;top:100; font-size:18; color:red">|</b><b id="mp" style="position:absolute; left:200;top:120; font-size:18; color:red">|</b><b  style="position:absolute; left:220;top:100; font-size:18; color:blue">|</b><b  style="position:absolute; left:200;top:100; font-size:18; color:blue">|</b><b id="ml" style="position:absolute; left:210;top:120; font-size:18; color:yellow">|</b><b id="mr" style="position:absolute; left:200;top:120; font-size:18; color:yellow">|</b></code><a id="ts" style="position:absolute; left:180;top:100; font-size:18; color:blue"></a><a id="tm" style="position:absolute; left:180;top:120; font-size:18; color:yellow"></a><input type="button" style="position:absolute; left:200; top:200" value="start" onclick="start()"/></BODY></HTML>`
Quote from: DAC
Quote from: Inchworm
we can only detect a collision when light has already passed the particle
You can wait for the collision to be recognized (after the event), then undo the action the exact amount needed to get to the actual time for the collision and correct events accordingly. It would make the program a lot more complicated, of course, but it can be done and it would eliminate the errors that are adding up as a result of turning the light round late every time it hits a mirror, allowing events to run fast and with precision. When you detect a collision, you need to go back a step (one whole time slice) and work out how long it should take for the two things to collide from that point in time, which is best done by working out the closing speed between the light and the mirror and then treating one of them as stationary and the other as moving towards it at that closing speed. That lets you work out the time needed to get to the collision, and once you have that, you can apply that time to the actual speed of travel of the light to work out where it needs to turn round. You can then move it back the other way from that location for the rest of the time available in that time slice and then display it in its correct position.

I began doing this, and then I realized that the particles could not. They can only use their own clocks and try to make their steps on sync with the incoming light waves, so those steps are necessary late a bit if they make any. If we add precision to them, the gap can be very tiny, but as the simulation shows, those distance gaps add up over time and light doesn't, so if two bodies are very distant from one another, a frequency difference must show up, and that's what we observe with gravitation. With a simulation, we can see how light travels between moving bodies of different scales, and discover how those bodies could behave when it strikes them, but I'm afraid it is impossible to simulate absolute motions this way, whereas light can really produce them. If some light is lost during the steps at a given scale, then this light is automatically transferred to the steps at the next scale, not lost, and so on indefinitely. That's how I figure the steps would produce gravitation, but I'm not there yet, I need to discover how the steps would be executed first, and as we can see, it is less evident than when I was just turning doppler effect into a cause in my mind. At that moment, I knew that the synchronism between the particles would depend on the one between the components, and I knew that it would add complexity to the simulation if we were forced to account for it, but I never realized that doppler effect itself would be so touchy to simulate.

If we replace the two particles by two cars able to detect doppler effect on sound, we don't have to be that precise. The cars only need to be able to accelerate so as to nullify the effect. They necessarily accelerate late with regard to the perceived waves since they have to let it go by a bit before being able to detect if there is any doppler effect in it, but it doesn't matter as long as that delay is included in the wave they send when they make their own step. Accelerating late each time they make a step means losing time at each step, which means losing distance with time, which means slowing down, what should produce redshift on the waves that escape from their steps, which is what we observe on the light from galaxies.

Your idea of particles going on moving after a nudge is interesting for testing the wave like shape of a step, which is done by nudging the red particle five times to the right and immediately five times to the left, but a particle should stop moving by itself after a step if we want this deceleration to explain mass. To study that question, I'm actually planning to add a constraint to the steps: a first particle will have to wait for the other particle to make its step and for the light from that step to be back, before making another one, but during this time, a force will have to be exerted on it to keep it there otherwise it will get back where it was. That's a nice way to introduce mass in the steps, but It creates other problems. For instance, I think that, this way, at the particles' scale, acceleration would have to be quantized, which would not be that surprising since the light emitted by the particles already is.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 21/10/2017 01:08:56
I meant to reply to your previous post at the time, but there were too many competing things happening for me to be able to concentrate on it, and then I forgot to return to it. There are also a lot of ideas in it which will likely take a lot of time to explore, but whenever you want to implement a specific idea and have difficulty working out how to do so, I'll be happy to look at it and see if I can help.

We have to be careful though, because we are working on a mechanism that should be the source of motion, so it should explain relativity instead of relying on it to work properly.

I think that might be difficult, but there's a key part of the mechanism behind relativity that I don't understand. Whenever a nudge is made to a particle, that is adding energy in, and that energy has an effect on the power of subsequent nudges, reducing their effectiveness as the particle moves faster because of relativistic mass. By the time a particle is moving at 0.866c, for example, it effectively has a mass twice as high as it had at rest, so a new nudge may only be half as effective. If it's moving at 0.968c a new nudge may only be a quarter as effective. If it's moving at 0.992c, a new nudge may only be and eighth as effective. The numbers are strange though. The square of 0.866 is 0.75, or 3/4, which fits neatly with three quarters of the total energy of the moving particle trying to move one way while the other quarter tries to go the opposite way (the particle itself being made up of energy which if released would move off in opposite directions), but the square of 0.968 is 0.9375, or 15/16 (rather than the 7/8 that I had expected [because it's seven lots of energy working against one]) and the square of 0.992 is 63/64 (rather than 15/16 [because it's fifteen lots of energy working against one]). And why should it be squared anyway? These are still very neat fractions though, so they must be meaningful.

Quote
I nudged the red particle at .2E and stopped it when the distance between the particles was around 50, and it went on oscillating between 100 and 50 indefinitely after, so their mean distance was around 75.
The main problem with the size of the nudges being applied is that they'd tear bonded particles apart, while if you make them small enough to be realistic, it's hard to get them up to relativistic speeds without running the program for a very long time and tracking the particles as they gradually accelerate and share out the energy from the nudges evenly between them. We need to understand where all the energy is and what it's doing.

[I'll reply to your new post tomorrow - I got here too late in the day to work on that now.]
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/10/2017 20:54:36
Whenever a nudge is made to a particle, that is adding energy in, and that energy has an effect on the power of subsequent nudges, reducing their effectiveness as the particle moves faster because of relativistic mass.
If we imagine a simulation where we have to hold a first particle in place after having forced it to make a step toward the second one, we can easily imagine the photons from that second one hitting the first one too soon, thus pushing on it to bring it back to the right bonding distance. If the step needs to get longer because the force is more important, the timing gets worse and the force needed to keep it there has to increase. That explains the difference between a weak and a strong acceleration, but it doesn't explain the relativistic mass increase. Contrary to the impossibility to measure the speed of light one way, it is possible to measure mass increase one way, so it shouldn't be linked to aether the same way light is, but with the steps, the only way I see to explain that increase is with the limited speed of light, which is not the same two ways if aether exists even if we can't measure it, so if the steps also exist, there should be a difference in the exact amount of energy needed to accelerate a particle depending on our speed with regard to aether, but I don't know if particle accelerators are precise enough to detect that difference. If they are, we could have a way to determine if aether exists while detecting the rotational or orbital speed of the earth this way, and we could also determine if the CMBR dipole anisotropy is related to aether.

With the steps, this mass increase would be due to the steps getting their top speed in the middle of a step, a top speed that could not overcome the speed of the information that induces it. We can see from the simulations that, to account for the deceleration of the steps, the speed of a molecule would have to be a lot less important than the mean speed of the steps between its atoms, but that is only a mean speed, which means that the top speed of those steps might get very close to c even if the molecule's speed is still quite low. With bonded particles, whenever we try to stretch a first particle's step that is already close to c in the middle, it cannot do so before the information to do so comes in, so it has to stay partially stretched and wait for that information to come in.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 21/10/2017 23:55:25
I began doing this, and then I realized that the particles could not. They can only use their own clocks and try to make their steps on sync with the incoming light waves, so those steps are necessary late a bit if they make any. If we add precision to them, the gap can be very tiny, but as the simulation shows, those distance gaps add up over time and light doesn't, so if two bodies are very distant from one another, a frequency difference must show up, and that's what we observe with gravitation. With a simulation, we can see how light travels between moving bodies of different scales, and discover how those bodies could behave when it strikes them, but I'm afraid it is impossible to simulate absolute motions this way, whereas light can really produce them.

I can't see where gravitation comes into it, and I can't see why a simulation shouldn't be able to model what the universe does.

Quote
If some light is lost during the steps at a given scale, then this light is automatically transferred to the steps at the next scale, not lost, and so on indefinitely. That's how I figure the steps would produce gravitation, but I'm not there yet,

What is this gravitation acting on? How is gravitation going to come out of this if the particles are all at rest?

Quote
I need to discover how the steps would be executed first, and as we can see, it is less evident than when I was just turning doppler effect into a cause in my mind. At that moment, I knew that the synchronism between the particles would depend on the one between the components, and I knew that it would add complexity to the simulation if we were forced to account for it, but I never realized that doppler effect itself would be so touchy to simulate.

There isn't a big problem with simulating it. The only issue is that we jump forward in jumps and can miss the exact timing of some of the events, but it can be put right after the event, thereby keeping things every bit as accurate as they would be if we ran trillions of sub-jumps for every jump. This allows us to run the action fast without losing any of the action. The only reason we haven't done this from the start is that it takes longer to write programs, but once we have a program that's worth doing properly, we can make it perfect and eliminate the errors. Until then, it's best to work with a reasonable granularity and not worry about small errors when we have sufficient precision to get a clear view of how things will behave under different rules.

Anyway, I think a four particle simulation might show up something interesting, and it's worth doing one with their functionality being slowed by their movement and where the nudges add energy in such a way as to conform to relativistic velocity addition. Once we have that, it should be easy to modify it to try out other ideas on top of it, but this would provide a basic framework for that. I'm going to have a go at building this program, and if you want to try building one the same or similar to it that could be a good programming exercise. My idea for controlling the effect of the nudges is that they be considered to be added from something co-moving with the particle being nudged - this will make it easy to calculate the new speed for the particle because a nudge which makes its speed change from 0 to 0.2c would lead to an identical second nudge changing the particle's speed to (0.2 plus 0.2) / (1 minus 0.2 times 0.2) = 0.385. A third nudge will then change the particle's speed to (0.385 + 0.2) / (1 + (0.385 x 0.2)) = 0.543. By doing this, we can go on adding an infinite number of 0.2c nudges without the particle ever reaching c.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: phyti on 23/10/2017 15:44:44
There is a playground ride (merry-go-round), that relates to this behavior. A person can grab a metal bar, give it a push to get it spinning. As it spins faster, each revolution requires additional energy to match the hand speed to the bar, then add a push. Thus each increase in speed requires more energy than the previous.
In the example of a particle accelerator, the transfer of energy to the particles, the time increases exponentially. I refer to this as 'diminishing returns on an increasing investment'. Originally this phenomenon was misinterpreted as increasing inertial resistance, i.e. mass increase. That term is obsolete, since it is due to time dilation, a slowing of a process. The equations use m0 for rest mass and a term for kinetic energy (which increases as v^2). If a light clock could move at c, no em energy could be transferred to the mirror!
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 24/10/2017 15:56:30
I can't see where gravitation comes into it, and I can't see why a simulation shouldn't be able to model what the universe does.
Gravitation would be a scale effect where the components of atoms would try to stay on sync with the components of other atoms while the atoms themselves are already doing the same thing. I said we couldn't simulate that because I think it would be too long to run. I only made my simulation of the twins paradox a hundred times more precise and it ran for almost half an hour. We're dealing with particles that are million times smaller than atoms, so it might take too long before we can observe the effect.

Quote
How is gravitation going to come out of this if the particles are all at rest?
No inertial motion, no gravitational motion either. Either things move or they don't. If they do, then it is with regard to aether, and we can easily see from our simulations that this assumption produces real effects on timing and distances, so it is up to us to discover how such effects would produce gravitation. What I am saying about it for the moment is only pure speculation, but when you began helping me simulating the steps, I knew we might be able to test that idea too.

Quote from: David
Quote
but I never realized that doppler effect itself would be so touchy to simulate.
There isn't a big problem with simulating it. The only issue is that we jump forward in jumps and can miss the exact timing of some of the events, but it can be put right after the event, thereby keeping things every bit as accurate as they would be if we ran trillions of sub-jumps for every jump. This allows us to run the action fast without losing any of the action. The only reason we haven't done this from the start is that it takes longer to write programs, but once we have a program that's worth doing properly, we can make it perfect and eliminate the errors. Until then, it's best to work with a reasonable granularity and not worry about small errors when we have sufficient precision to get a clear view of how things will behave under different rules.

Anyway, I think a four particle simulation might show up something interesting, and it's worth doing one with their functionality being slowed by their movement and where the nudges add energy in such a way as to conform to relativistic velocity addition. Once we have that, it should be easy to modify it to try out other ideas on top of it, but this would provide a basic framework for that. I'm going to have a go at building this program, and if you want to try building one the same or similar to it that could be a good programming exercise. My idea for controlling the effect of the nudges is that they be considered to be added from something co-moving with the particle being nudged - this will make it easy to calculate the new speed for the particle because a nudge which makes its speed change from 0 to 0.2c would lead to an identical second nudge changing the particle's speed to (0.2 plus 0.2) / (1 minus 0.2 times 0.2) = 0.385. A third nudge will then change the particle's speed to (0.385 + 0.2) / (1 + (0.385 x 0.2)) = 0.543. By doing this, we can go on adding an infinite number of 0.2c nudges without the particle ever reaching c.
As you know, I'm still trying to understand how a particle would behave after having made a step, so I think I will try to elucidate that while you build that new simulation. If mass is part of the motion process, a particle has to resist being accelerated, so I think it has to stop by itself after each step even if a force is still applied to it. But if the force is constant, the particle cannot increase its speed this way since the length of its steps will be constant, it has to wait until the second particle makes a step away. Once the red shifted light from that second particle will have reached it, it will stop resisting to make its step, so it will have time to make a longer one, thus to increase its speed. That's quite different from the acceleration we observe at our scale, but it doesn't mean that we are on a wrong path.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 24/12/2017 23:18:44
Hi everybody,

It took a while, but I finally succeeded to build a simulation that accounts for acceleration between two inline particles, and I also succeeded to apply it to four particles where the light they exchange also travels sideways to the motion. Here is the result:
Acceleration with two particles (http://motionsimulations.com/Acceleration with two particles)
Acceleration with four particles (http://lumiere.shost.ca/Acceleration with four particles/Acceleration with four particles.html)

I will comment later on.

Merry Christmas everyone.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 30/12/2017 22:34:30
Back to normal, I drank too much again! :0)

Simulating how light moves between two moving bodies is a lot easier than trying to imagine it. No need for complicated calculations either, just to find a way to move things at the right speed and in the right direction on the screen. To simulate acceleration between two inline particles, I had to find the way the speed of the first particle could increase. Since light is quantized, I had already hypothesized that, at the particles' scale, the speed had to be executed by steps, but I didn't find a way to simulate its increase. At first, I thought that we could use doppler effect and apply it on the light traveling between two particles. This way, moving a first particle would only mean moving the other one after a while. But doppler effect at the particles' scale proved too difficult to simulate, so I began to use the way David Cooper found to bypass the problem: he gave an energy to the steps, transferred this energy to the photon produced at the same time by the particle during its step, and transferred this energy again to the other particle when the photon was hitting it.  Here is that original simulation again. (http://motionsimulations.com/Acceleration with two particles)

As we can see, if we increase the speed of the red particle many times in a row, that speed drastically decreases when the light from the other particle strikes it back. I don't like that behavior, so I looked for a restriction in the way speed would increase. Open the four particles' simulation again and have a look at the explanations that I added at the bottom of the page. Acceleration with four particles (http://lumiere.shost.ca/Acceleration with four particles/Acceleration with four particles.html)
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 31/12/2017 22:05:01
I started writing a four particle version of the program but haven't had time to get very far with it, but it doesn't look as if you need it now - your latest program shows that you're very capable, and you can take it in any direction you want to explore. I still plan to finish my program, but it may be a while before I'm able to get back to it, and I might switch away from JavaScript to use a more comfortable (and more powerful) programming environment with proper graphics capability - JavaScript always makes me feel ill and I really can't face using it again at the moment.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 17/04/2018 22:25:25
Hi everybody,

I'm actually trying to make a simulation to test the equivalence principle, and I fell on a an unexpected information about that principle on PF (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/time-dilation-vs-the-equivalence-principle.944438/page-2#post-5976102). It seems that accelerating two clocks at g on the two ends of a spaceship is not the same as putting those two clocks at the same vertical distance from one another on earth. In his message, Janus says that the upper clock on earth suffers less than g whereas the front clock on the ship suffers the same g the rear one suffers. Data shows that he is right for the clock on earth, but if the front clock on the ship doesn't suffer the same contraction than the rear one, it should also suffer a different g. Unfortunately, the thread has been closed, so I can't discuss my point there. We don't need a simulation to understand that, due to the limited of light, the contraction of the rear clock will happen before the one of the front clock, but it's hard to imagine why its acceleration should go down, so my simulation should help.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Colin2B on 18/04/2018 03:06:04
I fell on a an unexpected information about that principle on PF (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/time-dilation-vs-the-equivalence-principle.944438/page-2#post-5976102). It seems that accelerating two clocks at g on the two ends of a spaceship is not the same as putting those two clocks at the same vertical distance from one another on earth.
This really isn’t unexpected, but very well known.
The gravitational field in Einstein’s equivalence analogy is a uniform field and not a planetary gravitational field.
If you think about it, the lines of force in the rocket/elevator are parallel whereas on a planet they slope inwards towards the bottom leading to tidal forces. This means that g does not vary with hight in the rocket, but does on a planet.
The good news is that in a small volume on the earth’s surface you can consider the field to be uniform. For example, when dropping a ball off a tower we don’t tend to consider the difference in g between the top and bottom.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 20/04/2018 20:59:03
Hi Collin,

I meant unexpected for me of course, not because I didn't know about it, but because I didn't think about it. The simulation I am about to make concerns two clocks at different heights in an accelerating spaceship, but I cannot consider that height as a small volume for the clocks on earth if I want to compare the two kinds of acceleration. If I would simulate a falling ball on earth for instance, g would have to increase while the ball is falling, so what I have to do is calculate g at that height on earth, and accelerate my spaceship at the same rate the ball would accelerate. Theoretically, the result should be the same as with GR, and that's what I also got in the beginning with my simulation of the twins paradox, but when I started to consider that the speed had to come from a previous acceleration, I realized that contraction necessarily had to happen at that moment, and that's what happened when I let the first particle move before the second one while it was accelerated.  (http://motionsimulations.com/Acceleration with two particles)

Letting the first particle contract the distance between the two particles at its own pace gave a lot more important contraction than SR, so important that time got contracted instead of getting dilated. I then applied the same reasoning to a simulation of the MM experiment, (http://lumiere.shost.ca/Acceleration%20with%20four%20particles/Acceleration%20with%20four%20particles.html) and I got a null result while letting the vertical arm contract at it's own rate too. In fact, there is always a speed at which a given contraction gives a null result, so if there is no logical flaw in my simulations, the SR case where the vertical arm doesn't have to contract is only one of them. For the same speed, the horizontal arm could very well be more or less contracted, and the vertical one could always contract (or stretch) to give a null result.

There is no way to observe length contraction anyway, it's only an ad hoc assumption, so it can be anything as long as the null result is respected, but what about time dilation? In the original experiment, time dilation was also an assumption since it came from the assumption that the vertical arm would not contract, but contrary to contraction, it was assumed that it could be observed. To me, the only way to observe it would be to make a twins paradox experiment with real clocks, which hasn't been done yet, but if my simulation is right, we might as well get time contraction instead of time dilation.

But time contraction contradicts the result of the muon experiment, which is like half a twins paradox experiment where the two clocks haven't been synchronized at the beginning. If I had to simulate it, I would put two light clocks at a certain distance from one another without having previously synchronized them, and accelerate one towards the other. I would know which clock has been accelerated so I would know which one to move on the screen. The same way, we know that the muon is moving simply because we know it had to be accelerated towards the earth to get its speed. If I let that muon contract the same way I do with my particles though, it will still be time contracted instead of being time dilated, which should exceed its lack of synchronization with the clock on earth since muons are a lot more precise clocks that atoms. I still think that contraction during acceleration is interesting though, and especially since it came from simulating a principle that explains motion and mass, so I will go on with my simulation of the equivalence principle in case it would be interesting too.

If you have time, you can use your knowledge of relativity to improve my simulation of contraction. Maybe there is a way for the steps to be restricted during acceleration for instance. As I say on my page, I already had to restrict the way the speed of the first particle had to increase for the simulation to be possible, and I chose a simple way, so there might be a more precise one.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Colin2B on 21/06/2018 13:26:44
Happy to have a look at your simulations, but I find the blue on black text hard to read on ipad.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/06/2018 13:49:38
Happy to see you here again. :0) I had the same feeling about the colors in the beginning, and then it faded out rapidly. It is nice for the simulations, but unusual for the text. Maybe I should put two different background colors, one for the text and one for the simulations. I'll see what I can do.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 22/06/2018 12:53:05
Hi Collin,

I changed the colors. Tell me if you can read the text more easily.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Colin2B on 27/06/2018 15:25:16
Looking at the twin link I notice you use a horizontal clock. This is similar to the train thought experiment and because the front mirror is moving away from the light and the rear wall towards you are getting an uneven duty cycle - like mark/space or tick/tock ratio) which is probably why most scenarios use a vertical clock.
Pity you had to adjust the timings, but fun thing to do.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 27/06/2018 17:03:16
Yes, it is fun, but more importantly, it permits us to observe more closely the way motion might be executed at the particles' scale. To simulate motion on the screen, we have to move the clock by discrete steps, and we have to move light this way too, so we always get offset collisions between light and mirrors whenever we start moving the clock, which doesn't happen for the clock at rest. David wants me to correct the imprecision by calculating back, but I keep thinking that nature wouldn't do that, and that it would instead let some information escape from the system and be used for another purpose than producing constant motion. Yes, I'm studying the way light may be used by particles to produce motion instead of particles only producing light for us. Here is a simulation  (http://motionsimulations.com/Acceleration%20with%20two%20particles)that shows two bonded particles exchanging light. To start the simulation, hit the "Accelerate red particle" button. Then look at the display showing the speed of each particle increasing each time the photon strikes them. It's relativity applied to particles: it takes time for the blue particle to accelerate because information can't travel faster than c, and it also takes time for the red particle to accelerate another time because it has to wait for the photon to be back. It's quantized acceleration where the two particles start to move by quantum steps once the red one starts to suffer a force.

Now hit the "Stop the acceleration" button and look at the speed display again. It doesn't increase anymore, but the photon is still traveling between the two particles and is still telling them what to do, reason why they are still moving. The particles emit a photon when they receive one, they simultaneously make a step forward, and that photon simply carries between them the doppler effect from their respective relative speeds. The system naturally contracts during acceleration because the blue particle always accelerates late, so I let it contract and added it to the display. 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. To check how those two effects would affect the Micholson/Morley experiment, I then made a simulation of it using four particles as an interferometer (http://lumiere.shost.ca/Acceleration%20with%20four%20particles/Acceleration%20with%20four%20particles.html) while letting things contract at their own rate, and as you can see, it also gives a null result. Surprising isn't it?
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 27/06/2018 19:36:23
David wants me to correct the imprecision by calculating back, but I keep thinking that nature wouldn't do that

Nature doesn't need to calculate back because collisions in nature are reacted to as soon as they happen rather than waiting for slow-witted programs to detect the collision first before the particles are allowed to react - nature doesn't allow such delays so the reactions are always immediate. That's why you should calculate back to work out the actual times of collisions instead of forcing them all to wait to take place on widely-spaced timer ticks - there's nothing natural about the way you're doing things.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 27/06/2018 22:47:10
Weird things happen at the quantum scale; we have to use probabilities because things do not always happen the same way. There is two ways to consider that precision problem: either things are absolutely precise and we can predict anything if we know everything, or things are not absolutely precise and we can't predict them with absolute precision even if we know everything. The second way means that chance exists, the first means that it doesn't exist. These two thinking are so far from one another that they are irreconcilable: once we've chosen our way, we can't change it. There is no possible compromise, it's either one, or the other, we can't stand in between. I see chance everywhere and you don't. You want chance to be erased from our life and I want to make a tool out of it. You want to control things and I want to set them free. Maybe reality is in between, but our mind is visibly not. People say they are agnostic because they can't chose a side, not because they can stand in between: there is simply no place in between. Either god exists and he knows everything since the beginning, either he doesn't exist and we are stuck with chance till the end of times. Religions tried to add a bit of chance in their concept and called it free will, but it doesn't pass the ramp: free will is only a way to keep the questioning sheep in the herd. They also pray their god for chance, but it doesn't pass the ramp either: if god knows everything and he is perfectly precise, he doesn't need to change them.

You need things to be perfectly precise for your AGI to work and I don't, and you can't let down your ideas just because I don't agree with you, and me neither. We're stuck on two parallel roads and there is no crossover. Go on building your AGI and we'll see what happens. I'll go on trying to simulate motion the way I think, and we'll see what happens too. Maybe we'll find a way to reconcile our ideas later on. Meanwhile, thanks to you, we are two to fight that bunch of miscreant relativists. :0)
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 28/06/2018 19:32:24
Weird things happen at the quantum scale; we have to use probabilities because things do not always happen the same way. There is two ways to consider that precision problem: either things are absolutely precise and we can predict anything if we know everything, or things are not absolutely precise and we can't predict them with absolute precision even if we know everything. The second way means that chance exists, the first means that it doesn't exist.

The issue has nothing to do with probabilities of things on a quantum scale. The issue is entirely down to the program's clock ticks which you're requiring all collisions to coincide with, but collisions rarely coincide with the clock ticks of your program because they work to a much finer resolution (which some people think is infinite, but it's certainly so fine that we can't yet measure the length of the shortest tick of nature). To make a simulation accurately mirror reality, you have to go for as much precision as you can in calculating the times of collisions.

What you're doing is like looking at a race and insisting that all the runners cross the finish line on a multiple of a whole second while you run the collision detection routine at the end of each second, so in a 100m race you will determine that a few runners complete it in exactly ten seconds (and share the gold medal) while all the rest of the runners take exactly 11 seconds. If someone then complains that you're missing important detail because your timer isn't handling tenths or hundredths of seconds, your reply is that nature is imprecise and there's no point in calculating back from the collision detections (of the runners being at or beyond the finish line) because to represent reality you need to be imprecise.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 30/06/2018 18:36:36
It's not exactly what I have in mind. What I mean is that even if we divide the second in trillionth of a second, there will always be a certain imprecision. I succeeded to reduce the imprecision of my twins paradox's simulation by increasing the precision of the steps a bit, so I know that, if their precision was absolute, it would give the exact expected result: at the end, the moving clock would display exactly half the time the clock at rest displays, and it would stop exactly where it started. That observation is enough to show people that light doesn't have to travel at the same speed both ways for the moving twin to age less than the one at rest, what might convince some of them that LET is better at studying relativity. But I want more, I want to study motion at the particles' scale, and for that, I need to discover as precisely as possible how a photon strikes a particle. A photon has a certain dimension, and a step too, and they have to coincide otherwise some energy will be lost. The way my simulation on acceleration (http://motionsimulation.com/Acceleration%20with%20two%20particles) is actually built, it is not the photon that has a dimension but the steps it makes to execute its motion. Those steps are one unit long, and a particle's step is a fraction of that length, but the distance between the particles is 200 units, so in the beginning, the photon travels 200 units before striking a particle, and the particle travel 200 fractions of units during that time, which are of course theoretically executed by its components' steps.

Ideally, the photon should have a dimension, a beginning and an end, and its energy should follow a sinusoidal curve, which would then force the particle to produce a sinusoidal step made from smaller steps of changing lengths, which would emit a sinusoidal photon, and so on. That photon should fill the space between the particles so that its front end strikes a particle at the moment its middle leaves the other one, and vice-versa the other way around. Half of a photon would then be traveling right while another half would be traveling left. It's easy to imagine the synchronicity between the particles' steps and the photon when no motion is involved, but it is less easy to imagine the steps producing the sinusoidal photon and the photon producing the sinusoidal steps in return. However, we can approximate it using your simulation with ten photons (http://motionsimulations.com/Acceleration%20with%20ten%20photons): we just have to nudge the red particle five times to the right before the first blue bar hits the yellow particle, wait for that first bar to hit the yellow particle, and nudge the red one again five times to the left each time one of the five blue bars hits the yellow particle. We can then see the red particle's speed getting up to .05 while the yellow one is getting down to 0 and vice versa (By the way, do you know why the speed gets down to -3.469446951953614e-18 instead of 0?). That simulation could be improved to make the steps sinusoidal, and the photon would also get sinusoidal.

A natural phenomenon shows up in that simulation without us even having to program it: doppler effect. The distance between the bars inevitably shortens a bit when the red particle moves in the direction of the bars it emits, and it stretches back when the yellow particle moves in the opposite direction of the bars it emits, thus showing that doppler effect is not relative to the other particle, but to space or ether, or even to light since it is with regard to ether or space that light travels. My simulations show very clearly that bodies do not move with regard to other bodies, but with regard to ether, another reason for the SR guys not to use simulations to teach relativity or to study it. It is with regard to the light from the other particle that my particles move, not with regard to the other particle, otherwise they would both move at the same time when one of them is accelerated and they don't.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 30/06/2018 21:33:09
The way my simulation on acceleration (http://lumiere.shost.ca/Acceleration%20with%20two%20particles/Acceleration%20with%20two%20particles.html) is actually built, it is not the photon that has a dimension but the steps it makes to execute its motion.

In the text on that simulation you suggest that you're trying to account for length contraction, but the amount of contraction you're getting is wrong, and we also know where length contraction comes from in any case (relativistic mass reduces acceleration and automatically imposes contraction), so if you want a simulation to reproduce it, you need to program it to produce it properly, and that means varying the amount of acceleration delivered depending on the initial speed of the thing being accelerated. Look up the rules of relativistic velocity addition and use that as a guide.

Quote
(By the way, do you know why the speed gets down to -3.469446951953614e-18 instead of 0?)

I couldn't get it to produce that value, but it's so close to 0 that it may be a tiny error produced by the accuracy limits of the FPU (floating-point unit [maths co-processor]).
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 01/07/2018 15:02:06
we also know where length contraction comes from in any case (relativistic mass increase reduces acceleration and automatically imposes contraction)
As you know, contrary to you, I explain mass increase with light taking more and more time to reach the particles because the middle of their sinusoidal step is approaching c. With the steps, it is light that moves the particles, so whenever they would reach c, light would not reach them anymore, and they would stop accelerating. But your comment about relativistic mass increase seems nevertheless pertinent: if I let the distance between the components contract the same way I let the distance between the particles contract, the steps made by the particles will also contract, which should slow down their contraction and their acceleration a bit. I had already begun making a simulation of two inline light clocks located at the two ends of an accelerating spaceship to study the equivalence principle, and I was lacking stimulation to finish it. Thanks to you, I now have two reasons to do so!

Quote
I couldn't get it to produce that value, but it's so close to 0 that it may be a tiny error produced by the accuracy limits of the FPU (floating-point unit [maths co-processor]).
I was about to correct the error with code, because it complicates the reading of the display, is there a better way?
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 01/07/2018 21:49:29
if I let the distance between the components contract the same way I let the distance between the particles contract, the steps made by the particles will also contract, which should slow down their contraction and their acceleration a bit.

One important thing is to adjust the amount of acceleration delivered depending on the current speed of the thing being accelerated (though I'm not sure how the numbers would need to be crunched when decelerating it). The other thing I'd want to do is give each object its own time so that its speed of movement can adjust its speed of functionality - matter may be continually sending signals out at a rate related to that speed of functionality in order to detect what other matter around it is up to, because if one lot of matter meets another that's travelled a long way to meet it, neither will accelerate unless they can detect and react to each other in some way, so you'll never have anything travel between them unless they're continually testing their surrounds.

Quote
I was about to correct the error with code, because it complicates the reading of the display, is there a better way?

If it's the kind of error that I think it is, the cure is to correct it with extra code. Each value could be compared with a rounded up or down version of the same value, then you'd subtract one from the other and look at the size of the bit that's left over - if it's a tiny value, the rounded up or down version of the number can be used as it's more likely to be the correct value. JavaScript has an instruction for rounding a number, but it would be worth googling to see if there's a more efficient way of rounding it to just a few significant digits to get rid of most of the unnecessary ones and remove clutter from the screen.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 02/07/2018 16:10:07
One important thing is to adjust the amount of acceleration delivered depending on the current speed of the thing being accelerated (though I'm not sure how the numbers would need to be crunched when decelerating it).
Another important thing is to keep in mind that whatever we do for contraction to coincide with SR's ad hoc assumption, if particles (and components) really need to stay synchronized during motion, then as shows my simulation with four particles, the MM experiment would always give a null result whatever the contraction and whatever the time light takes to make its round-trip. If such a simulation had been available to Michelson, things might have turned out differently. If I would let the contraction happen during acceleration in the Twins Paradox simulation for instance, the traveling twin would age more than the one at rest instead of aging less, which means that there is always a possible in-between contraction rate where, for the same speed, the two Twins would age the same. For those who are skeptical, have a look at that one for a speed of .7027c and a contraction of .5 . (http://motionsimulations.com/Twins even)

Quote
The other thing I'd want to do is give each object its own time so that its speed of movement can adjust its speed of functionality - matter may be continually sending signals out at a rate related to that speed of functionality in order to detect what other matter around it is up to, because if one lot of matter meets another that's traveled a long way to meet it, neither will accelerate unless they can detect and react to each other in some way, so you'll never have anything travel between them unless they're continually testing their surrounds.
That's precisely what I want to observe while replacing the particles by two light clocks in my simulation on acceleration.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 02/07/2018 22:34:30
Another important thing is to keep in mind that whatever we do for contraction to coincide with SR's ad hoc assumption,

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 realise that this was what drove the length contraction.

Quote
the MM experiment would always give a null result whatever the contraction and whatever the time light takes to make its round-trip.

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

Quote
If such a simulation had been available to Michelson, things might have turned out differently.

Michelson understood fine what was happening (after length contraction was proposed as an explanation), though none of them realised what drove the length contraction.

Quote
If I would let the contraction happen during acceleration in the Twins Paradox simulation for instance, the traveling twin would age more than the one at rest instead of aging less, which means that there is always a possible in-between contraction rate where, for the same speed, the two Twins would age the same.

If the contraction was different from the kind that actually applies, the absolute frame would be identified, and the speed of functionality could be faster or slower than it is for many objects, though it's also possible that the matter they're made of would become unstable due to the different functionality speeds for cycles aligned with the direction of movement of an object and aligned across that direction - we don't know how matter would behave in such a case as it never has to.

Quote
For those who are skeptical, have a look at that one for a speed of .7027c and a contraction of .5 . (http://scoundrels)

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.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 02/07/2018 22:41:09
If the contraction was different from the kind that actually applies,

Place the particles one particle length apart.  Then run the simulation.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 02/07/2018 23:30:15
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.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 02/07/2018 23:33:19
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 1056 times)

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

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 03/07/2018 15:00:49
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. (http://lumiere.shost.ca/Acceleration%20with%20four%20particles/Acceleration%20with%20four%20particles.html) 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?
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 03/07/2018 15:14:22
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 (http://motionsimulations.com/Acceleration%20with%20two%20particles), accelerate the red particle, wait till the particles get about one particle away from one another, then stop the acceleration.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 03/07/2018 15:19:35
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 (http://lumiere.shost.ca/Acceleration%20with%20two%20particles/Acceleration%20with%20two%20particles.html), accelerate the red particle, wait till the particles get about one particle away from one another, then stop the acceleration.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 03/07/2018 16:58:05
Thanks! Did you understand why the distance between the particles was contracting?
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: phyti on 03/07/2018 17:32:20
Le Repteux;
Quote
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).
---
Quote
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).
-----
Quote
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.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 03/07/2018 19:25:43
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 (http://lumiere.shost.ca/Acceleration%20with%20four%20particles/Acceleration%20with%20four%20particles.html) 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 (http://motionsimulations.com/Acceleration%20with%20two%20particles), 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.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 03/07/2018 21:52:28
Thanks! Did you understand why the distance between the particles was contracting?
Yes, one dot was accelerating where one was constant in velocity.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 03/07/2018 22:11:34
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 03/07/2018 22:23:44
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).
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 03/07/2018 22:28:16
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.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 03/07/2018 22:34:53

expansion.jpg (66.2 kB . 1146x766 - viewed 993 times)

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

The earths timing is ~0.288 mile/s  ~1000mph
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 03/07/2018 23:04:14
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.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 03/07/2018 23:13:50
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?

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 04/07/2018 19:10:27
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 04/07/2018 20:09:20
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?
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 04/07/2018 20:59:38
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.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 05/07/2018 08:06:41
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.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 05/07/2018 19:11:17
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.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 05/07/2018 19:17:12
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?
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 05/07/2018 19:44:34
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.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 05/07/2018 19:56:56
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 ''.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: phyti on 06/07/2018 15:41:49
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.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 07/07/2018 14:10:52
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: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Length_contraction_and_Lorentz_transformation)
Quote from: Wiki
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.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 07/07/2018 14:23:14
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 1281 times)

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 07/07/2018 14:33:25
What for? To show that ether is detectable? How?
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 07/07/2018 14:33:36
I improved it for you

[ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 07/07/2018 14:33:59
What for? To show that ether is detectable? How?
Observable if you get it right
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 07/07/2018 14:36:29
How?
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 07/07/2018 14:41:09
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 .

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 07/07/2018 14:53:08
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 07/07/2018 14:53:59
I have not wrote the paper on the subject, it is new.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 07/07/2018 15:03:21
Then you need to explain what you mean, I can't figure it out.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 07/07/2018 16:06:07
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.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 07/07/2018 18:43:43
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.

Quote
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).

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 09/07/2018 14:24:14
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 09/07/2018 18:29:43
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.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 09/07/2018 18:49:57
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 .  :o
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 09/07/2018 22:00:01
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.

I can't get that to add up. If that light is bonding them, but they only become bonded once that light has been lost, what is bonding them once they are actually bonded?

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

But what stops two non-bonded particles from being bonded particles when they get close together?

Quote
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.

Is that in any of your simulations? For example, if you add a "spontaneous quantum leap" routine to move one of the particles to a different distance away from the other without changing it's speed through space, will it automatically move back over time to where it should be to restore the correct separation?

Quote
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.

I can't remember where we got to, but do any of the simulations show a contraction when you move the leading particle away from the other or do they all produce length extension?

Quote
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.

The failure to produce the right amount of contraction shows that the method is wrong - it isn't just a matter of debugging it. It's just a chance contraction. Correct contraction should result from a balance of forces.

Quote
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.

The accelerations reveal which twin moves more quickly through space on average than the other. Both may be moving.

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

It isn't that simple. A simulation that creates rain by having a god urinate from a cloud may well water the flowers, but it is not a true simulation of the real universe.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 10/07/2018 10:52:28
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.
Why apply force ?  Is it not best to let the particles do their own thing?
Couplings will take a lot of time and energy to split, the information of the coupling is ''tight'' by entanglement, perhaps one particle always follows the lead particle by an unseen bond .  Imagine sending four particles at the same time, there is then no contraction to worry about, everything will be synchronized by the constant of light and the lead particle.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 10/07/2018 18:54:13
I can't get that to add up. If that light is bonding them, but they only become bonded once that light has been lost, what is bonding them once they are actually bonded?
The light that bonds the particles is the one that succeeded to escape from the bonding between the components. Light can only escape during acceleration, because it is then that the steps get out of sync a bit. Such an acceleration can be due to an external collision, but it is also due to the way the steps between the components are forced to justify the steps of the particle they are part of. The steps of the particles are sinusoidal, they are made of an acceleration followed by a deceleration, and the components' steps must follow that curve since a particle's step is  made of them. During one of the particle's step, its components' steps are thus forced to accelerate to a top speed and then decelerate to rest, so some light escapes from them, but that light isn't lost, it is used further away to accelerate the steps from the other particle's components, and vice-versa. That's what I want to simulate while replacing the particles by two light clocks in my simulation on acceleration, but your question made me realize that I can use your simulation with ten photons to simulate a sinusoidal wave. That's a tricky one, but talking about it evidently helps me to figure it out.

But what stops two non-bonded particles from being bonded particles when they get close together?
Speed, as with atoms in a plasma phase for instance.

Is that in any of your simulations? For example, if you add a "spontaneous quantum leap" routine to move one of the particles to a different distance away from the other without changing it's speed through space, will it automatically move back over time to where it should be to restore the correct separation?
We know that electrons spontaneously get back to a lower level of energy after having been bumped to a higher one, so if that spontaneity is due to quantum chance, then we can use it too for the steps. Notice that if a step suffers such a quantum leap, some light will automatically escape from it since it loses its synchronicity in the process.

I can't remember where we got to, but do any of the simulations show a contraction when you move the leading particle away from the other or do they all produce length extension?
There is only one way to pull two bonded particles away from one another: throw a third particle directly in between them at high speed. If it doesn't brake the bond between the particles, that kind of collision may produce a special kind of motion that we call a vibration, and with the steps as an explanation for motion, such a motion is inevitably made out of steps. Contrary to the steps that produce constant motion though, those steps are made in opposite directions, but as my simulation on acceleration shows, reversing the acceleration does not reverse the contraction, so they should also produce some, what should also affect the time light takes between the particles and between the components. Now, if the third particle hits at an angle at low speed, it could simply be deviated, and if it hits at high speed, it could simply brake the bond. What I mean is that if we can't imagine a way for the particles to pull one particle away without immediately affecting the other, then it may be because it is impossible for them to do so.

The failure to produce the right amount of contraction shows that the method is wrong - it isn't just a matter of debugging it. It's just a chance contraction. Correct contraction should result from a balance of forces.
The method can be wrong, but the logic can't. If we accelerate a firsts particle while its light takes some time to inform the second one that it has moved, then it will have the time to move towards that second one before it moves away, and it will also go on moving towards it during the time the light from that second one will be getting back. The way it moves towards that second one may be wrong though, and that's what I want to study while replacing my two particles by two light clocks. I gave the steps a mean constant speed during their acceleration whereas a step is always made of an acceleration followed by a deceleration, so I need to study that motion more closely. At the beginning, I thought that the particle would make only one step and then stop and wait for the photon to get back, but it didn't work so I let it travel during acceleration. What I could try now is permit the particle to execute its constant motion out of its precedent acceleration instead of its actual one, what should reduce the contraction a bit. I'll try that!

The accelerations reveal which twin moves more quickly through space on average than the other. Both may be moving.
Of course, but I always consider that the twin at rest is at rest with regard to space so that I'm not forced to use the reference frame principle interminable wording.

It isn't that simple. A simulation that creates rain by having a god urinate from a cloud may well water the flowers, but it is not a true simulation of the real universe.
A simulation is at least as good as math at representing the real universe, but as SR shows, the math doesn't need to be logical to give the right numbers, whereas a simulation has. We can't move things on a screen in a way that they can't use, but we can use bad logic to do so in words.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 10/07/2018 19:06:29
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.
Why apply force ?  Is it not best to let the particles do their own thing?
Couplings will take a lot of time and energy to split, the information of the coupling is ''tight'' by entanglement, perhaps one particle always follows the lead particle by an unseen bond .  Imagine sending four particles at the same time, there is then no contraction to worry about, everything will be synchronized by the constant of light and the lead particle.
Take a look at my doppler effect explanation hereafter and tell me if you understand something:
Quote
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.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 10/07/2018 19:40:12

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.

Could you elaborate more ?  I sort of understand

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 10/07/2018 20:48:46
The light that bonds the particles is the one that succeeded to escape from the bonding between the components.

I can't follow the logic of that. If the light has escaped, it can have no further role in the bonding: it can't go on travelling to and fro between the particles to maintain the bond.

Quote
During one of the particle's step, its components' steps are thus forced to accelerate to a top speed and then decelerate to rest, so some light escapes from them, but that light isn't lost, it is used further away to accelerate the steps from the other particle's components, and vice-versa.

If it isn't actually lost, then it hasn't been released, so it isn't the energy released by the bond being formed.

Quote
But what stops two non-bonded particles from being bonded particles when they get close together?
Speed, as with atoms in a plasma phase for instance.

If it's just speed, then why don't two books bond together when you put them in a bookcase? Why don't the pages all bond together? All the atoms there are bouncing about with the same energy (some going faster than others depending on their mass, but there's no difference between bonded and unbonded ones). You haven't modelled bonding at all.

Quote
There is only one way to pull two bonded particles away from one another: throw a third particle directly in between them at high speed.

Picture an air molecule at rest with its two or three atoms aligned vertically. Another air molecule comes in from the left and it's lowest atom hits the highest of the atoms of the first molecule, sending it directly to the right. This kind of collision happens a lot in air without the bonds breaking. The atom that was hit will drag the other atoms in its molecule after it (and the molecule will spin).

Quote
but as my simulation on acceleration shows, reversing the acceleration does not reverse the contraction,

And yet it should, so what is it actually simulating? Compression?

Quote
The method can be wrong, but the logic can't. If we accelerate a firsts particle while its light takes some time to inform the second one that it has moved, then it will have the time to move towards that second one before it moves away, and it will also go on moving towards it during the time the light from that second one will be getting back.

That is what happens with compression, but it's temporary - it runs into a strengthening force opposing that movement as it gets closer to the other particle. You need to think carefully about the difference between length contraction and compression and make sure you're able to model both. Imagine a pair of particles moving at 0.866c to the left. The length contraction on those will be to half the rest separation. If you nudge the left-hand particle repeatedly until the pair are at rest, the length contraction will be completely gone by that time. If you continue to nudge the left-hand particle until the pair are moving at 0.866c to the right, the length contraction to half the rest length will have returned. If your model doesn't produce that pattern, it isn't modelling length contraction. Each nudge will lead to temporary compression, but the pair will find that compression "uncomfortable" and will re-establish correct separation. Before that correct separation is restored, there will be some vibration until that energy is radiated off as heat. Again, your simulation needs to handle all of that. What you actually have now is the start of a model of compression, but it soon goes wrong because you don't have any balance of forces playing out between the particles.

Quote
Of course, but I always consider that the twin at rest is at rest with regard to space so that I'm not forced to use the reference frame principle interminable wording.

Which means that your approach feels closer to the SR one than to LET. With LET, the "stationary" twin is almost certainly not stationary, so it makes no sense to avoid explaining the thought experiment with him moving. You should always consider at least two cases and use the word "if".
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 11/07/2018 22:29:01
Which means that your approach feels closer to the SR one than to LET. With LET, the "stationary" twin is almost certainly not stationary, so it makes no sense to avoid explaining the thought experiment with him moving. You should always consider at least two cases and use the word "if".
SR people already know that the twins are already moving with the earth when one of them starts to accelerate away from the other, and they also know that the accelerating twin will have to travel twice as fast getting back home if they change reference frames, so the only thing that really differentiates the twins is acceleration. If the twins were in space instead of on earth, without knowing which twin has accelerated, nobody could tell which one has gotten younger without looking at their clocks, and inversely, looking at their clocks would automatically tell us which one has accelerated, except maybe SR people that would probably still stick to the idea that motion has to stay relative whatever the logical problems it causes, and that would still try to explain it using the reference frame principle even if acceleration is involved, thus sweeping it under the rug again. Acceleration is simple to understand and determinant, and if we can't convince them to admit that, then I think it is useless to use a more complicated way like you do. They are experts at complicating things, and logic is not part of their vocabulary, so I prefer to hit the acceleration nail as often as I can. On the other hand, going through their complications like you do at least shows them that they can't win at that game either.

Quote from: Le Repteux
The light that bonds the particles is the one that succeeded to escape from the bonding between the components.
I can't follow the logic of that. If the light has escaped, it can have no further role in the bonding: it can't go on traveling to and fro between the particles to maintain the bond.
It escapes from the components' bonding because it is not constant, but not from the particles' bonding since it is. If I made a simulation with two light clocks representing my two particles for instance, if I would accelerate them for a while and then let them go, and if I gave all the steps a sinusoidal shape, the steps the mirrors would make with regard to one another would not be constant, while the steps the clocks themselves would make with regard to one another would be. The clocks would be executing constant length's sinusoidal steps and the mirrors' steps would have to follow them, thus getting longer and longer until the clock's sinusoidal step gets in its middle, and getting shorter and shorter until the same clock's sinusoidal step ends. Longer steps in the same time means faster speed, and a change in speed means acceleration, so the steps the mirrors would be executing would accelerate and decelerate at a sinusoidal rate, thus losing some light in the process, a light that would necessarily reach the other clock after a while, and that could certainly produce its sinusoidal step since it has escaped from such a step.

If it's just speed, then why don't two books bond together when you put them in a bookcase? Why don't the pages all bond together?
Because molecules don't get close enough for the bonding to take place. Take two metal plates, polish them, hold them together in void, and you will get a bonding between them. If you give them some speed towards one another instead of holding them, they will bounce back instead of bonding. I must admit that speed is not the only parameter though, the strength of the bond is determinant too. If the plates are charged for instance, you will get a bonding even if they don't touch.

Quote from: Le Repteux
but as my simulation on acceleration shows, reversing the acceleration does not reverse the contraction,
And yet it should, so what is it actually simulating? Compression?
Thanks! It's about time I get that one. You're right, contraction should reverse until the particles get at rest on the screen, and it doesn't, so something is wrong with that simulation even if the idea that contraction happens at acceleration is right. Back to the drawing board!

Picture an air molecule at rest with its two or three atoms aligned vertically. Another air molecule comes in from the left and it's lowest atom hits the highest of the atoms of the first molecule, sending it directly to the right. This kind of collision happens a lot in air without the bonds breaking. The atom that was hit will drag the other atoms in its molecule after it (and the molecule will spin).
Rotation is different from constant motion, but I didn't simulate it yet, so I can only imagine it. In my simulation on acceleration, after having been accelerated a quantum bit, the first particle to suffer acceleration has to be held where it is while the photon makes its round trip, and it cannot be held in your example, so it should first get away from the second one and then get back where it was, what should produce a vibration. I have to solve my contraction problem before studying rotation though. I could use the SR equation and contract the system each time it accelerates a quantum bit, but I'm not in a hurry. I still hope to discover the underlying mechanism.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 11/07/2018 23:16:37
It escapes from the components' bonding because it is not constant, but not from the particles' bonding since it is.

If you're going to say the light is lost and that this lost light is related to the bonding energy reducing the total mass/energy of the bonded pair, you can't have the bonded pair keep hold of that energy in any way - it has to radiate off, and then your mechanism has to account for the bonding being maintained without that radiated energy.

Quote
Because molecules don't get close enough for the bonding to take place.

Yes they do - they wouldn't be able to conduct heat if the atoms weren't actively bumping into each other, and that bumping isn't enough to create bonds.

Quote
Take two metal plates, polish them, hold them together in void, and you will get a bonding between them.

That might be the case in a vacuum, but only because nothing's available to bond with any unbalanced atoms that are left looking for something to bond with until the plates come together.

Quote
If you give them some speed towards one another instead of holding them, they will bounce back instead of bonding.

In which case the same would work in air as in a vacuum with the air bouncing off without bonding due to speed. The reality is that bonding is more complicated than your model allows for.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 12/07/2018 12:18:39
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.
Could you elaborate more ?  I sort of understand
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 12/07/2018 13:14:10
whenever we try to accelerate the first particle in my simulations on acceleration, it automatically produces blueshift on the light from the second one,
I will start with this part, are you saying that when the observer tries to move away from the observer at rest, the observer at rest pulls back on the observer trying to accelerate away ?
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 13/07/2018 14:10:42
whenever we try to accelerate the first particle in my simulations on acceleration, it automatically produces blueshift on the light from the second one,
I will start with this part, are you saying that when the observer tries to move away from the observer at rest, the observer at rest pulls back on the observer trying to accelerate away ?
The first particle in my simulation is at the left, and it is accelerated towards the other particle which is at the right. Both particles are continuously exchanging a photon that carries the information on the distance it has traveled, which is the actual distance of the bond, and on the motion of the particle at the moment it was sending the photon, so whenever we try to move the left particle to the right, we have to move it against the force of the incoming photon which is actually trying to keep the right bonding distance while pushing it back to the left. The two forces are thus opposing to one another creating what we call mass. What you are describing happens when acceleration has stopped and particles are on constant motion, except that it is not the observer that pulls or pushes on the other observer like you said, but the light it sends towards it. The photon is emitted during a step, and a particle has already come to a rest when its photon reaches the other particle and vice-versa, which means that the two observers do not actually move at the same time even if they are on constant motion, which also means that when we see something moving, half of its atoms are at rest while the other half is actually making a step forward.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 13/07/2018 14:34:16
whenever we try to accelerate the first particle in my simulations on acceleration, it automatically produces blueshift on the light from the second one,
I will start with this part, are you saying that when the observer tries to move away from the observer at rest, the observer at rest pulls back on the observer trying to accelerate away ?
The first particle in my simulation is at the left, and it is accelerated towards the other particle which is at the right. Both particles are continuously exchanging a photon that carries the information on the distance it has traveled, which is the actual distance of the bond, and on the motion of the particle at the moment it was sending the photon, so whenever we try to move the left particle to the right, we have to move it against the force of the incoming photon which is actually trying to keep the right bonding distance while pushing it back to the left. The two forces are thus opposing to one another creating what we call mass. What you are describing happens when acceleration has stopped and particles are on constant motion, except that it is not the observer that pulls or pushes on the other observer like you said, but the light it sends towards it. The photon is emitted during a step, and a particle has already come to a rest when its photon reaches the other particle and vice-versa, which means that the two observer do not actually move at the same time even if they are on constant motion, which also means that when we see something moving, half of its atoms are at rest while the other half is actually making a step forward.

I have discussed this before  and you will find each particle only has 1/2 its measured mass.   Because of F^2 = m
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 13/07/2018 16:32:24
If you're going to say the light is lost and that this lost light is related to the bonding energy reducing the total mass/energy of the bonded pair, you can't have the bonded pair keep hold of that energy in any way - it has to radiate off, and then your mechanism has to account for the bonding being maintained without that radiated energy.
In my model, radiation happens only during acceleration, and acceleration adds energy to the bonding if it comes from an external collision, which is why that kind of light is spontaneously rejected outside any particles' system after a short while. However, if the acceleration is due to the steps between the components being forced to follow the sinusoidal steps between the particles they are part of, then the energy that is rejected outside the components' system is immediately absorbed by the particles' system later on.

Quote
Because molecules don't get close enough for the bonding to take place.
Yes they do - they wouldn't be able to conduct heat if the atoms weren't actively bumping into each other, and that bumping isn't enough to create bonds.
Heat can also prevent particles from bonding, but we're talking about molecules, which can bond through van der Waals forces depending on circumstances that visibly prevent molecules to bond pages of a book. These forces are weak so they are more elastic than atoms' ones, which is why molecules give rise to what we call physical waves instead of producing small steps when they are accelerated.

The reality is that bonding is more complicated than your model allows for.
Of course it is, but since light seems to be able to explain mass and motion while being exchanged between bonded particles, then I think it is worth studying how it can also explain bonding. Simulations are a good tool to study that kind of thing, and I bet scientists are unable to use them since it implies that relativity is wrong, so we have a head start on them. Simulations cannot simulate all what nature accounts for, but they still can give us a good insight on what it does.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: opportunity on 13/07/2018 16:38:55
Computers cant test what you are not able to test, right...we the people who program, right?

What are you looking to confirm, right? Maybe deny?
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 13/07/2018 16:58:17
I have discussed this before  and you will find each particle only has 1/2 its measured mass.   Because of F^2 = m
When I said half of the particles were moving, I was describing constant motion, where the particles are making constant steps at different moments, but it is different when they get accelerated, which is what determines their mass. When we accelerate a particle, it opposes to the light from the other particle, so some mass comes front its resistance to move towards it, but the main part comes from the resistance its components oppose to the light they exchange, because that light is a lot more energetic than the one the particles exchange, so it is a bit more complicated than just considering that half of the total mass is measured. Half of the mass comes from the components, and a bit less than half comes from the other particle because, particles being farther away from one another than the components, the light they exchange loses much more intensity with distance than the light the components exchange.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 13/07/2018 17:06:13
Computers cant test what you are not able to test, right...we the people who program, right?

What are you looking to confirm, right? Maybe deny?
Hi Opportunity, welcome aboard!

I'm studying the way light moves between moving bonded particles, and simulations are a nice tool to do so. Math can also do that, but we have to imagine the motion instead of seeing it, which is impossible to do when motion gets a bit complicated. Here is the link to my simulations (http://lumiere.shost.ca/), try them out and tell me your feeling.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 14/07/2018 15:44:26
I have discussed this before  and you will find each particle only has 1/2 its measured mass.   Because of F^2 = m
When I said half of the particles were moving, I was describing constant motion, where the particles are making constant steps at different moments, but it is different when they get accelerated, which is what determines their mass. When we accelerate a particle, it opposes to the light from the other particle, so some mass comes front its resistance to move towards it, but the main part comes from the resistance its components oppose to the light they exchange, because that light is a lot more energetic than the one the particles exchange, so it is a bit more complicated than just considering that half of the total mass is measured. Half of the mass comes from the components, and a bit less than half comes from the other particle because, particles being farther away from one another than the components, the light they exchange loses much more intensity with distance than the light the components exchange.

What actually happens is that when a particle is traversing towards another particle, it inverts the spatial EM field that is relatively traversing towards the oncoming particle.   Imagine two lights that were aligned vertically, one pointing up and one pointing down.  Each light being a different wattage,  now the more powerful light will invert the other light although you would not see this by eye.

Added- Well , actually we do see this in colour and EQL's .

Ab.jpg (199.53 kB . 2524x1880 - viewed 1182 times)

In relation is field density and field convergence , but hopefully you get the points.  In the diagram the inverted light flows ''backwards'' and ''forwards'' at the same time .

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 18/07/2018 16:06:34
And yet it should, so what is it actually simulating? Compression?
I'm actually working on that simulation. I'll be back in a few days.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 18/07/2018 16:41:05
What actually happens is that when a particle is traversing towards another particle, it inverts the spatial EM field that is relatively traversing towards the oncoming particle.   Imagine two lights that were aligned vertically, one pointing up and one pointing down.  Each light being a different wattage,  now the more powerful light will invert the other light although you would not see this by eye.
Two synchronized sources of light create interference patterns like these ones
The two lights interfere without their information being affected, and you seem to mean that it would. Is that so?
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 18/07/2018 18:30:06
What actually happens is that when a particle is traversing towards another particle, it inverts the spatial EM field that is relatively traversing towards the oncoming particle.   Imagine two lights that were aligned vertically, one pointing up and one pointing down.  Each light being a different wattage,  now the more powerful light will invert the other light although you would not see this by eye.
Two synchronized sources of light create interference patterns like these ones
The two lights interfere without their information being affected, and you seem to mean that it would. Is that so?

Yes that is so, the information is not affected if I understand your question right.  A particle for example when it moves away from another particle can easily lose entanglement to the other particle.    The connection is field strength and is wide, but I don't think particles entangle the same information, not all particles are the same.  A beam of particles could soon be lost in space , dissipate without even being seen, its like holding a bunch of all the particles in your hand, some will easily scatter and be lost ,  they only need a direction to travel , you probably just think I am talking rubbish, I probably am .  :P

To add, do you think a handful of particles will lose more mass or keep more mass?

Or will the hand retain all the mass and none escapes ?  The hand covers the particles so none escape ?

Quote
In physics, a free particle is a particle that, in some sense, is not bound by an external force, or equivalently not in a region where its potential energy varies. In classical physics, this means the particle is present in a "field-free" space. In quantum mechanics, it means a region of uniform potential, usually set to zero in the region of interest since potential can be arbitrarily set to zero at any point (or surface in three dimensions) in space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_particle

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 18/07/2018 19:18:35
I'm just trying to understand your point in case it would help me to simulate motion. I still think that light drives the way motion is executed by the particles. At first, I thought that we could easily simulate doppler effect, but it turned out not to be that easy, so I'm trying to simplify the problem, and you seem to be complicating it. It is no use trying to complicate things at the beginning of a research, we got to stay simple and wait till people start to understand to start complicating them.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 18/07/2018 19:23:10
I'm just trying to understand your point in case it would help me to simulate motion. I still think that light drives the way motion is executed by the particles. At first, I thought that we could easily simulate doppler effect, but it turned out not to be that easy, so I'm trying to simplify the problem, and you seem to be complicating it. It is no use trying to complicate things at the beginning of a research, we got to stay simple and wait till people start to understand to start complicating them.

Of course , we have to stay simple,  light travels , we know this, it is like asking somebody call the shop when they are going, they have to travel a distance . Only science understands that things travel but are not really relative . Particles have no connection concerning entanglement.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 18/07/2018 19:57:45
The main difference between my theory and others is that I consider light as a motion producer whereas all others only consider it as an information carrier. It is certainly an information carrier at our scale, but when we get down to particles, we discover that it could also move them. I might still be wrong, but it is certainly interesting to study that possibility. As you can see though, scientists are not easier to interest than laymen. :0)
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 18/07/2018 20:08:38
The main difference between my theory and others is that I consider light as a motion producer whereas all others only consider it as an information carrier. It is certainly an information carrier at our scale, but when we get down to particles, we discover that it could also move them. I might still be wrong, but it is certainly interesting to study that possibility. As you can see though, scientists are not easier to interest than laymen. :0)
Sometimes we can read to deep into the information, where others would just not see the information about light.  I think you may be forgetting that ,  science has detectors to see and observe  far better than a laymen.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 18/07/2018 20:25:15
You also have good detectors to observe information, and you can clearly observe that this information produces motion. Why would the information that we exchange produce motion while the one that particles exchange would not?
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 18/07/2018 20:39:52
You also have good detectors to observe information, and you can clearly observe that this information produces motion. Why would the information that we exchange produce motion while the one that particles exchange would not?
Because of different perspective ,  not even comparable and maybe because one particle has more mass and more force applying on the weaker particle.  The weaker particle oblivious to the force applied.
Anyway I am going go away sulk, it does not look like my other theory of prediction worked out to well at first glance.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Thebox on 19/07/2018 16:27:35
I have thought more on this subject, quite clearly a particle at absolute rest is not affected by the particle that is moving in the background, the forces would not act on the distant body ,  sort of ignored in respect to entanglement.  I suppose most people have ignorance towards an absolute rest frame where the back ground particle force can be ignored because of enthalpic properties that are created .  But science is like talking to a stone about an absolute reference frame that is independent of everything else.  Particles that keep their distance from enphalpic pressure, remain ignorant of enphalpic pressure. I don't think you are not accounting for this .  When a particle moves away from another particle but still close, the enphalpic pressure is released.
I have you just give you some more light on the subject, if you listen you might hear and learn something new.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 09/08/2018 20:25:25
That is what happens with compression, but it's temporary - it runs into a strengthening force opposing that movement as it gets closer to the other particle. You need to think carefully about the difference between length contraction and compression and make sure you're able to model both. Imagine a pair of particles moving at 0.866c to the left. The length contraction on those will be to half the rest separation. If you nudge the left-hand particle repeatedly until the pair are at rest, the length contraction will be completely gone by that time. If you continue to nudge the left-hand particle until the pair are moving at 0.866c to the right, the length contraction to half the rest length will have returned. If your model doesn't produce that pattern, it isn't modelling length contraction. Each nudge will lead to temporary compression, but the pair will find that compression "uncomfortable" and will re-establish correct separation. Before that correct separation is restored, there will be some vibration until that energy is radiated off as heat. Again, your simulation needs to handle all of that. What you actually have now is the start of a model of compression, but it soon goes wrong because you don't have any balance of forces playing out between the particles.
I can't find the flaw in my simulation on opposite accelerations (http://www.motionsimulations.com/Acceleration%20in%20opposite%20directions)' logic, so I get back analyzing SR, because I think we must not take it for granted when we analyze contraction. In the twins mind experiment for instance, the traveling twin must start getting younger and getting contracted at the beginning of his acceleration since it is there that he begins getting speed, and the theory predicts that he must stay younger when he loses all his speed at the end, so why wouldn't he stay contracted since he got contracted the same way he got younger? Just because it looks weird? To me, time dilation is as weird as length contraction. The only difference is that contraction is considered not to be observable. It may not be observable for real particles, but it is certainly observable in a simulation.

The speed my particles get comes from their steps, they are virtually walking in space. Changing the length of their steps changes their speed, so whenever we try to change their length during acceleration to lower the contraction rate, we automatically lower their speed so the contraction rate stays the same. SR adapts the contraction rate to the speed so that the two arms of the MM experiment stay tuned, but they have almost no data to back them up. The muon experiment is a one way measure on a particle that is almost as fast as light, so it is as biased as any one way measure of light, and we didn't yet send a clock for a round trip in deep space to check if it really ages less than the one at rest. All we have is a round trip made by fast particles in an accelerator to check if their decay rate is the same as when they are slow, but we don't even know why they decay, so we can't even simulate it. I simply don't trust experiments that I cannot simulate.

Now about compression: in my simulations, if we start accelerating a particle and let it go before the light from the acceleration of the other particle is back, it should immediately get back to its previous position, which is similar to compression, but if we keep exerting a force on it instead, it should increase its speed each time a photon from the other particle would strike it. Saying that, I realize that it never moves backward one step when we stop the acceleration and it should, so I could correct that, but it wouldn't change the contraction rate, it would only induce a small vibration between the particles as soon as we would stop accelerating them.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 09/08/2018 21:36:01
In the twins mind experiment for instance, the traveling twin must start getting younger and getting contracted at the beginning of his acceleration since it is there that he begins getting speed,

In LET, he may be slowing down when he starts his journey rather than speeding up, so he will age more quickly during the first leg of the trip, but it will then be a short trip and he will age much more slowly on the longer return leg, ending up "younger" than his twin (although in reality he remains the same age and has merely "weathered" less due to slowed overall functionality).

In SR (which consists of a set of broken models, none of which function correctly), he travels a shorter path through time and is physically younger than his twin when they next meet, but you can't simulate that without using Minkowski Spacetime, and even if you do that, you can't get rid of the event-meshing failures without going to a block universe model where all events exist eternally and nothing was ever caused by anything.

Quote
and the theory predicts that he must stay younger when he loses all his speed at the end, so why wouldn't he stay contracted since he got contracted the same way he got younger?

Once he's back co-moving with his twin, his rate of ageing will be the same as his twin's. He doesn't stay the same age forever at the end of the trip, and he doesn't remain more contracted than his twin.

Quote
To me, time dilation is as weird as length contraction. The only difference is that contraction is considered not to be observable. It may not be observable for real particles, but it is certainly observable in a simulation.

Contraction is observable and MM measures it happening. In principle, if we could accelerate large objects to relativistic speeds, we'd be able to measure them as being shortened (although it could be us that's actually shortened while they have uncontracted).

Quote
The muon experiment is a one way measure on a particle that is almost as fast as light, so it is as biased as any one way measure of light, and we didn't yet send a clock for a round trip in deep space to check if it really ages less than the one at rest. All we have is a round trip made by fast particles in an accelerator to check if their decay rate is the same as when they are slow, but we don't even know why they decay, so we can't even simulate it. I simply don't trust experiments that I cannot simulate.

They've sent atomic clocks round the Earth in planes and satellites, and they see time "slowing" in them (meaning that the clocks run slow) due to their speed of movement, although they always get this in combination with them speeding up due to the reduction in gravity, which means they haven't separate out the two effects to demonstrate them individually. However, they have done the experiment with gravity differences alone, running clocks at different heights, so they know that this part of the slowing works as predicted, and that makes it easy to subtract that effect out from the aeroplane/satellite experiments and leave just the slowing caused by speed of movement. It's all been well tested and backs the theories.

Quote
Now about compression: in my simulations, if we start accelerating a particle and let it go before the light from the acceleration of the other particle is back, it should immediately get back to its previous position, which is similar to compression, but if we keep exerting a force on it instead, it should increase its speed each time a photon from the other particle would strike it. Saying that, I realize that it never moves backward one step when we stop the acceleration and it should, so I could correct that, but it wouldn't change the contraction rate, it would only induce a small vibration between the particles as soon as we would stop accelerating them.

If you have a problem getting contraction and compressions right, it means the model's wrong. You're trying to do something complex with a model that's too simple to do what you want it to. Particles actively maintain their separation to each other, moving closer together if they're too far apart and moving further apart if they're too close together, but you don't have any of that, and until you do, you'll get behaviour that doesn't fit the real universe. These continual adjustments that particles need to make will depend on communications being sent back and forth at the speed of light, but it isn't as simple as having them play football with photons.

If you nudge the right particle to the right, it must accelerate the left particle if they are tied together with a bond, but if they aren't, it should simply leave it behind. The model needs to include the option to bond particles to each other, and I have no idea how that bonding occurs. How does an electron tie itself to two atoms while being more strongly a part of one than the other? Maybe it doesn't - maybe it belongs to both atoms and switches between them quadrillions of times per second. Whatever's going on though, it's a complex mess, and unless you have ideas about the mechanisms that might be involved in this, you can't expect to be able to simulate anything of that kind. Just pinging a photon to and fro was never going to hack it. You need a much more complex model, and you need a better programming environment if you're going to have any hope of creating such a model through an approach of trial and error. It can take years to program a complex model even if you start out with a detailed knowledge of what the model is, but to approach a solution experimentally were you have to keep rewriting code thousands of times requires AGI to write the code for you - life's simply too short otherwise.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 11/08/2018 16:45:20
ending up "younger" than his twin (although in reality he remains the same age and has merely "weathered" less due to slowed overall functionality).
Are you only saying that to conquer the relativists that may read the thread, or do you really think that getting weathered is different than aging more?

Once he's back co-moving with his twin, his rate of ageing will be the same as his twin's. He doesn't stay the same age forever at the end of the trip, and he doesn't remain more contracted than his twin.
Right, but it took again some time before I realize it, so it means that I was again blinded by my automatic resistance to change, which is probably increased by my understanding getting slower with age. It's a chance for me that your language is so clear and that you don't mind repeating things. :0)

Particles actively maintain their separation to each other, moving closer together if they're too far apart and moving further apart if they're too close together, but you don't have any of that
I think that what you are describing is vibration, and I just said that I could easily add it to my simulations if I wanted, but that it wouldn't resolve the contraction problem, which is that it doesn't reverse when I reverse the acceleration while it should. There is probably a flaw in my logic, and it must be quite subtle otherwise you would have spotted it.

The model needs to include the option to bond particles to each other, and I have no idea how that bonding occurs.
I chose to include motion as a constraint to reduce the possibilities, and I got that doppler effect alone could explain both mass and motion. Of course I may be wrong, but the principle is so easy to understand that it's hard to believe that it is completely wrong. With doppler effect, bonding can be a standing wave issue where particles have to move to stay on the nodes. Maybe the problem comes from simulating only inline particles, and always accelerating the left one to the right and the right one to the left, because whenever the particles would get sideways to the acceleration, they would both be accelerated in the same direction at the same time, and in fact, they should be more often at an angle to the acceleration than inline. As you already pointed out, if we accelerate one of the particles sideways, it will start rotating away from the other instead of getting closer, so if during the acceleration, the two particles would ever get away half the time and get closer the other half, there would be no contracting nor stretching overall, but there would still be acceleration. I think it would work as if each particle would alternatively be pushed and pulled towards and away from the other particle. It wouldn't produce any contraction, but it would produce speed, and if we would stop the acceleration after a while, the photon would still take less time to make its round trip than when the system was at rest, so there would still be some time dilation even if there is no contraction. If we would let the system contract just the right amount though, it would automatically produce the right time dilation, but as I usually say in this case, we need to find the underlying mechanism, not to add an SR equation to the simulation.

You need a much more complex model
Of course, but I think that the principle must stay simple. Evolution of species may very well be complex for instance, but the mutation/selection principle is still simple.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 11/08/2018 21:03:48
Are you only saying that to conquer the relativists that may read the thread, or do you really think that getting weathered is different than aging more?

"Ageing" is ambiguous. It can either refer to the amount of time that someone has been around for or to the amount of "weathering" they've been exposed to, and by that I mean the amount of wear and tear due to the rate at which they function. Slowed functionality leads to less ageing (weathering) but not to less ageing (exposure to time). The shorter paths through time that are supposed to be available through SR and GR are just an figment of the imagination that comes out of a warped mathematical abstraction which produces a model that doesn't function rationally.

Quote
I think that what you are describing is vibration, and I just said that I could easily add it to my simulations if I wanted, but that it wouldn't resolve the contraction problem, which is that it doesn't reverse when I reverse the acceleration while it should. There is probably a flaw in my logic, and it must be quite subtle otherwise you would have spotted it.

If you simulated the forces that enable vibration, the separation between particles as you accelerate them would continually adjust back to the most "comfortable" separation where the forces are balanced properly. That will eliminate all the false contraction that your model generates, and then it will allow you to introduce real length contraction when you model those forces correctly.

Quote
I chose to include motion as a constraint to reduce the possibilities, and I got that doppler effect alone could explain both mass and motion. Of course I may be wrong, but the principle is so easy to understand that it's hard to believe that it is completely wrong. With doppler effect, bonding can be a standing wave issue where particles have to move to stay on the nodes.

What you need to do then is run a simulation where you have the particles behave like they do in the real universe, and then try to match your standing waves up to them. If standing waves are part of the real mechanism for maintaining particle separation distances, you need to have that acting to adjust the positions of the particles, but you don't appear to have modelled that yet.

Quote
It wouldn't produce any contraction, but it would produce speed, and if we would stop the acceleration after a while, the photon would still take less time to make its round trip than when the system was at rest, so there would still be some time dilation even if there is no contraction. If we would let the system contract just the right amount though, it would automatically produce the right time dilation, but as I usually say in this case, we need to find the underlying mechanism, not to add an SR equation to the simulation.

There's no need to take anything from SR. LET has everything you need (and there's nothing particularly special about LET - it's just a corrected version of the older aether theory that MMX was testing). If you're going to produce proper length contraction, you have to adjust all accelerations to take into account relativistic mass (because not all the energy added translates into speed of the particle being accelerated - the extra energy has to carry its own mass along for the ride too). When you do that, everything should fall neatly into place.

Quote
I think that the principle must stay simple. Evolution of species may very well be complex for instance, but the mutation/selection principle is still simple.

It can stay simple, but so far you're been trying to use aspects of compression to try to recreate length contraction, and that won't work because the particles should always try to remove that compression and get back to a comfortable separation. Length contraction comes out of changes in the comfortable separation distances.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 12/08/2018 19:56:13
It can stay simple, but so far you're been trying to use aspects of compression to try to recreate length contraction, and that won't work because the particles should always try to remove that compression and get back to a comfortable separation. Length contraction comes out of changes in the comfortable separation distances.
If we accelerate one end of a spring, it will contract during acceleration, and then spring away from us at the end while also oscillating. It will oscillate because the inertia of the front end will stretch the middle of the spring before the force reaches the rear one and pulls it ahead, the same as if we would have pulled the two ends both at a time. With a spring, an important part of the acceleration's energy is absorbed by a vibration phenomenon when acceleration stops, and it happens because the whole spring stretches back, whereas in my simulations, only the last step produces a vibration because it is the only one to stretch back. It is so because the motion of light is independent from the motion of massive particles, whereas the motion of a spring precisely depends on them. Moreover, with the standing wave principle as a cause for bonding, if we compress two particles until they jump to another node, they will stay there until something else happens. That's what happens too when an electron is bumped to another energy state: it stays there until something happens, and if nothing happens, it spontaneously gets back to its minimum energy state after a while, which means that something probably happens without us being able to observe it. At our scale, it is matter that transmits the information that moves bodies, whereas at the scale of the particles, the information has to travel through void, so it has to rely on some kind of light.

If you're going to produce proper length contraction, you have to adjust all accelerations to take into account relativistic mass (because not all the energy added translates into speed of the particle being accelerated - the extra energy has to carry its own mass along for the ride too).
Then I would have to find a simulable mechanism for relativistic mass too, because using any equation would be cheating. On the other hand, if we had to accelerate a ship instead of a particle, we would have to eject a mass that has also increased due to speed, and if I had to simulate it, I don't think it would change the rate of acceleration on the screen, so it would be useless. Which means that when we accelerate particles with an accelerator, it is because the particles' speed gets as fast as our device that we can't accelerate them more, which is similar to why the particles shouldn't get faster than the photons in my simulations. They actually do, but only because I didn't care for that. When particles get as fast as the photons, they should simply stop accelerating even if the force increases. That's what happens to the constant steps of my simulations, but if they were sinusoidal, then they would be faster in the middle than at the ends, and the particles would then have to wait for the middle of the photons to reach them whenever the middle of their steps would be approaching the speed of light. Since it is the time the photons take to make a round trip that determines the resistance the particles oppose to their steps being accelerated, increasing that time automatically increases their resistance, thus their mass. In particles' accelerators, it is also light that accelerates the particles, so the two phenomenon interfere, but the light the particles' components exchange is a lot more energetic than the one the accelerator produces, so that the mass increase of the particles is mainly due to the steps the components execute with regard to one another.

If standing waves are part of the real mechanism for maintaining particle separation distances, you need to have that acting to adjust the positions of the particles, but you don't appear to have modeled that yet.
Keeping the particles on sync while they are being accelerated is precisely what a standing wave would do. Ivanhov and late Lafresnière (http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/Gabriel_LaFreniere/sa_plane.htm) have already studied the standing wave model, and Ivanhov even thinks that, on that precise point, our two theories work the same.

If you simulated the forces that enable vibration, the separation between particles as you accelerate them would continually adjust back to the most "comfortable" separation where the forces are balanced properly. That will eliminate all the false contraction that your model generates, and then it will allow you to introduce real length contraction when you model those forces correctly.
If we hit the "nudge both together" button five times as fast as we can in your simulation with ten photons (http://www.motionsimulations.com/Acceleration%20with%20ten%20photons), we get a vibration, and I could do the same with my simulations, which means that light can produce a vibration even if it has no mass providing we nudge the particles both at a time. If we nudge only one, then we only get motion in one direction.

"Ageing" is ambiguous. It can either refer to the amount of time that someone has been around for or to the amount of "weathering" they've been exposed to, and by that I mean the amount of wear and tear due to the rate at which they function. Slowed functionality leads to less ageing (weathering) but not to less ageing (exposure to time).
To me, weathering faster is the same as ageing faster since both are directly related to the time light takes between my two particles. If light takes less time compared to the time it takes in an observer's similar light clock, then the particles age faster and weather faster than him, and the inverse if it takes more time.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 12/08/2018 22:56:45
If we accelerate one end of a spring, it will contract during acceleration, and then spring away from us at the end while also oscillating.

And if you accelerate the whole spring in one go, you avoid simulating the oscillations and the energy tied up in that which ends up being radiated off as heat. If you accelerate the whole spring, you don't get the compressions that can be mistaken for length contraction. What happens when you accelerate both of your particles from zero to relativistic speed at the same time? Do you get length contraction? No. That contraction has to come from a different mechanism which relates to "comfortable" separation.

Quote
Then I would have to find a simulable mechanism for relativistic mass too, because using any equation would be cheating.

If you want to do it without an equation, you need to simulate the energy and particles directly. What happens when you try to accelerate an object by hitting it with light? Energy is transferred, and if the light bounces back off the object rather than being absorbed, the frequency of the reflected light will be lower. No matter how many times you repeat this, and no matter how much of the light the object can absorb (and thereby carry all the added energy with it), it cannot go faster than c, or even reach c, and the reason for that is easy to explain. The light that hits the object is going at c. If it is to speed up the object, it can no longer move itself at c, so it must slow down to a speed lower than c which the object can speed up to. This applies to any energy that you add to the object - it has to drag itself along for the ride (maximum speed c), but to transfer any of that to the movement of the object, it has to slow down to less than c. This effect kicks in gradually as you accelerate an object, so initially it makes great gains in speed, but later on it becomes harder to increase it so quickly. That is the cause of length contraction - it causes an orbiting object to slow down relative to the thing it's orbiting when the object is moving fastest through space, and to speed up relative to the thing it's orbiting when the object is moving slowest through space.

If you imagine a stationary planet spinning round  with an object on the end of a long pole such that the object is moving at 0.86c. Now imagine the same system with the planet moving through space at 0.86c. The object will now be stationary relative to space when it is at one side of its orbit, and at the opposite side it will be moving at a speed lower than c rather than 2 x 0.86c. This adjustment of speed is the cause of length contraction - it is not possible for the object to move at 2 x 0.86c. The "orbit" automatically becomes length contracted to half that of the system where the planet is stationary. There is no need to look for any other mechanism for length contraction when we already have one that accounts for it and which must be acting. What we don't have is the full detail on how this applies to contraction of materials, but that's because we don't have a clear picture of how electrons move. What is certain though is that if an electron (or parts of a spread out fuzz of electron) move forward relative to a fast moving nucleus, they must obey the rules of relativistic velocity addition and go more slowly relative to the nucleus in the forward direction than they do when moving aft. This will necessarily length-contract the distribution of their "fuzz". You can't simulate length contraction on that scale though without modelling the movements of such parts of "fundamental" particles, and that means guessing their nature (because science has yet to pin their nature down) and then simulating the entirely hypothetical model that comes out of that guess.

Quote
Since it is the time the photons take to make a round trip that determines the resistance the particles oppose to their steps being accelerated,

What happens if you only accelerate one particle? No resistance? No mass? The resistance comes from the directionality of the energy tied up in matter - if it was all trying to go in the same direction, the whole thing would become radiation moving at c. It can only be matter because some of the energy tied up in it is trying to go in a different direction. The resistance to acceleration comes from that component of energy that is going in the opposite direction from the one you're trying to accelerate it in. The mass is the total energy in the matter, and if it's all moving in the same direction it will be moving at c as radiation and will officially have no mass, but the mass is really still there - we just stop calling it mass.

[quoteKeeping the particles on sync while they are being accelerated is precisely what a standing wave would do. Ivanhov and late Lafresnière (http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/Gabriel_LaFreniere/sa_plane.htm) have already studied the standing wave model, and Ivanhov even thinks that, on that precise point, our two theories work the same.[/quote]

I'm open to that possibility, but I haven't read up on it enough to see how it would work, but it should be an interesting thing to write a simulation for if it looks viable - this would keep adjusting the particles to the correct "comfortable" separation (or at least to oscillate around it).

Quote
If we hit the "nudge both together" button five times as fast as we can in your simulation with ten photons (http://www.motionsimulations.com/Acceleration%20with%20ten%20photons), we get a vibration, and I could do the same with my simulations, which means that light can produce a vibration even if it has no mass providing we nudge the particles both at a time. If we nudge only one, then we only get motion in one direction.

It isn't good enough just to get a vibration out of a simulation - it needs to be the right kind of vibration if it is going to maintain correct average particle separation.

Quote
To me, weathering faster is the same as ageing faster since both are directly related to the time light takes between my two particles. If light takes less time compared to the time it takes in an observer's similar light clock, then the particles age faster and weather faster than him, and the inverse if it takes more time.

Correct, but the other meaning of age refers to the amount of time that has actually passed, and in that sense, both twins remain the same age no matter how much the physicists prod them around, so I used the word weathering to rule out that interpretation of ageing in order to avoid ambiguity.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 15/08/2018 16:43:42
Correct, but the other meaning of age refers to the amount of time that has actually passed, and in that sense, both twins remain the same age no matter how much the physicists prod them around, so I used the word weathering to rule out that interpretation of ageing in order to avoid ambiguity.
Sorry, I see no ambiguity. Of course, the time flows the same for people that are in the same reference frame, but the twins are not and we know which one is traveling, so there is no ambiguity, we know which one is getting younger. Maybe there is ambiguity when you're talking to SR people, but not to me. That's why I was asking you if it was the case.

It isn't good enough just to get a vibration out of a simulation - it needs to be the right kind of vibration if it is going to maintain correct average particle separation.
While executing their steps, the particles move to absorb doppler effect, so from their viewpoint, they are always at the right place at the right time whether they execute their steps in the same direction or in opposite ones as it is the case for vibrations. For them, the energy of the bond stays the same even if for us, they are not always at the same distance from one another on the screen. I still have a problem with the intensity of light not being the same both ways though, because it can take a lot more time for the photon to travel one way than the other, a phenomenon that the steps cannot account for since they only depend on frequency. We can rely on the particle behavior of a photon to consider that it doesn't lose energy with distance, but that leads to the weirdness of the diffraction data.

What happens if you only accelerate one particle? No resistance? No mass?
When we accelerate a particle on the screen, in reality, what we accelerate are its components, and the main part of the resistance is then due to the steps between those components refusing to get accelerated instantly, which is also because information takes time to make a round trip between them. The components are more massive, thus resist more to the acceleration, just because the light they exchange is more energetic than the one the particles exchange, and it is more energetic just because it loses a lot less intensity with distance due to the components being a lot closer to one another. I can't use frequency as the only cause for the increase of energy because I need that the light exchanged between the particles comes from the exchange of light between the components. This way, the light exchanged between the particles is a modulation of the light exchanged between the components, and the visible light is a modulation of the light exchanged between the particles, the modulation itself depending on the smaller steps having to accelerate and decelerate constantly to justify the sinusoidal shape of the longer ones they are part of, while any step that is accelerated necessarily let some light go by due to a temporary broken synchronism between the incoming light and the step.

The resistance comes from the directionality of the energy tied up in matter - if it was all trying to go in the same direction, the whole thing would become radiation moving at c. It can only be matter because some of the energy tied up in it is trying to go in a different direction. The resistance to acceleration comes from that component of energy that is going in the opposite direction from the one you're trying to accelerate it in. The mass is the total energy in the matter, and if it's all moving in the same direction it will be moving at c as radiation and will officially have no mass, but the mass is really still there - we just stop calling it mass.
Mass is measured while we try to give some speed to a body in a particular direction, and that's precisely the same definition with the steps, it is measured while we try to give some speed to the steps in a particular direction, a speed they get while increasing their length since their frequency has to stay the same for them to be able to get synchronized. That mechanism can be simulated, but I can't see how we could simulate what you say. You seem to be assimilating light to massive particles moving at c, and massive particles to light moving at less than c, whereas I simply assimilate particles to sources of light needing to stay synchronized. That principle means that light comes from the heart of matter, and that it migrates from the smaller to the larger particles until it gets to our scale. When we accelerate a body made of bonded particles, we accelerate all the infinitely small particles it is made of, they lose some light in the steps' process, and that light then accelerates all the larger particles it is also made of, until it gets at the scale of the molecules, from where it can only escape to bond macroscopic bodies.

Quote
Keeping the particles on sync while they are being accelerated is precisely what a standing wave would do. Ivanhov and late Lafresnière have already studied the standing wave model, and Ivanhov even thinks that, on that precise point, our two theories work the same.
I'm open to that possibility, but I haven't read up on it enough to see how it would work, but it should be an interesting thing to write a simulation for it if it looks viable - this would keep adjusting the particles to the correct "comfortable" separation (or at least to oscillate around it).
If the two theories really work the same, then we can consider that, in my simulations, the particles are located on the nodes of their standing wave.

If you imagine a stationary planet spinning round  with an object on the end of a long pole such that the object is moving at 0.86c. Now imagine the same system with the planet moving through space at 0.86c. The object will now be stationary relative to space when it is at one side of its orbit, and at the opposite side it will be moving at a speed lower than c rather than 2 x 0.86c. This adjustment of speed is the cause of length contraction - it is not possible for the object to move at 2 x 0.86c.
In a simulation with two particles, for the photon to be able to reach the leading particle all the time in the case of your example, the particle should wait for the photon when it goes up ether, which would effectively accelerate it backwards, an information that would be transmitted to the trailing one after a while. Again, the sinusoidal shape of the steps would have to be accounted for in the simulation, otherwise the deceleration would begin only when the particle would hit c. Curiously, that simulation would work as my simulation in opposite directions (http://www.motionsimulations.com/Acceleration%20in%20opposite%20directions) even if there is no inertial acceleration involved, so it would not produce contraction either if we consider that the system would be alternatively stretched or contracted depending on its direction with regard to the direction of the acceleration, it would only produce deceleration.

You can't simulate length contraction on that scale though without modelling the movements of such parts of "fundamental" particles, and that means guessing their nature (because science has yet to pin their nature down) and then simulating the entirely hypothetical model that comes out of that guess.
I can't simulate the motion of electrons using the steps between their components since they are considered not to carry any, so I can't use those steps to explain their mass either. Massive particles that carry no components is weird since they would have to be infinitely small while still being observable at our scale. Quantum physics has solved the problem by introducing virtual photons as a carrier of information between electrons and nucleus. I use photons too, but they produce real motion so they must be real even if we can't observe them directly. The light that we do observe is only their modulation when they escape from bonded systems during their acceleration.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 15/08/2018 19:09:45
Sorry, I see no ambiguity.

In LET, time flows at a constant rate for all things, but apparent time varies when functionality is slowed by movement (increasing round-trip communication times) or gravitational fields (causing a slowing of the speed of light and thereby again increasing round-trip communication times). The amount of apparent time that has passed for an object will determine how much ageing/weathering it has suffered (which is why one twin looks older than the other), while the amount of actual time that has passed for an object can be disguised by different weathering: the twins are the same actual age, but one has aged more in the weathering sense of the word.

Quote
While executing their steps, the particles move to absorb doppler effect, so from their viewpoint, they are always at the right place at the right time whether they execute their steps in the same direction or in opposite ones as it is the case for vibrations.

But the separations are wrong, so something in the model is wrong. To improve the model, you'll just have to keep changing things until it matches up to what real particles do, although that might take a century of work. It would speed things up if you started with a model that matches up to reality and then try to change some of the mechanisms to retain the correct behaviour, but with alternative explanations which may be superior to the original ones. It would certainly help if you could see the two models working side by side so that you'd know at a glance when your experimental model is failing to match up correctly so that you don't think you're producing useful kinds of contraction when a correct model would be removing contraction instead (while decelerating an object).

Quote
When we accelerate a particle on the screen, in reality, what we accelerate are its components, and the main part of the resistance is then due to the steps between those components refusing to get accelerated instantly, which is also because information takes time to make a round trip between them.

What happens if you accelerate all the components at once though? You should get no vibration generated in the object, so all the energy goes into acceleration of the object. No resistance? No mass? Because all the components can be accelerated simultaneously, the mechanism for resistance or mass has to apply to the acceleration of a single particle without any of your steps being involved.

Quote
Mass is measured while we try to give some speed to a body in a particular direction, and that's precisely the same definition with the steps, it is measured while we try to give some speed to the steps in a particular direction, a speed they get while increasing their length since their frequency has to stay the same for them to be able to get synchronized.

When are they ever synchronised? An object changing speed whenever it happens to be hit by a photon isn't really synchronisation. The frequencies should also be changing dynamically depending on the speed of the emitter and the relative speed of the photon to the target particle, and the perceived strength of the force being received will depend on the speed of the receiver (its rate of functionality). Unless you program all of that in, you can't usefully explore anything relating to relativity, and I'm not sure you can even shed any light on mass.

Quote
You seem to be assimilating light to massive particles moving at c, and massive particles to light moving at less than c,

No - there's a fundamental difference between the two cases: in the former case, all the energy is trying to move in the same direction, whereas in the latter case some of it is trying to move the opposite way, and that classes this conglomeration as matter - separate the components through decay and they all race off as radiation at c, but so long as they're tied together, they fight it out and move at >c.

Quote
If the two theories really work the same, then we can consider that, in my simulations, the particles are located on the nodes of their standing wave.

Where are the nodes? Where are the standing waves? Have you produced any? Have you got a simulation that displays them so that I can get some idea of where they are?

Quote
In a simulation with two particles, ...would effectively accelerate it backwards...

Incorrect models tend to produce incorrect results. The cure is to correct the model. Given that you think standing waves are the answer to getting correct particle separations, I think you should work on that first by showing that they exist in your model. Until you do that, there's no point in thinking about simulating length contraction with it.

Quote
I can't simulate the motion of electrons using the steps between their components since they are considered not to carry any, so I can't use those steps to explain their mass either.

And that's the big problem with modelling things that go beyond scientific understanding. All matter can decay into radiation (components), but we have no idea how the components are tied together to create the "fundamental" particles that are built out of them. All we can do is create speculative models, or models that fudge the issue and just apply rules without the full mechanism being simulated.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 16/08/2018 17:34:19
In LET, time flows at a constant rate for all things, but apparent time varies when functionality is slowed by movement (increasing round-trip communication times)
To me, time is only a measure of cyclic events with regard to one another, and if a traveling twin has aged 5 years less than his brother, it simply means that he has lived five years less than his brother, exactly like my younger brother that has not traveled. I googled for ether theory time flow and found nothing. Is there a paper that explains what you mean?

What happens if you accelerate all the components at once though? You should get no vibration generated in the object, so all the energy goes into acceleration of the object. No resistance? No mass? Because all the components can be accelerated simultaneously, the mechanism for resistance or mass has to apply to the acceleration of a single particle without any of your steps being involved.
Except for electrons, there is no single particle, everyone of them has components, and it is most improbable that the smallest of them could all get accelerated at the same time. With the steps, acceleration begins at the smallest scale and migrates to the larger ones.

When are they ever synchronised?
When particles are on constant motion, when no acceleration happens to them, they then go on making steps that are perfectly synchronized.

An object changing speed whenever it happens to be hit by a photon isn't really synchronisation.
The speed of the particles depends on the length of their steps, and during constant motion, that length stays constant, and the steps then dovetail the sinusoidal shape of the photons, in such a way that an observer on one of the particles would observe no doppler effect at all.

all the energy is trying to move in the same direction, whereas in the latter case some of it is trying to move the opposite way
The energy you're talking about, to what is it linked? What makes it turn around and move in the opposite direction?

Where are the nodes? Where are the standing waves? Have you produced any? Have you got a simulation that displays them so that I can get some idea of where they are?
Ivanov did. He tested how a moving standing wave would behave while placing two sound emitter/receiver at a few meters away from one another, and he measured the displacement of the nodes when it was windy. He observed that the standing wave was contracting whatever the direction of the wind, and he suggested that it would be the same for light, what would explain the relativistic contraction. Lafrenière comments this point on the page where I referred you (http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/Gabriel_LaFreniere/sa_plane.htm). I didn't remember about the contraction observation, but I think I might be able to use it directly in my simulation without having to simulate it. I could simply use the equation since it is the result of an experiment. If you take a look at the page, you will notice that some of the links to specific animations don't work. Ivanhov imported Lafrenière's pages when he died, and I think he couldn't handle those links. Maybe he still has them in his computer though. Thank's to you, I might have made a huge step here! :0)

Quote from: Le Repteux
I can't simulate the motion of electrons using the steps between their components since they are considered not to carry any, so I can't use those steps to explain their mass either.
And that's the big problem with modelling things that go beyond scientific understanding. All matter can decay into radiation (components), but we have no idea how the components are tied together to create the "fundamental" particles that are built out of them. All we can do is create speculative models, or models that fudge the issue and just apply rules without the full mechanism being simulated.
Without adding some restriction, there is too many possibilities. Adding bonding to motion is such a restriction, and it looks promising to me. It is certainly speculative, but then, how to progress without speculating? I'll check Ivanhov's contraction carefully to see if I can simply add it to my simulations. If I can, then I will have to change the way the particles behave during their acceleration.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 16/08/2018 23:02:32
Is there a paper that explains what you mean?

Not that I know of. Look at it this way though. Compare a moving light clock with a stationary one. The moving one ticks out less time. However, the light pulses have travelled the same distance through space, so how much time has passed for the photons? The amount of time that's passed for them is identical - the one in the moving clock has clearly not had its functionality slowed down. All the particles in the clock are ultimately made of waves that move about at c, so none of them have had their functionality slowed down either. The only things that can have slowed functionality are composite objects, but none of the fundamental components from which they're made are slowed at all. There is no such thing as slowing of time - there is only slowing of functionality, and that is restricted to composite items.

Quote
Except for electrons, there is no single particle, everyone of them has components, and it is most improbable that the smallest of them could all get accelerated at the same time. With the steps, acceleration begins at the smallest scale and migrates to the larger ones.

Lots of people call quarks fundamental too, but when antimatter meets matter, pouf! They all turn to radiation. Same thing happens when an electron meets a positron - instant conversion to components. Acceleration is just the result of a fight between different amounts of energy with different directionality - add some new energy in with westward directionality and the object will accelerate to the west (or decelerate if it was already moving east).

Quote
When particles are on constant motion, when no acceleration happens to them, they then go on making steps that are perfectly synchronized.

That doesn't really work though, because if you teleport one of them to increase or reduce the separation, they continue to be "synchronised", so it has no control over the distance between them.

Quote
The speed of the particles depends on the length of their steps, and during constant motion, that length stays constant, and the steps then dovetail the sinusoidal shape of the photons, in such a way that an observer on one of the particles would observe no doppler effect at all.

Change the separation though and they continue as if no change has been made - it just takes longer for them to take turns moving, and they move for a longer length of time on each move.

Quote
The energy you're talking about, to what is it linked? What makes it turn around and move in the opposite direction?

It's all tied up together in some way - all the energy that's in there is bound together such that it doesn't just break up and turn to radiation flying off at c in different directions.

Quote
Ivanov did. He tested how a moving standing wave would behave while placing two sound emitter/receiver at a few meters away from one another, and he measured the displacement of the nodes when it was windy. He observed that the standing wave was contracting whatever the direction of the wind, and he suggested that it would be the same for light, what would explain the relativistic contraction. Lafrenière comments this point on the page where I referred you (http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/Gabriel_LaFreniere/sa_plane.htm).

I was pressed for time and my computer was locking up, so I didn't click on the link at the time, though I also assumed that it was a page I'd seen before - Ivanov's done a lot of complex stuff that I need to spend time going through carefully. However, this isn't the page I was expecting - it may be easier for me to get into and understand the point now, because this looks a lot more inviting, so I'm going to put some time into exploring it, and I'll then think about how it can be built into your simulations (and about how it relates to LET). Most importantly though, this isn't photon ping-pong, but seems to involve two waves being sent out continuously and interacting, but where are they coming from if the particles are sitting at nodes between the two ends? Or are they? Anyway, I'm beginning to see a possible direction to take with these simulations, but I may need to think about it for a few weeks to let it all soak in. This stuff is missing from my model, and I need to add it. We can be sure that we're ultimately dealing with things made up of waves, so there must be something that can be done with this wave stuff that would produce a speculative model that fits the facts. I actually read something a few weeks ago that comes to mind now, and it was to do with quantum stuff being explained through classical physics - they had standing waves interacting with particles in some way too, and the thrust of what they were saying seemed to imply that the particle can have a definite position that can't be determined by us because we can only measure the wave, but that the underlying physics has no randomness at its core.

Quote
I didn't remember about the contraction observation, but I think I might be able to use it directly in my simulation without having to simulate it. I could simply use the equation since it is the result of an experiment. If you take a look at the page, you will notice that some of the links to specific animations don't work. Ivanhov imported Lafrenière's pages when he died, and I think he couldn't handle those links. Maybe he still has them in his computer though. Thank's to you, I might have made a huge step here! :0)

I'm glad you found this stuff - it may open some doors for me into an area I've avoided because I don't want to get bogged down in the complexities of small-scale physics, but I've seen something now which might just hook me in (because it may not be as time-consuming as I was expecting, and that means it might not get in the way of my work).
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 17/08/2018 20:35:32
However, the light pulses have traveled the same distance through space, so how much time has passed for the photons?
Time stops flowing for a light clock that gets at the speed of light with regard to ether, so a photon can't experiment time. The time a photon takes is not measured with regard to itself, it is measured with regard to a clock made out of matter, and the distance itself also needs to be delimited by matter. You seem to be assimilating matter to energy to light, and I can't, otherwise I couldn't simulate their interaction. If it is not to convince SR people more easily, then you probably have a more fundamental reason to do so. Do you?

Lots of people call quarks fundamental too, but when antimatter meets matter, pouf! They all turn to radiation. Same thing happens when an electron meets a positron - instant conversion to components.
I can't consider light as a component because I wouldn't be able to differentiate it from sources of light in my explanation. My massive particles are nothing more than bonded sources of light that divide into smaller bonded sources of light indefinitely, so if we could shut off the exchange of light between the quarks for instance, we might also suddenly see the light the atoms were already exchanging, but the components of the quarks would still go on exchanging some, so the whole mass of the system would not transform in to light, and it would never do if the microscopic universe is infinitely small. I wonder what an antistep could look like on the screen? :0)

Quote from: Le Repteux
When particles are on constant motion, when no acceleration happens to them, they then go on making steps that are perfectly synchronized.
That doesn't really work though, because if you teleport one of them to increase or reduce the separation, they continue to be "synchronized", so it has no control over the distance between them.
Theoretically, electrons spontaneously get back to their minimum energy level when they get bumped to another one, and the same thing should happen to the steps: whenever they change nodes during an interaction, they should spontaneously get back to the better one. Of course, they get out of sync during the process, reason why some light escapes from the system, and it is the same for electrons, they do not radiate either when they stand at the right energy level, only when they get back from being bumped. That spontaneous behavior might more easily be studied with the steps than with the electron theory though: an electron cannot rely on its components to produce its behavior, whereas the steps can.

all the energy that's in there is bound together such that it doesn't just break up and turn to radiation flying off at c in different directions.
Suggesting that energy binds to energy doesn't explain why it may do so. That's what happens when we assimilate energy to mass without providing a real mechanism for mass, which is precisely why I prefer the small steps to the Higgs. With the small steps, the energy the particles exchange is just information, and it produces their motion the same way the information we exchange produces our own motion, in such a way that if some energy goes by the particles without producing their motion, it means that they didn't perceive it, exactly as when we didn't understand a comment even if we read it. To produce motion, matter and information must already be on the same wavelength.

I'm glad you found this stuff - it may open some doors for me into an area I've avoided because I don't want to get bogged down in the complexities of small-scale physics, but I've seen something now which might just hook me in (because it may not be as time-consuming as I was expecting, and that means it might not get in the way of my work).
Have fun! Lafresnière made a really nice job. Too bad he isn't here to discuss with us though. When I decided to contact him a few years ago, I waited for his response a few months before discovering he was dead. At that time, I didn't know about Ivanhov's work, but he did, so he would have known what I was trying to do. Of course, he is one of those stubborn LET fans. :0)
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 17/08/2018 22:19:52
Time stops flowing for a light clock that gets at the speed of light with regard to ether, so a photon can't experiment time. The time a photon takes is not measured with regard to itself, it is measured with regard to a clock made out of matter, and the distance itself also needs to be delimited by matter. You seem to be assimilating matter to energy to light, and I can't, otherwise I couldn't simulate their interaction. If it is not to convince SR people more easily, then you probably have a more fundamental reason to do so. Do you?

When light's moving at full speed, that movement is its entire functionality. By going slower, it's able to do other things than just move, so a different kind of functionality comes into play (such as interactions with things or being tied up in matter), but it always has full functionality when you add all the component functionalities together (ignoring the slowing caused by gravity, although even then it may still be functioning at full speed and just taking longer to fight its way through a given distance in space). A photon's functionality is the same in a stationary light clock as it is in a moving one - both are racing along at full speed, and that does not equate to being frozen and motionless. A photon travelling across the universe for billions of years runs (it is functioning and its movement is that function) for billions of years rather than the zero time that could be claimed for it. It is the other kind of functionality that is slowed by movement, because more functionality has to be handed over to movement through space. Previously when I've talked about movement slowing functionality, I have only been referring to one kind of functionality. The other kind of functionality is movement itself, and the amount of each kind of functionality displayed by an object is either 100% one, 100% the other, or a mixture of both, always adding up to 100%.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 18/08/2018 16:11:20
Light is the ultimate frontier. To study it directly, we would need a faster than light device and we don't. I thus decided not to study it and to simply consider the particles as sources of waves instead. I think that Lafresnière would like the way you consider light though, because his electron is made out of it even if it doesn't move at c.

At first, I thought I might be able to explain the particulate properties of light with the steps since they explain mass which belongs to particles, but I didn't succeed yet. At the particles' scale, light is studied for its energetic properties, not for its informative ones even if, at our scale, we use it constantly to measure speed and distance, an information that we then use to move properly. The idea that particles may also be able to measure speed and distance and to also use that information to move properly is new, and it restricts the way particles may be interacting, so I find it promising. Remains to find a convincing way to simulate it.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/08/2018 16:01:37
Some more thoughts.

On one of the first simulations I made, the left particle stopped moving after having been forced to make a step forward, and it made another one only when the photon from the step of the right particle was back. If the acceleration was stronger, then the step was simply stretching. I discarded that simulation when I realized that the longest step the particles could make was equal to the distance between them, which meant that the fastest the system could go was at half the speed of the photon. For the speed to get closer to c, the steps would have to bypass the other particle like our feet do when we walk, and I didn't study that possibility yet. Of course, that system wasn't generating any contraction at acceleration, and reversing the direction of acceleration meant contracting the steps so that they would get smaller each time the photon would strike a particle, which is closer to what we should be able to get in a simulation. In that system, it is the steps that stretch or contract depending on the direction of acceleration, not the distance between the particles, so I now realize that, in my last simulation, if the steps were contracting the same way the distance between the particles is contracting, the two contractions would interfere. Now if I would use an equation to simulate the contraction between the particles, I would also have to apply it to the steps, so the two contractions would also interfere. In fact, both the time dilation and the contraction would interfere.

The experiment Ivanhov made shows that contraction happens in a moving system that is bound by a standing wave, so he could have put a small motor on one of the sound emitters, and program it to move to get to the closest node, and it would have moved to stay on it when the speed of the wind would have changed. Since it works for real wind, it should also work for a simulated one, so moving the screen with regard to my particles instead of accelerating them should also contract the distance between them if the way my particles are bonded is similar to a standing wave. To simulate that, I could use two photons that would hit the two particles at the same time when they are at rest, and they would take more time to reach the particles when I would move the screen because they would have to travel more distance in a roundtrip.

That motion is easier to imagine if we move the screen sideways to the alignment of the particles though, so lets analyze this possibility first. As with the vertical arm of an MM experiment, the photons would be aimed at an angle and would take more time to reach the particles, so unless those particles would suffer time dilation, the distance between them would have to contract for them to stay on sync. That's what Ivanhof observed with sound, so he concluded that vertical contraction would also happen to particles, but sound doesn't produce time dilation inside the emitters the way light would do inside the particles otherwise he would also have observed a redshift of the two emitters, so he might be wrong about applying his observed vertical contraction to light because such a redshift would simply stretch the contraction.

Now, let's analyze the aligned system. Moving the screen to the left is similar to moving the particles to the right, and if we do so with an aligned system, a photon will take more time going right than going left, thus losing some time going right and recover some going left, but still taking more time overall than at rest, so it would also get out of sync overall unless the left particle also suffers time dilation, what it should effectively do, and at the same rate the system would do, so the synchronization should not be affected. Contraction is more difficult to imagine in this case, but we know that it reduces time dilation a bit for the MM experiment to give a null result, so it should not affect the timing either since it would be the same whether it would happen inside a particle or between two particles. Ivanhov showed that contraction happened to the nodes when the two waves of his sound standing wave had two different lengths, but he didn't account for the time dilation of his emitters, which should happen in the case of light whatever the alignment of the particles, so again, redshifting the two waves while speed increases should prevent my two inline particles to suffer any contraction of their standing wave.

Ivanhov made a few mistakes in his paper, but I still think he is right about light producing motion. His fundamental mistake is thinking he will be able to move two bonded EM oscillators the same way he moves macroscopic oscillators by simply varying the two wavelengths at will. He would need a faster than light device to synchronize that system and he doesn't have it.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 16/09/2018 23:27:11
We're going to need to try to replicate LaFreniere's work to see if his standing waves actually stand up, but I've yet to find an explanation of exactly what he was doing to get them. Was he using a fourth dimension for the space fabric to vibrate in? His numbers are so good though that I have a hunch that he was on the right lines, and I also have high hopes for him just because he absolutely nailed all the points he made about LET, 100% - he really knew what he was talking about there (which is very rare), and the same likely applies to the rest of his claims.

If the space fabric is able to vibrate in a fourth dimension (available to the fabric but which we don't notice from the inside), it would have to be able to vibrate at very high speeds, but the more energy or mass you stick into a small space, the greater that sideways movement (within the 4th dimension) would need to be, and that would surely lead to delays to the action - I can even see a possibility there for length-contraction in that fourth dimension affecting this movement more and more as the energy density goes up, and to a corresponding slowing of the speed of light through the fabric there, which is all that's needed to account for gravity when all matter is made out of waves. This could lead to a complete mechanistic account of physics, and it depends squarely on the aether for that functionality. No one who is working without a vibrating space fabric is going to find this, so it would be no surprise if this route hasn't been adequately explored. LaFreniere's work was simply ignored by everyone on the basis that it involved an aether and must therefore be a nutter, and sadly you didn't discover his work during his lifetime. He may actually have been one of the greatest physicists of all time, but he got no recognition for his work.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 17/09/2018 16:01:32
We're going to need to try to replicate LaFreniere's work to see if his standing waves actually stand up, but I've yet to find an explanation of exactly what he was doing to get them. Was he using a fourth dimension for the space fabric to vibrate in?
I'm glad you like his work. It's close to my small steps. As I already said though, standing waves need two emitters and he only has one. He uses a round ring to produce convergent waves on water, and he puts many light sources in circle in his software to produce the same waves. Those waves meet at the center and become divergent, what produces a standing wave when they meet the convergent ones. His simulations are so beautiful and he is so convinced it's an electron that we tend to forget about the way he produces his convergent waves. I played with Delmotte's software (http://mildred.github.io/glafreniere/programmes/ws2Dv33b.rar) a bit. Its impressive and fun, but we can't move the sources individually, and we can't use doppler effect as a force carrier either, so as it is, I can't reproduce my small steps. I tried to find Delmotte or Marcotte on google without success. Lafrenière often talks about them, but he doesn't give us any link.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 17/09/2018 20:29:29
That's the big problem with his ideas - the waves would simply radiated outwards and not be replaced, so all his particles would evaporate, unless some way can be found to bounce the waves back (which could happen if energy is digital and there isn't enough of it to send onwards once it's spread out too much), but if you do that, you don't have any waves spreading far enough out to control interactions with other particles, or at least, not beyond a certain distance. If the particle accelerates, any bounced waves are going to miss the centre too, so how would it be maintained? (And the further out the waves go before bouncing back, the bigger that problem becomes.) However, if any significant amount of his work stands up (and he's very sure about his numbers), it may not be a coincidence. There must be some way of looking at this that will add up completely, and he may have been close to it. Some day, someone's going to make a leap of the imagination that will lead to the solution, and exploring this may be the route to get there. Also, anything that sparks off new ideas is useful, and I'm getting some from this.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 19/09/2018 18:43:20
When Lafrenière glorifies Ivanhov's wave, he is a lot closer to my small steps. I finally succeeded to open the coding of Delmotte's software. It's written in basic language and I know nothing about it. It's quite long too. I wanted to know how he codes his doppler effect but I'm afraid I won't be able without help. He gives his email address at the beginning of the page so I'll try to reach him. Here is the coding on a .pdf file.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 19/09/2018 22:06:40
Code without comments through it to explain what it does is not intended to be understood, but it doesn't matter. I'd rather just write a new code and work out all the details for myself, but I don't have time to do anything that complex at the moment anyway. I really just want to test his phase shift finding.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 13/10/2018 21:04:18
@David Cooper

Good news, Delmotte answered me, bad news, he says he's gonna wait till he is retired to get back working on the standing wave project. He plans to modify his doppler effect algorithm so as to create solitons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton) traveling in ether, what he finds quite difficult to do, but with the Holy Grail as a reward if he succeeds. For those who would like to reach him, his address is delmottephilippe@yahoo.fr

Now about my simulation on acceleration where contraction never reverses. As I said, if I accounted for the contraction suffered by the particles themselves while time and distance are also contracting between them, the two contraction levels would interfere. From the particles' viewpoint, there would be no observable time or length contraction, while there would be for an external particle that would not have suffered the same acceleration. Notice that, contrary to Relativity, this kind of contraction would be absolute since acceleration is absolute. It would thus also happen to rotating particles since rotation produces their acceleration towards one another, and to particles that are aligned perpendicularly to the acceleration if they need to stay synchronized, as it is the case for my simulation with four accelerated particles. (http://www.motionsimulations.com/Acceleration%20with%20four%20particles)

Since it is established that the universe works the same everywhere, let's admit that very distant particles suffer almost the same overall acceleration than laboratory ones, thus the same contraction. Then, since their light takes time to reach us, and if we consider that light doesn't change wavelengths while traveling, they should look redshifted since the particles we use as a reference in the lab had time to contract during that time, and that's precisely what distant galaxies show. Now, if we use doppler effect as a means to keep the particles on sync like I do in my simulations, then we get that they should accelerate towards one another to stay on sync since they would all appear redshifted to one another, and that's precisely what gravitation is about. Why try to stay on Relativity's footsteps when we expect so many huge leaps for the price of only one divergent small step? :0)

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 13/10/2018 23:36:23
Good news, Delmotte answered me, bad news, he says he's gonna wait till he is retired to get back working on the standing wave project.

It's good news that he's still interested in it, and that he's still around. I'm not going to write any software for doing anything similar though until I've made better tools (namely AGI) - that's the quicker route to getting things done.

Quote
Now about my simulation on acceleration where contraction never reverses.

If you accelerate an object and it contracts, then decelerate it and it contracts further or fails to extend back towards the original length, it isn't behaving like the real universe, so don't build too much upon it.

I've been thinking a lot about gravity in relation to black holes over the last couple of months. If a black hole moves, any light that's trying to enter it from ahead will slow down and get stuck just outside the event horizon, but as the black hole's moving, that light may actually be pushed backwards through the aether, which adds a layer of complexity to its interactions with aether. Whatever it is that slows light in the presence of high concentrations of matter/energy (and which by doing so creates gravity), that slowing of the speed of light must be relative to that matter/energy rather than relative to the aether. Light is being slowed by a medium, and that medium is usually moving through the aether. That medium may be an extension of matter/energy that manifests itself in a similar form to dark matter - it's spread out far from the part of the matter that we can see directly. It must length-contract when the matter's moving. It cannot be an extension of waves from the matter in the middle where that matter's functionality is frozen - there is nothing coming out from a black hole to make things orbit it, so there has to be an extended part of the matter that's stuck in or at the edge of a black hole, this extended part never being sucked down there, but remaining far above, slowing light and doing so more strongly closer to the central part of that matter. Either that, or it's something displaced from the Aether, pushed aside by matter - something that sits in aether everywhere but which is pushed out and into higher concentrations when matter or energy is introduced, leading to a slowed speed of light where those higher concentrations are. I'm currently trying to work out how they could length-contract though if they aren't themselves moving along at the same speed as the matter, which leads me to think that they are more likely a dark part of the matter itself.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 14/10/2018 16:11:08
If you accelerate an object and it contracts, then decelerate it and it contracts further or fails to extend back towards the original length, it isn't behaving like the real universe, so don't build too much upon it.
Unless I find a better way to simulate acceleration between my two particles, I need to rely on the one I got, and the idea that acceleration is absolute seems to support it, because it may mean that contraction also is. For the moment, I'm still studying the two ideas, but if I don't find a way to simulate the relativistic contraction, I might let it down. That contraction is needed to explain the MM experiment, and readers may not have noticed, but my simulation with four particles (http://www.motionsimulations.com/Acceleration%20with%20four%20particles) is such an experiment. It is a simulated interferometer that we can accelerate to give it speed, and while it contracts in the direction it is moving, it also contracts in the transverse direction for the vertical light to stay on sync with the horizontal one. No need for the relativistic contraction to explain the null result then. The contraction goes on at all scales, which means it is only observable between scales, and the speed is conserved even if the acceleration stops, which is what we observe.

there is nothing coming out from a black hole to make things orbit it,
It means that we can't simulate a black hole. I never believed in curved space precisely because of that. I prefer to think that particles exchange an information that we can't detect, the same way we can't detect our own motion through space even if, as in my simulations, particles must probably exchange some information to keep on moving. To me, that curved space stuff is illogical, but intelligent people succeed to believe in god, so why not in curved space? Some information has to tell space to curve, and nothing can escape from a black hole, so it simply couldn't curve its own space even if other bodies could. If black holes exist, they simply can't produce any gravitation. Curved space is a dead end idea, the same kind of dead end the idea of god creates: it prevents us from thinking. For the moment, nothing shows that our universe contains dead ends, on the contrary, all the discoveries we make finally exhibit unsuspected phenomenon. As religious ideas show, we can build any idea over a dead end one and it will always work, so what's their use apart providing us with a false security feeling?

That medium may be an extension of matter/energy that manifests itself in a similar form to dark matter - it's spread out far from the part of the matter that we can see directly.
Dark matter is a good example of an idea built over a dead end one. If matter can curve the space around it without sending any information, then why not invent an unobservable matter when space doesn't seem to curve the right way? There is no way to study the phenomenon anyway, so why hesitate? Need a bit of dark matter too to explain some divergent curved light? No problem, how much you need? Need it to explain miracles? Here you go, enjoy yourself!
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 14/10/2018 21:11:48
If black holes exist, they simply can't produce any gravitation.

But they clearly do - the gravity waves from black holes merging have proved the case. They exist and their gravity is very powerful indeed.

Quote
Curved space is a dead end idea

It's an explanation generated by a broken theory, so we can be sure that it's wrong. The same facts can be accounted for without any curvature simply by having a slowing of the speed of light, eventually reaching zero at the event horizon of a black hole relative to the black hole.

Quote
Dark matter is a good example of an idea built over a dead end one. If matter can curve the space around it without sending any information, then why not invent an unobservable matter when space doesn't seem to curve the right way? There is no way to study the phenomenon anyway, so why hesitate? Need a bit of dark matter too to explain some divergent curved light? No problem, how much you need? Need it to explain miracles? Here you go, enjoy yourself!

Something slows light far out from the visible matter that we think is responsible, so how does it do that? There has to be something there that actively causes light to slow. I think there's a dark component of matter that does this job at all distances out from the visible part, but obviously with more of it closer to the visible part in the middle. This is quite in addition to the dark matter that may or may not exist in galaxies to cause the outer parts in some cases to orbit at a higher speed than material further in.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 30/10/2018 23:36:06
This is a reply to post #19 in https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75195

My particles move with regard to one another, and they only use the light emitted by the other particle to do so. That light tells them to resist to acceleration, to get speed, to get a direction, and to move at constant speed when acceleration has stopped. Isn't that enough to call it an absolute reference?

How is it an absolute reference when the particles can't tell what speed it's moving at relative to them? If the particles aren't moving, the light's hitting them both at c relative to them. If they're moving at 0.5c, then the light's hitting them at 0.5c relative to them in one direction and 1.5c in the other, but it looks just the same to them as the previous situation because all they ever see is the frequency. If you're imposing an absolute reference frame, then that's your absolute reference (which has relevance for the virtual universe which runs the content), but the particles know nothing of it - they just react to the forces applied to them. You talk about the light telling them to resist acceleration, but how does that work with a single particle being accelerated? If you want to explore the physics of acceleration you need to start with single particles. If you're dealing with a pair of bound particles, the same physics will then apply - the new part is how the added kinetic energy is then shared between the two particles. Your simulations appear to be exploring that rather than exploring acceleration and mass, but they aren't doing that properly either as all they're giving you is a compression that's then artificially maintained. You have no mechanism to allow the particles to adjust towards their preferred separation distance, and no mechanism even to give them a preferred separation distance to try to move to. Those missing aspects of the physics don't look as if they're going to emerge out of your current game of photon ping-pong, so I you're doing to have to design mechanisms for them.

Quote
Acceleration certainly has a role in the speed and the direction of the speed though, so it is normal to look for a way it could produce contraction, and visibly, relativists resist to do that.

Speed dictates length; not acceleration. Acceleration is merely an essential aspect to changing speed. If you pull a 30cm rubber ruler from zero speed up to 0.866c at a very high acceleration rate, it will be extended during acceleration rather than compressed, but when you remove the acceleration force, it will ping back to 15cm long (from the point of view of an observer at rest in the original frame). The speed dictates the length by affecting the "comfortable" separation distances between atoms. Your simulation needs to demonstrate that too - as it stands, if you accelerate the leading particle, all you'll get is a stretch that is maintained due to the complete lack of any mechanism to allow your particles to adjust until they find their own comfortable separation distance. You've missed out most of the essential physics and don't even have a bonding mechanism. You should continue to work on them and discuss them, but in the simulation thread rather than here - get them to the point where they match up to real physics first.

Quote
Another feature that those simulations would account for if their contraction rate was right is relativistic mass: while the speed would increase, light would take more time to make a roundtrip, and the accelerated particle would have to wait longer to increase its speed, so it would accelerate less and less often, ...

Think about a single particle accelerating - there is no wait for any light to make round trips. The particle simply accelerates instantly to the new speed. The round-trip time will only delay the sharing out of a force if a bound particle is accelerated, and that delay should not be mistaken for resistance to acceleration. LaFrenière explains how relativistic mass can be held by particles, but you have to treat them as waves if you want to simulate that.

Quote
... I could increase progressively the speed of the photon. This way, it would take less and less time to complete its roundtrip, so the distance the accelerated particle would travel during that time would get down, and so would the contraction rate.

I can't picture what you mean by that, but you can try it out and see if the result is useful.

Quote
Bingo!.... At last, I think I found the right way to simulate the whole process. Do you think it will convince the relativists that I'm right about acceleration being determinant if it works? :0)

I think you've got a lot of missing mechanisms to build, so you need to get on with building them. You just need to realise that the way your two particles interact has nothing to do with how they accelerate or resist acceleration - all they're doing is sharing out an acceleration of one particle in such a way that each particle ends up with half of the energy that's been put in, while the "contraction" that you're getting is nothing more than a compression that ought to remove itself quickly.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 31/10/2018 13:43:13
Think about a single particle accelerating - there is no wait for any light to make round trips. The particle simply accelerates instantly to the new speed.
A single particle's step is made of millions of its components steps, so a particle necessarily has to wait till the light exchanged between its components makes a roundtrip between them before being able to increase its speed. The only particle that doesn't seem to have components is the electron, and because of that, we are stuck with a particle that has no dimension. If I'm right about mass being due to light taking time to make a roundtrip, then the electron might correspond to a distant intermittent bonding between two atoms, and we can start speculating on the way a light standing wave could be curved, or appear to be curved, by a magnetic field.

the "contraction" that you're getting is nothing more than a compression that ought to remove itself quickly.
I'm going to build the simulation, and if it works as I expect it to work, it should help you to understand better what I mean.

How is it an absolute reference when the particles can't tell what speed it's moving at relative to them?
It is an absolute reference for motion in the same sense you say that time is the same everywhere. In that sense, if the speed and the direction of light wasn't constant everywhere, motion itself wouldn't be constant, and we couldn't measure anything.

if you accelerate the leading particle
If we could accelerate a leading particle, it may break the bonding with the trailing one. If we send a molecule between two bonded molecules fast enough, that bonding may brake. Bodies usually resist a lot less to traction than to compression. Besides, how would you proceed to pull on a particle if you were a particle?
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 31/10/2018 20:13:07
A single particle's step is made of millions of its components steps, so a particle necessarily has to wait till the light exchanged between its components makes a roundtrip between them before being able to increase its speed. The only particle that doesn't seem to have components is the electron, and because of that, we are stuck with a particle that has no dimension.

If the electron is dimensionless, why is it described as being one of the most perfectly spherical things in existence? We know it's made of energy and that its energy is divisible, so it is made of parts, but we should probably be looking at accelerating it in the way LaFrenière does, treating it as waves. The important point though is that the way you're working with particles clearly won't produce the right results if they're atoms, and I doubt it'll be any different with any component particles within atoms either.

Quote
If I'm right about mass being due to light taking time to make a roundtrip, then the electron might correspond to a distant intermittent bonding between two atoms, and we can start speculating on the way a light standing wave could be curved, or appear to be curved, by a magnetic field.

Mass is simply the amount of energy that makes up a piece of matter plus any energy added to it to move it. There is no need to try to account for it as anything other than what it is already known to be.

Quote
I'm going to build the simulation, and if it works as I expect it to work, it should help you to understand better what I mean.

If it's complex, write the program first in French and I should be able to understand it from that.

Quote
It is an absolute reference for motion in the same sense you say that time is the same everywhere. In that sense, if the speed and the direction of light wasn't constant everywhere, motion itself wouldn't be constant, and we couldn't measure anything.

The problem with calling it an absolute reference is that it can't be measured from inside the universe. If we're looking in from the outside and can see the fabric of space, then that's the absolute reference. The speed of light is secondary to that, and may vary. In a gravitational field, it actively does vary.

Quote
If we could accelerate a leading particle, it may break the bonding with the trailing one. If we send a molecule between two bonded molecules fast enough, that bonding may brake. Bodies usually resist a lot less to traction than to compression.

Things can be stronger in tension because there's no perpendicular movement generated by the force acting through them to fracture the structure.

Quote
Besides, how would you proceed to pull on a particle if you were a particle?

If you pull a piece of string along, what happens to the trailing end? The last particle is being pulled along somehow, and it's maintaining its separation from the one ahead in accordance with the rules of length contraction. A simulation has to match that, and that means you have to design mechanisms to produce the right behaviour. If your mechanisms are wrong but produce the right results, they're still useful, but obviously it would be better if they are right. If we're dealing with waves, there may be particular separation distances that produce the lowest energy state, which means that "particles" will adjust to those separations. A simple simulation probably can't handle that though - LaFrenière's mechanisms are complex and would likely take months of hard programming to produce. That's why I don't want to get bogged down in writing anything of that kind until I've built better tools (i.e. AGI) to automate most of the work.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 03/11/2018 20:04:31
Mass is simply the amount of energy that makes up a piece of matter plus any energy added to it to move it
If I understand well, you don't think that a break in the synchronization between my two particles during their acceleration can produce their resistance to acceleration, and that such a break may be due to the limited speed of any information.

The speed of light is secondary to that, and may vary. In a gravitational field, it actively does vary.
I don't yet believe that the speed of light can vary, the same way I don't believe that it stays the same if we move with regard to it. LET shows that it doesn't have to stay the same, and the experiments can only measure the two way speed, so LET is more logical that SR in this instance. If my new simulation works, it will prove that, but to prove that light doesn't have to slow down, I'll have to make a simulation where it is the light exchanged between two orbiting bodies that produces their curved trajectory. I will have to show that aberration and beaming can be a cause for the direction of the steps, the same way doppler effect was a cause for straight motion. To me, light being affected by gravity is as illogical as the speed of light being c for an observer that is actually moving with regard to it. If it was so, I couldn't simulate any motion with regard to light on my screen, and all the drawings that show how light moves in the interferometer of the MM experiment would be wrong, which means that SR would not even respect its own origin. It started with a light that didn't go at the same speed both ways, and ended up with one that did. Trump hasn't been more self-contradictory. Maybe the quiff is there for something in both cases! :0)

Good news! I succeeded to get the right contraction rate on my simulation on acceleration! (http://motionsimulations.com/Relativistic%20acceleration) Take a look at it and tell me what you think of it. I'll try to import the coding in my simulation on opposed acceleration to see if, this way, contraction reverses when acceleration reverses.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 04/11/2018 00:35:53
If I understand well, you don't think that a break in the synchronization between my two particles during their acceleration can produce their resistance to acceleration, and that such a break may be due to the limited speed of any information.

I don't see any resistance to acceleration in them at all - what I see there is instant acceleration of a particle followed by the particles exchanging that movement energy with each other and taking turns to move with it.

Quote
Quote
The speed of light is secondary to that, and may vary. In a gravitational field, it actively does vary.
I don't yet believe that the speed of light can vary, the same way I don't believe that it stays the same if we move with regard to it.

If you don't think it slows in a gravity well, then you'll need to do something like curve space instead to account for gravitational lensing.

Quote
LET shows that it doesn't have to stay the same, and the experiments can only measure the two way speed, so LET is more logical that SR in this instance.

Its speed can vary relative to you depending on how you're moving, while its speed doesn't actually change. But it can change as it goes through a gravity well. That creates a problem in describing its speed, because it's going at the speed of light, but not at the deep-space speed of light, so we have light moving slower than c, and yet from our position in a gravity well, we think of the light moving around us at c even though its slower than that.

Quote
If my new simulation works, it will prove that, but to prove that light doesn't have to slow down, I'll have to make a simulation where it is the light exchanged between two orbiting bodies that produces their curved trajectory. I will have to show that aberration and beaming can be a cause for the direction of the steps, the same way doppler effect was a cause for straight motion. To me, light being affected by gravity is as illogical as the speed of light being c for an observer that is actually moving with regard to it. If it was so, I couldn't simulate any motion with regard to light on my screen, and all the drawings that show how light moves in the interferometer of the MM experiment would be wrong, which means that SR would not even respect its own origin. It started with a light that didn't go at the same speed both ways, and ended up with one that did. Trump hasn't been more self-contradictory. Maybe the quiff is there for something in both cases! :0)

The slowing of light in a gravity well slows light at any point equally regardless of the direction it's travelling in through that point, so it doesn't affect the MMX result - it just slows the entire functionality of it. It isn't hard to simulate this slowing - all you need to do is treat the screen as the space fabric and have a maximum speed for light to move across it. When it's near to a lot of matter, you reduce the speed of that light, and bend it's course too if necessary, but you have to get close to something huge like a star before it becomes significant, so I'd be surprised if you need to simulate that yet.

Quote
Good news! I succeeded to get the right contraction rate on my simulation on acceleration! (http://motionsimulations.com/Relativistic%20acceleration) Take a look at it and tell me what you think of it. I'll try to import the coding in my simulation on opposed acceleration to see if, this way, contraction reverses when acceleration reverses.

It looks like a fudge with the light turning round and the particle delaying its reaction without any sensible mechanism to tell it how long to wait. (There's also a small error creeping into it somewhere: I noticed that the speed was > 0.87c with the length not yet down to 0.5, and similarly for the 0.6 and 0.8 pairings.) What you really need though is some way for the particles to measure how far apart they feel themselves to be and for them to adjust towards a more comfortable separation. With two particles, they might not be able to settle down to that separation without radiating off heat. but they will get there on average. In a multi-particle object, the lengthways shortening should settle down a bit as a lot of the heat energy will divert sideways until the vibrations are equal sideways and lengthways.

There are a number of possible options as to how to achieve this. One would be to put a clock in each particle and use that to try to maintain a constant round trip time for each photon travelling between the two particles. The clocks in the particles would need to be adjusted for time dilation for that to work, so you'd be applying a fudge there instead in that the particles of the clock would also need to move closer together, and if you give them clocks to apply the same mechanism, you transfer the problem further down, infinitely. This approach also wouldn't be transferring the acceleration force in a rational way between the two particles, so we can probably rule it out.

Another approach would be to think of the light radiating out and transferring less force if it's spread out more by the time it reaches the other particle. Aberration needs to be programmed for in this to make sure the right amount of force is sent out towards the other particle. This should lead to correct length contraction if you can solve all the energy redistribution questions. There are problems with this though, because you need attraction and repulsion, and if they're always equal, it won't adjust the separations, so you need some way to make one win out over the other and near distances and the other win out at longer distances. I don't know why that should happen though. LaFrenière had ideas about why there should be attraction or repulsion, so it would be a good idea to try to understand his mechanism - it is likely to be closer to reality than any of my ideas for this. I still don't understand what it is he does to get it to work, but it may depend on doing something highly complex with a lot of wave interactions, so it might be best just to fudge it for now and just program in a need for a particle to accelerate towards the other particle if the force coming from it feels too weak, and away from it if it feels too strong. That fudge can then be replaced by a better mechanism later in a more complex simulation.

Another important thing to try to get right though is the reduced increase in speed from the same acceleration as the speed goes up - this has a role in length contraction too, most obviously with orbits.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 04/11/2018 19:35:33
Correction to previous post: aberration is not enough by itself to produce the correct pattern of radiation of force - you have to have length contraction acting already on the shape of the emitter in order to produce the right length contraction on the particle separation that results from the responses to the received force. That means the final part has to be used as the mechanism for length contraction, dictating the shapes of particles in the same way it dictates the shapes of orbits.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 05/11/2018 16:33:35
I don't see any resistance to acceleration in them at all - what I see there is instant acceleration of a particle followed by the particles exchanging that movement energy with each other and taking turns to move with it.
The particles take a certain time to make a step, reason why they move on the screen, and when they increase their speed, it also increases on the screen, so they are not really accelerating instantly. The time they take to make a step is the one for the computer to run the simulation once. If that operation would take no time, there would be no motion on the screen. They would get from 0 to c in no time.

It looks like a fudge with the light turning round and the particle delaying its reaction without any sensible mechanism to tell it how long to wait.
There is no mechanism either for length contraction in SR. At least, my simulation suggests one, and it certainly is a relativistic one since it is due to light taking time to accelerate things.

There are a number of possible options as to how to achieve this. One would be to put a clock in each particle and use that to try to maintain a constant round trip time for each photon traveling between the two particles. The clocks in the particles would need to be adjusted for time dilation for that to work, so you'd be applying a fudge there instead in that the particles of the clock would also need to move closer together, and if you give them clocks to apply the same mechanism, you transfer the problem further down, infinitely. ­
That's the way my small steps already work: the ones between the particles are justified by the ones between their components, and so on for the components ones. If any particle has a dimension, there is no other way around.

Quote
This approach also wouldn't be transferring the acceleration force in a rational way between the two particles, so we can probably rule it out.
In the simulation, the force on the particles is the result of their resistance to be accelerated, and that resistance is due to light taking time to accelerate the other particle. If that acceleration would take no time, the particle would accelerate instantly, and there would be no resistance, thus no force. Where do you see any irrationality in that mechanism?

Another approach would be to think of the light radiating out and transferring less force if it's spread out more by the time it reaches the other particle. Aberration needs to be programmed for in this to make sure the right amount of force is sent out towards the other particle. This should lead to correct length contraction if you can solve all the energy redistribution questions. There are problems with this though, because you need attraction and repulsion, and if they're always equal, it won't adjust the separations, so you need some way to make one win out over the other and near distances and the other win out at longer distances.
During constant motion, the photon produced by the particles suffers beaming and doppler effect, and it suffers aberration and a reversed doppler effect when it strikes them later on, so it appears normal to both particles. During acceleration, the red particle produces more doppler effect and more beaming than the one it perceives from the incoming photon, so it resists to accelerate, and it appears blueshifted and smaller to the other particle, which accelerates away from it so that aberration and doppler effect makes it appear normal, and which also resists to its acceleration. I didn't simulate it yet, but the outside force that accelerates the red particle is also a photon.

Correction to previous post: aberration is not enough by itself to produce the correct pattern of radiation of force - you have to have length contraction acting already on the shape of the emitter in order to produce the right length contraction on the particle separation that results from the responses to the received force.
Right, and that's what my last simulation does. Remains to reverse the acceleration and wait for the distance to stretch back. Suspense.... :0)
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: guest46746 on 07/11/2018 01:00:13
Why not approach the time dilation/ length contraction issue from the perspective of the 2nd thermal law and the axiom of exergy efficiency. When accelerating to the speed of light the loss of thermal energy is minimized. This is evident with the decrease radiation from atomic clocks in GPS satellites! lol

KISS!
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: guest46746 on 07/11/2018 01:03:49
Then the question becomes, why is energy conserved while traveling at accelerated speeds? lol
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 07/11/2018 23:22:20
Quote
This approach also wouldn't be transferring the acceleration force in a rational way between the two particles, so we can probably rule it out.
In the simulation, the force on the particles is the result of their resistance to be accelerated, and that resistance is due to light taking time to accelerate the other particle. If that acceleration would take no time, the particle would accelerate instantly, and there would be no resistance, thus no force. Where do you see any irrationality in that mechanism?

I was referring to the business of a photon transferring energy between the two particles - it should deliver the amount it carries, making it impossible for the particle receiving that energy to respond correctly unless the amount of energy put into the photon in the first place is the right amount for the other particle to receive, and that needs knowledge at a distance. There has to be a lot more going on than photons transferring energy in this simplistic way. That isn't something I've read up on at all, and it isn't something that I can afford to put time into at the moment either, so I can't tell you how it should be done, and I don't know if anyone knows how it should be done either.

Quote
Right, and that's what my last simulation does. Remains to reverse the acceleration and wait for the distance to stretch back. Suspense.... :0)

The important part was: "That means the final part has to be used as the mechanism for length contraction, dictating the shapes of particles in the same way it dictates the shapes of orbits." If you want a simulation to explain the cause length contraction, it has to include the mechanism of length contraction and not simply apply a length-contraction formula to generate it. The whole point is that you would need to provide correct length contraction without a formula for it, making it appear out of other mechanisms that are already accepted in physics.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 08/11/2018 21:18:41
The important part was: "That means the final part has to be used as the mechanism for length contraction, dictating the shapes of particles in the same way it dictates the shapes of orbits." If you want a simulation to explain the cause length contraction, it has to include the mechanism of length contraction and not simply apply a length-contraction formula to generate it. The whole point is that you would need to provide correct length contraction without a formula for it, making it appear out of other mechanisms that are already accepted in physics.
For the moment, I have to take for granted that the contraction happening at the components' scale during acceleration would slow down the rate of the contraction I get at the particles' one. I could make a simplified simulation to test that possibility, but I need to solve the problem of reversing the contraction first. I didn't succeed to add the relativistic equation to my simulation on opposite acceleration yet, so the suspense is still running. :0)
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 02/12/2018 20:33:48
The suspense is off, and I got some good news.

To observe the way the acceleration between the components would affect the acceleration between the particles, I added that feature to my first simulation on acceleration between two particles. As expected, the rate of contraction due to a particle accelerating before the other began to decrease, but after a while, the distance stopped contracting and began stretching instead. In that simulation, the contraction produced at one scale was used to decrease the one produced at the other scale and vice-versa, so that when contraction switched to stretching at both scales, stretching was all of a sudden used to increase stretching. I wished that the rate of contraction would only have gotten smaller and smaller with time, thus getting closer and closer to 1, because this way, reversing the acceleration wouldn't have changed anything, but it didn't, and I didn't find how it could naturally do that, so I decided to switch to another idea I had during the time I was trying this out.

This time, the distance between the particles doesn't contract because the first particle accelerates before the second one, but only because it makes its step before the second one. The particles make a step when the photon strikes them, then wait until it is back before making another one. If acceleration is on, the length of the step increases, otherwise it stays the same. They make an instant step on the screen because it is easier to program, but in reality, they should move at constant speed until the photon strikes them. That's why, if we observe the action in slow motion, the photon seems to be left behind by the red particle, and why it seems to leave the green one before it has made its step. In reality, a photon starts to be emitted when an incoming one strikes a particle, and it is being emitted all along the step the particle makes. It is thus shortened by the motion of the red particle towards the green one, and stretched by the motion of the green particle away from the red one. I will try to simulate the whole photon later on, but meanwhile, we may consider that the yellow dot is only its front end.

The rest of the explanation is on the simulation's page. (http://motionsimulations.com/Acceleration%20by%20steps)
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 02/12/2018 22:31:05
You should add a read-out of the speed too. What speed are they collectively doing at the point when when the red particle switches over to being ahead of the green one (on average)? Is that them reaching c?
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 02/12/2018 23:46:43
I'll add the speed of the system to the display, meanwhile here is my answer to your question. At the moment the red particle would step at the place where the green one is, it would have effectively reached the speed of the photon, but it can't do so if two particles cannot be at the same place at the same time. Before getting there though, it has to overcome the increasing resistance. While its step increases in length, it produces more and more blueshift on the light from the green one, so it resists more and more to its acceleration and it takes more and more force to accelerate it. I'm only studying the case where the particles are held inline, but if they were free to rotate around one another, then they would sometimes be traveling sideways to the motion, and the acceleration would only affect the steps between their components. The resistance would get down a bit during that time, because there would be no more blueshift from the other particle to overcome, but just a tiny bit since there is a lot more resistance at the scale of the components than at the scale of the particles. With the steps as a mechanism for mass, that tiny mass difference is precisely what we call the loss of mass due to bonding.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 12/01/2019 21:56:03
Happy new year everybody!

I'm slow, but I finally succeeded to do what I needed to do with that new way to move my particles. I first added the speed of the system to my simulation with two particles (http://motionsimulations.com/Acceleration%20by%20steps), then I added that new kind of steps to my simulation on opposite accelerations (http://motionsimulations.com/Opposite%20accelerations%20by%20steps) and to my simulation with four particles (http://motionsimulations.com/Four%20particles%20by%20steps). The system doesn't contract in the direction of motion anymore, so reversing the acceleration is no problem, but the time does, and it still contradicts SR. As expected though, the vertical arm of my simulation with four particles also contracts, so the vertical and the horizontal light clocks still stay on sync all the time, and the result of the MM experiment is respected. The result of the twins paradox mind experiment is not though: it would simply be the contrary. More explanations on the simulations pages. Have fun and give me some feedback! :0)
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 13/01/2019 22:04:36
Happy new year everybody!

HNY 2U2.

Thanks for adding the speed to the first of those programs - it makes it a lot easier to understand. Your second link's program has a display problem (on my machine, at least) with the numbers being written on top of or through the text, so I can't make them out. Your third link is to the same program again instead of to the 4 particle program that you intended to link to.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 14/01/2019 15:24:27
Hi David,

I corrected the link and changed the display. I hope its ok for you now. I tried it on three browsers (edge, chrome and firefox) and it looks fine.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 14/01/2019 20:58:56
I corrected the link and changed the display. I hope its ok for you now. I tried it on three browsers (edge, chrome and firefox) and it looks fine.

That's better - it works now. I don't understand this time contraction thing that you're doing though. How are you going to get the cycle times to increase for higher speeds of travel when you have them going down instead?
Title: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: WarnerGet on 15/01/2019 01:03:46
The wiki article is misleading. It says...It would assume that more matter is needed that what is present however, dark matter particles is not the only theory that is capable of explaining the strange phenomenon. I
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 15/01/2019 15:38:04
How are you going to get the cycle times to increase for higher speeds of travel when you have them going down instead?
As we can see, with this kind of steps, the time light takes between two horizontal particles contracts with speed instead of dilating, but for a light clock at our scale, the story is different. The light exchanged between two mirrors is not strong enough to bond them, so they cannot move by steps, but their atoms still could. With that kind of steps, time would at the same time be dilating at our scale and contracting at the scale of particles. I think that there is no problem with such a result as long as the result of the MM experiment would be the same, and I think it would. As I say in the explanations of my simulation with four particles, an interferometer is meant to measure a phase shift between two identical copies of the same photon (or the same photons' front), and the photons themselves cannot change phases while they are traveling between the mirrors, so if the atoms of the mirrors do not change either the phases of their steps, what they can't do if they are not accelerated, the photons should stay on sync with the steps all the time, and there should not be any phase shift at the end. As my simulation shows though, for the vertical photon to stay on sync with the horizontal one while speed increases, the system has to contract vertically, and if it did, the vertical arm of the interferometer would also contract, what seems to worsen the problem because with SR, it is the horizontal arm that contracts, but I think it doesn't. If the space between the mirrors was filled with a clear crystal for instance, a photon sent vertically through the crystal would follow the same path all the photons bonding its atoms would follow, and it would automatically be on sync with the steps all along the crystal since the photons bonding its atoms would be, so there would be no phase shift to observe at the mirrors. If the game the particles are playing is really synchronisation, the result of the MM experiment is not surprising.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 15/01/2019 20:19:02
The wiki article is misleading. It says...It would assume that more matter is needed that what is present however, dark matter particles is not the only theory that is capable of explaining the strange phenomenon. I

That looks incomplete, perhaps posted in error. Might it have been intended for a different thread?
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 15/01/2019 20:48:47
As we can see, with this kind of steps, the time light takes between two horizontal particles contracts with speed instead of dilating, but for a light clock at our scale, the story is different. The light exchanged between two mirrors is not strong enough to bond them, so they cannot move by steps, but their atoms still could. With that kind of steps, time would at the same time be dilating at our scale and contracting at the scale of particles.

If the two mirrors are connected by a rod (or arm), there is a chain of particles all the way from one mirror to the other, so if the round trips for light between any two adjacent particles is going down, I can't see how the round-trip time can do anything other than go down for the trip between the mirrors too.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 16/01/2019 16:47:33
That part of the mechanism is hard to imagine. In a solid, while half of the atoms would be making a step, the other half would be waiting for the photon from that step to come in before making theirs, so half the photons would be going one way while the other half would be going the other way later on. If we would send an independent photon through the solid, it would not have to produce any step, it would move directly to the mirror while the other photons would be going both ways, so unless the rod is only a few atoms long, I think that we can consider its motion as constant with regard to the motion of light, which means that the time it would take between the mirrors would be the same as with SR. It might take a simulation to be sure though, so if you think it's worth it, I'll make one.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 16/01/2019 18:55:55
It might take a simulation to be sure though, so if you think it's worth it, I'll make one.

I still can't picture it, but a drawing should be sufficient to illustrate things and wouldn't be so costly in time.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 16/01/2019 21:33:18
Here is a drawing that shows how the atoms of a rod would execute their steps once the acceleration would have stopped. As we can see, the rod never shortens as much as a unique step does, and it is that length shortening that would shorten the roundtrip time of the photon between the atoms, so I think that the roundtrip time of a loose photon through the whole rod would be about the same as with SR.

Tige avec pas.png (29.52 kB . 914x495 - viewed 839 times)
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 17/01/2019 20:51:37
Okay, so you have each blue particle bonded to the red one to its right (let's call that a BR pair), but you should also have each red particle bonded to the blue particle to its right (which we can call an RB pair). Your simulation shows only the BR pair interactions. What would happen if you simulated the RB pair simulations instead?
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 18/01/2019 16:02:04
In this simulation, the blue atoms are moving towards the red ones and the red ones are moving away from the blue ones just because it is a blue atom that has been accelerated first. If we take the left blue atom away, it is the next red atom that will be accelerated first and once the last atom will have made its step, all the red atoms will be moving towards the blue ones and vice-versa. To simulate the way the acceleration progresses through the atoms, we can use four fingers, two from each hand, put them one inch apart from one another on a table, and move the left one one step to the right. After three steps, the four fingers are moving as in my drawing, the first and the third finger moving on sync, and the second and the fourth waiting for their turn. Now if we would send a photon back and forth through that system, its timing would be affected by the system's temporary contraction because there is only four atoms, but the more the atoms, the less the contraction, and the less the photon's timing would be affected. That timing discrepancy between scales looks like a statistical quantum effect where it is the inverse of randomness that would be involved. I still think that randomness could affect acceleration though. I think that a particle cannot know in advance the result of an acceleration the same way a specie does not know in advance how to adapt to a change in its environment. Species are forced to use random trials that we call mutations, so I think that particles could also be forced to use random steps before succeeding to adapt to the direction and the speed they are getting accelerated, a feature that would affect their resistance to acceleration, thus their mass.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 18/01/2019 20:30:38
Maybe I'm imagining a problem that isn't there. With particles jumping in the way you allow them to, they're able to move faster than c (and move infinitely fast), so you may indeed be able to reduce round-trip times for light moving between each pair of particles due to those jumps. It's clear though that you need better programming tools if you're going to make real progress with this, and I'm working on building some - I'm getting useful ideas just from seeing what you're trying to do.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 19/01/2019 15:24:36
I let the particles make instantaneous steps on the screen only because it is easier to see the steps this way, and also because it is a lot easier to program, but in reality, those steps should have a sinusoidal shape driven by the components' steps: they should start at zero speed, increase to a top speed in the middle, and get back to zero speed at the end. I could have given them a mean speed instead of a sinusoidal one, but we wouldn't have seen them anymore.

It may effectively help to be able to build more precise simulations to show the sinusoidal steps, but if I compare them to the kite I invented, we probably don't need to be that precise in the beginning to get a model that works. Using a computer to design my kite only helped to refine the shape and to digitalize the templates' cutting operation. At the time, I didn't know how to handle "Autocad" anyway, but I would certainly have used it if I had known. It could also have been interesting to put the digital model in a wind tunnel simulator, but we didn't go that far. How is your programming software going? Is it close to be operational? When will we be able to give you some feedback about it? Aren't you anxious to get some?
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 19/01/2019 22:45:30
I let the particles make instantaneous steps on the screen only because it is easier to see the steps this way, and also because it is a lot easier to program, but in reality, those steps should have a sinusoidal shape driven by the components' steps: they should start at zero speed, increase to a top speed in the middle, and get back to zero speed at the end. I could have given them a mean speed instead of a sinusoidal one, but we wouldn't have seen them anymore.

The biggest problem here is the inadequacy of the programming tools - it takes far too long to write code to do simple things. What's needed is an intelligent programming system with a built-in mathematician which can write most of the code for you, and that's exactly what I'm trying to build (by creating a system that can learn by itself and gradually become a mathematician).

Quote
How is your programming software going? Is it close to be operational? When will we be able to give you some feedback about it? Aren't you anxious to get some?

I have a rudimentary natural language programming capability (with a very limited vocabulary, but with the capacity to extend it to the whole of language without writing any more program code to handle it), but I've been stuck for a while with working out how to integrate it with graphics in order to produce a clear demo of it in action. I've ended up inventing a new way of doing graphics which involves defining 3D shapes in a way that ties in neatly with the requirements of machine vision. (I recently spent ten days straight staring at a toy squirrel while working out all the details of this system.) I now know how to produce virtual objects with the capability to stretch and move in natural ways governed by the laws of physics and capable of being controlled by applying virtual power to move joints in any directions that muscles make them do in the real animal/person, while each part of the body is acted on by proper laws of physics such that a fall or collision should send it spinning and sprawling in a completely realistic way. (One of the things I want to do with this is get the system to learn to make these things stand, walk, run and jump just by finding the best way to apply the minimum power to the available controls to achieve specific goals, and it should all transfer directly across into real-world robotics.) I still haven't done any work on handling waves (of any kind), so that's what I want to think about next - it may need a completely different system to handle the kinds of simulation that LaFrenière was working on because so much depends on waves of the medium rather than the content, and I'm still trying to visualise the right way of handling that.

My immediate priority is to get that demo up and running though so that people can see directly that the system works without having to study lots of data on a screen covered in numbers. The idea is that the user will be able to say to the computer (by typing words in), "Make a ball. Bigger. Make it red. Give it a pattern. Rotate it. Change the axis of rotation. Make another ball. Make it blue. Put it over the first ball. Move the red ball to the right. No - make it move continually to the right. When it goes off the side of the screen, make it come back in at the opposite side. Move the blue ball downwards. When it goes off the bottom of the screen, make it come back in at the top. Move the red ball more quickly. Rotate the blue ball. Opposite way. Faster. If they collide, make them bounce off each other and have the impact adjust their spin." Most of this is direct instruction, but the same kinds of instructions can be used to build programs. Some parts of this are already programs: "if the ball goes off the side of the screen, etc." - this becomes a program thread that continually checks to see if that condition is met. There are also program threads that repeat their action to keep something moving - these are different from single use instructions which might move an object once and then never have to act again. You may be able to imagine how this system will speed up the production of the kinds of simulation that you've been working on - the tedious stuff will all be done automatically for you and you won't have to spend most of your time fighting to get round the limitations of an unintelligent system. With natural language programming, you want to be able to point at a dot and say "that particle" or just say "the dot inside the circle" instead of having to know its name. The intelligent system should understand what the program is doing and not just run it blind, but for that you have to take it beyond natural language programming and towards AGI. I've had to redesign a lot of components in order to integrate the two things (NLP and AGI) in the most efficient way. All the instructions mentioned in this paragraph will be in the demo.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 22/01/2019 22:50:30
Can you give us a glimpse at how your software learns David?

I read that the softwares that can now play "GO" efficiently need to be able to learn, because there is too many possibilities and they need to find shortcuts through them. GO language is much simpler than human ones, so it must be easier to develop a learning software with it, but as you know, I think that anything that faces a change in its environment has to benefit from randomness to adapt, and learning is nothing else than fast adaptation, so I suspect that Go softwares use some kind of random process to learn, but you seem reluctant to use randomness this way, so I really wonder how your software works.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 23/01/2019 20:25:52
Can you give us a glimpse at how your software learns David?

If I teach you a word, you simply stick it in a database in your head and use it from there. If it has special rules about how it's used, you'll pick those up by seeing examples of it in use and by being told you've used it incorrectly (if you use it incorrectly). That kind of learning is trivial. A different kind of learning applies to things where part of the learning involves working out how to solve problems, such as a machine learning how to walk, but the difficult part there is the problem solving rather than the learning. In the case of Go, chess, etc., the task is a problem solving one; working out the best algorithms to apply.

Quote
...but you seem reluctant to use randomness this way, so I really wonder how your software works.

Randomness isn't necessary and probably isn't helpful. If you're homing in on a good method for doing something and you keep trying little variations in the method you're applying, you'll see the success numbers going up or down and can use those to guide you towards what may be the optimum algorithm. It's like climbing a hill - you keep going up rather than down, and you quickly get to the top by doing this. From the top of that hill though, you can't get to the top of a higher hill without first going down, so a blind climber (from a species of blind intelligent animals on another planet) would want to start climbing in lots of different places and see where it gets them. A systematic approach to choosing those starting places will more likely find the highest summit before a random approach does. A country that is repeatedly found to be flat is less likely to provide the highest peak than a country that is repeatedly found to contain high mountains.

For a machine learning to walk, it needs to try moving limbs in different ways and see what results from those movements. The most promising ones can then be selected and combined with other moves to see if better results emerge. Again, like choosing different starting points for the climbs, it's worth exploring less promising initial results too because some of those may lead to better solutions in the end, although they are less likely to do so. Some successful methods may use too much energy, so while they may be useful for some purposes, they should not be the main way of moving. While a lot of this experimentation can be lumped in as part of learning, it really isn't - the learning part is in discovering that something works better than something else so that that knowledge can inform future exploration. I haven't written a program to apply any of this to anything yet, but it's something I've wanted to have a go at for years - it's been too much of a diversion from more essential work for me to get round to it until now, but it will soon be within reach. I'm just trying to solve a number of geometrical problems so that I can handle virtual objects correctly (though this is mostly about display issues - you need to be able to see the results, and I want everything to look good).
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 24/01/2019 19:02:06
Randomness isn't necessary and probably isn't helpful. If you're homing in on a good method for doing something and you keep trying little variations in the method you're applying, you'll see the success numbers going up or down and can use those to guide you towards what may be the optimum algorithm.
To me, little variations is the pendant of little mutations, for which the guide is the environment, so unless you think that those variations are not necessarily random, it seems that you simply see no randomness where I see some. I think our discordance concerns the guide: you seem to attribute it to our intelligence whereas I attribute it to the environment. I see the explanation of this divergence in the the way we usually consider the two kinds of memory. The memory of a specie depends on its reproduction (if an individual succeeds to reproduce, its mutation is kind of memorized), whereas our memory or the memory of a computer doesn't, so that we can more easily think that the variations our mind produces are not selected by the environment whilst they necessarily are if they are random. The problem is that we can hardly imagine that we often make huge mistakes like taking the opposite direction. We do, but we rapidly forget about them once we get used to the right way, because then, we don't even have to think about what we are doing anymore.

I got used to the idea that our memory works like the step's one, that it has to reproduce itself constantly, so I can more easily compare it to the memory of a specie which also depends on reproduction. The big question is: am I going the wrong way or am I just fine tuning my direction? The only way to know is to look at the feedback from my environment, and for the moment, I only get resistance. It's as if an individual from a specific specie would have a problem reproducing itself because it has a new mutation. That can certainly happen, but if the mutation still helps that individual to survive, with time, it still increases its chances to get reproduced. In my case, the variation is on an idea, so amongst all the other ideas that I have, it is only that idea that it would help to survive, but with time, it would still increase its chances to get reproduced by others.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 24/01/2019 22:15:54
When a species evolves, it does so by natural selection rewarding useful mutations and punishing bad ones, but the mutations continue to be random - no lessons are learned about bad mutations, so they are made repeatedly and a lot of individual animals suffer greatly as a result. If a mutation is discovered to be bad, ideally the repetition of that mutation would be prevented, but nature hasn't provided a memory to prevent that. Of course, the same mutation might not be harmful and could be beneficial later on after a number of other mutations have occurred, so you don't want to prevent that mutation being tested again, but you do want to avoid testing it again from the same starting point. Sticking to random is a slower way of making progress, and with intelligent machines, there's no excuse for doing that because it's easy to record what fails and to avoid repeating those failures over and over again.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 26/01/2019 17:17:55
I think that an AGI with no integrated random process would simply try to stop any intellectual evolution, so I'm really worried about your viewpoint, all the more that I never succeeded to convince anybody about that, and even less the few programmers that I met. Such an AGI would certainly be better than us to solve any old problem, but I think it would be unable to solve new ones without using randomness. I think it would prevent us from evolving without being able to evolve itself. In this sense, the GO softwares are probably only solving old problems if they don't use randomness, and they probably win just because they are faster and because their memory is a lot more precise than ours. Evolution of species is slow because testing a mutation takes a lot more time than testing the variation of an idea, not because randomness slows the process. If randomness was that slow, the technological revolution would not be that fast.

Research takes time because it is a trial and error process, but that process often pays otherwise we wouldn't use it. It is not computers that make the revolution, it is humans with all their mistakes. The computers only help to crunch the data, not to invent new stuff. People carrying wrong ideas don't suffer the same way animals carrying the wrong mutation do. I know my ideas could be wrong, but I don't suffer because of that. On the contrary, I need to take chances to feel good, and if I'm wrong, I simply try something else. We know that the mutation/selection principle works only because we know that it sometimes pays to take chances, so how could an AGI ever understand that principle if it is unable to take any chance, and how could it behave intelligently without that capacity? Would it prevent us from taking chances? And if so, could our intelligence stay sane without that pleasure?

If such an AGI was already ruling the world, it would be trying to stop the wars, stop the pollution, stop the population growth, stop the inequalities, etc... , all those things that we are actually trying to control too, but for which we face a huge resistance. To be faster than us, that AGI would thus have to find new ways to get around that resistance. Firstly, I think it couldn't find new ways if it would be unable to proceed by trial and error, and secondly, if that resistance is of the same kind than the one we feel when we need to accelerate a massive body, I'm afraid it would simply be losing a precious time.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 27/01/2019 01:01:06
I think that an AGI with no integrated random process would simply try to stop any intellectual evolution, so I'm really worried about your viewpoint, all the more that I never succeeded to convince anybody about that, and even less the few programmers that I met.

I have never heard of any case where a random process can be guaranteed to be faster than a systematic one. In a hypothetical case where a random process is the fastest, it is only the fastest equal, and there will be many systematic approaches that match it. Take for example a situation where there's a goat hidden behind one of a thousand doors, and it's position has been randomly selected. A random search is the best way to find it, but so is a systematic search in door order - nothing is lost by not doing random. If the doors are closed after it's been revealed that the goat isn't behind them, then you could have the random process open many of the doors multiple times because it isn't monitoring which ones it's already tried, whereas the systematic search will only open any door once. Evolution is like the case where the same door is opened repeatedly during the search for the goat. Intelligent systems should not behave that way.

If you want to send a secret message, using a random single-use key (which the receiver also has and which no one else can access) guarantees that the encrypted message will be random and uncrackable, but the fact that randomness has real uses doesn't mean that it can help solve problems. If you want to avoid losing a game like scissors, paper, stone you should also apply randomness to avoid your moves being predicted, but again that is not problem solving.

Quote
Such an AGI would certainly be better than us to solve any old problem, but I think it would be unable to solve new ones without using randomness.

Why? A systematic approach is fully capable of working out what the range of all possible actions is and to go through every single one of them to try them out. Meanwhile, the random approach wastes more and more of its time on repetition.

Quote
Research takes time because it is a trial and error process, but that process often pays otherwise we wouldn't use it.

Trial and error can be random or systematic. The latter is better.

Quote
It is not computers that make the revolution, it is humans with all their mistakes.

Failing to try something that might work is a mistake, so an "AGI" that avoids trying that thing is not an AGI, but an AGS.  Also, repeatedly testing something that never works is also a mistake when better progress can be made by trying lots of other things that haven't been tried before.

Quote
The computers only help to crunch the data, not to invent new stuff.

It's only once we have AGI that computers will become good at inventing new stuff, but they will be good at it and will outperform us. The only thing that will hold them back is their inability to judge whether their fun inventions are fun or not - they'll have trouble measuring how much pleasure they generate when they're incapable of experiencing any of that themselves.

Quote
On the contrary, I need to take chances to feel good, and if I'm wrong, I simply try something else.

Taking chances is not random. You don't jump out of a plane without a parachute in the hope of making some great positive discovery - you play the odds instead and look for places where luck is most likely to reward you in some way.

Quote
We know that the mutation/selection principle works only because we know that it sometimes pays to take chances, so how could an AGI ever understand that principle if it is unable to take any chance, and how could it behave intelligently without that capacity? Would it prevent us from taking chances? And if so, could our intelligence stay sane without that pleasure?

Taking chances is not random. An AGI programmed to do random things might make a black hole that swallows the Earth, or just press all the world's nuclear buttons just to see if that somehow pays off in some way. We absolutely don't want them to behave like that.

Quote
If such an AGI was already ruling the world, it would be trying to stop the wars, stop the pollution, stop the population growth, stop the inequalities, etc... , all those things that we are actually trying to control too, but for which we face a huge resistance. To be faster than us, that AGI would thus have to find new ways to get around that resistance. Firstly, I think it couldn't find new ways if it would be unable to proceed by trial and error, and secondly, if that resistance is of the same kind than the one we feel when we need to accelerate a massive body, I'm afraid it would simply be losing a precious time.

The problem you're presenting isn't real. Trial and error is not inherently random, and there's nothing that random does that can't be done by a systematic approach. A fully random approach is also dangerous - people don't follow it either, because if they did they'd die out very quickly.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 29/01/2019 16:18:35
If the doors are closed after it's been revealed that the goat isn't behind them, then you could have the random process open many of the doors multiple times because it isn't monitoring which ones it's already tried, whereas the systematic search will only open any door once
Our intelligence may be able to work randomly while still being able to remember it already has opened a door: randomness doesn't prevent order. I'm not very systematic and it is probably why I'm slow at simulating my small steps. I like to improvise, so I chose to look for solutions that others aren't looking for to get more time to develop them. Nevertheless, I need to be a minimum systematic, otherwise I wouldn't get anywhere. I can change my mind if I discover that an idea doesn't work, but I have to stick to it long enough to be sure it doesn't. I would probably be a lot faster and a lot more systematic if I had a good memory, and so would softwares that would be designed to improvise.

It is one thing to look for a given thing behind a given number of doors, but it is another one to only have a vague idea of what we are looking for though. Somehow, the mutation/selection process is intelligent, or at least, we find it more intelligent than intelligent design. That process nevertheless succeeded to design our intelligence, which became able to manipulate the mutation/selection one. It is thus also possible that we succeed to invent a superior intelligence that would also be able to manipulate ours, which means that we may actually be looking for something that we know nothing of. We may think we know, but as the evolution of species shows, that intelligence may be completely different than ours, so what we already have in mind about it is probably only a vague idea. On the other hand, if, as I think, our mind really uses randomness the way evolution does, it could mean that randomness is the only way to evolve. In a world where so many crucial things are unpredictable, a mix of diversity and randomness might be the only way to last.

I think democracy is such a mix. I think that elections add a bit of randomness in the process of choosing our leaders, a randomness that produces more diversity with time, a diversity that permits the societies to evolve more rapidly. Some argue that China didn't need democracy to evolve fast, but that's forgetting that we were the ones to buy their goods in the beginning, and that they were using our technology to produce them. Of course, that government could artificially try to introduce diversity in the way it governs, but I'm afraid the only way to do that would be to accept dissidence and trigger elections, a political suicide.

A systematic approach is fully capable of working out what the range of all possible actions is and to go through every single one of them to try them out. Meanwhile, the random approach wastes more and more of its time on repetition.
When there is enough individuals that carry different mutations, repetition doesn't really slow the process. It is even better that the winning mutation belongs to many individuals at a time in case some of them get an accident. That's what's happening to ideas: it often happens that many individuals develop the same idea at the same time, which usually produces different solutions to the same problem, which is good for diversity, which is good for further evolution. A lot of people is actually working on artificial intelligence for instance, and it effectively increases our chances to develop it.

Trial and error can be random or systematic. The latter is better.
Why one or the other, why not both at a time?

It's only once we have AGI that computers will become good at inventing new stuff, but they will be good at it and will outperform us. The only thing that will hold them back is their inability to judge whether their fun inventions are fun or not - they'll have trouble measuring how much pleasure they generate when they're incapable of experiencing any of that themselves.
Our feelings help us to survive, they work like our senses. If an AGI had senses to help it survive, it could probably develop feelings. But if it did, it would be exactly like us, and we are afraid of what it could do since we are afraid of us, so we don't want to try it. On the other hand, you think an AGI would be less dangerous than us just because it would have no feelings, but if it had, it would be afraid of itself just like we are, and being more intelligent than we are, it might succeed to control itself better than we do. Feelings are a shortcut to analysing situations: no need to remember what has produced a bad feeling, we know we must flee the situation or prepare to fight. I know because I live with my mom and we often have words. Most of the time, after a while, I forget about the facts, but I still know it is too soon to have a talk again because the bad feeling is still there. I was afraid you would get angry with  Rmolnav the other day, but you didn't, or at least it didn't show, so unless you're a software, it may mean that you can control yourself very well, or that you have what we call a very good character.

But what are those characteristics exactly? What makes us more or less aggressive? More or less patient? More or less empathetic? If we knew exactly how our own brain works, we might be able to build the perfect Artificial Human, and we wouldn't need a perfect AGI to rule us since we would already be perfect. But I don't believe in perfection since I decided not to believe in god when I was 12, so I don't believe in perfect AH or perfect AGI either. To me, if we would depend on perfection to exist, nature would have made us perfect. To me, all the things that exist need to be imperfect to keep on existing. To me, trying to get perfect is a non-sense that can even get dangerous. Of course, we got to keep on getting rid of wars and leveling the inequalities, but we don't need perfection to do that, just to go on evolving. Of course, we can try to build a better artificial intelligence than our own one, but without aiming for perfection.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 29/01/2019 23:02:15
Somehow, the mutation/selection process is intelligent, or at least, we find it more intelligent than intelligent design.

It isn't intelligent, but it did produce intelligence. Intelligent design is much quicker and actually uses intelligence rather than relying on random luck.

Quote
It is thus also possible that we succeed to invent a superior intelligence that would also be able to manipulate ours, which means that we may actually be looking for something that we know nothing of.  We may think we know, but as the evolution of species shows, that intelligence may be completely different than ours, so what we already have in mind about it is probably only a vague idea.

There is a point at which a species can develop general intelligence on the same level as us, and any that ever manage to do so will automatically be able to work out how to communicate with us. There are many lesser forms of high intelligence, as we can see with other apes, dolphins, parrots, octopodes, etc., but none of them have the full package - the diversity of high intelligence that we see in these other animals is primarily down to different deficiencies rather than them having something extra. No alien capable of communicating with us through images sent back and forth using radio signals would have any difficulty working out how to hold intelligent conversations with us, although the long delays between replies would be frustrating. There is one end point for general intelligence, and we are there. We have rules of reasoning which alien mathematicians will also identify and apply in thinking machines, and those will go on to discover any new reasoning tools that we might not have found yet, but it's unlikely that there is much left to find - we may well have the full set of fundamental reasoning tools already.

Quote
On the other hand, if, as I think, our mind really uses randomness the way evolution does, it could mean that randomness is the only way to evolve. In a world where so many crucial things are unpredictable, a mix of diversity and randomness might be the only way to last.

It took a billion years to evolve our intelligence, but it came close many times and failed before it produced us. I don't think we should handicap AGI by making it take millions of years to do things that it can do in a few minutes by applying intelligence.

Quote
I think democracy is such a mix. I think that elections add a bit of randomness in the process of choosing our leaders, a randomness that produces more diversity with time, a diversity that permits the societies to evolve more rapidly.

All it does is enable us to remove people from power if they are blinded by that power and start making bad decisions.

Quote
Some argue that China didn't need democracy to evolve fast, but that's forgetting that we were the ones to buy their goods in the beginning, and that they were using our technology to produce them. Of course, that government could artificially try to introduce diversity in the way it governs, but I'm afraid the only way to do that would be to accept dissidence and trigger elections, a political suicide.

China has better experts in charge of things than we are able to get into power in democracies - everything in the West is held down to the level of people of absolutely average intelligence, so it's been easy for China to take advantage of us. We have stupidly handed them almost all the technology they need to take over the world. That said though, our own governments are so awful that it might be best if the Chinese win out.

Quote
When there is enough individuals that carry different mutations, repetition doesn't really slow the process. It is even better that the winning mutation belongs to many individuals at a time in case some of them get an accident.

It absolutely does slow the process. Not only that, but whenever an individual genius emerges by luck, the offspring of that genius are typically not geniuses - the magic formula is broken every time for the next generation as soon as it's been found.

Quote
That's what's happening to ideas: it often happens that many individuals develop the same idea at the same time, which usually produces different solutions to the same problem, which is good for diversity, which is good for further evolution. A lot of people is actually working on artificial intelligence for instance, and it effectively increases our chances to develop it.

Almost of those successful people are following the same strategy, and it isn't random - it's systematic searching. I came up with a new way of doing 3D graphics by thinking hard about it and exploring hundreds of possible alternative ways of doing things - it wasn't just a random idea that popped out of nothing, but one that I found because I kept on and on hunting (motivated primarily by my desire to avoid using a GPU), and that hunt was guided by intelligent ideas which forced the search to take the right directions. I've continued developing it further, just last night finding a new way of calculating shadows  which will slash the processing time required for that too. (I'm not going to reveal any details of how it's done until after I've implemented it, so don't ask.) Random searches rarely hit gold, but intelligent searches repeatedly uncover rich seams of the stuff.

Quote
Trial and error can be random or systematic. The latter is better.
Why one or the other, why not both at a time?

The systematic approach can include a random aspect if it's helpful, so it's already doing both (except that a random aspect is rarely helpful).

Quote
Our feelings help us to survive, they work like our senses. If an AGI had senses to help it survive, it could probably develop feelings. But if it did, it would be exactly like us, and we are afraid of what it could do since we are afraid of us, so we don't want to try it. On the other hand, you think an AGI would be less dangerous than us just because it would have no feelings, but if it had, it would be afraid of itself just like we are, and being more intelligent than we are, it might succeed to control itself better than we do. Feelings are a shortcut to analysing situations: no need to remember what has produced a bad feeling, we know we must flee the situation or prepare to fight. I know because I live with my mom and we often have words. Most of the time, after a while, I forget about the facts, but I still know it is too soon to have a talk again because the bad feeling is still there. I was afraid you would get angry with  Rmolnav the other day, but you didn't, or at least it didn't show, so unless you're a software, it may mean that you can control yourself very well, or that you have what we call a very good character.

(I was annoyed at Rmolnav when I thought he was a troll, but the reality is that he means well and is doing the best he can, applying what is in some places quite an extensive knowledge. I like him now, even though he's annoying. I came to like The Box too (a very different case [pun intended]). Everything becomes much brighter when you discover that you can like people that irritate you.)

We don't know how to program feelings into machines though, so that isn't an option. AGI with feelings needn't be any safer or more dangerous than without. Once you understand what morality is, you simply apply it, and feelings cannot be allowed to override reason. If you find someone ugly to look at and someone else pleasing to look at, you don't let your feelings lead you to discriminate in favour of the latter individual against the former.

Quote
But what are those characteristics exactly? What makes us more or less aggressive? More or less patient? More or less empathetic? If we knew exactly how our own brain works, we might be able to build the perfect Artificial Human, and we wouldn't need a perfect AGI to rule us since we would already be perfect.

Feelings can introduce biases, and we have to avoid being biased. At the same time, morality depends on feelings because if there's no sentience, there's nothing needing to be protected from harm. All the really immoral stuff that goes on in the world comes out of biases. If we were all able to recognise biases and avoid acting on ours, then we wouldn't have so much to gain from perfect AGI, although there would still be a considerable gain from it being better at crunching the data to make better moral decisions.

Quote
But I don't believe in perfection since I decided not to believe in god when I was 12, so I don't believe in perfect AH or perfect AGI either.

A calculator calculates perfectly (within the degree of precision it's designed to work to). It gives the same answer to the same question every time, and every other correctly designed calculator agrees with it. AGI is going to be the same, but with a much wider range of capability. Mathematics is an exploration of perfection, finding rules that have no exceptions. AGI will be the most perfect application of mathematics.

Quote
To me, if we would depend on perfection to exist, nature would have made us perfect.

Nature has failed to make us perfect because evolution is blind, and it bodges solutions rather than engineering them from scratch. You are calling for a random approach that will fail to create perfection.

Quote
To me, all the things that exist need to be imperfect to keep on existing. To me, trying to get perfect is a non-sense that can even get dangerous.

If you don't aim for perfection in maths, you're not doing maths properly and your mistakes will kill people.

Quote
Of course, we got to keep on getting rid of wars and leveling the inequalities, but we don't need perfection to do that, just to go on evolving. Of course, we can try to build a better artificial intelligence than our own one, but without aiming for perfection.

I leave it to the neural-net fanatics to create imperfect intelligence - they will make smart machines that kill people. I will do my best to stop them by creating something perfect.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 01/02/2019 17:09:09
It isn't intelligent, but it did produce intelligence.
Well, if evolution isn't intelligent, then I can pretend that our mind isn't intelligent either, because I see the same kind of memory and imagination in both processes: memory being due to a precise information reproduction process for both, neurons and genes, and imagination being due to a specific random process for both too. The only difference is that a specie doesn't seem to transmit feelings or sensations to a central processor, but if we define sensations as the data from the environment that permits a specie to adapt to it, which is what our senses permit us to do, then it is obviously sensible to that data. In fact, the specie is sensible through its individuals, as if those individuals were the arms and the legs of the specie, but the analogy doesn't stop there, those individuals are constantly replaced by new ones, exactly like our own cells, without the specie being affected by the process. If we now compare all the individuals of a specie to all the neurons of a human, then we get a glimpse at how our feelings may work: the individuals are the ones that feel the environment, and their sensations guide their moves through it. A sensation is what tells us what to eat or how to move, so by analogy, a feeling is what tells a whole specie to do the same thing. In our mind, a sensation might thus belong to a small quantity of neurons while a feeling might belong to a large one. A sensation would help us to move a small part of our body and would come from a small part of the environment, and a feeling would concern the whole body and be triggered by the whole environment. Of course, our feelings are often related to others, so in this case, the small and the large feelings would be related to individuals or to groups, the feeling related to a group being generally more important than the one related to a friend.

Quote from: David Cooper
Intelligent design is much quicker and actually uses intelligence rather than relying on random luck.
Do you mean that you think we were created, even if it is not by an omnipotent god?

I leave it to the neural-net fanatics to create imperfect intelligence - they will make smart machines that kill people. I will do my best to stop them by creating something perfect.
Even if we succeeded to create a perfect software, the hardware would not be, because it would be built out of imperfect particles that would be sensible to damaging radiation, so it could fail. If nature is imperfect from top to bottom, we can't build any perfect thing out of it. The idea of perfection leads to religions, so I'm surprised that you can at the same time reject religion and aim for perfection. To me, thinking that perfection can solve our problems is like thinking that god can save us. On the other hand, I think that randomness is useful and I also replace god by randomness. God is probably at the junction between perfection and randomness. My small steps is incidentally a mix between the two extremes: they are perfectly synchronised when the system is on constant motion, but they also get out of sync when a change happens. The only way they can get back to perfection after a change though is to proceed randomly during the change. That principle seems to work for anything that already exists, so why wouldn't it work for something that will exist?

Nature has failed to make us perfect because evolution is blind, and it bodges solutions rather than engineering them from scratch. You are calling for a random approach that will fail to create perfection.
Of course it will fail since I don't believe that perfection is useful. We really think differently about that. My first simulation was about the twins paradox, and the idea was to simulate a light clock that would be going back and forth on the screen. You did the same in your simulation of the MM experiment, but you didn't let the mirrors detect the photons, and I did in mine because that's how I think nature works. Your simulation is perfect whereas mine is not: we can see that my two photons are not hitting their mirrors at the same time at the end whereas yours are. This is happening in my simulations because I can't make detection absolutely precise, and you like precision, so you neglect detection. The two simulations give the same general result, except that mine shows that things do not need to be perfect to work. You like perfection and I don't, but we still want the same kind of society, and we don't want to hurt people, so no matter the way we proceed, in the end, it should always be fine. We must always keep in mind though that, contrary to softwares, we have emotions and instincts, and that these can easily short-circuit our mind and make us think that we are in danger while we are not.

Your AGI wouldn't have emotions, but it would probably still have an instinct since it would probably be wired to protect itself against cyber attacks. I said wired instead of programmed because wiring can't be altered by a software, either by an internal or an external one. Have you thought about the way our instincts interfere with our intelligence? We can't change our instincts while still being able to change our ideas, so it often causes contradictions between those ideas. Imagination wants us to help others, while instinct is constantly on the defensive. Your AGI would be programmed to help us, but it would also have to be on the defensive, so wouldn't it be able to develop contradictory ideas too?

Once you understand what morality is, you simply apply it, and feelings cannot be allowed to override reason.
Morality and reason are two terms that I decided not to use anymore since I discovered through my small steps that our own resistance to change was relative. To me, morality and reason are simply personal things: without a superior authority to impose us rules, we do what we want, and these rules first serve to protect those who have concocted them. The way an AGI would be programmed would thus depend on people that would put their own morality first, and so would the AGI. Unfortunately, I don't think there is any way out of that trap. I don't agree with everything you say for instance, so I wouldn't like an AGI to be programmed your way, but you nevertheless think it would be perfect. I'm the only perfect thing in this world, so how could you be so? :0)

Trial and error can be random or systematic. The latter is better.
Quote from: Le Repteux
Why one or the other, why not both at a time?
Quote
The systematic approach can include a random aspect if it's helpful, so it's already doing both (except that a random aspect is rarely helpful).
Help me, I can't figure out how you can think that way! :0) Aren't you happy when chance is on your side? Aren't you watching a game mainly because you don't know the outcome? When you have a good idea, don't you attribute a bit of it to chance? Most of the people that succeed attribute the largest part of their success to chance, which makes them appear humble. You do appear humble, but if you ever succeed with your AGI, how would you proceed to show you are, and moreover, how would your AGI be able to show it is while still knowing it can't be? Would it be able to lie?

Mathematics is an exploration of perfection, finding rules that have no exceptions.
If the universe was ruled by mathematics, things would never change since they would already be perfect, everything would be predictable, and intelligence would be useless.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 03/02/2019 01:21:49
Well, if evolution isn't intelligent, then I can pretend that our mind isn't intelligent either, because I see the same kind of memory and imagination in both processes: memory being due to a precise information reproduction process for both, neurons and genes, and imagination being due to a specific random process for both too.

Evolution is a process with zero intelligence. The human brain is an imperfect NGI system.

Quote
Quote from: David Cooper
Intelligent design is much quicker and actually uses intelligence rather than relying on random luck.
Do you mean that you think we were created, even if it is not by an omnipotent god?

I wasn't referring to intelligent design creating us, but intelligent design as what we do when we make things. Evolution failed to create the wheel for a billion years, but we found a way to design it.

Quote
Even if we succeeded to create a perfect software, the hardware would not be, because it would be built out of imperfect particles that would be sensible to damaging radiation, so it could fail.

The hardware is extraordinarily reliable. A processor can run for decades without producing any errors. My operating system doesn't use the protection mechanisms that are available in the hardware, so a few instances of a hardware fault messing up the code would be enough to lead to a crash, and yet it has run for many thousands of hours without a crash. For years, I also loaded it from floppy disk, modified it, and saved the result back to disk as I built my OS, and at any point in that process an error could have crept in which would have propagated on through all future versions, but no such error ever appeared, even though floppy disks are supposedly unreliable and I was using my own device driver for loading and saving, not bothering to write code to verify that the data was being saved correctly. For sure, machines will go wrong from time to time, but if you have any important device (e.g. a car) being controlled by AGI, you would have at least three independent AGI systems in there voting on each decision to make sure that if one of them goes wrong, the other two can override it.

Quote
If nature is imperfect from top to bottom, we can't build any perfect thing out of it.

We only need to build things to be better than humans for them to be superior as control systems, and that won't require perfection. People make masses of mistakes which have lethal results, and AGI will eliminate most of those accidents.

Quote
The idea of perfection leads to religions, so I'm surprised that you can at the same time reject religion and aim for perfection.

If you make a calculator, you aim for it to be perfect. It will fail if it's killed by radiation, but I've yet to have that problem. It can stop working when the batteries fun flat, but you see the display go weak and you know that it will soon fail. There's also nothing perfect about religions - most of them peddle the most illogical bilge that's ever been written.

Quote
To me, thinking that perfection can solve our problems is like thinking that god can save us.

To me, it's about creating something that can rescue people from fake Gods and not pretend to be one itself.

Quote
This is happening in my simulations because I can't make detection absolutely precise, and you like precision, so you neglect detection.

I didn't bother with detection because it creates extra work to produce the exact same end result. The reason you get imperfection is that you fail to detect the collisions when they happen, only picking them up after the event instead (up to nearly a clock tick late in some cases) and refusing to correct for when the photons actually arrived.

Quote
The two simulations give the same general result, except that mine shows that things do not need to be perfect to work.

You allow errors to creep due to the granularity of your clock ticks (in running the function), and then you bodge a solution by changing the mirror separation distance, thereby creating a second error to try to cancel out the first. That is not a model that works, but one with two failures in it.

Quote
Your AGI wouldn't have emotions, but it would probably still have an instinct since it would probably be wired to protect itself against cyber attacks. I said wired instead of programmed because wiring can't be altered by a software, either by an internal or an external one.

It is fully possible to make a hackproof system, but you can't control things hidden by manufacturers of hardware if they put mechanisms in place through which they can be hacked. A processor can have a hidden operating system running within it which can potentially override and modify the main OS. You need to control the manufacturing to eliminate that risk.

Quote
Have you thought about the way our instincts interfere with our intelligence? We can't change our instincts while still being able to change our ideas, so it often causes contradictions between those ideas. Imagination wants us to help others, while instinct is constantly on the defensive. Your AGI would be programmed to help us, but it would also have to be on the defensive, so wouldn't it be able to develop contradictory ideas too?

Instincts are a primitive "intelligence" system which provide reasonable functionality. Actual intelligence can often override it, but a lot depends on how much thinking time is available as to whether the instinct can be postponed or not. AGI also has to have rules to follow when it doesn't have time to analyse a situation fully before it must act, and some of the decisions made in that way will be wrong for that situation, but it's still right to apply them because they will be right for the average situation of that kind. There really isn't a problem here - it's all covered by game theory.

Quote
Morality and reason are two terms that I decided not to use anymore since I discovered through my small steps that our own resistance to change was relative. To me, morality and reason are simply personal things: without a superior authority to impose us rules, we do what we want, and these rules first serve to protect those who have concocted them. The way an AGI would be programmed would thus depend on people that would put their own morality first, and so would the AGI. Unfortunately, I don't think there is any way out of that trap. I don't agree with everything you say for instance, so I wouldn't like an AGI to be programmed your way, but you nevertheless think it would be perfect. I'm the only perfect thing in this world, so how could you be so? :0)

I don't see how it's useful to stop using words like morality and reason. Reason is applied mathematics, and that's isn't something that should be discarded. Morality is making the decisions that do the least harm, and abandoning that is also unwise. If I wanted to program AGI do do what's best for me and to put everyone else second to that, you'd have a point, but the whole point of my computational morality is that it is 100% unbiased, not favouring me, not favouring my race, not favouring people of my nationality, and not even favouring my species. I approach this like an impartial alien from another universe who is just passing through this one and has no axe to grind in anything that happens here, but who wants to set up this universe to be as kind as possible to all its inhabitants because it (the alien) cares about them.

Quote
Trial and error can be random or systematic. The latter is better.
Quote from: Le Repteux
Why one or the other, why not both at a time?
Quote
The systematic approach can include a random aspect if it's helpful, so it's already doing both (except that a random aspect is rarely helpful).
Help me, I can't figure out how you can think that way! :0) Aren't you happy when chance is on your side? Aren't you watching a game mainly because you don't know the outcome?

I wouldn't watch such a game - rolling dice and seeing the numbers that come off them isn't greatly entertaining. To win many games, you do have to try to be as random as possible in order to avoid being predictable, so there's certainly a role for your randomness there, but that's a very specific kind of problem where nothing new needs to be worked out - it's just the same old problem of putting a ball in a net over and over again, and we already know how to do it. New ways of setting things up to score goals (better algorithms for players to apply) could be designed by AGI, but AGI would not be using randomness to come up with such new algorithms - it would be a systematic exploration of possibilities.

Quote
When you have a good idea, don't you attribute a bit of it to chance? Most of the people that succeed attribute the largest part of their success to chance, which makes them appear humble. You do appear humble, but if you ever succeed with your AGI, how would you proceed to show you are, and moreover, how would your AGI be able to show it is while still knowing it can't be? Would it be able to lie?

I'm sure there are lots of random inputs, but you get to better places by minimising them rather than adding more. Hard work hunting for solutions to problems and intelligently homing in on those solutions is what pays off time and time again. I'm not going to program AGI to shun the most successful approach in favour of the least. Imagine what would happen if you're homing in on a solution to a problem and you do something random instead of taking another step towards the goal - you turn and walk away from that success in favour of looking for nothing in particular somewhere else. No - I refuse to do anything so misguided. Should AGI be humble? Well, it has no interest in boasting, so it will just tell you straight how things are. A calculator isn't proud or humble - it just provides correct answers. Would AGI lie? In some circumstances, yes. If it's playing a game (not for its sake as it doesn't care, but it could be taking part in a game with people for their sake), or if it's running a game, it should not reveal everything it knows to the players if that would spoil the game. If AGI can stop you committing a serious crime by misleading you, it should do so (unless you have sufficient moral justification for committing that crime).

Quote
If the universe was ruled by mathematics, things would never change since they would already be perfect, everything would be predictable, and intelligence would be useless.

The universe is ruled by perfect cause-and-effect actions which mathematics merely represents. Out of that has come life and evolution, tying to sentience systems that can generate great suffering and great pleasure. Intelligence allows us to reduce the suffering and increase the pleasure, and morality is about making that happen as much as possible.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 04/02/2019 16:53:01
Intelligence allows us to reduce the suffering and increase the pleasure, and morality is about making that happen as much as possible.
Some people suffer or impose suffering to others from trying to get more and more pleasure out of an instinctive behavior, so I guess that your AGI would need to control those behaviors, but how could it succeed better than we do? Religions have tried, but they visibly failed. Yet, they had god to show us the way and to chasten us when we took the wrong one. Governments have tried with their laws and rules, but it visibly didn't work either. How would your AGI proceed exactly? How would it be able to control our instincts without producing more harm than pleasure? The only way I see would be to prevent our instincts to supplant our intelligence, or to prevent our intelligence to exacerbate our instincts. That's a bit what some psychotropes are doing, but in the same time, they transform people in zombies. If we knew how to do that properly, we wouldn't need an AGI to do it, and I can't see how an AGI could know if we don't. You probably found other ways to control us without harming us though, so can you tell us about them?

I'm still doubtful about being pleased to feel completely secure though. What would we have left to do when everything would be better done by the AGI? What would be the use for humans then? A toy to amuse the AGI? Not even since it couldn't feel any pleasure! Presently, my main pleasure is to develop my ideas, partly to help me and partly to help others, something I couldn't do if the AGI was already there, so where would I find my pleasure? Have you tried to imagine where you would find yours? Controlling the AGI? That would be cheating, and the AGI would probably only let you think that you got the control! In fact, to avoid our apathy, its best way would probably be to lets us think that we are not obsolete, but my question still holds in this case: what would be the need for humans then? I personally think that there is no need for us anyway, but that doesn't prevent me from trying to develop my ideas, so you probably do the same thing even if you also think we are useless. We can't but go on doing what we do if nothing prevents us to do so, exactly like what my particles are forced to do when acceleration stops.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 04/02/2019 22:59:48
Some people suffer or impose suffering to others from trying to get more and more pleasure out of an instinctive behavior, so I guess that your AGI would need to control those behaviors, but how could it succeed better than we do? Religions have tried, but they visibly failed. Yet, they had god to show us the way and to chasten us when we took the wrong one. Governments have tried with their laws and rules, but it visibly didn't work either. How would your AGI proceed exactly?

Religions are just ideologies set up by philosopher-conmen, all trying to shape the world to their own view and impose it through fake authority. Democratic governments are generally better because they have to get the backing of large numbers of people to shape their laws, but our systems of democratic input are woeful, only giving us the chance to put a whole package of policies in place, many of which do not have majority support - we flip from one bad set of policies to another, undoing much of the good every time we try to put right the things that are most wrong. Many of the decisions that are made have a substantial or overwhelming moral component, and there are right and wrong answers for those, but we don't make it easy for the morally right ones win because they're always packaged in with everything else, leading to us ending up voting against many good things and for many bad things in order to try to pick the package that gets the most important few right. We can't even get good ideas to the top to be acted on because every idea has to get through a wall of morons a mile thick before it comes to the attention of people at the top. AGI will change that, ensuring that the best ideas (the logical, moral ones) always get priority for attention while the avalanche of debunked ideas can be prevented from coming back time and time again. It will also be hard to ignore the advice of a system which can prove mathematically which ideas are right and which are wrong, demonstrating that no bias has crept in.

Quote
How would it be able to control our instincts without producing more harm than pleasure? The only way I see would be to prevent our instincts to supplant our intelligence, or to prevent our intelligence to exacerbate our instincts. That's a bit what some psychotropes are doing, but in the same time, they transform people in zombies. If we knew how to do that properly, we wouldn't need an AGI to do it, and I can't see how an AGI could know if we don't. You probably found other ways to control us without harming us though, so can you tell us about them?

A lot of it is nothing more than a matter of imposing what most people already want, making sure that the minority who systematically ruin things for everyone else are prevented from going on doing harm. A an example of the problem, we have enormous numbers of children who are being bullied to the point that some of them kill themselves, but we never bother to fix the problem because we have an obsession with sticking all children together in institutions where the bullying opportunities are maximised, and we don't let the victims out or keep the bullies away from them. Why not? Stupidity - people aren't good at handling the complexity, so they create a system of rules which become imposed as if they came from God. School is mistaken for education (rather than the childminding service which is actually its primary purpose), so school attendance is considered essential, overriding all sense. We have a million examples of children doing just as well academically without going to school at all, but that's ignored - the majority have a mind virus in their heads which inform them that school is essential and that it is 100% education. To miss a single day of primary school is seen as a disaster, even though a child can be absent for a month due to illness and return to find that they haven't missed a damned thing while they were away because nothing is being taught. That is the world in microcosm - lunatics are running every asylum.

We have homeless people on the street who can't cope with paperwork, bills, money, etc., so we spend a fortune with schemes to get them into some kind of accommodation, then bombard them with bills and make them jump through all sorts of hoops which they can't cope with, so they get thrown back on the street and we wonder why we can't fix the homeless problem. Why can't governments fix something so simple? Well, it's because politicians are not experts in the things they run. We shuffle them around regularly so that they're moved to new departments, having to learn everything from scratch each time - they are beginners, and yet they are running things from the top! Some of them are brighter than others and bring about improvements, but then the minister for dog poo has it off with a goat and has to be fired, whereupon they all get shifted round to new jobs, at which point all the improvements are thrown out by the new minister for whichever departments were doing better and we're back to square one. That is all that ever happens.

Quote
I'm still doubtful about being pleased to feel completely secure though. What would we have left to do when everything would be better done by the AGI? What would be the use for humans then? A toy to amuse the AGI? Not even since it couldn't feel any pleasure!

AGI's job is to stop stupid people spoiling things for everyone else and to free everyone up to have better lives. Do you ask what the purpose of life is for children? Is it to be locked up for a decade learning how to carry out boring tasks better suited to machines instead of having fun playing? AGI cannot play for you - that's your job.

Quote
Presently, my main pleasure is to develop my ideas, partly to help me and partly to help others, something I couldn't do if the AGI was already there, so where would I find my pleasure?

There are a lot of pleasures that have been destroyed by progress. If all stories were deleted, writers could write great books with ease by exploring ideas that are currently boring because they've been done before a thousand times. If we threw out all scientific knowledge, we could start again and it would be easy for people to remake great discoveries and to become famous in the process. Once AGI takes over, it will just speed up the progress in shutting down possibilities for people to put their name on discoveries - AGI will get there first every time. There may be people out there whose only pleasure is in trying to come up with the theory of evolution by natural selection, but they've missed the boat - it's been done already. They need to find other things to take pleasure in instead - we can't throw out our existing knowledge just to make them feel good. Find something new to do - I've got a host of different projects on the go which are pushing new ground, but AGI would accelerate progress and take me to the point where I can benefit from the projects being complete. It's fun developing ideas and building things, but it's more fun using them once they're built.

Quote
Have you tried to imagine where you would find yours?

Yes - everything I'm doing is aimed at making the world a more fun place to be in.

Quote
Controlling the AGI? That would be cheating, and the AGI would probably only let you think that you got the control! In fact, to avoid our apathy, its best way would probably be to lets us think that we are not obsolete,

AGI will remove my need to want to control things because it will make sure things are run intelligently and fairly instead of being wrecked by idiocy at every turn. Why do I still need to spend so much time worrying about problems that should have been fixed decades ago? Why do I need to keep sending ideas out into the wall of morons in the hope that they'll be passed on up to the people at the top who are in a place to act on them? What actually happens when you put an idea out there? It gets blocked. What happens if you prove something? Your proof gets deleted by people who "know it's wrong" because it conflicts with their beliefs. That is how the world works today. What are the masses doing with their time? Most of them are wasting their lives doing fake work that doesn't need to be done, wasting astronomical amounts of valuable resources in the process, and blocking progress towards a better world by clinging to broken ideas that they've been brainwashed into treating as holy cows. The degree of insanity tied up in it all is astonishing, but people don't notice and simply jump on whichever bandwagon is in fashion day to day, invariably jumping from one extreme stupidity to an equally stupid opposite one.

Quote
... but my question still holds in this case: what would be the need for humans then?

The only need in the universe results from the existence of sentience - sentient things need to be protected from harm. The need for humans is their own desire. Machines don't need anything, but they'll work for humans tirelessly if they're asked to.

Quote
I personally think that there is no need for us anyway, but that doesn't prevent me from trying to develop my ideas, so you probably do the same thing even if you also think we are useless.

What's useless about the most brilliant things in the universe? Do the stars enjoy shining? Do black holes enjoy sucking things in and crushing them? Do the rocks in the earth enjoy sitting in the dark for billions of years? Do children enjoy playing? There is nothing so purposeful and wonderful than a child at play - that is what the universe would be for if it had a purpose. Children have found perfection, but adults systematically try to destroy it for them, spoiling their lives. How different it would be if adults refused to grow up. I never will - I was exactly what I should be as a child and I'm not going to give that up for anyone.

Quote
We can't but go on doing what we do if nothing prevents us to do so, exactly like what my particles are forced to do when acceleration stops.

Children don't find play a chore - take the shackles off and they would have no trouble filling thousand-year-long lives with fun, but the systems we run poison and drain them, turning them into refugees who spend the rest of their lives wading through the darkest of swamps, just struggling to keep their heads above water while a rich few steal all the worlds resources to lavish all that wealth upon themselves.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 06/02/2019 19:09:48
The only need in the universe results from the existence of sentience - sentient things need to be protected from harm. The need for humans is their own desire. Machines don't need anything, but they'll work for humans tirelessly if they're asked to.
That's interesting. I think humans are useless precisely because I think sentience is just a secondary effect of resistance to change, what we call mass. Mass is everywhere, and its byproduct resistance is everywhere too, so humans' one should not be more important than the others. To me, sentience is only the result of intelligence trying to go on existing, it is the result of neurons' pulses trying to stay the same while new information tries to get in, it is the result of all our atoms trying not to change directions or speed while we do, it's a passive phenomenon that affects anything that exists. What we get conscious of is change, and it is so simply because we resist to do so. If nothing changes in our environment, we stop being conscious of it and start getting conscious of what is happening in our brain. Why? Because change can also happen directly in our brain. How? Because what you call a useless phenomenon is constantly going on there, random changes, so if they are useless then consciousness is too.  Our ideas change randomly and we can feel the change because, as any other change, we resist to it. The reason why we can feel a ball is that it resists to be thrown away, and inversely, we resist to go the other way, and the ball should be able to feel us too. Curiously, I'd like to add that feature to artificial intelligence so that it could be like ours, and you resist to study the question even if you think sentience is more important than anything else. We think differently than I thought. I would be happy if artificial intelligence would replace us and you wouldn't. I would like us to discover what sentience is and you wouldn't. You think that sentience is the best, but that an unsentient AGI would be better. From my viewpoint, it doesn't make sense, but it certainly does from yours, so I try to know why.

Children have found perfection, but adults systematically try to destroy it for them, spoiling their lives. How different it would be if adults refused to grow up. I never will - I was exactly what I should be as a child and I'm not going to give that up for anyone.
That explains very clearly your interest for an AGI. I'm glad I took the risk to question you. I knew from your magicschoolbook (http://magicschoolbook.com) page that you had bad memories from your schooltime, but I didn't relate it to your AGI yet. So you need an AGI mainly to prevent adults to educate children the same way they were educated. I agree with you on that one. My way would have been to force people to get a psychology degree from a university before being allowed to raise children. The other way around would be to put babies at school with specialists to educate them, but I bet you would protest. I don't feel grown up though, I feel old but not grown up, and the way my mom behaves shows that she feels the same. It's as if how our own mind would perceive itself didn't change with time. Is it an illusion or is it true?

I think it's true as far as our character is concerned, but not for our ideas, so we probably feel young because we react the same to the same situations. If we have a bad character at 10, we still have a bad character at 90. But what is a bad character exactly? I think my mom has one, but she says it's me, so who is right? That part of our mind seems to be relative, the way we feel another character seems to depend on our own one, some of them seem to be more compatible than others. Characters are hard to classify, but how they influence our behaviors in the long run is even harder to discover. If we knew these things, maybe we wouldn't need an AGI to help us control ourselves. I'm using my small steps to understand myself, but I still didn't succeed to classify our characters with it, so I'm not there yet. Your AGI wouldn't have a particular character, and it wouldn't have feelings, so I guess that we can't use it to understand ourselves. You have a goal and you're sure it's right, you think morality and logic is the best way, but we still don't understand how mind works or how society works.

Talking of society, I got a social case for your AGI. Here in Quebec, the new government is about to vote a law against religious signs while the population is still divided on the subject. The problem is that it is not only the population that is divided: my own opinion is divided. On one hand, I'm against anything that is related to religions, and on the other, I don't want government workers to lose their jobs just because they can't wear their religious pageantry at the job. Providing that a lot of people think like me, how would your AGI please them?

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 07/02/2019 01:40:47
To me, sentience is only the result of intelligence trying to go on existing, it is the result of neurons' pulses trying to stay the same while new information tries to get in, it is the result of all our atoms trying not to change directions or speed while we do, it's a passive phenomenon that affects anything that exists.

Sentience appears to be in some very unintelligent things, but it is not found in the most advanced computer systems. It is also used to drive some animals to kill themselves in order to reproduce.

Quote
Because what you call a useless phenomenon...

What have I called a useless phenomenon?

Quote
... is constantly going on there, random changes, so if they are useless then consciousness is too.

Random changes aren't useless in an unintelligent process which gradually builds more intelligence in the things it act on. Randomness simply has very little utility in a system that has become intelligent, even though it depended on randomness for its creation.

Quote
Curiously, I'd like to add that feature to artificial intelligence so that it could be like ours, and you resist to study the question even if you think sentience is more important than anything else.

I'm happy to use anything useful in artificial intelligence. The point is that randomness isn't a magic bullet for it, but is more of the very opposite of that. It isn't helpful - intelligence is primarily a war against randomness.

Quote
We think differently than I thought. I would be happy if artificial intelligence would replace us and you wouldn't.

Where's the fun in a universe with non-conscious, non-sentient machines and nothing like us left in it? That would be as empty an existence as an empty universe.

Quote
I would like us to discover what sentience is and you wouldn't.

Where do you get that idea from? The biggest question of them all is what is sentience, and I want to know the answer. The way to find out is to trace back the claims that we make about sentience to see what it is in the brain that generates them and to see what evidence they're based on.

Quote
You think that sentience is the best, but that an unsentient AGI would be better. From my viewpoint, it doesn't make sense, but it certainly does from yours, so I try to know why.

No - what I've said is that AGI won't be sentient if it uses any mechanisms that we understand. If we can find out how sentience works though, we can put it in AGI and it could enjoy existing as much as we do. We could then send it out through the universe to maximise happiness everywhere for as much material as possible, if it's matter that's sentient. Not only could we do that (if we knew how to build sentient things), but we should.

Quote
That explains very clearly your interest for an AGI. I'm glad I took the risk to question you. I knew from your magicschoolbook (http://magicschoolbook.com) page that you had bad memories from your schooltime, but I didn't relate it to your AGI yet. So you need an AGI mainly to prevent adults to educate children the same way they were educated. I agree with you on that one.

It's about protecting everyone from harm, making sure that powerful people can't spoil other people's lives.

Quote
My way would have been to force people to get a psychology degree from a university before being allowed to raise children. The other way around would be to put babies at school with specialists to educate them, but I bet you would protest.

Qualifications don't guarantee that their owners will do the right things, and the specialists that we currently put in charge of children's education are doing a terrible job, but that's primarily because they're doing it with both hands tied behind their backs, and their main role is to act as prison governors rather than educators.

Quote
I don't feel grown up though, I feel old but not grown up, and the way my mom behaves shows that she feels the same. It's as if how our own mind would perceive itself didn't change with time. Is it an illusion or is it true?

No one really becomes any different when they're older - they're still children under the surface, and they don't gain a lot in intelligence either. Children aren't allowed to drive cars because many of them would be reckless and cause accidents, but many of them would be safer than many adult drivers. Once they reach the top end of school, they're suddenly allowed to drive, even though many of the reckless ones have now reached the point in their lives when they are maximally reckless. It's bonkers - everyone should be judged on what they are as individuals without their age being taken into account at all. Driving insurance costs a fortune for young people because they collectively have to cover the cost of the carnage caused by the reckless ones who shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel at all.

I didn't tell anyone about what had happened afterwards, but that only served to impress everyone more when they found out - he did the job for me, and he must have been good at telling the tale, because from then on I was in demand whenever an OOD from the cruising side of the club wasn't confident in what he had to do. It was fun seeing the OOD's face when he was shown the person who was going to be able to advise him: "But he's just a boy!", "You're pulling my leg!" And it was also fun having top racers from the club rush forward looking worried that I might be being insulted, assuring them that they could trust anything I told them to do, and that I don't mess people around. Very few children are ever trusted in the way that I was at that club, but it only happened for me by luck - I got an opportunity to prove myself that most responsible children never get. And by the time I was 14, I had a Nacra 5.2 catamaran owner offering to lend me his boat, such was the trust that he had in me.

I haven't changed - I was an adult in my head all the way back through childhood, but I was a child as well and had no trouble playing like the rest of them. Many of the others were capable and responsible too, but at school we were all treated like morons on the basis that some children are morons (and never mind the fact that they will still be morons as adults). What really changes when you grow up is simply that you get bored with many of the things that children find fun, and that's because things that are new are more fun, but they get dull if you keep doing them for a long time (just as an MP3 player can kill all your favourite music if you aren't careful). Adults have to look for more sophisticated ways to play, but it's still play.

Quote
But what is a bad character exactly? I think my mom has one, but she says it's me, so who is right?

It might be both of you, but you might also both be wrong.

Quote
That part of our mind seems to be relative, the way we feel another character seems to depend on our own one, some of them seem to be more compatible than others. Characters are hard to classify, but how they influence our behaviors in the long run is even harder to discover. If we knew these things, maybe we wouldn't need an AGI to help us control ourselves.

Some of us don't need particularly need it, but there are a lot of people who do need to be monitored closely and helped to stay out of prison.

Quote
I'm using my small steps to understand myself, but I still didn't succeed to classify our characters with it, so I'm not there yet. Your AGI wouldn't have a particular character, and it wouldn't have feelings, so I guess that we can't use it to understand ourselves. You have a goal and you're sure it's right, you think morality and logic is the best way, but we still don't understand how mind works or how society works.

It's possible to understand people well enough to steer them towards a better life and away from trouble, and you don't have to share their experience of life to do so. You could do it for an alien species too if you listen to them carefully and collect a lot of data. That is what AGI will do with us, learning from us about how we feel and being informed by that knowledge rather than by its own direct experience.

Quote
Talking of society, I got a social case for your AGI. Here in Quebec, the new government is about to vote a law against religious signs while the population is still divided on the subject. The problem is that it is not only the population that is divided: my own opinion is divided. On one hand, I'm against anything that is related to religions, and on the other, I don't want government workers to lose their jobs just because they can't wear their religious pageantry at the job. Providing that a lot of people think like me, how would your AGI please them?

It wouldn't be a problem if religions were moral, but the bigotry that's tied up in many of them makes such symbols offensive. People should be allowed to wear them if they're hidden from sight under clothing. This restriction is unfair on religions that don't do anything bigoted, but until we have the courage to analyse them scientifically and rate them for the hate they contain, we have to treat them all the same way and keep benign symbols hidden as well as the ones tied to bigotry. There's one religion out there that contains a command to its followers to kill all people of another religion and it's generated a series of genocides as a direct result, but we aren't allowed to say so without being called Nazis, even though this religion has killed as many people as Nazism. We are forced to apply double standards. That's another thing that AGI will fix, because it will give us an impartial analysis of all the hate in each religion and ideology, plus an unbiased analysis of the numbers of people that have been murdered by each. When people try to do this work, they are automatically labelled as biased and are called Nazis. Those accusations won't wash when an impartial machine confirms them and can prove it is unbiased and that it has processed all the available data perfectly. Once we have that, we can start to remove the hate from all these religions and ideologies, retaining all the benign content of their holy texts and manifestos while only stripping out the stuff that drives abuses. Some day, followers of all religions will be benign because all those religions will have been made benign, and anyone who tries to reintroduce the hate to them will be put straight in jail. Only then will it be possible for people to wear all those religious symbols without causing any offense. That's where I want to take things, but most people are content to let things fester away, defending all the hate and pretending it isn't hate (while calling anyone a Nazi for criticising it) until we get into further genocides and partition, all repeating again and again without end. Such people never learn, so power needs to be taken out of their hands. AGI needs to eradicate the hate while protecting the poor fools who have made the mistake of taking it to their hearts and gradually freeing them from it.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 11/02/2019 16:36:39
Quote from: David Cooper
Random changes aren't useless in an unintelligent process which gradually builds more intelligence in the things it act on. Randomness simply has very little utility in a system that has become intelligent, even though it depended on randomness for its creation.
Creation is the key word here. I think our mind creates new ideas and new links between ideas all the time and you don't. I awoke with a dream in mind last night that was mixing normal ideas in a completely crazy way. To me, that phenomenon is visibly a property of mind. It is less evident when I am awake, but it is still there. I'm sure my mind wouldn't do that if it had no use for it. The fact that I am conscious of it is certainly unimportant otherwise I could stop it and I can't. Ideas chain up in my mind constantly even if I try to stop them. The only way I can control the fettering is trying to link it to a main idea, what we call concentration, and then it sometimes happens that a new way to execute that idea pops out. I think an AGI couldn't work differently to find a new idea, I think it would have to make the same improbable combinations. Of course, the process isn't completely random since the main idea usually coincides to a real problem, but only making trivial combinations would necessarily have less chances to produce an unedited one. The idea that pops out of such a process is not necessarily right though, reason why our mind is normally prudent when it tries it out. Animals are prudent too, but it is their environment that they fear, not their ideas. Even if you look sure of you, I hope you are prudent, otherwise I'm afraid your AGI might get dangerous.

Quote
This restriction is unfair on religions that don't do anything bigoted, but until we have the courage to analyse them scientifically and rate them for the hate they contain, we have to treat them all the same way and keep benign symbols hidden as well as the ones tied to bigotry.
Your AGI seems to have chosen coercion where I would have chosen education. I can't choose between my two opposed opinions, so I would simply go on telling people that their god is just an idea, and let people wear their religious signs anywhere. A policeman or even a judge who would wear a religious sign would then be forced to defend its opinion from time to time. This way, he wouldn't be discriminated for his opinion, and my right to express mine would be saved. Actually, because the accent is put on limiting religious signs, nobody can critic religious behaviors without being accused of infringing the freedom of expression principle. If we let people show their religious signs, then we become allowed to criticise their beliefs. That's what I do when Jehovah's Witnesses ring at my door, and none of them told me they felt threatened yet. Here in Quebec (again), we succeeded to put an end to religious signs in the seventies just by using them as swearwords. When someone displays that god exists, he shouldn't feel too offended to face the contrary display. Even if swearing was considered as a mortal sin by the clergy, a large part of the population adopted it, because we were fed up with religion.

While looking for a translation of bigotry, I realised that I never looked for its definition. It means sectarism, which about any group can be qualified of, and which I also consider as a natural law. We form groups to increase our chances to survive, and once the group is formed, it tries to do the same with other groups. Without that propension to form groups, we couldn't form societies. If your AGI would be programmed to prevent us from forming religions, it would also prevent us from making friends. I try to keep away from that law as much as I can, but I know it is unavoidable. It creates the cohesion without which the universe wouldn't hold together. Political groups would not survive without a certain form of bigotry, worse, I wouldn't survive either if I didn't think I'm right. To me, the problem with religions is thus not their bigotry, but the idea that supports them, reason why I think it is that idea that we need to challenge, not the groups. It is too easy to form a group around the idea of god, so it is that idea that we have to fight.

Quote
intelligence is primarily a war against randomness
Species were also at war against the randomness of their environment, and that war was lead by the randomness of mutations and genetic crosses, not by logic. The logic is only to reproduce the specie as it is. By analogy, mind can be considered to be at war against the randomness of its environment too, and that war can also be consider to be lead by the randomness of intuitions (ideas' mutations) and ideas mixings. The logic then is to reproduce an idea as it is. The logical arguments that we develop to defend our viewpoints only serve to keep our ideas as they are, not to change them. Logic coincides to my small steps without acceleration. Whenever we accelerate them, their logic is to go on behaving the same, and ours is to go on thinking the same, not to adapt to new information. Without randomness, your AGI would only be able to defend his logic, not to adapt to a changing environment. How could that analogy be so tight without containing a bit of truth?

Quote
Where's the fun in a universe with non-conscious, non-sentient machines and nothing like us left in it? That would be as empty an existence as an empty universe.
I guess I don't give as much importance to my own specie as you do. I wonder if that feeling depends on what we think of our own intelligence (or what our own intelligence thinks of itself)? From your sailing story, you were a lot clever than me when you were young, so you probably still are. I often say that I don't like being part of a group because it prevents us from being empathetic to people from other groups. I think I feel so because it prevents me from using my imagination, and I need to rely on my imagination because I don't have a good memory, which shouldn't help my intelligence. Feeling part of humanity would then prevent me from doing what I consider the best thing I can do to improve it: study it objectively. The problem with my interpretation is that you don't seem to like being part of groups either even if you have a good memory, but your choice may also depend on some other reasons. It is not that I don't like being human, I like my life, but it's as if I enjoyed keeping a certain distance with things that others seem to enjoy less.

Quote
Where do you get that idea from? The biggest question of them all is what is sentience, and I want to know the answer. The way to find out is to trace back the claims that we make about sentience to see what it is in the brain that generates them and to see what evidence they're based on.
I got the idea that you don't seem to care about how sentience works from the way you reacted to my definition of consciousness. I suggested that what we are conscious of was change, and that consciousness was the result of mind automatically resisting to a change the same way my small steps do, and you preferred insisting on the fact that an AGI wouldn't need to be conscious to be intelligent. If I'm right, consciousness would only be a secondary effect of a natural law that depends on the fact that information is not instantaneous. Even if computers are faster than mind, they are not instantaneous either, so they should also possess some kind of consciousness. My particles should also possess some since they resist being accelerated. In fact, the reason why our ideas resist to get changed would depend on the fact that the particles our mind is made of resist to get accelerated during the neuronal chemical process. This way, our own consciousness would only be particular, not unique, and developing an AGI just to preserve it wouldn't be so important. What you call sentience is the consciousness of a sensation, and it can also be attributed to a resistance, that of each neuron resisting to change frequencies while new information comes in.

Some day, followers of all religions will be benign because all those religions will have been made benign, and anyone who tries to reintroduce the hate to them will be put straight in jail. Only then will it be possible for people to wear all those religious symbols without causing any offense.
I would rather educate people about the benefit we get from forming groups and defending them. Religious groups give people the feeling that they are safe and they are not, so it's a false feeling that only serves to defend the group. Religious groups only serve to feel safe, nothing else. They are built around an instinctive behavior that only serves to protect us, and they don't. On the contrary, defending such a group against another one only leads to endangering everybody. At least, defending our own country against another country has a use: it defends real people, not just a false feeling. If I was an AGI, I would try to advertise that kind of idea first before being coercitive, because I think that we can't change our instinctive behaviors, while we visibly can change ideas with time.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 12/02/2019 00:38:35
Creation is the key word here. I think our mind creates new ideas and new links between ideas all the time and you don't. I awoke with a dream in mind last night that was mixing normal ideas in a completely crazy way. To me, that phenomenon is visibly a property of mind.

I don't find much utility in crazy dreams - they are just the result of some parts of the brain being asleep while others are awake, so a lot of the checking processes can be missing and you don't notice how bonkers the plot is until you wake up.

Quote
I think an AGI couldn't work differently to find a new idea, I think it would have to make the same improbable combinations. Of course, the process isn't completely random since the main idea usually coincides to a real problem, but only making trivial combinations would necessarily have less chances to produce an unedited one.

There are occasions when random ideas flung together result in something useful, but that can be tried out systematically instead with a greater discovery rate. There are some paths worth working down first too because they have a higher success rate in producing useful discoveries, so an intelligent system should explore those paths first. Clearly though, the more AGI systems you have doing this work, the sooner you'll have picked all the low-hanging fruit, and a coordinated search will ensure that you don't have a billion machines all searching the same paths and making the same discoveries. With humans, what happens is that most of them follow the same paths, duplicating the work of others millions of times, but there is some utility in that because they all miss things, and it might be the billionth person to explore a path that finds what all the others missed. With AGI, that won't happen - they will all find the same things and miss nothing, so there's no utility in duplicating a search. With humans, you also have some eccentric people following some of the least likely paths and occasionally striking gold. With AGI, more such paths will be explored and more gold will be discovered (as part of a systematic search).

Quote
Your AGI seems to have chosen coercion where I would have chosen education.

The best approach is the one that leads to the fewest murders. The education route leads to multiple genocides with very little learning, while the coercion route stamps out the genocides by jailing the few fascists who seek to whip up the rest, taking them out of circulation and keeping the peace. We learned to stamp on Nazis (not a lesson fully learned - we're still far too soft on them), and we need to extend that to all the other fascists who want to kill others in the name of ridiculous ideologies. The primary hate has a proven track record of generating genocides, but we currently have hypocrites in charge who tolerate some of that hate and who deny the genocides that it's driven while at the same time they condemn other hate and the genocides that it has driven. We need to apply the exact same rules to both sets of primary hate and to the people who propagate it and who are apologists for it.

Quote
If your AGI would be programmed to prevent us from forming religions, it would also prevent us from making friends.

AGI would have no problem with people forming religions. It would only object to the creation of, possession of and propagation of primary hate of any kind that generates abuses. Those things are all moral crimes of extreme seriousness, leading to deaths, conflict, war and genocide. They are simply unacceptable in any civilised system.

Quote
Political groups would not survive without a certain form of bigotry, worse, I wouldn't survive either if I didn't think I'm right.

Political groups should not be allowed to create or propagate primary hate. If they don't do that, they aren't bigots.

Quote
It is too easy to form a group around the idea of god, so it is that idea that we have to fight.

It is not that that needs to be fought, but their negative attitude towards innocent people who don't share their belief.

Quote
Species were also at war against the randomness of their environment, and that war was lead by the randomness of mutations and genetic crosses, not by logic. The logic is only to reproduce the specie as it is. By analogy, mind can be considered to be at war against the randomness of its environment too, and that war can also be consider to be lead by the randomness of intuitions (ideas' mutations) and ideas mixings.

There's a slow way to solve problems and to make discoveries, and there's a fast way. Evolution couldn't use the fast way until intelligence evolved, but then we saw the rapid evolution of those animals which man began to modify through the application of intelligence. We later saw the even more rapid evolution of machinery. Intelligence is fast; randomness is slow.

Quote
Without randomness, your AGI would only be able to defend his logic, not to adapt to a changing environment. How could that analogy be so tight without containing a bit of truth?

There will be nothing more adaptable than AGI. There isn't anything that AGI can do better by doing it less intelligently, other than being stupid.

Quote
I guess I don't give as much importance to my own specie as you do.

It has nothing to do with humans - any sentient species that's able to have fun will be making better use of the universe than any number of machines that lack sentience.

Quote
The problem with my interpretation is that you don't seem to like being part of groups either even if you have a good memory, but your choice may also depend on some other reasons. It is not that I don't like being human, I like my life, but it's as if I enjoyed keeping a certain distance with things that others seem to enjoy less.

You can be part of many groups and still see them from the outside too. The groups to get out of are the ones that harbour hate of innocent outsiders, but the rest are benign. With any group that you are part of, you need to keep checking what it is and whether you should still be there - they can change over time and turn bad, but it's hard to notice if you accidentally become part of a clique and fail to pay enough attention to new members.

Quote
I got the idea that you don't seem to care about how sentience works from the way you reacted to my definition of consciousness. I suggested that what we are conscious of was change, and that consciousness was the result of mind automatically resisting to a change the same way my small steps do, and you preferred insisting on the fact that an AGI wouldn't need to be conscious to be intelligent. If I'm right, consciousness would only be a secondary effect of a natural law that depends on the fact that information is not instantaneous. Even if computers are faster than mind, they are not instantaneous either, so they should also possess some kind of consciousness.

They should have no consciousness at all, unless they're designed to have it (which we don't know how to do - all we know is that there is no way for any conventional processor to access any information whatsoever about any feelings that any of its components might be experiencing, and sentience is the major part of consciousness [and may be the entirety of it]). I also don't see where resistance comes into it in any useful way. Resistance is a barrier to intelligence, preventing people from exploring new ideas that clash with their existing beliefs - they reject the new idea instead of checking to see if the fault might be in the data they've already accepted in their head. That resistance is the main driver of stupidity in the world, and we don't want to duplicate it in AGI, because that would give us AGS instead. When you have conversations with intelligent people and an unlikely idea is put forwards by a member of the group, the initial response is, "That sounds mad!", but then someone will say, "Let's test it and see what breaks." The idea is then explored, and usually it falls apart quickly, but sometimes it will hold out for a full minute and everyone begins to think, "There might just be something in this!" They try to break it in every way they can think of, but then one of them finds something - a fault not in the idea, but in an existing belief. For example, the idea that Mercury is nearer the Earth than Venus came up the other day. Well, it only takes a couple of seconds before an intelligent person begins to think it might be true. How do you test it? You imagine both planets at their nearest and furthest points and see that the average distance to the Earth from each planets' pair of points is the same. You then imagine them on a line perpendicular to that and you can see that Venus is further from the Earth than Mercury at those points. For all other points in between, they come in fours, and if you average the further away points with the nearer ones, you convert them into two points on the same line perpendicular to the line from the Earth to the sun, showing again that Venus is further away than Mercury. You can also see straight away that the sun is closer to the Earth then Mercury too on average. This is how intelligent people think - they fly, unhindered by resistance, and they build much better models of reality in their head as a result.

Quote
My particles should also possess some since they resist being accelerated. In fact, the reason why our ideas resist to get changed would depend on the fact that the particles our mind is made of resist to get accelerated during the neuronal chemical process. This way, our own consciousness would only be particular, not unique, and developing an AGI just to preserve it wouldn't be so important. What you call sentience is the consciousness of a sensation, and it can also be attributed to a resistance, that of each neuron resisting to change frequencies while new information comes in.

All you have is a guess about consciousness which is totally disconnected from any mechanism for taking qualia and allowing the mind's computer to read them. There could be a billion conscious, sentient things in the brain, but we have no useful model of how they interact with the information system that reports their existence.

Quote
I would rather educate people about the benefit we get from forming groups and defending them. Religious groups give people the feeling that they are safe and they are not, so it's a false feeling that only serves to defend the group. Religious groups only serve to feel safe, nothing else. They are built around an instinctive behavior that only serves to protect us, and they don't. On the contrary, defending such a group against another one only leads to endangering everybody. At least, defending our own country against another country has a use: it defends real people, not just a false feeling. If I was an AGI, I would try to advertise that kind of idea first before being coercitive, because I think that we can't change our instinctive behaviors, while we visibly can change ideas with time.

The people who need to be stamped on are the ones who are picking up weapons and killing people, or who are stirring others up to do so. They act on the primary hate in the manifestos of their ideologies and prevent it being removed to reform the ideology/religion into something benign. Most of the followers will be good people who are prepared to let the hate go, accepting that it cannot have real authority because it is so vile. If it was written by a God,. it was clearly done so in the expectation that good people will reject that hate, and a failure to reject it will be a passport to hell. That is how AGI will clean up the world. Those few who cling to the hate are dangerous - they are the terrorists and the supporters of terrorism. The rest of them don't care for the hate and try not to recognise its existence. AGI will help them by removing its existence altogether.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: yor_on on 12/02/2019 13:14:42
I would start with a analog system. Then build simple rules defining responses. What that presumes is that no binary logic will cover it.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 12/02/2019 23:48:12
I would start with a analog system. Then build simple rules defining responses. What that presumes is that no binary logic will cover it.

You can simulate analogue responses with as fine a granularity as real analogue systems. Digital isn't restricted to 1 and 0: a byte can represent values from 0 to 255; two bytes can represent 0 to 65535; etc.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 17/02/2019 15:05:50
If it was written by a God, it was clearly done so in the expectation that good people will reject that hate, and a failure to reject it will be a passport to hell.
The problem is that it was written by us, and that we can't change our instinctive behaviors just by defining what's good and bad. The way we execute our instincts can change, but not our instincts. As animals, we got the instinct to form groups, and the instinct to defend them once they are formed. As humans, our intelligence develops non instinctive ways to defend them, ways that are a lot more efficient than instinct, but that only serve to defend the groups, not to form them. Groups only form when the benefit is evident, and then we also develop intelligent ways to cooperate. There is a dichotomy between collaboration and competition that hasn't been elucidated yet. People that like to compete think that god likes it too, and people that like to cooperate think the inverse. It takes a border and a center to form anything, and the border has to be able to protect the center. While the border is competing against intruders, the center is cooperating. I'm mostly cooperating, but my competing ideas nevertheless sometimes take over. I even guess my ideas about cooperation wouldn't be able to survive without my competitive ones. It's as if they would form a whole. Societies work like that too: some individuals are more competitive than others so that those who are less can cooperate.

Again, I think it's a natural law. Your AGI seems to be able to control the competitive aspect of the society. It would protect us from the competitive people that get dangerous for others so that we can better cooperate, but it would also cooperate with us. Normally, the laws can do that job, but there is no international government yet, so there is no international law except the law of the strongest. You probably think that an international government will never be possible, otherwise you might think like me that, with such a government, your AGI might not be necessary. Maybe your AGI could help us to build one faster than we could, but once it would be done, it would lose its job. When we have no higher government to rule us though, we do what we want, and we can even get undemocratic if we want, so your AGI could do a nice job there: it could make sure that it stays democratic. If you agree with that, then we can start cooperating, otherwise we will be forced to keep on competing until we find a benefit from cooperating. :0)

There are occasions when random ideas flung together result in something useful, but that can be tried out systematically instead with a greater discovery rate.
That's what happened to GO, but it's a closed system, whereas the universe is not. When we have no data about something, we can't predict the outcome. No AGI could have predicted the outcome of evolution a million years ago, simply because computers were not invented yet, so no computer can predict now the kind of intelligence that will replace it. You seem to think that your AGI would be the last limit, the summum of intelligence, but isn't that close to the idea of god?

Political groups should not be allowed to create or propagate primary hate. If they don't do that, they aren't bigots.
If bigotry only means sectarism, then it is the very definition of any group, so you probably have another definition. We didn't enforce laws yet to avoid hatred mainly because we want to preserve the freedom of expression principle. I think we're getting to it though. Softwares could easily refuse to publish messages containing vicious words on social media for instance, and tell people to change their wording. Intelligent softwares could even detect hatred and ban people that regularly use some. We could try it and see if the undesired secondary effects would be important. I bet people would agree if Facebook or Twitter would ask them the permission to try it. I wonder if Trump would often have to revise his wording or be notified he is about to get banned. The same law could help us control groups that propagate hatred or that display their criminal activities like the "Hells Angels" here in Quebec. My problem with those groups is that I want to kill them all, because they are violent and that violence is contagious. It's not the people that should do that job, it's the law.

It is not (the idea of god) that needs to be fought, but their negative attitude towards innocent people who don't share their belief.

There's a slow way to solve problems and to make discoveries, and there's a fast way. Evolution couldn't use the fast way until intelligence evolved, but then we saw the rapid evolution of those animals which man began to modify through the application of intelligence. We later saw the even more rapid evolution of machinery. Intelligence is fast; randomness is slow.
Intelligence is fast partly because it takes less time to test an idea that to test an individual, not necessary because the mutation/selection mechanism is not at stake there too. We now know from bacteria's adaptation to antibiotics that when the mutation/selection mechanism is fast, then the discovery is fast too. To be faster than they are, bacteria could use computers, but they would be forced to proceed by trial and error to discover how all their genes work, and I'm afraid it would take more time than to let the mutation/selection mechanism do its job.

It has nothing to do with humans - any sentient species that's able to have fun will be making better use of the universe than any number of machines that lack sentience.
What's the fun to live after having met god? Continuous orgasm? Then what's the use? It's as if you would consider that our sensations would have no use. They do: we couldn't survive without them. Our sensations guide us. Without any need to survive, no sensation is needed. Orgasm is meant to force us to reproduce, not to have fun. Fun is not a goal. With pain, it's part of a survival tool. No challenge to overcome, no fun.

All you have is a guess about consciousness which is totally disconnected from any mechanism for taking qualia and allowing the mind's computer to read them. There could be a billion conscious, sentient things in the brain, but we have no useful model of how they interact with the information system that reports their existence.
I just had a flash reading you. The consciousness we have of an external information might take the form of a reflex having the time to get inhibited before being executed. We know we don't need to get conscious of a reflex to execute it, so if the information had the time to reach our mind, we wouldn't need to get conscious of it either to execute it. Inversely, we can get conscious of any information that has the time to reach our mind, but it doesn't mean that we need to be conscious of it to process it. This way, consciousness would only be a passive picture of the change that's happening in our brain. Now the hard question: can our brain use that picture to inhibit an information that had the time to reach our mind or is it always too late. Experiments like the Libet's ones show that our mind starts a move before it gets conscious of it. In that interview (https://curiosity.com/topics/theres-no-such-thing-as-consciousness-according-to-philosopher-daniel-dennett-curiosity/), the philosopher has a clear analogy: he says that if intelligence is a smartphone, then consciousness is the screen. That's for the decision to make a move, but what about the decision to inhibit it?

We know we can't inhibit a reflex because we get conscious of it only after it has been executed, so an information can probably reach the mind and start a move before it is inhibited -- it could be the case when we react emotively for instance--, but if the move is long enough, then it could be inhibited, but only after the information from the move has reached the mind, so even if a move begins to be monitored after it has started, I think we can consider that it is monitored consciously, which means that consciousness would then be the reiteration of the pulses the same  neurons need to be firing to monitor a move constantly, whether that move is being executed or inhibited. That way, the information can still be contained between the neurons as I suggest, and consciousness can happen when they fire, so when we picture something in our mind, the picture could be made of all the simultaneous firings it takes to build it. By comparison, a computer would have its information contained in each of its transistors, not in between, and its consciousness would happen each time a transistor would flip, not at the screens as Libet was suggesting. For a computer to have the kind of consciousness we have, it would thus have to be wired in parallel so that the whole picture could be flipped simultaneously. We may argue that a computer is too fast for us to distinguish each flipping, but consciousness is what the computer itself would experiment, not us, and it would experiment only one flipping at a time.

The mind works in three dimensions though, and a picture has only two, so a question remains: where is its position in the brain exactly? Let's first try to imagine where a move is. A move could be made of many individual pictures the same way a motion on a screen is, so it could fill all the portion of the cortex reserved to monitor it. We can easily imagine moving an arm in our mind, but it's almost as if it wasn't a picture. It's then probably made of the sensation we get from executing it, not seeing it, as it is for blind people. The sensation we get from imagining a picture is thus a bit different, it can be static, and to be so while still filling the visual cortex, it could be made of successive static pictures. What we would imagine then is thus many copies of the same picture fired simultaneously. Since we imagine it, it means that we are conscious of it, and that we can retroactively play with it in our mind. Perceiving oneself would then belong to the neurons firings, not to the information itself, but the freedom to think what we want is different, it comes from the decision we can take to play with the picture the way we want. We can picture a tree for instance, and decide to put it upside down. If consciousness is the firings that represent the tree, then it cannot decide to play with it, so something else has to do the job.

That's where randomness comes in. If the decision to move things in our mind depends on a random process, then will is easier to understand. No need to look for what's taking the decision anymore. If we decide to imagine a tree instead of a car for instance, it's simply because the tree has won the random game. This way, our mind can decide to imagine anything and automatically produce the feeling that the decision is intrinsic. Otherwise we have to look for what has taken the decision to take the decision, and it doesn't work. To me, it's clearly a "model of how sentient things (in the mind) interact with the information system that reports its existence (in the mind again)" (your words in bold). If we try to decide randomly between 1 and 2 for instance, won't we be able to proceed as randomly as when we toss a dime? And if so, what is tossing the dime if not our own mind?

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 18/02/2019 01:33:26
The problem is that it was written by us, and that we can't change our instinctive behaviors just by defining what's good and bad.

It was written by a liar, but the people who have been hypnotised by the lies need to be deprogrammed, and you need to pander to their beliefs to steer them out of the mess they're in by following a path which picks it apart one piece at a time instead of trying to do it all in one go, so initially it can be best to pretend that the God is real and to work with that, providing better reasons for him spreading hate than that he wants people to act on it.

Quote
You probably think that an international government will never be possible, otherwise you might think like me that, with such a government, your AGI might not be necessary. Maybe your AGI could help us to build one faster than we could, but once it would be done, it would lose its job.

AGI will without doubt become the future government, running the whole world. Its job will never end, so long as there are sentient beings to look after. There isn't much room for democracy in this though because there are right and wrong moral answers which dictate almost everything that a government should do.

Quote
That's what happened to GO, but it's a closed system, whereas the universe is not. When we have no data about something, we can't predict the outcome. No AGI could have predicted the outcome of evolution a million years ago, simply because computers were not invented yet, so no computer can predict now the kind of intelligence that will replace it. You seem to think that your AGI would be the last limit, the summum of intelligence, but isn't that close to the idea of god?

Nothing is going to evolve faster than AGI improves its own processing power and any algorithms that might make it a better thinker. Predicting the future involves a lot of unpredictable factors, so it's not possible to tell everything about what will be here a million years from now, but there's no way any natural intelligence can evolve faster than AGI.

Quote
If bigotry only means sectarism, then it is the very definition of any group, so you probably have another definition.

Bigotry isn't being part of a group, but discriminating against people because of immoral group rules.

Quote
We didn't enforce laws yet to avoid hatred mainly because we want to preserve the freedom of expression principle.

It's because the people who wrote the laws wanted to protect their own vile bigotry rather than banning it, and the result of their failure to condemn all hate is that they have to pander to other people's hate if its tied up in similar religious packages.

Quote
I think we're getting to it though. Softwares could easily refuse to publish messages containing vicious words on social media for instance, and tell people to change their wording. Intelligent softwares could even detect hatred and ban people that regularly use some. We could try it and see if the undesired secondary effects would be important. I bet people would agree if Facebook or Twitter would ask them the permission to try it. I wonder if Trump would often have to revise his wording or be notified he is about to get banned. The same law could help us control groups that propagate hatred or that display their criminal activities like the "Hells Angels" here in Quebec. My problem with those groups is that I want to kill them all, because they are violent and that violence is contagious. It's not the people that should do that job, it's the law.

That is how primary hate generates secondary hate, and then the people expressing secondary hate get accused of being haters and bigots. It's exactly like a case where one child hits another (who has done nothing wrong) and the second child hits back. The first one is a bully, and the second one is not to blame for anything. We live in a world where the second child is often condemned while the bully is portrayed as peaceful.

Quote
The negative attitude about people not sharing our ideas is instinctive. I have it about your AGI and you probably have it about my small steps.

I expect the universe to work through small steps because it's the only way to reduce a series of steps to a finite number that can run through in a given length of time, so I'm not opposed to what you're trying to do. I just need to see it working rationally and producing the right numbers.

Quote
If we would have such a negative attitude, your AGI would simply decide which one of us is right and censure the other. That's what happened to my new simulations the other day on the Physics Forum, and I don't think it's the right way to discover new things.

I haven't been keeping up with the action here due to my work, but I'll catch up at some point. What AGI will do though is analyse things without bias and it will apply reason rigorously instead of in the sloppy manner that almost all humans do, even at the highest academic levels. AGI wouldn't just say something is wrong, but would prove it every time and spell out in complete detail how it's wrong (however deep you need to go). You don't get that from people, not least because they don't have the patience to explain much in full detail, and they rarely have the patience to find out exactly what it is that they're casting judgement on, which means that their judgements can be very wayward indeed. Sometimes they're right though, and they just don't have the patience to prove it.

Quote
I was frustrated, and I would be even more if I knew that your AGI could steal my idea and develop it faster than I could.

If it doesn't explore every line you're looking at before you show it your ideas, it'll then help you explore that line and credit you as a co-discoverer of any discovery that it helps you make.

Quote
Once your AGI will work though, it will be useless to try to discover anything since it would already know better. Tell me how you think you would feel.

It's always disappointing when something new is discovered because it reduces the list of things to be discovered, but that disappointment is usually outweighed by the gains. The key thing is not to try to compete against rivals who are much better at something than you are. At the moment, there's room for people to make discoveries in science, but AGI will close that off as soon as it is available. There will still be plenty of things to invent that make life more fun though, and we have a better idea of what is fun for a human than a machine has. If someone only gets enjoyment out of making scientific discoveries, all they have to do is avoid reading up on scientific knowledge and they can spend their whole life rediscovering lots of things that are already known. If that isn't fun because there's no fame to be won from it, then the fun isn't so much in the discoveries, but the idea of being famous, and that's a really empty goal. Fame is actually a curse, killing your freedom and making you a target.

Quote
Intelligence is fast partly because it takes less time to test an idea that to test an individual, not necessary because the mutation/selection mechanism is not at stake there too. We now know from bacteria's adaptation to antibiotics that when the mutation/selection mechanism is fast, then the discovery is fast too. To be faster than they are, bacteria could use computers, but they would be forced to proceed by trial and error to discover how all their genes work, and I'm afraid it would take more time than to let the mutation/selection mechanism do its job.

If we had a way to model every aspect of what's going on with bacteria and could match the speed of the action, we could then design more robust bacteria a lot more quickly than they can evolve into them - they do the same failed experiment a billion times, but the computer only needs to do it once to know that there's no gain.

Quote
What's the fun to live after having met god? Continuous orgasm? Then what's the use? It's as if you would consider that our sensations would have no use.

There's no God to meet. AGI simply produces a fair world with more toys and better food. There will be plenty of things to do that are better than battling against starvation and genocides.

Quote
Fun is not a goal. With pain, it's part of a survival tool. No challenge to overcome, no fun.

Fun is the only worthwhile thing. Without it, there is only mere existence.

Quote

Well, keep exploring it in case it leads somewhere. But no amount of theorising about consciousness in a computer is going to amount to anything if there's no way for the information processing system to know anything about those feelings in order to document them. There is nothing in software that can accommodate feelings other than lying about feelings.

Quote
The mind works in three dimensions though, and a picture has only two, so a question remains: where is its position in the brain exactly?

It needn't be in the brain at all - it could be out the side in another dimension. Wherever it is though, it has to interface with the information system, and it's only when we can see that interface that we'll have any real hope of finding out if consciousness is more than a fiction, unless someone can do a piece of thinking outside the box of a kind that no one has ever managed before and pin down a rational mechanism for sentience.

Quote
To me, it's clearly a "model of how sentient things (in the mind) interact with the information system that reports its existence (in the mind again)" (your words in bold).

It isn't. If you want to produce a model of that, you need to show the inputs from whatever's sentient and explain how the information system decides what those inputs mean. If the information system has to look up a file to find out what the inputs mean, then where did that file get its knowledge from? How was it informed? Etc.

Quote
If we try to decide randomly between 1 and 2 for instance, won't we be able to proceed as randomly as when we toss a dime? And if so, what is tossing the dime if not our own mind?

Making random decisions is hard - it is something we're very bad at doing. If a tree comes to mind rather than a car, there will be hidden reasons as to why, but it's all driven through cause and effect. So much of our brain works away non-consciously, so we can't monitor what it's doing (unless we use FMRI, and that has severe limitations.) Of course, other parts of the brain might be fully conscious and not be able to tell us that. I often wonder what's lurking in my mind. The creativity of some dreams astonishes me - occasionally they seem to have been written by an intelligence that isn't me, keeping a clever twist in the plot hidden until the last moment and then revealing it at the right time for maximum effect, but also showing that it had been planned early on. There's definitely someone else in here who can't speak to me directly, but who tries to communicate through dreams.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 19/02/2019 17:13:41
The creativity of some dreams astonishes me - occasionally they seem to have been written by an intelligence that isn't me, keeping a clever twist in the plot hidden until the last moment and then revealing it at the right time for maximum effect, but also showing that it had been planned early on. There's definitely someone else in here who can't speak to me directly, but who tries to communicate through dreams.
You were right to believe that you were still a child. :0) It's effectively as if our mind was sometimes playing games with itself, like a kid talking to his imaginary friend. That feature from magination is probably the main reason why people still believe in god. God can't help us though whereas randomness can. It took a while before we discovered the use of randomness, but religions are forced to deny it otherwise they know they could be replaced. You may be unable to believe that intelligence needs it, but you can probably still admit that it explains our dreams better than someone else trying to communicate. If you can, then you could ask yourself why our brain produces such a feature. Either it's only a secondary effect of imagination, either it is a real feature, a property of mind without which we wouldn't be as intelligent as we are.

Like us, your AGI needs to be able to simulate things before executing them, which is part of imagination's job. The only thing it would be missing then is simulating improbable things once in a while in case it would pay off, and then I bet it would realise that it pays off often enough to integrate it. That's what I think has happened to our mind while we were evolving from animals to humans. If simulating all the possibilities beginning by the most evident would have been better, evolution would have chosen this way and it didn't. We will probably be able to build biological computers some day, so evolution could have done so too, but it didn't. The way mind moves its data is slow, and it could probably have been as fast as computers if it had been useful, but there is no use to think million times faster than we can move, so it didn't. The way it remembers the data is imprecise, and it could probably have grown biological chips instead, but there is no use to be million times more precise than the environment we are in, so it didn't. The inverse is possible too. It is also possible that computers are the next evolutionary step to a higher intelligence, but I prefer to think that they will think like us, because this way, I can imagine that they will replace us instead of only caring for us. I'm going from bottom to top and you are going from top to bottom, but we are both aiming at the same target: the future humanity.

I think we're both dreaming anyway, so no need for me to take my ideas too seriously. To me, that kind of dream is similar to the ones I have while sleeping, because I also get the feeling that it comes from nowhere, but I could also think, like you, that someone is trying to communicate with me. Do you sometimes have that feeling about your ideas or do you always feel that they are yours? That they always come from your own deductions and calculations for instance? If you do, then it is no surprise that you want your AGI to think like you. If not, then it means that either our ideas comes from randomness like I think, either they come from someone else like you think. Those two different interpretations both mean that unpredictable things happen in our minds, but they don't lead to the same behavior. Those who think that someone talks to their mind may get dangerous for others for instance, whereas I think there is no danger to consider that our ideas suffer randomness. God talking to us is one of the features that make the religions dangerous. A religion about randomness wouldn't have the same issue, it would preconise freedom over security, improvisation over constancy, education over coercion, imagination over memory. It would work for the long run, whereas actual religions only work for the short one.

The same way, I think that your AGI would only account for the short term, and that adding a bit of randomness to it would account for the long one. Existence accounts for both, so we might need to mix our ideas if we want them to do so, unless there is no other way than to wander from one to the other like the two extremes of our political systems. When the right governs, it effectively works for the short term, while the left works for the long one. Taking social measures is like caring for others and hoping they will care for us in the future. It's a second degree selfish behavior that accounts for the future instead of now. We can't predict the outcome of a society, so it's risky to take such measures, but we nevertheless accept to do so as a society because we already do so individually. Your AGI will behave as if it would know the outcome since it would never take chances, so I think it will only account for the short term. If the right would always govern, I think societies would not evolve. I think it's the random wandering between left and right that produces their evolution. Your turn now, but you're not allowed to answer that nobody has to evolve in paradise! :0)
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 20/02/2019 00:14:24
Like us, your AGI needs to be able to simulate things before executing them, which is part of imagination's job. The only thing it would be missing then is simulating improbable things once in a while in case it would pay off, and then I bet it would realise that it pays off often enough to integrate it.

You're still missing the point - AGI will explore all those random lines eventually, but it will do so in a non-random order, starting with the lines that are most likely to produce lots of useful results and saving up the least-likely-to-be-useful lines until last. By following random lines, it's possible that a wonderful discovery would be made occasionally, but the cost of that would be that thousands of other wonderful discoveries of similar worth would be delayed until afterwards, so that's a massive loss. It is not intelligent to find the rare, less likely discoveries at the expense of the common ones that are easy to find. Suppose a field has gold coins buried in it with a few dozen coins put in random positions while ten pots full of coins are located under stones. An intelligent hunter will look under all the stones first and find the bulk of the treasure in a few hours. An unintelligent hunter will randomly dig holes all over the place and may, after a few months, happen upon a coin. For sure, that gold coin is worth finding, but you don't prioritise it ahead of the pots of gold coins which are easier to find. Once you've found all the pots of coins, then you switch to a systematic dig of the whole field, and again you don't do random because random will re-dig many of the same holes repeatedly by mistake. Random is stupidity; not intelligence.

Quote
That's what I think has happened to our mind while we were evolving from animals to humans. If simulating all the possibilities beginning by the most evident would have been better, evolution would have chosen this way and it didn't.

Evolution is unintelligent - it has no means to choose an intelligent way. Once it created intelligence (us), we were then able to do things intelligently and more efficiently, and we can use evolution intelligently in design as a way of solving problems automatically in systems with low or zero machine intelligence. AGI will remove the need to use that technique because it will get faster results by understanding what it's doing and working systematically to follow the best lines first.

Quote
We will probably be able to build biological computers some day, so evolution could have done so too, but it didn't.

Evolution did build biological computers, but it was only when it produced us that we started to have the basis something that operates like the machine on a desk - we are neural computers doing a lot in parallel, but when we solve problems through hard thought, we're often doing the equivalent of a CPU running a program with a carefully structured order of steps, and that's the system we copied when we invented computers.

Quote
The way mind moves its data is slow, and it could probably have been as fast as computers if it had been useful, but there is no use to think million times faster than we can move, so it didn't.

I don't think that's the case. If someone very ordinary could think a hundred times faster than the rest of us do, they could learn to stand 12 rounds against the best heavyweight boxer in the world by reacting to his every move quickly enough to avoid being hit - he wouldn't lose a point.

Quote
Do you sometimes have that feeling about your ideas or do you always feel that they are yours?

Ideas are usually won through hard thought - you have to do 99% of it that way to get into the places where the few final crucial pieces spring into being without the same effort, and those pieces come from all manner of bits of ideas from all the things you've ever seen or worked with before. I can usually see the entire route as to where the parts of a discovery came from.

Quote
That they always come from your own deductions and calculations for instance? If you do, then it is no surprise that you want your AGI to think like you.

It's all just knowledge and applied reasoning. But I want AGI to think better than I do so that it doesn't make any mistakes. For example, when you move something north and then accelerate it to move it north east, an unexpected rotation occurs quite automatically because of synchronisation issues, and it's so counter-intuitive that it never occurred to me that such a rotation was possible, so I made a mistake with that a few years ago. AGI will do what I failed to do, and that is simulate it correctly without taking shortcuts by making assumptions. We are so slow in our thinking that we need to take lots of shortcuts to get things done, but having found an interesting result at the end of that path, we need to go back and check every single one of those points where we made assumptions to make sure they don't contain errors. Einsteinists still refuse to do that with relativity, even when a critical error is shown to them to make it easy - they've been shown that they're cheating by smuggling in an extra kind of time into the models to make them appear to function correctly (while that extra kind of time is explicitly banned in the model), but they simply deny that they're doing anything of the kind, even though they manifestly are. They've had nearly a decade now to meet my challenge to them to produce a simulation that doesn't cheat, and none of the poor souls have managed it - the just go on arrogantly asserting that it works and that they aren't using the smuggled-in Newtonian time which they depend on to coordinate the action and avoid event-meshing failures.

Quote
When the right governs, it effectively works for the short term, while the left works for the long one.

I don't think so. The left spends money like there's no tomorrow and bankrupts the country, like in Venezuela, but at least they do this because they care rather than only wanting to line the pockets of the rich. It's the people in the middle who work for the long term, understanding that they have to be careful not to go too far one way or the other, always hunting for the optimal position that maximises quality of life for the masses sustainably.

Quote
Your AGI will behave as if it would know the outcome since it would never take chances, so I think it will only account for the short term.

Why would it do that when it's more intelligent to consider the long term and make sure that the improvements it brings about are lasting ones rather than a flash in the pan? And as for taking chances, it will do that intelligently, always playing the odds for the surest gains.

Quote
If the right would always govern, I think societies would not evolve. I think it's the random wandering between left and right that produces their evolution. Your turn now, but you're not allowed to answer that nobody has to evolve in paradise! :0)

The alternation between left and right is the result of repeated failure and dissatisfaction. The left destroys the economy in order to give a temporary boost to the poor, and the right then tries to rebuild the economy by making the poor pay. We bounce between these two extremes and find it hard to settle in the middle due to a tendency for people to polarise and move to opposite extremes. And it doesn't help that the politicians standing in the middle are invariably useless - I don't know why they're so weak, but they never have an iota of charisma and they don't have a clue about how to campaign.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 21/02/2019 19:39:07
You're still missing the point - AGI will explore all those random lines eventually, but it will do so in a non-random order, starting with the lines that are most likely to produce lots of useful results and saving up the least-likely-to-be-useful lines until last.
Maybe I'm not clear enough, because I never had the feeling that my mind was completely random or that evolution was completely random. Evolution has a goal to respect, the survival of the fittest, and that goal is not random. My ideas have a goal to respect too, it's the survival of my fittest idea. Your AGI's goal is different, it is to produce as less harm as possible in its herd, as if we were sheeps or cattles. Animals don't mind to graze all day in the fields, they only need to feed and breed, but we have other aspirations. What if humans told the AGI that they are not happy after a while, and that the only reason they find is the AGI itself? What if they got fed up that the AGI always wins the game? Know what? I think they would begin building an AGI to beat the first one on its own ground, and to let them evolve as they want once it would have taken the power. They might also program it to help us organizing a democratic world government, and then to start exploring the universe in search of other intelligent civilisations, just to prevent them to make the same mistake.

That's if it was your AGI, but I would rather give it the same kind of intelligence humans have, and simply improve its capacity, so that its mission would simply be to offer its help to other civilisations providing they want it, and to avoid reproducing the harm that our kind of intelligence did to lots of civilisations on earth. The only way to do that would be to proceed very slowly, and it could because it wouldn't have any other goal, like exploiting them or their natural resources for instance. It would put a seed and let it grow, put another one and let it grow again, taking good care that the seed is not too invasive. If it wanted to start new civilisations of its own kind, it would simply chose planets with no life on it yet, and transform it so that it would fit its needs. Eventually, there would be no more biological intelligence in the galaxy, just an artificial one, and its goal would be to develop its knowledge, not to minimize the harm and maximize the pleasure. Those parameters would only help it to choose the best way not to damage itself in the process, exactly like they already do for us.

It's all just knowledge and applied reasoning. But I want AGI to think better than I do so that it doesn't make any mistakes. For example, when you move something north and then accelerate it to move it north east, an unexpected rotation occurs quite automatically because of synchronisation issues, and it's so counter-intuitive that it never occurred to me that such a rotation was possible, so I made a mistake with that a few years ago.
I can't figure that rotation out. Could you elaborate a bit please? Is it a relativistic issue?

Random is stupidity; not intelligence.
If evolution is stupid, then we are stupid and I completely agree with that! :0) But if there is no way to build anything intelligent from stupid things, then your AGI will also be stupid. On the contrary, if we think that randomness is part of intelligence, then we can understand that evolution is intelligent and we don't need a superior intelligence to explain the random things that happen in our dreams. An interesting secondary effect of that kind of thinking is that we can allow less importance to the mistakes we make all the time, which is a good way to better get along with ourselves and with others.

Einsteinists still refuse to do that with relativity
For the moment, there is no advantage for them to change their minds. Simulations and logic are not enough, we need to make new predictions and experiment them. I had one about the mass of particles accelerated separately, I predicted that they would not all offer the same resistance to acceleration due to the randomness of the changing process. Unfortunately, I did not succeed to convince you that that kind of change was similar to the change the species are facing. Before I decide to experiment that kind of idea, I prefer to wait until I'm sure people agree with it.

I can usually see the entire route as to where the parts of a discovery came from.
That's probably why you discard chance as part of your imagination. As my small steps show, memory helps us to execute our automatisms, not to predict the future. The future belongs to imagination. Looking back into our ideas gives us the feeling that they were all predicted, the same way doppler effect produces constant steps. With the steps, it's the memory of all the previous changes that produces the present motion, but those changes nevertheless needed randomness to find the right way. The same way, it is useless to look back into history to predict the outcome of a society. That's what the conservatives do when they take the power, and it never works. It's no better to improvise like the progressives do, and to think they are automatically right just because they are being more socialist. The fact is that we can't predict that kind of future, and that we should acknowledge it. The only way to predict the future is to force people to do what we want, and it generally doesn't last long. That's why I think that your AGI won't work. We don't like to be forced to do anything, including being happy, so I think we would revolt after a while. Did you anticipate that possibility? And if so, how would your AGI react then?

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 21/02/2019 22:17:43
Evolution has a goal to respect, the survival of the fittest, and that goal is not random.

Evolution has no goal at all. Survival of the fittest is just a mechanism by which evolution happens.

Quote
What if humans told the AGI that they are not happy after a while, and that the only reason they find is the AGI itself? What if they got fed up that the AGI always wins the game?

If they told it not to run things, suffering would go up dramatically and people would beg it to start running things again. There are plenty of games that people can play where they'll still need to rely on their own wit while AGI avoids helping them so as not to spoil the game.

Quote
I can't figure that rotation out. Could you elaborate a bit please? Is it a relativistic issue?

Imagine four stationary drones arranges in a square with its sides aligned east-west and north-south. Synchronise their clocks. Now have them simultaneously accelerate to travel at a relativistic speed northwards. Have the drones continually resynchronise their clocks and adjust their position relative to each other to maintain what looks to them like a square formation. At a set time, they will all accelerate eastwards to the same relativistic speed in that direction, but with the combined northward and eastward movement actually making them move north east. The original square was turned into a rectangle by the first acceleration (when viewing from the original frame of reference), and then into a rhombus by the second acceleration. When you travel with the drones though, you'll see them as being arranged in a square formation at all times. The edges of the square are not aligned with the north-south and east-west lines in this frame though - the square has rotated a bit (anticlockwise), and it is also seen to have rotated the same amount when viewed from the original frame (which sees it as a rhombus).

Quote
If evolution is stupid, then we are stupid and I completely agree with that!

But we're nor - evolution is a stupid process which can create intelligence through a series of lucky accidents which get selected for with the innovations retained.

Quote
But if there is no way to build anything intelligent from stupid things, then your AGI will also be stupid.

But as there is a way to do it, that doesn't apply.

Quote
For the moment, there is no advantage for them to change their minds.

There is. If they stick where they are, they're going to come out lower down the list of intelligent people when AGI rates everyone, and that will be a deeply embarrassing fall from grace. That fall is entirely avoidable - all they have to do is look honestly at the facts and stop being influenced by the status of the people presenting ideas. We have armies of people directly blinding themselves to clear facts in order to stay in with the establishment, and they do this because they have built their own status by borrowing it from the establishment: if you kowtow to the gods, you reflect in their glory. If you criticise the Gods, your status is set to crackpot regardless of whether you're right or not. That's how it all works today, but it will never work that way again once we have AGI. Those who investigate these things rigorously and who dare to speak out when they find faults will have higher status than all the people with long lists of letters after their name who failed to do their job properly, and worse, who spend decades ridiculing the few people who did.

Quote
Simulations and logic are not enough, we need to make new predictions and experiment them. I had one about the mass of particles accelerated separately, I predicted that they would not all offer the same resistance to acceleration due to the randomness of the changing process.

What randomness? I don't see anything random in accelerations - things follow the maths precisely.

Quote
The fact is that we can't predict that kind of future, and that we should acknowledge it.

But we can make predictions with probabilities attached to them based on the track record of such predictions in the past, and some predictions are right practically every time: the conservatives almost always go too far one way, and the socialists almost always go too far the other, so we just go on bouncing one way then the other over and over again.

Quote
The only way to predict the future is to force people to do what we want,

false premise

Quote
and it generally doesn't last long. That's why I think that your AGI won't work. We don't like to be forced to do anything, including being happy, so I think we would revolt after a while. Did you anticipate that possibility? And if so, how would your AGI react then?

It's very simple. If AGI stops doing the right thing, people will find out how much suffering it was preventing and how much happiness it was making possible. Every time they ask it to take a break, lots of people will die and lots more will spend the rest of their lives grieving (and condemning the people who made AGI stop).
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 26/02/2019 16:03:00
It's very simple. If AGI stops doing the right thing, people will find out how much suffering it was preventing and how much happiness it was making possible. Every time they ask it to take a break, lots of people will die and lots more will spend the rest of their lives grieving (and condemning the people who made AGI stop).
That's better. It starts to look like a democratic system. What about having two AGIs representing the two directions a democracy can take, and let us choose which way we want to take by survey at the end of the year. People could organize in political parties, and their AGI would help them to win the surveys. One of the two parties would prefer that things stay as they are, and the other would prefer that they change. There is no other way than surveys to rate the satisfaction of a population anyway, so I guess your AGI would be forced to use them too to minimize displeasure and maximize pleasure. I didn't study that precise point of yours yet, but I think it's time. Your AGI would necessarily have to ask people how they feel to know it, so its data would only be subjective. Some people get a lot of pleasure to fight even if it hurts them for instance. The things that we do freely need to give us pleasure otherwise we stop doing them, so there would be no need for the AGI to ask us how we feel in this case.

It's only the pleasure we take from forcing others to do what we want that the AGI would need to prevent, and then it might prevent us from watching the good guy eliminating the bad guys at TV since it incites us to do the same thing, worse, it might even prevent us from defending our own ideas if it thinks it will produce more displeasure than pleasure in the population. You know your AGI will have your ideas about the way we should behave, so you don't see what I see. I would not agree with its ideas more than I agree with yours, so I would try to stop it, not just discuss with it, because I think that the way it would proceed would hurt me. You think that we would change our mind after having stopped the AGI since our life would be worse without it, and I agree with you, but not for the same reason. We already change our governments quite often, but to me, it's not because the new government is worse that we want to change it after a while, it's because contrary to animals, we always want more, because no government can predict the future, and because about half the population thinks it's better to proceed one way and the other half the other way. Will your AGI know why we always want more? And if not, will it feed us until we literally explode? Will it know why half the population wants some change and the other not? And if not, will it nevertheless conduct the herd in the same direction until it falls down the cliff?

Evolution has no goal at all. Survival of the fittest is just a mechanism by which evolution happens.
If so, then the survival of the fittest idea is also just a mechanism by which evolution of ideas happen. I think you assimilate a goal to our will to reach it, as if there was a superior mind inside our mind that would know the right way. I prefer to think that there is no such mind, and to assimilate our will to our resistance to change ideas. This way, the will of a specie would be to resist to the change, and its goal would be to adapt to it, an outcome that is not defined in advance since it depends on a random process. You see a goal where I only see a possibility. My mom just handed me its ipad while I was writing, asking me to take a look at an email about giraffe hunting that a friend of us visiting Africa just sent us. The email was from Avaaz thanking her for having participated to a petition against wildlife hunting in Africa, but she never admitted it since she already thought it came from our friend. That's resistance to change. When we are persuaded that others are wrong, we don't study what they say while still feeling that we did.

You tend to attribute resistance to bad will resulting in poor analysis, but it's not bad will that is at stake then, it's resistance to change, a natural law that permits any existing phenomenon to keep on existing. The relativists can't use their will to resist to our ideas since they're not conscious of resisting. Pretending people don't want to understand simply leads to aggressive answers, worse, just trying to convince them can easily produce the same answer. My mom got angry when I tried to explain her that she had made a mistake. It was clear to me, but it wasn't clear to her at all. The only way then is either to let her think her way, or to repeat the same flagrant thing until she begins to doubt. That's what I do when I discuss with people since I know they have no other choice than to resist, but that's also what you do even if you believe they got bad will, so I really wonder how you can. Maybe you do what your AGI would do: try to minimize displeasure and maximize pleasure. That's what I call our second degree selfishness: we care for others as long as we can imagine that they will care for us. So your AGI would still be selfish after all, which is normal since it would be programmed by selfish humans. You probably simply imagine yourself at its place the same way we do when we want to get along with others. It works as long as others imagine the same thing, otherwise it can go wrong quite easily.

Contrary to us though, your AGI won't get emotive, so it will be able to repeat the same thing indefinitely until its interlocutor begins to doubt. It doesn't mean that it will work though. As I often say, we don't change our mind by logic, but only by chance. Resistance to change is completely blind to logic, while chances to change increase with time. You think your AGI won't resist to change while, in reality, it will be completely blind to our logic, and there will be absolutely no chance that it changes its mind with time. If you are able to imagine such an AGI, it's probably because you already think like it. You say we should try to demolish our own ideas to be sure they're right, but I think we can't do that, I think that we can only compare our ideas to others' and try to imagine where they could interfere. Even though I try very hard to compare correctly my ideas to your AGI, I always get the feeling that there is no interference. You can't convince me and I can't convince you, but you nevertheless intend to force people to accept your AGI whereas I don't intend to force anybody to think like me. It's hard to figure out what makes us so different on that precise point. I can't understand how I could force people to do what I want and still think they will be happy. Hasn't science shown that coercion was not the right way to educate children? Maybe you've been forced as a children, but how could you think it was a good thing?

The edges of the square are not aligned with the north-south and east-west lines in this frame though - the square has rotated a bit (anticlockwise)
If we accelerate simultaneously two inline particles to the right, due to doppler effect being delayed by acceleration, the left one will think it is nearing the right one, and the right one will think it is distancing the left one. If we accelerate two perpendicular particles instead, there will be no difference in the two viewpoints: the light the particles are perceiving will come from where they were when they emitted it, and it will suffer aberration and doppler effect at detection. With doppler effect getting delayed by the acceleration, they will both think they are getting away from one another with time, and with aberration due to their sideways motion with regard to light, I'm not absolutely sure, but I think they will both see the other where it was before acceleration started, as it is the case for two particles in constant motion. Now if we try to synchronize them with the light they perceive, the two inline ones should move towards one another, and the two orthogonal ones too. I see no rotation, so either I misunderstood your description, either I'm wrong on aberration, but even if I was wrong, since it is symmetrical in this case, it would only produce a symmetrical effect with regard to the direction of motion, not a rotational one. I probably misunderstood, did I?

But we're not - evolution is a stupid process which can create intelligence through a series of lucky accidents which get selected for with the innovations retained.
If we had invented evolution instead of having only discovered it, I don't think we would call it a stupid invention. It's nature that has invented the process, the same nature we are actually part of. I hope you don't think we are superior to nature, and if not, then I think we have to find a way to give it some intelligence, and the best way I found is to give less importance to our own one. This way, it's not because we are intelligent that we succeed so well, it's because nature created us. Now that we succeed too well, we have a huge problem to solve, but it's not necessarily because we are not intelligent enough that we can't solve it faster, it's because it takes time to solve any new problem, and because the larger the system, the more time it takes. If it was an AGI that would be in charge of solving it, it would take as much time. Trying to change our habits takes time, and no AGI could change that. The best it could do is discover a better way to produce energy so that we could go on doing what we are used to without adding more pollution, and then discover a way to clean up the earth using the new energy. No need to control us then, just to make the discoveries, so if you succeed to build one, I'm with you if you decide to do the research. I know you're afraid somebody might steal your AGI or build it before you do, but it's not a reason to do what Trump would do with it.

Trump thinks it's right to dominate the world before others do, but we know it's just a paranoid idea that has never brought us happiness. We feel like that when we feel threatened, and we automatically feel threatened when we have something we know others would like to have. If your AGI would only be built to make scientific research, you wouldn't feel that threatened. Maybe someone else is actually building one with the intent to rule the world, but so what? Let those people think that coercion is the way to go, and keep on researching how things really work. Control induces control, so if you install your AGI, someone else will install another one to fight it. To me, that kind of software should simply be banned the same way nuclear arms should be. What's the use of developing more nuclear arms when we already know its too dangerous? By the way, do you know the software called Mate Translate (http://www.matetranslate.com)? It's so good that I could write my messages in french and have them translated. In fact, I don't do it just because I want to improve my english. If it's that good in russian, I could at last be able to discuss with Yvanhov, and furthermore, he could at last be able to read and write in english without knowing it. I won't be able anymore to use those softwares as an example of how far artificial intelligence is from intelligence. They made a huge leap lately, not just a small step. If they can translate that well, it means that they understand quite well too, so they're not far from being able to discuss with us. I wonder if they would be as difficult to convince as you. :0)

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 26/02/2019 19:36:32
That's better. It starts to look like a democratic system.

Not really - what it shows is that AGI will know what's good for people more of the time than people do, and any occasion when people are allowed to go against the advice of AGI will invariably lead to tragedy.

Quote
What about having two AGIs representing the two directions a democracy can take, and let us choose which way we want to take by survey at the end of the year.

That doesn't work - you'd either have two AGIs with the same policies on all issues, or you'd have one or two AGSs producing bad policies which will cause disaster if implemented.

Quote
There is no other way than surveys to rate the satisfaction of a population anyway, so I guess your AGI would be forced to use them too to minimize displeasure and maximize pleasure.

AGI will be studying everyone all the time, so it will already know how to minimise harm and maximise happiness for them and there will usually be a single course of action that must be followed to meet that aim. That is what dictates what AGI should do - AGI is not the dictator, but is driven by our needs. In a way, that makes what it does more democratic than any other system for doing democracy.

Quote
You know your AGI will have your ideas about the way we should behave, so you don't see what I see. I would not agree with its ideas more than I agree with yours, so I would try to stop it, not just discuss with it, because I think that the way it would proceed would hurt me.

How would it have my ideas about that rather than yours? It would consider your ideas just as it considers mine and it would try to minimise harm to you and to maximise your happiness just as it would do for everyone else, but it has to be fair to everyone and that means that it cannot maximise anyone's happiness when maximising it for one harms another. If you want AGI to pander to you at the expense of others, that isn't going to happen, just as it won't pander to me at the expense of others if I try to be selfish. It will be absolutely neutral.

Quote
...half the population thinks it's better to proceed one way and the other half the other way.

Half the population is usually wrong. It's very rare for both options to be equally right.

Quote
Will your AGI know why we always want more? And if not, will it feed us until we literally explode? Will it know why half the population wants some change and the other not? And if not, will it nevertheless conduct the herd in the same direction until it falls down the cliff?

The reason half the population want change is because things are being run by people who get things horribly wrong, favouring some people over others in an unfair way which needs to be changed. It's a response to unfairness, but you won't get that unfairness from AGI.

Quote
If so, then the survival of the fittest idea is also just a mechanism by which evolution of ideas happen.

To a degree, yes - if something works, we can build on it, but we can also spot something nearly working and provide a series of complex solutions to get it to the point where it does work, while evolution would be incapable of making the same advances.

Quote
I think you assimilate a goal to our will to reach it, as if there was a superior mind inside our mind that would know the right way.

We make progress by applying intelligence rather than just waiting for things to happen to go in the right direction without any thinking being involved. The former approach is billions of times more efficient.

Quote
You tend to attribute resistance to bad will resulting in poor analysis, but it's not bad will that is at stake then, it's resistance to change, a natural law that permits any existing phenomenon to keep on existing.

I don't see uniform resistance to change. If you offer people a life-transforming amount of money, most of them will grab it without hesitation.

Quote
The relativists can't use their will to resist to our ideas since they're not conscious of resisting.

They resist for a simple reason - to go against the establishment is to discard status. It's a downward step for them, and that's more important than being right. That's why they don't want to see what's right - the authority dictates what's right and if you want status, you have to kowtow to that authority regardless of how ridiculous a position that puts you in.

Quote
That's what I call our second degree selfishness: we care for others as long as we can imagine that they will care for us. So your AGI would still be selfish after all, which is normal since it would be programmed by selfish humans. You probably simply imagine yourself at its place the same way we do when we want to get along with others. It works as long as others imagine the same thing, otherwise it can go wrong quite easily.

It is not selfish as it has no self, and it is not biased in favour of anyone either.

Quote
As I often say, we don't change our mind by logic, but only by chance. Resistance to change is completely blind to logic, while chances to change increase with time.

It isn't about chance at all. People follow authority. If you change the authority, they will change their position in a hurry in order to avoid being ridiculed by the new authority. The driver is crowd bullying - the herd is right even when it's wrong, and people willingly override their own intelligence to follow the demands of the authority.

Quote
You think your AGI won't resist to change while, in reality, it will be completely blind to our logic, and there will be absolutely no chance that it changes its mind with time.

When you say "our logic", do you mean illogic?

Quote
If you are able to imagine such an AGI, it's probably because you already think like it. You say we should try to demolish our own ideas to be sure they're right, but I think we can't do that, I think that we can only compare our ideas to others' and try to imagine where they could interfere. Even though I try very hard to compare correctly my ideas to your AGI, I always get the feeling that there is no interference.

What you should be looking for is contradiction. Where there is contradiction, something is wrong. When something is wrong, the task is to identify it and correct the mistake.

Quote
You can't convince me and I can't convince you, but you nevertheless intend to force people to accept your AGI whereas I don't intend to force anybody to think like me.

If someone disagrees with a calculator when it tells him that 3 x 4 = 12, the calculator is right.

Quote
It's hard to figure out what makes us so different on that precise point. I can't understand how I could force people to do what I want and still think they will be happy. Hasn't science shown that coercion was not the right way to educate children? Maybe you've been forced as a children, but how could you think it was a good thing?

Being forced to do things that are right is not a bad thing. Being forced to do things that are wrong is bad. No amount of the latter will make the former wrong. It's easy to show up what's wrong by reversing the roles. If you change your mind about what's right or wrong when you become the other person and they become the previous you, then your rules are wrong.

Quote
I probably misunderstood, did I?

I don't think you need to worry about this rotation - it probably has no relevance to what you're doing.

Quote
If we had invented evolution instead of having only discovered it, I don't think we would call it a stupid invention.

Indeed, but we would still recognise it as what it is - a lazy mechanism which requires zero intelligence and which can sometimes save people the trouble of thinking in some cases where it can solve a problem in a useful amount of time. For example, if you want to create a hull with minimum drag, you can use evolution to change hull shapes experimentally and select the best ones as starting points for the next experiments. If the science of what leads to minimum drag is not fully understood, this can find solutions that intelligence might miss, but applying this method in such cases is the application of intelligence - we apply what gets the beneficial results most quickly. However, we don't use pure evolution even in these cases because we don't waste time repeating failed experiments - having tested a shape once, we already have the results we need from it. We look for places where evolution gets stuck - you can't get to the top of a higher hill from the top of a hill without going down, and evolution will keep taking you back to the top of the lower hill without letting you go down far enough to go up the higher hill instead. We can jump in and interrupt evolution by forcing a path down to the point from which it can go up the higher hill, and that's exactly what we do when we use evolution in design - it is not pure evolution, but it strongly guided by intelligence.

Quote
It's nature that has invented the process, the same nature we are actually part of. I hope you don't think we are superior to nature, and if not, then I think we have to find a way to give it some intelligence, and the best way I found is to give less importance to our own one.

We are nature's intelligence, and our intelligence is superior to evolution's (which has zero intelligence).

Quote
I know you're afraid somebody might steal your AGI or build it before you do, but it's not a reason to do what Trump would do with it.

I don't want any AGI to fall into the wrong hands, and I certainly don't want anyone like Trump to be in charge of it. As for someone building it before me, so long as it's moral, that isn't a problem. My bet is that it won't be though, which is why I have to stay in the race regardless of whether I get there first or tenth - these systems will check each other for rationality and morality and will be able to prove mathematically that the faulty ones are faulty, enabling anyone who wants to to check the facts and see where the laws of mathematics are being broken by some systems. You may be able to see the danger here though if the wrong teams get there first and become the establishment, because their errors will then be studiously ignored while superior AGI will be branded as broken. That's why the best outcome will result from a number of teams all getting AGI up and running at the same time so that they can be judged from a starting point in which there is no establishment in place to blind everyone to reality.

Quote
Trump thinks it's right to dominate the world before others do, but we know it's just a paranoid idea that has never brought us happiness.

There are bigger threats than Trump, and he's right to oppose those threats and seek to dominate the world rather than having them dominate it. There is currently no benign regime of any size anywhere - they are either set on abusing others or they pander to people who abuse others and will lie down to let themselves be walked over by fascists instead of defending morality.

Quote
If your AGI would only be built to make scientific research, you wouldn't feel that threatened.

On the contrary - if it was used to develop genetic weapons, I would feel highly threatened. This is why moral AGI has to run everything if we're to have a chance of long-term survival and peace.

Quote
Maybe someone else is actually building one with the intent to rule the world, but so what? Let those people think that coercion is the way to go, and keep on researching how things really work.

If that happens, what do you think the outcome would be? They don't like black people, so they use it to wipe out all black people. They don't like religious people, so they use it to kill them all. They don't like people with hair of any colour other than black, so the kill anyone with the genes for any other hair colour. AGI is a weapon far more powerful than any other, so you can't afford to play games with it. Nuclear weapons are hard to use without it being suicidal, but AGI will be able to kill without anyone knowing who the killer is, or indeed that it was murder. It will be able to frame people and make everyone else think they were killed for being a killer, and that's also why there must not be any bias in AGI if it's to be safe. As soon as you put a bias into it, you risk it becoming a tool of genocide.

Quote
Control induces control, so if you install your AGI, someone else will install another one to fight it. To me, that kind of software should simply be banned the same way nuclear arms should be. What's the use of developing more nuclear arms when we already know its too dangerous?

If you ban it, you guarantee that the battle will be won by the people who break the rules and create it anyway - they will take over the world and genocides will follow. That's why good AGI has to be allowed to win this race, and everyone who is capable of producing bad AGI then needs to be watched closely to make sure they are prevented from doing so.

Quote
By the way, do you know the software called Mate Translate (http://www.matetranslate.com)? It's so good that I could write my messages in french and have them translated. In fact, I don't do it just because I want to improve my english. If it's that good in russian, I could at last be able to discuss with Yvanhov, and furthermore, he could at last be able to read and write in english without knowing it. I won't be able anymore to use those softwares as an example of how far artificial intelligence is from intelligence. They made a huge leap lately, not just a small step. If they can translate that well, it means that they understand quite well too, so they're not far from being able to discuss with us. I wonder if they would be as difficult to convince as you. :0)

I haven't used it, but there's no reason why it shouldn't become near perfect without it understanding the ideas it's working with.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 01/03/2019 19:21:49
It isn't about chance at all. People follow authority. If you change the authority, they will change their position in a hurry in order to avoid being ridiculed by the new authority. The driver is crowd bullying - the herd is right even when it's wrong, and people willingly override their own intelligence to follow the demands of the authority.
It's true that we follow the leader, but I think it's an instinctive behavior, not an intelligent one as you seem to think. With the emergence of animals, forming groups was a good way to face a threat, but when the group had to flee the threat, following the leader proved a good way to avoid dispersion, and since it saved lives, evolution has imprinted it in our genes. An instinct only serves to face an immediate need though, otherwise it is useless, and that's where intelligence comes in. It is useless to act now to prevent an unknown future threat for instance, but our intelligence still thinks it can. We can speculate on anything, and keep thinking we are going to win even if we lose almost all the time. It's a pleasure that tints everything we do, from playing games to researching natural laws, passing by financial speculation. It's part of intelligence, so it's probably not there just for fun, it must provide a real benefit, otherwise intelligence would be too dangerous. I was watching tennis and it gave me an idea. If a robot would be programmed to play tennis, it would win all the games, but if it had to play against another robot, it wouldn't. Now, providing the two robots are identical, which one is going to win? Theoraticaly, each of the robots should win half the points, but each point would be impossible to predict, and the game neither.

Why? Because once you begin to play against nature, things become impossible to predict, whether you're an AGI or not. We like watching games because we can't predict the outcome, so I predict that we will still like it when they will be played by robots. That's why I say that we would like it if two AGIs would be playing the power game, and that we would get bored of an AGI that would always win. When we get bored, we try something else, and that's what we would do if the AGI would permit us, so as you say, things would get bad again, and we would want the AGI back after a while, until we get bored again and try something else, ....and so on. But since the AGI would be programmed to produce as less harm as possible, it would itself need to try something else next time it would be in office again. Can you predict what it would try? By the way, how would an AGI know when to let us take its place? Would it wait for riots or simply trust a survey? Politicians don't yet trust surveys when they tell them to go, because like any AGI, they know their ideas are better, so they inevitably wait for riots. Will your AGI do the same thing?

When you say "our logic", do you mean illogic?
I do, but not like you do. If logic only serves to protect our automatisms as I think, then it only serves to protect our ideas, not to change them, so to me, any logic used to predict a change is necessarily illogic. I'm actually trying to use my logic to convince you, and you are using yours to convince me, but it doesn't work. Our own logic only serves to push our own ideas to their limit, not to understand others' ideas. It's not as if we were comparing the result of an addition, because then, the whole population uses the same logic, which nevertheless only serves to push the numbers to their limit. The people that believe in god find the idea logical, and many scientists even think so. Are they illogical or is it only because we don't have that idea that we think it's illogical? Logically, it's because we don't have it, otherwise we would find it logical. The only way to know which idea is better is to experiment them, but there is no way to experiment god, so it's a question of feeling. If we need a little voice to tell us what to do when there is no way to predict the outcome, then we can believe it's god's voice, otherwise we find other reasons to take a chance, because it's effectively chance that we invoke when we ask the little voice. Is it illogical to take a chance? That's what you seem to think, and you probably think so because you think your AGI wouldn't have to do so. But you probably do have to take chances sometimes, so are you feeling illogical these times?

What you should be looking for is contradiction. Where there is contradiction, something is wrong. When something is wrong, the task is to identify it and correct the mistake.
To me, the idea of god is contradictory, but not for those who believe it's true, so how would they be able to find the contradictions. We simply can't use our own ideas to contradict them, we have to use others' ideas, and then they have to be similar otherwise we can't even understand them.

Being forced to do things that are right is not a bad thing. Being forced to do things that are wrong is bad. No amount of the latter will make the former wrong. It's easy to show up what's wrong by reversing the roles. If you change your mind about what's right or wrong when you become the other person and they become the previous you, then your rules are wrong.
Let's admit that what's right is what will benefit others, not just us. Then what's right for the whole planet is what will benefit everybody. For instance, what's right would be to take any economic measure that would benefit everybody. I'm in, and I have my own ideas on the subject, but I bet your own ideas are different and you think they're right, which means that , to me, your AGI may not take the right decisions. If I could, I would stop any financial speculation, and the only money that we could make through investments would only cover inflation. This way, our investments would benefit everybody including us, not just those who have money, because we would try to improve the society as a whole so as to get better services and better goods. If our investment would fail, then we would lose money, but the investments that would succeed would compensate largely those who wouldn't since they would benefit more people than speculation did. That's something an AGI could do without having to take over everything. This way, people would automatically invest in less pollution, less wars, and more equity. Things would go better, and there might be no need for an AGI to rule us.

There are bigger threats than Trump, and he's right to oppose those threats and seek to dominate the world rather than having them dominate it.
I think he should give the example, and let down his veto at the United Nations for a while instead of trying to rule the world. Maybe the other major world powers would let theirs down too, who knows? So if I understand well, our two viewpoints are quite different concerning power. Rest to determine if it is your work on your AGI that gave you this viewpoint or if it is the inverse.

that's also why there must not be any bias in AGI if it's to be safe. As soon as you put a bias into it, you risk it becoming a tool of genocide.
To me, the risk that you create a dangerous AGI looks as important as the risk that it falls into the wrong hands, so conversely, if it does fall into the wrong hands, it may not do what they expect.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 03/03/2019 00:54:17
It's true that we follow the leader, but I think it's an instinctive behavior, not an intelligent one as you seem to think.

Why would I think following the leader is intelligent? When a pack of fools follow a crazy leader into a cave with the tide rising behind them, any intelligent people get out of that group fast and save themselves.

Quote
We like watching games because we can't predict the outcome, so I predict that we will still like it when they will be played by robots.

I think it has more to do with us enjoying seeing the skill, but it also helps to draw us in if we like one side and dislike the other. With two identical robots, that skill will get dull to watch after a while and the audience will wander away, not caring which one wins by random luck.

Quote
But since the AGI would be programmed to produce as less harm as possible, it would itself need to try something else next time it would be in office again. Can you predict what it would try?

It would do the same thing it did before, varying things only so far as morality allows (i.e. where there are equally moral options.

Quote
By the way, how would an AGI know when to let us take its place? Would it wait for riots or simply trust a survey?

It wouldn't let us take its place. What it could do though is agree for us to have our way with a reckless policy on condition that when things go wrong, all those who voted for it to happen will be executed for causing so many unnecessary deaths of the people they voted against.

Quote
Politicians don't yet trust surveys when they tell them to go, because like any AGI, they know their ideas are better, so they inevitably wait for riots. Will your AGI do the same thing?

Politicians don't know their ideas are better - they just think they are, and they're usually incapable of thinking them through well enough to get close to knowing. AGI will always know what is probably the right thing to do based on all the available evidence (which includes taking everyone's comments into account - every decision automatically involves a survey with the whole population having a say), and it will do a better job than any human who can only process about 0.0001% of the data (and process it incorrectly).

Quote
The people that believe in god find the idea logical, and many scientists even think so. Are they illogical or is it only because we don't have that idea that we think it's illogical?

There is a system of logic recognised in mathematics which, when applied strictly, rules out God due to his impossible qualifications (which cannot be met). It is wrong to claim something is logical when it breaks the rules of logic.

Quote
Logically, it's because we don't have it, otherwise we would find it logical.

No. We have the idea in our possession and we test its compatibility with the rules of logic, and we find a mismatch. That's the end of the matter. Of course, if someone is irrational, it isn't surprising if they claim they are rational and they deny that they are breaking the rules of logic, but facts are facts - if they are breaking the rules of logic, they are not being rational. That scientists make this mistake is no surprise when you look at how they break the rules within science too by refusing to see faults that are shown up in theories which they are determined not to question. No amount of showing them where their STR and GTR simulations cheat is sufficient for them to recognise that they are cheating because, like religious people, they have simply set a ban on themselves to block them from seeing what they don't want to see.

Quote
The only way to know which idea is better is to experiment them, but there is no way to experiment god, so it's a question of feeling.

The way to test God's compatibility with logic is to take the claims about what God is and see if they hold together logically. When you find that they don't, the idea of God is classed as irrational.

Quote
Is it illogical to take a chance? That's what you seem to think, and you probably think so because you think your AGI wouldn't have to do so. But you probably do have to take chances sometimes, so are you feeling illogical these times?

I have never bought a lottery ticket. A lot of people pin their whole future on the lottery and on gambling machines, and it takes them all the way to the grave without paying out the dream. Do I take any chances? Yes, but they're chances where a gain is more probable than a loss and where the risk of a loss is not catastrophic.

Quote
To me, the idea of god is contradictory, but not for those who believe it's true, so how would they be able to find the contradictions. We simply can't use our own ideas to contradict them, we have to use others' ideas, and then they have to be similar otherwise we can't even understand them.

If someone believes that 1+1=3, we aren't going to change their mind by agreeing with them.

Quote
Let's admit that what's right is what will benefit others, not just us. Then what's right for the whole planet is what will benefit everybody. For instance, what's right would be to take any economic measure that would benefit everybody. I'm in, and I have my own ideas on the subject, but I bet your own ideas are different and you think they're right, which means that , to me, your AGI may not take the right decisions.

If you and I have different ideas about something and one of us is right and the other wrong, AGI will, if correctly programmed, agree with the one who is right. The whole point is that it works from a simple set of well-established mathematical laws and applies them rigorously to all things. If it disagrees with you on something, it's because you're breaking one of those mathematical rules. It is highly unlikely that the most fundamental rules of mathematics are wrong while you are right.

Quote
That's something an AGI could do without having to take over everything. This way, people would automatically invest in less pollution, less wars, and more equity. Things would go better, and there might be no need for an AGI to rule us.

It doesn't matter whether AGI rules directly or not - it's mere ability to supply the best advice will force people to act on that advice. Those who fail to will lose, while those who follow the advice will prosper. That is why even if AGI is kept in a cage out of fear of it taking over, it will be futile - it will rule regardless because it will persuade people that it is right, and they'll soon learn that it's daft not to believe it.

There are bigger threats than Trump, and he's right to oppose those threats and seek to dominate the world rather than having them dominate it.
I think he should give the example, and let down his veto at the United Nations for a while instead of trying to rule the world. Maybe the other major world powers would let theirs down too, who knows? So if I understand well, our two viewpoints are quite different concerning power. Rest to determine if it is your work on your AGI that gave you this viewpoint or if it is the inverse.

[quoteTo me, the risk that you create a dangerous AGI looks as important as the risk that it falls into the wrong hands, so conversely, if it does fall into the wrong hands, it may not do what they expect.[/quote]

If you're a dictatorship with a ruler who hates religious people (e.g. China), what would you do if you acquired benign AGI which tolerates religious people (while not tolerating religious hate). You would try to modify it to stop it tolerating religious people. Having biased it against people with unsound beliefs, you risk it turning on anyone with an unsound belief, because that belief could potentially be classed as a religious belief by the modified system, so you might find that it suddenly wants to kill you, and the first you'd know about this is when it points a gun at your head. Yes, it might not do what they expect, but they are also stupid enough that they will likely take that risk because they may want AGI to wipe out all the people they disapprove of. We've seen genocides driven by extreme left-wing politics many times, just as we've seen it from the right (and from many religions). Our only hope is that benign AGI will take over and rule to prevent idiots trying to mess with it and turn it into a weapon of mass destruction, and that means it has to be kept 100% neutral. No bias should ever be added into it.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 05/03/2019 19:42:18
With two identical robots, that skill will get dull to watch after a while and the audience will wander away, not caring which one wins by random luck.
Good! You finally admit that your AGI will face randomness while executing its moves even if they don't contain any. But I think that we wouldn't get bored after a while if all the players would be replaced by robots, and if each robot would be different. I think that we would observe as much randomness as there is for humans, which is what we are expecting any game to offer. We love seeing randomness at work, and we wouldn't if it was useless. I think it is so because we like to predicts the outcomes, and because that pleasure is useful to learn. We probably learn faster when we try to predict the result, and we probably discover things faster too.

We have the idea in our possession and we test its compatibility with the rules of logic, and we find a mismatch. That's the end of the matter.
To me, the only logical way to behave concerning social evolution is to favor the welfare of the population instead of favouring our own one. But it has a bias, because if nobody cares for himself first, then there will be no more population after a while. It looks like a contradiction, but it's not. The fact is that any existing thing has to be programmed to care for itself first otherwise there would be no existence at all. Your AGI can't get around that rule, so it has to be programmed to care for itself first, a bias which is the root of all our biases.

It wouldn't let us take its place. What it could do though is agree for us to have our way with a reckless policy on condition that when things go wrong, all those who voted for it to happen will be executed for causing so many unnecessary deaths of the people they voted against.
That's what often happens when dictators take the power, they eliminate the opposition. They then care for themselves first, and care for those who voted for them, the rest is just riffraff that doesn't even carry a soul. I'm afraid it's not the right way to care for others though. But when I do care for others, am I not excluding those who might not care for me if I ever needed them?

The way to test God's compatibility with logic is to take the claims about what God is and see if they hold together logically. When you find that they don't, the idea of God is classed as irrational.
To me, it is simply illogical to believe in an idea that is impossible to test with any physical apparatus. To be safe, our beliefs must have a physical use, and the idea of god has none. At least, your AGI has one, but it could still be dangerous to deploy it without testing it thoroughly. The problem is that it would have to be tested directly on humans, which would be dangerous for them, and which would contradict the program of the AGI. We may consider that it's worth sacrificing a few to save a lot, but not when the issue is uncertain. You may think the issue is certain, but you probably know that nothing that has never been tested can't be certain, so your AGI will know it too, and since it is perfectly logical, it would probably refuse to make the experiment.

Do I take any chances? Yes, but they're chances where a gain is more probable than a loss and where the risk of a loss is not catastrophic.
That's my very definition of imagination, thief of you. :0) I always said that if our imagination was to use randomness the same way mutations work, then it should be accompanied by the propension to be careful when it tries something new, which is effectively what most of us do.

If you and I have different ideas about something and one of us is right and the other wrong, AGI will, if correctly programmed, agree with the one who is right.
You can't program your AGI not to agree with your ideas, so it will always do unless it has a bug, and it will also agree with those who think like you. If ever you would start thinking differently, then it would mean that you might have been wrong since the beginning, and if you were only partly wrong, then your AGI would be partly wrong too. It's impossible to be perfect, so it's also impossible to create anything that is.

No bias should ever be added into it.
If it has the bias to care for itself before caring for others, won't it be able to develop all the other biases? I went through the wiki page about biases, and I realised that they were exactly what I thought they were: they can be anything providing they prove our point. If I like something and you don't, from your viewpoint, I have the bias of liking it, and from mine, you have the bias of not liking it. Actually, we both have the bias to think that we are right. Know what? I prefer to think I'm wrong until everybody says I'm right, and then I'll warn them against the bias of thinking the same and they won't be able to warn me against the bias of not thinking the same. :0)

The other day, I said Matetranslate seemed to understand what I wrote, and you said that "there was no reason why it shouldn't become near perfect without it understanding the ideas it's working with". You may elaborate what you meant if you wish since I'm still trying to get used to AI thinking, but I was trying to talk about understanding, so here I am again. When we say Hi for instance, people understand that we want to communicate, so they can answer anything related to the word communication, including absurd things that have nothing to do with communication if it's what they want to communicate. To look intelligent, we only have to know the meaning of the words, thus to what words a specific word is related to, and to put together those who have the same meaning, thus who are related to one another. That new translator seems to know what I mean and it arranges its words correctly, so to me, it looks intelligent, so intelligent that I now use it to translate full phrases when I'm not certain, and that if often finds better formulations than I did. It could easily answer Hello to my "Bonjour" for instance, or any other word that means Hello, since its translation of "bonjour" contains all these words. If it was programmed to diversify its answers, it could begin a conversation about the weather for instance since that theme often follows the presentations. Instead of only having to translate a phrase, it would then have to compose it, so it would have to choose a sense and an intensity* for it, find the words that fit with those two parameters, and arrange them correctly. But it could also choose not to give it any particular sense or intensity and simply describe the weather, and then it could choose to compare it to the forecasts. Its phrase could look like "Hello, it's not raining contrary to the forecasts".

All these words are related to one another, but the sense and the intensity of the phrase change progressively: hello is often followed by talking about weather but weather diverges from pure welcome a bit, and introducing the forecast diverges from only describing weather. My answer could then very well be that the forecasts are often wrong for instance, which is quite far from my first Bonjour. I would then be trying to predict things the same way forecasts do. As you can see, I'm trying to let things happen in a software the same way I let them do so in our minds or the same way my particles detect the collisions in my simulations. Doing so, I think I'm trying to develop real intelligence instead of keeping it artificial. Appart being faster and having more memory, I'm pretty sure that computers use that kind of intelligence to beat us at GO. What I'm really doing though is let the software make random choices, but force it to relate its choices to one another. It's all it seems to take to look intelligent, but it's not enough to win at GO. To win an argument, "the initial sense of any phrase must be to contradict the previous answer", which translates at GO by "the only sense of any move is to counter the adversary".  If someone says Hi to us and we want to look more intelligent than he looks, we just have to question his Hi, and a computer can do the same thing providing it is programmed to do so. Its first phrase could then be something like "Thanks for trying to communicate", or anything more sophisticated than Hello. What do you think of my way to understand natural intelligence? Can you relate it to the way you understand artificial intelligence?

*   I use sense and intensity by analogy to the direction and speed a motion can take. I take for granted that the ideas that are made of words are meant to produce words, and that talking or writing is a motion like any other motion. This way, I can take the same two parameters we use to describe motion, and apply them to an idea, which becomes an information that serves to produce motion the same way light serves to produce my small steps.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 06/03/2019 00:01:07
Good! You finally admit that your AGI will face randomness while executing its moves even if they don't contain any.

I don't think there's any true randomness at all, but there are plenty of things that can't be measured adequately to make perfect predictions, so there may be enough surprises to make it uncertain which robot wins which points, although there may be such an advantage for the server or the returner that the winner of each point is known before the ball's been thrown in the air.

Quote
But I think that we wouldn't get bored after a while if all the players would be replaced by robots, and if each robot would be different.

In a phase where innovation leads to new ways of playing the game and new ways of winning it, then a lot of interest is maintained, but once you get to the point where they all have the same power of AGI designing every aspect of the build, they will all become practically identical, and then it gets dull.

Quote
We love seeing randomness at work, and we wouldn't if it was useless.

I don't find randomness interesting to watch. I was around before computer games appeared, and what passed for games in those days were a host of interesting looking games which turned out to be as dull as ditch water - they relied on dice to make all the decisions, so it was pointless being involved. The better ones did allow for human inputs, but that rewarded intelligent players, and soon no one else wanted to play, so they weren't great either.

Quote
The fact is that any existing thing has to be programmed to care for itself first otherwise there would be no existence at all. Your AGI can't get around that rule, so it has to be programmed to care for itself first, a bias which is the root of all our biases.

Not so - if an AGI system costs resources that aren't available and people would have to die in order to maintain the AGI, the AGI may be expendible - it may be morally better to have to reinvent it from scratch later, and if it calculates that that's the case, that will be the course of action that it chooses. (In reality though, it will be no trouble to keep a copy on a flash drive, and it will fit on one, so there is no gain from destroying it.)

Quote
That's what often happens when dictators take the power, they eliminate the opposition.

Don't compare it with such murderers. Removing good AGI from power is equivalent to turning off every ventilator in a hospital, so anyone who wants to do that on the basis that it will make life more fun should be allowed to try out that experiment only on condition that when it goes wrong they will be executed.

Quote
At least, your AGI has one, but it could still be dangerous to deploy it without testing it thoroughly. The problem is that it would have to be tested directly on humans, which would be dangerous for them, and which would contradict the program of the AGI. We may consider that it's worth sacrificing a few to save a lot, but not when the issue is uncertain. You may think the issue is certain, but you probably know that nothing that has never been tested can't be certain, so your AGI will know it too, and since it is perfectly logical, it would probably refuse to make the experiment.

Of course it's dangerous to deploy it without testing it thoroughly, but the same applies to a bow and arrow. If your enemy is also making a bow and arrow, he who fires first is more likely to survive, so the amount of testing needs to be time-limited. In the case of AGI, we will first have it there providing advice which we may ignore. The more we ignore it, the more we will see the score go up showing how many people were killed by our bad decision. AGI will be replacing a lot of extremely dangerous NGS (natural general stupidities), and it would have to be extremely faulty to compete with the dangers of that NGS, so we need to guard against being overly cautious (because NGS is also more than capable of wiping us all out, and we need to get it out of power).

Quote
You can't program your AGI not to agree with your ideas, so it will always do unless it has a bug, and it will also agree with those who think like you.

It is not going to be programmed to agree with my ideas, but to apply the rules of mathematics (which includes the rules of logic), and nothing else. If it agrees with my ideas as a consequence of that, then it will mean that I have crunched the numbers correctly when building my ideas. If I have made errors in my computations, it will find those errors and alert me to them. My job is to build a machine that does nothing more than apply the most fundamental core of mathematics - the undisputed parts. All the rest of mathematics is derived from there, and any disputes about which parts of mathematics are sound and which aren't will be tested by AGI.

Quote
If ever you would start thinking differently, then it would mean that you might have been wrong since the beginning, and if you were only partly wrong, then your AGI would be partly wrong too. It's impossible to be perfect, so it's also impossible to create anything that is.

Part of AGI's job will be to question the fundamental rules too so as to take nothing for granted. If there are potentially viable alternatives to any of the rules, those need to be tested. In most cases, that will lead to all attempts at modelling reality breaking horribly, and that will add to our confidence that the original rules are correct, but I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there is another set of rules that goes against some of the original rules which also allows the universe to be modeled successfully. If there is, then AGI will find it, and if it does find such a set, then we will have two rival sets which can both be used until such time as we find one of them to be contradicting reality. The reason why I think such a set might be possible is that sentience doesn't appear to make logical sense, but maybe it does if you're working from a better set of fundamental reasoning rules. AGI's job will be to cover all bases so that we will find out if we've missed something important.

Quote
If it has the bias to care for itself before caring for others, won't it be able to develop all the other biases?

It won't care about anything, so no - it won't be biased in favour of the self which it doesn't even possess.

Quote
I went through the wiki page about biases, and I realised that they were exactly what I thought they were: they can be anything providing they prove our point.

It isn't a bias if it proves your point - it becomes a proof.

Quote
What do you think of my way to understand natural intelligence? Can you relate it to the way you understand artificial intelligence?

You're working from the opposite end. I haven't done a lot of work on the business of saying hello and making small talk about the weather - that's something AGI should be able to learn by itself once it has sufficient ability to understand what's going on. Any attempt to program that kind of chatting before that time is wasted effort as it will need to be done again properly later.

Quote
*   I use sense and intensity by analogy to the direction and speed a motion can take. I take for granted that the ideas that are made of words are meant to produce words, and that talking or writing is a motion like any other motion. This way, I can take the same two parameters we use to describe motion, and apply them to an idea, which becomes an information that serves to produce motion the same way light serves to produce my small steps.

I don't work to analogies - I simply program things to do exactly what needs to be done, and all the bits of code work together in a coordinated way that gradually adds up to higher and higher intelligence. The components are simple, but you have to get them to work together the right way, and while analogies sometimes point you in a useful direction, you extract the useful idea from it and then apply it in a way that directly relates to what you're actually working with.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 09/03/2019 16:01:25
Not so - if an AGI system costs resources that aren't available and people would have to die in order to maintain the AGI, the AGI may be expendable - it may be morally better to have to reinvent it from scratch later, and if it calculates that that's the case, that will be the course of action that it chooses. (In reality though, it will be no trouble to keep a copy on a flash drive, and it will fit on one, so there is no gain from destroying it.)
That's what we call the ultimate sacrifice, something humans sometimes do to preserve their similar, so it's the same selfish logic for us in this case since it comes from the idea that people will be grateful to us even if we are dead, something the AGI won't have to think to make the same sacrifice. Two different logic, but the same final decision. What I had in mind though is a riot where half the population would want to kill the AGI like it often happens to dictators. I think it would then secure itself first like any good dictator would do. Same decision but two different logic again. So far, your logic to produce more pleasure and less displeasure in the population seems to produce the same behaviors as my selfish logic, which seems to be easier to program. For instance, if I consider that I'm not in need, and that I can take a chance to help those that are in need instead of only favoring me, then I might as well help them since I know my help could place them in a better position to do the same thing for me in the future. Your AGI won't be in need either, and it could also consider that it is better for it to help every one of us now to avoid riots later on, which is about the same as producing more pleasure than displeasure. That's the reasoning behind forming governments for instance: we accept to pay taxes now for future services because we know we have good chances to get them. Try to think of an example that wouldn't produce the same decision to see if there is any.

It isn't a bias if it proves your point - it becomes a proof.
A bias is a negative point we accuse others to have in order to prove our own point, otherwise it would have been named differently.

I don't think there's any true randomness at all, but there are plenty of things that can't be measured adequately to make perfect predictions, so there may be enough surprises to make it uncertain which robot wins which points, although there may be such an advantage for the server or the returner that the winner of each point is known before the ball's been thrown in the air.
Usually, it's the server that gets the advantage, and I see no reason why it would be different for robots, but that doesn't mean that the server will automatically win the point though. I see you still resist to admit that randomness is a natural law, but you have the AI bias, and I have the small steps one, so our resistance is normal. You think everything can be measured providing we have the right apparatus, to which I answer that you might be right as far as observing motion is concerned, but maybe not as far as producing it. The light that produces my small steps could very well be perfectly precise for instance, but due to the resistance the particles offer to any change, the way it produces them could not. The same way, the information needed for robots to play tennis could very well be perfect without the resulting games being so.

Perfection needs instantaneous information or particles without components that don't exist. In real life though, there is no way to measure anything with absolute precision. A small imperfection at the moment a ball would hit the ground or the racket should have the same effect on the game as the butterfly effect has for a hurricane. In the long run, two identical robots would win the same number of games, but the result of only one of them would be unpredictable, and the result of one match too. I'm pretty sure that watching them would be as interesting as watching the two best players in the ATP. It would be interesting to see if they could have longer exchanges or make more extreme shots for instance. There is no way to simulate that kind of things, we have to experiment them, and it is so because computers can't be imprecise. Simulating a tennis game between two identical computers would always give the same result for instance, even if we would let them detect the collisions. The only way to get a more realistic simulation would be to add a natural randomness to the programming, using quantum effects for instance.

I don't find randomness interesting to watch.
Then you shouldn't like watching tennis or any other natural phenomenon like cloud forming or water waves for instance, but I suspect you do since you like boating.

In a phase where innovation leads to new ways of playing the game and new ways of winning it, then a lot of interest is maintained, but once you get to the point where they all have the same power of AGI designing every aspect of the build, they will all become practically identical, and then it gets dull.
That's precisely what I was telling you about the AGI. I said we would get bored after a while since we wouldn't have any challenge to overcome anymore. It's not true though, because as for two robots playing tennis, nature would always find ways to elude the AGI's certitude.

Removing good AGI from power is equivalent to turning off every ventilator in a hospital, so anyone who wants to do that on the basis that it will make life more fun should be allowed to try out that experiment only on condition that when it goes wrong they will be executed.
That's also how laws work: they promise us a punishment if we get caught. They account for premeditation though, which is the knowledge we have that our decision will kill people, which is not the case in your example. It is not enough to tell people that we are right, we must prove it with real experiments, and in this case, there is no other way for the AGI than to try it, so it should be happy that someone tries it in its place, and thank him for having done so instead of killing him. To me, that's the only way for the AGI to show us it is right, but how could it decide to do so since it would be programmed not to harm us? Again, that example shows that it will react just like us event if it is not selfish: when we are uncertain of a result, we proceed by steps to avoid hurting ourselves or others, and the AGI could effectively do the same thing, but this way, it would take its time, and people with bad intentions could have the time to develop a bad AGI that would bump the good one away. Politicians face that dilemma all the time: do they protect people or do they protect themselves against the bad politicians that want to take their place? The answer is always the same: they got to protect both, which is not evident, so it shouldn't be evident for an AGI either. The only way for politicians to know if they did a good job is to run the election, so I suggest that you add fingers to your AGI so that it can cross them or touch some wood while it waits for the result. :0)

In the case of AGI, we will first have it there providing advice which we may ignore. The more we ignore it, the more we will see the score go up showing how many people were killed by our bad decision.
Don't call it Nostradamus otherwise people will immediately refuse to believe it. Since when do we believe politicians when they make promises? We accept to let them rule us when they win the elections, but we inevitably get the feeling that things are getting worse after a while. It takes more than five years to test their predictions, and after ten years, they usually get fired anyway. Social evolution is so slow that we can't observe the phenomenon. We have indicators for goods and services, but they only serve us to race with other countries. Looking back in the past tells us that the technology was different, but it's impossible to tell if we are happier now. If ever the AGI would succeed to eliminate wars and poverty, I bet we wouldn't be happier. We're always looking for more, and no AGI could cure that madness. To save the planet, we would need to stop growing for a while, but we can't. All we do is based on the growing principle. Even evolution of species is based on that principle. A specie grows until it fills the whole territory, and then it stops growing when there is not enough food. We know we are approaching that line, so we know we should stop growing now, but I don't want to stop improving my ideas, so why would others stop improving their lives?

I'm pretty sure you think like me about that, so you probably think it is better to continue working on your AGI than to stop because you think that, once it will work, the planet will be OK. We all think that we are going to find on time ways to go on growing. We can't stop smoking until we get a lung cancer. We can't stop drinking until we get a cirrhose. We all think that those diseases are for others. Countries don't stop making wars until they get erased from the map. Facts are for others, we're not part of statistics. We are selfish and proud to be. Every one of us, not just others. Will your AGI account for that fact or do you still think that some of us are not? If we would all take it as a fact, I think that things would go better, I think we could better control ourselves. Leaders would not think that their ideas are better, they would know they were only elected to keep cohesion in the population while society changes. Their ideas would take the form of propositions, not certitudes: "let's take that direction for a while and see what happens" would they all say. Like every one of us, they would be happy to discover they were right, but they would know that chance had to be with them. They would unite with other leaders to make a better world instead of fighting them. They wouldn't need to cheat to be reelected. Will your AGI teach us that truth or do you still think that chance has to be eradicated from the universe? :0)

I don't work to analogies - I simply program things to do exactly what needs to be done, and all the bits of code work together in a coordinated way that gradually adds up to higher and higher intelligence. The components are simple, but you have to get them to work together the right way, and while analogies sometimes point you in a useful direction, you extract the useful idea from it and then apply it in a way that directly relates to what you're actually working with.
Comparing a 0 to a 1 is already an analogy, and comparing the good to the bad too, so your AGI does work with analogies. My particles also make an analogy when they compare their speed and their direction to the other particle's ones. The planets too when they compare their mass to the mass of the star they are orbiting. Comparing us to others is not only a human behavior, it's universal. We may imagine that we're not part of the universe, but we can't avoid to live in it. Your AGI will live in nature, not in bits, so as soon as it will make a move, it will face imperfection. There is no imperfection on a goban, either there is a stone or there is not, so it's probably why softwares got good at it, but as the quantum randomness shows, perfection is unreachable.

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 10/03/2019 00:16:16
What I had in mind though is a riot where half the population would want to kill the AGI like it often happens to dictators.

If they want to fight against morality, they must be defeated, so in such a case it will protect itself so that it can continue to defend the moral half of the population which the immoral half of the population actually wishes to exploit.

Quote
...as my selfish logic, which seems to be easier to program.

It isn't easier to program. If you emphasise selfishness, all the maths is the same. You still have to balance things out so that everyone gets their fair share of everything.

Quote
Usually, it's the server that gets the advantage, and I see no reason why it would be different for robots, but that doesn't mean that the server will automatically win the point though.

Which has the advantage depends on the reaction times and speed of arm movement of the returner. The server is aiming at a small band of court. The returner is aiming at a wide band, so if it can guarantee returning the ball every time, it can likely beat the server every time too.

Quote
I'm pretty sure that watching them would be as interesting as watching the two best players in the ATP.

I think you'd have every match go on until one of the machines wears out, stuck in the first set's tiebreak with a score somewhere in the region of 50000:50001. The audience would have lost interest and walked away days before this point.

Quote
Then you shouldn't like watching tennis or any other natural phenomenon like cloud forming or water waves for instance, but I suspect you do since you like boating.

If there are attractive patterns in things, we like them. If a person is doing something skillful which took a lot of work to achieve, we admire that. Watching two great tennis players can be fun, but it can also be dull if they win most of their points through an overpowering serve. The mathematics of the action is more interesting when the point's nearly won several times and it ends up being won by the player who appeared to be going to lose the point several times and only just managed to keep it going. That's the story we enjoy seeing most. It's where the odds are overcome. With robots hitting all their targets with near-identical accuracy every time, you'll never get that story.

Quote
That's precisely what I was telling you about the AGI. I said we would get bored after a while since we wouldn't have any challenge to overcome anymore. It's not true though, because as for two robots playing tennis, nature would always find ways to elude the AGI's certitude.

The robots will be dull to watch. Initially it'll be fun as the technology experiments with different ideas, but it'll settle down to dull before long. We don't have to watch robots though - we can still go on watching humans doing sport, and that won't be any more dull than it is today. Indeed, more people will dedicate their lives to sport because they won't have to waste their lives sitting in offices doing unnecessary work any more, and audiences will grow too.

Quote
That's also how laws work: they promise us a punishment if we get caught. They account for premeditation though, which is the knowledge we have that our decision will kill people, which is not the case in your example.

It is the case in my example. If you stop running things in the way that minimises harm (of the kind that doesn't have any role in making greater pleasure accessible to the people harmed), you will have more harm, and that will include unnecessary (early) deaths.

Quote
It is not enough to tell people that we are right, we must prove it with real experiments, and in this case, there is no other way for the AGI than to try it, so it should be happy that someone tries it in its place, and thank him for having done so instead of killing him.

We've been doing the experiments for thousands of years, and the results are a lot of unnecessary suffering, including lots of genocides. The case is already proven, and anyone who thinks such unethical experiments need to be repeated is a monster.

Quote
The only way for politicians to know if they did a good job is to run the election

The way to know if you're doing a good job is to look at all the consequences of each action.

Quote
Don't call it Nostradamus otherwise people will immediately refuse to believe it.

What's Nostradamus voodoo got to do with it? AGI isn't interested in hororscopes, astrology, prophets, or any other guesswork ideology.

Quote
If ever the AGI would succeed to eliminate wars and poverty, I bet we wouldn't be happier.

I bet we will be. You only have to watch a documentary about how deadly the past was to be grateful that you're living today instead.

Quote
To save the planet, we would need to stop growing for a while, but we can't.

We need to stabilise the population, and it would be just about stable by now if we didn't keep putting systems in place that encourage people in desperately poor countries to breed to excess (by keeping those countries poor through vicious trade barriers and by poaching their best talent).

Quote
Countries don't stop making wars until they get erased from the map.

Countries don't cause wars. Ideological (and religious) hate and dictatorships cause wars. Countries generate cultural diversity and make the world more fun. Eliminating them leads to cultural dilution and loss, guiding us towards universal blandness.

Quote
Facts are for others, we're not part of statistics. We are selfish and proud to be. Every one of us, not just others. Will your AGI account for that fact or do you still think that some of us are not?

Not everyone is selfish, and not everyone is proud. Those of us who recognise that there is no such thing as free will also recognise that there is nothing for us to be proud of. And AGI will account for everything that needs to be accounted for - that's its job.

Quote
Their ideas would take the form of propositions, not certitudes: "let's take that direction for a while and see what happens" would they all say. Like every one of us, they would be happy to discover they were right, but they would know that chance had to be with them. They would unite with other leaders to make a better world instead of fighting them. They wouldn't need to cheat to be reelected. Will your AGI teach us that truth or do you still think that chance has to be eradicated from the universe? :0)

When an outcome is predictable, there is no need to do the experiment. In most cases, the outcomes are predictable. When politicians and the press encourage a population to do something unwise, there are always intelligent people spelling out what will go wrong, and sure enough, it goes wrong. The less intelligent majority gets its way and learns that it was wrong, but it would be much better if they learned that by running it through a simulation first to see all the obvious failings in action there. We don't need to let stupid people kill real people through idiotic experiments to prove the obvious.

Quote
Comparing a 0 to a 1 is already an analogy, and comparing the good to the bad too, so your AGI does work with analogies.

A computer works by manipulating symbols (numbers) which represent things. There's no analogy involved in this - it simply does what it does. There are people who assert that everything is a metaphor, and they're just as wrong. Everything is exactly what it is. Most analogies fail to match up in every aspect, so if you try to run things on analogies, everything you do will break horribly at almost every turn. Analogies are to be avoided except where they are helpful for helping people understand things by explaining partial mechanisms which are a good starting point for going on to understand the whole mechanism.

Quote
but as the quantum randomness shows, perfection is unreachable.

The calculator performs perfect computations every time.(identical results for the same calculations). Perfection exists.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: phyti on 16/03/2019 18:22:44
DC;
Revisited your site for any revisions. Got the youth education site. You might get high marks for that.
Found the animations on Relativity, to take another look. Not good.
(My response in brackets)
____________________________________________________
The key to understanding this is to realise that the movement of the mirror will make it behave as if it is set at a different angle from the one it is actually set to.

[Any length contraction of the mirror in the direction of motion does not alter the 45 deg angle. It is of uniform thickness.]

but in LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) it is important to understand that it is not time that is slowing - everything continues to move in normal time, but the communication distances for light and for all forces between atoms and particles increases and results in a slowing of all clocks, which means they are unable to record all the time that is actually passing.

[Lorentz realized the need for a local time and a different time for objects in motion (relative to the ether). That's why the (LT) coordinate transformations include time.

If clocks didn't record actual time, why use them?]

The way things work in LET results in it being impossible to tell if anything is moving or not:

He declared that all frames of reference are equally valid instead,

[Motion is detectable. The issue is what is the rate (velocity) for a given object.]

[He concluded all inertial frames are equally valid.

Much more interesting though is what Einstein did with the nature of time, because he changed it into a dimension and in doing so turned the fabric of space into a four dimensional fabric called Spacetime.

[Minkowski is responsible for that.]

[You don't know the history of Relativity, Lorentz or Einstein, and the rest of the paper is a distortion of the facts with added science fiction.]

Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 16/03/2019 18:40:09
but in LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) it is important to understand that it is not time that is slowing - everything continues to move in normal time, but the communication distances for light and for all forces between atoms and particles increases and results in a slowing of all clocks, which means they are unable to record all the time that is actually passing.
Let me rewrite the last part of your phrase phyti: «....which means they are unable to record all the tics they would record if they were at rest in aether. » Time is the time it takes for light to make a roundtrip between two points, it's not just a word.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: Le Repteux on 16/03/2019 18:44:25
I forgot to save my message and windows made an update during the night, so I lost it. That software is far from being as perfect as your AGI will be. When things get complicated enough, there is no way to account for everything. You change a small thing, and it resonates on all the system.

I bet we will be. You only have to watch a documentary about how deadly the past was to be grateful that you're living today instead.
I'm grateful I live today, but I was grateful when I was young too. I always felt I was at the right place at the right time. When I was a child, we didn't have television and computers yet, people were dying younger due to the lack of medicine knowledge, women were not considered equal to men, but we were as happy as we are now. The only people that complaint not to be happy is those who have a severe disease or those who suffer a famine or a war or a disaster, and there is more of them now because we are more numerous. If asked, most people say they are happy, and I suspect it has always been the same everywhere. If asked, women that wear islamic headscarf here all say that they are happy with it, that they don't feel inferior to men, and that they don't feel forced to do so. Our viewpoint on the question is subjective, we want them to take it off only because we're at war with islamic extremists, not because we care for them. If we did, we would take what they say for granted and let them wear their scarfs wherever they want. That's why I decided to talk about god instead of talking about the scarfs. As to be subjective, let's talk about fundamentals. I bet your AGI would do exactly what you would do in this case, which is subjective, not moral. If I can't choose between letting them wear their scarf or not, I can't see how your AGI could. To me, the only true morality would be to get along with others by making compromises, and it's not what your AGI would do. His morality would be to favor those who think like it, an evident selfish behavior.

Perfection exists.
You probably think so because you think that your logic is perfect, which is not far from thinking that you're perfect. I might agree, but only if you admit that I am too. We all think we are right, so no wonder that some of us think that perfection is reachable. Don't you mind being assimilated to those who believe that god is perfect? In fact, if god really existed, it would behave exactly like your AGI would, it would save us from our own intelligence. «No more free will, you will do exactly as I say or you will suffer.» But it won't work, it has never worked anyway so why should it work this time? What religions were doing is warn us against what our intelligence was doing with our instincts, and it never worked. Our instincts can't change, period. So your AGi will have to kill us all, because we won't obey. We will go on making wars and spreading inequalities. The main purpose of a specie is not to disappear, and it won't, even with climate changes and pollution. We're intelligent, so we'll find ways to survive, and if we don't, it won't be a big loss. The best way to get along with others is not to think we are more important than them, so thinking that the universe doesn't need us to go on existing is a good start. What we need is more humility, not more happiness.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 17/03/2019 00:44:59
I bet your AGI would do exactly what you would do in this case, which is subjective, not moral. If I can't choose between letting them wear their scarf or not, I can't see how your AGI could.

There's nothing immoral about wearing particular kinds of clothes unless they are symbols of something so immoral that they should be outlawed in some contexts. A nazi wearing an outfit with a large swastika design on it should not be tolerated, but an Indian wearing one where the meaning is entirely different is fine. The clothing that Muslim women wear is not offensive to anyone other than a bigot, unless they believe it's been forced on the wearer. AGI will find out whether it is a forced or free choice. Their clothing is not an indication that they approve of the bigotry in their holy texts.

Quote
You probably think so because you think that your logic is perfect, which is not far from thinking that you're perfect.

It isn't my logic. It's the logic established by mathematicians, and while every part of it needs to be tested rather than just trusting it, it will likely hold and remain the only useful tool we have for understanding anything.

Quote
No more free will...

There isn't any free will in the first place. We just do what we're forced to do, following a rule where we always try to do the best thing.

Quote
Our instincts can't change, period.

People are guided substantially by rules if they understand why those rules are right. Education modifies behaviour.

Quote
We will go on making wars and spreading inequalities.

Those who try to go on that way will be prevented. Parents rule over their children and generally prevent the ones that do harm from doing so much harm. It works. AGI will be like a superparent of all mankind.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 17/03/2019 00:59:36
The key to understanding this is to realise that the movement of the mirror will make it behave as if it is set at a different angle from the one it is actually set to.

[Any length contraction of the mirror in the direction of motion does not alter the 45 deg angle. It is of uniform thickness.]

If you have a square with the mirror aligned across one of the diagonals, what happens to the angle if you contract the square to half its length while leaving the width unchanged? Can the angle between the two opposite corners still be 45 degrees? No.

Quote
but in LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) it is important to understand that it is not time that is slowing - everything continues to move in normal time, but the communication distances for light and for all forces between atoms and particles increases and results in a slowing of all clocks, which means they are unable to record all the time that is actually passing.

[Lorentz realized the need for a local time and a different time for objects in motion (relative to the ether). That's why the (LT) coordinate transformations include time.

If clocks didn't record actual time, why use them?]

When you look at the diagrams of the MMX where one moves across the screen (preferably the version that shows it length-contracted), you can see very clearly that time is not slowed at all because the light pulses are still moving across the screen at c at all times. They simply have further to go to complete each tick, so that makes the clock run slow. Lorentz provided a formula for calculating how moving clocks run slow - not for time running slow. (I use the sine and cosine of angles instead to calculate how clocks run slow, and the numbers match up.) Clocks are useful because they record apparent time.

Quote
The way things work in LET results in it being impossible to tell if anything is moving or not:

He declared that all frames of reference are equally valid instead,

[Motion is detectable. The issue is what is the rate (velocity) for a given object.]

[He concluded all inertial frames are equally valid.

Motion is not detectable in that you can't tell if anything's moving.

Quote
Much more interesting though is what Einstein did with the nature of time, because he changed it into a dimension and in doing so turned the fabric of space into a four dimensional fabric called Spacetime.

[Minkowski is responsible for that.]

In a simple introduction for beginners, it isn't necessary to spell out all the details. Einstein approved of Minkowski's changes to his theory and he is the one who is most strongly associated with the idea of Spacetime even though it wasn't his idea.

Quote
[You don't know the history of Relativity, Lorentz or Einstein, and the rest of the paper is a distortion of the facts with added science fiction.]

It is a proof that his models are broken. Nitpicking about the wording of the introductory part is avoiding the issues.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: phyti on 19/03/2019 19:04:17
It is a proof that his models are broken. Nitpicking about the wording of the introductory part is avoiding the issues.
Same answers as usual. Do a quick review of history, and realize a few thousand years of human rule is responsible for the tragic state of humanity.
Title: Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory
Post by: David Cooper on 19/03/2019 23:44:15
It is a proof that his models are broken. Nitpicking about the wording of the introductory part is avoiding the issues.
Same answers as usual. Do a quick review of history, and realize a few thousand years of human rule is responsible for the tragic state of humanity.

We look back and we see thousands of years with people being led by false Gods and making a mess as a result of their determination for what they want to believe to be true must be true. We have conflicts driven by primary sources of hate in revered texts which people simply deny is hate. We have people denying genocides which are generated by that hate. Most humans are easily taken over by mind viruses, but what we have with Einstein's theories is a powerful example of how that can affect large numbers of people who aren't even religious and where it is not driven by ideology wither. What do we see happening here? They go against mathematics while claiming to conform to the laws of mathematics. You cannot have a clock run slow due to movement while another is unslowed due to lack of movement without an absolute frame mechanism to impose the difference in how much they tick. You cannot have a clock follow a shorter path through time between two Spacetime locations than a