[David Cooper]

Too bad you cant see the mechanism, but it's very simple: we walk like this when we walk sideways without crossing the legs, one foot approaching the other and stopping on the ground before it reaches it, the other foot getting away from the other and stopping on the ground too when it's long enough.

That may well be how things really move if there's a minimum distance which can't be further subdivided. It would mean that everything moves in tiny jumps which would always occur at the same speed (possibly instantaneous), while what we normally think of as speed would then be how long things stay in one place between moves rather than how quickly they make the jumps.

What I figured is that if we would force such a system of particles to move, it would introduce doppler effect between the particles that would stay there as long as they would exchange light: blueshift from the approaching particle that would push the other away after a while, and redshift from the leaving one that would pull the other closer after a while. The steps between sources of light would then be the cause for motion, but there would also be resistance to acceleration, thus mass, since the first step caused by an external event would immediately produce doppler effect on the incoming light and would thus have to be introduced by force.

What do you mean by light? Are you perhaps thinking more in terms of force-carriers rather than light? If not, wouldn't your particles be giving out light all the time in all directions and losing most of it, thereby depleting themselves as they effectively decay into nothing more than radiation in a very short time?

With aether, when such a particle would stop between two steps, it would be at rest in aether, and without doppler effect to tell it how to move, it would stay there: no light exchanged between particles, no motion between bodies, and of course, no mass.

If there is a minimum separation distance in the space fabric and particles move in jumps between positions, they would need to be alternating between moving in jumps and being at rest, so that bit makes sense. There is also no movement energy in a stationary object, and hence no "light". If movement energy is the "light", then there would need to be more of it present the faster the object moves.

It worked as long as I only considered doppler effect and aberration, but lately, I discovered that the step from the approaching particle couldn't have the same length than the one from the particle that was getting away since it should take less time for light to travel towards the closer particle than the inverse. I didn't get into the steps very deeply yet since this would need an interactive simulation that I'm unfortunately unable to make at the moment, but our discussion opened a new way for me to study the problem, and you can probably help because you're already used to play with that concept.

The difference in the times taken shouldn't matter - your "light" can't be spreading out as it would be lost if it didn't hit the other particle every time, so it must get there sooner or later regardless. The thing that's bothering me most though is how the energy would be transferred between the two particles, because if the rear particle stops when it sends "light" forwards, the "light" can hit the front particle to set it moving, but then when the "light" leaves the front particle to go back to the rear one it will speed up the front particle when it sets out and will then accelerate the rear particle in the opposite direction when it gets there unless you have some way of giving the returning "light" negative energy. If such "light" with negative energy exists, then you could attract things towards you by shining it at them (which is quite different from normal light which would always push them away).

Let's imagine two particles one behind the other executing time shifted steps to the right, and let's assume that the steps from the left particle stop halfway from the second one before its light reaches that second one, which means that, from the viewpoint of that left particle, the right one is actually looking at rest at the distance it was when it emitted its light, and which also means that the mean speed of that left particle is half the speed of light. Notice though that the molecule as a whole has not traveled yet since only half of its particles have, so to complete the motion, the right particle has to make the same step the left one made. Once it would have, the molecule would have traveled one step while the light would have traveled back and forth between the particles, so that molecule would have only traveled at a c/4 while its atoms have to traveled at c/2, and this is without considering that a step is always going a lot faster at the middle of its course than at the ends. Notice that, if the frequency of the steps has to stay constant, and i think it has, then their length has to increase during an acceleration, which means that their middle speed could get to c way before their molecule would, what explains with a real mechanism at the micro scale the reason why the resistance to acceleration has to increase when speed gets close to c at our macro scale.

I'm getting a hint of an idea as to what you're hoping to achieve with this, but it seems to me that the frequency of the steps would need to increase for the object to move faster, because without that happening, it looks as if the maximum speed of the object would be limited to half c.

You may have noticed that the left particle gets closer to the right one at the end of its step while it is the inverse for the left one, which means that it would take half the time for the light from the beginning of a step of the right one to reach the left one, than for the beginning of the step from the left one to reach the right one, and it would be so even if  the steps would be infinitely small. You say that doppler effect accounts for the uneven distance traveled by light in your moving room experiment, so can you try to apply that principle to my steps please?

Not the Doppler effect, but the headlights effect, but neither are terribly relevant because your "light" can't be allowed to miss the target, so you actually need a mechanism to ensure that it always goes to the right place and to ensure that force is then applied in the right direction.

In other words, can you replace your two walls by my two particles, and your central bulb by considering the particles as sources of light. I tried but I still can't figure out how light could take the same time both ways, and I cant either compute what would happen after a while if we nevertheless ran a simulation with such a system: maybe it would self adjust after all, who knows?

You don't have a bulb half way in between the particles radiating off energy, and your particles can't afford to miss any of the "light" either or energy would be lost from moving object all the time until it stops moving. I think you need to explore how much energy needs to be transferred, which direction it's being transferred in and which way it will move the thing that receives it. After that, you can try to work out how that energy is transferred, but I can't see it being done with anything that deserves to be described as light.

[David Cooper]

]With photons, the intensity depends on the number of photons per square cm, so if the left wall hits the light sooner than the right one, there will automatically be more photons per square cm on that left wall.

No, all that happens is that the frequency changes such that each photon is more energetic. If you run into them fast enough they can become X-rays or gamma rays (although in the case of the room moving at ridiculously high speed, they would be released backward from the bulb as radio waves and then received by the wall as light).

I guess that the bow wave will be higher than the stern one while their frequency will be the same.

I'm not sure what would happen to the frequency as the wave height difference results in different speeds for the waves, but with light the speeds are always c and the frequency has to adjust instead. More of the energy is sent forwards than backwards too, but the same amount is sent out in opposite directions relative to the moving thing that introduced all the new energy there.

OK! I understand that the approaching wall would receive more photons per square cm, but that each of them would be less intense since they come from the stern part of the source. Is that what you meant?

The approaching wall receives the same amount of photons as if the room was stationary, and the same amount of photons as the front wall - they merely travel with lower energy by having a longer wavelength and lower frequency.

If so, I think we should be able to apply it to the steps, but I still have a problem to imagine how. A less intense photon should induce a less intense step, but I can't figure out what a less intense step would mean since all the steps have to travel the same distance. Maybe we should differentiate between the beginning and the end of the steps: maybe a step could be faster at the beginning and slower at the end, or slower at the beginning and faster at the end. I can't imagine further away than that for now though, I have to let it sink a bit.

Your first problem there is getting your "light" to transfer negative energy.

[David Cooper]

Quite clearly you are disheartened to find out objects do not physically contract, like many before you who I have ''beaten'' down, there becomes a loss for answers just like you have failed to give me in this thread to the objective reality I have provided.

You have comprehensively lost the argument over and over again, but you are just like the pigeon - you don't understand all the stuff that goes right over your head, so you continue to strut about and coo. I very much doubt you've ever beaten anyone down in your life - they simply get bored with you when they realise you can't learn and they stop talking to you. The only reason I've put up with you longer than any of the others is that one of my main areas of study is moronics - I'm interested in how AGI is going to communicate with people who think like pigeons and the degree to which it may be able to help them make progress in improving their ability to think rationally.

Then is desperation like others before you, resolve to the block or ignore solution rather than trying to understand the adversary.

There comes a point beyond which there is nothing left to learn about a pigeon.

If you remember earlier discussion, I said the entire object contracts, this is something also you have avoided discussing.

No I don't remember that - all I can remember is you denying that there is any contraction.

It is not me being awkward or wrong, it is you being ignorant and arrogant.

All the evidence to the contrary is written through the previous four pages of this thread for all to see.

[guest39538]

Quite clearly you are disheartened to find out objects do not physically contract, like many before you who I have ''beaten'' down, there becomes a loss for answers just like you have failed to give me in this thread to the objective reality I have provided.

You have comprehensively lost the argument over and over again, but you are just like the pigeon - you don't understand all the stuff that goes right over your head, so you continue to strut about and coo. I very much doubt you've ever beaten anyone down in your life - they simply get bored with you when they realise you can't learn and they stop talking to you. The only reason I've put up with you longer than any of the others is that one of my main areas of study is moronics - I'm interested in how AGI is going to communicate with people who think like pigeons and the degree to which it may be able to help them make progress in improving their ability to think rationally.

Then is desperation like others before you, resolve to the block or ignore solution rather than trying to understand the adversary.

There comes a point beyond which there is nothing left to learn about a pigeon.

If you remember earlier discussion, I said the entire object contracts, this is something also you have avoided discussing.

No I don't remember that - all I can remember is you denying that there is any contraction.

It is not me being awkward or wrong, it is you being ignorant and arrogant.

All the evidence to the contrary is written through the previous four pages of this thread for all to see.

What I find funny is the posts you have resorted to in your loss.   You have failed to answer any of my queries and can not ''see'' anything other than your subjective dogma you were educated with.
You are quite wrong and ''we'' all know you are wrong. I have countless times  proven you wrong in this thread.

I wish you good day David because I am wasting my time talking to somebody who can not understand objective reality. I would rather have no replies than waste my time with somebody as arrogant and ignorant as you.

[Le Repteux]

What do you mean by light? Are you perhaps thinking more in terms of force-carriers rather than light? If not, wouldn't your particles be giving out light all the time in all directions and losing most of it, thereby depleting themselves as they effectively decay into nothing more than radiation in a very short time?

I take light as an information carrier that helps bonded sources of light to stay synchronized. In my example with two sources aligned with the direction of motion, they use doppler effect to stay synchronized, but if they would rotate around one another or if they would not be aligned with the motion, they would also have to use aberration.

The thing that's bothering me most though is how the energy would be transferred between the two particles, because if the rear particle stops when it sends "light" forwards, the "light" can hit the front particle to set it moving, but then when the "light" leaves the front particle to go back to the rear one it will speed up the front particle when it sets out and will then accelerate the rear particle in the opposite direction when it gets there unless you have some way of giving the returning "light" negative energy. If such "light" with negative energy exists, then you could attract things towards you by shining it at them (which is quite different from normal light which would always push them away).

The energy comes from doppler effect: for two bonded particles, the bonding energy observed by the particles has to stay constant, so if we force one of them to move while it takes time for that information to reach the other one, it produces blueshift on the bonding energy emitted towards the other particle, which moves away from it to keep its own observed bonding energy constant, which produces redshift on the bonding energy emitted backwards to the other particle, which moves towards it after a while to keep its own observed bonding energy constant, ...and so on as long as they stay bonded. As you can see, there is no need for negative bonding energy to pull on the rear particle, just redshift.

With aether, when such a particle would stop between two steps, it would be at rest in aether, and without doppler effect to tell it how to move, it would stay there: no light exchanged between particles, no motion between bodies, and of course, no mass....

If there is a minimum separation distance in the space fabric and particles move in jumps between positions, they would need to be alternating between moving in jumps and being at rest, so that bit makes sense. There is also no movement energy in a stationary object, and hence no "light". If movement energy is the "light", then there would need to be more of it present the faster the object moves.

The faster the object moves, the more doppler effect gets important between the atoms' steps, and the longer the steps get. A short and fast acceleration would produce the same final doppler effect as a long and slower one for instance, so that at the end, the steps would have the same length. More speed at our scale also means more doppler effect and more distance traveled in the same time, whatever the time it took for that acceleration to produce that speed.

I'm getting a hint of an idea as to what you're hoping to achieve with this, but it seems to me that the frequency of the steps would need to increase for the object to move faster, because without that happening, it looks as if the maximum speed of the object would be limited to half c.

Sorry, I made a mistake, light doesn't have to travel both ways for two steps to be executed since it is emitted during the time a step is executed. Let's imagine that a step emits one photon that starts to be emitted at the beginning of the step and stops being emitted at the end of the same step: one step, one photon. Once a step half the length of the photon, thus half the distance between the particles, would be completed, the photon would be contracted to half its length by doppler effect, which means that, at that moment, it would stand exactly between the two particle, so it would only have to travel half the distance between the particles to produce the step from the other particle if that particle didn't move away during that time, but since the particle starts to move away with the front part of the photon, the rear part of the photon will have to travel twice the length of the step to complete it, so the whole photon will only have traveled during two steps at the end of the process, but since it is contracted during the motion of the first step, and stretched back during the motion of the second step, I think it will finally have traveled at c and the molecule at half c, which is what we should expect since we can draw the steps on the paper one by one and imagine the information taking time between them. Not easy to imagine though, it would be easier to figure out with a simulation.

P.S. I tried to imagine the atoms of the MM interferometer moving by time shifted steps, and I realized that if the steps were half the length of the photon, the distance between the atoms should contract in the same proportion for light to travel the same distance between them than between the mirrors. Coincidence?

You may have noticed that the left particle gets closer to the right one at the end of its step while it is the inverse for the left one, which means that it would take half the time for the light from the beginning of a step of the right one to reach the left one, than for the beginning of the step from the left one to reach the right one, and it would be so even if  the steps would be infinitely small. You say that doppler effect accounts for the uneven distance traveled by light in your moving room experiment, so can you try to apply that principle to my steps please?

Not the Doppler effect, but the headlights effect, but neither are terribly relevant because your "light" can't be allowed to miss the target, so you actually need a mechanism to ensure that it always goes to the right place and to ensure that force is then applied in the right direction.

When we look at a star, we see a point, and if that point was moving towards us, the doppler effect would be more important for us that for another observer not inline with the motion. If we had to move away to stay on sync with the light, we would have to move away faster than the other observer. If the other observer had to move away, he would have to move sideways to the motion of the star and slower than the star, thus the star would overtake him after a while and once it would be getting away from him, he would have to circle the star to stay on sync with its light. That's what should happen between two atoms trying to stay on sync, except that aberration would help them orbit around one another if the acceleration of the first atom would not be made directly towards the second one.

Now for the loss of light during the process if that light is emitted in all directions at a time, we have to consider that it would form a standing wave, and that it would only be perceived by an observer standing on the constructive interference fringes of that standing wave. There would almost be no light to observe if we were in line with the two atoms for instance, and for two atoms half a wave away from one another, there would only be one constructive fringe, and it would leave the system at 90 degree to the motion, so if we would put four atoms from four other similar molecules at the same half wave away on the four sides of the central molecule, they would absorb most of the light by interference and stay bonded with that central molecule by the same standing wave process. The steps would also produce a particular effect on the fringes since the approaching one produces blueshift on its emitted light and the leaving one redshift, but I didn't get that far in my analysis yet. Maybe it would only coincide with the steps from the atoms of the other molecule since both molecules have to move on sync if they are side by side, so this way, the steps inside a molecule would not be executed at the same time, and the steps executed by paired atoms from two molecules traveling side by side, or by two atoms traveling one behind the other, would. It seems to work on paper, but if it would ever work like that for real, it would be fascinating. What still makes me think it could is that the steps explain mass and motion of all the sources of light in a very straightforward way, whereas the Higgs only explains the mass of other particles without even explaining its own one.

You don't have a bulb half way in between the particles radiating off energy, and your particles can't afford to miss any of the "light" either or energy would be lost from moving object all the time until it stops moving. I think you need to explore how much energy needs to be transferred, which direction it's being transferred in and which way it will move the thing that receives it. After that, you can try to work out how that energy is transferred, but I can't see it being done with anything that deserves to be described as light.

Bonded atoms do not emit light either, and they should since that bond is considered to be due to moving electrons. We also consider that electrons do not radiate when they stay on the same orbital, but there is no mechanical explanation for the phenomenon either. At least with the steps, we have a mechanical phenomenon to help us analyze the problem of motion at the atom's scale.

[David Cooper]

What I find funny is the posts you have resorted to in your loss.

What loss? You throw figures at me that aren't mine and tell me they're wrong - yes, they're wrong because they're your figures and not mine.

You have failed to answer any of my queries and can not ''see'' anything other than your subjective dogma you were educated with.

I worked it out for myself and only then read up on it. You may have attempted to do the same, but you got your maths wrong and became emotionally attached to your incorrect beliefs, and no amount of reasoning or taking you through the numbers can shift you from your wrong position because you are mentally incapable of accepting that you're wrong - as soon as you realise that you've been pinned down on some point where you're wrong, you backtrack to get out of there and turn back into a troll.

You are quite wrong and ''we'' all know you are wrong.

Who are this "we"? Everyone who's reading this thread other than you is fully aware that you are the least gifted person on this forum.

I have countless times  proven you wrong in this thread.

Countless in the sense that you mean zero times. Point to your best example if you think otherwise.

I wish you good day David because I am wasting my time talking to somebody who can not understand objective reality.

...says someone who can't accept the result of MMX and denies the science. You want the universe to conform to your broken model, and when it fails to do so, you tell everyone who has a model that fits the real universe that they are playing parlour tricks.

I would rather have no replies than waste my time with somebody as arrogant and ignorant as you.

I have put a lot of time into trying to help you, but it is a thankless task. Fortunately though you've given me everything I wanted from the conversation and that is good information both about how your mind works and about how it doesn't - you're not stupid, but you simply refuse to let your mind work properly because your existing beliefs are too important to you to accept the possibility that they're wrong, and that overrides reason every single time, exactly as happens with religious people. The same fault is also involved in political beliefs where many people are incapable of shifting position no matter how much they are shown to be wrong. There is evidence elsewhere on this forum of me being wrong about things, then recognising that and changing position instead of digging in to defend a wrong position, and it didn't take pages of posts to bring about that change. There is evidence of someone else in this thread quickly changing position on something when he realised he was wrong about something. There is no such evidence of you doing that because you can't accept that you're wrong when you're shown to be wrong. You accuse me of arrogance, but I have backed up everything I've said here by showing you numbers that fit the facts and back my claims. You have failed to do likewise, but throw broken numbers about instead, and you accuse me of producing broken numbers which have nothing to do with me but are merely numbers that you have plucked out of the air. You're slapdash and shoddy, and you tell lies about what happened here. It would be a shocking display if it didn't already fit in with everyone's expectations of you. And as for ignorance, the word is not better suited to anyone than you, because you don't just not know things, but you actively specialise in ignoring the facts. In this thread you have put on a shameful display, but it is only one of hundreds of such displays which you have defecated across this and other forums. From your point of view though you're right about wasting your time talking to me, because you have gained nothing from this at all, just as you gain nothing from talking to anyone else here. You will never gain anything here because you are fixed in your beliefs and no amount of reasoning or showing you that your maths is wrong will ever change that. You are just an empty vessel that makes a lot of noise.

[guest39538]

What I find funny is the posts you have resorted to in your loss.

What loss? You throw figures at me that aren't mine and tell me they're wrong - yes, they're wrong because they're your figures and not mine.

You have failed to answer any of my queries and can not ''see'' anything other than your subjective dogma you were educated with.

I worked it out for myself and only then read up on it. You may have attempted to do the same, but you got your maths wrong and became emotionally attached to your incorrect beliefs, and no amount of reasoning or taking you through the numbers can shift you from your wrong position because you are mentally incapable of accepting that you're wrong - as soon as you realise that you've been pinned down on some point where you're wrong, you backtrack to get out of there and turn back into a troll.

You are quite wrong and ''we'' all know you are wrong.

Who are this "we"? Everyone who's reading this thread other than you is fully aware that you are the least gifted person on this forum.

I have countless times  proven you wrong in this thread.

Countless in the sense that you mean zero times. Point to your best example if you think otherwise.

I wish you good day David because I am wasting my time talking to somebody who can not understand objective reality.

...says someone who can't accept the result of MMX and denies the science. You want the universe to conform to your broken model, and when it fails to do so, you tell everyone who has a model that fits the real universe that they are playing parlour tricks.

I would rather have no replies than waste my time with somebody as arrogant and ignorant as you.

I have put a lot of time into trying to help you, but it is a thankless task. Fortunately though you've given me everything I wanted from the conversation and that is good information both about how your mind works and about how it doesn't - you're not stupid, but you simply refuse to let your mind work properly because your existing beliefs are too important to you to accept the possibility that they're wrong, and that overrides reason every single time, exactly as happens with religious people. The same fault is also involved in political beliefs where many people are incapable of shifting position no matter how much they are shown to be wrong. There is evidence elsewhere on this forum of me being wrong about things, then recognising that and changing position instead of digging in to defend a wrong position, and it didn't take pages of posts to bring about that change. There is evidence of someone else in this thread quickly changing position on something when he realised he was wrong about something. There is no such evidence of you doing that because you can't accept that you're wrong when you're shown to be wrong. You accuse me of arrogance, but I have backed up everything I've said here by showing you numbers that fit the facts and back my claims. You have failed to do likewise, but throw broken numbers about instead, and you accuse me of producing broken numbers which have nothing to do with me but are merely numbers that you have plucked out of the air. You're slapdash and shoddy, and you tell lies about what happened here. It would be a shocking display if it didn't already fit in with everyone's expectations of you. And as for ignorance, the word is not better suited to anyone than you, because you don't just not know things, but you actively specialise in ignoring the facts. In this thread you have put on a shameful display, but it is only one of hundreds of such displays which you have defecated across this and other forums. From your point of view though you're right about wasting your time talking to me, because you have gained nothing from this at all, just as you gain nothing from talking to anyone else here. You will never gain anything here because you are fixed in your beliefs and no amount of reasoning or showing you that your maths is wrong will ever change that. You are just an empty vessel that makes a lot of noise.

What is interesting is that I do not have beliefs , I only have reality.

Point to your best example if you think otherwise.

I will point to my best example with a question,

The light clock that is at rest and the light clock in motion have equal dimensions in length, let us for simplicity say that the length is l=149896229m
Can you answer how far has the light travelled in 0.5s in the  clock at rest and how far the light has travelled in the clock in motion in 0.5s?

Added - by your own answer to  which I already know, you are agreeing there is no length contraction or time dilation or synchronisation offset.   If you are as clever as you presume, then you should ''see'' why you are wrong and why the constant speed of light shows you are wrong.

[GoC (OP)]

David,

   Sorry to beat an old horse but to half the speed of light direction with vector velocity and perpendicular to vector velocity tick at the same rate without physical contraction. Follow my thought process and graph it in your mind. Or if you cannot try using graphing paper. Start at a point on the graphing paper and count out 10 squares up and across. Now from the beginning point draw a line 60 degrees forward than 60 degrees back down. Repeat the process again. Now the 60 degrees is what the perpendicular follow. up and down see where it lands. Now go two lengths of the mirror forward and then back 2/3rds of a mirrors length. There was a third of the length the clock mirror in the back moved without the horizontal photon. The 60 degree angles hit directly in the center of that 1/3 not traveled by the horizontal photon. Work it out on a graph paper. You will see the equal distances the photons take. This creates = tick rates in either direction. No physical contraction only visual. After half the speed of light not sure yet and I have not worked it out. Could be after half the speed of light direction of motion could matter with a light clock.

There is an important issue here that perpendicular maintains continuity with space while vector velocity does not in the direction of motion.

[Le Repteux]

David, here is a drawing of mine that I usually used to show what I considered to be an SR contradiction.
hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=848798aberrationtrain3.png

Try to be patient this time, I'm still not allowed to put links, but maybe the description will be sufficient:

A star and an observer at X are both moving to the left in aether at the same speed and in the same direction. The star emits a photon at observer X while he is inline with the earth which at rest in aether further away. Using your laser principle, the photon should follow the red trajectory on the left to hit observer X while the laser would be pointing at its former position, and to hit the earth, we would need another laser pointing behind the earth and where the photon would travel directly to the earth. I would have saved ten years if the scientific forums that I frequented on the net had used that laser principle to explain the way light moves in a light clock! It works if it travels in aether, but it also works if it travels in SR's specific space, so why did Einstein reject the aether then? Only because he needed his space/time concept for gravitation?

[Le Repteux]

I have a question about your simulation David. What if you ran the software with photons traveling like massive particles? They would spend the same time in both arms this way, and without the need for time dilation and length contraction. They would not be traveling at the same speed with regard to aether, but they would with regard to the mirrors, which respects the postulate about the speed of light, and the inertial frame principle. It wouldn't mean that the photons would have a rest mass though, only sufficient mass to add the motion of bodies to their own motion. They would still suffer doppler effect and aberration, but they wouldn't need curved space to be attracted by the sun. I think only one experiment wouldn't give the right data, and it is the Sagnac one, but I think it doesn't fit with SR either.

[David Cooper]

Point to your best example if you think otherwise.

I will point to my best example with a question,

That is not pointing to an example.

The light clock that is at rest and the light clock in motion have equal dimensions in length, let us for simplicity say that the length is l=149896229m
Can you answer how far has the light travelled in 0.5s in the  clock at rest and how far the light has travelled in the clock in motion in 0.5s?

You haven't given me a speed for the moving one to travel at. If I assume you want to use to the 0.5c figure that we used before, then light travels the full length of the stationary clock in half a second. You also haven't told me which end of the light clock the light's setting out from and which direction the light clock's moving in, but either way, it's not going to be at either end of it at the end of half a second, so you're neither on a tick nor even a half tick, so what use are you hoping to make of the numbers you'd get from this?

Added - by your own answer to  which I already know, you are agreeing there is no length contraction or time dilation or synchronisation offset.

If I was to do calculations based on the length not contracting, there would automatically be no contraction involved, but the result would not match up to the real universe. You appear to be claiming that I'd agree that the clocks would not go out of sync though, and that's a misrepresentation of my position.

If you are as clever as you presume, then you should ''see'' why you are wrong and why the constant speed of light shows you are wrong.

You're the one who's making the errors, and you keep misrepresenting my position in order to claim that I'm wrong. We went through the maths of this and you appeared to agree with the 2 2/3 figure for the un-contracted length clock aligned with its direction of travel - all the numbers in square brackets were filled in with your values and they were fully compatible with mine. That 2 2/3 figure was the cycle time in seconds for that light clock moving at 0.5c and was compared with a stationary light clock on which each cycle took 2 seconds. That 2 2/3 figure is incompatible with the real universe because real light clocks contract when they are moving in the direction in which they're aligned (and at other angles too - all except for perpendicular). You are arguing against the null results from MMX and in doing so you are objecting to the way nature works and demanding that it change its ways.

[guest39538]

Point to your best example if you think otherwise.

I will point to my best example with a question,

That is not pointing to an example.

The light clock that is at rest and the light clock in motion have equal dimensions in length, let us for simplicity say that the length is l=149896229m
Can you answer how far has the light travelled in 0.5s in the  clock at rest and how far the light has travelled in the clock in motion in 0.5s?

You haven't given me a speed for the moving one to travel at. If I assume you want to use to the 0.5c figure that we used before, then light travels the full length of the stationary clock in half a second. You also haven't told me which end of the light clock the light's setting out from and which direction the light clock's moving in, but either way, it's not going to be at either end of it at the end of half a second, so you're neither on a tick nor even a half tick, so what use are you hoping to make of the numbers you'd get from this?

The speed nor direction really matters, but in the aim to get you to understand I will add  a speed and we will use 0.5c, I will also add a vector which is .  From the rear to the front of the carriage.

I am not disagreeing your clocks would not tick at different rates because your scenario is designed to show that and that is what would happen.
However you are quite clearly misinterpreting the information in which I do not blame you for, your education learnt you this to be so.

We went through the maths of this and you appeared to agree with the 2 2/3 figure for the un-contracted length clock aligned with its direction of travel - all the numbers in square brackets were filled in with your values and they were fully compatible with mine

Yes they were the correct results, however you still do not recognise there is no contraction,

Tell me if you think the below is wrong.

The clock at relative rest measures 1 tick which is equal to 1 second

The clock in motion as not yet registered a tick.

However the light travelling in either clock as travelled an equal distance because the speed is constant of the light.

All you are saying to me is that light takes longer to travel a longer distance than a shorter distance.  There is nothing else you have said in all that you said.  That is all it means so why do you think it means something else? t

[David Cooper]

The energy comes from doppler effect: for two bonded particles, the bonding energy observed by the particles has to stay constant, so if we force one of them to move while it takes time for that information to reach the other one, it produces blueshift on the bonding energy emitted towards the other particle, which moves away from it to keep its own observed bonding energy constant, which produces redshift on the bonding energy emitted backwards to the other particle, which moves towards it after a while to keep its own observed bonding energy constant, ...and so on as long as they stay bonded. As you can see, there is no need for negative bonding energy to pull on the rear particle, just redshift.

This sounds like redshift and blueshift on your bonding energy rather than on light, so why do you need the light at all? If light's being transferred, it's going to push whatever receives it, and if it's redshifted it will merely push less strongly, but it would still be a push. Would it not be better just to think in terms of force carriers? Most importantly though, how is the energy being transferred, or where is it coming from and going to if it isn't being exchanged between the two particles?

...Not easy to imagine though, it would be easier to figure out with a simulation.

I tried to run your description through my head several times, both yesterday and today, and just couldn't do it. You need a series of diagrams and a description of each giving a cause-and-effect explanation of where the energy's going.

When we look at a star, we see a point, and if that point was moving towards us, the doppler effect would be more important for us that for another observer not inline with the motion. If we had to move away to stay on sync with the light, we would have to move away faster than the other observer. If the other observer had to move away, he would have to move sideways to the motion of the star and slower than the star, thus the star would overtake him after a while and once it would be getting away from him, he would have to circle the star to stay on sync with its light.

You don't have a star with your particles though - they can't be putting out light continually with most of it disappearing off into space and taking away energy with it.

Now for the loss of light during the process if that light is emitted in all directions at a time, we have to consider that it would form a standing wave, and that it would only be perceived by an observer standing on the constructive interference fringes of that standing wave.

Is it possible to set up a standing wave all round a particle or pair of particles using light without energy leaking away?

There would almost be no light to observe if we were in line with the two atoms for instance, and for two atoms half a wave away from one another, there would only be one constructive fringe, and it would leave the system at 90 degree to the motion, so if we would put four atoms from four other similar molecules at the same half wave away on the four sides of the central molecule, they would absorb most of the light by interference and stay bonded with that central molecule by the same standing wave process.

If you only have an O2 molecule sitting in space, you don't have any other atoms there to absorb light that goes out sideways, so is light going to leak away until the molecule runs out of energy and can't function any more? This is quickly getting into areas which I've never explored though, so you're discussing it with the wrong person. I have put very little thought into how particles interact.

What still makes me think it could is that the steps explain mass and motion of all the sources of light in a very straightforward way, whereas the Higgs only explains the mass of other particles without even explaining its own one.

At the moment, my mind just goes blank when I try to go into this stuff - it's an area which I don't normally think about to any depth, but you're also adding an extra complexity to it by having things take turns to move in little jumps and with the result that molecules shouldn't be able to move faster than 0.5c unless individual particles can move faster than c when they're doing their jumps.

[guest39538]

at rest =1.s
=1.s

in motion =1.s
=1.s

in motion =0.666666s

=1.333333s


Understand that and you may understand, you are changing the parameters of and giving (a) and (b) new values .



real.jpg (42.49 kB . 1274x584 - viewed 4970 times)

[David Cooper]

David, here is a drawing of mine that I usually used to show what I considered to be an SR contradiction.
hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=848798aberrationtrain3.png

Try to be patient this time, I'm still not allowed to put links, but maybe the description will be sufficient:

Are you also unable to attach image files directly? I can't find any way of making the image appear at that site.

A star and an observer at X are both moving to the left in aether at the same speed and in the same direction. The star emits a photon at observer X while he is inline with the earth which at rest in aether further away. Using your laser principle, the photon should follow the red trajectory on the left to hit observer X while the laser would be pointing at its former position, and to hit the earth, we would need another laser pointing behind the earth and where the photon would travel directly to the earth.

You haven't described where the lasers are, but if the observer at X points a laser at the star at S, his laser light will hit the star at S' and light from the star which was aimed at point X will reach the observer when he has reached X' (instead of going to X). To hit the earth with a laser, the observer would indeed have to point his laser some way further behind, though this is directly equivalent to thinking that the Earth is moving (while he and the star are stationary) and he has to aim ahead of it on its path if he's to hit it.

I would have saved ten years if the scientific forums that I frequented on the net had used that laser principle to explain the way light moves in a light clock! It works if it travels in aether, but it also works if it travels in SR's specific space, so why did Einstein reject the aether then? Only because he needed his space/time concept for gravitation?

Einstein actually accepted that there must be an aether of some kind, but he didn't mention it in his theories. What happened was that some aether theories were disproved and it became "established wisdom" that the aether had been disproved as a result, and Einstein's mob failed to point out that this was not the case because it suited them to have their main rival pushed aside and ignored, so they left claims in place that the aether had been proved not to exist (and I have a copy of a university physics textbook from recent times which makes that exact claim), just as they leave claims in place that the one-way speed of light can be pinned down even though every single experiment they've attempted to measure it with has been debunked.

I have a question about your simulation David. What if you ran the software with photons traveling like massive particles? They would spend the same time in both arms this way, and without the need for time dilation and length contraction. They would not be traveling at the same speed with regard to aether, but they would with regard to the mirrors,

It doesn't work that way because the speed of the object moving along the arm aligned with the direction of travel of the apparatus would be different in different directions relative to the mirrors - when moving one way it would have more of its movement energy stored as relativistic mass instead of kinetic energy than when it's moving the other way. For example, if the apparatus is moving at 0.866c and the objects are moving along the arms at 0.866c relative to the apparatus (as measured from the frame of reference in which the apparatus is stationary), the actual speeds of travel of the object will be 0.99c in one direction and 0 in the other. We're actually moving towards a mechanical clock with this idea - we could use chains going round sprockets and have a bit sticking out of the chain at one point which would ring a bell every time it hits it, sounding out seconds. It would hit the bell, move along the arm, go round a sprocket, come back the other way, go round the other sprocket, and hit the bell again. The chain would length-contract to different extents on the out and back legs but with an overall contraction which would bring the sprockets closer together (and the sprockets would also become elliptical) - the overall contraction would also match the contraction on the non-moving struts holding the sprockets apart with no stresses being imposed on them that wouldn't also be there with the apparatus at rest.

[Edited to change 99c into 0.99c]

[GoC (OP)]

David,

You were correct and I was wrong. Lengthwise kept moving forward past the width. That does leave us with physical contraction as a possibility of which there are four.
1. Length contraction is physical.
2. Clocks do not tick the same in all orientations
3. The Aether moves with the Earth and the Aether is the medium for light transfer.
4. The tests have been done using light for length and width measurements.

Of the four 1 and 3 seem most likely. 3 would need to be tested in space.

[GoC (OP)]

David,

   Lets say we have mirrors that only allow one photon. We will use your physical contraction. When the clock contracts lengthwise would it not also change the position of the sideways mirror to a different angle relative by changing position? In that case both horizontal and vertical paths would be shortened in a relative fashion. We would still have he question. Why do both orientations tick at the same rate?

[guest39538]

David,

   Lets say we have mirrors that only allow one photon. We will use your physical contraction. When the clock contracts lengthwise would it not also change the position of the sideways mirror to a different angle relative by changing position? In that case both horizontal and vertical paths would be shortened in a relative fashion. We would still have he question. Why do both orientations tick at the same rate?

The clock does not contract, the distance changes the light has to travel. Nothing more than that.

[guest39538]

David,

You were correct and I was wrong. Lengthwise kept moving forward past the width. That does leave us with physical contraction as a possibility of which there are four.
1. Length contraction is physical.
2. Clocks do not tick the same in all orientations
3. The Aether moves with the Earth and the Aether is the medium for light transfer.
4. The tests have been done using light for length and width measurements.

Of the four 1 and 3 seem most likely. 3 would need to be tested in space.

1.  NO it is mental
2.true
3.no
4.no idea what you on about


When the clocks tick at different rates it means nothing, the light in either clock still travels the same distance in the same amount of time.  While 1 clock read 1 second and 1 clock reads say 1.1 second, the light has travelled an equal distance in both clocks, except  the 1 second clock has not yet measured the second tick of the light that has already travelled from 1 second to 1.1 second.

Put another way, when the slower clock strikes 1.1s, the rest clock also measures 1.1s but you see it has 1.s not accounting for that time does not stop why the in motion clock light as not completed its cycle.

[David Cooper]

Start at a point on the graphing paper and count out 10 squares up and across... No physical contraction only visual.

I was going to respond to this last night, but the forum kept becoming unavailable. Since then, you seem to have made a shift in position, so let me know if there's anything relating to this bit that you still want me to work through.

After half the speed of light not sure yet and I have not worked it out. Could be after half the speed of light direction of motion could matter with a light clock.

There's no difference around the 0.5c speed - the same rules apply at all speeds.

There is an important issue here that perpendicular maintains continuity with space while vector velocity does not in the direction of motion.

I'm not clear as to what that means.

Lengthwise kept moving forward past the width. That does leave us with physical contraction as a possibility of which there are four.

1. Length contraction is physical.
2. Clocks do not tick the same in all orientations
3. The Aether moves with the Earth and the Aether is the medium for light transfer.
4. The tests have been done using light for length and width measurements.

Of the four 1 and 3 seem most likely. 3 would need to be tested in space.

3 has been tested by space probes going out to other planets with their clocks ticking at the predicted rates, showing no changes of the kind that would happen if they were shifting between different aether bubbles tied to different planets. 2 has been tested by the MMX. I don't know what you mean by 4 because it sounds like the MMX covers it again. We really are only left with 1, unless someone comes up with a viable 5 (and if anyone has found a good 5, I'd love to see it). It isn't likely to happen though, because 1 is already very sound, not just backed by MMX, but by particle accelerators where they can measure the speed of particles moving at close to the speed of light and measure the amount of relativistic mass they're carrying - that extra mass automatically leads to any object moving at 0.866c which attempts to accelerate to 0.866c relative to that starting speed only reaching .099c instead of 1.732c, and that in itself shows why length contraction must occur - it turns a circular orbit into an elliptical one and squashes the ellipse more and more as the system moves faster through space. If you apply that to all things, it ties in perfectly with length-contraction of the arm(s) in the MMX.

Lets say we have mirrors that only allow one photon. We will use your physical contraction. When the clock contracts lengthwise would it not also change the position of the sideways mirror to a different angle relative by changing position?

If you read the text below my interactive MMX diagrams, you'll find a bit about the angle of the mirror - a moving mirror acts as if it's tilted at a different angle from the one it's physically set at, and even a single photon doesn't bounce off a single point, but is spread out, so a part that hits the mirror lower down will hit the mirror when the mirror's in a different place than when another part of the photon hits the mirror higher up. The extraordinary thing about the maths of relativity is that everything auto-corrects to make it impossible to pin down a preferred frame.

In that case both horizontal and vertical paths would be shortened in a relative fashion. We would still have he question. Why do both orientations tick at the same rate?

The vertical path is not shortened at all, and I can't see why you think the change in mirror angle would make that path shorter.