[David Cooper]

It works when the photon is traveling to the right, but when a photon escapes from the step of the right particle, it takes less time to reach the left particle than it took for the light from the left one to reach the right one, because that left particle has gotten closer during its step,  and I can't figure out what would happen. Since the steps looked natural on the paper, I thought they would be physically possible, but I now have a hard time to figure how they would.

If you imagine two balls connected by a spring, you could set them moving through space by pushing one towards the other. That rear ball would compress the spring and lead to the lead ball being accelerated forward while decelerating the rear ball, possibly to a halt for a moment. The spring would then be stretched instead of compressed and would decelerate the lead ball, possibly to a halt, while accelerating the rear ball back up to speed, and this cycle could repeat of a long time, mimicking to some degree your two circles taking turns to move along. Perhaps there is something in this parallel that might relate to what you're trying to do with photons.

[David Cooper]

Its all in our definition of time. Energy c is always constant as an amount of energy available. Motion deducts from the cycling of the electron in an atom. Consider energy c of and from space rather than from the electron. So it moves the electron and propagates the photon wave. A photon being a wave of LET Lorentz Ether Theory. You have to siphon some of the orbital speed in order to move the atom through space. The electron is the motor at constant revolutions with energy c. Having to move through more space with velocity than at relative rest naturally the cycle time is reduced proportionally with the relative propagation of the photon wave for tick rate. The longer orbit of the electron would also produce a greater wavelength.

It seems possible that every part of matter involves all the energy from which it is built is moving around within it at c, so if the matter is to move along through space, its immediately obvious that its entire functionality will slow. You said before though that the space fabric is energy, and I wonder how you make that work. As material moves faster through the fabric, it compresses the energy that it's made up of into a smaller space due to length contraction, and it also accumulates extra mass such that there is twice as much of it when it's moving at 0.866c. That is a higher energy density which the fabric has to be able to accommodate, and I find it hard to imagine this as anything other than energy moving through the fabric rather than being the fabric. I also want to understand where your energy of the fabric has a role in this (or in anything).

[GoC (OP)]

It seems possible that every part of matter involves all the energy from which it is built is moving around within it at c,

That might be so but very unlikely. Controlled by the inside the likelihood of synchronization for billions of years would be can we suggest billions to one?

so if the matter is to move along through space, its immediately obvious that its entire functionality will slow. You said before though that the space fabric is energy, and I wonder how you make that work.

Take the Aether point by point and have complimentary spin. [/quote]

As material moves faster through the fabric, it compresses the energy that it's made up of into a smaller space due to length contraction,

What does it compress against if there is nothing to compress against? Particles of LET would stop movement in the universe. Energy outside of mass would allow conservation of energy not destroy it.

and it also accumulates extra mass such that there is twice as much of it when it's moving at 0.866c.

Again unless energy is outside of mass there is no relativity.

That is a higher energy density which the fabric has to be able to accommodate, and I find it hard to imagine this as anything other than energy moving through the fabric rather than being the fabric.

Apparently so does everyone else.

I also want to understand where your energy of the fabric has a role in this (or in anything).

The role is motion itself being possible.

[guest39538]

Just to let you know I am out of here, I can't convince the ''mad'' world out of their own delusions.  I  hate to say it , the world is one ''dumb'' place to live.

[Le Repteux]

If you imagine two balls connected by a spring, you could set them moving through space by pushing one towards the other. That rear ball would compress the spring and lead to the lead ball being accelerated forward while decelerating the rear ball, possibly to a halt for a moment. The spring would then be stretched instead of compressed and would decelerate the lead ball, possibly to a halt, while accelerating the rear ball back up to speed, and this cycle could repeat of a long time, mimicking to some degree your two circles taking turns to move along. Perhaps there is something in this parallel that might relate to what you're trying to do with photons.

The spring would then be transferring kinetic energy into potential energy and vice versa, which is effectively what light would do, so let's see what might happen if we would accelerate the left ball strongly but for a short while.

First observation, it wouldn't stop right after the acceleration would stop as I expected from particles, it would move forward for a while because of its inertia. The steps already represent inertia since inertia is simply the combination of motion and resistance to acceleration, but they also show how those two phenomenon would develop at different scales. The energy stored in the steps between two atoms represent the loss of mass due to their bonding, and the energy stored in the steps between their components represent the loss of mass due to their own bonding, so if we consider the energy stored in the steps between all the components of an atom, we get its total mass. What happens is that when an atom makes a step, its components make billions of them, because they have to justify very precisely the step of the atom they are part of. So when we accelerate an atom, we accelerate its own step, and in the same time, we also accelerate the steps from all its components. It doesn't take much force to accelerate the step of the atom, thus it does not show much resistance to that acceleration, but it's components resist more, and their own components resist even more. With the steps, each time we measure the mass of an atom, we thus measure the energy it takes to accelerate the steps from all its components. If a particle is not bonded to another one, the light that bonds its components does not have to escape from their steps to produce a bonding at the particle's scale, so the steps between those components offer more resistance to their acceleration, thus they develop more mass.

Back to the first step made by the left particle, and let's assume that a step takes the same time to decelerate than the time it took to accelerate. Let's accelerate that particle until it gets to a top speed, and then let it decelerate until it stops. It stops when  there is no doppler effect between the two particles, which doesn't mean that the right particle did not begin to make a step, only that the photon escaping from that step has not yet reached the left particle, which is actually closer to it than when both were at rest, so when that right particle will begin its own step, the photon escaping from that step will still have less distance to travel than the one the photon from the left particle had, so it doesn't work better. With light, we cannot only consider the stored energy, we also have to consider the distance it travels. With a spring, there would also be a loss of stored energy due to heat, so the vibration would be damping with time, which is not the case for what we call inertial motion.

I found a new way to present the problem, and it has something to do with contraction. As I said, if we accelerate the left particle, we automatically shorten the distance between the two particles for a while, but if we keep accelerating that particle after the right one has moved away, the doppler effect from the right one would pull the left one forward while it is still being accelerated. This way, the distance between the two particles would contract right at the acceleration, and it would stay contracted until a deceleration occurs. The doppler energy would still be trapped between the two particles, and it would still produce their motion, except that this time, they would move at the same time, so as for the MMx mirrors, it wouldn't matter if the photons would not travel the same distance. It is more difficult to imagine, but I think it can work, and it would have the advantage of providing a mechanism for length contraction that doesn't need the two arms of the MMx, only one. By the way, what do you think of Yuri Yvanov's contraction happening to both arms of the interferometer? Did you have time to study it?
( rhythmodynamics.com/rd_2007en.htm#2.05 )

[Le Repteux]

Just to let you know I am out of here, I can't convince the ''mad'' world out of their own delusions. I hate to say it, the world is one ''dumb'' place to live.

It sure is, reason why we shouldn't take too seriously what is happening to us, except when it hurts for real, not just in our heads.

[GoC (OP)]

the world is one ''dumb'' place to live.

Relative to what?

[Le Repteux]

Relative to the better place we imagine I guess, which would not be better after a while of course.

[David Cooper]

As material moves faster through the fabric, it compresses the energy that it's made up of into a smaller space due to length contraction,

What does it compress against if there is nothing to compress against? Particles of LET would stop movement in the universe. Energy outside of mass would allow conservation of energy not destroy it.

"Compresses" wasn't the right word for what I intended to say. My point was that there's more energy contained in that part of the fabric, and a lot more would be there if there was a black hole present, so how can this energy be the fabric rather than merely being held in some way by the fabric while passing through it?

[David Cooper]

Just to let you know I am out of here, I can't convince the ''mad'' world out of their own delusions.  I  hate to say it , the world is one ''dumb'' place to live.

You've been shown that a pair of perpendicular light clocks will tick in sync if stationary and that they will go out of sync if they are moving unless there is length-contraction. You're free to reject length-contraction if you wish, but I can't understand why the idea of it offends you so much. By rejecting it, you leave yourself unable to account for the null result of MMX and for the behaviour of particles in particle accelerators (where relativistic mass prevents them from reaching c no matter how much energy you add to them and necessarily leads to length-contracted orbits for systems moving at high speed through space), so you appear to be the one who's suffering from a delusion because you reject the science instead of accommodating it.

[GoC (OP)]

Quote from: GoC on Today at 03:37:33QuoteAs material moves faster through the fabric, it compresses the energy that it's made up of into a smaller space due to length contraction,What does it compress against if there is nothing to compress against? Particles of LET would stop movement in the universe. Energy outside of mass would allow conservation of energy not destroy it."Compresses" wasn't the right word for what I intended to say. My point was that there's more energy contained in that part of the fabric, and a lot more would be there if there was a black hole present, so how can this energy be the fabric rather than merely being held in some way by the fabric while passing through it?

Linking electrons by the same speed insures energy is not inside of mass for motion. Clocks slow with more mass not speed up so energy is dilated.

There is no energy nor time in a BH. Unless you have a different definition of time. Time is related to c in kinetic vs. potential energy. Potential energy of space is the greatest where clocks run fastest. All mass does is dilate space energy we measure as tick rate. There is no fabric inside a BH. Fabric bend completely around a BH. It's not that light cannot escape a BH, light cannot reach a BH. Relativity is not part of a BH. BH's are mass suckers only, void of time energy.

[David Cooper]

Linking electrons by the same speed insures energy is not inside of mass for motion. Clocks slow with more mass not speed up so energy is dilated.

When moving clocks collide, all that relativistic mass is unleashed as energy (which is what it was all along).

There is no energy nor time in a BH.

There's rather a lot of it if you convert the mass to energy.

[GoC (OP)]

When moving clocks collide, all that relativistic mass is unleashed as energy (which is what it was all along).

Energy creates mass in suns by fusion. In the life cycle of a sun larger elements are also formed until a red giant finishes the smaller suns life cycle. All suns create hydrogen from dark mass energy similar to galaxies forming BH's for another fractal universe of size. Consider our environment of the electron traveling the distance of a football field to the size of a marble for the proton.
So what is the definition of fundamental energy vs. kinetic energy we recognize as work being done? Your ideas focus on work being done and kinetic relationships.

QuoteThere is no energy nor time in a BH.There's rather a lot of it if you convert the mass to energy.

Fission does happen in suns but fusion remains king to the red giant. Suns cannot get rid of their own waste production (higher elements) and choke out the fusion fission process with hydrogen.

BH's are the ultimate entropy never to be fundamental energy again as they continue to suck the mass from the universe. I consider it unlikely the universe is as small as science suggests and I would expect spectral limits of detection between observable images and noise.

[guest4091]

A paper on MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/809flv09tnfqihnt9fn0xqcwd865ix5x









A paper on the reflecting circle, a variation of MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/0swrtm8zi8unzhszhux5e6i7539fi28r

I have read some your links and looked at some of your diagrams and well done on the effort it looks well.  However you are making the same mistake science makes and thinking in 2 dimensional form. Relatively making the huge mistake of ignoring the linearity between observer (yourself)  and the diagram.

If that's a complement, as it appears to be, I'd better have it bronzed!

[guest4091]

This is a graphic for your 2:1 scenario for anaut A and B.
No issues with this. If we substitute E (earth) for A, what does .99c have to do with anything?
The relative speed shoud be the same for each observer.
https://app.box.com/s/r69uq5s2o19s0o72rm8sfvc2ft6z2e2a

[David Cooper]

What's the 0.99c?

Well, if you consider yourself to be stationary and a planet goes past you at 0.866c, a rocket moving in that same direction at 0.99c will appear to observers on the planet to be moving at 0.866c relative to them (and they will also measure you as moving at 0.866c in the opposite direction).

(0.866 + 0.866) / (1 + 0.866 x 0.866) = apx. 0.99.

[guest4091]

What's the 0.99c?

Well, if you consider yourself to be stationary and a planet goes past you at 0.866c, a rocket moving in that same direction at 0.99c will appear to observers on the planet to be moving at 0.866c relative to them (and they will also measure you as moving at 0.866c in the opposite direction).

(0.866 + 0.866) / (1 + 0.866 x 0.866) = apx. 0.99.

The initial conditions were B leaving E at .866 and returning at .866. Thus B would measure E leaving at .866 in the opposite direction. There is no 3rd observer, and no need for composition of velocities.

[guest4091]

A paper on MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/809flv09tnfqihnt9fn0xqcwd865ix5x
A paper on the reflecting circle, a variation of MMX.
https://app.box.com/s/0swrtm8zi8unzhszhux5e6i7539fi28r

I have read some your links and looked at some of your diagrams and well done on the effort it looks well.  However you are making the same mistake science makes and thinking in 2 dimensional form. Relatively making the huge mistake of ignoring the linearity between observer (yourself)  and the diagram.

The graphics are not representing images as perceived by the observer. They are histories of object speeds and light speeds for an interval of time, and their  interactions. They are not intended to be viewed as road maps.

[David Cooper]

You asked,

...what does .99c have to do with anything?

I assumed that you're referring to some place in my webpage where I've used that figure. If so, then it involved three things moving relative to each other. With the interactive Spacetime diagram I have two planets moving past each other and two rockets which belong to them (one each), and that's the only place on the page where I mention the 0.99c figure. When the planets meet, the rockets switch which planet they accompany for a while before racing after their own planet some time later to be reunited with it. During that part of the process you can have one planet regarding itself as stationary while another planet passes it and moves away at 0.866c, then a rocket which stopped with the stationary planet for a time will chase after its home planet at 0.99c (a speed which will be measured by observers on that other planet as 0.866c). If the first planet regards itself as moving at 0.866c though, it will imagine that it is passing a stationary planet and that when the rocket heads home to the stationary planet it will travel there at 0.866c, but even then the 0.99c figure is still involved as the other rocket will have to chase the first planet at 0.99c from the stationary planet.

[GoC (OP)]

You also mentioned .99c in the cyclotron.