[Le Repteux]

If you select a frame that's moving to the right, that would make the blue disc move to the left but it doesn't because we then track it to keep it on the screen - this is done so that we can see the events play out there for longer than a short time. If everyone had a wall-sized display with 20,000 pixels from one side to the other I would have programmed it differently and not bothered to track it.

A grid representing ether may then help us to understand faster that a box is at rest when we chose it. It would also be better if we could change the frame without changing the speed of the target, and it would help if it was a key that we would hit to change it. By the way, I just noticed that it was not the speed of the frame that we could change, but the speed of what you call the target, which is the blue part of the simulation. I discovered that while changing the frame with object a. But even if I now know that, it is still a bit confusing for me not to have ether in the background.

Object c has four boxes getting away from the target, but the orange and white ones are both following the same diagonal direction while not being deformed the same, so I suspect it is due to a bug. I also suspect that the four diagonal blue boxes on object d contain a bug, because the are not square when the other four are.

[guest4091]

the coin cannot both be circular in that reality and elliptical at the same time.

Nothing in the post says states that. You are reading things into the post that aren't there.Or you don't comprehend what you are reading.
Perception does not alter the object being observed.!

[David Cooper]

A grid representing ether may then help us to understand faster that a box is at rest when we chose it.

While I said that it tracks the blue disc regardless of which frame it's set to, it's actually tracking the absolute frame, so a grid wouldn't move at all apart from distorting differently for different frames, and those distortions would make it hard to program a grid in using JavaScript. I could use an image of a grid covering the screen for one frame, but I'd have to have a different image for every frame that the user might select, and that would take an infinite number of images. To make lines out of lots of dots would slow the program to a crawl (or halt) because each dot is a piece of HTML punctuation that isn't designed to be used for graphics.

It would also be better if we could change the frame without changing the speed of the target, and it would help if it was a key that we would hit to change it. By the way, I just noticed that it was not the speed of the frame that we could change, but the speed of what you call the target, which is the blue part of the simulation. I discovered that while changing the frame with object a.

When you change frame, you are selecting the speed of the new frame relative to the absolute frame, and that is either done using the number keys or by clicking the "set frame velocity" button and typing in two vectors for the required frame.

But even if I now know that, it is still a bit confusing for me not to have ether in the background.

The fabric of space remains fixed to the screen, but it does become distorted, as shown by the blue square in example object set "a". Whatever that blue square does, you only have to imagine it as a square in a grid to visualise what the rest of that grid would be doing.

Object c has four boxes getting away from the target, but the orange and white ones are both following the same diagonal direction while not being deformed the same, so I suspect it is due to a bug.

The orange and white objects are both squares, as is revealed when you type number key 4, assuming that the number keys work for you. (Have you tried them again?) If those keys aren't working, you can type in the following vectors for the frames that I've mapped to the first four number keys: key 1 = 0, 0; key 2 = 0.866, 0; key 3 = 0, 0.866; key 4 = 0.433, 0.866.

If you select the frame in which the orange and white objects are square, it's easy to imagine drawing a circle though four dots of each object instead of a square. When you switch to a different frame and they no longer look square, you could draw an ellipse through the four dots of each object instead of a circle, and if you do that, the ellipse for the orange and white objects would be identical to each other for any frame.

I also suspect that the four diagonal blue boxes on object d contain a bug, because the are not square when the other four are.

The blue dots should not be seen as marking out squares - they are there solely to represent a single blue disc, the outer 16 all sitting exactly on a circle while the inner 16 all sit exactly on a smaller circle.

[Le Repteux]

I now understand why you call it a target, so I think you should describe it like that on your page, and maybe you could put a real target when people select object D at the beginning and hide it after when they change the velocity of the target.

The fabric of space remains fixed to the screen, but it does become distorted, as shown by the blue square in example object set "a". Whatever that blue square does, you only have to imagine it as a square in a grid to visualize what the rest of that grid would be doing.

I already saw that kind of deformation on wiki's Relativistic Doppler effect page but I didn't understand it. Does it mean that the objects at the front would look dilated and those at the rear would look contracted? If so, I'm possibly missing something because if I am moving towards an object, it seems to me that the light from the rear part of the object would hit me sooner than if I would have been at rest, so that the object should look contracted, not dilated.

[David Cooper]

the coin cannot both be circular in that reality and elliptical at the same time.

Nothing in the post says states that.

That's precisely why I said it - it's an addition to what you said.

You are reading things into the post that aren't there.

I was building upon what you said. It is important that people understand that there is a deeper reality beyond the reality of the data documenting reality (which is in the perception).

Perception does not alter the object being observed.!

Nothing in my post points to any disagreement on that point.

[David Cooper]

I now understand why you call it a target, so I think you should describe it like that on your page, and maybe you could put a real target in the beginning when people select object D at the beginning and hide it after when they change the velocity of the target.

I don't remember ever calling it a target. The program is based on the idea of there being a reference frame camera set up in the absolute frame of reference, and the camera never moves at all. The camera consists of an array of sensors spread out far and wide over a plain so that they can photograph what is right next to them without any time delays for the light to reach them. Each of these sensors records a pixel for the photos that the camera takes, and each sensor-pixel device has a clock that tells it when to take a picture. Simply by changing the synchronisation of the clocks, this camera can take "God view" photos of the action for any frame of reference at all (within a 2D universe, though it could be done with a 3D universe too). That is actually why it automatically tracks the absolute frame, because the camera never moves, although it could track anything simply by selecting different parts of the image to display for each frame that it displays.

I already saw that kind of deformation on wiki's Relativistic Doppler effect page but I didn't understand it. Does it mean that the objects at the front would look dilated and those at the rear would look contracted? If so, I'm possibly missing something because if I am moving towards an object, it seems to me that the light from the rear part of the object would hit me sooner than if I would have been at rest, so that the object should look contracted, not dilated.

No, it's a different kind of deformation. My program shows the actual physical length contraction that applies to objects whenever you set it to the absolute frame. When you set it to other frames, you see the apparent length contraction instead of the actual contraction, and by "apparent", I am still talking about "God views" where all the photon-travel delays are eliminated. The actual view that we get from within the universe is normally not the same as the "God view" because we can see additional distortions caused by delays in light reaching us from the objects we're seeing (delays which do not affect the ref-frame camera), and the moving image you've posted shows those additional distortions rather than the ones relating to length contraction. The "God view" equivalent of that image would only have horizontal and vertical lines in it with the vertical ones getting closer together as the speed of the observer goes up. The reference frame camera records pixels locally by having sensors spread out over the whole area, but a normal camera has them all at one single place with an image focused onto it through a lens, and so normal cameras (like our eyes) see the warping  in the way your moving diagram shows it. The dark line that starts vertical and then bends into a V shape represents a line that remains completely vertical in the "God view", but the normal eye sees the further away parts of it further ahead of where they really are. If you cross a road at 90 degrees at high speed, the whole road will remain perpendicular to your course of travel and will appear that way in the "God view" as photographed by a ref-frame camera, and it will be seen that way too to someone looking down on you from a million miles above, but to your eyes you will see the road bend underneath you and it will appear to run out to both sides of you ahead of you. Someone else moving alongside you will see the road bend directly under them instead of you, and here's the most interesting bit of it: they will see you directly to the side of them while you see them directly to the side of you (you're level with each other, neither ahead nor behind). You are both over the road at the same time, but at the point when you look straight down at the road and know that you're crossing it (and know that they must be crossing it too), it looks to you as if they haven't reached the road yet because the road appears to go off at an angle that takes it ahead of them. They see the same with you, seeing you cross the road after they've crossed it, and that's because they're seeing the past rather than the present, just as you're seeing their past rather than their present. The ref-frame camera produces images that show a single moment, so it shows both of you crossing a straight road at the exact same time, but that image cannot be seen by you immediately as it takes time to collect all of the data of the picture it recorded to present it to you, so you can only see "God views" in the real universe some time after the event, either captured earlier by a ref-frame camera or calculated and drawn by a program that works out how to remove all the delay-related distortions. A distant observer can see "God views" directly with his own eyes, but he too has to wait a long time for those images to reach him, and it only works for him because light from every part of the scene takes practically the same length of time to reach him, thereby eliminating the visual distortions that close-up observers see.

[Le Repteux]

I still don't understand what you mean, so let's imagine a simpler object: a blue circle and a red box moving away from the circle at .866c. If the camera takes a picture of the red box at the moment it goes by, the box will be half its size in the direction of motion. Now if we use a reference frame in which the red box is considered at rest, then to me, the camera has to change reference frame too otherwise it doesn't make sense. But why would a god's view change when we change reference frame? 

[David Cooper]

Now if we use a reference frame in which the red box is considered at rest, then to me, the camera has to change reference frame too otherwise it doesn't make sense.

The idea with the reference frame camera is that it is a distributed camera which takes photographs by recording each pixel locally, and because it's already everywhere, it can take "God view" photos, and do so for any reference frame just by changing the synchronisation of the clocks at the pixels. Like God, the camera is everywhere.

But why would a god's view change when we change reference frame?

There's only one fundamental "God view", and that's tied to the absolute frame. The "God views" for other frames are ones that would be the fundamental "God view" if they were the absolute frame.

When you run the program, it always advances the action at the same rate for the time of the absolute frame behind the scenes, and yet the more extreme the frame you set it to, the faster the action appears to run on the screen because the synchronisation goes so far out with parts of each picture are taken further away in the future (with longer and longer delays before those pixels take their part of the image) while the opposite part of the image has it's pixels take their part of the image further and further back in the past.

[GoC (OP)]

The absolute frame is c. Without Energy c there would be no motion at all. Rather than a stationary frame of the Aether it's a spin particle Aether that move the electrons which allows motion to exist in the first place. Everyone seems to believe in motion for nothing and no reason, when it is staring them in the face. The spin Aether creates all of our physical parameters and why everything is the inverse square of the distance. Volume, sight for distance, gravity and magnetism. Or do you believe it is just a coincidence? E=mc^2 one c for space and one for moving the electron in a helix.

[Le Repteux]

There's only one fundamental "God view", and that's tied to the absolute frame. The "God views" for other frames are ones that would be the fundamental "God view" if they were the absolute frame.

In my example with the blue circle and the red box, the box would be moving away from the circle and it would look contracted in the direction of motion if we would take a picture of it while the camera is at rest in the circle's frame. Now, tell me what would happen to the picture if I would select the box as the reference frame? Normally, it is the circle that should look contracted, and it should be getting away from the box too. But when I try that on your objects, nothing changes, the box is still getting away from the circle, and it still looks contracted.

[xersanozgen]

The absolute frame is c.

The Light as a Super Reference Frame

https://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/5858

Abstract: Light kinematics and the special relativity can be reviewed accompanied with more dimensions,
factors, conditions and especially revision of postulates. The Special Theory of Relativity gives the reference role to a
moving body or its fictive light source. We analyzed reverse/opposite arrangement: The light is assigned as a
reference frame and the other/local actors (moving body/source/observer) undertake relative roles. This revise/new
concept is supported by the same experiments that they are effective for special theory. And new method is more
functional for light kinematics and it allows cosmological analysis by providing the simultaneity and equivalency

[David Cooper]

]In my example with the blue circle and the red box, the box would be moving away from the circle and it would look contracted in the direction of motion if we would take a picture of it while the camera is at rest in the circle's frame. Now, tell me what would happen to the picture if I would select the box as the reference frame? Normally, it is the circle that should look contracted, and it should be getting away from the box too. But when I try that on your objects, nothing changes, the box is still getting away from the circle, and it still looks contracted.

If you select the set of objects called "d", you'll see eight boxes (round the uncontracted blue disc) which are all contracted to half their rest length. If you select a frame moving up/down/left/right at 0.866c you should find that one of the red boxes doubles in length because it's now at rest in the selected frame (while the blue disc will be contracted instead). None of the other boxes will be at rest, so they will continue to show contraction, although two of the yellow ones will be less contracted than before because they are moving in similar directions to the uncontracted red box. If you are able to use the number keys to change frame (I still don't know if that works on your machine), pressing 2 should make the red box at the bottom fully decontract, while 3 will do the same for the red box on the right.

[David Cooper]

The absolute frame is c.

The Light as a Super Reference Frame

https://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/5858

It's a mangling of language to call light or c a frame. Light moves in an infinite number of different directions and light moving in each of those directions would be at rest in an infinite number of different "frames" (none of which behave like reference frames). The actual reference frame that comes from light is the absolute frame through which light travels at c, and labelling that frame as LCS is just making up another name for "the absolute frame".

[xersanozgen]

The absolute frame is c.

The Light as a Super Reference Frame

https://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/5858

It's a mangling of language to call light or c a frame. Light moves in an infinite number of different directions and light moving in each of those directions would be at rest in an infinite number of different "frames" (none of which behave like reference frames). The actual reference frame that comes from light is the absolute frame through which light travels at c, and labelling that frame as LCS is just making up another name for "the absolute frame".

I attach importance to management of mental references for our daily life and also the science. LCS concept is generated due to the measured value of light's velocity that is considered as relative speed according to merely outmost frame (space). The measured value is always universal velocity of the light, (not relative speed according to source or local place). Yes we can measure and get the same value on everywhere. And we know that the light never get an addition from its source's speed.Besides, simultaneous measurement results are the same for all directions (isotrophic).  In accordance with Galilean relativity principle (about uniform motion) the light is already has essential qualities (linear path and fixed speed).

To consider and assign local objects/frames for analysis/operation is an anthropocentric attitude/habit.

You are right for the motion of the light; the light is not a tangible object. Therefore, the reference frame of universal velocity of light is assigned as co-reference frame for an identified photon and other actors (observer, source, etc.).  This outmost/most external co reference frame is space or LCS (Light Coordinate System).


The theory SR allows for this method; because in accordance with SR mentality, the light's all relative velocities are the same according to every frames. I prefer the outmost frame for light kinematics analyses. 

LCS concept is an comprehensible method perhaps like abstract math.

[GoC (OP)]

  c is energy. Energy is of space. Space is of particles with different densities and the cause of red shift. The densities can be from SR or GR and have equivalence between them. The space particles have spin. That spin (c) is the cause of motion itself as in moving the electrons. Light and all spectrum waves are just that (waves). Since the particles of space propagates waves energy can be transferred. This is the wave and particle. All Electrons are moving at c in a helix (life is a clone of that helix as macro mass). The dual slit experiment is just a wave on the sea of particles. There is no linear particle going the speed of light. We shoot the representative wave of an electron same as the photon is a representative wave of the electron jump.

The timing associated with each (frame) is a relative ratio of c being used for kinetic energy and what energy is available to the maximum frame of c. There would be no physical laws without the sea of c because there would be no motion It's staring us right in the face but motion was always a part of us so we take it for granted. There are no strings in 3d only particles closer together. Pie proves that there is no such thing as a perfect circle thus no strings. The electrons travel through a triangular web of spin energy that is complimentary to motion as a helix. This would be similar to a string in theory. The distance between particles of c can never be equidistant but be somewhat uniform in structure. This allows the flex that forms the photons and all other waves.

Gravity is the dilation of mass to the center of mass being the most dilated space particles in the spin state. Al mass is attracted to the greatest dilated space by the inverse square of the distance. There is less friction with mass the more dilated the energy state causing gravity.

Natural magnets have an alignment of its spin state. Right hand going in and right hand going out the other side. So mirror images have opposing spin states while opposites continue the spin direction.

Motion is of space and c is absolute motion. The frame which controls all frames.

[guest39538]

  c is energy. Energy is of space.

I must correct your ill informed logic.  c is a constant speed 300,000 km/s

The potential energy of space is ''dormant'' unless interacting.

pE=kE=w    where w is work

[GoC (OP)]

I must correct your ill informed logic.  c is a constant speed 300,000 km/s

Yes and what causes the 300,000 km/s in a Vacuum?  If you limit your understanding to mass and not energy given to mass of course you will need to correct it to one dimension of mass. You maintain a blinds eye to the constant speed of the electron at sea level confounded with the constant speed of light at sea level in a vacuum.

You feel the need to limit your view to macro mass. That is a poor choice in my estimation. To much coincidence not to have a control  mechanism.

[Le Repteux]

If you select the set of objects called "d", you'll see eight boxes (round the uncontracted blue disc) which are all contracted to half their rest length.

They move at a tangent to the blue objects, so they should be contracted in the direction of their motion, but they are stretched instead. I reread your explanations on MSB, and I have the feeling that you are accounting for two different relativistic phenomenon at a time: the contraction issued from the MMx experiment, and the way we would see an object approaching or getting away from us at a relativistic speed. A directly approaching object would look stretched because we would see its front before its rear, and because the front of the object would thus have traveled toward us more than the rear, and inversely, a directly departing object would look contracted because we would see its rear before its front, and because the rear of the object would thus have traveled away from us more than the front. An object moving at a tangent should thus look stretched before it hits the tangential point, and contracted after, thus it should look normal right in the middle. Now, I think you're adding the contraction from the MMx in the equation that calculates the coordinates. Is that so?

If you select a frame moving up/down/left/right at 0.866c you should find that one of the red boxes doubles in length because it's now at rest in the selected frame (while the blue disc will be contracted instead). None of the other boxes will be at rest, so they will continue to show contraction, although two of the yellow ones will be less contracted than before because they are moving in similar directions to the uncontracted red box. If you are able to use the number keys to change frame (I still don't know if that works on your machine), pressing 2 should make the red box at the bottom fully decontract, while 3 will do the same for the red box on the right.

Only pressing 2 or writing 2 changes the look, but it doesn't change the same way: pressing 2 deforms more the object than writing 2. You also said that the blue dots were representing circles, but on your page, we can select 16 objects to get their coordinates, and 8 square-like objects are made out of blue dots.

[David Cooper]

They move at a tangent to the blue objects, so they should be contracted in the direction of their motion, but they are stretched instead.

They are not squares, but long rectangles, and they have been contracted into shapes that are still rectangles. When you press the 2 key, the bottom red rectangle displays its rest length, this being twice as long as you see the rectangles in the absolute frame view (key 0).

I reread your explanations on MSB, and I have the feeling that you are accounting for two different relativistic phenomenon at a time: the contraction issued from the MMx experiment, and the way we would see an object approaching or getting away from us at a relativistic speed. A directly approaching object would look stretched because we would see its front before its rear, and because the front of the object would thus have traveled toward us more than the rear, and inversely, a directly departing object would look contracted because we would see its rear before its front, and because the rear of the object would thus have traveled away from us more than the front.

The ref-frame camera program does not show any kind of stretching or contracting of the latter kind - it only shows the length-contraction of relativity.

An object moving at a tangent should thus look stretched before it hits the tangential point, and contracted after, thus it should look normal right in the middle. Now, I think you're adding the contraction from the MMx in the equation that calculates the coordinates. Is that so?

All objects are programmed in with absolute-frame coordinates, so the rectangles are programmed in at half their rest length because they're all moving at 0.866c. When you view from the absolute frame you see them maintain the same amount of contraction wherever they go. When you switch to a different frame (e.g. by typing the 2 key), you will change the lengths of all the objects, but again they will then maintain those lengths so long as you view them using that frame - their lengths don't vary as they move around. A ref-frame camera takes "God view" photos which can be viewed like "God view" video and they are totally free of the kind of delays that cause the kind of distortions you're talking about.

Only pressing 2 or writing 2 changes the look, but it doesn't change the same way: pressing 2 deforms more the object than writing 2.

Where are you writing 2, and why? The 2 key is equivalent to typing in 0.866 and 0 for the two vectors.

You also said that the blue dots were representing circles, but on your page, we can select 16 objects to get their coordinates, and 8 square-like objects are made out of blue dots.

The program was not designed to handle curved objects (it can only deal with shapes with four corners), so the blue disc has been constructed out of 8 objects, four squares and four non-squares. It is to be regarded as a disc.

[Le Repteux]

They move at a tangent to the blue objects, so they should be contracted in the direction of their motion, but they are stretched instead.

They are not squares, but long rectangles, and they have been contracted into shapes that are still rectangles. When you press the 2 key, the bottom red rectangle displays its rest length, this being twice as long as you see the rectangles in the absolute frame view (key 0).

I think I would have understood faster if you had established that in the beginning, and even faster if you had established that they were squares before getting contracted.

The ref-frame camera program does not show any kind of stretching or contracting of the latter kind - it only shows the length-contraction of relativity.

OK

All objects are programmed in with absolute-frame coordinates, so the rectangles are programmed in at half their rest length because they're all moving at 0.866c. When you view from the absolute frame you see them maintain the same amount of contraction wherever they go. When you switch to a different frame (e.g. by typing the 2 key), you will change the lengths of all the objects, but again they will then maintain those lengths so long as you view them using that frame - their lengths don't vary as they move around. A ref-frame camera takes "God view" photos which can be viewed like "God view" video and they are totally free of the kind of delays that cause the kind of distortions you're talking about.

No, but they create a motion-kind of distortion that is not evident to imagine. I finally understood that you wanted us to be able to chose the key we want to use to change frames, while writing the key number in the dialog box. I think I would have understood faster if you would simply have chosen the key yourself,  and tell us to use it to change the frame. I thought we could select one of the red or yellow squares with it, and use it as a frame.

The program was not designed to handle curved objects (it can only deal with shapes with four corners), so the blue disc has been constructed out of 8 objects, four squares and four non-squares. It is to be regarded as a disc.

OK

I'll use the new information that I have to analyze the simulation again. I think it will now be easier to understand.