0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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

Quote from: David Cooper on 02/07/2018 22:34:30If the contraction was different from the kind that actually applies, Place the particles one particle length apart. Then run the simulation.

Quote from: Thebox on 02/07/2018 22:41:09Quote from: David Cooper on 02/07/2018 22:34:30If the contraction was different from the kind that actually applies, Place the particles one particle length apart. Then run the simulation.How long is a point particle? It has no length. How long is a spread-out particle? It varies, depending on how much it's been length contracted.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Thebox on 02/07/2018 22:41:09Quote from: David Cooper on 02/07/2018 22:34:30If the contraction was different from the kind that actually applies, Place the particles one particle length apart. Then run the simulation.In this simulation on acceleration, accelerate the red particle, wait till the particles get about one particle away from one another, then stop the acceleration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

so if the system is accelerated, one of the particles always move before the other, which is precisely why the distance between the particles contracts. There is no need to program it, it is intrinsic to the limited speed of the information.

Quote from: Le Repteux on 03/07/2018 19:25:43so if the system is accelerated, one of the particles always move before the other, which is precisely why the distance between the particles contracts. There is no need to program it, it is intrinsic to the limited speed of the information.It isn't sufficient to produce contraction - it needs to be the right amount of contraction. It also needs to be the same regardless of which particle you accelerate, meaning that if you accelerate one away from the other, you still need to produce contraction rather than extension. I think your approach will be incapable of producing correct length contraction because it isn't simulating the cause of length contraction. If you were to start with two co-moving bonded particles sitting the wrong distance apart, your simulation would also need to be able to correct their separation (or produce an oscillation which produces correct average separation).

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

Quote from: Thebox on 03/07/2018 22:28:16length contraction and expansion is just simply a distance change the light travels as opposed to anything mysticalIt isn't - it's a physical reduction in length. If you rotate a disc, you can fit more material into the circumference than pi would normally allow you to. Imagine a circle with a hundred space ships parked around the perimeter, the front of each touching the back of the one ahead. Then have them all move past the circle at 0.866c in such a way that for a moment they are all in the same places they were parked in earlier. Their speed of travel has halved their length, so you can actually have 200 space ships move past the circle on tangents to it and all fit in the same space around it as the 100 ships did when parked there. It is not a synchronisation issue masking their length, but physical contraction reducing it, the result being that all the moving 200 can fit in the space of the stationary 100 without any overlap.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: David Cooper on 04/07/2018 19:10:27Make a disc lightyears in diameter and rotate it. The centrifugal force can be so small that the edge will contract and try to crush inwards on the disc.That seems backwards David and contradictory, it can't have a centrifugal force and the edge inverting against the direction of force?

Why not?