[Le Repteux (OP)]

I'm just trying to understand your point in case it would help me to simulate motion. I still think that light drives the way motion is executed by the particles. At first, I thought that we could easily simulate doppler effect, but it turned out not to be that easy, so I'm trying to simplify the problem, and you seem to be complicating it. It is no use trying to complicate things at the beginning of a research, we got to stay simple and wait till people start to understand to start complicating them.

[guest39538]

I'm just trying to understand your point in case it would help me to simulate motion. I still think that light drives the way motion is executed by the particles. At first, I thought that we could easily simulate doppler effect, but it turned out not to be that easy, so I'm trying to simplify the problem, and you seem to be complicating it. It is no use trying to complicate things at the beginning of a research, we got to stay simple and wait till people start to understand to start complicating them.

Of course , we have to stay simple,  light travels , we know this, it is like asking somebody call the shop when they are going, they have to travel a distance . Only science understands that things travel but are not really relative . Particles have no connection concerning entanglement.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

The main difference between my theory and others is that I consider light as a motion producer whereas all others only consider it as an information carrier. It is certainly an information carrier at our scale, but when we get down to particles, we discover that it could also move them. I might still be wrong, but it is certainly interesting to study that possibility. As you can see though, scientists are not easier to interest than laymen. :0)

[guest39538]

The main difference between my theory and others is that I consider light as a motion producer whereas all others only consider it as an information carrier. It is certainly an information carrier at our scale, but when we get down to particles, we discover that it could also move them. I might still be wrong, but it is certainly interesting to study that possibility. As you can see though, scientists are not easier to interest than laymen. :0)

Sometimes we can read to deep into the information, where others would just not see the information about light.  I think you may be forgetting that ,  science has detectors to see and observe  far better than a laymen.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

You also have good detectors to observe information, and you can clearly observe that this information produces motion. Why would the information that we exchange produce motion while the one that particles exchange would not?

[guest39538]

You also have good detectors to observe information, and you can clearly observe that this information produces motion. Why would the information that we exchange produce motion while the one that particles exchange would not?

Because of different perspective ,  not even comparable and maybe because one particle has more mass and more force applying on the weaker particle.  The weaker particle oblivious to the force applied.
Anyway I am going go away sulk, it does not look like my other theory of prediction worked out to well at first glance.

[guest39538]

I have thought more on this subject, quite clearly a particle at absolute rest is not affected by the particle that is moving in the background, the forces would not act on the distant body ,  sort of ignored in respect to entanglement.  I suppose most people have ignorance towards an absolute rest frame where the back ground particle force can be ignored because of enthalpic properties that are created .  But science is like talking to a stone about an absolute reference frame that is independent of everything else.  Particles that keep their distance from enphalpic pressure, remain ignorant of enphalpic pressure. I don't think you are not accounting for this .  When a particle moves away from another particle but still close, the enphalpic pressure is released. 
I have you just give you some more light on the subject, if you listen you might hear and learn something new.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

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

I can't find the flaw in my simulation on opposite accelerations' logic, so I get back analyzing SR, because I think we must not take it for granted when we analyze contraction. In the twins mind experiment for instance, the traveling twin must start getting younger and getting contracted at the beginning of his acceleration since it is there that he begins getting speed, and the theory predicts that he must stay younger when he loses all his speed at the end, so why wouldn't he stay contracted since he got contracted the same way he got younger? Just because it looks weird? To me, time dilation is as weird as length contraction. The only difference is that contraction is considered not to be observable. It may not be observable for real particles, but it is certainly observable in a simulation.

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

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

[David Cooper]

In the twins mind experiment for instance, the traveling twin must start getting younger and getting contracted at the beginning of his acceleration since it is there that he begins getting speed,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you nudge the right particle to the right, it must accelerate the left particle if they are tied together with a bond, but if they aren't, it should simply leave it behind. The model needs to include the option to bond particles to each other, and I have no idea how that bonding occurs. How does an electron tie itself to two atoms while being more strongly a part of one than the other? Maybe it doesn't - maybe it belongs to both atoms and switches between them quadrillions of times per second. Whatever's going on though, it's a complex mess, and unless you have ideas about the mechanisms that might be involved in this, you can't expect to be able to simulate anything of that kind. Just pinging a photon to and fro was never going to hack it. You need a much more complex model, and you need a better programming environment if you're going to have any hope of creating such a model through an approach of trial and error. It can take years to program a complex model even if you start out with a detailed knowledge of what the model is, but to approach a solution experimentally were you have to keep rewriting code thousands of times requires AGI to write the code for you - life's simply too short otherwise.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

ending up "younger" than his twin (although in reality he remains the same age and has merely "weathered" less due to slowed overall functionality).

Are you only saying that to conquer the relativists that may read the thread, or do you really think that getting weathered is different than aging more?

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

Right, but it took again some time before I realize it, so it means that I was again blinded by my automatic resistance to change, which is probably increased by my understanding getting slower with age. It's a chance for me that your language is so clear and that you don't mind repeating things. :0)

Particles actively maintain their separation to each other, moving closer together if they're too far apart and moving further apart if they're too close together, but you don't have any of that

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

The model needs to include the option to bond particles to each other, and I have no idea how that bonding occurs.

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

You need a much more complex model

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

[David Cooper]

Are you only saying that to conquer the relativists that may read the thread, or do you really think that getting weathered is different than aging more?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It can stay simple, but so far you're been trying to use aspects of compression to try to recreate length contraction, and that won't work because the particles should always try to remove that compression and get back to a comfortable separation. Length contraction comes out of changes in the comfortable separation distances.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

It can stay simple, but so far you're been trying to use aspects of compression to try to recreate length contraction, and that won't work because the particles should always try to remove that compression and get back to a comfortable separation. Length contraction comes out of changes in the comfortable separation distances.

If we accelerate one end of a spring, it will contract during acceleration, and then spring away from us at the end while also oscillating. It will oscillate because the inertia of the front end will stretch the middle of the spring before the force reaches the rear one and pulls it ahead, the same as if we would have pulled the two ends both at a time. With a spring, an important part of the acceleration's energy is absorbed by a vibration phenomenon when acceleration stops, and it happens because the whole spring stretches back, whereas in my simulations, only the last step produces a vibration because it is the only one to stretch back. It is so because the motion of light is independent from the motion of massive particles, whereas the motion of a spring precisely depends on them. Moreover, with the standing wave principle as a cause for bonding, if we compress two particles until they jump to another node, they will stay there until something else happens. That's what happens too when an electron is bumped to another energy state: it stays there until something happens, and if nothing happens, it spontaneously gets back to its minimum energy state after a while, which means that something probably happens without us being able to observe it. At our scale, it is matter that transmits the information that moves bodies, whereas at the scale of the particles, the information has to travel through void, so it has to rely on some kind of light.

If you're going to produce proper length contraction, you have to adjust all accelerations to take into account relativistic mass (because not all the energy added translates into speed of the particle being accelerated - the extra energy has to carry its own mass along for the ride too).

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

If standing waves are part of the real mechanism for maintaining particle separation distances, you need to have that acting to adjust the positions of the particles, but you don't appear to have modeled that yet.

Keeping the particles on sync while they are being accelerated is precisely what a standing wave would do. Ivanhov and late Lafresnière have already studied the standing wave model, and Ivanhov even thinks that, on that precise point, our two theories work the same.

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

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

"Ageing" is ambiguous. It can either refer to the amount of time that someone has been around for or to the amount of "weathering" they've been exposed to, and by that I mean the amount of wear and tear due to the rate at which they function. Slowed functionality leads to less ageing (weathering) but not to less ageing (exposure to time).

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

[David Cooper]

If we accelerate one end of a spring, it will contract during acceleration, and then spring away from us at the end while also oscillating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correct, but the other meaning of age refers to the amount of time that has actually passed, and in that sense, both twins remain the same age no matter how much the physicists prod them around, so I used the word weathering to rule out that interpretation of ageing in order to avoid ambiguity.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

Correct, but the other meaning of age refers to the amount of time that has actually passed, and in that sense, both twins remain the same age no matter how much the physicists prod them around, so I used the word weathering to rule out that interpretation of ageing in order to avoid ambiguity.

Sorry, I see no ambiguity. Of course, the time flows the same for people that are in the same reference frame, but the twins are not and we know which one is traveling, so there is no ambiguity, we know which one is getting younger. Maybe there is ambiguity when you're talking to SR people, but not to me. That's why I was asking you if it was the case.

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

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

What happens if you only accelerate one particle? No resistance? No mass?

When we accelerate a particle on the screen, in reality, what we accelerate are its components, and the main part of the resistance is then due to the steps between those components refusing to get accelerated instantly, which is also because information takes time to make a round trip between them. The components are more massive, thus resist more to the acceleration, just because the light they exchange is more energetic than the one the particles exchange, and it is more energetic just because it loses a lot less intensity with distance due to the components being a lot closer to one another. I can't use frequency as the only cause for the increase of energy because I need that the light exchanged between the particles comes from the exchange of light between the components. This way, the light exchanged between the particles is a modulation of the light exchanged between the components, and the visible light is a modulation of the light exchanged between the particles, the modulation itself depending on the smaller steps having to accelerate and decelerate constantly to justify the sinusoidal shape of the longer ones they are part of, while any step that is accelerated necessarily let some light go by due to a temporary broken synchronism between the incoming light and the step.

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

Mass is measured while we try to give some speed to a body in a particular direction, and that's precisely the same definition with the steps, it is measured while we try to give some speed to the steps in a particular direction, a speed they get while increasing their length since their frequency has to stay the same for them to be able to get synchronized. That mechanism can be simulated, but I can't see how we could simulate what you say. You seem to be assimilating light to massive particles moving at c, and massive particles to light moving at less than c, whereas I simply assimilate particles to sources of light needing to stay synchronized. That principle means that light comes from the heart of matter, and that it migrates from the smaller to the larger particles until it gets to our scale. When we accelerate a body made of bonded particles, we accelerate all the infinitely small particles it is made of, they lose some light in the steps' process, and that light then accelerates all the larger particles it is also made of, until it gets at the scale of the molecules, from where it can only escape to bond macroscopic bodies.

Keeping the particles on sync while they are being accelerated is precisely what a standing wave would do. Ivanhov and late Lafresnière have already studied the standing wave model, and Ivanhov even thinks that, on that precise point, our two theories work the same.

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

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

If you imagine a stationary planet spinning round  with an object on the end of a long pole such that the object is moving at 0.86c. Now imagine the same system with the planet moving through space at 0.86c. The object will now be stationary relative to space when it is at one side of its orbit, and at the opposite side it will be moving at a speed lower than c rather than 2 x 0.86c. This adjustment of speed is the cause of length contraction - it is not possible for the object to move at 2 x 0.86c.

In a simulation with two particles, for the photon to be able to reach the leading particle all the time in the case of your example, the particle should wait for the photon when it goes up ether, which would effectively accelerate it backwards, an information that would be transmitted to the trailing one after a while. Again, the sinusoidal shape of the steps would have to be accounted for in the simulation, otherwise the deceleration would begin only when the particle would hit c. Curiously, that simulation would work as my simulation in opposite directions even if there is no inertial acceleration involved, so it would not produce contraction either if we consider that the system would be alternatively stretched or contracted depending on its direction with regard to the direction of the acceleration, it would only produce deceleration.

You can't simulate length contraction on that scale though without modelling the movements of such parts of "fundamental" particles, and that means guessing their nature (because science has yet to pin their nature down) and then simulating the entirely hypothetical model that comes out of that guess.

I can't simulate the motion of electrons using the steps between their components since they are considered not to carry any, so I can't use those steps to explain their mass either. Massive particles that carry no components is weird since they would have to be infinitely small while still being observable at our scale. Quantum physics has solved the problem by introducing virtual photons as a carrier of information between electrons and nucleus. I use photons too, but they produce real motion so they must be real even if we can't observe them directly. The light that we do observe is only their modulation when they escape from bonded systems during their acceleration.

[David Cooper]

Sorry, I see no ambiguity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that's the big problem with modelling things that go beyond scientific understanding. All matter can decay into radiation (components), but we have no idea how the components are tied together to create the "fundamental" particles that are built out of them. All we can do is create speculative models, or models that fudge the issue and just apply rules without the full mechanism being simulated.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

In LET, time flows at a constant rate for all things, but apparent time varies when functionality is slowed by movement (increasing round-trip communication times)

To me, time is only a measure of cyclic events with regard to one another, and if a traveling twin has aged 5 years less than his brother, it simply means that he has lived five years less than his brother, exactly like my younger brother that has not traveled. I googled for ether theory time flow and found nothing. Is there a paper that explains what you mean?

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

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

When are they ever synchronised?

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

An object changing speed whenever it happens to be hit by a photon isn't really synchronisation.

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

all the energy is trying to move in the same direction, whereas in the latter case some of it is trying to move the opposite way

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

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

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

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

And that's the big problem with modelling things that go beyond scientific understanding. All matter can decay into radiation (components), but we have no idea how the components are tied together to create the "fundamental" particles that are built out of them. All we can do is create speculative models, or models that fudge the issue and just apply rules without the full mechanism being simulated.

Without adding some restriction, there is too many possibilities. Adding bonding to motion is such a restriction, and it looks promising to me. It is certainly speculative, but then, how to progress without speculating? I'll check Ivanhov's contraction carefully to see if I can simply add it to my simulations. If I can, then I will have to change the way the particles behave during their acceleration.

[David Cooper]

Is there a paper that explains what you mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm glad you found this stuff - it may open some doors for me into an area I've avoided because I don't want to get bogged down in the complexities of small-scale physics, but I've seen something now which might just hook me in (because it may not be as time-consuming as I was expecting, and that means it might not get in the way of my work).

[Le Repteux (OP)]

However, the light pulses have traveled the same distance through space, so how much time has passed for the photons?

Time stops flowing for a light clock that gets at the speed of light with regard to ether, so a photon can't experiment time. The time a photon takes is not measured with regard to itself, it is measured with regard to a clock made out of matter, and the distance itself also needs to be delimited by matter. You seem to be assimilating matter to energy to light, and I can't, otherwise I couldn't simulate their interaction. If it is not to convince SR people more easily, then you probably have a more fundamental reason to do so. Do you?

Lots of people call quarks fundamental too, but when antimatter meets matter, pouf! They all turn to radiation. Same thing happens when an electron meets a positron - instant conversion to components.

I can't consider light as a component because I wouldn't be able to differentiate it from sources of light in my explanation. My massive particles are nothing more than bonded sources of light that divide into smaller bonded sources of light indefinitely, so if we could shut off the exchange of light between the quarks for instance, we might also suddenly see the light the atoms were already exchanging, but the components of the quarks would still go on exchanging some, so the whole mass of the system would not transform in to light, and it would never do if the microscopic universe is infinitely small. I wonder what an antistep could look like on the screen? :0)

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

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

Theoretically, electrons spontaneously get back to their minimum energy level when they get bumped to another one, and the same thing should happen to the steps: whenever they change nodes during an interaction, they should spontaneously get back to the better one. Of course, they get out of sync during the process, reason why some light escapes from the system, and it is the same for electrons, they do not radiate either when they stand at the right energy level, only when they get back from being bumped. That spontaneous behavior might more easily be studied with the steps than with the electron theory though: an electron cannot rely on its components to produce its behavior, whereas the steps can.

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

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

I'm glad you found this stuff - it may open some doors for me into an area I've avoided because I don't want to get bogged down in the complexities of small-scale physics, but I've seen something now which might just hook me in (because it may not be as time-consuming as I was expecting, and that means it might not get in the way of my work).

Have fun! Lafresnière made a really nice job. Too bad he isn't here to discuss with us though. When I decided to contact him a few years ago, I waited for his response a few months before discovering he was dead. At that time, I didn't know about Ivanhov's work, but he did, so he would have known what I was trying to do. Of course, he is one of those stubborn LET fans. :0)

[David Cooper]

Time stops flowing for a light clock that gets at the speed of light with regard to ether, so a photon can't experiment time. The time a photon takes is not measured with regard to itself, it is measured with regard to a clock made out of matter, and the distance itself also needs to be delimited by matter. You seem to be assimilating matter to energy to light, and I can't, otherwise I couldn't simulate their interaction. If it is not to convince SR people more easily, then you probably have a more fundamental reason to do so. Do you?

When light's moving at full speed, that movement is its entire functionality. By going slower, it's able to do other things than just move, so a different kind of functionality comes into play (such as interactions with things or being tied up in matter), but it always has full functionality when you add all the component functionalities together (ignoring the slowing caused by gravity, although even then it may still be functioning at full speed and just taking longer to fight its way through a given distance in space). A photon's functionality is the same in a stationary light clock as it is in a moving one - both are racing along at full speed, and that does not equate to being frozen and motionless. A photon travelling across the universe for billions of years runs (it is functioning and its movement is that function) for billions of years rather than the zero time that could be claimed for it. It is the other kind of functionality that is slowed by movement, because more functionality has to be handed over to movement through space. Previously when I've talked about movement slowing functionality, I have only been referring to one kind of functionality. The other kind of functionality is movement itself, and the amount of each kind of functionality displayed by an object is either 100% one, 100% the other, or a mixture of both, always adding up to 100%.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

Light is the ultimate frontier. To study it directly, we would need a faster than light device and we don't. I thus decided not to study it and to simply consider the particles as sources of waves instead. I think that Lafresnière would like the way you consider light though, because his electron is made out of it even if it doesn't move at c.

At first, I thought I might be able to explain the particulate properties of light with the steps since they explain mass which belongs to particles, but I didn't succeed yet. At the particles' scale, light is studied for its energetic properties, not for its informative ones even if, at our scale, we use it constantly to measure speed and distance, an information that we then use to move properly. The idea that particles may also be able to measure speed and distance and to also use that information to move properly is new, and it restricts the way particles may be interacting, so I find it promising. Remains to find a convincing way to simulate it.