[Le Repteux (OP)]

Some more thoughts.

On one of the first simulations I made, the left particle stopped moving after having been forced to make a step forward, and it made another one only when the photon from the step of the right particle was back. If the acceleration was stronger, then the step was simply stretching. I discarded that simulation when I realized that the longest step the particles could make was equal to the distance between them, which meant that the fastest the system could go was at half the speed of the photon. For the speed to get closer to c, the steps would have to bypass the other particle like our feet do when we walk, and I didn't study that possibility yet. Of course, that system wasn't generating any contraction at acceleration, and reversing the direction of acceleration meant contracting the steps so that they would get smaller each time the photon would strike a particle, which is closer to what we should be able to get in a simulation. In that system, it is the steps that stretch or contract depending on the direction of acceleration, not the distance between the particles, so I now realize that, in my last simulation, if the steps were contracting the same way the distance between the particles is contracting, the two contractions would interfere. Now if I would use an equation to simulate the contraction between the particles, I would also have to apply it to the steps, so the two contractions would also interfere. In fact, both the time dilation and the contraction would interfere.

The experiment Ivanhov made shows that contraction happens in a moving system that is bound by a standing wave, so he could have put a small motor on one of the sound emitters, and program it to move to get to the closest node, and it would have moved to stay on it when the speed of the wind would have changed. Since it works for real wind, it should also work for a simulated one, so moving the screen with regard to my particles instead of accelerating them should also contract the distance between them if the way my particles are bonded is similar to a standing wave. To simulate that, I could use two photons that would hit the two particles at the same time when they are at rest, and they would take more time to reach the particles when I would move the screen because they would have to travel more distance in a roundtrip.

That motion is easier to imagine if we move the screen sideways to the alignment of the particles though, so lets analyze this possibility first. As with the vertical arm of an MM experiment, the photons would be aimed at an angle and would take more time to reach the particles, so unless those particles would suffer time dilation, the distance between them would have to contract for them to stay on sync. That's what Ivanhof observed with sound, so he concluded that vertical contraction would also happen to particles, but sound doesn't produce time dilation inside the emitters the way light would do inside the particles otherwise he would also have observed a redshift of the two emitters, so he might be wrong about applying his observed vertical contraction to light because such a redshift would simply stretch the contraction.

Now, let's analyze the aligned system. Moving the screen to the left is similar to moving the particles to the right, and if we do so with an aligned system, a photon will take more time going right than going left, thus losing some time going right and recover some going left, but still taking more time overall than at rest, so it would also get out of sync overall unless the left particle also suffers time dilation, what it should effectively do, and at the same rate the system would do, so the synchronization should not be affected. Contraction is more difficult to imagine in this case, but we know that it reduces time dilation a bit for the MM experiment to give a null result, so it should not affect the timing either since it would be the same whether it would happen inside a particle or between two particles. Ivanhov showed that contraction happened to the nodes when the two waves of his sound standing wave had two different lengths, but he didn't account for the time dilation of his emitters, which should happen in the case of light whatever the alignment of the particles, so again, redshifting the two waves while speed increases should prevent my two inline particles to suffer any contraction of their standing wave.

Ivanhov made a few mistakes in his paper, but I still think he is right about light producing motion. His fundamental mistake is thinking he will be able to move two bonded EM oscillators the same way he moves macroscopic oscillators by simply varying the two wavelengths at will. He would need a faster than light device to synchronize that system and he doesn't have it.


 
 

[David Cooper]

We're going to need to try to replicate LaFreniere's work to see if his standing waves actually stand up, but I've yet to find an explanation of exactly what he was doing to get them. Was he using a fourth dimension for the space fabric to vibrate in? His numbers are so good though that I have a hunch that he was on the right lines, and I also have high hopes for him just because he absolutely nailed all the points he made about LET, 100% - he really knew what he was talking about there (which is very rare), and the same likely applies to the rest of his claims.

If the space fabric is able to vibrate in a fourth dimension (available to the fabric but which we don't notice from the inside), it would have to be able to vibrate at very high speeds, but the more energy or mass you stick into a small space, the greater that sideways movement (within the 4th dimension) would need to be, and that would surely lead to delays to the action - I can even see a possibility there for length-contraction in that fourth dimension affecting this movement more and more as the energy density goes up, and to a corresponding slowing of the speed of light through the fabric there, which is all that's needed to account for gravity when all matter is made out of waves. This could lead to a complete mechanistic account of physics, and it depends squarely on the aether for that functionality. No one who is working without a vibrating space fabric is going to find this, so it would be no surprise if this route hasn't been adequately explored. LaFreniere's work was simply ignored by everyone on the basis that it involved an aether and must therefore be a nutter, and sadly you didn't discover his work during his lifetime. He may actually have been one of the greatest physicists of all time, but he got no recognition for his work.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

We're going to need to try to replicate LaFreniere's work to see if his standing waves actually stand up, but I've yet to find an explanation of exactly what he was doing to get them. Was he using a fourth dimension for the space fabric to vibrate in?

I'm glad you like his work. It's close to my small steps. As I already said though, standing waves need two emitters and he only has one. He uses a round ring to produce convergent waves on water, and he puts many light sources in circle in his software to produce the same waves. Those waves meet at the center and become divergent, what produces a standing wave when they meet the convergent ones. His simulations are so beautiful and he is so convinced it's an electron that we tend to forget about the way he produces his convergent waves. I played with Delmotte's software a bit. Its impressive and fun, but we can't move the sources individually, and we can't use doppler effect as a force carrier either, so as it is, I can't reproduce my small steps. I tried to find Delmotte or Marcotte on google without success. Lafrenière often talks about them, but he doesn't give us any link.

[David Cooper]

That's the big problem with his ideas - the waves would simply radiated outwards and not be replaced, so all his particles would evaporate, unless some way can be found to bounce the waves back (which could happen if energy is digital and there isn't enough of it to send onwards once it's spread out too much), but if you do that, you don't have any waves spreading far enough out to control interactions with other particles, or at least, not beyond a certain distance. If the particle accelerates, any bounced waves are going to miss the centre too, so how would it be maintained? (And the further out the waves go before bouncing back, the bigger that problem becomes.) However, if any significant amount of his work stands up (and he's very sure about his numbers), it may not be a coincidence. There must be some way of looking at this that will add up completely, and he may have been close to it. Some day, someone's going to make a leap of the imagination that will lead to the solution, and exploring this may be the route to get there. Also, anything that sparks off new ideas is useful, and I'm getting some from this.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

When Lafrenière glorifies Ivanhov's wave, he is a lot closer to my small steps. I finally succeeded to open the coding of Delmotte's software. It's written in basic language and I know nothing about it. It's quite long too. I wanted to know how he codes his doppler effect but I'm afraid I won't be able without help. He gives his email address at the beginning of the page so I'll try to reach him. Here is the coding on a .pdf file.

[David Cooper]

Code without comments through it to explain what it does is not intended to be understood, but it doesn't matter. I'd rather just write a new code and work out all the details for myself, but I don't have time to do anything that complex at the moment anyway. I really just want to test his phase shift finding.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

@David Cooper

Good news, Delmotte answered me, bad news, he says he's gonna wait till he is retired to get back working on the standing wave project. He plans to modify his doppler effect algorithm so as to create solitons traveling in ether, what he finds quite difficult to do, but with the Holy Grail as a reward if he succeeds. For those who would like to reach him, his address is delmottephilippe@yahoo.fr

Now about my simulation on acceleration where contraction never reverses. As I said, if I accounted for the contraction suffered by the particles themselves while time and distance are also contracting between them, the two contraction levels would interfere. From the particles' viewpoint, there would be no observable time or length contraction, while there would be for an external particle that would not have suffered the same acceleration. Notice that, contrary to Relativity, this kind of contraction would be absolute since acceleration is absolute. It would thus also happen to rotating particles since rotation produces their acceleration towards one another, and to particles that are aligned perpendicularly to the acceleration if they need to stay synchronized, as it is the case for my simulation with four accelerated particles.

Since it is established that the universe works the same everywhere, let's admit that very distant particles suffer almost the same overall acceleration than laboratory ones, thus the same contraction. Then, since their light takes time to reach us, and if we consider that light doesn't change wavelengths while traveling, they should look redshifted since the particles we use as a reference in the lab had time to contract during that time, and that's precisely what distant galaxies show. Now, if we use doppler effect as a means to keep the particles on sync like I do in my simulations, then we get that they should accelerate towards one another to stay on sync since they would all appear redshifted to one another, and that's precisely what gravitation is about. Why try to stay on Relativity's footsteps when we expect so many huge leaps for the price of only one divergent small step? :0)

 

[David Cooper]

Good news, Delmotte answered me, bad news, he says he's gonna wait till he is retired to get back working on the standing wave project.

It's good news that he's still interested in it, and that he's still around. I'm not going to write any software for doing anything similar though until I've made better tools (namely AGI) - that's the quicker route to getting things done.

Now about my simulation on acceleration where contraction never reverses.

If you accelerate an object and it contracts, then decelerate it and it contracts further or fails to extend back towards the original length, it isn't behaving like the real universe, so don't build too much upon it.

I've been thinking a lot about gravity in relation to black holes over the last couple of months. If a black hole moves, any light that's trying to enter it from ahead will slow down and get stuck just outside the event horizon, but as the black hole's moving, that light may actually be pushed backwards through the aether, which adds a layer of complexity to its interactions with aether. Whatever it is that slows light in the presence of high concentrations of matter/energy (and which by doing so creates gravity), that slowing of the speed of light must be relative to that matter/energy rather than relative to the aether. Light is being slowed by a medium, and that medium is usually moving through the aether. That medium may be an extension of matter/energy that manifests itself in a similar form to dark matter - it's spread out far from the part of the matter that we can see directly. It must length-contract when the matter's moving. It cannot be an extension of waves from the matter in the middle where that matter's functionality is frozen - there is nothing coming out from a black hole to make things orbit it, so there has to be an extended part of the matter that's stuck in or at the edge of a black hole, this extended part never being sucked down there, but remaining far above, slowing light and doing so more strongly closer to the central part of that matter. Either that, or it's something displaced from the Aether, pushed aside by matter - something that sits in aether everywhere but which is pushed out and into higher concentrations when matter or energy is introduced, leading to a slowed speed of light where those higher concentrations are. I'm currently trying to work out how they could length-contract though if they aren't themselves moving along at the same speed as the matter, which leads me to think that they are more likely a dark part of the matter itself.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

If you accelerate an object and it contracts, then decelerate it and it contracts further or fails to extend back towards the original length, it isn't behaving like the real universe, so don't build too much upon it.

Unless I find a better way to simulate acceleration between my two particles, I need to rely on the one I got, and the idea that acceleration is absolute seems to support it, because it may mean that contraction also is. For the moment, I'm still studying the two ideas, but if I don't find a way to simulate the relativistic contraction, I might let it down. That contraction is needed to explain the MM experiment, and readers may not have noticed, but my simulation with four particles is such an experiment. It is a simulated interferometer that we can accelerate to give it speed, and while it contracts in the direction it is moving, it also contracts in the transverse direction for the vertical light to stay on sync with the horizontal one. No need for the relativistic contraction to explain the null result then. The contraction goes on at all scales, which means it is only observable between scales, and the speed is conserved even if the acceleration stops, which is what we observe.

there is nothing coming out from a black hole to make things orbit it,

It means that we can't simulate a black hole. I never believed in curved space precisely because of that. I prefer to think that particles exchange an information that we can't detect, the same way we can't detect our own motion through space even if, as in my simulations, particles must probably exchange some information to keep on moving. To me, that curved space stuff is illogical, but intelligent people succeed to believe in god, so why not in curved space? Some information has to tell space to curve, and nothing can escape from a black hole, so it simply couldn't curve its own space even if other bodies could. If black holes exist, they simply can't produce any gravitation. Curved space is a dead end idea, the same kind of dead end the idea of god creates: it prevents us from thinking. For the moment, nothing shows that our universe contains dead ends, on the contrary, all the discoveries we make finally exhibit unsuspected phenomenon. As religious ideas show, we can build any idea over a dead end one and it will always work, so what's their use apart providing us with a false security feeling?

That medium may be an extension of matter/energy that manifests itself in a similar form to dark matter - it's spread out far from the part of the matter that we can see directly.

Dark matter is a good example of an idea built over a dead end one. If matter can curve the space around it without sending any information, then why not invent an unobservable matter when space doesn't seem to curve the right way? There is no way to study the phenomenon anyway, so why hesitate? Need a bit of dark matter too to explain some divergent curved light? No problem, how much you need? Need it to explain miracles? Here you go, enjoy yourself!

[David Cooper]

If black holes exist, they simply can't produce any gravitation.

But they clearly do - the gravity waves from black holes merging have proved the case. They exist and their gravity is very powerful indeed.

Curved space is a dead end idea

It's an explanation generated by a broken theory, so we can be sure that it's wrong. The same facts can be accounted for without any curvature simply by having a slowing of the speed of light, eventually reaching zero at the event horizon of a black hole relative to the black hole.

Dark matter is a good example of an idea built over a dead end one. If matter can curve the space around it without sending any information, then why not invent an unobservable matter when space doesn't seem to curve the right way? There is no way to study the phenomenon anyway, so why hesitate? Need a bit of dark matter too to explain some divergent curved light? No problem, how much you need? Need it to explain miracles? Here you go, enjoy yourself!

Something slows light far out from the visible matter that we think is responsible, so how does it do that? There has to be something there that actively causes light to slow. I think there's a dark component of matter that does this job at all distances out from the visible part, but obviously with more of it closer to the visible part in the middle. This is quite in addition to the dark matter that may or may not exist in galaxies to cause the outer parts in some cases to orbit at a higher speed than material further in.

[David Cooper]

This is a reply to post #19 in https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75195

My particles move with regard to one another, and they only use the light emitted by the other particle to do so. That light tells them to resist to acceleration, to get speed, to get a direction, and to move at constant speed when acceleration has stopped. Isn't that enough to call it an absolute reference?

How is it an absolute reference when the particles can't tell what speed it's moving at relative to them? If the particles aren't moving, the light's hitting them both at c relative to them. If they're moving at 0.5c, then the light's hitting them at 0.5c relative to them in one direction and 1.5c in the other, but it looks just the same to them as the previous situation because all they ever see is the frequency. If you're imposing an absolute reference frame, then that's your absolute reference (which has relevance for the virtual universe which runs the content), but the particles know nothing of it - they just react to the forces applied to them. You talk about the light telling them to resist acceleration, but how does that work with a single particle being accelerated? If you want to explore the physics of acceleration you need to start with single particles. If you're dealing with a pair of bound particles, the same physics will then apply - the new part is how the added kinetic energy is then shared between the two particles. Your simulations appear to be exploring that rather than exploring acceleration and mass, but they aren't doing that properly either as all they're giving you is a compression that's then artificially maintained. You have no mechanism to allow the particles to adjust towards their preferred separation distance, and no mechanism even to give them a preferred separation distance to try to move to. Those missing aspects of the physics don't look as if they're going to emerge out of your current game of photon ping-pong, so I you're doing to have to design mechanisms for them.

Acceleration certainly has a role in the speed and the direction of the speed though, so it is normal to look for a way it could produce contraction, and visibly, relativists resist to do that.

Speed dictates length; not acceleration. Acceleration is merely an essential aspect to changing speed. If you pull a 30cm rubber ruler from zero speed up to 0.866c at a very high acceleration rate, it will be extended during acceleration rather than compressed, but when you remove the acceleration force, it will ping back to 15cm long (from the point of view of an observer at rest in the original frame). The speed dictates the length by affecting the "comfortable" separation distances between atoms. Your simulation needs to demonstrate that too - as it stands, if you accelerate the leading particle, all you'll get is a stretch that is maintained due to the complete lack of any mechanism to allow your particles to adjust until they find their own comfortable separation distance. You've missed out most of the essential physics and don't even have a bonding mechanism. You should continue to work on them and discuss them, but in the simulation thread rather than here - get them to the point where they match up to real physics first.

Another feature that those simulations would account for if their contraction rate was right is relativistic mass: while the speed would increase, light would take more time to make a roundtrip, and the accelerated particle would have to wait longer to increase its speed, so it would accelerate less and less often, ...

Think about a single particle accelerating - there is no wait for any light to make round trips. The particle simply accelerates instantly to the new speed. The round-trip time will only delay the sharing out of a force if a bound particle is accelerated, and that delay should not be mistaken for resistance to acceleration. LaFrenière explains how relativistic mass can be held by particles, but you have to treat them as waves if you want to simulate that.

... I could increase progressively the speed of the photon. This way, it would take less and less time to complete its roundtrip, so the distance the accelerated particle would travel during that time would get down, and so would the contraction rate.

I can't picture what you mean by that, but you can try it out and see if the result is useful.

Bingo!.... At last, I think I found the right way to simulate the whole process. Do you think it will convince the relativists that I'm right about acceleration being determinant if it works? :0)

I think you've got a lot of missing mechanisms to build, so you need to get on with building them. You just need to realise that the way your two particles interact has nothing to do with how they accelerate or resist acceleration - all they're doing is sharing out an acceleration of one particle in such a way that each particle ends up with half of the energy that's been put in, while the "contraction" that you're getting is nothing more than a compression that ought to remove itself quickly.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

Think about a single particle accelerating - there is no wait for any light to make round trips. The particle simply accelerates instantly to the new speed.

A single particle's step is made of millions of its components steps, so a particle necessarily has to wait till the light exchanged between its components makes a roundtrip between them before being able to increase its speed. The only particle that doesn't seem to have components is the electron, and because of that, we are stuck with a particle that has no dimension. If I'm right about mass being due to light taking time to make a roundtrip, then the electron might correspond to a distant intermittent bonding between two atoms, and we can start speculating on the way a light standing wave could be curved, or appear to be curved, by a magnetic field.

the "contraction" that you're getting is nothing more than a compression that ought to remove itself quickly.

I'm going to build the simulation, and if it works as I expect it to work, it should help you to understand better what I mean.

How is it an absolute reference when the particles can't tell what speed it's moving at relative to them?

It is an absolute reference for motion in the same sense you say that time is the same everywhere. In that sense, if the speed and the direction of light wasn't constant everywhere, motion itself wouldn't be constant, and we couldn't measure anything.

if you accelerate the leading particle

If we could accelerate a leading particle, it may break the bonding with the trailing one. If we send a molecule between two bonded molecules fast enough, that bonding may brake. Bodies usually resist a lot less to traction than to compression. Besides, how would you proceed to pull on a particle if you were a particle?

[David Cooper]

A single particle's step is made of millions of its components steps, so a particle necessarily has to wait till the light exchanged between its components makes a roundtrip between them before being able to increase its speed. The only particle that doesn't seem to have components is the electron, and because of that, we are stuck with a particle that has no dimension.

If the electron is dimensionless, why is it described as being one of the most perfectly spherical things in existence? We know it's made of energy and that its energy is divisible, so it is made of parts, but we should probably be looking at accelerating it in the way LaFrenière does, treating it as waves. The important point though is that the way you're working with particles clearly won't produce the right results if they're atoms, and I doubt it'll be any different with any component particles within atoms either.

If I'm right about mass being due to light taking time to make a roundtrip, then the electron might correspond to a distant intermittent bonding between two atoms, and we can start speculating on the way a light standing wave could be curved, or appear to be curved, by a magnetic field.

Mass is simply the amount of energy that makes up a piece of matter plus any energy added to it to move it. There is no need to try to account for it as anything other than what it is already known to be.

I'm going to build the simulation, and if it works as I expect it to work, it should help you to understand better what I mean.

If it's complex, write the program first in French and I should be able to understand it from that.

It is an absolute reference for motion in the same sense you say that time is the same everywhere. In that sense, if the speed and the direction of light wasn't constant everywhere, motion itself wouldn't be constant, and we couldn't measure anything.

The problem with calling it an absolute reference is that it can't be measured from inside the universe. If we're looking in from the outside and can see the fabric of space, then that's the absolute reference. The speed of light is secondary to that, and may vary. In a gravitational field, it actively does vary.

If we could accelerate a leading particle, it may break the bonding with the trailing one. If we send a molecule between two bonded molecules fast enough, that bonding may brake. Bodies usually resist a lot less to traction than to compression.

Things can be stronger in tension because there's no perpendicular movement generated by the force acting through them to fracture the structure.

Besides, how would you proceed to pull on a particle if you were a particle?

If you pull a piece of string along, what happens to the trailing end? The last particle is being pulled along somehow, and it's maintaining its separation from the one ahead in accordance with the rules of length contraction. A simulation has to match that, and that means you have to design mechanisms to produce the right behaviour. If your mechanisms are wrong but produce the right results, they're still useful, but obviously it would be better if they are right. If we're dealing with waves, there may be particular separation distances that produce the lowest energy state, which means that "particles" will adjust to those separations. A simple simulation probably can't handle that though - LaFrenière's mechanisms are complex and would likely take months of hard programming to produce. That's why I don't want to get bogged down in writing anything of that kind until I've built better tools (i.e. AGI) to automate most of the work.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

Mass is simply the amount of energy that makes up a piece of matter plus any energy added to it to move it

If I understand well, you don't think that a break in the synchronization between my two particles during their acceleration can produce their resistance to acceleration, and that such a break may be due to the limited speed of any information.

The speed of light is secondary to that, and may vary. In a gravitational field, it actively does vary.

I don't yet believe that the speed of light can vary, the same way I don't believe that it stays the same if we move with regard to it. LET shows that it doesn't have to stay the same, and the experiments can only measure the two way speed, so LET is more logical that SR in this instance. If my new simulation works, it will prove that, but to prove that light doesn't have to slow down, I'll have to make a simulation where it is the light exchanged between two orbiting bodies that produces their curved trajectory. I will have to show that aberration and beaming can be a cause for the direction of the steps, the same way doppler effect was a cause for straight motion. To me, light being affected by gravity is as illogical as the speed of light being c for an observer that is actually moving with regard to it. If it was so, I couldn't simulate any motion with regard to light on my screen, and all the drawings that show how light moves in the interferometer of the MM experiment would be wrong, which means that SR would not even respect its own origin. It started with a light that didn't go at the same speed both ways, and ended up with one that did. Trump hasn't been more self-contradictory. Maybe the quiff is there for something in both cases! :0)


Good news! I succeeded to get the right contraction rate on my simulation on acceleration! Take a look at it and tell me what you think of it. I'll try to import the coding in my simulation on opposed acceleration to see if, this way, contraction reverses when acceleration reverses.

[David Cooper]

If I understand well, you don't think that a break in the synchronization between my two particles during their acceleration can produce their resistance to acceleration, and that such a break may be due to the limited speed of any information.

I don't see any resistance to acceleration in them at all - what I see there is instant acceleration of a particle followed by the particles exchanging that movement energy with each other and taking turns to move with it.

The speed of light is secondary to that, and may vary. In a gravitational field, it actively does vary.

I don't yet believe that the speed of light can vary, the same way I don't believe that it stays the same if we move with regard to it.

If you don't think it slows in a gravity well, then you'll need to do something like curve space instead to account for gravitational lensing.

LET shows that it doesn't have to stay the same, and the experiments can only measure the two way speed, so LET is more logical that SR in this instance.

Its speed can vary relative to you depending on how you're moving, while its speed doesn't actually change. But it can change as it goes through a gravity well. That creates a problem in describing its speed, because it's going at the speed of light, but not at the deep-space speed of light, so we have light moving slower than c, and yet from our position in a gravity well, we think of the light moving around us at c even though its slower than that.

If my new simulation works, it will prove that, but to prove that light doesn't have to slow down, I'll have to make a simulation where it is the light exchanged between two orbiting bodies that produces their curved trajectory. I will have to show that aberration and beaming can be a cause for the direction of the steps, the same way doppler effect was a cause for straight motion. To me, light being affected by gravity is as illogical as the speed of light being c for an observer that is actually moving with regard to it. If it was so, I couldn't simulate any motion with regard to light on my screen, and all the drawings that show how light moves in the interferometer of the MM experiment would be wrong, which means that SR would not even respect its own origin. It started with a light that didn't go at the same speed both ways, and ended up with one that did. Trump hasn't been more self-contradictory. Maybe the quiff is there for something in both cases! :0)

The slowing of light in a gravity well slows light at any point equally regardless of the direction it's travelling in through that point, so it doesn't affect the MMX result - it just slows the entire functionality of it. It isn't hard to simulate this slowing - all you need to do is treat the screen as the space fabric and have a maximum speed for light to move across it. When it's near to a lot of matter, you reduce the speed of that light, and bend it's course too if necessary, but you have to get close to something huge like a star before it becomes significant, so I'd be surprised if you need to simulate that yet.

Good news! I succeeded to get the right contraction rate on my simulation on acceleration! Take a look at it and tell me what you think of it. I'll try to import the coding in my simulation on opposed acceleration to see if, this way, contraction reverses when acceleration reverses.

It looks like a fudge with the light turning round and the particle delaying its reaction without any sensible mechanism to tell it how long to wait. (There's also a small error creeping into it somewhere: I noticed that the speed was > 0.87c with the length not yet down to 0.5, and similarly for the 0.6 and 0.8 pairings.) What you really need though is some way for the particles to measure how far apart they feel themselves to be and for them to adjust towards a more comfortable separation. With two particles, they might not be able to settle down to that separation without radiating off heat. but they will get there on average. In a multi-particle object, the lengthways shortening should settle down a bit as a lot of the heat energy will divert sideways until the vibrations are equal sideways and lengthways.

There are a number of possible options as to how to achieve this. One would be to put a clock in each particle and use that to try to maintain a constant round trip time for each photon travelling between the two particles. The clocks in the particles would need to be adjusted for time dilation for that to work, so you'd be applying a fudge there instead in that the particles of the clock would also need to move closer together, and if you give them clocks to apply the same mechanism, you transfer the problem further down, infinitely. This approach also wouldn't be transferring the acceleration force in a rational way between the two particles, so we can probably rule it out.

Another approach would be to think of the light radiating out and transferring less force if it's spread out more by the time it reaches the other particle. Aberration needs to be programmed for in this to make sure the right amount of force is sent out towards the other particle. This should lead to correct length contraction if you can solve all the energy redistribution questions. There are problems with this though, because you need attraction and repulsion, and if they're always equal, it won't adjust the separations, so you need some way to make one win out over the other and near distances and the other win out at longer distances. I don't know why that should happen though. LaFrenière had ideas about why there should be attraction or repulsion, so it would be a good idea to try to understand his mechanism - it is likely to be closer to reality than any of my ideas for this. I still don't understand what it is he does to get it to work, but it may depend on doing something highly complex with a lot of wave interactions, so it might be best just to fudge it for now and just program in a need for a particle to accelerate towards the other particle if the force coming from it feels too weak, and away from it if it feels too strong. That fudge can then be replaced by a better mechanism later in a more complex simulation.

Another important thing to try to get right though is the reduced increase in speed from the same acceleration as the speed goes up - this has a role in length contraction too, most obviously with orbits.

[David Cooper]

Correction to previous post: aberration is not enough by itself to produce the correct pattern of radiation of force - you have to have length contraction acting already on the shape of the emitter in order to produce the right length contraction on the particle separation that results from the responses to the received force. That means the final part has to be used as the mechanism for length contraction, dictating the shapes of particles in the same way it dictates the shapes of orbits.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

I don't see any resistance to acceleration in them at all - what I see there is instant acceleration of a particle followed by the particles exchanging that movement energy with each other and taking turns to move with it.

The particles take a certain time to make a step, reason why they move on the screen, and when they increase their speed, it also increases on the screen, so they are not really accelerating instantly. The time they take to make a step is the one for the computer to run the simulation once. If that operation would take no time, there would be no motion on the screen. They would get from 0 to c in no time.

It looks like a fudge with the light turning round and the particle delaying its reaction without any sensible mechanism to tell it how long to wait.

There is no mechanism either for length contraction in SR. At least, my simulation suggests one, and it certainly is a relativistic one since it is due to light taking time to accelerate things.

There are a number of possible options as to how to achieve this. One would be to put a clock in each particle and use that to try to maintain a constant round trip time for each photon traveling between the two particles. The clocks in the particles would need to be adjusted for time dilation for that to work, so you'd be applying a fudge there instead in that the particles of the clock would also need to move closer together, and if you give them clocks to apply the same mechanism, you transfer the problem further down, infinitely. ­

That's the way my small steps already work: the ones between the particles are justified by the ones between their components, and so on for the components ones. If any particle has a dimension, there is no other way around.

This approach also wouldn't be transferring the acceleration force in a rational way between the two particles, so we can probably rule it out.

In the simulation, the force on the particles is the result of their resistance to be accelerated, and that resistance is due to light taking time to accelerate the other particle. If that acceleration would take no time, the particle would accelerate instantly, and there would be no resistance, thus no force. Where do you see any irrationality in that mechanism?

Another approach would be to think of the light radiating out and transferring less force if it's spread out more by the time it reaches the other particle. Aberration needs to be programmed for in this to make sure the right amount of force is sent out towards the other particle. This should lead to correct length contraction if you can solve all the energy redistribution questions. There are problems with this though, because you need attraction and repulsion, and if they're always equal, it won't adjust the separations, so you need some way to make one win out over the other and near distances and the other win out at longer distances.

During constant motion, the photon produced by the particles suffers beaming and doppler effect, and it suffers aberration and a reversed doppler effect when it strikes them later on, so it appears normal to both particles. During acceleration, the red particle produces more doppler effect and more beaming than the one it perceives from the incoming photon, so it resists to accelerate, and it appears blueshifted and smaller to the other particle, which accelerates away from it so that aberration and doppler effect makes it appear normal, and which also resists to its acceleration. I didn't simulate it yet, but the outside force that accelerates the red particle is also a photon.

Correction to previous post: aberration is not enough by itself to produce the correct pattern of radiation of force - you have to have length contraction acting already on the shape of the emitter in order to produce the right length contraction on the particle separation that results from the responses to the received force.

Right, and that's what my last simulation does. Remains to reverse the acceleration and wait for the distance to stretch back. Suspense.... :0)

[guest46746]

Why not approach the time dilation/ length contraction issue from the perspective of the 2nd thermal law and the axiom of exergy efficiency. When accelerating to the speed of light the loss of thermal energy is minimized. This is evident with the decrease radiation from atomic clocks in GPS satellites! lol

KISS!

[guest46746]

Then the question becomes, why is energy conserved while traveling at accelerated speeds? lol

[David Cooper]

This approach also wouldn't be transferring the acceleration force in a rational way between the two particles, so we can probably rule it out.

In the simulation, the force on the particles is the result of their resistance to be accelerated, and that resistance is due to light taking time to accelerate the other particle. If that acceleration would take no time, the particle would accelerate instantly, and there would be no resistance, thus no force. Where do you see any irrationality in that mechanism?

I was referring to the business of a photon transferring energy between the two particles - it should deliver the amount it carries, making it impossible for the particle receiving that energy to respond correctly unless the amount of energy put into the photon in the first place is the right amount for the other particle to receive, and that needs knowledge at a distance. There has to be a lot more going on than photons transferring energy in this simplistic way. That isn't something I've read up on at all, and it isn't something that I can afford to put time into at the moment either, so I can't tell you how it should be done, and I don't know if anyone knows how it should be done either.

Right, and that's what my last simulation does. Remains to reverse the acceleration and wait for the distance to stretch back. Suspense.... :0)

The important part was: "That means the final part has to be used as the mechanism for length contraction, dictating the shapes of particles in the same way it dictates the shapes of orbits." If you want a simulation to explain the cause length contraction, it has to include the mechanism of length contraction and not simply apply a length-contraction formula to generate it. The whole point is that you would need to provide correct length contraction without a formula for it, making it appear out of other mechanisms that are already accepted in physics.