0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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?
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.
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.
there is nothing coming out from a black hole to make things orbit it,
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.
If black holes exist, they simply can't produce any gravitation.
Curved space is a dead end idea
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!
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?
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.
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, ...
... 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.
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)
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 "contraction" that you're getting is nothing more than a compression that ought to remove itself quickly.
How is it an absolute reference when the particles can't tell what speed it's moving at relative to them?
if you accelerate the leading particle
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.
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.
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 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?
Mass is simply the amount of energy that makes up a piece of matter plus any energy added to it to move it
The speed of light is secondary to that, and may vary. In a gravitational field, it actively does vary.
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.
QuoteThe 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
QuoteThis 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?
Right, and that's what my last simulation does. Remains to reverse the acceleration and wait for the distance to stretch back. Suspense.... :0)