0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

I got news for you guys! I found a way to produce the right contraction rate on my simulation of acceleration, and since it is due to a first particle accelerating before the other one has, it supports my OP idea that we can use acceleration to tell which twin is traveling.

If I can succeed to apply it to my simulation on opposite acceleration, if contraction becomes stretching when acceleration reverses, there will be no more event meshing failure like David is pointing to,

...no more instantaneous accelerations like Mike is suggesting,

My simulation will be able to solve any problem where any amount of light clocks start from the same point and get to the same other point, providing it has the parameters of their respective accelerations, direction and speed. They will slow down and contract (or speed up and stretch) at the right rates and only because any information takes time to go from one point to the other. That's precisely what relativity is about, nothing else.

but I'm surprised that you can't already see that an acceleration can be a deceleration to a halt, rather than an acceleration from stationary, and because the difference between the two can't be measured, you can't use acceleration to tell anything about who's traveling on any leg of a trip.

Instantaneous accelerations are real.

All you will achieve by that is illustrate a mechanism that is already well understood.

I repeat to anyone who wants to listen that acceleration is absolute, and that we thus shouldn't change reference frames when acceleration is involved, but @David Cooper does the contrary in his Relativity page, which probably means that many readers here think the same, so I thought it might be useful to discuss it.Here is the exert I'd like to discuss from David's page:QuoteFor example, if a rocket leaves the Earth and flies away into space for a year at 0.866 of the speed of light, then turns round and comes back at 0.866 of the speed of light, that trip will take two years from the point of view of the people in the rocket, but four years will have run through on the Earth before the rocket comes back. If we do our analysis from the "frame of reference" in which the Earth is considered to be stationary, then the rocket was moving and its clocks were ticking at half the normal rate throughout both legs of its voyage. However, if we use a different frame of reference instead, we could then imagine that it's the rocket that is stationary during the first leg of its voyage while the Earth is moving away from it at 0.866 of the speed of light, and that would mean that the clocks on the rocket can now be thought to be ticking twice as fast as the clocks on the Earth throughout this half of its trip. During the second half of the rocket's journey though, the rocket will be calculated to be chasing the Earth at 0.99 of the speed of light to catch up with it, and its clocks will be reckoned to be ticking about three and a half times as slowly as clocks on the Earth. The end result will still be that the whole journey will take two years for the rocket (as recorded by its clocks) while four years will still have gone by on the Earth (as recorded by clocks there). So, while we have accounts of events that contradict each other as to when the different clocks were running faster or slower than each other, the most important numbers about how long the whole trip takes will always agree at the end of the process when the two parties are reunited - all accounts determine that the rocket records two years while the Earth records four. I think that changing reference frames in this case simply adds a useless complexity to the problem. When we feel an acceleration, we know we are accelerating, and we know the direction, so changing reference frame is like refusing to admit that we are accelerating even if we can feel it. To me, the only use of denying it is to extend the reference frame principle to acceleration, and I think it's not a good way to improve our knowledge of relativistic phenomenon. The earthbound observer that starts moving away knows it is not accelerating, and the one that knows he is accelerating is not moving away: where does this happen in real observations? In my simulations on motion, I show the way light could travel between two accelerated particles. There might be other ways, but it's one of them. It links acceleration to relativity instead of sweeping it under the rug like this switching of reference frames does. It's based on the idea that a particle that belongs to a system of two bonded particles necessarily accelerates before the other one knows about it, because that information cannot travel at more than the speed of light. It is a very simple idea but it has many interesting issues. One of them is that the system contracts during acceleration, one of the features of relativity. The other is that it goes on moving at constant speed once acceleration has stopped, and that this motion is still due to the direction and the speed of light. And the third one is that the first particle resists to accelerate since it is already informed that the second one is not actually moving, a resistance that we can probably attribute to its mass, an hypothesis that looks more promising than the Higgs' one. As I said, there may be other ways to apply acceleration to particles, but why not start with this one? Even if it is not the right way, discussing it might raise up better ones, and at least, we will have something else to do than denying the observations.

For example, if a rocket leaves the Earth and flies away into space for a year at 0.866 of the speed of light, then turns round and comes back at 0.866 of the speed of light, that trip will take two years from the point of view of the people in the rocket, but four years will have run through on the Earth before the rocket comes back. If we do our analysis from the "frame of reference" in which the Earth is considered to be stationary, then the rocket was moving and its clocks were ticking at half the normal rate throughout both legs of its voyage. However, if we use a different frame of reference instead, we could then imagine that it's the rocket that is stationary during the first leg of its voyage while the Earth is moving away from it at 0.866 of the speed of light, and that would mean that the clocks on the rocket can now be thought to be ticking twice as fast as the clocks on the Earth throughout this half of its trip. During the second half of the rocket's journey though, the rocket will be calculated to be chasing the Earth at 0.99 of the speed of light to catch up with it, and its clocks will be reckoned to be ticking about three and a half times as slowly as clocks on the Earth. The end result will still be that the whole journey will take two years for the rocket (as recorded by its clocks) while four years will still have gone by on the Earth (as recorded by clocks there). So, while we have accounts of events that contradict each other as to when the different clocks were running faster or slower than each other, the most important numbers about how long the whole trip takes will always agree at the end of the process when the two parties are reunited - all accounts determine that the rocket records two years while the Earth records four.

I know that an acceleration can be a deceleration, I just have to imagine the accelerating twin decelerating to a rest on the screen while the other twin is moving away at constant speed. This way, the twin at rest has to move at twice the speed of the constant moving one to get back home, so he is still the one that ages less, but he is again the one that had to accelerate. There is no way for the constant moving twin to age less if he doesn't accelerate.

There is a problem with the speed of the returning twin though if the constant moving one already goes at close to c on the screen: he might have to accelerate at more than c to get back home, and if I try that with my particles, I'm afraid they will never reach c.

Quote from: David Cooper on 05/11/2018 22:21:41Instantaneous accelerations are real.What do you mean exactly? That changes in speed or direction are always instantaneous?

Quote from: David Cooper on 05/11/2018 22:21:41All you will achieve by that is illustrate a mechanism that is already well understood.Maybe, but applying relativity to my small steps is new, and they might explain contraction if it works, a phenomenon that is still an ad hoc assumption.

LaFrenière treats particles as waves and produces correct length contraction automatically by doing so, as well as showing how relativistic mass is stored. You need to simulate one or other of these mechanisms if you want the length contraction to come out of a rational process and not just a formula.

It's no surprise that the travelling twin has to accelerate because he has to change speed in order to get back to the stay-at-home twin who moves at a constant speed. What matters is not to put the focus on the acceleration part of that rather than the speed aspect, because that gives people misleading ideas that the acceleration has a special role beyond merely being a change in speed, as is shown by the version of the experiment in which clocks pass each other and make collective timings without any of them changing speed at all.

There is no such problem - look up relativistic velocity addition and apply it. If you think you are at rest while moving at 0.866c with your twin and then try to accelerate to 0.866c in the direction in which you're already moving, you will then move at 0.99c.

If you hit a particle with a photon, it will instantly accelerate to a new speed in a single jump. In thought experiments we can simplify them mathematically by allowing accelerations of composite objects to have all their particles accelerated in the same manner simultaneously, taking them directly from one speed to another without any gradual increase in speed. It is not helpful to insist on doing gradual accelerations instead as it makes it much harder for people to follow the math and check that what's being said is correct.

scientists around here dont even admit that acceleration has any effect of itself -- & completely ignore that that effect might have a memory.

With two inline particles, one of them has to accelerate before the other if the force is aligned with the particles, and my simulations show that the distance between the particles necessarily contracts before the second particle is informed that it has accelerated.

I can't see how I could simulate that relativistic velocity addition. If I accelerate my two particles at c, the light sent by the trailing one will not be able to reach the leading one anymore, and since it is light that tells it to accelerate, it won't be able to increase its speed either.

Is it possible that this relativistic addition is only meant for relativists to pretend that c can be the same both ways in a light clock? With LET, it is clearly not the same, and more importantly, it doesn't have to for the relativistic effects to take place.

In my theory, a single step between the particles is executed progressively by the steps between their components, which execute billions of them during that single step. Maybe the math for such a behavior is too complicated, but the behavior itself is not.

Quote from: mad aetherist on 06/11/2018 23:25:07scientists around here dont even admit that acceleration has any effect of itself -- & completely ignore that that effect might have a memory.Hi villain aetherist! :0)In my previous message to David, I justly explain how that kind of memory would work. Here is my simulations' page. Take a look at them and tell me if you understand them. They are all based on the idea that the screen can be at rest in aether. When the particles move on the screen, they move with regard to aether. When they get speed, that speed is absolute. Of course, I could also move the screen with regard to aether, but it would have no incidence on the relativistic effets that are happening due to light taking time to move the particles with regard to one another.

Does your theory result in a similar gamma to Lorentz & to Einstein?I daresay that there are lots of ways of deriving a similar or identical equation-gamma.

Quote from: mad aetherist on 08/11/2018 23:25:58Does your theory result in a similar gamma to Lorentz & to Einstein?I daresay that there are lots of ways of deriving a similar or identical equation-gamma.I don't work with equations, but with simulations. I'm trying to discover what would happen to two bonded particles if, while we accelerate them, thus when they get a new speed or a new direction, whatever bonds them together would only be able to travel at c. That's relativity, but applied to the microscopic world. The first assumption I make is that one of the particles would accelerate before the other knows about it, and then I move the particles by steps on the screen and I observe what's happening. During acceleration for instance, the first particle to accelerate goes on moving towards the other particle before it starts accelerating away from it, so the distance between them contracts, but it contracts so much that I get time contraction instead of time dilation. Also during acceleration, that first particle faces the information from the other particle that it is not moving away, so it resists moving towards it since their bonding distance is getting wrong, a resistance that we can attribute to its mass, which would then be due to the energy information taking time to bond the particles. When acceleration stops, the particles go on moving on the screen only because the information about their bonding is still exchanged between them, otherwise they would stop. What is happening then is that the redshift produced by the leading particle on the information it sends back towards the trailing one is pulling that trailing one forward, while the blueshift produced by the trailing one on the information it sends forward towards the leading one is pushing that leading one forward. This way, it is the information contained between the particles that maintains the constancy of what we call their inertial motion, not the particles themselves. If we consider that it is light that supports the information, then it is light that produces the bodies' mass, thus their resistance to acceleration, and it is also light that maintains their constant motion once they have accelerated. If I can demonstrate that my simulations are right, they might open a whole new way to study the relativity of motion.

If you consider that information may travel at more than the speed of light, then I'm afraid that my simulations won't please you. :0)

This way, it is the information contained between the particles that maintains the constancy of what we call their inertial motion, not the particles themselves.

If we consider that it is light that supports the information, then it is light that produces the bodies' mass, thus their resistance to acceleration, and it is also light that maintains their constant motion once they have accelerated. If I can demonstrate that my simulations are right, they might open a whole new way to study the relativity of motion.

The second photon has reconciled to the time dilation of the first photon prior to the first photon reconciling itself to the second photon reconciling itself to time contraction. The information of a time contraction cannot be greater than the information from a time dilation from a future source deaccelerating from the SOL. lol