[Le Repteux (OP)]

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.

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. With LET, things cannot be moving at more than c with regard to light.

Instantaneous accelerations are real.

What do you mean exactly? That changes in speed or direction are always instantaneous?

All 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.

[opportunity]

This mind experiment discussed in this thread is only using singular time and associated 3-d spatial relativity physics. Are you ok with that?

[Le Repteux (OP)]

Hi Opportunity,

The simulations that I present here account for anything that the limited speed of light can account for, so no math can surpass them as far as the logical part of relativity is concerned. Give me a relativity problem and my simulation will give the right answer. What I'm discussing here is the way SR treats acceleration. My simulation on acceleration shows that accelerating a particle before the other one knows about it contracts the distance between two bonded particles, and if I account for the contraction of the particles themselves, the contraction rate is the same as SR's one. I prefer simulations because we can see what's happening, but math should give us the same answer providing we try to solve the same problem.

[guest46746]

Tell me you don't see Einstein laughing hysterically playing with the  Pythagorean theorem! lol

[guest46746]

KISS!  lol

[mad aetherist]

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:

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 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.

I am not sure whether your idea is 100% Einsteinian, & whether u only want Einsteinian input -- but i think that it is not 100% Einsteinian, & i think that u do not rule out other ideas.
I dont understand SR & GR, but my memory is that re the twins Alby explained that acceleration affected their clocks -- & that a clock's ticking was affected by the history of its acceleration. Yes this is weird, but that is what he said. Whereas supposed scientists around here dont even admit that acceleration has any effect of itself -- & completely ignore that that effect might have a memory.

I am an aetherist & am anti-Einstein (SR & GR are krapp). Aether theory doesnt offer any obvious reason for why acceleration might affect ticking, other than of course by affecting speed (as for SR). But i suspect that acceleration does affect ticking, ie apart from the obvious change due to change in speed. I think that Alby was correct, albeit for the wrong reasons (ie GR reasons), acceleration does affect ticking -- but i dont agree with Alby that the history of  acceleration has an enduring effect on the rate of ticking (it will-might of course have an enduring effect on the where the hands of the clock are pointing).

I see that your postings include references to MMXs -- u say that your model must achieve a null result re the two legs. No, u are wrong -- the MMXs never gave a null result -- hencely if your model gives a null MMX result then your model is non-real.

I see that your postings include reference to LET -- do u believe in aether?

I see that your question is open ended -- ie a brief overview of the aetherian view is not off topic. A proper analysis of a twins kind of ticking question needs the following considerations.
There is no such thing as time, or at least there is only one time, it is now, this instant, & it is universal.
There is no such thing as time dilation, what we have is ticking dilation.
TD & LC happen in accordance with Lorentz's gamma. The V in gamma is the absolute speed of the clock relative to the aether rest frame (the absolute frame)(the preferred reference frame) -- ie V is the apparent aetherwind.
One must apply gamma to each clock to establish the two tickings seen by an observer in the rest frame. These are the true tickings for the two clocks. These are the tickings that age the two twins.
As the twins accelerate the true tickings will change -- & these histories of tickings must be summed to give the final true age difference.
The two twins will (when they meet) both be aware of an apparent age difference which will be evident by a comparison of their two clocks-watches. This difference will not be the same as the true difference seen by the observer in the rest frame -- it will always be less than the true difference (except when zero)(see below).
It is possible that the two clocks-watches show the same time-aging -- in SR that would be impossible.

But  as i said aether theory does not recognize any TD effect due to acceleration -- i suspect that there is an effect.

[David Cooper]

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.

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 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.

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 make a return trip at what you measure as that same speed relative to your twin, your speed for the second leg will be zero. When you're reunited with your twin, you will have aged half as much as him during your trip, just as you would expect (meaning that if you think your twin's stationary and that both legs of your trip are done at 0.866c, those numbers predict that you'll age half as much as your twin too).

Instantaneous accelerations are real.

What do you mean exactly? That changes in speed or direction are always instantaneous?

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 maths and check that what's being said is correct.

All 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.

They won't explain contraction. At the moment, all you've done is write code to calculate length contraction which you're then applying to the particle separation. If you want to show the actual cause of length contraction you have to simulate the actual cause of length contraction, and that means you need to apply relativistic velocity addition to the components of particles just as you would to moons orbiting planets. An orbit contracts in length because the moon's increase in speed as it's moving round one side of its planet is slowed relative to the planet while it's speed increases relative to the planet as it goes round the other side - it takes longer to travel round one half of the orbit than the other, even though a co-moving observer with the system would see the moon as following a circular orbit and moving at a constant speed. That is length contraction in action, all controlled by relativistic velocity addition and it is a necessary outcome - length contraction is not ad hoc. The same thing will happen in atoms and particles, contracting them in length by affecting the way electrons move around them, although we're not dealing with simple orbits there, so you'd need to find an alternative way to model that, and that means understanding how electrons move. 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.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

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.

Lafrenière took Ivanhov's result from his sound standing wave building up between his two speakers, and applied it to its own light standing wave with only one emitter. My two particles' system works like Ivanhov's two emitters. If we could see the light the particles exchange, we would see the standing wave contract while the speed increases, and since the particles need to stand at the nodes of the standing wave to stay synchronized, they would follow the nodes, and the distance between them would contract. To increase their speed though, the particles need to accelerate, and as my simulations show, they can't do that instantly. 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.

If we could see the standing wave during the time the first particle accelerates, we would see that it is no more on its node, and we would have to stop the acceleration and wait for the two particles to move at the same speed on the screen for them to get back on sync again and to stay on their nodes. In other words, the standing wave would take place only after the acceleration would have happened, thus after contraction would have happened, because the emitters are not synchronized during acceleration and they have to for a standing wave to take place between them. My simulations don't show that, but the wavelengths are also contracted by doppler effect during acceleration, in such a way that there is always the same number of wavelengths between the particles before and after acceleration. I consider that as a memory of all the accelerations such a system may have, and in my simulations, it is that memory that produces the constant speed (and constant direction if aberration is accounted for) it has when it is not suffering any acceleration. In this sense, constant motion would not be as inert as we actually think.

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.

In the simulations, acceleration produces contraction, not time dilation. Time dilation is due to light taking more time to make a round trip after acceleration has taken place, and contraction is due to the first particle being forced to move towards the second one before it knows about it. The two phenomenon are linked since they are both due to light, but they are distinct.

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.

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.

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.

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. I could even make a simplified simulation of it where we could see the components execute many steps while the particles would execute only one. If all those steps were instantaneous, the particles would go from 0 to c in no time, and there would be nothing to see on the screen.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

scientists 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.

[David Cooper]

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.

Indeed, but whether you accelerate the front or rear particle, there need to be continual adjustments made to the particle separation as they try to stay on the nodes. If you accelerate them too quickly, you will simply break them apart and leave one behind, so you need to accelerate them slowly to keep them close enough together to have time to adjust after each input of force. Because it might take years to simulate such gentle acceleration and to get to a sufficiently high speed for length contraction to show up, you'll need to cheat by using much bigger accelerations and artificially keeping the two particles close together by accelerating both of them equally each time you apply a big acceleration, but you will still be able to apply small accelerations to either particle and see them adjust back to the correct separation.

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.

You could apply it within the atoms with a simplified version of the atom using electron orbits - those orbits will necessarily be contracted in length by applying relativistic velocity addition to them, and that necessarily gives you the right atom shape for sending out waves of force at the right intensity in all directions (so long as you also take aberration into account) to reproduce the same length contraction between two atoms.

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.

Relativistic velocity addition applies to LET - it applies to any theory which prevents objects from going faster than c.

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.

The point I was making is that we don't ordinarily use gradual accelerations in the twins paradox thought experiment because that would complicate the calculations without providing any gain in return. Clearly though, you want to be able to handle gradual accelerations, but the cost of that is that you can't get to relativistic speeds in a reasonable length of time without tearing your objects apart, so you need to compromise. You can accelerate one particle if the acceleration is gentle and then watch the two adjust to share out the acceleration between them, but you should accelerate both equally if you want to get them up to high speed without tearing them apart (from each other). The length contraction that you end up with will then be dictated by the particles adjusting to a comfortable separation rather than by compression or stretch, and you'd be able to use a proper mechanism to provide the length contraction rather than artificially applying a formula to adjust the compression/stretch (which is what you're currently doing instead of providing a mechanism for the particles to adjust to a comfortable separation through interactions with each other).

[mad aetherist]

scientists 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.

I dont understand your theory etc (i am not a scientist). Is it an Einsteinian sort of theory -- koz i dont really understand SR & GR either.
I see that u mention aether -- however i reckon that any sort of aether micro theory or macro theory would not result in a twins paradox.
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.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

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.

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.

[mad aetherist]

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.

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.

An aetherist or Einsteinian would be ok with info moving at c tween particles, c being the speed of em fields (photinos) & the speed of light (photons) -- but gravity attraction (& retarding inertial forces) move at say more than 20 billion c (but these are weak).
I agree that light produces mass -- free photons have mass -- & when confined a photon gives us a particle & the mass is millions of times greater -- the mass being due to aether being annihilated in photons & aether flowing in to replace the lost aether, the acceleration of the aether giving us g.

But light doesnt support the information that travels at c -- the em fields (charge electro magneto) are due to photinos emanating from photons -- & photinos are a part of photons.  That is a topic ignored by Einsteinians.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

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)

[mad aetherist]

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)

Gravity attraction forces atom to nearby atom are probly very weak & ok to ignore compared to charge etc (dunno) -- & praps inertia of atom can be ignored (dunno)(i aint a scientist).

[David Cooper]

Congratulations on getting your thread moved to new theories.

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.

How does that work if there's only one particle?

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 only resistance to acceleration is the amount of energy tied up in the material, and that resistance shows up by affecting the new speed, this depending on how much energy has been added relative to the amount of energy that needs to be moved by it. This applies to single particles. If you have multiple bound particles and don't accelerate them all, there will be a transfer of movement energy between them to share it out evenly, but that should not be mistaken for resistance to acceleration. Your whole way of looking at it is wrong.

[guest46746]

It's not so hard, entanglement is the result of an electron decaying into two photons. The two entangled photon share the same angular proclivity of the electron. After they separate they share the same S/T perspective of the parent electron, however, this persprective now has two distinctly  different S/T locational bearings. The photon that accelerates away first at the SOL is time dilated. The second photon that remains orients to time contration. Both entangled photon are sharing the other's orientation's perspective. The first photon attempts to adjust by reconciling back to the second photon original perspective of  time contraction. This reconcilation of bearings between the two creates a paradox, "a situation that combines contradictory features or qualities." The second photon has reconciled to the time dilation of the first photon prior to the first photon reconciling itself to the second photon. Once the entangled photons adopt the only alternative, time dilation, the paradox resolves itself and both particles separate at the speed of light. lol

THe first photon has conserved more energy then the second. When the 1st photon through time dilation remaining as 6, attempts to reconcile with it's twin by returning in a SOL time contraction, it finds the second photon as being 12.  The second photon being 12, stagnant and w/o time dilated acceleration cannot time contract. Time contraction is only available to photon 6 as an alternative. With only time dilation as an alternative, for both accelerate, one 12 one 6. lol 

[guest46746]

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

[guest46746]

Has mistakes but will leave as is! lol

[Le Repteux (OP)]

Congratulations on getting your thread moved to new theories.

My goal wasn't to stay in the science forum, but to say what I think, and I did, and not all the forums let us do that, thank's to the flexibility of the administrators here..

How does that work if there's only one particle?

Then it is the information contained between the components that maintains the constancy of what we call their inertial motion, not the components themselves. If information is able to move the particles, not just inform the other particles that they move, then it is always located between the particles.

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 only resistance to acceleration is the amount of energy tied up in the material, and that resistance shows up by affecting the new speed, this depending on how much energy has been added relative to the amount of energy that needs to be moved by it. This applies to single particles. If you have multiple bound particles and don't accelerate them all, there will be a transfer of movement energy between them to share it out evenly, but that should not be mistaken for resistance to acceleration. Your whole way of looking at it is wrong.

The bonding between two molecules is a lot weaker than the one between two atoms, and if I had to simulate an acceleration on them, the distance between the molecules would contract a lot before transferring the acceleration to the other molecule, while the distance between the atoms would almost not change. A nudge on a first molecule would create a vibration between the molecules, because it would be accelerated backwards before having the time to completely accelerate the other molecule.

Such a vibration could also happen between my two particles if the force on the first particle would stop before it is informed that the second particle has moved away: it would immediately be forced to get back where it was, and it would then be forced to accelerate again forward as soon as that information would come in, what would create a vibration between them, a vibration that would be due to the limited speed of the information that bonds them together. When we hit a balloon, it wobbles while getting away from us because it deforms while being hit. It also happens when we hit a solid crystalline structure, and then we can hear the vibration because it is fast enough to create a sound wave. My particles don't vibrate simply because I consider the acceleration to be progressive at the beginning and constant after. Notice that if they would, they would resist to vibrate, and that resistance would also be due to the limited speed of the information that bonds their components together. I'm surprised that you resist that much to change your mind about that possibility, but on the other hand, I'm happy you keep feeding me back. I need to take care not to entertain an endless vibration though. :0)

Talking of endless vibrations, I think that your simulation on tides already accounts for the outward force rmolnav is talking about. That force is due to inertial motion, and you already move your two bodies inertially while they are being moved gravitationally, so you already account for that force. He simply considers that inertial motion produces an outwards force, while it is also possible to consider that it creates a pulling one. I told him so, but he didn't answer me yet. Since your simulation already accounts for inertial motion, then he can certainly not provide the way to add it. That composite motion brings back the hen and egg feed on the table: which one of the two motions is executed first, the gravitational one or the inertial one? If it's the gravitational one, then the force is outward, and if it's the inertial one, then it is inward. No need to bother with the direction of the forces in a simulation though, only with the direction of the resulting motions.