[David Cooper]

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)

Have you worked out how mass relates to the mass of particles? If it's actually in the light moving between the particles, how does that light know how much mass it should hold for different kinds of particles?

He simply considers that inertial motion produces an outwards force, while it is also possible to consider that it creates a pulling one.

As soon as he counts a non-force as a force, he has to counter it with another false force, or apply the centripetal force from the wrong place. I'm still not convinced he can produce an elliptical orbit, but I don't have time to experiment with it, so I'll wait until he makes it absolutely clear how he wants the forces to be applied.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

Have you worked out how mass relates to the mass of particles? If it's actually in the light moving between the particles, how does that light know how much mass it should hold for different kinds of particles?

The strength of the light exchanged between the particles is equivalent to the loss of mass due to their bonding, so if we accelerate a particle towards another one, the resistance it offers to move with regard to this light is weak. The main part of its resistance comes from its components' one, which exchange a lot stronger light since they are a lot closer and that the frequency of their exchange is a lot higher. This way, the more there are components, the stronger the light between the particles, and the stronger their resistance to accelerate towards the other one when it has not already accelerated. The same phenomenon happens to the bonding between atoms: the more there are nucleons, the stronger the bonding between the atoms, but it also depends on the way the electrons make their bonding, and in my small steps, there is no electrons, so the strength of the bond must depend on the way the nucleons interact with each other. Whatever the number of components though, the information they exchange in order to move properly with regard to one another is still contained in the light they exchange, so it is all the time located between them. Naturally, I suspect our own memory to work like that too, I suspect the information to be located between the neurons, but that's another story.

[guest4091]

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).

Groups of fundamental particles are pushed to high relativistic speeds very quickly in accelerators  everyday..

[David Cooper]

Groups of fundamental particles are pushed to high relativistic speeds very quickly in accelerators  everyday.

That's quite different from a bound pair/group of them with all the acceleration being applied to only one of them and the others reacting to that as the force is shared out between them from the directly-accelerated one. Also, if you want to simulate things using a JavaScript timer at a maximum of a thousand moves per second with each move representing a trillionth of a second (or quadrillionth - I can't remember what Le Repteux is using), it would take a very long time to simulate an acceleration to relativistic speed, so he needs to compromise.

[David Cooper]

The strength of the light exchanged between the particles is equivalent to the loss of mass due to their bonding, so if we accelerate a particle towards another one, the resistance it offers to move with regard to this light is weak. The main part of its resistance comes from its components' one, which exchange a lot stronger light since they are a lot closer and that the frequency of their exchange is a lot higher. This way, the more there are components, the stronger the light between the particles, and the stronger their resistance to accelerate towards the other one when it has not already accelerated.

Perhaps you could to display numbers for the mass then, showing where it is for two unbonded particles, then showing how it's distributed when the bond is formed, and then how it changes when the particles are accelerating.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

Programming forces looks as difficult as programming feelings: we can feel things but we seem unable to program those feelings. In your simulation on tides, you probably use the gravitation equation because you have to account for the mass concept, otherwise you would have to program an exchange of information between the two bodies like I do, program it to loose intensity with distance, and move the different parts of the bodies with regard to the incoming information. That's what I would have to do to rotate my particles, but in this case, the frequency of the information would have more importance than the intensity. No need to use force then, just motion and information about motion. If we knew what mass is about, maybe we could program force, but we don't. In my simulation on acceleration, mass is the result of a particle producing doppler effect on the incoming information while it is being accelerated towards the other particle, in such a way that it is forced to brake all the time it is being accelerated. It may be a good explanation for mass, but it doesn't help us to program the resistance the particle is feeling with regard to the information.

In my theory, it is the light that escapes from the components' steps that bonds the particles together, because it is during acceleration that light escapes, because the steps are justly made of accelerations followed by decelerations, and because the particles get out of sync with the incoming light during acceleration, thus being unable to absorb it all. If light would not have escaped from the particles, thus if the particles would not be bound, the bonds between their components would benefit from all the light and they would be stronger, and so would be their resistance to acceleration, thus their mass. I could show the mechanism with a simplified simulation, but I can't see how I could use it to measure the loss of mass. All I could measure is the loss of intensity due to distance, and this way, the light exchanged between the particles would be millions of times weaker than the one exchanged between the components. Mass is indeed inversely proportional to the particles' dimension, the smaller they are, the more they are massive, so I guess that the numbers the simulation would display this way wouldn't be very far from those we get from comparing their mass to the loss of mass due to their bonding.

I had another idea about the way my simulation could account for the relativistic effects at the components' scale. I could simply use the time contraction I get at the particles' scale, apply it to the components' scale, thus increase the frequency of the photon produced by the accelerated particle, and observe how it affects the timing and the distance between the particles. In principle, a photon with more energy produces a longer step, so the second particle would make a longer step away from the first particle than with doppler effect alone, which would effectively reduce the contraction due to the first particle accelerating before the second one. That step away from the first particle would then produce more redshift than expected on the photon it is producing, but that photon would also suffer some blueshift from its components, what would reduce the increase in redshift due to the step being longer than expected. More simply, the contraction happening at the components' scale would blueshift the photons produced by both particles, what would push them away from one another a bit during acceleration, thus reducing the contraction at the particles' scale. I'll try that instead of using the relativistic formula.

In fact, from the components viewpoint, the distance between the particles should not look contracted during acceleration since the components themselves would be contracting at the same rate, so it is possible that adding their contraction to my simulation would undo any contraction at the particles' scale. If it was so, reversing the acceleration would not produce any contraction either. When a photon from the accelerated particle would strike the other particle, it would be contracted, but since it would actually be producing the contraction of that particle's components while accelerating it, from their viewpoint, it wouldn't look so. The same thing would be happening to the doppler effect produced by the acceleration of the first particle: since it would be producing the acceleration of the second particle, from its viewpoint, there would be no doppler effect.*

That's a possibility SR doesn't account for. It's one thing to consider that light informs us on motion, but it's another one to consider that it is producing it. This way, the particles would be using light to move with regard to others exactly like we do, a less anthropocentric paradigm similar to putting the sun at the center of the world. That's precisely why I can consider that we shouldn't change reference frames in the twins paradox experiment: maybe we can neglect the way the particles can move, but if they do move with regard to light, then they can certainly not neglect it. If I move two systems of two bonded particles on the screen before accelerating one to rest with regard to the screen, I can certainly not pretend afterwards that it is not necessarily the one that has moved away from the other. That would be both absurd and abusive, and that's precisely what the relativists pretend. If I would be a relativist, that thinking would prevent me from using light to move my particles, because they would be moving relatively to light, not relatively to one another.

* PS. I must comment the idea that there would be no doppler effect since the particles would be moving at the same time the light is coming in. If I was a particle, I would certainly need to see that the other particle is beginning to move towards me before beginning to move away, so I would only move after I would have seen a bit of doppler effect, but since I would be accelerating away, it wouldn't increase as if I would have stayed at rest. If the acceleration was constant for instance, the doppler effect would be constant, and if I would be very sensible to it, I wouldn't let it increase much before beginning to move. That effect seems to dovetail my explanation of the cosmological redshift: I already attributed the redshift to the gravitational acceleration, and the effect is justly produced during acceleration.