Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream)

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Postby Inchworm on August 16th, 2017, 4:30 pm 

I looked for simulations of MMx on the web where we can see the apparatus moving across the screen and I found none. I suspect that relativists cannot show the apparatus moving with regard to a background because, in SR, things can only move with regard to one another. Is that so?
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Postby bangstrom on August 16th, 2017, 10:54 pm 

Inchworm » August 16th, 2017, 3:30 pm wrote:I looked for simulations of MMx on the web where we can see the apparatus moving across the screen and I found none. I suspect that relativists cannot show the apparatus moving with regard to a background because, in SR, things can only move with regard to one another. Is that so?

There are moving simulations of the MMx on the web similar to David’s but they don’t conform to observations which is why I suspect they are hard to find.

It is my understanding that an inertial (non-accelerating) observer traveling with the apparatus does not notice any changes in either length, mass, or time. These changes with speed are only apparent to observers outside his inertial reference frame and they can vary from one observer to the next so they are not ‘real’ to the local observer. This makes moving simulations identical to static simulations.

The idea that things can only move with regard to one another is found in both SR and in Galilean relativity but relativists do not show the apparatus moving because moving looks just like non-moving.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 339
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Postby BurtJordaan on August 17th, 2017, 1:32 am 

Yup. You are right that neither time dilation, nor Lorentz contraction can be observed in a single inertially moving apparatus. You can however set up two MMx stations that are in relative inertial motion. For purpose of simulation (or rather animation) you can randomly choose any one as the "stationary" apparatus and the other one as moving relatively. It will then show up Lorentz contraction in the "moving" one.

Then you can choose the other one as "stationary" and repeat the animation. It will again show up Lorentz contraction in the now "moving" one, i.e. one can physically observe that the phenomenon is reciprocal and hence not physical.

For reciprocal time dilation, one needs a slightly different simulation in order to make it clear. And for differences in elapsed proper time, yet another type of simulation, although one can presumably combine these two (or perhaps all three).
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Postby Inchworm on August 17th, 2017, 10:44 am 

Bangstrom wrote:The idea that things can only move with regard to one another is found in both SR and in Galilean relativity but relativists do not show the apparatus moving because moving looks just like non-moving.
The only way to show the zigzag of the light ray in the light clock is to move the apparatus on a background, not to move it with regard to another apparatus. It is misleading to show the mirrors moving with regard to a paper and then to ask us to imagine they are only moving with regard to us. A screen or a sheet of paper are not observers, they represent a medium through which the apparatus moves and through which light propagates.

David wrote:Then you can choose the other one as "stationary" and repeat the animation. It will again show up Lorentz contraction in the now "moving" one, i.e. one can physically observe that the phenomenon is reciprocal and hence not physical.

For reciprocal time dilation, one needs a slightly different simulation in order to make it clear. And for differences in elapsed proper time, yet another type of simulation, although one can presumably combine these two (or perhaps all three).
Contraction and dilation are linked to motion: if we get observable time dilation in an experiment, then we know we get contraction even if it is unobservable. What's the use of saying it is unreal? Does that cause a problem to say it is real?
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Postby bangstrom on August 17th, 2017, 4:07 pm 

Inchworm » August 17th, 2017, 9:44 am wrote: The only way to show the zigzag of the light ray in the light clock is to move the apparatus on a background, not to move it with regard to another apparatus. It is misleading to show the mirrors moving with regard to a paper and then to ask us to imagine they are only moving with regard to us. A screen or a sheet of paper are not observers, they represent a medium through which the apparatus moves and through which light propagates.

Contraction and dilation are linked to motion: if we get observable time dilation in an experiment, then we know we get contraction even if it is unobservable. What's the use of saying it is unreal? Does that cause a problem to say it is real?


The null results of the MMx suggest that light does not zig-zag.

Contraction and time dilation are only visible to remote observers looking through the lens-like distortion that comes from viewing events across reference frames and that makes the observations distortions rather than physically real.

I understand light as an instant and direct transfer of energy from one object to another rather than as a photon carrying a bundle of energy from place to place. Motion can’t alter the path of a photon particle because there is no photon particle and the ‘motion’ of light is cinematic like pixels on a computer monitor. This makes the motion of light digital rather than analog. The time delay we see in light events is strictly relativistic where there is a delay of one second for every 300,000 km of space between events.

Relativistic time is like the restaurant in Monty Python where every item on the menu comes with SPAM. In relativity, every interval of space comes with an interval of time. Like it or not. The mirrors in the MMx are a fixed distance apart so the timing of the light events is also fixed.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 339
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Postby BurtJordaan on August 17th, 2017, 4:13 pm 

Inchworm » 17 Aug 2017, 16:44 wrote:Contraction and dilation are linked to motion: if we get observable time dilation in an experiment, then we know we get contraction even if it is unobservable. What's the use of saying it is unreal? Does that cause a problem to say it is real?

You have left out one crucial word in the first sentence above. Should read: "Contraction and dilation are linked to relative motion".

Yes, it is observable, but the key is that it is a reciprocal observation, i.e. each observes the others time to be dilated and length contracted. It is "real" as in "observable", but not "real" as in "physical". How can it be when it is reciprocal, as stated?

Physical "length contraction" is never observed, but differences in elapsed proper times are. It is caused by non-equivalent spacetime paths, so you need to deviate from purely inertial frames in SR, e.g. by accelerating one observer differently than the other one. Or you need different gravitational environments between the observers.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Postby Dave_Oblad on August 18th, 2017, 1:48 pm 

Hi all,

Length contraction is interesting. Given a rigid platform under acceleration with a mirror at both ends and a two way light beam test for distance between mirrors, you will measure no contraction.

But.. allow another front mirror to be separate from the platform but accelerated at exactly the same as the platform and it will appear that the separate mirror is gaining distance ahead of the platform via the same test.

This is because the platform is rigid, made of Matter, and does contract as velocity increases. But contraction (length dilation) does not apply to space and thus a free mirror, under the exact same acceleration, will seem to increase it's distance from the platform, even if both are accelerated at the exact same rate.

This effect has been seen in particle accelerators:
As shown in Fig. 1, relativistic effects contract the proton and the lead nucleus along their lines of travel, making them appear, in the lab frame, as extremely flat disks.

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/61
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox

Thus, while Matter does contract at high speeds the distance between particles doesn't change. But in a complex molecule, or rigid structure, length does contract due to speed. This seems like an obvious requirement in that the electromagnetic bonding that holds Matter together has to obey the Speed of Light Limitation in the inter-communication between particles.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Postby Inchworm on August 19th, 2017, 10:50 am 

BurtJordaan » August 17th, 2017, 3:13 pm wrote:
Inchworm » 17 Aug 2017, 16:44 wrote:Contraction and dilation are linked to motion: if we get observable time dilation in an experiment, then we know we get contraction even if it is unobservable. What's the use of saying it is unreal? Does that cause a problem to say it is real?

You have left out one crucial word in the first sentence above. Should read: "Contraction and dilation are linked to relative motion".
It seems that I have also left out the kind of observation I was thinking of: I meant those with clocks that slow down, what you call the elapsed proper time. To me, that's the only kind of data that is useful, and in this case, we know which clock was traveling.

Yes, it is observable, but the key is that it is a reciprocal observation, i.e. each observes the others time to be dilated and length contracted. It is "real" as in "observable", but not "real" as in "physical". How can it be when it is reciprocal, as stated?
In this case, there is no way to tell which clock is traveling, and there is no use to the observation either.

Physical "length contraction" is never observed, but differences in elapsed proper times are. It is caused by non-equivalent spacetime paths, so you need to deviate from purely inertial frames in SR, e.g. by accelerating one observer differently than the other one. Or you need different gravitational environments between the observers.
In this case, we know which clock is traveling, or which clock is higher than the other, and the data is useful. By the way, saying that a clock has taken a shortcut into the future doesn't help me to understand relativity, I prefer clocks that slow down because the frequencies of their atoms depend on the limited speed of light.

Dave wrote:This seems like an obvious requirement in that the electromagnetic bonding that holds Matter together has to obey the Speed of Light Limitation in the inter-communication between particles.
That's the interpretation I prefer.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Postby Dave_Oblad on August 20th, 2017, 12:18 pm 

Hi Inchworm,

Someday.. it's inevitable we will exploit some form of Entanglement to communicate at FTL or instantaneous long distance quantum communication. It will probably be called an Ansible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansible
For now, it is science fiction. But the concept poses an interesting question:

Suppose two travelers were at different velocities, one is in the relativistic range. The faster one would instantly know who was moving closer to light speed because the other would have an accelerated voice (higher pitch and word rate). The one moving slowest would perceive the faster party as having a slow rate of pitch and word rate. If it was extreme enough, one may even require an electronic recording medium to record at one rate and playback at another rate to be an intelligible conversation. Perhaps both would send a 1000Hz keynote to the other for a recorder to auto-compensate if needed. This would naturally install a working lag time embedded into the conversation between each parties sentences.

Anyway, this speculation (or thought experiment) poses an interesting challenge to anyone supporting the idea that both have identical on-board clocks.. but the faster is moving at a different rate though time.

Two ideas are offered:
1. The faster mover has a slower clock.
2. The clocks are the same but... the faster mover is time traveling.

Regardless of the explanation (1 or 2), the twin-paradox can not be avoided. This means that even if the explanation is choice-2, the real-time measured results (via Ansible) can only support choice-1.

Clock Dilation is already a proven phenomenon. Thus the idea that their clocks are running at the same rate is in complete denial of measurements and the twin-paradox. Choice-2 demonstrates a complete lack of understanding how Time actually works. The Centrifuge Experiment easily demonstrates that both clocks share the same on-going moments of simultaneity. In other words, both clocks are moving forward in time at exactly the same rate. Thus.. the only viable conclusion is that speed dilates clock mechanics... period.

For amusement.. go read the Twin Paradox supplied by Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

Wiki wrote:this scenario can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity: the travelling twin's trajectory involves two different inertial frames, one for the outbound journey and one for the inbound journey, and so there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the twins.

I call such a cheap shot.. the Centrifuge Experiment has no out-bound nor in-bound turn-around paths. It simply shows the faster clock runs slower.. period. "PERIOD!"

The Centrifuge Experiment clearly shows that the only difference between the clocks is a spatial one.. meaning one is moving through more space than the other in the same local time period. But.. there is no temporal separation between them, because the distance between the clocks is a constant and the communication delay between both clocks is a constant. Thus the Centrifuge Experiment is identical to the Ansible Experiment.. but we don't have to wait for FTL communications to leave the realm of Science Fiction to witness such in action.

It appears very obvious that Science needs a major re-tweaking of how it defines and treats "Time".

It's very simple: Speed dilates Matter in both Length Contraction and Clock Mechanics. Both are due to the Speed of Light limitations imposed on semi-rigid Matter and how it maintains internal Geometry in the face of such imposed limitation relative to its absolute velocity.

Personally, I believe such a shift in paradigm is long overdue, but resistance to such is primarily due to the fact that it requires eventual acceptance of Absolutism. Sooner or later.. Science will have to give up on it's current Rube Goldberg explanations and accept a much more simple mechanical explanation to explain Clock Dilation. This will then lead to a much more simple understanding of Gravity (in my view).

Gravity (just for fun):
1. The Planck Length, while indivisible, is not the same size everywhere (curved space).
2. Matter under forced Acceleration has a different Geometry than Inertial Matter.
3. Matter exposed to a Planck Length Differential must adopt the Geometry of Acceleration.
4. Matter auto-accelerates by Geometry towards reduced Planck Lengths.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Postby Inchworm on August 20th, 2017, 12:51 pm 

Dave wrote:Suppose two travelers were at different velocities, one is in the relativistic range. The faster one would instantly know who was moving closer to light speed because the other would have an accelerated voice (higher pitch and word rate). The one moving slowest would perceive the faster party as having a slow rate of pitch and word rate.
I tried to imagine doppler effect with instant communication and I can't. Whenever I am approaching the receiver while beeping at a stable frequency, my beeps arrive at the same frequency at the receiver. If you mean that my beeps would slow down because of time dilation, then it means that you do not consider that communication is instantaneous between the atoms of my emitter, which means that the emitter is able to communicate instantly with the receiver while it is not able to produce its own beeps instantly. At first glance, it seems contradictory.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Postby Positor on August 20th, 2017, 9:37 pm 

Dave_Oblad » August 20th, 2017, 5:18 pm wrote:the Centrifuge Experiment has no out-bound nor in-bound turn-around paths.

But the rim clock in the centrifuge experiment is under constant acceleration (change of velocity, i.e. change of speed in a particular direction). It is constantly performing a turnaround; it is never in an inertial frame. So one cannot draw any conclusions from it about inertial travellers.
Positor
Active Member
 
Posts: 1004
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Postby Dave_Oblad on August 21st, 2017, 6:04 am 

Hi Positor,

Positor wrote:it is never in an inertial frame..

Fine.. so SR isn't qualified to handle it? The Rim Clock will run slower than the Center Clock. Why? Because the Rim Clock it is moving through a path of greater distance than the Center Clock in the same period.

Granted the Rim Clock is under constant change in angular direction, but is this really Acceleration? Once the Rim clock reaches maximum RPM can it be said it is still accelerating? The distance described by the path through space becomes a constant, once the RPM's cease to increase. Or in other words, once the RPM's are constant, the clock rate becomes a constant.. it doesn't behave as if the clock is under constant Acceleration forever.. as if it could perhaps reach some speed where the clock stops completely.

The Rim Clock will simply run slower than the Center Clock.. obviously.

But since the distance between them never changes, it can be shown that both can communicate with each other with very little delay due to propagation over a meager distance. The Rim Clock doesn't fall behind or speed ahead in the concept of the moment (NOW). They both hold the same position in the Present. There is no temporal separation between both clocks. Both clocks are moving through Literal Time at exactly the same Rate.

Even when the Rim Clock shows it has fallen behind by a full 24 hours of the Center Clock, both clocks still occupy the same exact present moment in Real Time, as seen by their near instantaneous communication exchanges with each other.

Thus.. the only logical conclusion one can draw is that Velocity alone has slowed the atomic mechanics of the Rim Clock.

It also demonstrates (to me at least) that Science has a poor representation of what Real Time is all about. It gets too caught up in what clocks are doing.. or chasing the wrong goose in other words. Proper time is what clocks do and it's all over the map.. while nearly impossible to reconcile without Absolutes.

The Twin Paradox is the Bane of Relativity and can't be reconciled without Absolutes. The Centrifuge Experiment really brings this into the light as a decent representation of the Twin Paradox.

In my book, we exist on the 3D surface of a growing Hyper (4D) Geometry and that Real Time is actually just physical (4D) distance.. related directly to the Expansion of the Universe (I'm betting).

Sorry Inchworm.. I need to hit the sack.. will address your post late tomorrow.

Regards,
Dave :^)
Last edited by Dave_Oblad on August 21st, 2017, 6:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Postby BurtJordaan on August 21st, 2017, 6:14 am 

Positor, Dave_O's 'Absolutist' mindset prevents him from realizing the holes in his argument, so I have stopped arguing. I must say his fantasies are always entertaining to read... ;)
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Postby Dave_Oblad on August 21st, 2017, 6:36 am 

Hi Jorrie..

Really? Relativity can't resolve the Twin Paradox without Absolutes. The faster twin will age slower. But if Relativity is correct, then aren't both simply moving relative to each other? Who can claim to be moving faster? Relative to what? It has nothing to do with acceleration. It must be an issue of being relative to the Speed of Light. But that's an Absolute ;)

My fantasies today will be your truths tomorrow.. just wait and see.. lol.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Postby BurtJordaan on August 21st, 2017, 6:49 am 

Hi Dave,

In a sense we need an 'absolute', because acceleration is 'absolute' in the sense that you can detect it by an accelerometer, with no reference to any frame.

I am surely watching how your 'fantasies' will turn out and probably change over time.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Postby Dave_Oblad on August 22nd, 2017, 1:54 pm 

Hi Inchworm,

Inchworm wrote:Whenever I am approaching the receiver while beeping at a stable frequency, my beeps arrive at the same frequency at the receiver.

Not sure I understood the meaning of the post after the above quote, but what I quoted is false. Data sent by a mover becomes compressed within its medium in the direction of travel. If the receiver is stationary relative to such a medium, then the frequency, pitch and beep rates will be seen to be higher than what was transmitted. That's pretty much what the Doppler effect is all about.

Doppler effects become null if both parties are moving at the same rate in the same direction. Doppler effects are all about compression and stretching of data exchanges between two parties. I'm sure you know this, as your favorite view points are all related to Doppler effects.

The real question I would like answered is: Do orbitals exist within Matter? The old Model of an electron was about an Electron orbiting the atomic Nucleus. Now days, the Electrons is seen as a shell. Otherwise, do the other particles within a Proton etc have any orbitals? I doubt it. It seems reasonable that the particles are exchanging data to maintain cohesion and Geometry.. but that doesn't need to imply particle orbitals exist.

But the data paths in said exchanges might be thought of as a type of orbital. What causes cohesion? Is it a Doppler Function? If I'm not mistaken, I think that is the primary interest you are pursuing.

Have you seen the experiments where they take a plate and vibrate it. Where sand on the plate adopts a Geometry from the acoustics?



Are these a macro scale model of particles?

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Postby Positor on August 22nd, 2017, 9:25 pm 

Assuming an absolute frame for the sake of argument:

Dave_Oblad » August 20th, 2017, 5:18 pm wrote:Suppose two travelers were at different velocities, one is in the relativistic range. The faster one would instantly know who was moving closer to light speed because the other would have an accelerated voice (higher pitch and word rate). The one moving slowest would perceive the faster party as having a slow rate of pitch and word rate.

Thus the one moving slowest, having spoken a sentence, would constantly have to wait for the faster-moving one to (a) understand the complete transmitted sentence, and (b) finish his/her (slow) reply. If the faster one were moving at very close to the speed of light, the wait would be enormous. So how could an instantaneous or near-instantaneous exchange of conversation be maintained?

Dave_Oblad wrote:Thus.. the only viable conclusion is that speed dilates clock mechanics... period.

Suppose a clock (of the old-fashioned mechanical type) is manufactured in an 'absolutely' fast-moving frame (given your idea of isotropic CMB as a standard of absolute rest), such that its mechanism will break if it is forced to run faster than a specific (known) speed, due to stress/strain on its components. If it is then taken into an 'absolutely' slower frame, will an observer in the original frame see/calculate it to run faster than the critical speed, or will he/she see it break? In other words, is the "dilation of clock mechanics" a real physical effect?
Positor
Active Member
 
Posts: 1004
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Postby Dave_Oblad on August 22nd, 2017, 10:28 pm 

Hi Positor,

An Ansible or FTL Quantum Transceiver would give instantaneous communications (no delay) over any distance.. but can't do anything about the data rate. For a mover at 0.86c.. the data rate would be 50% of a stationary responder. And your are correct, if your moving party was really fast.. like above 0.99c.. it could take hours to record a simple short sentence from them. Same effect if they were in close orbit around a Black Hole. But that is still better than waiting perhaps 100's of years for the speed of light transit delay.

Did you see the movie "Interstellar"? Imagine trying to talk with someone on that water planet where normal months passed by in 1 hour of that planet's time.. lol.

About the clock.. Yes.. the dilation is physically real. But regardless of what speed it was created under, if it runs fine.. it will run fine at any other speed. The clock dilation aspect doesn't have any effect on stress factors (afaik).

As long as the acceleration and deceleration doesn't cause any critical stresses, it should run at any speed short of light speed. It will simply tick slower at higher speeds. But if you were with the clock, it will always appear to be ticking at a normal rate to you. Same with your Biological Clocks (ageing).

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Postby Inchworm on September 3rd, 2017, 12:06 pm 

Dave_Oblad » August 22nd, 2017, 12:54 pm wrote:Hi Inchworm,

Inchworm wrote:Whenever I am approaching the receiver while beeping at a stable frequency, my beeps arrive at the same frequency at the receiver.

Not sure I understood the meaning of the post after the above quote, but what I quoted is false. Data sent by a mover becomes compressed within its medium in the direction of travel. If the receiver is stationary relative to such a medium, then the frequency, pitch and beep rates will be seen to be higher than what was transmitted. That's pretty much what the Doppler effect is all about.
You were talking about instant communication, so I tried to imagine if I would perceive doppler effect in this case, and I concluded that there would be none. The beeps would be perceived at the same time they would be emitted, so how could there be any doppler effect?

But the data paths in said exchanges might be thought of as a type of orbital. What causes cohesion? Is it a Doppler Function? If I'm not mistaken, I think that is the primary interest you are pursuing.
With doppler effect as a cause for motion, the cohesion is due to a standing wave. David Cooper is actually working here on a simulation to experiment my model, and we are discussing it on the forum while it is being developed. Here is the last version. To run it, you need to copy-paste it in Notepad, register it in HTML, and open it with your usual browser. Don't change the damping value because it is not working right yet, but you can hit the nudge buttons and observe the doppler effect becoming a cause for motion. We cannot see the wave yet, but we will in the next versions. The bars represent a photon, so we can compare their speed to the speed of the particles. Notice that the system of two particles represent a molecule, and that both of them have to move before the molecule moves. It means that when we accelerate a molecule, it has to wait before moving, which is what mass is all about.
Code: Select all
<HTML>
<HEAD>
   <TITLE>Theory Simulation</TITLE>

   <script type="text/javascript">

   window.setInterval("run()",8) // controls repetition rate

   function run()
   {   t+=gr; // advance time by granularity unit
      ty+=gr; tb+=gr // advance time counters too

      // next we'll update the bar positions

      r+=rv*gr; g+=gv*gr; // first move the visible bars

      r1+=rv*gr; g1+=gv*gr; // then the hidden bars
      r2+=rv*gr; g2+=gv*gr;
      r3+=rv*gr; g3+=gv*gr;
      r4+=rv*gr; g4+=gv*gr;
      r5+=rv*gr; g5+=gv*gr;
      r6+=rv*gr; g6+=gv*gr;
      r7+=rv*gr; g7+=gv*gr;
      r8+=rv*gr; g8+=gv*gr;
      r9+=rv*gr; g9+=gv*gr;
      r10+=rv*gr; g10+=gv*gr;
      r11+=rv*gr; g11+=gv*gr;
      r12+=rv*gr; g12+=gv*gr;
      r13+=rv*gr; g13+=gv*gr;
      r14+=rv*gr; g14+=gv*gr;
      r15+=rv*gr; g15+=gv*gr;

      // Next part reuses old bars for new ones, and it stores
      // speed of particle at time of new bar emission.

      if(ty>=fb){if(srb==16){srb=0} // identify bar to reuse
         ty=0; // reset count for the next reuse of a bar
         if(srb==0){r=b; cdr=0; pbv=bv}
         else{if(srb==1){r1=b; cdr1=0; pbv1=bv}
         else{if(srb==2){r2=b; cdr2=0; pbv2=bv}
         else{if(srb==3){r3=b; cdr3=0; pbv3=bv}
         else{if(srb==4){r4=b; cdr4=0; pbv4=bv}
         else{if(srb==5){r5=b; cdr5=0; pbv5=bv}
         else{if(srb==6){r6=b; cdr6=0; pbv6=bv}
         else{if(srb==7){r7=b; cdr7=0; pbv7=bv}
         else{if(srb==8){r8=b; cdr8=0; pbv8=bv}
         else{if(srb==9){r9=b; cdr9=0; pbv9=bv}
         else{if(srb==10){r10=b; cdr10=0; pbv10=bv}
         else{if(srb==11){r11=b; cdr11=0; pbv11=bv}
         else{if(srb==12){r12=b; cdr12=0; pbv12=bv}
         else{if(srb==13){r13=b; cdr13=0; pbv13=bv}
         else{if(srb==14){r14=b; cdr14=0; pbv14=bv}
         else{r15=b; cdr15=0; pbv15=bv;
         }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
        srb+=1}
      if(tb>=fy){if(sgb==16){sgb=0} // same for green bars
         tb=0;
         if(sgb==0){g=y; cdg=0; pyv=yv}
         else{if(sgb==1){g1=y; cdg1=0; pyv1=yv}
         else{if(sgb==2){g2=y; cdg2=0; pyv2=yv}
         else{if(sgb==3){g3=y; cdg3=0; pyv3=yv}
         else{if(sgb==4){g4=y; cdg4=0; pyv4=yv}
         else{if(sgb==5){g5=y; cdg5=0; pyv5=yv}
         else{if(sgb==6){g6=y; cdg6=0; pyv6=yv}
         else{if(sgb==7){g7=y; cdg7=0; pyv7=yv}
         else{if(sgb==8){g8=y; cdg8=0; pyv8=yv}
         else{if(sgb==9){g9=y; cdg9=0; pyv9=yv}
         else{if(sgb==10){g10=y; cdg10=0; pyv10=yv}
         else{if(sgb==11){g11=y; cdg11=0; pyv11=yv}
         else{if(sgb==12){g12=y; cdg12=0; pyv12=yv}
         else{if(sgb==13){g13=y; cdg13=0; pyv13=yv}
         else{if(sgb==14){g14=y; cdg14=0; pyv14=yv}
         else{g15=y; cdg15=0; pyv15=yv;
         }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
        sgb+=1}

      // Now we apply any accelerations & update particle positions

      ha=0.5*ya*a // get half y's acceleration value
      y+=yv+ha; // add y's old velocity+ha to its position
      yv+=ya*a; // add y's acceleration value to its velocity
      ha=0.5*ba*a // get half b's acceleration value
      b+=bv+ha; // add b's velocity+ha to its position
      bv+=ba*a; // add b's acceleration value to its velocity

      ya=0; ba=0; // prevent repeat accelerations for same bar

      // and now we update screen positions

      ir.style.left=r*4+ro; // calculate bars' newscreen position
      ig.style.left=g*4+go; // (4 units = one picometre)
      iy.style.left=y*4; // calculate particle screen positions
      ib.style.left=b*4+bo;
      yloc.innerHTML=y; bloc.innerHTML=b; // update screen data
      sep.innerHTML=b-y;
      ping1.innerHTML=yv; ping2.innerHTML=bv;

      // And then we have to deal with bars hitting particles
      // This used to be done in a separate function called cd()
      // (the "cd" part standing for collision detection)

      if(r<=y && cdr==0){ya=ny+pbv-yv; ny=0; cdr=1}
      if(g>=b && cdg==0){ba=nb+pyv-bv; nb=0; cdg=1}
      if(r1<=y && cdr1==0){ya=ny+pbv1-yv; ny=0; cdr1=1}
      if(g1>=b && cdg1==0){ba=nb+pyv1-bv; nb=0; cdg1=1}
      if(r2<=y && cdr2==0){ya=ny+pbv2-yv; ny=0; cdr2=1}
      if(g2>=b && cdg2==0){ba=nb+pyv2-bv; nb=0; cdg2=1}
      if(r3<=y && cdr3==0){ya=ny+pbv3-yv; ny=0; cdr3=1}
      if(g3>=b && cdg3==0){ba=nb+pyv3-bv; nb=0; cdg3=1}
      if(r4<=y && cdr4==0){ya=ny+pbv4-yv; ny=0; cdr4=1}
      if(g4>=b && cdg4==0){ba=nb+pyv4-bv; nb=0; cdg4=1}
      if(r5<=y && cdr5==0){ya=ny+pbv5-yv; ny=0; cdr5=1}
      if(g5>=b && cdg5==0){ba=nb+pyv5-bv; nb=0; cdg5=1}
      if(r6<=y && cdr6==0){ya=ny+pbv6-yv; ny=0; cdr6=1}
      if(g6>=b && cdg6==0){ba=nb+pyv6-bv; nb=0; cdg6=1}
      if(r7<=y && cdr7==0){ya=ny+pbv7-yv; ny=0; cdr7=1}
      if(g7>=b && cdg7==0){ba=nb+pyv7-bv; nb=0; cdg7=1}
      if(r8<=y && cdr8==0){ya=ny+pbv8-yv; ny=0; cdr8=1}
      if(g8>=b && cdg8==0){ba=nb+pyv8-bv; nb=0; cdg8=1}
      if(r9<=y && cdr9==0){ya=ny+pbv9-yv; ny=0; cdr9=1}
      if(g9>=b && cdg9==0){ba=nb+pyv9-bv; nb=0; cdg9=1}
      if(r10<=y && cdr10==0){ya=ny+pbv10-yv; ny=0; cdr10=1}
      if(g10>=b && cdg10==0){ba=nb+pyv10-bv; nb=0; cdg10=1}
      if(r11<=y && cdr11==0){ya=ny+pbv11-yv; ny=0; cdr11=1}
      if(g11>=b && cdg11==0){ba=nb+pyv11-bv; nb=0; cdg11=1}
      if(r12<=y && cdr12==0){ya=ny+pbv12-yv; ny=0; cdr12=1}
      if(g12>=b && cdg12==0){ba=nb+pyv12-bv; nb=0; cdg12=1}
      if(r13<=y && cdr13==0){ya=ny+pbv13-yv; ny=0; cdr13=1}
      if(g13>=b && cdg13==0){ba=nb+pyv13-bv; nb=0; cdg13=1}
      if(r14<=y && cdr14==0){ya=ny+pbv14-yv; ny=0; cdr14=1}
      if(g14>=b && cdg14==0){ba=nb+pyv14-bv; nb=0; cdg14=1}
      if(r15<=y && cdr15==0){ya=ny+pbv15-yv; ny=0; cdr15=1}
      if(g15>=b && cdg15==0){ba=nb+pyv15-bv; nb=0; cdg15=1}

   }

   function setup() // we might use this later
   {   }

// All variables are created and initialised here:-

   c=0.3 // speed of light in pm/zs.

   gr=1; // granularity for simulation in zeptoseconds
         // we can adjust this to speed/slow the action

   y=-100; b=0; // initial x-coord locations of the dots
           bo=-50; // offset to correct b's display location
   yv=0; bv=0; // set initial speeds for particles
   pyv=0; pbv=0; // particle speeds when light bars sent out

   // more vars like pyv and pbv for hidden bars

   pyv1=0; pbv1=0; pyv2=0; pbv2=0; pyv3=0; pbv3=0;
   pyv4=0; pbv4=0; pyv5=0; pbv5=0; pyv6=0; pbv6=0;
   pyv7=0; pbv7=0; pyv8=0; pbv8=0; pyv9=0; pbv9=0;
   pyv10=0; pbv10=0; pyv11=0; pbv11=0; pyv12=0; pbv12=0;
   pyv13=0; pbv13=0; pyv14=0; pbv14=0; pyv15=0; pbv15=0;

   srb=1; sgb=1; // to keep track of which bars last sent
   rrb=1; rgb=1; // to keep track of which bars last received
   // srb = sent red bar, sgb = sent green bar, rrb = received red...
   // These will count up 1, 2, 3, 0, 1, 2, 3, 0, etc.
   // or up to 7 before going back to 0, or up to 15.

   r=0; g=-100; // initial locations of the bars
   ro=-87; go=-112; // offsets to correct bar display loc.s
   rv=-c; gv=c; // speeds for bars

   // more vars like r and g for hidden bars:-

   r1=0; g1=0; r2=0; g2=0; r3=0; g3=0; r4=0; g4=0; r5=0; g5=0;
   r6=0; g6=0; r7=0; g7=0; r8=0; g8=0; r9=0; g9=0; r10=0; g10=0;
   r11=0; g11=0; r12=0; g12=0; r13=0; g13=0; r14=0; g14=0; r15=0; g15=0;

   t=0; // time in zeptoseconds
   ty=0; // timer to emit new bars from yellow particle
   tb=0; // and another for blue particle
   d=200; // distance in picometres
   fy=64; // initial bonding-light "frequencies"
   fb=64; // (one for each particle) [1000 = 1x10^18Hz]
      // These aren't frequencies, but no. of zeptoseconds/cycle
      // Now using 250 to have four bars per cycle, three hidden.

   a=1; // acceleration strength factor
   ha=0; // variable to store a value temporarily
   ya=0; // acceleration value applying to yellow
   ba=0; // acceleration value for blue particle
   ny=0; nb=0; // nudge acceleration values


   cdr=0;cdg=0; // collision detection var.s - these are used to
           // restrict it to one registered hit each time to
           // avoid false hits after bar has passed particle

   // more vars like cdr and cdg for hidden bars:-

   cdr1=0; cdg1=0; cdr2=0; cdg2=0; cdr3=0; cdg3=0;
   cdr4=0; cdg4=0; cdr5=0; cdg5=0; cdr6=0; cdg6=0;
   cdr7=0; cdg7=0; cdr8=0; cdg8=0; cdr9=0; cdg9=0;
   cdr10=0; cdg10=0; cdr10=0; cdg10=0; cdr11=0; cdg11=0;
   cdr12=0; cdg12=0; cdr13=0; cdg13=0; cdr14=0; cdg14=0;
   cdr13=0; cdg15=0;

// (milli, micro, nano, pico, femto, atto, zepto)


   function inca() // increase strength of acceleration force
   {   a*=2; force.innerHTML=a}

   function deca() // decrease strength of acceleration force
   {   a*=0.5; force.innerHTML=a}

   function nudgeyl() // accelerate y to right
   {   ny-=0.05}

   function nudgeyr() // accelerate y to right
   {   ny+=0.05}

   function nudgebl() // accelerate b to left
   {   nb-=0.05}

   function nudgebr() // accelerate b to left
   {   nb+=0.05}

   function nudgeyrbl() // accelerate b to left
   {   ny+=0.05; nb-=0.05}

   </script>

</HEAD>

<BODY onload="setup()" style="background-color:black;color:white;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:18pt"><blockquote>
   <center><H1>Theory Simulation</H1><br><br>

<tt>

<b id="iy" style="position:relative;left:-400;top:0;font-size:60;color:yellow">.</b>
<b id="ib" style="position:relative;left:350;top:0;font-size:60;color:#0020ff">.</b>
<b id="ir" style="position:relative;left:313;top:2;font-size:18;color:red">|</b>
<b id="ig" style="position:relative;left:-512;top:2;font-size:18;color:#00ff00">|</b>

</tt></center>

<p>Yellow's location = <a id="yloc"></a>
<br>Blue's location = <a id="bloc"></a>
<br>Distance apart = <a id="sep"></a>
<p>Latest speed of yellow particle = <a id="ping1"></a>
<br>Latest speed of blue particle = <a id="ping2"></a>
<p>Damping value = <a id="force">1</a>
<p> <input type="button" value="Damp less" onclick="inca()"/> <input type="button" value="Damp more" onclick="deca()"/> <input type="button" value="Nudge yellow left" onclick="nudgeyl()"/> <input type="button" value="Nudge yellow right" onclick="nudgeyr()"/> <input type="button" value="Nudge blue left" onclick="nudgebl()"/> <input type="button" value="Nudge blue right" onclick="nudgebr()"/> <input type="button" value="Nudge both together" onclick="nudgeyrbl()"/>
<p>
Click a "nudge" button to start things moving.

</BODY>
</HTML>


Have you seen the experiments where they take a plate and vibrate it. Where sand on the plate adopts a Geometry from the acoustics?
Nice way to observe standing waves in action!
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Previous

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests