Look ma, no maths!

[Le Repteux]

Sorry again, I messed it all up as usual.

 

At the frequency of 10¹² steps/s, for the atoms to travel 1 m/s, the steps will be 10^-12 meter long, and it will take 100 to 500 steps to travel the distance between two atoms, which is between 100 and 500 x 10^-12 meter. But at that frequency, for a speed of 1 km/s, the steps would have to be 1,000 x 10^-12 meter long, longer than the distance between two atoms, so I conclude that their frequency must be grater than 10¹² steps/s. If I use 10¹⁸ steps/s instead, for the atoms to travel 1m/s, the steps would be 10^-18 meter long, which is OK for a 1 km/s speed, but not for the speed of light, which is 3 x 10⁸ m/s, and which would give us steps 3 x 10^-10 meter long, much longer than the distance between two atoms. If we want to account for the speed of light and still count lots of steps in the distance between two atoms, we have to use a gamma ray frequency for the steps, but since the steps themselves are not in inertial motion, since they accelerate and decelerate constantly, their speed at the end of an acceleration would be grater than the speed of the light that produces them by means of the doppler effect, which is physically impossible. Relativity does not provide us with a physical mechanism to explain mass increase: here is a possible one.

 

I hope my calculations are OK this time!

Edited August 24, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Le Repteux]

OK, I cannot find a way to calculate the energy of one step from the total link energy between two atoms, but I can calculate the kinetic energy of that step and see how it compares with the total link energy.

 

For an atom of mass 10^-27 kg and speed 10^-18m/10^-18s

the kinetic energy is .5 x 10^-27 kg.m².s^-2

which is 10^-27 j

or 10^-30 kj

and the total link energy is 10^-21 kj/atom

which means that, at the frequency of 10¹⁸ steps/s, the kinetic energy of any step between two atoms would have to be around 10⁹ times more energetic than 10^-27 kg.m².s^-2 to break their link.

 

Hey, Swansont, can you comment while you laugh?

Edited August 28, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Le Repteux]

No comments!

 

Swansont, I new I should not have put these calculations. Even if they would have been right, nobody would care. Calculations only prove that you are able to do them, thus that you are intelligent enough, and I am not, so I get back to words, because you don't have to be so intelligent to explain with words, isn't it?

 

OK, lets get serious!

 

I have a description of the small steps that might catch your interest. Small steps are about traveling through space, but they are also about measuring distances. The distance that a body travels from one point to another when on inertial motion is made of them. If you take the length of each small step between the atoms, and multiply by the number of small steps during the time they travel, which you can calculate from their frequency, you get the distance a body travels. But since the small steps from atoms are composed of the billions of steps between their components, if you need more precision on the distance traveled, you can take the distance that their components travel during the same time. But then you will have to use a sine function to calculate them, because they get longer and longer while the atom's step accelerates, and they get shorter and shorter when it decelerates. Isn't that what we do when we want to measure a length with more and more precision: use a more precise instrument? How precisely the small steps would be able to measure distances if they were real? Could they be as absolute as the light that induces them?

Edited October 3, 2014 by Le Repteux

[swansont]

I see nothing in these calculations worth commenting on, especially when there are still outstanding unanswered questions that potentially renders the whole idea moot.

[Le Repteux]

What about the steps measuring distances while justifying inertial motion? Is it worth commenting?

Edited October 3, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Le Repteux]

For those who might not have understood yet the mechanism of the small steps, here is a mind experiment.

- Imagine two cars at rest on the same straight road but one km away from one another and heading in the same direction.
- There is an emitter and a receiver in each car and the signal exchanged between them is about the speed from their speedometer.
- One of the cars accelerates and decelerates for 10 seconds, so a signal is emitted every fraction of second indicating the speed at which the car is going.
- Lets us admit that the signal will take more time to travel one km than the time it takes for the car to accelerate and decelerate to rest.
- When the signal will arrive at the second car, its receiver will indicate progressively the speed at which it has to accelerate and decelerate.
- While it does, its own emitter will transmit the signal to the other car, which will repeat exactly the same move forward, and so on for the other car, indefinitely.

 

If the energy to move the cars would be infinite and the signal absolutely precise, this slinky kind of motion would never end. For the atoms, the signal is given by the light pulses themselves, and the information on the speed is given by the doppler effect, thus by the distance between the pulses. The question that arose first here is about the capacity from atoms to exchange light pulses while forming a molecule. As we know, atoms already absorb and re-emit light pulses all the time, and they do not lose energy while doing so otherwise this process would not obey the conservation of energy law. But that law also applies to the energy they exchange when forming a molecule, the one that produces the small steps: if this energy is never lost, then the small steps would never end once they are initiated, which is exactly the way inertial motion principle works.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Le Repteux]

Hey, I just saw that I had a vote! Does it mean that somebody understands what I am talking about? Come on, lets talk about it then!

Edited October 13, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Le Repteux]

After having revisited Wiki about heliocentrisim, I revive the debate on the small steps.

Without an improved telescope, nothing could prove that heliocentrism was the solution, and nobody could suspect that it would help us understand gravitation. Heliocentrism became evident only when Galileo saw that the moon was irregular, that Venus had phases, that Jupiter had moons, that the size of the planets were changing with time, etc. Because of that lack of technology, it took 100 years before heliocentrism was accepted as a fact. Einstein was luckier, it took only a couple of years before the next eclipse showed the bending of starlight by the sun's mass. How long will the small steps stay unexamined? Bets are opened!

I said that the small steps were unobservable since we had to use light from the atoms to observe them, and that we already know it is impossible to observe the inertial rotation of the earth this way. Trying to detect earth's rotation while observing the small steps that produce it would resume to repeat the Michelson/Morley experiment. But if this rotation is really due to the small steps, then it seems to me that the null result of the M/M experiment could be explained by the steps, thus giving some credit to the hypothesis.

For instance, if we detect a light ray actually traveling in the direction of earth's rotation, the atoms that we use to detect that light would actually be making their steps away from that light, which would retard its detection, and if the light ray that we detect would be going against the rotation, the steps would be going against the light, which would advance its detection. But since light would be emitted by atoms that are actually making the same steps as the ones that detect it, the retard from one atom would be nulled by the advance from the other and vice-versa, making it impossible to observe earth's rotation.

The small steps would have implications on the relativity principle if they were real, because SR has been developed from the null result of the M/M experiment, but what if they were? Even if you are conviced that relativity is true, can you imagine these implications? Would you still conclude that time is slowing for molecules on relative motion one before the other for instance? And if so, can you imagine how the small steps from their atoms would justify that slowing?

Edited December 6, 2014 by Le Repteux

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Please read this

 

Where's your model, or your predictions?

[Le Repteux]

The model for heliocentrism was geometrical, and there was no other prediction than geometric ones, but it still had an enormous effect on the following discoveries. For the moment, the small steps are only geometrical too, and the only prediction I can make from them is that, one day or another, the Higgs will be found not to be the right answer for mass. Talking of mass, here is how the small steps would produce mass increase.

The steps follow the information carried by light, and they are made of accelerations from rest followed by decelerations to rest (rest here means no doppler effect to account for), which means that their speed increases to a top and decreases to zero. Their length and their direction can change, but not their frequency, thus for a molecule accelerated in a given direction, only their length can change. For a molecule to gain the same final speed, that length increases constantly if the acceleration is low but constant, and it increases abruptly if the acceleration is high. The longer is a step, the faster its top speed will be if atoms cannot change the time it takes to make their steps. When the molecule would get to a certain speed close enough to the speed of light, the top speed of the steps would thus exceed the speed of light, which is impossible because their speed depend on light's information, and which means that the molecule would resist increasingly to be accelerated, what we interpret as a mass increase for particles in an accelerator.

Now, if the frequency of the steps could change, atoms could increase it instead of resisting increasingly to acceleration, which means that if it was an atomic clock that was accelerated, it would run faster, which unfortunately contradicts SR. Since we can measure mass increase each time we accelerate a particle, I am incline to believe that, if the steps really exist, their frequency would not change, but it also means that we would have to interpret SR experiments differently.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Le Repteux

[xyzt]

The small steps would have implications on the relativity principle if they were real

You have no proof any any of your confabulations are real. Despite this being pointed out to you, you keep coming back.

 

 

 

SR has been developed from the null result of the M/M experiment,

No, it wasn't

 

 

 

Now, if the frequency of the steps could change, atoms could increase it instead of resisting increasingly to acceleration, which means that if it was an atomic clock that was accelerated, it would run faster instead of running slower,

 

Acceleration has no impact on the clocks, this is a well known FACT. You keep generating the same fallacies over and over: "If A were true then...." . But mainstream science has already shown that A is false, so what you are doing is just an application of the GiGo principle. Ad nauseam.

Edited December 7, 2014 by xyzt

[Le Repteux]

Despite this being pointed out to you, you keep coming back.

I'm back because I couldn't live without your judicious and how helpful comments xyzt.

 

Acceleration has no impact on the clocks, this is a well known FACT.

Final relative speed has! But just in case you forgot about it: it still takes some acceleration to get speed.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Le Repteux

[xyzt]

Final relative speed has!

Speed has, acceleration, contrary to your fringe claims above, doesn't.

[Le Repteux]

Contrary to your claim, I said that the steps would increase in length when accelerated, not in frequency, what should have no impact on the frequency of accelerated clocks.

[xyzt]

Contrary to your claim, I said that the steps would increase in length when accelerated,

 

 

 

Now, you are outright lying, you claimed that "the atomic clocks will run faster". See your post, above.

 

 

 

 

not in frequency, what should have no impact on the frequency of accelerated clocks.

I simply pointed out your errors. No one cares about how you roll your misconceptions about mainstream science into your "theory".

Edited December 7, 2014 by xyzt

[Le Repteux]

I said this:

"Now, if the frequency of the steps could change, atoms could increase it instead of resisting increasingly to acceleration, which means that if it was an atomic clock that was accelerated, it would run faster, which unfortunately contradicts SR."

 

I should have said: "which would unfortunately contradict SR". All the phrase is on conditional, which means that I only wanted to make a comparison between the increase in length of the steps and their increase in frequency.

[xyzt]

I said this:

"Now, if the frequency of the steps could change, atoms could increase it instead of resisting increasingly to acceleration, which means that if it was an atomic clock that was accelerated, it would run faster, which unfortunately contradicts SR."

 

I should have said: "which would unfortunately contradict SR". All the phrase is on conditional, which means that I only wanted to make a comparison between the increase in length of the steps and their increase in frequency.

Same crankery, different phrasing, no one cares.

[Le Repteux]

Everybody cares for his own navel anyway, so are you! But there are different ways to look at others' navel, and yours is particularly blind.

[xyzt]

Everybody cares for his own navel anyway, so are you! But there are different ways to look at others' navel, and yours is particularly blind.

What you are doing is indeed navel-gazing. Science is not navel-gazing.

[Le Repteux]

Science begins with ideas that do not seem to be pertinent at first sight, and there is good chances that they wont be at second sight too, because that kind of idea comes from chance, and because chance comes from a random process. We have to be careful with our ideas because of that, and because even if we know that, they always seem to be relevant to us since they come from our own navel.

[xyzt]

Science begins with ideas that do not seem to be pertinent at first sight,

You need to come to grips with the fact that your navel-gazing isn't science. It is just that : navel-gazing.

[Le Repteux]

That's one opinion, I registered it, but if you don't mind, I'll wait for more than one before making my mind, and I hope that they will be more elaborated than yours, otherwise I wont be able to conclude.

[Ophiolite]

That's one opinion, I registered it, but if you don't mind, I'll wait for more than one before making my mind, and I hope that they will be more elaborated than yours, otherwise I wont be able to conclude.

It is difficult to elaborate further, for you have not said anything of significance.

 

Points in your hypothesis that are contrary to observation have been pointed out to you.

 

Your use of terminology seems confused.

 

You have offered no substantive evidence to support your idea.

 

Your argument is very badly assembled, self contradictory and unconvincing.

 

The absence of maths, which you seek to present as a positive, is sadly a reflection of the inadequacy of your thesis.

 

Do you wish for more elaboration?

[Le Repteux]

Yes, can you remember me which "points in my hypothesis are contrary to observations" please?

Edited December 7, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Strange]

Science begins with ideas that ....

 

... are based on observation and can be objectively tested. None of your ideas fit that description.