DandelionTheory Posted April 4, 2020 Author Posted April 4, 2020 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Ghideon said: The engine is not built to be 100% realistic*. You can have models that does not follow the laws of physics as a real physical object would. The ability to exploit that does not tell us something new about how physics works in the real world. if you look at the definition of TimeStep in the unity manual, you will see when you decrease the value the "physics calculations become more intensive". so drop it to what you want and press play bro. Edited April 4, 2020 by DandelionTheory -2
Ghideon Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said: if you look at the definition of TimeStep in the unity manual, you will see when you decrease the value the "physics calculations become more intensive". so drop it to what you want and press play bro. Does that make the model 100% correct? Can you please: - State your claims about physics in a coherent way. - Explain how your claims deviate from mainstream science; what is the speculation? -I world like to have the evidence for the claims above
DandelionTheory Posted April 4, 2020 Author Posted April 4, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Ghideon said: Does that make the model 100% correct? Can you please: - State your claims about physics in a coherent way. - Explain how your claims deviate from mainstream science; what is the speculation? -I world like to have the evidence for the claims above when a weight is below(right weight and top weight) or above(Left weight) the pin on the X axis, the script gives either +Y magnitude to the pin and -Y the weight, or -Y magnitude to the pin and +Y to the weight respectively. If there are 3 equal mass weights, the center of mass ( the pin) is thrown off center "farther than its radius to the weight" Edited April 4, 2020 by DandelionTheory
Ghideon Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 (Bold by me) 12 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said: when a weight is below(right weight and top weight) or above(Left weight) the pin on the X axis, the script gives either +Y magnitude to the pin and -Y the weight, or -Y magnitude to the pin and +Y to the weight respectively. If there are 3 equal mass weights, the center of mass ( the pin) is thrown off center "farther than its radius to the weight" That is a statement about what the script does. It certainly does not address my questions. - State your claims about physics in a coherent way. (Claims about scripts for the PhysX engine implementation in unity3d probably belongs in computer section of the forum)
DandelionTheory Posted April 4, 2020 Author Posted April 4, 2020 6 minutes ago, Ghideon said: (Bold by me) That is a statement about what the script does. It certainly does not address my questions. - State your claims about physics in a coherent way. (Claims about scripts for the PhysX engine implementation in unity3d probably belongs in computer section of the forum) the third weight in the system produces net momentum in one direction over time.
Strange Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said: the third weight in the system produces net momentum in one direction over time. Therefore there is an error in either your script or the modelling software.
DandelionTheory Posted April 4, 2020 Author Posted April 4, 2020 7 minutes ago, Strange said: Therefore there is an error in either your script or the modelling software. where?
Ghideon Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said: the third weight in the system produces net momentum in one direction over time. Ok. That seems to state that Newtonian mechanics is wrong* and you found something new? And you claim that a script in physics eying for game creation is the evidence? *) Low relative speeds, I know of SR, GR etc. But in this case I assume that a correct model would follow the laws of newton.
Strange Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 16 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said: where? I don't know. (And, to be honest, don't really care.) You could build an actual physical model and compare it with the computer mode. That might give you a clue. My guess is that you are not taking into account some source of (or dissipation of) energy. For example, you have components of the model moving. What is the source of energy for that movement? Have you taken into account the equal and opposite reaction to that movement? Or, to put it more simply, what do those parts "push against" when they move?
Ghideon Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said: where? I have not downloaded the software (I'm not running the same OS so it would not be evidence of anything regarding errors) As a comparison, here is a screenshot of an object hovering in a way that is not possible in reality and not intended in the modelled situation (a game). It is based on same engine as used in OP. Question: A: Is that according, to you, possible evidence that levitation is possible in reality? B: support for @Strange's point that there are software issues?
DandelionTheory Posted April 4, 2020 Author Posted April 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, Strange said: Have you taken into account the equal and opposite reaction to that movement? yes, if you cared to actually look, they are applied to the system on the Y axis for each application of force; it is in the script, ive also stated it in bold... 5 minutes ago, Strange said: My guess is that you are not taking into account some source of (or dissipation of) energy. some forces cancel, some forces add. i used a physics engine and a small delta time variable to be extra careful. 13 minutes ago, Ghideon said: As a comparison, here is a screenshot of an object hovering in a way that is not possible in reality and not intended in the modelled situation (a game). It is based on same engine as used in OP. cool, look at my example, the application of forces, and the magnitude of those forces. i used a physics engine with scripts that were open for peer review, yet you're arguing what you know vs looking at what i got. application of 1N in opposite directions with 1kg weights on each end...
Strange Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said: yes, if you cared to actually look, they are applied to the system on the Y axis for each application of force; it is in the script, ive also stated it in bold... If you are applying a force in the +Y axis then there will be an equal force in the -Y direction. What does this latter force act on? 4 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said: some forces cancel, some forces add. i used a physics engine and a small delta time variable to be extra careful. The physics engine only knows about the forces you tell it about. If you leave something out (such as a reaction) then you may not get realistic results. (I am not interested in your model. Just physics. Physics tells us there is something wrong in your model. It is up to you to debug it. I am not doing it for you.)
DandelionTheory Posted April 4, 2020 Author Posted April 4, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Strange said: If you are applying a force in the +Y axis then there will be an equal force in the -Y direction. What does this latter force act on? thats what the physics engine was for. im giving you an observation of momentum that i cannot explain, im showing you what happens in a physics engine when forces are applied. look in the script, both +magnitude and -magnitude are applied to the system in opposite directions. in the video, 1 x magnitude was used. If 2 weights and a pin were used, the pin would oscillate within its radius if any force is applied to the system. if 3 weights and a pin are used, an imbalance in momentum is seen on the pin which carries it past the length of its radius. Edited April 4, 2020 by DandelionTheory
Strange Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 Just now, DandelionTheory said: thats what the physics engine was for. No it isn't. It can only model what you tell it. For example you can, I assume create a single object (a sphere for simplicity) and apply a force to it. It will move (accelerate) appearing to defy physics. But all that is happening is that you haven't told the system what the source of the force is and so it is not able to model the reaction. 3 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said: im giving you an observation of momentum that i cannot explain There is an error, or more likely just something missing, from your model. That is the explanation. 3 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said: if 3 weights and a pin are used, an imbalance in momentum is seen on the pin which carries it past the length of its radius. So build one and show it works.
Ghideon Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 (edited) 36 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said: cool, look at my example, the application of forces, and the magnitude of those forces. i used a physics engine with scripts that were open for peer review, yet you're arguing what you know vs looking at what i got. application of 1N in opposite directions with 1kg weights on each end... Let's not go into details then. We try address the basic premise that In my opinion is flawed. Here is an abstract way of (trying to) state the idea: 1: You have some set of physical laws that predicts a behaviour. The laws have been tested in lots of circumstances and observed to correctly describe physical systems. There is overwhelming evidence that the laws, within the area they apply in, correctly predicts a behaviour. (Conservation of momentum is an example of such a law.) 2: You have a mathematic model of some of the physical laws. The mathematic model, implemented in software, allow you to predict behaviour of some physical system. 3: A Physical system is implemented in the software and the systems' behaviour is observed in the model and in reality. 4: The behaviour does not match what is predicted by the set of laws in 1 and what is observed in reality. (Example: let's say momentum conservation is broken according to the observed behaviour in the software) Laws in step 1 are already supported by evidence. That support can never be removed by any results from a simulation, based on mathematical model of the laws. If the model in 2 is completely 100% correct then the software and any real experiment will have the same behaviour. If the laws in 1 is incorrect and the model is 100% correctly modelling the flawed laws the software would still be wrong. The reality does not change to follow the software's failed prediction that resulted from a failed law. You seem to make a logical error on an abstract level that software can change the outcome of "reality". That does not happen. If a model does not predict observers behaviour the model is wrong. Reality does not have to, and will not, adopt. (edit:) 14 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said: Im giving you an observation of momentum that i cannot explain, im showing you what happens in a physics engine when forces are applied. Ok. That seems to support my analysis above. You have an invalid model of physical reality. Claiming that reality will must change according to your flawed physics is not logic. Edited April 4, 2020 by Ghideon clarified and added after x-post
Strange Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 28 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said: thats what the physics engine was for. Related to what Ghideon said above: if you are saying that our current laws of physics are wrong, then you can't trust a physics engine (based on those laws) to give you the right answer!! Or, to put it another way: you can't use the laws of physics to prove that those same laws of physics are wrong. 1
Ghideon Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 18 minutes ago, Strange said: So build one and show it works. Good Idea. But pointless in this case; any observed behaviour outside the mainstream will be claimed to be evidence of new physics just as in the flawed 3D model. Not measurement errors, unforeseen side effects, precision issues ... 1 minute ago, Strange said: you can't trust a physics engine (based on those laws) to give you the right answer!! Shorter and more efficient statement than mine (as usual, I would say ... )
DandelionTheory Posted April 4, 2020 Author Posted April 4, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Strange said: Or, to put it another way: you can't use the laws of physics to prove that those same laws of physics are wrong. isn't the goal to now look for something that interacts at right angles? i never said they were wrong, im showing you opposite forces acting on 2 attached rigid bodies per application of force, im not denying anything. i could recreate a 2 weight oscillator, but you would say its flawed because its in a physics engine right? Edited April 4, 2020 by DandelionTheory
Ghideon Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said: i could recreate a 2 weight oscillator, but you would say its flawed because its in a physics engine right? If the behaviour in the physics engine deviates from what's observed in reality then yes, the model in the physics engine is flawed. The above hold generally as I tried to show you above. Messing with details (number of masses for instance) does not change anything. Edited April 4, 2020 by Ghideon added last sentence
Strange Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 7 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said: i never said they were wrong, You appeared to. You said that there is a net momentum in your object. If you are not saying that the laws of physics are wrong, then you have simply forgotten to tell us what the external energy source is.
DandelionTheory Posted April 4, 2020 Author Posted April 4, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Strange said: You appeared to. You said that there is a net momentum in your object. If you are not saying that the laws of physics are wrong, then you have simply forgotten to tell us what the external energy source is. one weight(I2) and pin(I1) C= center pin, (i made it a while ago) Edited April 4, 2020 by DandelionTheory
Strange Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 2 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said: one weight(I2) and pin(I1) What did I say about not making incomprehensibly cryptic replies? So, as that is an answer to "what is the source of external energy" I assume that this "weight and pin" are separate from the rest of the system are are either propelled at it (forming the external source of energy that causes the change in momentum) or are expelled from the system (thus conserving the total momentum). If this guess based on your meaningless sentence fragment is wrong, then it is up to you to explain fully, and in detail, what is the external source of energy that makes your system move?
Ghideon Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 12 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said: one weight(I2) and pin(I1) C= center pin, (i made it a while ago) That does not seem to have much to do with the other stuff in this thread.
DandelionTheory Posted April 4, 2020 Author Posted April 4, 2020 1 minute ago, Strange said: what is the external source of energy that makes your system move? I1 and I2 acting on eachother. they will attempt to spin around eachother, the pin allows the weight to roll around it in this case. 1 hour ago, Strange said: So build one and show it works. working on a proof of concept...
Strange Posted April 4, 2020 Posted April 4, 2020 5 minutes ago, DandelionTheory said: I1 and I2 acting on eachother. they will attempt to spin around eachother, the pin allows the weight to roll around it in this case. You still have not said what the external source of energy is. If they are just acting on each other, with no external source of energy, then there cannot be a net change in momentum.
Recommended Posts