Does 1 represent 1/2 or .5 ? Or is this just a ratio = 1

[The Architekt]

I have seen in a video on 3d modeling for games, that when you copy a 3d mesh with an Array Modifier, that every copy is relative to the initial start position of the original object being copied....and that every movement thereof is relative to the original copied object's "point of origin in this case x.

 

Since " in 3d" the origin is smack in the center of XYZ in which your 3d model is positioned "at the start of assigning a primitive cube", then should relativity take place at 1/2 of "ANY" object's size, when "copies" or duplicates are involved?

 

In other words, if you measure "something" don't you have to start it at 1/2 of its size not the initial start position of 1?

 

I know for a fact that everything has a mass and this mass thus has a center of origin.

 

If this is so, then time should be measured at the 0 point of origin not 1, but am I wrong? I must be..

 

Derivatives places as x -->0, because if it is infact 0 then this becomes "undefined."

 

If then this is true, then .5 must represents 1 as a ratio that in-turn starts at 1 all over again, representing zero of all ratios involved while in position in space and time, in this case x y z or 360 degrees.

 

 

 

This may not be the correct method in explaining this, but something about .5 , 1/2 and 360 degrees seem to be all related to "nothingness" and or gravity.

 

 

 

 

Thanks hope you respond

[Aethelwulf]

When I said come into the physics subforum and start asking questions, I didn't really have this kind of material in mind Arkiteck

[studiot]

I know very little about the programming of video games, but I do know a thing or two about mesh mathematics.

 

I couldn't quite pick out your purpose from your description so perhaps if you were to define your aim?

 

You may be talking about the difference between what some call free and bound vectors, but you may not.

 

You may also be talking about the position of the origin in what engineers call the control volume, and again you may not.

Edited June 28, 2012 by studiot

[The Architekt]

Opps

When I said come into the physics subforum and start asking questions, I didn't really have this kind of material in mind Arkiteck

 

thanks! I googled control volume: http://en.wikipedia..../Control_volume

But it refers more to gasses than solids like mass.

 

I then googled euclidean vector: http://en.wikipedia....uclidean_vector

 

Both seem to be related in a sense and exactly what I would love to know about copies and or duplicates when it involves natural units and complex numbers as in polar forms.

 

For example only here: If a car starts at 1 mile and travels for 10 miles, is the car's initial starting point of origin from its mass of 1/2 = .5 of a ratio? or 1 second in time?

 

In other words does (1 starting point) of 1 second = 1/2 of the car's center of mass as in gravity and or "constant velocity?" as in particles that have integer spin 1/2, and seem to have a type of precession to them.

 

 

I assume that these particles "electrons" are the ones with the integer spin 1/2 but not sure, because photons are mass-less from what I know...

 

 

My aim is wanting to know if time is constant because of the 1/2 = .5 of a complete ratio, as in .5 gamma I think or .5 the speed of light, which is also 1/2..

 

When I say "ratio" here I mean 1/2 of the center of "any" mass, in where time starts "relative" within that domain at .5

I hope this makes more sense

 

 

 

 

I know very little about the programming of video games, but I do know a thing or two about mesh mathematics.

 

I couldn't quite pick out your purpose from your description so perhaps if you were to define your aim?

 

You may be talking about the difference between what some call free and bound vectors, but you may not.

 

You may also be talking about the position of the origin in what engineers call the control volume, and again you may not.

Edited June 29, 2012 by The Architekt

[ACG52]

I hope this makes more sense

 

Sorry, but none of that made any sense.

[Aethelwulf]

Opps

 

 

It's ok, but as you can see, the moderators found it fit to move it to speculations.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[Bignose]

Opps

 

thanks! I googled control volume: http://en.wikipedia..../Control_volume

But it refers more to gasses than solids like mass.

 

No. This is the danger of piecemeal putting things together. A Control Volume is just a mathematical construct to make imagining the situation easier. It has nothing to do with what state of matter you imagine a volume around, and in fact is quite applicable to solids. It is often useful to imagine how the various stresses and shears a solid may experience changes the shape of an initial control volume. Mass is actually an integral part of the control volume concept -- because very often analysis involving a control volume is conditional upon the control volume containing a constant amount of mass.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Bignose

[studiot]

The point I was intending to make about control volumes is that they can either be centered on the origin or start with one corner at the origin.

 

I wondered if this corresponded to our friend's 1, and 0.5.

[The Architekt]

thanks Big Nose this makes more sense, I guess without integral concepts "then" science would be lost or have problems as to how to model an event???

 

 

Can scientist use any other forms "without numbers" to revolutionize the world?

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

No. This is the danger of piecemeal putting things together. A Control Volume is just a mathematical construct to make imagining the situation easier. It has nothing to do with what state of matter you imagine a volume around, and in fact is quite applicable to solids. It is often useful to imagine how the various stresses and shears a solid may experience changes the shape of an initial control volume. Mass is actually an integral part of the control volume concept -- because very often analysis involving a control volume is conditional upon the control volume containing a constant amount of mass.

 

 

 

 

Yes, both bound vectors and control volume did answer my question about 1, and 0.5.

 

I know how busy life is, so thanks and I will study these two subjects for some time....

I never even knew about bound vectors and control volume until now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The point I was intending to make about control volumes is that they can either be centered on the origin or start with one corner at the origin.

 

I wondered if this corresponded to our friend's 1, and 0.5.

Edited June 30, 2012 by The Architekt

[Bignose]

The point I was intending to make about control volumes is that they can either be centered on the origin or start with one corner at the origin.

 

Or anywhere else.... a control volume, pretty much by definition is arbitrary. The physical laws you apply to the control volume are valid everywhere -- that's the point. Because when you make a clever choice of a control volume for a problem, you can make the math much more straightforward. It really has very little to do with the origin of whatever arbitrary coordinate system you choose to apply.

 

I wonder if you aren't thinking about a numerical technique like finite volumes that usually are split into techniques where the node is cell-centered or face-centered. But again, while those are the two common techniques, they aren't the only ones. The math works in the finite volume method with the node located anywhere in the volume (with possible slight degradation of the quality of the numerical solution).

[studiot]

Hello Bignose, how are your comments germaine to the OP, which I am trying to make sense of?

 

I originally offered two guesses as to what the OP was talking about, but still don't know.

 

Are you in a position to explain in conventional terms?

 

I would be very grateful for one.

[Bignose]

Hello Bignose, how are your comments germaine to the OP, which I am trying to make sense of?

 

I originally offered two guesses as to what the OP was talking about, but still don't know.

 

Are you in a position to explain in conventional terms?

 

I would be very grateful for one.

 

 

It is germane because I think that the use of 'control volume' was grossly misapplied, and I was trying to point out the errors. It is germane because if the OP has the wrong impression of the concept of control volume, and he thinks that that wrong impression helps answer his question, then more harm than good has been done here. I just want the terms to be used as they are commonly used so that if someone else should ever happen upon this thread, that they ALSO don't get a wrong impression.

[studiot]

Well I'm even more confused now.

 

I didn't apply a control volume to anything.

 

I didn't want to introduce anything irrelevent so I deliberately kept my discussion short. If vectors or control volumes prove inappropriate I was not going to discuss them further.

 

For the record I actually said

 

You may also be talking about the position of the origin in what engineers call the control volume, and again you may not.

 

And you didn't answer my question

 

Edit : I see that my question could have been taken to apply to your comments. It wasn't.

I was asking if you could explain the OP to me.

Edited July 1, 2012 by studiot

[The Architekt]

I think what I was confused on was imaginary numbers, and how natural numbers disappear when applied to a complex numbering system for dimensional analysis usage, that's all.

 

 

 

These involve polar forms by the way.

 

Is there a webpage that I can see where instead of variables and confusing symbols they have numeral representations???

 

I have searched and searched , but no luck,,,,

 

Thanks!

Well I'm even more confused now.

 

I didn't apply a control volume to anything.

 

I didn't want to introduce anything irrelevent so I deliberately kept my discussion short. If vectors or control volumes prove inappropriate I was not going to discuss them further.

 

For the record I actually said

 

 

 

And you didn't answer my question

 

Edit : I see that my question could have been taken to apply to your comments. It wasn't.

I was asking if you could explain the OP to me.

 

 

 

[studiot]

I think what I was confused on was imaginary numbers, and how natural numbers disappear when applied to a complex numbering system for dimensional analysis usage, that's all.

 

 

I'm sorry I'm still no nearer understanding your objective or subject.

 

 

 

For the record I do not agree with Bignose that it is unimportant where the origin lies in relation to a control volume. Some physical properties can takeon positive and negative values, some can only be zero or positive. This has significance if you are considering such quantities over a control square or cube that is entirely in the first quadrant or symmetrically distributed about the origin.

[Bignose]

For the record I do not agree with Bignose that it is unimportant where the origin lies in relation to a control volume. Some physical properties can takeon positive and negative values, some can only be zero or positive. This has significance if you are considering such quantities over a control square or cube that is entirely in the first quadrant or symmetrically distributed about the origin.

 

Any physical law that depends upon its position in an arbitrary coordinate system is poorly formed or poorly formulated. Clifford Truesdell has written extensively on this subject. Physical law should be able to be expressed in a coordinate-independent manner. Clever choice of a coordinate system can make solving a problem significantly easier.

 

To whit -- the Navier-Stokes equations of fluid mechanics do care in the least if you try to apply them in a Cartesian coordinate system, cylindrical coordinate system, spherical coordinate system, or any other. But, if you ask me to solve for the velocity distribution of laminar flow in a circular pipe, I'm going to choose the cylindrical coordinate system every time. The equations certainly can be solved for the velocity distribution in a circular pipe using a Cartesian coordinate system -- and you will get the same answer as the cylindrical system -- it just takes a lot more carefully detailed mathematics.

 

So, 'for the record', I strongly disagree with your notion of the importance of the location of a coordinate system's origin and the position of a chosen control volume.

[The Architekt]

There is no objective, I do not know how to explain things in a scientific way "yet"

 

Since I am at the basic levels of math still, I am only wondering where in "time" do scientist measure things? That's all, plain and simple stuff here.

 

What is the "origin" of time?

where is it?

can time be touched?

is it in the air?

under the ground?

does it speak?

 

EXAMPLE:

 

On my lap top it "currently" says 9:04 PM.

 

This is coming from the ---------->"lap top."

Yes I know it is set this way for the state, country and etc, but this does not apply to the science of "time."

 

Does science have a way "not in the lap top example" to measure time "wherever it is" or "what ever it is."

 

Or does science model time as a man made numerical------->"generalization?"

 

I do not have any other way of asking..

 

Thanks...

 

 

I'm sorry I'm still no nearer understanding your objective or subject.

 

 

 

For the record I do not agree with Bignose that it is unimportant where the origin lies in relation to a control volume. Some physical properties can takeon positive and negative values, some can only be zero or positive. This has significance if you are considering such quantities over a control square or cube that is entirely in the first quadrant or symmetrically distributed about the origin.

Edited July 3, 2012 by The Architekt

[studiot]

To the Architekt

 

Since I am at the basic levels of math still,

 

But you seem to have swallowed a science dictionary

 

 

That is the source of my problem.

 

You keep introducing new scientific terms ands concepts that seem to have nothing to do with each other and are big enough to require whole books of their own.

 

This is not a personal criticism, it is meant to help communication.

 

To try to answer you question all science at all levels starts out with some ideas which are taken as given. That is taken for granted or not proven.

 

In maths these are called axioms and definitions. They are the result of thought.

 

Usually in other siciences they are the result of observation. Sometimes very careful observation.

 

So for instance as a result of observation, scientists in the 1600s and 1700s observed that there was an attraction between material bodies and called it the force of gravity.

 

After this they discovered, again by observation, that there was an additional force between some, but not all bodies over and above the attraction they attributed to gravity. They called this electricity.

 

To do this they also had to define and understand what they meant by the word 'force' and material bodies.

 

Do you follow this ?

 

 

 

To Bignose.

 

The original response by the Architekt to my offer of 'control volume' thermodynamic and therefore not spatially oriented so has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are discussing.

You rightly deduced that was not what I meant but I would recommend an inquiry as to what I did mean rather than a blanket rebuttal.

However I think it would be rude to the Architekt and off topic to argue it further here. I am perfectly happy to explain what I do mean in another thread.

Edited July 3, 2012 by studiot

[The Architekt]

Yes I follow, thanks...

 

Observations on physical "things" allowed scientist to make some type of "record."

 

This then become a good way of communication.

 

But in math they are called axioms, rules and etc, the result of thought..

 

 

But what I don't get is 'why" math is used at all then...

 

This is where that dictionary comes in, when I read I get confused way to many things out there.

 

Can it be more simpler???? What should I read then???

 

To the Architekt

 

 

 

But you seem to have swallowed a science dictionary

 

 

That is the source of my problem.

 

You keep introducing new scientific terms ands concepts that seem to have nothing to do with each other and are big enough to require whole books of their own.

 

This is not a personal criticism, it is meant to help communication.

 

To try to answer you question all science at all levels starts out with some ideas which are taken as given. That is taken for granted or not proven.

 

In maths these are called axioms and definitions. They are the result of thought.

 

Usually in other siciences they are the result of observation. Sometimes very careful observation.

 

So for instance as a result of observation, scientists in the 1600s and 1700s observed that there was an attraction between material bodies and called it the force of gravity.

 

After this they discovered, again by observation, that there was an additional force between some, but not all bodies over and above the attraction they attributed to gravity. They called this electricity.

 

To do this they also had to define and understand what they meant by the word 'force' and material bodies.

 

Do you follow this ?

 

 

 

To Bignose.

 

The original response by the Architekt to my offer of 'control volume' thermodynamic and therefore not spatially oriented so has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are discussing.

You rightly deduced that was not what I meant but I would recommend an inquiry as to what I did mean rather than a blanket rebuttal.

However I think it would be rude to the Architekt and off topic to argue it further here. I am perfectly happy to explain what I do mean in another thread.