Interactive Papers

First attack at graphing is available. I'm not sure I am completely happy with the words but I think I got the sentiment of what I wanted to say, if not the style.

.
Reviewing Spin Velocity http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/papers/spin-velocity.html
I've mustered the following comments. They hardly constitute alarm, let alone an attack. Nevertheless, take 'em or leave 'em.  

QUOTE. Through gyroscopic collisions, a topic that I will have more to say about later, photons can increase their radius and mass through a mechanism known as spin stacking.
Comment. The use of the term ‘gyroscopic collisions’ is noted. For collisions, Miles always uses the expression 'pool ball mechanics'. With respect to spin stacking the mechanism is understood to be end-over-end spinning. ‘Gyroscopic collisions’ is different, and the reader wonders how? Are you indicating your intention to provide another charge field theory series supplement, exploring collisions in detail? Otherwise, 'gyroscopic' is a charged word that must be used correctly, or even better, avoided.  

QUOTE. Instead of waiting for Miles to do it for me, I dove in, and my digging turned up some very useful information.
Comment. Imho, dove in and digging constitutes a mixed-metaphor, mixing swimming and digging. Recommend replacing “dove” with “jumped”.

QUOTE. Our desired outcome is to find an angle and we currently have a value expressing the revolutions per unit time. A revolution is the same thing as a circle so all we have to do is multiply that value by a circle and we will be given an angle per unit time. It really is that easy.
Here is the full equation:
θ/t = 2πgω/2πkr
Comment. Where did this full equation come from? Geometric and kinematic pi’s are both used! I assume it’s yours, of course. Sorry, I couldn’t follow the rationale between 'really is that easy' and 'Here is the full equation:'.

QUOTE. By using both versions of π, this equation shows the correct ways to use π and that Miles never intended to replace the conventional usage of π. He just wanted to show that it was not useful in certain situations.
Comment. Change ‘useful’ to ‘appropriate’.

Comment. Please consider titles for each graph. You need only expand the legend/series description:
1) From Angular Velocity to Angular Velocity – 20 levels.
2) From Angle Velocity to Angle Velocity – 20 levels.
3) From Angular Velocity to Angular Velocity – 40 levels.
4) From Angle Velocity to Angle Velocity –40 levels.
5) From Bphoton Angular Velocity to Bphoton Angular Velocity – 118 levels.
6) From Bphoton Angle Velocity to Bphoton Angle Velocity – 118 levels.

Comment. Since the graphs do not list Angular or Angle velocities, all numbers shown are associated with the horizontal and vertical axii.  Please consider a three or four decimal scientific notation that may be used for consistent formatting for all the graphs.

QUOTE. You can download a PDF version of this paper at www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/paper/spin-velocity.pdf.
1: I am
Comment. Please insert two line spaces after ‘.pdf.’ and before the ‘1:’ of the footnote.

Comment. Congratulations, Hoo Ahh!
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.
Reviewing Spin Velocity http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/papers/spin-velocity.html
I've mustered the following comments. They hardly constitute alarm, let alone an attack. Nevertheless, take 'em or leave 'em.  

I'll take 'em, well, most of 'em.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
QUOTE. Through gyroscopic collisions, a topic that I will have more to say about later, photons can increase their radius and mass through a mechanism known as spin stacking.
Comment. The use of the term ‘gyroscopic collisions’ is noted. For collisions, Miles always uses the expression 'pool ball mechanics'. With respect to spin stacking the mechanism is understood to be end-over-end spinning. ‘Gyroscopic collisions’ is different, and the reader wonders how? Are you indicating your intention to provide another charge field theory series supplement, exploring collisions in detail? Otherwise, 'gyroscopic' is a charged word that must be used correctly, or even better, avoided.  

I like that term because is shows that there is more than just standard pool-ball mechanics involved. However, your comment is valid, so I have added a foot note to explain the term. I hope that helps.

Yes, my intention is to write another paper about gyroscopic collisions with apps for demonstrations. I have started a How to Build Stacked Spins paper which will contain a fair amount of the same information so I might end up combining these into the one paper. I'll see how it goes. There is still a lot of work to be done for that paper. I do feel like I want to keep the papers separate, but they will cover much of the same material. However, the How to Build Stacked Spins paper will have more of a modeling perspective, although I have split it into 2 sections already: Modeling and Mathematics. I have written a bit in the modeling section but nothing in the math section so far. My intention for the math section was to get into using matrices to find the absolute transform for all spin levels of a given particle. I have the math, I just need to write the words around it and find a way to show the math in a nice way. The problem is how much knowledge can I assume my audience has. Can I assume they already understand matrices? It is difficult not to. I'm sure I'll find a way.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
QUOTE. Instead of waiting for Miles to do it for me, I dove in, and my digging turned up some very useful information.
Comment. Imho, dove in and digging constitutes a mixed-metaphor, mixing swimming and digging. Recommend replacing “dove” with “jumped”.

Yeah, that one kept leaping out at me every time I read it, but nothing came to mind to replace it. Your suggestion provoked me into an alternative.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
QUOTE. Our desired outcome is to find an angle and we currently have a value expressing the revolutions per unit time. A revolution is the same thing as a circle so all we have to do is multiply that value by a circle and we will be given an angle per unit time. It really is that easy.
Here is the full equation:
θ/t = 2πgω/2πkr
Comment. Where did this full equation come from? Geometric and kinematic pi’s are both used! I assume it’s yours, of course. Sorry, I couldn’t follow the rationale between 'really is that easy' and 'Here is the full equation:'.

I agree. I initially thought that I would step through as I build the equation, showing each stage but the words seemed to do a fine job in themselves and I didn't. I have added a couple more equations to show the steps involved.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
QUOTE. By using both versions of π, this equation shows the correct ways to use π and that Miles never intended to replace the conventional usage of π. He just wanted to show that it was not useful in certain situations.
Comment. Change ‘useful’ to ‘appropriate’.

Done.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Comment. Please consider titles for each graph. You need only expand the legend/series description:
1) From Angular Velocity to Angular Velocity – 20 levels.
2) From Angle Velocity to Angle Velocity – 20 levels.
3) From Angular Velocity to Angular Velocity – 40 levels.
4) From Angle Velocity to Angle Velocity –40 levels.
5) From Bphoton Angular Velocity to Bphoton Angular Velocity – 118 levels.
6) From Bphoton Angle Velocity to Bphoton Angle Velocity – 118 levels.

Done, with slightly different wording. I also added a paragraph to explain the use of 118 spin levels instead of, say, 120, which would fit the previous sizes. I'm impressed that you found that it was 118. How did you do that? I assume you looked at the code for the page.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Comment. Since the graphs do not list Angular or Angle velocities, all numbers shown are associated with the horizontal and vertical axii.  Please consider a three or four decimal scientific notation that may be used for consistent formatting for all the graphs.

I didn't want to use scientific notation if it didn't help the situation. When the radii start at 1, it actually gets in the way. Instead of nice round numbers like 1, 2, 4, 8, you get large, horrible, hard to read numbers like 1.000e0, 2.000e0, etc. I did think about consistency, but opted for clarity.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
QUOTE. You can download a PDF version of this paper at www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/paper/spin-velocity.pdf.
1: I am
Comment. Please insert two line spaces after ‘.pdf.’ and before the ‘1:’ of the footnote.

Done. I gave each foot note a bit of space around it.

Another part that bothers me is the, now 2nd, foot note about angle velocity. I use the words 'angle per time' but it feels like it should be 'angles per time' but that isn't strictly correct, it just sounds better. We wouldn't say a velocity is distances per time, we would just say distance per time. It is a single distance and it is a single angle. It still bothers me though.

.
Nevyn wrote. I like that term because is shows that there is more than just standard pool-ball mechanics involved. However, your comment is valid, so I have added a foot note to explain the term. I hope that helps.
QUOTE1: Gyroscopic collisions are an extension to pool-ball mechanical collisions that allow for spin stacking.
Airman. Recommend changing footnote 1 to read. ‘Gyroscopic collisions’ is not a new idea. It’s true Miles has avoided use of the word ‘gyroscopic’ in his descriptions of stacked spins. The truth of the matter is that stacked spins are indeed a series of nested gyroscopic motions.
///////////////////////////////////

Nevyn wrote. Yes, my intention is to write another paper about gyroscopic collisions with apps for demonstrations. I have started a How to Build Stacked Spins paper which will contain a fair amount of the same information so I might end up combining these into the one paper. I'll see how it goes. There is still a lot of work to be done for that paper. I do feel like I want to keep the papers separate, but they will cover much of the same material. However, the How to Build Stacked Spins paper will have more of a modeling perspective, although I have split it into 2 sections already: Modeling and Mathematics. I have written a bit in the modeling section but nothing in the math section so far. My intention for the math section was to get into using matrices to find the absolute transform for all spin levels of a given particle. I have the math, I just need to write the words around it and find a way to show the math in a nice way. The problem is how much knowledge can I assume my audience has. Can I assume they already understand matrices? It is difficult not to. I'm sure I'll find a way.
Airman. Sounds good Nevyn. I’m sure you will too. Use math appropriate to the subject matter. Don’t let anyone argue that in order to allow more people to understand, you somehow dumb it down; that is a false argument, and is detrimental to all those seeking greater knowledge.  
///////////////////////////////////

Nevyn wrote. Yeah, that one kept leaping out at me every time I read it, but nothing came to mind to replace it. Your suggestion provoked me into an alternative.
Airman. A shovel works!
///////////////////////////////////

Nevyn wrote. I agree. I initially thought that I would step through as I build the equation, showing each stage but the words seemed to do a fine job in themselves and I didn't. I have added a couple more equations to show the steps involved.
Airman. Thanks, now I can figure it out.
///////////////////////////////////

Nevyn wrote. Done, with slightly different wording. I also added a paragraph to explain the use of 118 spin levels instead of, say, 120, which would fit the previous sizes. I'm impressed that you found that it was 118. How did you do that? I assume you looked at the code for the page.
Airman. I posted two angular and angle velocity graphs above, clearly I was plotting all along, verifying your numbers. I don’t think I’ve ever looked at your code, I consider it rude, you never invited me.
///////////////////////////////////

Nevyn wrote. I didn't want to use scientific notation if it didn't help the situation. When the radii start at 1, it actually gets in the way. Instead of nice round numbers like 1, 2, 4, 8, you get large, horrible, hard to read numbers like 1.000e0, 2.000e0, etc. I did think about consistency, but opted for clarity.
Airman. Sorry, wrong choice of words; you're clearly trying to adjust to a difficult situation allowing the use of scientific notation. I suppose you considered labeling the horizontal axis with the natural numbers with the legend - 2^(N-1) - and identify specific velocity values. Sorry, I’m just being difficult.   
///////////////////////////////////

Nevyn wrote. Another part that bothers me is the, now 2nd, foot note about angle velocity. I use the words 'angle per time' but it feels like it should be 'angles per time' but that isn't strictly correct, it just sounds better. We wouldn't say a velocity is distances per time, we would just say distance per time. It is a single distance and it is a single angle. It still bothers me though.
Airman. How does Angle Rate sound?

///////////////////////////////////

Airman. I didn't hear your Hoo Ahh.
.

I just did a search for "Gyroscopic collisions" and the only result was my own post on this forum, but not this thread.

I'll think it over and see what I can come up with. I think what I mean by gyroscopic collisions is a bit different to the general usage of the term, not that it is all that general.

I agree that I can't dumb it down too much, but I feel it is my responsibility to bridge the gap. I put the Modeling section before the Mathematics section so that it would be easier to see what the math was trying to do as there will be many animations in the modeling part.

With respect to graph labels, I can set the horizontal values but not the vertical. The best I could do with the vertical, which are calculated from the data by the chart library, is to supply a function that could format the value. That allowed me to use scientific notation as before that, they were really long numbers and taking up screen space for nothing. I can use more of an equation for the radius labels. I'll give it a go and see how it looks.

This might not be the best Hoo Ahh, but it's The Rock, so all is forgiven!

.
Enthusiasm noted and approved. The Rock earns you a couple of additional comments.

You might inform the reader that you have in fact used this information in order to create a spin simulator.

You might consider a brief discussion or speculation of the possible radius, angular velocity and angle velocity of the electron or proton in light of the information you’ve provided.

Do you see any other possible applications besides spin stacking? One can easily make an angular/angle conversion calculator, maybe in R.

Not a whole lot of comments from the gallery. You must have scared them off.

Teaching how to build stacked spins, I’d sign up, though I might want a testimonial from Jared first.
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.
Enthusiasm noted and approved. The Rock earns you a couple of additional comments.

You can always count on The Rock to help you out.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
You might inform the reader that you have in fact used this information in order to create a spin simulator.

I had thought about that in the beginning but I forgot about it as I got into the details of the paper. I thought I would add animations of stacked spins but it felt a bit out of place, hence the How to Build Stacked Spins paper where I had more room to focus on just spin building. A link to SpinSim would be fine though.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
You might consider a brief discussion or speculation of the possible radius, angular velocity and angle velocity of the electron or proton in light of the information you’ve provided.

The problem is I am not sure about those radii. It needs more research. Maybe it would be better in a follow up paper but I'm worried that there won't be much content to it. I won't really know until I get into the details though.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Do you see any other possible applications besides spin stacking? One can easily make an angular/angle conversion calculator, maybe in R.

I haven't thought about other applications. Of course, anywhere you use angular velocity can make use of these transforms.

I developed a Java Applet many years ago that shows the mainstream angular velocity next to Miles' angular velocity by rotating a line around a circle. This paper actually completes that since I now realise that it wasn't implemented correctly. It would be interesting to see the difference with this correction. I could create another graph to show the difference in Miles' angular velocity and mainstream angular velocity as the radius grows, not by doubling as I currently have focused on but with a more linear progression, probably centered on 1 since that is where the problems are for the mainstream angular velocity.

A converter is a good idea. Maybe what I should do is create a whole other page devoted to a conversion calculator. Not a paper, just some controls and text fields to enter values and calculate using these equations. I could do two of them, one for angular velocity and another devoted to stacked spins which would allow you to enter the spin level number and gives you the angular and angle velocities.

I have added a new section to compare Miles' angular velocity equation to the mainstream definition.
Updated the graphs to use a title and labelled each axis so they look a lot better.

Definitely in the home stretch now.

Wow nicely done!

Hooah!

.
1) Quote. Now that we have a proper transform, we can compare Miles' angular velocity equation to the mainstream version. We couldn't compare the values directly before but now we can put them both on the same graph and see how they differ.
ωms = Δθ/Δt = v/r
ωmm = √[2r√[v2+r2]-2r2]
Δθ/Δt = πgωmm/πkr

Comment. You certainly jumped into this new paper subtopic. The topic and graph are a really nice addition. Aside from having read Miles’ Angular paper, I had not understood that this was such a significant problem. Do you have any handy documentation, citation or reference indicating a problem with mainstream’s scaling around velocity of one and radius of one?

Comment. I’ve plotted ωms = Δθ/Δt = v/r. I haven’t been able to recreate the ωmm = √[2r√[v2+r2]-2r2] curve yet.  
ωmm  = SQRT(2*C4*SQRT( POWER(B4,2) + POWER(C4,2) ) -2*POWER(C4,2))
C4 is the radius and B4 is the velocity.

2) Quote. To the former, I direct you to Miles papers on π and to the latter, I can only say that I was as amazed as ... .
Comment. Change Miles to Miles’.

3) Quote. If you look at Miles angular velocity equation, you see that its most powerful ... .
Comment. Change Miles to Miles’.

4) Quote. The general trend of each graph is very similar with Mile's equation.
Comment. Change Mile’s to Miles’.

5) Quote. What does that mean? It just means that even though the angular velocity increases, the angle decreases.
Comment. Change ‘the angle decreases’ to ‘the angle velocity decreases’.

6) Quote. The following two graphs present angular and angle velocity over 20 spin levels.
Comment. Change ‘angle velocity over 20’ to ‘angle velocities over 20’.
.

1) No, I don't have any other citations for that and took it straight from Miles' paper. However, you can clearly see that it rises very sharply in my graph, when looking backwards from 1, which is a bit weird. After 1 we get a nice progression, slowly approaching 0, but under 1 we get this sharp rise.

You haven't used the transform in your plot. You have the raw angular velocity equation but not my transform to get to an angle.

2,3,4) Damn, I knew I had one of them in there but kept skipping over it when in edit mode.

5,6) Done.

Thanks, Airman. You've been a life saver. Did you ever think of being an editor?

.
Nevyn wrote. You haven't used the transform in your plot. You have the raw angular velocity equation but not my transform to get to an angle.
Airman. Ok. I get the proper mm Angle curve when I divide Δθ/Δt by my raw ωmm.

Quote. Angular Velocity table, radius 4, Angular Velocity 48989.794.
Comment. Change to 48989.795. Note that this number is repeated – with correct digits - in the Angular and Angle Velocity table.

The following apply to the pdf document http links:
Quote. According to Miles Mathis (www.milesmathis.com), all matter is created from real photons traveling and spinning at the speed of light. Through gyroscopic collisions, a topic … .
Comment. This link only worked with Chrome. Not Firefox (Firefox can’t find the server at nevyns-lab.dev) or Internet Explorer. (Hmm, we can't reach this page).
Comment. http://milesmathis.com/super.html checked good.
Comment. http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html checked good.
Quote. to use both versions of π in the same equation. To the former, I direct you to Miles'
papers on π (http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html)  and to the latter, I can only say that I was as amazed as you … .
Comment. The http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html link works, but the link extends across two sentences.
Reduce the link to just the html address.

pdf Doc Comment. Please review the page breaks within the pdf doc. For example, the title of the Angular Velocity table is at the bottom of page 1 while the table is at the top of page two.

Nevyn wrote. You've been a life saver. Did you ever think of being an editor?
Airman. I devote myself with determination if not skill. Your paper is a most agreeable subject which I thoroughly enjoy.
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Ok. I get the proper mm Angle curve when I divide Δθ/Δt by my raw ωmm.

That doesn't sound right. It should be θ = π_g * ω_mm / (π_k * r).
It really is θ/t, but t=1 so we can drop it.

It appears that the HTML code is not working on this post so the entity references don't work. I'll leave it as-is since it is still readable.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Change to 48989.795. Note that this number is repeated – with correct digits - in the Angular and Angle Velocity table.

Done.

LongtimeAirman wrote:This link only worked with Chrome. Not Firefox (Firefox can’t find the server at nevyns-lab.dev) or Internet Explorer. (Hmm, we can't reach this page).

I didn't expect that! nevyns-lab.dev is just how I access my dev server at home. It isn't a real domain name, just an entry in my host file to make it work like one. That URL is never used in the document. It must be using it because I generate the PDF on my home system before uploading everything. I will have to start uploading the HTML and then generate the PDF from that. I use Chrome to generate the PDF too, so that might be why it works and the others don't. Firefox also has a Print to PDF function but it puts headers and footers on the pages that I can't get rid of. Chrome allows me to choose to have them or not.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Quote. to use both versions of π in the same equation. To the former, I direct you to Miles'
papers on π (http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html)  and to the latter, I can only say that I was as amazed as you … .
Comment. The http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html link works, but the link extends across two sentences.
Reduce the link to just the html address.

I assume you mean the link moves the the next line, not sentence. There isn't much I can do about that. HTML text just flows however it can on the page. It doesn't listen to whitespace or new lines in the source code. I would have to either add more words to push the paper on π part to the next line or I could change the text size, which might work sometimes but not others.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
pdf Doc Comment. Please review the page breaks within the pdf doc. For example, the title of the Angular Velocity table is at the bottom of page 1 while the table is at the top of page two.

I spent quite a bit of time trying to get those to stay on the same page but nothing worked. There are ways you can tell sections to stay together but the browsers don't seem to listen in this case. I will try again though, as there might have been something else getting in the way. I have found that with other tricks.

Well, it didn't take too long to get the tables and graphs to remain on the same page. I found another CSS property to use that avoids breaking the sections.

Now the graphs are extending off the page again! I'll see what I can do about that later. They just don't want to behave.

.
Sorry to hit and run, Nevyn. I'll be off-line for the next few days for a family event. I also just started reading Reilly's Area 7.
.

No worries, thanks for all of your help. Now forget about it and enjoy yourself. Since you've just started Area 7, I know that you will.

I have managed to get the graphs to behave when printing. I had to assume a certain page size when printing though, unfortunately. I prefer it when everything works dynamically but these graphs have been a real pain. I like them, but they are not very dynamic. I spent considerable time getting them to be as dynamic as I could when they are on screen but then they would play up when printing. I use the Print to PDF function to generate the PDF, I don't actually print it.

I think that this paper is good enough now, so I will send a link to Miles and get his feedback. That is assuming his email is up and running again because I have had two emails bounce over the last few days.

.
Nevyn, I'm happy to see you've sent Miles (directions to) your paper - congratulations; unhappy to hear there may be an e-mail problem. If worst comes to worse, I'll just have to congratulate you again later.

While everyone's waiting, back to the old here and now. I've resolved my plotting error (for once it wasn't a conceptual error), not before reviewing both yours and the Angular papers again. No new errors to report, I'm sorry to say, although concentrating in this area through the last week or two has been quite satisfying. Thanks.



The mainstream value for the angular velocity blows up as we approach zero. I don't appreciate the mainstream 'scaling issue' around radius = 1, other than seeing, as per Mathis, it should actually be 0.7149.

Yes I did enjoy Area 7. Thanks again.
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Nevyn, I'm happy to see you've sent Miles (directions to) your paper - congratulations; unhappy to hear there may be an e-mail problem. If worst comes to worse, I'll just have to congratulate you again later.

I received a quick reply stating that the graphs didn't work for him, the colors don't work correctly in Safari, so I sent back a link to the PDF version. He said that the PDF worked fine but I haven't heard anything since. I might give him a prod later today.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
While everyone's waiting, back to the old here and now. I've resolved my plotting error (for once it wasn't a conceptual error), not before reviewing both yours and the Angular papers again. No new errors to report, I'm sorry to say, although concentrating in this area through the last week or two has been quite satisfying. Thanks.

Well I am very happy to hear there are no new errors. Also happy to hear that the paper does provide some insight.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
The mainstream value for the angular velocity blows up as we approach zero. I don't appreciate the mainstream 'scaling issue' around radius = 1, other than seeing, as per Mathis, it should actually be 0.7149.

The problem isn't so much the value at 1, it is the way it grows larger as we move back from 1. The values below 1, as the radius decreases, start to climb very fast. We expect a climb, but not quite the way it does. Miles' equation gives a much smoother curve as the values are climbing at a slower rate. It is caused by the radius inverting the equation when it is below 1. Dividing by 0.1 is the same as multiplying by 10. Such a small change in radius should not cause such a large change in angular velocity.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Yes I did enjoy Area 7. Thanks again.

I've re-read all of the Scarecrow novels now and I got to the 4th book and couldn't remember a thing about it. Every other book I could remember the general plot, but not the last. Once I started reading it, it started to come back but I was a bit shocked that I couldn't remember much about the last one I read. Of course, that made re-reading it a bit better.

Nevyn wrote. I received a quick reply stating that the graphs didn't work for him, the colors don't work correctly in Safari, so I sent back a link to the PDF version. He said that the PDF worked fine but I haven't heard anything since. I might give him a prod later today.

You two may seem to be having great difficulty with your graphs, nevertheless I think they’re essential for understanding the relationship between angular and angle velocities and clearly add value to the subject. Formulas, tables and graphs are a trifecta for a numbers person like myself, I don't recall Miles ever doing that in any of his papers.

Nevyn wrote. The problem isn't so much the value at 1, it is the way it grows larger as we move back from 1. Miles' equation gives a much smoother curve as the values are climbing at a slower rate. It is caused by the radius inverting the equation when it is below 1. Dividing by 0.1 is the same as multiplying by 10. Such a small change in radius should not cause such a large change in angular velocity.

QUOTE> This is caused by the scaling issue found in the mainstream equation. Once the radius goes below 1, it doesn't work very well anymore. Miles doesn't have this problem and the angle follows a smoother progression as the radius decreases.
COMMENT. If you’re still taking recommendations, please consider replacing the previous QUOTE with the following QUOTE.
QUOTE> This is caused by the scaling issue found in the mainstream equation. Once the radius goes below 1, it doesn't work very well anymore. It is caused by the radius inverting the equation when it is below 1. Dividing by 0.1 is the same as multiplying by 10. Such a small change in radius should not cause such a large change in angular velocity. Miles doesn't have this problem and the angle follows a smoother progression as the radius decreases.

Nevyn wrote. I've re-read all of the Scarecrow novels now and I got to the 4th book and couldn't remember a thing about it. Every other book I could remember the general plot, but not the last. Once I started reading it, it started to come back but I was a bit shocked that I couldn't remember much about the last one I read. Of course, that made re-reading it a bit better.

I’ve read Scarecrow, Ice Station and Area 7, and celebrated by watching Marvel’s Deadpool and the first episode of American Gods. I’m not sure which the fourth book is, but I’m anxious to find it. I don’t need to tell you that one of life’s greatest pleasures is finding interesting new reads and authors, you may find most of Miles’ physics supporters saying the same about you. Like the world's most interesting man says, stay humble my friend.  
.

I agree, those graphs are great value. As much as I like Miles' work, I find that it isn't very well presented, sometimes. I am trying to make sure that I don't fall into the same traps. It is often just little things, like showing the equations being used and the working out (my math teachers always said it was the working out that mattered, not the answer) or showing the data in a table or graph. My advantage is that I am a software developer, so I can make use of that in my papers and that makes it easier for me to get a graph or animation up and running. I am also aware of libraries that I can use to style the page and give it a more modern feel and make it more mobile device friendly.

That is a good change and I will add it to my paper.

The fourth Scarecrow book is called Scarecrow and the Army of Thieves. There is a small novella before that called Hell Island but isn't really necessary, although still a good way to spend a few hours. I suspect that will be very hard for you to track down. It was a limited release even here and I stumbled upon it in a second-hand book store one day.

I haven't (re)started the Jack West Jr books yet, but I will soon. The latest in this series only came out in the US a couple of days ago, which shocked me because I read it before Christmas. Nice to see Australia get something first for once.

So I gave a little prod and got back a little response. Miles hasn't finished going through it (only read it once), but said that it looks good so far.

Phew!

I was getting a bit worried when I didn't hear back. It really hasn't been that long but it seemed so to me.

I have taken a little break from writing papers and creating animations. I decided to spend a bit of time on my site itself, rather than the content on it. It took quite a few hours, but I created an icon for my site. Actually, I created two of them. I looked around the web and didn't find anything that I liked, but I did get some ideas so I fired up my paint program and got to work. Creating art is not easy! However, I persisted and managed to create something that I liked.

My aim was to keep it simple. There isn't much resolution to most icons so there isn't much room to play with complex designs. Even less room when it comes to my drawing skills. I kind of worked backwards. I started with a 64x64 pixel image and created a simple flask, pixel by pixel. Once that was done, I started to create a few layers that would represent different colored liquids in the flask. The layers allow me to turn each one on/off so that I can use the same flask but choose which color I want in the flask.

Once I had that looking pretty good, I did some searching on website favicons. I found a site that, given an image, will create it in various sizes and also creates various metadata files as every platform (Windows, IOS, Android, etc) has its own way of doing things. It also allowed me to choose options so that the icon would fit into those platforms. If on an IOS device, it will look like other IOS icons. If on a Win 8.1 and greater device, it will fit into the Windows look & feel. Same for Android. Those take effect when you create a bookmark to the site.

Anyway, it turns out that the favicon generator prefers larger images. So I went back to my paint program and scaled it up from 64 to 260 pixels. Actually, I went through a few intermediate steps first, but that is where I ended up. It turns out that this was a blessing, rather than a curse. As I increased the resolution, it allowed me to use some special processing to soften the artwork. Once scaled back down again for the icons, it comes out quite well. If I had started at that resolution I wouldn't have created anything good because it is very difficult to work with such small pixels. At least it is for me. I tried another icon starting at 260 pixels and it didn't work out too well.

Here is the icon I created:


I generated the favicon files and put them into the site and it looked very good. I didn't stop there though. I then decided to attempt to create a second flask that was pouring out its contents. I just took what I already had and rotated it. Then I erased some of the liquid and added more in to show it spilling over the rim. Then I added a drop. It came up pretty well, but it didn't work out so well as an icon so I kept the original but may use this version at some time. Not as a site icon, but as an image.

Here is the spilling flask icon:


See how it makes it look smaller? That is why it didn't work so well as a site icon.

I wanted to create, or find, some other icons to represent areas of study. I struggled to find or come up with any idea of how to represent Quantum Mechanics though, so I abandoned that idea, for now.

I have also made a few of the pages a bit more consistent with each other. This was accomplished by two things. Firstly, I downloaded a few themed versions of a library I use to build my site (Bootstrap) and chose one. Secondly, I have changed my Interactive and Papers sections to use a backend database. This allows me to use the same code for those two pages and all of the parts come from the database. Adding new pages to the list will just require a few rows in some database tables. This also allowed me to add some smarts to the page so that it will change the color of items in the list based on if it has been published or updated recently. Fresh publications are highlighted yellow while updates are highlighted red. This has caused some issues with the Bootstrap themes and I might look into using some of the Bootstrap CSS classes to choose the highlight colors. I should have done that in the first place, but I just ran with an idea to see if it would work. It did, but the themes alter the colors of the rest of the page and that can make my choice of colors work against it. I also found that my site icon did not work so well on some of the themes. If it uses a dark background for the page header, the icon doesn't work. I have another version that uses a white circle behind the icon and this would work for those dark pages, but doesn't always work for the light ones. It is a bit of a pain. Such is the life of a web developer, or any developer for that matter.

And that's how I lost a weekend! It was a pretty cold and miserable weekend anyway, so I'm not too fussed about it.

Nevyn wrote. My advantage is that I am a software developer, so I can make use of that in my papers and that makes it easier for me to get a graph or animation up and running. I am also aware of libraries that I can use to style the page and give it a more modern feel and make it more mobile device friendly.

and

Nevyn wrote. A converter is a good idea. Maybe what I should do is create a whole other page devoted to a conversion calculator. Not a paper, just some controls and text fields to enter values and calculate using these equations. I could do two of them, one for angular velocity and another devoted to stacked spins which would allow you to enter the spin level number and gives you the angular and angle velocities.

You would have no difficulty creating a converter or interactive page. You've created Angular conversion graphs for your Spin Velocity paper. You might make them more user friendly or allow interactive plots, although additional work may involve far more effort than it’s worth, as demonstrated by the graphing problems encountered thus far. I would certainly expect to find an Angular Velocity simulator or Converter at http://www.nevyns-lab.com/science/ *. At home, I create plots in Excel, but few people have or use Excel to that degree. How difficult can it be to create a stand-alone converter, or interactive page, or the code necessary for one - and post it here?
 
Our standard is R. R is free, powerful, and a lot of code is widely available. I’ve posted a couple of R beginner efforts elsewhere on this site. I would describe R as follows: 
1. R is a single command line driven language. The command line awaits a valid entry.
>
2. R works as a perfectly good calculator. One can easily create new functions.  
3. R output can be displayed on plot areas, dependent on the host application, (I use RStudio).
4. R is especially useful in displaying data in complex formats – i.e. statistical diagrams.
Creating an Angular Converter in R is an interesting problem, trying to find a GUI for a perfectly good calculator.

I didn’t find many alternatives, but I think I found a good one. Interactive controls in a panel, with accompanying plots.

https://www.jstatsoft.org/index
Journal of Statistical Software. January 2007, Volume 17, Issue 9.
https://jstatsoft.org/article/view/v017i09/v17i09.pdf

rpanel: Simple Interactive Controls for R Functions Using the tcltk Package
Abstract. In a variety of settings it is extremely helpful to be able to apply R functions through
buttons, sliders and other types of graphical control. This is particularly true in plotting activities where immediate communication between such controls and a graphical display allows the user to interact with a plot in a very effective manner. The tcltk package provides extensive tools for this and the aim of the rpanel package is to provide simple and well documented functions which make these facilities as accessible as possible. In addition, the operations which form the basis of communication within tcltk are managed in a way which allows users to write functions with a more standard form of parameter passing. This paper describes the basic design of the software and illustrates it on a variety of examples of interactive control of graphics. The tkrplot system is used to allow plots to be integrated with controls into a single panel. An example of the use of a graphical image, and the ability to interact with this, is also discussed.

This source is ten years old, there may be several better alternatives. On the other hand, tcltk seems to be part of the standard R package and I’ve got the rpanel package too.

Understanding my problem a little better, I sought inspiration for an appropriate converter-like hyperlink calculator page or GUI. I went to what I consider to be the best interactive physics pages available, Hyperphysics http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/index.html. Yesterday I happened across c as Speed Limit http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/ltrans.html#c5, was taken aback by the s-curve and posted it in a separate string. If I’d posted it here, it would seem I were suggesting expanding Spin Velocity, … .

I'm just trying to decide if I know enough to make a respectable R Angular Velocity converter.

//////\\\\\\//////\\\\\\//////\\\\\\//////\\\\\\//////\\\\\\//////

* http://www.nevyns-lab.com/science/ – Accessing your science site via my browsers. Doing a recheck, only Internet Explorer shows the various images and links available from that page. Firefox or Chrome only show the introduction paragraphs. This is different than I had first reported, sorry I confused the details, I was in problem finding mode. The problem still exists. My IT guy says that my Firefox and Chrome do not have any script issues with http://www.nevyns-lab.com/science/, and that it is a site problem. If that is the case, a possible quick temporary solution would be to include links to each of your scientific applications from your Nevyn's Lab introduction paragraphs, since that’s the only part of the page I can see.

Does anyone else have difficulty reaching http://www.nevyns-lab.com/science/ in their Firefox, Chrome or preferred browser?

PS. Nevyn, nice job. Does anyone else see blood in that vial?
.

Blood in the vial? That's the blood of physics. It's all we've got left.  

LongtimeAirman wrote:I'm just trying to decide if I know enough to make a respectable R Angular Velocity converter.

I think that is the wrong question to ask. A better way to phrase it is: Am I willing to learn enough to make a respectable R Angular Velocity converter?

Maybe it would be better to start just by creating an R library containing the equations. Start a new thread on here and work through it. Cr6 has some experience in R and he might be able to help. If you can create a nice, clean library, then I am willing to add it to my site and link to it from the spin velocity paper, with credit given to its authors. In my search for a graphing package I came across a Javascript library for R. This might be a better way to create a front-end for it.

.
Accessing http://www.nevyns-lab.com/science/index-no5.php. No joy:

Deleted browser images.

LongtimeAirman wrote:I'm just trying to decide if I know enough to make a respectable R Angular Velocity converter.

Nevyn wrote. I think that is the wrong question to ask. A better way to phrase it is: Am I willing to learn enough to make a respectable R Angular Velocity converter?

Maybe it would be better to start just by creating an R library containing the equations.

Airman. I’m willing to learn. That’s part of the joy around here, hoping to change the world for the better. How to do that effectively? Ok, R library it is.
.

.
Nevyn wrote. Maybe try clearing your browser cache or do a clean refresh by holding ctrl and pressing F5.

Airman. Retried http://www.nevyns-lab.com/science/index-no5.php. Tried holding ctrl and pressing F5, no change. Deleted 4 of my posts above.
.

I have created a new topic for calculators and converters:

https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t315-calculators-and-converters

.

Nevyn wrote. Level 33: r = 2^33 = 8,589,934,592.

Why do I want that number? Because Miles has shown that the BPhoton is G times smaller than the proton. G = 6.67x10^-11 which, when inverted, give us just below 16 billion. If we go to level 34, we get to over 17 billion and that is too far, but we can assume a proton smaller than that and its charge field takes up the rest of the space.

Coincidence? I think not!

Airman. Is that that 8.6 Giga what thing? At the time I replied that r = 8,589,934,592 for level 34. I neglected to mention I didn't follow what you determined between 16 and 17 billion; were you describing a proton spin radius limit?  

I'm also confused, you've made sufficient reason for me to not waste time on an R based calculator, rather work toward an R based MM Library. There are now a plethora of angular velocity calculators at your site; more than I've been able to review.

Before departing to a separate string, on the subject of Spin Velocity - Please review and comment on the following Spin Velocity Variable List and Spin Velocity Overview. I made up a few things with a mind toward programming these calcs as R functions.
 
Spin Velocity Variable List:
πg = geometric π = 3.141593.
πk = kinematic π = 4.
n = spin level. n = 1 for the BPhoton’s first axial spin. n is an integer, 1<= n <=34.
r = 2^(n-1) = radius (usually in meters).  Normalized initial value of 1, r is an integer. For n = 1,
r = 1; for n = 34, r = 2^(33) = 8,589,934,592.
cg = 2*πg*r. The geometric circumference.
ck = 2*πk*r = 8*r. The kinematic circumference.
t = time. Usually a second.
vc = 300,000,000m/s. The tangential velocity of the spin level n is always equal to light speed.
ω = √[2r√[v2+r2]-2r2] = Angular velocity (usually in meters/second).
w = 2πgω/2πkr = 2πgω/2*4*r = Angle velocity (usually in radians/second)
BPr = BPhoton radius = 2.72×10-24m
BPc = BPhoton circumference = 2*πk*BPr = 2*4*BPr = ck. The kinematic circumference.
BPf = ω/2πkr = revolutions per time interval
θ = 2πgωt/2πkr = Angle.  θ/t = 2πgω/2πkr

Spin Velocity Overview:
This topic examines the angular velocity of a BPhoton (i.e. electron, proton, or other charged particle) as a function of spin level radius. See Miles Mathis ( ). One can determine the true angular velocity of a stacked spin BPhoton given the BPhoton radius, a time interval and the speed of light. This absolute value is based on kinematic pi, πk = 4. Conversion to or from traditional angular velocity (herein referred to as angle velocity) is shown.

Any possible follow-up to the idea that astronomical orbits may somehow fit on your Angular velocity chart. When viewing orbital motion, are we observing the geometric case?

Forgive me for saying, I wonder what's taking so long?
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Is that that 8.6 Giga what thing? At the time I replied that r = 8,589,934,592 for level 34. I neglected to mention I didn't follow what you determined between 16 and 17 billion; were you describing a proton spin radius limit?

There are two ways to look at the radius of the proton. The traditional way is to attempt to measure it but such measurements must go through some theory since we can't measure directly at this scale. We just don't have any rulers that small. The way I am trying to measure it is by starting with the theory and seeing how that relates to the traditional values. Well, measure isn't the right word there, calculate would be better. In essence, I am testing the theory by seeing how it relates to what we think we know.

Since we are working with stacked spins, we know there is a direct relationship between the size of the BPhoton and the size of any spin level. We can't have any values in between those radii. That is caused by two things: the doubling of the radii; and that every spin level has the same tangential velocity. Miles has stated that the BPhoton is G times smaller than the proton which can also be stated as the inverse, the proton is 1/G times larger than the BPhoton and that is why I inverted that number. It gives us a target to look for. We should be able to find a spin level at or below that size in order to find the proton.

What we find though, is that 1/G is not equal to any spin level, at least when using a BPhoton radius of 2.72e-24m. However, there is a level with a radius close to it and so I assume that is the right spin level, or at least within 1 or 2 levels of it, and use the charge of the proton to explain the difference. This means that G contains a certain proportion that does not belong to the proton itself, but to its charge field. When measuring indirectly, it is easy to confuse the two for the same thing. If your tools can't get any deeper than a certain point, then you assume that you have reached the actual boundary. But it is also possible that all you have actually reached is the extent of your tools.

Since 1/G comes out to 16 billion and a few penny's, we know that the spin radius of the proton can not be larger than that. So that rules out the 17 billion sized spin level. We have to go below that to find the right spin radius of the proton. The next level down is below our limit, so for now, I take that as the protons spin radius. It could be the level below that and that would just mean that the protons charge field is still quite strong a fair way away from that proton.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
I'm also confused, you've made sufficient reason for me to not waste time on an R based calculator, rather work toward an R based MM Library.

That wasn't quite what I meant. The library is a stepping stone to the calculator. Get the equations coded and working and then you can create a UI for it. The library is actually quite useful on its own and that is why I would be happy to add it to my paper. It allows readers to check the equations in their own tools that they know well. It wouldn't be very useful for me to put up Java or Javascript code as there are few people that can take advantage of it. R seems to be quite ubiquitous, so it is reasonable to provide it.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
There are now a plethora of angular velocity calculators at your site; more than I've been able to review.

You can review them in two separate ways. Firstly, if you want to review the page itself, how it is structured, space around elements, color themes, etc, then you can just review one page (1 calculator and 1 graph page) because they are all the same in that regard. The second way is to review the calculations and the words about the calculators and that does require each page to the reviewed individually. However, the words and calculators are shared across the calculator and graph pages, so you only need to really review one of them, although sometimes the words don't make quite as much sense on one page vs the other. I have tried to reword them to fit both scenarios but it is not always successful.

Make use of the buttons that take you to the opposite page (calc to graph and graph to calc) so you can check how the calculator compares to the same graph page.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Before departing to a separate string, on the subject of Spin Velocity - Please review and comment on the following Spin Velocity Variable List and Spin Velocity Overview. I made up a few things with a mind toward programming these calcs as R functions.
 
Spin Velocity Variable List:
πg = geometric π = 3.141593.
πk = kinematic π = 4.
n = spin level. n = 1 for the BPhoton’s first axial spin. n is an integer, 1<= n <=34.
r = 2^(n-1) = radius (usually in meters).  Normalized initial value of 1, r is an integer. For n = 1,
r = 1; for n = 34, r = 2^(33) = 8,589,934,592.
cg = 2*πg*r. The geometric circumference.
ck = 2*πk*r = 8*r. The kinematic circumference.
t = time. Usually a second.
vc = 300,000,000m/s. The tangential velocity of the spin level n is always equal to light speed.
ω = √[2r√[v2+r2]-2r2] = Angular velocity (usually in meters/second).
w = 2πgω/2πkr = 2πgω/2*4*r = Angle velocity (usually in radians/second)
BPr = BPhoton radius = 2.72×10-24m
BPc = BPhoton circumference = 2*πk*BPr = 2*4*BPr = ck. The kinematic circumference.
BPf = ω/2πkr = revolutions per time interval
θ = 2πgωt/2πkr = Angle.  θ/t = 2πgω/2πkr

That looks good.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Spin Velocity Overview:
This topic examines the angular velocity of a BPhoton (i.e. electron, proton, or other charged particle) as a function of spin level radius. See Miles Mathis ( ). One can determine the true angular velocity of a stacked spin BPhoton given the BPhoton radius, a time interval and the speed of light. This absolute value is based on kinematic pi, πk = 4. Conversion to or from traditional angular velocity (herein referred to as angle velocity) is shown.

'(i.e. electron, proton, or other charged particle)' should be more like '(i.e. the particle that creates electrons, protons, or other particles)'. The BPhoton is not an electron or proton, it is that which creates them, or provides the motion for such entities to seem real. I don't think the i.e. is necessary. With a link to Miles' work they can find out themselves but chances are they already know or they wouldn't be looking at this library. However, I know that desire to be as explicit as possible so do what you feel is necessary. Just don't get bogged down in the words as they can often need changing as you develop a library. When you have the code working, you will have a better feel for what is needed to be said.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Any possible follow-up to the idea that astronomical orbits may somehow fit on your Angular velocity chart. When viewing orbital motion, are we observing the geometric case?

I haven't really given it much thought. I did look into it a bit when we were discussing it and I vaguely remember finding something that didn't quite agree with what I was looking for, but I need to revisit it to know for sure.

Any time you use the word motion, you are in a kinematic situation. Think kinematic and kinetic. If you are using words like circle, then you are in a geometric situation. Until Miles, orbital motion was described by geometric objects. It still is and we can still use those geometric tools as long as we transform between the kinematic and geometric spaces correctly. Which my transforms allow us to do.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Forgive me for saying, I wonder what's taking so long?

I've been a bit preoccupied lately. I've had an explosion of ideas that branch out into new territory. I prefer to work on what I am excited about at the time. If I keep thinking about a certain idea then I need to get something down before it is lost. Sometimes that might take a day and other times it takes weeks or months. So I lose other ideas when something else pops up and takes my attention. That's what I like about this forum. I can get some ideas down and I also get ideas from everyone else. Occasionally I will look back over our discussions and find little gems that I had forgotten about.

Hello all,

I am new to this forum, and to Miles' work in general.

Last week I started work independently on an interactive nucleus visualizer, also using THREE.js, but haven't gotten as far as you all have, so far. My day job is graphics engineer at a major videogame developer, and I am expert in realtime graphics optimization. So I may have something to offer you all, when it comes to getting interactive visualizations to work efficiently on limited hardware.

Bryan

Hi Bryan. Welcome here. Nevyn is our main programmer and Jared is second. They use different programs. I think Nevyn uses R a lot. Airman is very active with assisting them via discussion. I and Cr6 discuss just a little. A few other members lurk. Anyway, I think everyone will be delighted to have your help.

Have you checked out any of our simulation threads? Here's the main one, I guess, re stacked spins:
https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t118-stacked-spin-motion-simulator

I think this one is for simulating atoms and maybe simple molecules: https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t114-atomic-model-editor

This was mostly a discussion of how to simulate electricity:
https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t213-proposal-electricity-animation

Hello, Bryan! Welcome to the show. Good to have another techy-type around here, and I hope you're enjoying the physics revolution or whatever.

I'm not much good at realtime (though I enjoy Kerbal/Unity and Unreal 4 of course), but mostly focus on animation and explanation of the various theories using Maya. Nevyn and LongtimeAirMan have been crucial in keeping me accurate, even moreso than Miles has. Hopefully you'll enjoy all our inputs as well.

Hi Bryan, glad to have you on board.

Here is a link to a post I made a while ago containing 3 videos I put together from a Java/OpenGL/OpenCL application I was working on. It uses OpenCL to calculate the spins and octree index data. That is the start of my stacked spin based physics engine. I still need to figure out how to implement collisions that create stacked spins, which is proving to be a bit tricky. I know how they should work but turning that into math is difficult. I haven't worked on it in a while but will get back to it eventually.

https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t278-stacked-spins-scripting-the-photon-s-motion-technical#1982

For my atomic model viewers/editors I started in Java3D and ported it to ThreeJS recently. I like being able to share it through a browser and while I do find some things a bit limiting in ThreeJS at times, it is still a great framework to work with. I am open to any recommendations you have though. If you think there is something better then I will have a look into it. I do wish that browsers would implement the WebCL specification so that I could use OpenCL in the browsers too. I tried using shaders but it gets ugly using textures to pass data around and I can't always fit the data I want into a texture. It was at that point that I decided to move to the OpenCL route.

I am interested to see anything you build. I don't care if it is something I have already done or am working on. This is not a competition. We are all part of the same team and I am always happy to get new ideas wherever they may come from. Of course, I reserve the right to steal anything I like as you can from my work.

Hopefully, Bryan will return soon. I sent an email with this link.

It's been a little quiet around here lately. I'm just working on my stupid videos and processing all the new physics. Perhaps he'll have more to say after he's done the same.

Atomic Animations

I've been working on animations using MBL to generate the models and have added a new Interactive Paper using Miles' How to Build a Nucleus paper and sprinkling in some animated atoms. There are quite a few papers I can do in this series and I can't quite figure out why it has taken me so long to think of it. Probably the complexity of AtomicViewer but once I cut out parts for the MBL work, it became easy to share it among different projects and these Interactive Papers are a good way to use it.

https://nevyns-lab.com/mathis/interactive/stack.html

Very nice additions to the paper, Nevyn. I think those look great embedded like that!

The next paper in the nucleus series is available. It is based on the How to Build the Elements paper.

https://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/interactive/nuclear.html

While copying the text and images from these papers I have found some errors in my models. It seems Miles has gone back and altered these papers since I last looked at them. I'll have to keep an eye out for any other issues like this. Feel free to point them out if you see them too.

Thanks, Jared. I am keeping the animations simple at the moment. They only really need the rotation, but my framework can handle much more. I'll make use of that later, when I look into creating some animations to show atoms coming together to form molecules.

I think these papers are coming together quite well. The How to Build a Nucleus paper has the link Miles added to one of my early models, recorded as a video. Man, it looks so basic! I don't often look back and see how far I have come, seeing that old model really pushed it into my face. Thanks to everyone for helping me get this far. You probably don't even realise how a small comment can take me on a new adventure. Your feedback and ideas are always appreciated, even if I don't use them. I do sometimes look back over old posts and find ideas that I left behind, so don't feel too discouraged if I don't get to them immediately.

.
Nevyn, sorry to be redundant, looks great!

What errors have you and Miles corrected?
.

The first one was Beryllium, which you had pointed out some time ago but I must not have fixed it. That was actually ok, because this paper needed the old version. Rubidium was missing its double neutron group in the south position and Tin had 2 protons in each pillar attachment slot and singles on the north and south positions which had to be switched around. Rubidium was my fault but Tin was changed by Miles.

Just added the Uranium paper: https://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/interactive/uranium.html.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.
Nevyn, sorry to be redundant, looks great!

In agreement with Jared and LTAM. Nice! Fires up the imagination more than before.

Nevyn wrote:Just added the Uranium paper: https://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/interactive/uranium.html.

Very nice work there, Nevyn. It's so much clearer to see Uranium with your 3D model, as opposed to Miles' diagram. Very useful. And if I recall, in your Periodic Table Uranium wasn't yet represented? Glad to see you're making so much progress in this endeavor! It's amazing stuff.

Nevyn wrote:Blood in the vial? That's the blood of physics. It's all we've got left.  

LongtimeAirman wrote:I'm just trying to decide if I know enough to make a respectable R Angular Velocity converter.

I think that is the wrong question to ask. A better way to phrase it is: Am I willing to learn enough to make a respectable R Angular Velocity converter?

A post for the ages. That's really good stuff right there, guys! Can't help it, that's going in the science group in some form or another. Consider it an act of worship.

Keep up the good work, folks.

Yes, Uranium went un-modeled for a long time, even though I had the structure. The format I use to define the models didn't support it. I updated the format and code to interpret it about a month or so ago and added Uranium through to Californium, or somewhere near there.

The Mercury paper is now available: https://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/interactive/mercliq.html

That is a pretty important paper. Discusses bonds a bit more than the earlier ones, as well as differences between liquids and gases. It contains a couple of sexy models you may have seen strutting their stuff on my home page.

Some of the hottest models I've ever seen. Just when you think you've seen the whole Internet!