Interactive Papers

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!