On Mar 7, 3:41 pm, "galathaea"
gmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 7, 11:59 am, "The_Man"
yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> still being very naive about this whole crackpot / crank thing
>>> i accidentally let the engineer inside think too hard about this
>
>>> since my degree is in physics simulations
>
>> How is this possible, when you don;t know ANY physics at all?
>
>>> and my career is in programming
>>> and i happened to have a simulation generator i have been building
>>> i generated a simulation for a gas in a column with gravity
>
>> No offense, but your simulation is pitiful, even for an undergraduate.
>
>>> the simulation generator is my
>
>> pathetic
>
>>>attempt at building
>>> a commercially viable product at home
>>> and although it still needs much work
>>> and doesn't generate the prettiest code yet
>>> i couldn't help seeing what it would give me here
>
>>> i have run some simulations
>>> playing around with the specifications
>>> and all my tests have validated loschmidt so far
>
>>> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> THE TEMPERATURE AT THE BOTTOM IS HOTTER THAN AT TOP
>>> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>>> of course this seemed obvious to me
>
>> since you don't know anything about physics, who cares?
>
>>> because gravity accelerates particles moving down the column
>>> and slows them moving up
>>> but there is nothing better than seeing it validated in a simulation
>
>>> now
>>> currently particle collisions are very rare
>
>> Without particle collisons, EVERYTHING you say is MEANINGLESS. Do you
>> omit particle collisions because you are too shitty a programmer to
>> include them?
>
> wow
>
> you are so hateful and angry
actually, I am in a good mood today. Thanks for asking.
> you cannot even read properly
>
> you want so dearly for me to be wrong
Whether you are right or wrong makes no difference to me at all.
> you make shit up
> and don't even have an intuitive enough grasp of physics
> to realise that the collisions do not change the result
Without collisions, YOU DON'T HAVE TEMPERATURE. Since your simulation
is designed to prove a hypothesis about tempreature distribuition,
this would be a rather significant problem.
>
> but just to be _very_ explicit for your vituperative mind
> ( just so you don't avoid what i am saying ):
>
> collisions are accounted for
>
> if you read what i said and the code
> you will see "particle on particle action"
>
> the reason they are "very rare"
> is because i have been testing low particle numbers
> ( 1000 - 10000 )
> in a large column (100m tall by 20m radius)
> and the particles are very very small
> ( i use the atomic hydrogen radius 2.4e-11m )
I understand that. To have more particles gets to be a pain, since the
number of collisiosn goes as N^2.
>
> it is of course quite possible to create very rarefied physical
> systems
> with low enough torr to make collisions very unlikely
> ( we used to do it all the time in the ion labs )
> in such a system
> as the simulation shows
> ( and if you had any reading comprehension you would have noticed
> _has_been_experimentally_verified_ as well by graeff )
> you can still place a thermocouple on the top and bottom
> and find a temperature difference
>
> it is not particle collisions that would disturb the stratification
> since collisions occur in the same strata
How can collisions occur ONLY in the same starta? This is a very
unphysical condition.
>
> it is convection currents and other large scale movements
> that obstruct the process and make it only metastable
How do you have convection without collisions?
>
> however
> the same idea works for passing a static electric field
> through an ionised heat bath
> and the idea can be shrunk down considerably
>
> there are even published papers on this!
>
>>> ( due to size of particles and iteration delta )
>>> and i haven't fully tested that handling yet
>>> so the values are not mixing the z components with the x,y
>
>> Since i guess that your "stratification" is along the z axis, this
>> makes everything WORTHLESS.
>
> well
>
> except for capital letters
> what is your PHYSICS argument?
My physics argument is that "temperature" is a phenomena closely
linked to the transfer of kinetic energy between particles by elastic
collisions. These collisions take place in 3 dimensions, not 2. While
I said (for simplicity) that you could calculate the temperature by
means of the average kinetic energy, BY DEFINTION, if your velocity
distribution doesn't follow the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, you
have NO temperature (the temperature is undefined).
>
>
>
>
>
>>> collisions with the wall only affect x,y
>>> collisions with the floor or ceiling only affect z
>
>>> but i will play with that some more
>
>> Save yourself the trouble.
>
>>> i have hand entered some comments
>>> and added output of the simulation
>>> ( the generator creates blanket output for the specification
>>> but litle descriptive output currently )
>
>>> anyways
>>> i cannot stress that i am well aware
>>> of many of the refactorings needed in this code
>>> as the generator placed code in places i normally wouldn't
>
>>> also since it was working with a larger model
>>> it has some stuff that can be completely refactored out
>
>>> despite that
>>> here is my generated loschmidt simulation
>>> ( in c++, from a generator written in OCaml )
>
>> So you can't actually even program in C++?
>
> i do it for a living
>
> i wrote my generator in OCaml because i like the language
> and because i already had some foundational OpenGL stuff
>
> also
> as i am sure you are intimately aware of
> ( from the sound of your pretensions )
> parsing and walking tree structures is very easy in functional
> languages
>
> Camlp4 helps here a lot
> and is much better than the antiquated and unsafe c preprocessor
>
>>> in one large file format (the only working generation right now)
>
>>> this may get mercilessly chopped by google (sorry)
>
>>
>
>> Dude, your biggest problem is that you DEFINE temperature as a
>> constant. You would need to set up temperature as a FUNCTION, a
>> function of the kinetic energy of the particles in a particular
>> region.
>
> no
> currently my biggest problem is that you cannot read the code
>
> i defined the initial temperature of the gas
> so i could randomly pick velocities for the particles
> using the standard maxwell-boltzmann distribution
> which gives the relation you mention!
>
> but i measure temperature in 3 components at each strata
> when i take the snapshot
> ( if you are not familiar with Tx, Ty, Tz components to temperature
> they are common in calculations at colliders
> where it is common to take transverse and parallel temperature )
>
> the temperature is measured and averaged
> not defined as constant
>
> ( i am not even sure how you could think i was doing that
> _and_ somehow getting the result that T is stratified...)
>
>> You could define temperature a number of ways, the simplest being that
>> the average kinetic energy = 3/2 kT.
>
> in the code...
>
>> If you knew the first thing about "physics simulations", you would
>> realize that you will get much different (and unreliable) results is
>> your particle density is too small, of if your time scale is too
>> short. Remember, temperature is UNDEFINED except at equilibrium.
>
> i have been running a number of tests
> varying parameters
>
>> If you try to follow each particle around, you'll go crazy and the
>> program won't accomplish much. There are sophisticated algorithms that
>> would simplify the process enormous, but you would already know these
>> if you were experienced at "physics simulations".
>
> i know a number of techniques
>
> many are already coded in the OCaml simulator
> which the generator cannibalises and translates
>
> this was one simulation i knew i could already generate
> because i had recently added the necessary functionality
>
> i am only one person though
> with many interests
> and it takes time to put everything together
>
> this i think was a very good "initial public offering"
> of what my generator could offer
>
>> Before you can destroy the Second Law by a simulation, you would need
>> to write a simulation that would not be an embarassment to a high
>> school student.
>
> i have written plenty of simulations
>
> i am trying to write a simulation generator now
> using the ideas of metaprogramming and domain specific languages
>
> my specification is basically a modified category theory
> where i define my ontology of objects
> and the transformations they undergo
> and let the generator publish a program for public consumption
>
> this allows me to keep my core technology
> and still be opensource about the simulations
> ( which should always be opensource )
>
> -----------------------------
>
> so
>
> how about this?
>
> you can point out a flaw in the simulation
> which would be great for me because
> i am actually interested in the physics here
> and it would help improve my product
> or you can point out a flaw in the physics
> which i would also benefit from
>
> or i (and any thread lurkers) will just consider you
> an ignorant old man who likes trying to belittle others
> by meaningless handwaving
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
