Published on 12, July, 2020
Helllo there,
I always dreamed of becoming a scientist, but I couldn't get into university. Still, I managed to modify the displacement law, which had been troubling me at zero. I hope you enjoy the modification
Introduction
The standard displacement formula, Δx=xf−xi, can result in zero displacement when xf=xi This limitation is particularly problematic in applications such as simulations, numerical analyses, and contexts requiring continuous motion. For instance, in robotics and animation, zero displacement can cause issues with position tracking and visual continuity. To address this challenge, we propose a modified displacement formula designed to ensure non-zero displacement, which is crucial for accurate modeling and simulation.
Methodology
Redefining Initial Position:
To avoid zero displacement, we introduce a small positive constant ϵ\epsilonϵ. The modified initial position xi′ is defined as:
xi′=xf+ϵ
where ϵ is a small value, selected to be contextually appropriate. The displacement formula then becomes:
Δx′=xf−(xf+ϵ)=−ϵ
This modification ensures that the displacement Δx′ is always non-zero, thus preventing zero displacement in scenarios where continuous motion is required.
can you give me a good example of where 0 displacment would be an issue?
Benefits of the Modified Formula:
Yeah, of course.
Let's say we have a robotic arm, and I want to move it from point A to point B. If A and B are the same, the arm won’t move. Why is that?
When we program the arm, we give it specific commands. If the command is zero, we will take a different approach by dividing the area. That's a great question, though
Pushing my car! (Sorry, completely irrelevant and irreverant, couldn't help myself!, I'm just envious of math..)
For the record, I have no idea how that math works, it looks vaguely like calculus (the anvil on which my degree hopes were smashed) but I instinctively distrust the idea of "adding a constant to make the maths work in reality" which I think was the achievement..
Sounds like you've absorbed too much "conventional thinking" there, and I've found conventional thinking, consistently gives conventional results.
In real science if you want anti-gravity, or field propulsion, or nuclear fusion, or for that matter A.C. electricity in the 1800's! There always needs to be a looney at the centre of the great leap forwards who will try that unfeasible idea and 'cos he is a loon, make it actually work.
When the Chris Strevens Tranfusor eventially gets developed (or separtely invented, which is more likely at this time) everyone will go, "Ah that is such a simple and incisive idea", it's obvious really....
Every idea has it's time.
We are clearly not ready yet to allow ourselves to devlope and use the boundless sea of energy that we all swim in, and can only in the crudest and most basic ways yet unlock the super concentrated energy reserves that every single atom represents. In my experience of human projects the squabbling over money often starts well before the project itself has been done!