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.
Yeah hi I'm sorry for the late reply.. And sorry for not make it .. Scale of the System: ϵ should be much smaller than typical displacements in the system. For example, in a robotic system with displacements on the order of centimeters, ϵ might be set to millimeters or smaller...
Right i love his lectures
Lol
Agree 100%. It's not about how we think, but about what we can create from small things. I prefer the traditional approach. For example, I was watching how smoke interacts with my fingers, and I started analyzing it. From that, I came up with some ideas by observing its behavior
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!
can you give me a good example of where 0 displacment would be an issue?
Yea, I suppose my brain can cope with that comparison, but I have zero idea if the mechanics and mathematics stick correctly....but they might do....I'm having inertia problems of my own right now, so I will follow good advice, and close this place for a while....to find some brain WD4T.
Now can you make F=MA work in the context of me trying to push a car with seized-on brakes?
(Plenty of F & M not so much A)
Ehhh? Didn't understand any of that I'm afraid.
Feynman was brilliant.
Hello Noon. It is good to see you back.
Whilst I have no intention to cause you upset, nor to rain on your parade, I must confess to having some difficulty with the above.
"a small value, selected to be contextually appropriate" and then added to a formula to "make" it work......does rather fly in the face of how science works.
As an avid and invested observer of science discoveries (and their methodologies), both past and present, I note that profound breakthroughs are often established because of "otherwise perfect equations" proving to be incorrect in very specific circumstances, or because the results prove to be very, very, very slightly wrong, all of the time, or often.
To proffer a good and recent example of this - I can refer you to the Henny Penny and Chicken Licken (or Chicken Little if you are American) issue ie, science knew that the centrifugal force throwing our atmosphere away from the planet, and the gravitational force holding our atmosphere down on the planet, couldn't (quite) explain why the sky is as high as it is, from the surface.
Rather than tweaking the figures to make them work, scientists did long, hard and laborious stuff.......which has recently resulted in the discovery of the Ambipolar magnetic field = a third fundamental planetary force. How cool is that !!!
I think continuous motion plus enquiring and curious minds are required in all aspects of science, and I hope your energy and enthusiasm can be maintained forever. Science needs you. Science also needs peer review - hence why I have commented above as I have.
Assuring you of my best intentions towards you and your post above.
Number.
While, I don't understand any of this. I like that your profile pic is Richard Feyman. I liked reading about him. (I hope that I saw the little picture correctly and am right about who it is)
Ok cool,
It's been a while since I studied maths, and it's nice to have a mathy discussion again
What I'm thinking is in a real world scenario wouldn't zero displacement sometimes happen, sometimes things don't move and so Δx would be zero.
Using that formula we're just looking at 1 dimensional movement, the starting point xi and the end point xf, along an axis, if an object stays still the displacement is zero and that is a valid result.
A constant is just that, a fixed value, what would that be? How would it be calculated? If a constant is added we're just saying that something always moves a fixed amount over, artificially displacing something. Objects don't suddenly move over a fixed amount at all times so not sure how to calculate such a constant.
If we are looking at continuous motion wouldn't the velocity formula work better in this context, where we could say Δx = v. Δt, so displacement = velocity x time.
Yes your modification will stop a zero displacement result but I'm interested to see how the result can be used.