MOV

Physics Movement

Description

This program is a model 3 points.
Take 3 inputs:
1° --> altitude [m]
2° --> weight [Kg]
3° --> time [s]
The output combinations are 12:
1° --> altitude / time [m/s]
2° --> time / altitude [s/m]
3° --> altitude / weight [m/Kg]
4° --> weight / altitude [Kg/m]
5° --> weight / time [Kg/s]
6° --> time / weight [s/Kg]
7° --> altitude * weight / time [m*Kg/s]
8° --> altitude / ( time * weight ) [m/(s*Kg)]
9° --> time * weight / altitude [s*Kg/m]
10° --> time / ( weight * altitude ) [s/(Kg*m)]
11° --> altitude * time / weight [m*s/Kg]
12° --> weight / ( time * altitude ) [Kg/(s*m)]
The tridimensional reference system is XZT where:
X --> horizontal dimension of the plane (monitor width)
Z --> vertical dimension of the plane (monitor altitude)
T --> profundity (the third dimension)
The altitude variable is the length (for example a car on the street) in the XZ plane and also it is the length (for example the water from the sky) in the T line of third dimension.
A man is running 100 meters in 10 seconds with weight 70 Kg.
to insert a positive number of altitude [m]: 100
to insert a positive number of weight [Kg]: 70
to insert a positive number of time [s]: 10
The outputs are:
altitude / time [m/s] 10
time / altitude [s/m] 0.1000
altitude / weight [m/Kg] 1.4286
weight / altitude [Kg/m] 0.7000
weight / time [Kg/s] 7
time / weight [s/Kg] 0.1429
altitude * weight / time [m*Kg/s] 700
altitude / ( time * weight ) [m/(s*Kg)] 0.1429
time * weight / altitude [s*Kg/m] 7
time / ( weight * altitude ) [s/(Kg*m)] 0.0014
altitude * time / weight [m*s/Kg] 14.2857
weight / ( time * altitude ) [Kg/(s*m)] 0.0700
The 1° output is the velocity.
The 8° output is the acceleration.
The 10° output is the force.

• MATLAB release: MATLAB 6.1 (R12.1)
• Other Files: license.txt, ; MOV.m

[Hal 9000]

This submission is terribly trivial. It simulates nothing. All it does is take 3 inputs and compute various combinations of multiplies and divides, most of which mean nothing. This has nothing to do with actual physics.

[Gavrilo Bozovic]

Once again, the function accepts no input and provides no output that can be used as part of a code.

In addition, strictly all the command window outputs are totally meaningless and are results of totally trivial calculations. You could write a code that accepts a certain number of inputs and calculates a random series of elementary operation between them, it wouldn't be more useful.

I'd add that calculating an acceleration in [m/(s*Kg)] seems somewhat questionnable. But perhaps Marco can explain his vision of the physics here?

[M P]

No. There are 3 input, the 3 most important physics input. I don't find error in this interpretation of the physics mechanism. The math is ok, the programming also and the science know sums and subtractions.

[alain boyer]

 

[V. Poor]

poor

[Jveer]

 

[C]

 

[Gavrilo Bozovic]

Errors in the interpretation of the physics mechanism:

- The acceleration units are [m/s^2], and not [m/(s*Kg)]
- The force unit is the Newton, and 1 [N] = 1 [kg*m/s^2], and not [s/(Kg*m)] (WTF???)

Then, assuming that your M-file is supposed to represent the state of a free falling object, you don't even calculate it's speed! You ask for the user to input the altitute and the time required to fall, and you simply divide both!?

Just in case, the speed at the ground of a free falling object, without drag, is equal to sqrt(2*g*h), h being the altitude (guess what's g??)

[M P]

[s = Kg]
There is not error
The weight is the time staticity
The system stay up, don’t precipitate
Force = Weight * Altitude / Time^2 = Weight * Gravity
Force = Time / ( Weight * Altitude ) = 1 / ( Weight * Velocity )
Force = Force
Weight^2 * Gravity * Velocity = 1
[ Kg^2 * m^2 / s^3] = 1 --> [ m^2 / s ] = 1 --> [ m^2 = s ]
Conclusion
[ s = s ] --> [ Kg = m^2 ]
Or also
[ m / s^2 ] and [ m / ( s * Kg ) ] --> [ s = Kg ]
[ kg * m / s^2 ] and [ s / ( Kg * m ) ] --> [ Kg * m = s ] and [ s^2 = Kg * m ]
And so
[ s = s ] --> [ Kg = s^2 ]
With the union
[ Kg = Kg ] --> [ m^2 = s^2 ]
If I’ve a length, I’ve a time
The dimension of velocity
In the physics interpretations each formula is something, if no I could not think to it

[Kenneth Eaton]

Marco, of all the equations you've written above, not a single one of them is correct.

First, a measure of time (seconds) is not equal to a measure of mass (kilograms). They are completely different units.

Second, you have used the term "Weight" when you should have used the term "Mass".

Third, you have written these two equations for Force:

Force = Weight*Altitude/Time^2
Force = Time/(Weight*Altitude)

Setting these equations equal to each other yields:

Weight^2 = Time^3/Altitude^2

...which is utterly meaningless. If you substitute the second equation into the first equation, it yields:

Force^2 = 1/Time

...which implies that the square of a force somehow gives you a measure of frequency. Again, utterly meaningless.

Fourth, your math contradicts itself. You say that [s = Kg] twice, but then later say that [s^2 = Kg]. Well, which is it? It can't be both!

Please review some physics references before posting more patently false statements.

[M P]

No, Ken; second is kilogram and if second^2 is kilogram then second is second^2 because kilogram is kilogram. I understand your words but also you must think to my words; the base is the “number” of physics input and the letter-associations are a combinatorial-liberty. I don’t say my mass is 70 Kg, I say my weigth is 70.

[Kenneth Eaton]

Marco, I did "think to your words", and I found them to be logically and algebraically false. Your response has not convinced me otherwise.

[M P]

ok, no problem
s=1 and s^2=1 is or is not s=s^2 ?????
I find true this statement
A=B and B=C is A=C

[Kenneth Eaton]

If you are using "s" as a variable, then the formula s=s^2 is true when s=0 or when s=1. But if you are using s as a UNIT OF MEASURE representing "seconds", then your formula is wrong. You need to understand that there is a difference between the "number" of things you have and the "units" of things. 1 second or 1 kilogram or 1 Newton are all 1 of "something", but that doesn't mean that those UNITS are all equal. The following equation is true:

1 = 1

...because there are no units. However, if I add the following units:

1 second = 1 kilogram

...the equation is now WRONG. The units on either side of the equal sign for any formula must agree. For example, this formula is correct:

1 Newton = 1 kilogram*meter/second^2

...because that is what a Newton is defined as. However, this formula is wrong:

1 Newton = 10 kilogram*meter/second^2

because 1 Newton can't equal 10 Newtons. You have to pay attention to your units!

[M P]

Ok. If is so then all times that I say 1 Newton are 10 kilogram*meter/second^2 I’m in error, my statement is wrong. I don’t think this. How is possible an error in the base?! In the life representations is necessary to think at all possible statements; the error could exist if there is a reference but there is not error in the base statement (reference), the error could be in the future statements if the logic way go outside. The reference is a liberty. The references in the science-method are a standard but is not true that exist only the science-reference, this is not liberty. Like the light velocity. Is 300000 Km/s? Ok, this is the base. The comunity-reference. But also is true that light velocity is Infinite other values. If no all times that I think at the light I must think at one value. Like my name. If is so my name is one and only one. Is impossible to say to me Mark Marchetto Marcuccio and so on. No. The reference base is an arbitrary decision. And the logic ways in union with the reference must be an unity with the base (if no error). The reference is an opinion and the logic ways must be a logical unity with the base.

[Gavrilo Bozovic]

so basically, if I understand correctly, nothing can be wrong, right?

1 = 10, 1 [s] = 1 [kg], weight = mass, ...

all of this is true, because nothing can be wrong?

By saying this, you just prove what EVERYONE here is telling: your work is worthless. If everything is correct, you can just come un with random code, what you seem to be doing. So what's the point of it all?

Secondarily, you say:

"I don’t say my mass is 70 Kg, I say my weigth is 70."

This is one of the most usual common language errors: we SHOULD say "my mass is 70 [kg]", or, "my weight is 700 [N]" (excuse the engineer's approximation). Usually, kids learn that in their first physics class. You know, the one you skipped?

[M P]

Double way.
The image way is always ok, impossible an image error.
In the voice way the errors are possible.
Is a life in a double system.
Numbers and letters. And their union in the half like perception, like equal symbol.

[Kenneth Eaton]

Marco, there are SOOOOO many things that are wrong with the statements you have made here I don't even know where to begin. I guess I'll start with a few simple things:

THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS FINITE!

This is a universal fact. A bunch of scientists didn't get together years ago and say "Hey, let's just define the speed of light as a finite value!" The speed of light is not subjectively chosen, it is not an opinion, it is not a "community-reference"... it is a known truth of the universe we live in. Just because you can "think to" something doesn't make it true. The universe doesn't magically transform itself into whatever you imagine. You make yourself look foolish by continuously trying to suggest that the speed of light is infinite. What evidence do you base this on? Can you site even one scientific paper to back you up? If the only defense you have is "I can think it up, so it must be possible", then you are fooling yourself.

You constantly use terminology and concepts that are totally foreign to everyone in the scientific community. For instance, no one knows what you mean by "image way", "voice way", etc. You have never defined what these abstract concepts are that you have thought up. Why should we pay any attention to what you say if you don't try to meet us halfway by speaking in well-defined terms?

It is a pointless and childish endeavor to try and arbitrarily redefine standards and universal facts to suit your own personal theories. What you propose is not science, or logic, or math, or physics... it is pure fantasy.

...and by the way, EVERY time you say something like "1 Newton equals 10 Newtons", it is wrong... always, forever, every single time. There is never a situation when it isn't wrong. Even in your imagination, it's still wrong. Logic dictates that this is so.

[Gavrilo Bozovic]

Some may say that it's the cost of free speech...

Personnally, I don't agree. What Marco is telling in his comments is basically an insult to anyone who has an even remote understanding of science. By leaving Marco's files on the FEX and removing the comments which may offend him, TMW is shooting itself in the foot.

Either leave Marco's files, and all the comments, and keep the great humoristic value of it all, or remove it completely. Leaving the files but clearing the bad reviews gives Marco a legitimity that he doesn't deserve, at least not on the FEX.

[James]

 

[Ripley]

 

[Bishop]

 

[newt]

 

[Hudson]

 

[M P]

I can nothing if you don’t understand my programs. Programs are programs. Also I have friends and my friends don’t think this is non-sense. Life is a strange program and this is my Matlab page.