### Re: Suggestions! (new)

Posted:

**Thu Aug 06, 2015 3:32 pm**Any news on Gsim? It seems there have been almost no posts (other than mine) since Shocktopus 0.6 was released.

Bringing Science to Life... then chatting about it

https://testtubegames.com/forums/

Page **17** of **18**

Posted: **Thu Aug 06, 2015 3:32 pm**

Any news on Gsim? It seems there have been almost no posts (other than mine) since Shocktopus 0.6 was released.

Posted: **Sat Aug 15, 2015 9:14 pm**

No news at the moment -- right now I'm working to try to fix a couple big bugs from Shocktopus v0.6. (I was hoping the game would be to a pretty stable point... but it looks like 0.7 is going to be on the horizon sooner than I'd imagined.) Once Shocktopus is in a pretty stable place, I'm going to turn my attention back to the fixes for GSim. Sorry it's taking so long.

Posted: **Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:09 pm**

Some suggestions I have are

1. Make it so we can choose to have inertial mass separate from gravitational mass. It would be interesting to see the effects of different objects accelerating differently from the same gravitational field. It would be interesting if we could have an object with a value of 100 inertial mass but 1000 gravitational mass for instance.

2. Make it so that we can fling fixed stars but a fixed star cannot accelerate from a gravitational field.

3. Make it so we can change the laws of motion such as being able to set it so that objects continue accelerating at the same rate in the absence of an external force for instance.

4. Add a quantum mechanics feature to the simulation so that the planets and stars in the simulation can behave like subatomic particles.

1. Make it so we can choose to have inertial mass separate from gravitational mass. It would be interesting to see the effects of different objects accelerating differently from the same gravitational field. It would be interesting if we could have an object with a value of 100 inertial mass but 1000 gravitational mass for instance.

2. Make it so that we can fling fixed stars but a fixed star cannot accelerate from a gravitational field.

3. Make it so we can change the laws of motion such as being able to set it so that objects continue accelerating at the same rate in the absence of an external force for instance.

4. Add a quantum mechanics feature to the simulation so that the planets and stars in the simulation can behave like subatomic particles.

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:25 pm**

Have you tried turning on Flingable?AlternateGravity wrote: 2. Make it so that we can fling fixed stars but a fixed star cannot accelerate from a gravitational field.

Edit: What, 500th post! (meaningless as it is.)

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2015 4:44 pm**

I'm not sure how to turn the Flingable on.Have you tried turning on Flingable?

Posted: **Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:19 pm**

Select the fixed stars, then open the 'edit' panel. It's a checkbox just under the density. Alternatively, you can select an existing fixed star, and edit its velocity.AlternateGravity wrote:I'm not sure how to turn the Flingable on.

And then:

1. Inertial mass != gravitational mass. Hmm, I'll ponder this one. I hesitate to get too far afield from real physics, but then again there are experiments that keep testing whether this 'fact' is indeed true. And it would be interesting to see how the world would be different if they were *not* in fact equal.

3. Altering Newton's Laws. Right off the bat -- seems like it could be hard to define consistently? As in: if an object with no forces on it should accelerate... which way should it go? The third law would be hard to get around without redefining the force of gravity in some non-symmetrical way.

4. Now you're just toying with me, right?

Posted: **Mon Dec 14, 2015 6:19 pm**

I was thinking some more about altering the laws of motion and was thinking that even with altered laws of motion we can use the equation F=p/t in which the force F is equal to the momentum p divided by the time t. Momentum can be defined as the vector that is conserved so changing the laws of motion so that objects accelerate in the absence of a force would mean that momentum depends on the direction and magnitude of acceleration. If Momentum was dependent on acceleration instead of velocity then Force could be said to depend on the acceleration divided by time. Energy could be said to be the none vector quantity that is conserved and can be changed from one form to another so if objects accelerate in the absence of a force then kinetic energy would depend on an objects acceleration squared. We could use the equations p=m*x/t^n and F=m*x/t^(n+1) and KE=m*(x/t^n)^2 in which p is the momentum, m is the mass, F is the force, KE is the kinetic energy, t is the time, and x is the position vector, and n is the exponent that determines the laws of motion. When n has a value of zero momentum depends on an objects position and a constant force causes an object to change position at a constant rate and when n has a value of 2 momentum depends on an objects acceleration and a constant force causes an object to change acceleration at a constant rate. In our universe momentum depends on an objects velocity and a Force causes an object to accelerate at a constant rate so the exponent n has a value of 1.3. Altering Newton's Laws. Right off the bat -- seems like it could be hard to define consistently? As in: if an object with no forces on it should accelerate... which way should it go? The third law would be hard to get around without redefining the force of gravity in some non-symmetrical way.

My idea for objects accelerating in the absence of an external force is that they could accelerate in any direction and at any rate so long as the vector quantity mass*acceleration would be conserved. An object would not be required to accelerate but if an object was not already accelerating it would not start accelerating unless acted on by an unbalanced force and if an object was accelerating it would continue to accelerate at the same rate and in the same direction unless acted on by an unbalanced force.

Another suggestion I thought of is the ability to have elastic collisions in the simulator.

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:21 pm**

So basically instead of F = ma, we would have F = m*(da/dt).

We could change Newton's first and second laws to:

1. If no force acts upon an object, it will keep a constant acceleration (not velocity).

2. A force causes a change in acceleration (not velocity).

F = m*(da/dt), so force is proportional to the rate of change of acceleration, not acceleration itself.

Newtons third law can stay the same.

We could change Newton's first and second laws to:

1. If no force acts upon an object, it will keep a constant acceleration (not velocity).

2. A force causes a change in acceleration (not velocity).

F = m*(da/dt), so force is proportional to the rate of change of acceleration, not acceleration itself.

Newtons third law can stay the same.

Posted: **Sun Mar 27, 2016 1:22 am**

Also the postulates of Galilean Relativity would be changed to:

1. There is an absolute space in which the laws of physics are true. An inertial reference frame is a reference frame that has constant relative acceleration (not velocity) relative to absolute space.

The second postulate could stay the same.

A force between two objects could come from a virtual gauge boson being exchanged between the two objects changing the momentum and rate of acceleration (not velocity) of both of them. Because the virtual gauge boson would mediate a force instead of being affected by a force so the gauge would not only have to intersect both objects in position space but in the derivative of position space meaning it would have to intersect the objects in velocity space at the same time as it intersects the objects in position space. If we think of this gauge boson as being a graviton then this also means that the force law for gravity would be affected. In order to figure out the most natural force law for gravity in this situation we need to consider both what effects the rate of acceleration of gravitons being exchanged between two objects and what effects the rate at which individual gravitons would be exchanged between two objects. If and only if the derivative of the distance between two objects (dr/dt) was in exactly the direction same as the distance between the two objects r then the force of gravity between the two objects would be F=GMm(dr/dt)/r so that the force would be directly related to the derivative of the distance and inversely related to the distance itself. If the direction of the derivative of distance overlaps some with the direction of the distance between two objects then the force of gravity depends on how much the directions overlap and if the direction of the derivative of the distance between two objects does not overlap at all with the direction of the distance between the two objects the force of gravity between the two objects is F=0.

1. There is an absolute space in which the laws of physics are true. An inertial reference frame is a reference frame that has constant relative acceleration (not velocity) relative to absolute space.

The second postulate could stay the same.

A force between two objects could come from a virtual gauge boson being exchanged between the two objects changing the momentum and rate of acceleration (not velocity) of both of them. Because the virtual gauge boson would mediate a force instead of being affected by a force so the gauge would not only have to intersect both objects in position space but in the derivative of position space meaning it would have to intersect the objects in velocity space at the same time as it intersects the objects in position space. If we think of this gauge boson as being a graviton then this also means that the force law for gravity would be affected. In order to figure out the most natural force law for gravity in this situation we need to consider both what effects the rate of acceleration of gravitons being exchanged between two objects and what effects the rate at which individual gravitons would be exchanged between two objects. If and only if the derivative of the distance between two objects (dr/dt) was in exactly the direction same as the distance between the two objects r then the force of gravity between the two objects would be F=GMm(dr/dt)/r so that the force would be directly related to the derivative of the distance and inversely related to the distance itself. If the direction of the derivative of distance overlaps some with the direction of the distance between two objects then the force of gravity depends on how much the directions overlap and if the direction of the derivative of the distance between two objects does not overlap at all with the direction of the distance between the two objects the force of gravity between the two objects is F=0.

Posted: **Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:55 am**

Exactly!1. There is an absolute space in which the laws of physics are true. An inertial reference frame is a reference frame that has constant relative acceleration (not velocity) relative to absolute space.

I think this is not correct.If and only if the derivative of the distance between two objects (dr/dt) was in exactly the direction same as the distance between the two objects r

The derivative of distance is

The derivative of distance is already the component of relative velocity

So now we have:

Note that

The effects of this law are very interesting:

1. Two objects with no relative velocity have no gravitational force (constant acceleration). If that constant acceleration is 0, then the two objects will be stationary relative to each other

2. Two objects moving away from each other will experience a force toward each other, causing their acceleration to turn toward each other

3. Two objects moving toward each other will experience a force away from each other, causing their acceleration to turn away from each other

4. No circular orbits

5. No potential energy because force is a function of velocity

What should the kinetic energy be in this system? Using Work =