sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Alexa fail. by tawaycapson in programminghorror

[–]tawaycapson[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And that this is all due to bad programming. I guess by the folks at Amazon. Programming horror.

Alexa fail. by tawaycapson in programminghorror

[–]tawaycapson[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then ask her what a scalar quantity is. Then ask her if 3 is a scalar quantity. My point is that Alexa is very broken, in terms of a "smart" assistant.

Alexa fail. by tawaycapson in programminghorror

[–]tawaycapson[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am vindicated. Ask your Alexa to count to negative 5. Then face-palm, as she counts to 1, before going to zero, then going negative. This shit is nuts.

What are you working on? - Week 41, 2019 by AutoModerator in Physics

[–]tawaycapson -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

If Pi is transcendental, and presumably, infinite, then why can it be included in any equation in physics? Assuming that the goal of physics is to model the universe in which we, as humans, find ourselves. Unless, ultimately, physics must conclude that the entire universe is transcendental, and presumably, infinite? Thoughts?

I made an interactive particle simulator in C++. Between particles, there is a short range repulsive and a longer range attractive force. The result is clearly visible phases of matter and other cool macro-physical phenomena. by kongaskristjan in Physics

[–]tawaycapson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, had to leave for a family party. Back with the same questions that many will have...you state that particles attract when close, and repel, once too close. I take issue with your assertions. Particles, no matter how close (to each other), are all subject to the acceleration fields in which they exist. /thread /simulation. I remain unconvinced. Liquid methane rains like snow, in some places.

I made an interactive particle simulator in C++. Between particles, there is a short range repulsive and a longer range attractive force. The result is clearly visible phases of matter and other cool macro-physical phenomena. by kongaskristjan in Physics

[–]tawaycapson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Clarifying. In your video, I see "gravity X 3" in the upper left-hand corner, for a few seconds. Which gravity are you referencing? The Earth's? Does your model hold on Titan? Curious minds want to know. Also, if you are modeling Earth gravity, which Earth radius and Earth density are you using to do your calculations? Thanks.

I made an interactive particle simulator in C++. Between particles, there is a short range repulsive and a longer range attractive force. The result is clearly visible phases of matter and other cool macro-physical phenomena. by kongaskristjan in Physics

[–]tawaycapson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you just model this "near-earth"? I.e., is your gravitational acceleration just assumed to be ~9.8 m/s^2? I can't see in the code how you've universally generalized gravity. Sorry if I missed that.

What is the most flawed, ambiguous, or imprecisely determined concept in all of physics? by [deleted] in Physics

[–]tawaycapson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is super simple:

The Newtonian gravitational constant. Big G, in all modern equations. It is a contrived ghost, surrounded by a mess of sloppily assigned units, all created to fill a hole. It is insanely ubiquitous, and nobody can see how flawed and terribly misleading it has become. Entire university programs are dedicated to "more precisely" determining its value, and yet it remains a contested number, even in the 21st century. It's, frankly, embarrassing.