[Physics] a computer model of the atom

[Ronald Heath]

Here is a link for those who are interested:
http://www.modeltheatom.com/

   This is a really new web page. I just got it up and running a couple 
of days ago.
   Just the description is there right now, but I plan on uploading the 
code soon.

   Just to calm down a bit, the model does not actually work yet, due to 
the most critical part being a bit beyond my present mathematical 
ability (I am learning, but this may take a while). The code is running 
well enough that if some bright person put in the algorithm, it could be 
seen to run.

Ron Heath


On 10/31/2016 04:00 AM, physics-request at tuks.nl wrote:
> Send Physics mailing list submissions to
> 	physics at tuks.nl
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	physics-request at tuks.nl
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	physics-owner at tuks.nl
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Physics digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1. "Real" time (Thomas Goodey)
>     2. Re: "Real" time (Ilja Schmelzer)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 20:30:14 +0200
> From: "Thomas Goodey" <thomas at flyingkettle.com>
> To: physics at tuks.nl
> Subject: [Physics] "Real" time
> Message-ID: <58163C36.862.AEBB7D3 at thomas.flyingkettle.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On 30 Oct 2016 at 12:00, physics-request at tuks.nl wrote:
>
>> Alice and Bob come sometimes to some place X.  If they meet
>> each other, that means, they have been there at the same
>> time.  If they have never meet there, they have never been
>> there at the same time.
> The above statements are not expressed in space-time terms.
> More properly, if Alice and Bob have met, then their
> meeting has been a real space-time event (call it E), which
> in various reference frames may be referred to by a variety
> of coordinates, such as (x1, y1, z1, t1) or (x2, y2, z2,
> t2) or the like. If they have never met, then no such event
> has ever existed.
>
>> If they meet each other or not is a simple physical fact.
>> This makes statements of type "been there at the same time"
>> physical statements too.
> With the meaning described above, yes.
>
>> With clock time instead of true time, above statements make
>> no sense. Except if one uses clock time as an approximation
>> of true time. Else, one would have to specify the clock time
>> of which clock one has in mind.
> The above does not refer to the time on clocks that Alice
> and Bob are carrying with them. It refers to the clock in
> any inertial frame: the event E has coordinates in that
> frame, including a time coordinate tN.
>
>> This is clearly not the only type of a physical, physically
>> meaningful statement involving true time. Another important
>> class is related with causality:  If event A has causally
>> influenced event B, then when A has happened before B has
>> happened. Which is another physical statement about the
>> relation between the true times of the events A and B.
>> Which is in no way a claim about their clock times.
> This statement is also subject to the same clarification as
> I have given above.
>
> Thomas Goodey
> ******************
>
> But remember, please, the rules by
> which we live.
> We are not built to comprehend a
> lie.
> We can neither love, nor pity, nor
> forgive.
> If you make a slip in handling us you
> die.
>
> Rudyard Kipling, 'Secret of the
> Machines'
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 22:15:43 +0100
> From: Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at googlemail.com>
> To: General Physics and Natural Philosophy discussion list
> 	<physics at tuks.nl>
> Subject: Re: [Physics] "Real" time
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAAKQs19wA8ajPbHWO-eWJ2ku7EM3gz=Byv0W-0NfMvTXzpC=yA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2016-10-30 19:30 GMT+01:00, Thomas Goodey <thomas at flyingkettle.com>:
>> The above statements are not expressed in space-time terms.
> Indeed.  But this does not make them wrong.  I do not doubt that they
> can be translated into spacetime language, but see no advantage from
> this.  In fact, they become weaker in this way.
>
>>> Another important
>>> class is related with causality:  If event A has causally
>>> influenced event B, then when A has happened before B has
>>> happened.
>> This statement is also subject to the same clarification as
>> I have given above.
> With statements about causality the weakening becomes even more
> obvious.  As far as a translation of causal statements into spacetime
> language is possible at all, it has to be formulated in a language,
> which does not lead into contradictions if applied to solutions with
> causal loops, like the Goedel universe.
>
> So I doubt that "clarification" is the appropriate word here.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Physics Digest, Vol 1, Issue 33
> **************************************
>