Incredibot's own light-speed

rutgersemp · Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:25 am Post subject:

Hey PP, I've got an idea. You've crunched the numbers, why don't I turn this into a web converstion applet, so everyone can easily calculate measurements! Toothy grin

_________________

BotEngineerExpert · Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:26 am Post subject:

brinton · Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:10 am Post subject:

You guys still list conversion of IB c to real c as done, though I have yet to see a maximum speed demonstrated. The one that started this thread was disproven by me, and then another example was cited, an M-12 gun from BEE, I think. Can we all agree that as yet no limit to speed has been determined? I personally would assume the maximum possible speed measurable and usable would be to travel the maximum diagonal in the large sandbox in one frame, or 1/30th of a second.

Since the largest sandbox measures about 56.1 LPR by 32 LPR, the largest diagonal is about 64.50 LPR, which is about 425 meters, so if it travels that distance in 1/30th of a second, the maximum speed is 12764 m/s. That's .0000426 times the speed of light. Warp .0000426 if you will.

Though we haven't yet made an object travel that fast does not mean we can't. However when you consider certain factors, like the maximum applicable force on an object for instance, we see that there is something like relativity at work. I demonstrated a long, long time ago that a thruster of speed 30 has a maximum speed to apply, but when you consider a multiplier, like applying that force to an object on a radius so that it then moves another object farther out on the radius in a longer arc, that speed is easily beatable. In reality however, there must still be a space within the IB world for that force to work, so to move an object at that speed from one corner to the far corner in the IB gamespace would appear to be impossible simply because the focus of the arc would have to be too far away and thus outside the gamespace.

While it could be argued that an object could move fast enough along a smaller space so that if it had room it could have moved the entire distance in one frame, it seems to fall apart if studied under ideal conditions (zero gravity, zero friction) because if it does not move the entire length it cannot be measured, since when it moves a shorter length, it would do so in less than one frame and thus be unmeasurable.

I would stipulate that it might be possible to demonstrate such a high speed applied over a shorter distance if it were possible to measure the work that occurred as the result of a collision with another object. At that speed, however it would be difficult to capture the work, as the object will likely fly through it's target. Perhaps the programmers could provide us with data as to the force required to move one object through another so that we could measure such a high speed collision appropriately.

Kinda funny that you start talking about the speed of light and all of a sudden you're thinking about particle physics.

brinton · Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:13 am Post subject:

Short version, I made something go 17251 m/s.

I've done an experiment (http://incredibots2.com/?robotID=brinton4abcd93e19c0a2.82103617) to make an effort at a speed record using indirect measurement. I applied force along a radius 1 LPR from the center, to move an object 16 LPR from the center. I applied the force for 20 seconds, then let it collide with a very large object. It's a shame that IB does not let us use mass zero, because I had to account for the mass of the arms. The arms were one SPR wide, and 16 LPR long, with a mass of 1. Since their velocity was zero in the middle I multiplied their mass by 1/2 and came up with 1600 minSPR units. The hub at the center was negligible since it was moving at near zero velocity. The large mass it collided with was made of four LPR squares fixed together with denisty setting 30, which converts to 5.82 times the minimum mass. Since their size was 40,000 (100X100X4)their momentum was 232800(y)m/s. Not allowing for elasticity, I equated this with the momentum of the arms, 1600(x)m/s. I ran the experiment and after collision the large object moved at 18LPR/s, equivalent to 118.57m/s, (18/.1518). I plugged that in for y to find the momentum of the large object after collision (232800X118.57=27603096). Dividing that by 1600, the applicable mass of the arms, shows their speed to be 17251m/s at the end. I submit that as the current speed record. Whether it might have been increased by allowing the arms to spin for longer prior to launch of the large object toward it is unknown. I am not sure if the arms were at their maximum velocity.

I just realized that that speed exceeds what I previously posted as the maximum measurable speed. Of course I meant that to be directly measurable. Since I used indirect measurement, I guess the value of the maximum measurable speed is impossible to determine except by the programmers, who can probably tell us directly what values can be calculated.

b0tman · Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:43 am Post subject:

brinton, I'd never heard of you before this thread, but I like the way you think.

brinton · Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:04 am Post subject:

Darkfangs · Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:11 am Post subject:

You are definitely thinking on the right track. Truth be told, three speeds are presented to us as c here:

C= Fastest IB speed under any possible circumstances (Determined by me to be near real C)
C= Fast IB speed presentable in sandbox (That's what your finding)
C= Fastest IB speed in any circumstance presentable on a computer (Non paradox; I have already determined that this is ~IB C, different by a negligable amount.)

In means of weight, another important area for many purposes, I would like to ask if you would like to perform some tests to define weight. The determining of weight will make water programming easier, as material interaction is neccesary. I know that making water would be a simple matter of trig, not entirely physics. Anyway, the implementation of water depends on these formulas. If you are interested after you're current tests, Pm me, and I will fill in all the details in a reply.
_________________
[size=18:30f2561058][color=black:30f2561058]The IB[/color:30f2561058][color=darkred:30f2561058]Elite[/color:30f2561058][/size:30f2561058]

[size=18:30f2561058][color=#717D7D:30f2561058]VESCA[/color:30f2561058][/size:30f2561058]

Darkfangs · Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:33 am Post subject:

Psychopathrik · Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:53 am Post subject:

Exellent done Brinton! I do think I have an explanation:
My railgun projectile rotates while flying. That means that on one side, it will travel a bit faster than the "lightspeed". I think that the center of mass on your spinning stick rotates at the lightspeed. But that means that the tip of it will travel faster, and then give the ball "superluminal" speed.
I think that a higher speed can be achieved with a longer stick (obviously) and a center of mass closer to the middle (by making the closer parts heavier and the outer parts lighter).

brinton · Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:22 am Post subject:

In doing some experiemts with gravoty, I've discovered a problem. Because of the equation for distance travelled over time as the result of a constant force, an object that travels a certain distance in a given time should travel three times that distance in double that amount of time, if terminal velocity is not reached. Correct me if that is variable due to force, but I think it's universal. Unfortunately, universal does not include Incredibots. In my experiment I began by determining the length of time it took an object to fall 5 LPR anf then 15LPR. For 5 it was 79 clicks. 15 should have been double or 158 clicks. Instead it was only 135. I shortened the distance to see if perhaps term velocity had already been reached before 15. For 1 LPR it takes 36 clicks, but for 3 (should take 72), it takes 61. Unfortunately, it doesn't even appear to be linear in it's effect. The acceleration due to gravity appears to be mathematically indeterminate.

Not only does that make further experimentation with weight impossible, that even changes how we define the ratio between IB unit length and meters, since we used gravity to determine the relationship.

Darkfangs · Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:56 am Post subject:

Quite an obstacle indeed. We need to experminet like this to solve:

It appears that gravity is a scattered relation. If we draw a graph with the 1- (Height of large sandbox) LPRs of gravity time it takes to fall, and find a lind of best fit, that will be the basis for our gravity equation. I originall though this was the equation:

Rand(LPRs-1) ^{2

Per second

But I then started to think it was quadratic. It may still be quadratic, but we should be prepared to do line of best fit if all goes wrong.

Once we replace gravity, all should resume. Even though gravity is different in IB, it generally adheres to physics.
_________________
[size=18:30f2561058][color=black:30f2561058]The IB[/color:30f2561058][color=darkred:30f2561058]Elite[/color:30f2561058][/size:30f2561058]

[size=18:30f2561058][color=#717D7D:30f2561058]VESCA[/color:30f2561058][/size:30f2561058]}

rutgersemp · Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:51 pm Post subject:

Behold the fabric of the IB universe.

From what I know it's an open-source project, meaning we can probably get all of our desired measurments and data from here.
No need to bug the developers: this is what IB runs on.
_________________